UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported):  February 16, 2022

Coeur Mining, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
1-8641
82-0109423
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)

104 S. Michigan
Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(312) 489-5800
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instructions A.2 below):

☐
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

☐
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

☐
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

☐
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock (par value $.01 per share)
CDE
New York Stock Exchange

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).

Emerging growth company
  
☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Item 8.01
Other Events.

On February 16, 2022, Coeur Mining, Inc. issued technical report summaries for each of the Palmarejo Complex and the Rochester, Kensington and Wharf Mines (the “Reports”). The Reports are filed as Exhibits 96.1, 96.2, 96.3 and 96.4 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01.
Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d)
List of Exhibits

Exhibit No.
Description
Consent of Qualified Person - Christopher Pascoe (Palmarejo Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Miller O’Prey (Palmarejo Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person – Joseph Ruffini (Palmarejo Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Peter Haarala (Palmarejo Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Christopher Pascoe (Rochester Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Brandon MacDougall (Rochester Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Matthew Bradford (Rochester Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Matthew Hoffer (Rochester Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Christopher Pascoe (Kensington Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Rae Keim (Kensington Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Peter Haarala (Kensington Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Christopher Pascoe (Wharf Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Tony Auld (Wharf Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Lindsay Chasten (Wharf Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - Kenan Sarratt (Wharf Technical Report Summary).
Consent of Qualified Person - John Key (Wharf Technical Report Summary).
Technical Report Summary for the Palmarejo Complex effective December 31, 2021.
Technical Report Summary for the Rochester Mine effective December 31, 2021.
Technical Report Summary for the Kensington Mine effective December 31, 2021.
Technical Report Summary for the Wharf Mine effective December 31, 2021.
Exhibit 104
Cover Page Interactive Data File - the cover page XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document


SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 
COEUR MINING, INC.
   
Date:  February 16, 2022
By:
/s/ Michael Routledge
 
Name:
Michael Routledge
 
Title:
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer


Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Palmarejo complex (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Name: Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Title: Senior Director, Technical Services
  


Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Palmarejo complex (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Miller O’Prey
  
   
Name: Miller O’Prey
  
   
Title:  Director Exploration
  

 
Exhibit 23.3

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Palmarejo complex (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Joseph Ruffini
  
   
Name: Joseph Ruffini
  
   
Title:  Manager, Resource Estimation
  


Exhibit 23.4

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Palmarejo complex (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Peter Haarala
  
   
Name: Peter Haarala
  
   
Title: Senior Manager, Mine Planning
  

 
Exhibit 23.5

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Rochester Mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Name: Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Title: Senior Director, Technical Services
  

 
Exhibit 23.6
Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Rochester Mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Brandon MacDougall
  
   
Name: Brandon MacDougall
  
   
Title: Engineering Superintendent
  

 
Exhibit 23.7
Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Rochester Mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Matthew Bradford
  
   
Name: Matthew Bradford
  
   
Title: Geology Superintendent
  

 
Exhibit 23.8
 
Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Rochester Mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  

 
By:
/s/ Matthew Hoffer
  

 
Name: Matthew Hoffer
  

 
Title: Senior Manager, Geology
  

 
Exhibit 23.9

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Kensington mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Name: Christopher Pascoe
  
   
Title:  Senior Director, Technical Services
  

 
Exhibit 23.10

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Kensington mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Rae D. Keim
  
   
Name: Rae D. Keim
  
   
Title: Geology Superintendent
  

 
Exhibit 23.11

Consent of Qualified Person
 
The undersigned consents to:

a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Kensington mine (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”);

b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);

c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and

d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements.

Dated: February 16, 2022
  
   
By:
/s/ Peter Haarala
  
   
Name: Peter Haarala
  
   
Title: Senior Manager, Mine Planning
  

 
Exhibit 23.12

Consent of Qualified Person 
The undersigned consents to: 
 
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Wharf Operations (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”); 
b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);  
c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and 
d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements. 
 
Dated: February 16, 2022 
   
By:
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
  
     
Name: Christopher Pascoe 
     
Title: Senior Director, Technical Services 

 
Exhibit 23.13

Consent of Qualified Person 
The undersigned consents to: 
 
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Wharf Operations (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”); 
b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);  
c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and 
d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements. 
 
Dated: February 16, 2022 
     
By:
/s/ Tony Auld
  
     
Name: Tony Auld 
     
Title: Operations Manager 

 
Exhibit 23.14

Consent of Qualified Person 
The undersigned consents to: 
 
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Wharf Operations (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”); 
b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);  
c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and 
d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements. 
 
Dated: February 16, 2022 
     
By:
/s/ Lindsay Chasten
  
     
Name: Lindsay Chasten 
     
Title: Senior Geologist 


Exhibit 23.15

Consent of Qualified Person 
The undersigned consents to: 
 
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Wharf Operations (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”); 
b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);  
c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and 
d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements. 
 
Dated: February 16, 2022 
     
By:
/s/ Kenan Sarratt
  
     
Name: Kenan Sarratt 
     
Title: Chief Geologist 


Exhibit 23.16

Consent of Qualified Person 
The undersigned consents to: 
 
a)
The filing of the Technical Report Summary, effective December 31, 2021, with respect to the Wharf Operations (the “TRS”) as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K”); 
b)
The incorporation by reference of the TRS in the annual report on Form 10-K for Coeur Mining, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “10-K”), the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-256016, 033-60163, 033-72524, 333-112253, 333-125903, 333-166907, 333-204142, and 333-224751) and Form S-3 (No. 333-229973) (the “Registration Statements”);  
c)
The use of and references to the undersigned’s name, including the undersigned’s status as an expert or “Qualified Person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the TRS, Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements; and 
d)
Any extracts or summaries of the TRS included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K, the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements,  and any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K and the Registration Statements. 
 
Dated: February 16, 2022 
     
By:
/s/ John Key
  
     
Name: John Key 
     
Title: Assistant General Manager/Process Operations Manager 



Exhibit 96.1
 

 
Palmarejo Operations

Mexico

Technical Report Summary


Prepared for:
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Prepared by:
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
Mr. Miller O’Prey, P. Geo.
Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME
Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME
 
Report current as at:
December 31, 2021

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Date and Signature Page
 
The following Qualified Persons, who are employees of Coeur Mining, Inc. or its subsidiaries,  prepared this technical report summary, entitled “Palmarejo Operations, Mexico, Technical Report Summary” and confirm that the information in the technical report summary is current as at December 31, 2021 and filed on February 16, 2022.
 
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
 
/s/ Miller O’Prey
Miller O’Prey, P. Geo.
 
/s/ Peter Haarala
Peter Haarala, RM SME
 
/s/ Joseph Ruffini
Joseph Ruffini, RM SME

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page a
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


CONTENTS

     
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Terms of Reference
1-1
1.3
Property Setting
1-1
1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
1-2
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
1-2
1.6
History and Exploration
1-3
1.7
Drilling and Sampling
1-4
1.8
Data Verification
1-5
1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
1-5
1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
1-6
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
1-6
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
1-7
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
1-7
1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
1-9
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
1-9
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
1-9
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
1-10
1.12
Mining Methods
1-10
1.13
Recovery Methods
1-12
1.14
Infrastructure
1-12
1.15
Markets and Contracts
1-13
1.15.1
Market Studies
1-13
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
1-13
1.15.3
Contracts
1-14
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
1-14
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
1-14
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
1-14
1.16.3
Permitting
1-14
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
1-15
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
1-15
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
1-15
1.19
Economic Analysis
1-16
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
1-16
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
1-17
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
1-17
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
1-17
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
1-18
1.20.1
Risks
1-19
1.20.2
Opportunities
1-19
1.21
Conclusions
1-20
1.22
Recommendations
1-20
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1
Registrant
2-1
2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.2.1
Report Purpose
2-1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page i
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


2.2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.3
Qualified Persons
2-4
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
2-4
2.5
Report Date
2-4
2.6
Information Sources and References
2-4
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
2-4
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3-1
3.1
Property Location
3-1
3.2
Ownership
3-1
3.3
Mineral Title
3-1
3.4
Surface Rights
3-6
3.5
Water Rights
3-6
3.6
Royalties
3-11
3.6.1
Franco-Nevada
3-11
3.6.2
Minera Azteca
3-11
3.6.3
Hernández and Gomez
3-11
3.6.4
Rascón
3-12
3.6.5
Minera Río Tinto and Astorga
3-12
3.6.6
Minera Río Tinto and Ayub
3-12
3.6.7
Minera Río Tinto and Rachasa
3-12
3.6.8
Mexican Mining Taxes
3-12
3.7
Encumbrances
3-13
3.7.1
Permitting Requirements
3-13
3.7.2
Permitting Timelines
3-13
3.7.3
Violations and Fines
3-13
3.8
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
3-13
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
4-1
4.1
Physiography
4-1
4.2
Accessibility
4-1
4.3
Climate
4-1
4.4
Infrastructure
4-2
5.0
HISTORY
5-1
5.1
Project Ownership History
5-1
5.2
Exploration and Development History
5-1
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
6-1
6.1
Deposit Type
6-1
6.2
Regional Geology
6-1
6.3
Local Geology
6-1
6.3.1
Lithologies
6-1
6.3.2
Structure
6-2
6.3.2.1
Palmarejo District
6-2
6.3.2.2
Guazapares District
6-7
6.3.3
Alteration
6-7
6.3.4
Mineralization
6-8
6.3.4.1
Palmarejo District
6-8
6.3.4.2
Guazapares District
6-8
6.4
Property Geology
6-9
6.4.1
Guadalupe
6-9
6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-9

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page ii
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


6.4.1.2
Lithologies
6-9
6.4.1.3
Structure
6-9
6.4.1.4
Alteration
6-10
6.4.1.5
Mineralization
6-10
6.4.2
Independencia
6-11
6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-11
6.4.2.2
Lithologies
6-11
6.4.2.3
Structure
6-17
6.4.2.4
Alteration
6-17
6.4.2.5
Mineralization
6-17
6.4.3
La Nación
6-18
6.4.3.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-18
6.4.3.2
Lithologies
6-22
6.4.3.3
Structure
6-22
6.4.3.4
Alteration
6-22
6.4.3.5
Mineralization
6-22
7.0
EXPLORATION
7-1
7.1
Exploration
7-1
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
7-1
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
7-1
7.1.3
Geochemistry
7-1
7.1.4
Geophysics
7-2
7.1.5
Exploration Potential
7-3
7.2
Drilling
7-4
7.2.1
Overview
7-4
7.2.2
Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes
7-4
7.2.3
Drill Methods
7-4
7.2.4
Logging
7-10
7.2.5
Recovery
7-11
7.2.6
Collar Surveys
7-12
7.2.7
Down Hole Surveys
7-12
7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
7-12
7.3
Hydrogeology
7-13
7.3.1
Groundwater Models
7-13
7.3.2
Water Balance
7-13
7.3.3
Comment on Results
7-14
7.4
Geotechnical
7-14
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-14
7.4.2
Comment on Results
7-14
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
8-1
8.1
Sampling Methods
8-1
8.1.1
Trenches
8-1
8.1.2
RC Drilling
8-1
8.1.3
Core Drilling
8-1
8.1.4
Production Sampling
8-2
8.2
Sample Security Methods
8-2
8.3
Density Determinations
8-3
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
8-3
8.5
Sample Preparation
8-5
8.6
Analysis
8-5

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iii
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
8-6
8.7.1
Mexoro
8-6
8.7.2
Paramount
8-6
8.7.3
Coeur
8-6
8.7.3.1
QA/QC
8-6
8.7.3.2
Reviews
8-7
8.7.3.3
Check Assays
8-7
8.7.3.4
Down Hole Surveys
8-7
8.7.3.5
Collar Surveys
8-8
8.8
Database
8-8
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
8-8
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
9-1
9.1
Internal Data Verification
9-1
9.2
External Data Verification
9-2
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
9-2
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
9-2
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
10-1
10.1
Test Laboratories
10-1
10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
10-1
10.2.1
Historical Testwork
10-1
10.2.2
Guadalupe
10-1
10.2.3
Independencia
10-2
10.2.4
La Nación
10-3
10.2.5
2020–2021 Testwork
10-3
10.2.5.1
Tailings Pre-Concentration
10-4
10.2.5.2
Solid-Liquid Separation and Rheology Testing of Leach Circuit Tails Sample
10-4
10.3
Recovery Estimates
10-4
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
10-5
10.5
Deleterious Elements
10-5
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
10-5
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
11-1
11.1
Introduction
11-1
11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
11-1
11.3
Geological Models
11-1
11.4
Density Assignment
11-1
11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
11-2
11.6
Composites
11-3
11.7
Variography
11-3
11.8
Estimation/interpolation Methods
11-4
11.9
Validation
11-4
11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
11-6
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
11-6
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
11-6
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
11-6
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
11-6
11.11.2
Commodity Price
11-9
11.11.3
Cut-off
11-9
11.11.4
QP Statement
11-10
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
11-10
11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
11-13

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iv
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
12-1
12.1
Introduction
12-1
12.2
Development of Mining Case
12-1
12.3
Designs
12-1
12.4
Input Assumptions
12-10
12.5
Ore Loss and Dilution
12-11
12.6
Commodity Price
12-12
12.7
Mineral Reserve Statement
12-12
12.8
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
12-14
13.0
MINING METHODS
13-1
13.1
Introduction
13-1
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
13-1
13.2.1
Guadalupe
13-1
13.2.2
Independencia
13-2
13.2.3
La Nación
13-2
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
13-3
13.3.1
Guadalupe
13-3
13.3.2
Independencia
13-3
13.3.3
La Nación
13-4
13.4
Operations
13-4
13.4.1
Guadalupe
13-4
13.4.2
Independencia
13-5
13.4.3
La Nación
13-6
13.5
Backfill
13-6
13.6
Ventilation
13-7
13.6.1
Guadalupe
13-7
13.6.2
Independencia
13-7
13.6.3
La Nación
13-7
13.7
Blasting and Explosives
13-7
13.8
Underground Sampling and Production Monitoring
13-8
13.9
Infrastructure Facilities
13-8
13.10
Production Schedule
13-8
13.11
Equipment
13-8
13.12
Personnel
13-8
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
14-1
14.1
Process Method Selection
14-1
14.2
Process Plant
14-1
14.3
Flowsheet
14-1
14.4
Plant Operations
14-1
14.4.1
Crushing
14-1
14.4.2
Grinding
14-3
14.4.3
Flotation
14-3
14.4.4
Flotation Concentrate Leaching
14-3
14.4.5
Flotation Tailings Leaching
14-4
14.4.6
Carbon Desorption
14-4
14.4.7
Carbon Regeneration
14-5
14.4.8
Merrill Crowe and Refining
14-5
14.4.9
Cyanide Detoxification
14-5
14.5
Equipment Sizing
14-6
14.6
Power and Consumables
14-6

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page v
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


14.7
Personnel
14-6
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
15-1
15.1
Introduction
15-1
15.2
Roads and Logistics
15-2
15.3
Stockpiles
15-2
15.4
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
15-4
15.5
Tailings Storage Facilities
15-4
15.6
Water Management Structures
15-4
15.7
Water Supply
15-5
15.8
Camps and Accommodation
15-5
15.9
Power and Electrical
15-6
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
16-1
16.1
Markets
16-1
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
16-1
16.3
Contracts
16-2
16.4
QP Statement
16-3
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
17-1
17.1
Introduction
17-1
17.2
Baseline and Supporting Studies
17-1
17.3
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
17-1
17.4
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
17-2
17.5
Permitting
17-2
17.5.1
Environmental Impact Statements
17-2
17.5.2
Change in Land Use Authorizations
17-3
17.5.3
Current Permits
17-4
17.6
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
17-4
17.7
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
17-6
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
18-1
18.1
Introduction
18-1
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
18-1
18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
18-1
18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
18-2
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
18-2
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
18-2
18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
18-3
18.4
QP Statement
18-4
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
19-1
19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
19-1
19.2
Methodology Used
19-1
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
19-1
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
19-1
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
19-2
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
19-2
19.3.4
Metal Prices
19-2
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
19-2
19.3.6
Working Capital
19-2
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
19-2
19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
19-2
19.3.9
Financing
19-2

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vi
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


19.3.10
Inflation
19-3
19.4
Economic Analysis
19-3
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
19-3
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
20-1
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
21-1
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
22-1
22.1
Introduction
22-1
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
22-1
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
22-1
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
22-1
22.5
Data Verification
22-2
22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
22-2
22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
22-3
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
22-3
22.9
Mining Methods
22-4
22.10
Recovery Methods
22-4
22.11
Infrastructure
22-4
22.12
Market Studies
22-5
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
22-5
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
22-6
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
22-6
22.16
Economic Analysis
22-6
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
22-6
22.17.1
Risks
22-6
22.17.2
Opportunities
22-7
22.18
Conclusions
22-8
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
23-1
24.0
REFERENCES
24-1
24.1
Bibliography
24-1
24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
24-3
24.3
Glossary of Terms
24-5
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
25-1
25.1
Introduction
25-1
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
25-1
25.3
Markets
25-1
25.4
Legal Matters
25-1
25.5
Environmental Matters
25-2
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
25-2
25.7
Governmental Factors
25-2
25.8
Internal Controls
25-2
25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
25-2
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
25-3
25.8.3
Risk Assessments
25-4

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vii
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


TABLES
     
Table 1‑1:
Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
1-8
Table 1‑2:
Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
1-8
Table 1‑3:
Summary Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
1-10
Table 1‑4:
Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year (US$ M)
1-16
Table 1‑5:
Operating Costs by Year (US$ M)
1-16
Table 1‑6:
Cashflow Summary Table
1-18
Table 1‑7:
Sensitivity Analysis (US$ M)
1-18
Table 2‑1:
QP Chapter Responsibilities
2-5
Table 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Summary Table
3-2
Table 3‑2:
Key Surface Rights Agreements
3-7
Table 3‑3:
Key Water Rights
3-10
Table 5‑1:
Project Nomenclature Over Time
5-2
Table 5‑2:
Exploration and Development History Summary Table
5-2
Table 7‑1:
Property Drill Summary Table
7-5
Table 7‑2:
Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, Guadalupe
7-8
Table 7‑3:
Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, Independencia
7-9
Table 7‑4:
Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, La Nación
7-10
Table 8‑1:
Density Data Supporting Mineral Resource Estimation
8-4
Table 9‑1:
External Data Reviews
9-3
Table 10‑1:
LOM Metallurgical Recovery Forecasts
10-5
Table 11‑1:
Silver and Gold Cap Values per Estimation Domain
11-3
Table 11‑2:
Search Parameters by Zone and Variable
11-5
Table 11‑3:
Confidence Category Assignments
11-7
Table 11‑4:
Underground Mineable Shape Input Assumptions
11-9
Table 11‑5:
Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-11
Table 11‑6:
Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-12
Table 12‑1:
Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Reserves
12-12
Table 12‑2:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-13
Table 13‑1:
Production Schedule
13-9
Table 13‑2:
Underground Mining Equipment
13-11
Table 13‑3:
Surface Mining Equipment
13-11
Table 14‑1:
Major Equipment List
14-7
Table 17‑1:
Granted Authorizations
17-5
Table 18‑1:
Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year (US$ M)
18-3
Table 18‑2:
Operating Costs by Year (US$ M)
18-4
Table 19‑1:
Cashflow Summary Table
19-4
Table 19‑2:
Annualized Cashflow (2022–2030)
19-5
Table 19‑3:
Sensitivity Analysis (US$ M)
19-6

FIGURES
     
Figure 2‑1:
Project Location Plan
2-2
Figure 2‑2:
Mining Operations Layout Plan
2-3
Figure 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Location Map
3-4
Figure 3‑2:
Deposit Locations Within Mineral Concession Areas
3-5

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page viii
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 3‑3:
Surface Rights Plan
3-9
Figure 6‑1:
Regional Geology Map
6-3
Figure 6‑2:
Project Geology Map
6-4
Figure 6‑3:
Geologic Cross-Section
6-5
Figure 6‑4:
Stratigraphic Column
6-6
Figure 6‑5:
Geology Map, Guadalupe
6-12
Figure 6‑6:
Geologic Cross-Section, Guadalupe
6-13
Figure 6‑7:
Geologic Cross-Section, Zapata
6-14
Figure 6‑8:
Geology Map, La Patria Zone
6-15
Figure 6‑9:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Patria
6-16
Figure 6‑10:
Geology Map, Independencia
6-19
Figure 6‑11:
Geologic Cross-Section, Independencia
6-20
Figure 6‑12:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Bavisa
6-21
Figure 6‑13:
Geology Map, La Nación
6-23
Figure 6‑14:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Nación
6-24
Figure 7‑1:
Property Drill Collar Location Map
7-7
Figure 11‑1:
Palmarejo Operations with Royalty and Claims Zones Plan View
11-2
Figure 11‑2:
Example Confidence Classification, Guadalupe Main Deposit (domain 100)
11-8
Figure 12‑1:
Deposit Layout Plan
12-2
Figure 12‑2:
Guadalupe Looking Northeast
12-3
Figure 12‑3:
Zapata Looking South
12-4
Figure 12‑4:
Independencia Looking Northeast
12-5
Figure 12‑5:
La Bavisa Looking Northeast
12-6
Figure 12‑6:
La Nación Looking Southwest
12-7
Figure 12‑7:
Los Bancos Looking Northeast
12-8
Figure 12‑8:
Hidalgo Looking Northeast
12-9
Figure 12‑9:
Mine Layout Legend Key
12-10
Figure 14‑1:
Process Flowsheet
14-2
Figure 15‑1:
Infrastructure Layout Plan
15-3
 
APPENDICES

Appendix A:  Detailed Mineral Tenure Table and Figures
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page ix
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
1.1
Introduction
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Miller O’Prey, P. Geo., Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, and Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Palmarejo Operations (the Palmarejo Operations or the Project), located in Mexico.
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V. (Coeur Mexicana) is the operating entity.
 
1.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Palmarejo Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported for the Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación underground mines.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.  Unless otherwise indicated, the metric system is used in this Report.  Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.  The Report uses US English.
 
1.3
Property Setting
 
The Palmarejo Operations are located approximately 420 km by road southwest of the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua in northern Mexico.
 
Access to the Palmarejo Operations is from the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, via paved Highways 16 and 127 to the town of San Rafael.  From San Rafael, travel is by gravel road through Temoris to the town of Palmarejo, which is directly adjacent to the processing plant.  Access from Temoris to the Palmarejo Operations is along 35 km of company-maintained gravel road, an extension of Highway 127 that continues on through to Chínipas.
 
An airstrip services light aircraft located at the Palmarejo Operations site.
 
The climate is moderate.  Rainfall occurs mainly in the summer and fall months (August through to the end of October).  Mining operations are conducted year-round.  All anticipated exploration activities can be conducted year-round.
 
The surface elevation above the Palmarejo deposit is about 1,150 masl, and the surface elevation of the Guadalupe and Independencia deposits is about 1,300 masl.  Hills are typically densely vegetated, steep-sided slopes with local stands of cacti.  Conifers occur at high elevations, while oak trees, cacti, and thorny shrubs dominate the vegetation at low levels.  Local ranchers and farmers graze cattle and grow corn and other vegetables on small-scale plots.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
The Palmarejo Operations consist of 71 mining concessions (27,227 ha).  The Guadalupe Complex mining operations are within concessions 188817 and 186009.  The Independencia Complex mining operations are within concessions 186009 and 243762.  The La Nación Complex mining operations are within concessions 221490 and 243762.
 
Coeur has occupancy agreements in place with selected ejidos for exploitation or exploration purposes, collectively covering an area of 15,111.19 ha.  Water rights currently held or in the process of being acquired are believed to be sufficient to support the LOM plan.
 
There are numerous net smelter return (NSR) royalties that cover the Palmarejo Operations area, which range from 1–3% depending on the royalty agreement.  The majority of the royalties are not payable under the LOM plan envisaged in this Report.
 
A Gold Purchase and Sale Agreement (the Agreement) was entered into by and among Coeur Mexicana, Franco-Nevada (Barbados) Corporation (Franco–Nevada), Ocampo Resources Inc., and Ocampo Services Inc., whereby Coeur Mexicana agreed to sell to Franco–Nevada 50% of the refined gold produced from selected mining concessions at a gold price of $800/oz, in consideration of Franco–Nevada providing investment capital for Project development.  The initial term of the Agreement (which became effective in August 2016) is 40 years.  This Agreement encumbers a large portion of the mining concessions owned or controlled by Coeur Mexicana in the Palmarejo Operations area.
 
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
 
The deposits within the Palmarejo Operations area are considered to be examples of epithermal deposits displaying both intermediate- and low-sulfidation features.
 
The Sierra Madre Occidental (SMO) is a large siliceous igneous province that records extensive arc volcanism spanning the Paleocene to Miocene.  Vein and fault hosted epithermal deposits in the SMO were generated during arc-related volcanic activity.
 
The two main mining districts within the Project area are the Palmarejo and Guazapares districts.  The Palmarejo district is underlain principally by shallow-dipping andesitic volcaniclastic rocks and flows, containing at least one mafic volcanic (basaltic) horizon, that are cut by rhyolite dikes and domes of late Oligocene to early Miocene age.  The Guazapares district includes andesite, volcaniclastic sedimentary units, and dacitic to rhyolitic intrusions, including domes that are roughly synchronous with mineralization.
 
Within the Palmarejo district, several common structural styles of ore controls are apparent that localize orebodies, or individual ore-shoots within them.  Most of these consist of early-formed internal heterogeneities in fault geometries (bends, steps, branches, etc.), which are areas of high permeability-porosity that localize fluids and ore-shoots.  Classic extensional fault relays at en-echelon steps in the normal fault system occur along the Guazapares–La Union fault corridor in the Guazapares district.
 
Mineralization exhibits vertical and lateral zoning and occurs along the principal northwest-trending faults in the two districts and is largely confined to fault-hosted veins.  The largest deposits typically occur on the faults that have the greatest displacement and strike length.  Vein systems are typically silver-rich, although differing Ag:Au ratios are noted between different deposits and at different elevations within deposits.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Silver–gold deposits within the Palmarejo district are characterized by pervasive silicification, quartz-filled breccias, and sheeted veins.  Multiple stages of mineralization produced several phases of silica, ranging from chalcedony to comb quartz, and typically two periods of silver–gold mineralization.  This strongly-zoned mineralization is characterized by pyrite, sphalerite, galena, and argentite (acanthite) deposited within the quartz vein/breccias at lower elevations and higher-grade precious-metals mineralization with fine grained, black, silver-rich sulfide bands or breccia-infill in the upper portions of the structures.
 
Silver–gold deposits within the Guazapares district are characterized by multi-phase quartz veins, quartz + carbonate + pyrite veinlet stockworks, silicified hydrothermal breccias, and quartz-filled expansion breccias.  Three distinct styles of mineralization are identified:  high-grade vein systems, sheeted vein/stockwork/fracture complexes, and volcanic dome complexes.  The principal sulfide minerals within the veins include sphalerite and argentite, with pyrite being less abundant.  Gold-rich veins have pyrite and traces of chalcopyrite as the principal sulfide minerals, and often represent the deeper portions of the silver-rich vein systems.
 
1.6
History and Exploration
 
Artisanal mining activity in the Project area commenced in the 1600s.  The following companies are known to have had involvement in the Project area, prior to Coeur’s Project interest: Palmarejo Mining Co., Palmarejo and Mexican GoldFields, Ltd., Minas Huruapa, S.A. de C.V., Kalahari Resources, Silver Standard Resources Inc., Alaska-Juneau Mining Company, American Smelting and Refining Company, Earth Resources Company, Industrias Peñoles, Consejo de Recursos Minerales, Noranda Exploration Inc., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., War Eagle Mining Company Inc., Bolnisi Gold NL (Bolnisi Gold), Mexoro Minerals Ltd. (Mexoro), Palmarejo Silver and Gold Co., and Paramount Gold and Silver Corporation (Paramount).  Small-scale underground mining was conducted by various companies from the 1880s to about 1968.  Modern exploration activities included sampling of accessible workings; surface mapping and sampling; trenching; grid-based geochemical sampling; ground magnetic and induced polarization (IP) geophysical surveys; air-track, reverse circulation (RC) and core drilling; metallurgical testing; shortwave infrared (SWIR) spectral measurements; and mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation.
 
Coeur acquired an initial interest in what is now a portion of the Project in 2008 and acquired an adjacent land.  Since then, Coeur has conducted geological mapping and sampling; two helicopter-borne magnetic surveys; a helicopter-borne Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) and magnetic survey; core drilling; metallurgical testwork; Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates; and mining activities.
 
Mining at the Palmarejo open pit mine and underground mines began in 2008 and milling operations and metal recovery commenced in 2009, ramping up to full capacity in 2010. Open pit mining operations ceased in 2016.  Operations began at the Guadalupe underground mine in 2014, at the Independencia underground mine in 2016 and at the La Nación underground mine in 2019.  All three operations are ongoing at the Report date.
 
A large part of the land package has still to receive the detailed geological field work necessary to define drill programs and remains prospective.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.7
Drilling and Sampling
 
Drilling completed on the Project includes air track, RC, and core drilling, totaling 4,284 drill holes (1,189,478 m).  Approximately 93% of all drilling completed to date at the Project has been core drilling.  There are 1,388 drill holes (395,996 m) supporting the mineral resource estimates for the Guadalupe deposits, 631 drill holes (240,571 m) supporting the mineral resource estimates for the Independencia deposits, and 261 drill holes (105,765 m) supporting the mineral resource estimate for the La Nación deposits.
 
Drilling that is excluded from estimation support includes historic RC; core drilling from the Mexoro and Paramount drill programs is generally not used; and underground channel samples and grade control drilling are excluded from estimation; however, these data support geological interpretations.
 
Depending on the drill program, geological data collected from drill hole logging included stratigraphy, vein orientation, and mineralized zones and a detailed descriptive log including rock type, alteration, structure, mineralization, and vein density/percentage.  In addition, geotechnical data such as core recovery, rock quality designation (RQD), fracture density and other parameters used to calculate the rock mass rating (RMR).  Digital photographs of wet core are taken and archived before the core is cut and sampled.
 
Collar survey methods varied, depending on drill campaign, operator, and district, and included, for surface drill holes, hand-held global positioning system (GPS) receivers and high-precision differential GPS survey instruments.  Underground collars are surveyed by a mine surveyor using a total station instrument.  Downhole survey methods also varied, depending on drill campaign, operator, and district.  Instrumentation, where known, included Reflex EZ-shot, Reflex non-magnetic one-shot, and Devishot non-magnetic multi-shot tools.  Measurements were taken at 25–50 m, depending on the drill campaign.
 
Almost all underground drilling was completed as fans of drill holes, meaning that the reported mineralized intercepts are typically longer than the true thickness of the mineralization.
 
Core sampling intervals varied by operator, and ranged from 0.5–2 m.  Sample lengths were variably adjusted to avoid sampling across geologic contacts and structures.  Channel sampling of all active faces is completed on a daily basis; individual samples are between 0.5–2 m in length and are defined by changes in lithology or vein type.
 
Density data were primarily collected using water immersion methods, with the majority of the Coeur determinations performed on wax-coated core samples.
 
Independent primary and umpire laboratories used, where recorded in the database, include ALS laboratories in Chihuahua and Vancouver, Bureau Veritas (formerly Acme Analytical Laboratories), and SGS de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. Durango, Mexico (SGS).  These laboratories held accreditations for selected analytical techniques at the time used.  The Palmarejo mine laboratory is used for underground and ore control sample preparation and analysis.  The laboratory is not independent and is not accredited.
 
Sample preparation depended on the analytical laboratory used.  Methods included drying; crushing to 70% passing 10 mesh, 70% passing 2 mm, 60% passing 2 mm; and pulverizing to 95% passing 150 mesh, 90% passing 106 μm, and 85% passing 75 µm.
 
Analytical methods used included:
 
•
Gold:  fire assay with gravimetric finish; fire assay with an atomic absorption finish; fire assay with inductively coupled plasma with atomic emission spectrophotometry (ICP-AES) finish;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Silver:  four-acid digestion with ICP-AES finish;
 
•
Multi-element:  34 element ICP-AES.
 
Historically, the Mexoro and Paramount drill programs, depending on the program, inserted blanks, certified reference materials (standards), and duplicate samples into the sample stream for each sample batch, and selected samples were check assayed as part of their quality control (QC) procedures.
 
Coeur’s QC protocols changed over time, but currently require insertions of blanks, standards, and duplicates.  Pulp samples are currently submitted to Bureau Veritas for check analysis.
 
1.8
Data Verification
 
Data verification included internal and external database audits.  Internal verification included:  detailed review of all documentation and assay data related to each drill hole; drill hole collar audits; and QA/QC reports.  External verification was completed by third-parties.
 
The QP personally completed QA/QC verification, participated in programs to verify drill data prior to mineral resource estimation, checked selected gold and silver assay data, conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports, and signed off on 2015–present definition drill holes and the 2021 drilling.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
 
Independent metallurgical testwork facilities used over the Project life, where recorded, included SGS Laboratories, Durango, Mexico; SGS in Lakefield, Canada (SGS Lakefield), ALS, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada; and Corporación Química Platinum S.A. de C.V. located in Silao, Guanajuato, Mexico.  Palmarejo Operations have an on-site analytical and metallurgical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and process characterization of new ores.  The on-site laboratories are not independent and are audited with third parties.
 
Initial testwork was conducted to support process plant design, assuming mill feed material was from open pit sources.  Later testwork that focused on underground ores included mineralogical studies, multi-element ICP scans, whole-rock analyses, carbon and sulfur speciation analyses, comminution tests, timed grinding series, whole ore bottle roll cyanidation, rougher and bulk rougher flotation, tailing cyanidation, heavy liquid separation pre-concentration and silver deportment studies, and gravity separation tests.  The later testwork was conducted using the existing Palmarejo plant criteria.
 
The LOM forecast average gold blended recovery is 90%.  The LOM forecast average blended silver recovery is 82.5%.
 
The anticipated gold and silver recoveries are affected by alteration states.  Highly oxidized material is not responsive to the flotation process. Highly oxidized ore will significantly affect recovery if blended at a high ratio.  Ores with a high clay content increase slurry viscosity, which has a detrimental effect on precious metals recovery in flotation.  No other deleterious elements are known from the processing perspective.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
 
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Exploratory data statistics were compiled and compared for raw drill hole data, length weighted drill holes, composites, declustered composites, and capped declustered composites to ensure that the grade distribution and true mean of the system were documented and conserved through the estimation process.
 
The implicit modelling algorithm in Leapfrog Geo software was used to create 12 estimation domains through interpretation of relevant intervals of drill data, digitized mapping, and underground production data.
 
Density was estimated using inverse distance weighting to the second power (ID2).
 
Grade caps were determined using various methods such as histograms, probability plots and a metal loss calculation.  Grade caps ranged from 100–3,500 g/t Ag and from 0.5–70 g/t Au, depending on estimation domain.
 
Core samples were composited at 2 m intervals by estimation domain for gold and silver except at Los Bancos, Zapata, and La Bavisa zones where composites include the entire thickness of the domain.  This results in a single, variable length composite in each drill hole within the estimation domain.
 
Variogram searches were oriented along strike of the domains, with the major axis horizontal on-strike, the secondary axis down dip, and the minor axis across the width of the domain.
 
The various deposits were estimated using ordinary kriging (OK), with hard boundaries between geologic units.  The enveloping disseminated domain was estimated using ID2.  The search orientations were locally adjusted using dynamic anisotropy.  The Guadalupe–La Bavisa zone was estimated using ID2.  The parent block size was 2 x 25 x 25 m (X, Y, Z).  Block models were sub-celled to a minimum of 1.0 x 2.5 x 2.5 m.  Estimation took place in the parent cells, therefore, all sub-cells within a parent cell have the same grade.  The maximum number of samples was optimized by minimizing kriging variance while maximizing slope of regression, while attempting to maintain some degree of localization to improve production reconciliation.  Each domain was estimated with one set of search ranges in one pass to achieve the optimal number of samples, and to avoid estimation artifacts created when using a multiple-pass method.  A high-grade search ellipse restriction was employed for the Independencia silver estimate, which applied the restriction at 75% of the capping value.  Constant search volumes and number of samples were used for each domain.  The block model was depleted using the in-situ variable, proportionally depleting from 100 (in situ) to 0 (completely mined).
 
The block models were validated using some or all of the following methods:  visually by stepping through sections and comparing the raw drill data and composite data with the block values; comparison of model statistics to drill data; swath plots; and mill to model reconciliation.
 
Measured mineral resources are defined by proximity to ore control and production data.  This limits the classification of measured mineral resources to the area around current mining where there is very good understanding of the deposit geometry and grade distribution.  Indicated blocks were classified using a script and then manually modified using polygons (in the plane of the domain) based on geologic confidence.  All remaining estimated material is classified as inferred.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


For each resource estimate, an initial assessment evaluated likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting, and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.  Mineral resources are confined within conceptual underground mineable shapes.
 
The gold and silver prices used in resource estimation are based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,700/oz and the silver price forecast is US$22/oz.  The QP considers these prices to be reasonable.
 
The mineral resources are reported using a cut-off of 1.59 to 2.21 g/t gold equivalent (AuEq).
 
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in-situ.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership basis.  The mineral resources are current at December 31, 2021.  Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 1‑1, and inferred mineral resources in Table 1‑2.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include: metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions for underground mine designs constraining the estimates; assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 1‑1:    Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Confidence
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained
Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical
Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Measured
3,353
133
1.81
14,373
195
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
Indicated
15,764
117
1.68
59,340
852
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
Total measured and indicated
19,117
120
1.70
73,712
1,047
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1

Table 1‑2:    Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Confidence
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical
Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Inferred
4,275
127
1.79
17,453
246
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in SK1300.
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  Assumption of conventional longhole underground mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz, silver price of US$22/oz; reported above a variable gold equivalent cut-off grade that ranges from 1.59–2.21 g/t AuEq; metallurgical recovery assumption of 93.1% for gold and 81% for silver; variable mining costs that range from US$36.01–US$41.75/t, surface haulage costs of US$3.52/t, process costs of US$27.29/t, general and administrative costs of US$11.00/t, and surface/auxiliary support costs of US$3.19/t.  Mineral resources exclude the impact of the Franco-Nevada gold stream agreement at Palmarejo in estimation.
 
5.
Rounding of tonnes, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tonnes, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
 
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping using trackless equipment and cemented rock fill (CRF) backfill.  Target mining rates are 150,000 t/month.
 
Deswik mine planning software was used for the mine design, 3D modeling, and interrogation of the 3D mining model against the block model.  The surveyed “as-built” mining excavations were depleted from the designed solids and the resource block model.  Mining, geotechnical, and hydrological factors were considered in the estimation of the mineral reserves, including the application of dilution and ore recovery factors.
 
Mining excavations (stopes and ore development) were designed to include mineralized material above the cut-off grade.  These excavations were then assessed for economic viability.  In addition to the mining cut-off grade, an incremental cut-off grade (excluding the mining cost) was calculated to classify mineralized material mined as a result of essential development to access higher-grade mining areas.  Mineralized material below the incremental cut-off will be disposed of on surface in waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs) or will be used underground as backfill.
 
Gold equivalent cut-off grades were calculated for the deposits, with mineral reserves estimated and reported above this cut-off.  Gold equivalent grades were calculated using the following formula:

where AuEq, Au and Ag are the gold equivalent grade, gold grade, and silver grade, respectively, in g/t.
 
All mineral reserves are reported above a cut-off of 1.94 to 2.51 g/t AuEq (1.08 g/t AuEq for incremental development).  One meter of dilution was applied to the hanging wall, and 0.5 m to the footwall.  No dilution is assigned to ore development. No gold or silver grades were assigned to the rockfill (RF) dilution.  To account for potential ore losses, a factor of 5% was applied to primary, secondary and longitudinal stopes and ore development.
 
The gold and silver prices used in reserve estimation are based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The gold price forecast for the mineral reserve estimate is US$1,400/oz and the silver price forecast is US$20/oz.  The QP considers these prices to be reasonable.
 
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves are reported using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 1‑3 and are current as at December 31, 2021.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 1‑3:    Summary Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Mineral Reserve
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained
Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical
Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Proven
3,405
151
2.26
16,480
247
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
Probable
11,012
130
1.80
45,875
637
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
Total proven and probable
14,418
135
1.91
62,355
884
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
 
Notes to Accompany Mineral Reserves Table:
 
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions SK1300.
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional underground mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz and silver price of US$20/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 1.94–2.51 gold equivalent and an incremental development cut-off grade of 1.08 g/t AuEq; metallurgical recovery assumption of 93.1% for gold and 81.9% for silver; mining dilution assumes 1 meter of hanging wall waste dilution; mining loss of 5% was applied; variable mining costs that range from US$36.01–US$41.75/t, surface haulage costs of US$3.52/t, process costs of US$27.29/t, general and administrative costs of US$11.00/t, and surface/auxiliary support costs of US$3.19/t.  Mineral reserves exclude the impact of the Franco-Nevada gold stream agreement at Palmarejo in estimation.
 
4.
Rounding of tonnes, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tonnes, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions supporting for the mineable shapes constraining the estimates, including dilution forecasts; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
1.12
Mining Methods
 
The Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación mines use conventional underground mining methods and conventional equipment.  The overall production rate is approximately 165,000 t/month.  Operations commenced in 2008 from now-exhausted open pit sources, and underground mining, which is ongoing, started in 2014. Final design outlines for each of these mines can be found in Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Depending on the deposit, rock mass quality is variable from Poor to Good.  Modifications based on variability and updated geotechnical models were made as the mines develop.  The Palmarejo Operations technical services department maintains a Ground Control Management Plan that is overseen by the technical services department that is updated annually and provides mine personnel with operating, monitoring, and quality control/assurance guidance.  The Ground Control Management Plan specifies ground support standards and identifies where and how they are applied in the mines.
 
Permeability of the volcanic rock units in all mines is low to very low.  Persistent inflows are generally from larger fault structures where flows increase and decrease seasonally because of connections to the surface.  Increases in persistent inflows currently are directly related to opening new developments laterally or ramping to lower levels.  Water management consists of sumps and pumps, with water pumped to a water treatment plant on surface.
 
Primary access to the Guadalupe mine is from surface via two ramps.  The West Decline and East Level are located 700 m north of the deposit in the hanging wall.  A third portal for primary ventilation is the South Portal located in the deposit footwall approximately 2,200 m south–southeast from the main access portals.  The West Decline serves as the primary access for haulage, while the East provides both haulage and support access.  Both main ramps are used for primary ventilation intake while the main fans at South Portal are in operation.  The South portal is used as a primary exhaust for the mine as well as secondary escapeway for extended work areas of Guadalupe and Animas.  Two new developments at Zapata and Animas are underway as extensions of the Guadalupe mine.  The material handling system uses a load-haul-dump (LHD) and truck transport system of ore loading and hauling to a surface interim stockpile.  Ore is separated into stockpiles on surface to support blending prior to transport to the plant run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile.  Waste from development is either directly transported from development to backfilling pockets in active stopes or stockpiled underground for later use as backfill.  The mining methods used at Guadalupe include both transverse and longitudinal sublevel stoping.
 
Primary access to the Independencia mine is via two portals, the North and South, located approximately 270 m north of the main Guadalupe mine portals.  Two declines provide access to the deposit and provide secondary intake (south) and primary exhaust ventilation (north) for the mine.  Primary ventilation intake is from a vertical surface raise and fan system constructed in the La Nación workings and connected via dual ramps to the La Nación orebody.  Mining methods used include both transverse and longitudinal sublevel stoping.  The Independencia deposit is mined using similar equipment, personnel and mining methods as Guadalupe mine.  Preliminary designs were completed for the development of the Hidalgo extension anticipated for production in 2023.
 
The La Nación mine is accessed from two levels, one from the south decline ramp access from Independencia, and the other from a footwall drive at the 1260 level.  The two drifts provide access to the deposit along with primary intake and exhaust ventilation for both the La Nación and Independencia mines.  The La Nación deposit is mined using similar equipment, personnel, and mining methods as the Guadalupe mine.  However, much of the ore mining will be completed using longitudinal sublevel stoping due to the narrow width of the vein.
 
Backfill is a combination of cemented rock fill and straight waste fill.
 
Underground maintenance facilities in Guadalupe and Independencia support field and preventative maintenance activities.  Primary maintenance is conducted in joint facilities located on surface between the mine portals and a large main facility located at the Palmarejo office and plant site.  An additional facility is planned for construction in Zapata in 2023 to support ongoing operations.  An explosives magazine located underground in Guadalupe also support Zapata and Animas, and a magazine in Independencia also supports La Nación.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The Palmarejo Operations have nine years of mine life remaining.  The Guadalupe mine has a remaining nine-year mine life with the expansion components of Zapata and Animas.  Independencia has a remaining nine-year mine life with expansions to the north and south and addition of the Hidalgo deposit.  La Nación has five years of mine life remaining.
 
1.13
Recovery Methods
 
The process design was based on a combination of metallurgical test work, study designs and industry-standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities through the operational history of the plant since startup of operations in 2007.  The design is conventional to the silver and gold industry and has no novel parameters.  The plant is designed to operate 365 days per year at 91.3% availability.  The plant design mill throughput is 6,000 t/day of ore with upgrades providing a nominal throughput up to 7,000 t/day.
 
The flow sheet consists of a standard crushing and grinding circuit (jaw crusher, semi-autogenous grind (SAG) mill and ball mill), followed by flotation circuit, where the flotation concentrate is directed to a sequence of clarification tanks and treated in agitated cyanidation tanks.  Floatation tailings are directed to and treated in agitated cyanidation tanks.  A Merrill Crowe circuit recovers gold and silver from the leachates of concentrate solution and tailings solution through a carbon-in-leach (CIL) absorption, desorption, recovery (ADR) system.
 
The average monthly electrical power consumption is 6,218 MWhrs at a cost of $0.081/kWhr.  Power is supplied by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE).  The processing circuit uses approximately 6,650 m3 of water daily; this consists of approximately 650 m3 of fresh water from a local dam and the remaining 6,000 m3 being water reclaimed from the tailings storage facility (TSF) and reused in the mill.  Consumables used in processing include:  xanthate; frother; Aerofloat 404; sodium cyanide; lime; flocculant; activated carbon; sodium hydroxide; hydrochloric acid; zinc; diatomaceous earth; neutralite; and liquid oxygen.
 
1.14
Infrastructure
 
The key infrastructure to support the LOM plan is in place.  Facilities include:  three operating underground mines; two shotcrete mixing plants; backfill cement mixing plant; water treatment plants and associated infrastructure; ROM pads; process plant; TSF and associated infrastructure; maintenance facilities; materials storage and laydown areas; various support facilities; electrical facilities including an emergency powerhouse; gravel airstrip; and a mine permanent camp and contractor facilities and kitchens.
 
The Palmarejo Operations currently maintain limited ROM stockpiles with multistage load-transport-feed sequencing to manage blending at the mine and plant.
 
A series of WRSFs is located at the currently closed Palmarejo open pit operation.  No mine waste has been added to the WRSFs since 2015 when the pit was closed.  The waste is currently being excavated and processed to support backfill operations underground.
 
The TSF, a zoned downstream earthfill dam, was constructed and commissioned in 2010.  The facility has been raised through a series of stages with the current Stage 5 scheduled for completion in May 2022.  The facility is projected to reach capacity in Q1 2023 at 15.4 Mm3, by which time the operation will transition to disposal of tailings in the mined-out Palmarejo open pit.  The proposed TSF facility in the abandoned open pit will include an underdrain system in the abandoned underground mine below the pit, surface tailings discharge and pump-back systems, and a high compression thickener to provided high solids tails and increased water recovery.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The three primary water management structures located at the TSF are a freshwater diversion dam, freshwater diversion channel, and an environmental control dam.  In 2016, a water treatment plant was constructed to treat and release excess water from the tailings pond.  Groundwater from the underground mines is pumped to a surface treatment plant, from where it is cycled back to the underground mine and to the process plant.
 
Electrical power is supplied from the CFE grid, via a 66 km overhead 115 kV distribution line.  Substations were constructed on the surface at the Guadalupe and Independencia mines, and underground at the La Nación mine.  The estimated capacity for Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación complexes (at full production) is approximately 5.0 MW.  An emergency powerhouse with 12 diesel generators (21.9 MW capacity) is located near the process plant and operates during main power outages.
 
1.15
Markets and Contracts
 
1.15.1
Market Studies
 
No market studies are currently relevant as the Palmarejo Operations consist of operating mines producing a readily-saleable commodity in the form of doré.  Gold and silver are freely traded at prices that are widely known, and the prospects for the sale of any production are well understood.
 
Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty would not impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 
Coeur’s strategy on hedging silver and gold is focused on providing downside protection.  To accomplish that, the company may enter into derivative contracts to protect the selling price for a certain portion of the production if terms are attractive.
 
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
 
Coeur uses a combination of historical and current contract pricing, contract negotiations, knowledge of its key markets from a long operations production record, short-term versus long-term price forecasts prepared by the company’s internal marketing group, public documents, and analyst forecasts when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves: $1,400 US$/oz;
 
•
Mineral resources:  $1,700 US$/oz;
 
The long-term silver price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves: US$20/oz;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Mineral resources:  US$22/oz.
 
The price forecasts used in the cashflow analysis for gold vary from US$1,400/oz to US$1,750/oz and US$22/oz to $US24/oz for silver.
 
The QP considers these prices to be reasonable.
 
1.15.3
Contracts
 
Coeur Mexicana has contracts with one U.S.-based refiner and one Switzerland-based refiner that refine the Palmarejo Operations’ doré bars into silver and gold bullion that meets benchmark standards set by the London Bullion Market Association.
 
Currently, there are contracts in place at the Palmarejo Operations to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise boring, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  These contracts are periodically put up for bid or negotiated to ensure the rates remain favorable to Coeur.
 
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
 
Numerous baseline studies were performed in support of Project permitting.  These included:  air quality; weather; landscape; seismicity and natural hazards; groundwater and surface water quality; biodiversity, terrestrial and aquatic flora, and fauna; soils characteristic, uses, and potential use; noise and vibration; geochemical mineral waste characterization; archaeology/cultural heritage; and socioeconomics and cultural aspects.
 
Coeur Mexicana conducts routinary monitoring of physical and biological parameters required in the initial environmental impact statement (MIA) approval resolution and the MIA document itself.  These include groundwater and surface water quality, air quality, emissions to the air, biodiversity, and water discharges.
 
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
Coeur conducts an annual review of its potential reclamation responsibilities companywide.  A site-wide Closure Plan was prepared by Knight Piésold Consulting in December 2017.  This document served as the base for closure and reclamation cost estimates prepared by KC Harvey Environmental in October 2021.  The 2021 year-end closure assessment for final reclamation of  the actual disturbance at the Palmarejo Operations, is estimated at US$40.6 M.
 
1.16.3
Permitting
 
Coeur Mexicana submitted its initial environmental impact statement (MIA) for Palmarejo in March 2008 (Palmarejo Phase 1) and received its first environmental authorization from SEMARNAT in May 2008.  This first authorization was extended for an additional 6.5 years in 2017 and is valid for production through October 2023 followed by a two-year closure period.  Coeur Mexicana filed for, and received, approval for a second environmental authorization in 2010; this authorization was extended for five additional years and is valid through November 2025.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-14
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Coeur Mexicana was granted full authorization for open pit and underground gold and silver mining activities within the areas outlined in the different MIAs. This includes permits for exploration, construction, and operation of the underground gold and silver mines, and land use/disturbance.
 
To cover the LOM, a new environmental authorization was requested of SEMARNAT on March 23, 2021, through the presentation of a Regional MIA (MIA-R).  It is expected that the MIA-R will be approved in the first quarter of 2022.  When approved the MIA-R will add 10 additional years to the current present environmental license, will consolidate 13 different authorizations under a single global license, and will include all future facilities and the mine development expected for the LOM in this Report.
 
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur actively engages the local community with cultural, social and economic programs divided into four main categories:  local hiring and local purchases; house improvement program; social investment in vulnerable groups; and productive community programs.  The surrounding communities are supportive of the Palmarejo Operations, and the employment and benefits that the mines provide.
 
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  Capital costs are based on recent prices or operating data.
 
Capital expenditures consist largely of mining and processing equipment upgrades and replacement, capital leases, TSF construction and raises, small projects to support community or logistics, and general and administrative (G&A) support equipment, leases, and offices.
 
Capital expenditure for the LOM is estimated at US$167.0 M from January 1, 2022.  Estimated capital expenditures are shown in Table 1‑4.
 
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Operating costs were developed based on historical cost performance and first principal calculations based on current commodity costs, labor rates, and equipment costs.  The costs are provided for each major cost center: mining, processing, selling expense, and G&A.  The total operating cost estimate includes all site costs, off-site costs associated with gold and silver metal sales, gold stream payments, and corporate overheads.  The cost estimates are based on budgeted and expected LOM costs.
 
Operating expenditure for the LOM is estimated at US$1,500.3 M from January 1, 2022 to the planned end of the LOM in 2030.  Operating costs are summarized in Table 1‑5.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-15
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 1‑4:    Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year (US$ M)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Mine development
17.5
17.4
16.4
11.6
0.2
3.9
4.0
0.7
—
71.7
Infrastructure
6.4
3.6
4.7
3.4
-
2.8
0.8
0.4
—
15.8
Mobile equipment
5.2
5.2
6.5
6.5
5.3
5.3
—
—
—
34.0
GPE substation
1.8
2.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.3
Process equipment
2.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.7
Process sustaining capital
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.75
—
—
—
9.2
Mine & site capital
3.0
2.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.3
G&A & others
1.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
—
—
—
—
3.9
Tailings/water treatment
15.8
4.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20.1
Total Capital Cost Estimate
49.0
37.8
29.7
23.0
8.5
12.7
5.3
1.1
—
167.0

Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 1‑5:    Operating Costs by Year (US$ M)
 
Operating Cost Type
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Underground mining
91.0
92.0
97.9
103.8
102.4
81.7
82.9
63.9
28.4
711.8
Surface haulage
5.7
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
2.8
48.2
Processing
59.3
59.7
63.6
64.3
61.8
60.2
56.5
44.7
19.9
490.1
General and administrative
27.6
27.6
28.4
28.9
28.1
28.3
26.6
21.3
10
226.8
Transportation, refining, and sales costs
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.4
0.8
23.4
Total Operating Costs
173.0
192.5
190.1
187.0
186.0
166.8
159.1
132.6
57.0
1,500.3
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
1.19
Economic Analysis
 
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward-looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of Mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-16
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The economic analysis is reported on a 100% Project ownership basis.
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model.  The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of nine years to 2030.
 
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV at a discount rate of 5% is US$229.5 M.  As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
A summary of the financial results is provided in Table 1‑6.  The active mining operation ceases in 2030.  Closure costs are estimated to 2032; however, for presentation purposes, closure costs are shown in the annualized cashflow Table 19‑2 as occurring between 2027–2030.
 
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to ± 20% changes in metal prices, grade, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested and can be seen in Table 1‑7.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal prices, less sensitive to grade, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-17
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 1‑6:    Cashflow Summary Table
 
Item
Units
Value
Revenue
Average gold price
US$/oz
1,644
Average silver price
US$/oz
22.56
Gross revenue
US$M
2,230.0
Operating Costs
Mining
US$M
(760.0)
Processing
US$M
(490.1)
General and administrative
US$M
(226.8)
Smelting and refining
US$M
(23.4)
Total Operating Costs
US$M
(1,500.3)
Cash Flow
Operating cash flow*
US$M
729.7
Capital expenditures
US$M
(167.0)
Reclamation
US$M
(40.6)
Total Pre-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow)
US$M
522.1
30% corporate income tax
US$M
(173.0)
7.5% special mining duty
US$M
(59.5)
0.5% extraordinary mining duty
US$M
(11.2)
Total After-Tax Cashflow (Net Cash Flow)
US$M
278.4
Total After-Tax NPV (5% Discount Rate)
US$M
229.5
 
Note: * Operating cash flow is inclusive of the Franco Nevada encumbrance.  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 1‑7:    Sensitivity Analysis (US$ M)
 
Parameter
-20%
-10%
-5%
Base
5%
10%
20%
Metal price
-6.5
111.5
170.5
229.5
288.5
347.4
465.2
Operating cost
388.8
309.3
269.5
229.5
189.6
149.7
69.8
Capital cost
242.3
236.2
232.7
229.5
226.3
223.1
216.7
Grade
-0.1
114.8
172.2
229.5
286.9
344
458.3
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.  Base case is highlighted.
 
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 1.10 and Chapter 1.11.3 respectively and discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-18
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


1.20.1
Risks
 
Other risks noted include:
 
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires, and other consumables would negatively impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Metallurgical recovery assumptions used in planning and operations are reasonable and based on historic performance.  Any changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions could affect revenues and operating costs.  This could also require revisions to cut-off grades and mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
The mineral resource and reserve estimates are sensitive to metal prices.  Lower metal prices require revisions to the mineral resource estimates;
 
•
Changes in climate could result in drought and associated potential water shortages that could impact operating cost and ability to operate;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Palmarejo Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 
1.20.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-19
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Ability to expand mineralization around known veins through exploration;
 
•
Discovery and development of new exploration targets across the district;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new mineralization that could be processed at the existing Palmarejo process facilities;
 
•
Ability to add additional process plant throughput as additional mineral resources are converted to mineral reserves.  Coeur Mexicana has a track record of success on this in recent years as the mill was originally designed for a larger open pit operation.
 
1.21
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
1.22
Recommendations
 
As the Palmarejo Operations consist of operating mines, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-20
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


2.0
INTRODUCTION
 
2.1
Registrant
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Miller O’Prey, P. Geo., Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, and Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Palmarejo Operations (the Palmarejo Operations or the Project), located in Mexico as shown in Figure 2‑1.
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V. (Coeur Mexicana) is the operating entity.
 
2.2
Terms of Reference
 
2.2.1
Report Purpose
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Palmarejo Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported for the Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación underground mines.
 
2.2.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Palmarejo Operations consist of the Palmarejo processing facility; the Guadalupe underground mine, located about 8 km southeast of the Palmarejo mine; the Independencia underground mine, located approximately 800 m northeast of the Guadalupe underground mine, and the La Nación underground mine, located adjacent to the Independencia underground mine.  The Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación underground mines are primarily silver and gold producers.
 
Mining commenced in 2008 from the Palmarejo open pit and underground mines. Milling operations and metal recovery began in 2009.  Figure 2‑2 shows the location of the current and mined-out open pits, and development prospects.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, the metric system is used in this Report.  The Report uses US English.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 2‑1:
Project Location Plan
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Large callout lower right represents zoomed in view of Project area
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 2‑2:
Mining Operations Layout Plan
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


2.3
Qualified Persons
 
The following Coeur employees serve as the Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Report:
 
•
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Senior Director, Technical Services;
 
•
Mr. Miller O’Prey, P. Geo., Director Exploration, Coeur Mexicana;
 
•
Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, P.E., Senior Manager, Mine Planning;
 
•
Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, Manager, Resource Estimation.
 
The QPs are responsible for, or co-responsible for, the Report Chapters set out in Table 2-1.
 
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
 
Mr. Pascoe most recently visited the operations from October 6–11, 2019.  During his site visit, he reviewed geology, mine planning, and operations.
 
Mr. O’Prey has been employed at the Palmarejo Operations since 2014, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  In his current role, he provides oversight to ongoing exploration drilling programs and core logging/sampling procedures.
 
Mr. Haarala’s most recent site visit was December 6–10, 2021. He has been employed at Coeur since May 2021.  In his current role he is responsible for overseeing mine planning and designs for Coeur operations.  During his site visit he reviewed mine operations, mine planning and design, mineral processing, and the overall Project area.
 
Mr. Ruffini’s most recent site visit was from June 25 to July 1, 2021, where he reviewed the inputs, assumptions, and procedures that were used to produce the resource estimates.  He also has direct experience working on the site as the Senior Resource Geologist from February 2017 to April 2019.
 
2.5
Report Date
 
Information in the Report is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
2.6
Information Sources and References
 
The reports and documents listed in Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 of this Report were used to support Report preparation.
 
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
 
Coeur has not previously filed a technical report summary on the Project.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 2‑1:    QP Chapter Responsibilities
 
QP Name
Chapter Responsibility
Mr. Chris Pascoe
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22; 2; 3; 4; 10; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22.1, 22.2, 22.6, 22.10, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18; 23; 24; 25.
Mr. Peter Haarala
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22; 4; 7.3, 7.4; 12; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18; 22.1, 22.22.8, 22.9, 22.11, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Mr. Miller O’Prey
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 5; 6; 7.1, 7.2; 8; 9; 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Mr. Joseph Ruffini
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 5; 6; 7.1, 7.2; 8; 9; 11; 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
 
3.1
Property Location
 
The Palmarejo Operations are located approximately 420 km by road southwest of the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua in northern Mexico.
 
The centroid for the Project is 108o 21.8203’ W longitude and 27o 21.5547’ N latitude (760,781 mE, 3,028,984 mN) in the Universal Transverse Mercator (WGS 84), Zone 12R.
 
Centroid locations for the key Project components include in the Universal Transverse Mercator (WGS 84), Zone 12R:
 
•
Palmarejo open pit (mined out):  108º 24.126’ W longitude and 27º 23.176’ N latitude (756,800 mE, 3,031,950 mN);
 
•
Guadalupe:  108º 21.899’ W longitude and 27º 20.996’ N latitude (760,672 mE, 3,027,949 mN);
 
•
Independencia:  108º 21.752’ W longitude and 27 º 22.078’ N latitude (760,873 mE, 3,029,953 m N);
 
•
La Nación:  108º 21.809’ W longitude and 27º 21.591’ N latitude (760,797 mE, 3,029,051 mN).
 
The Project falls within the Instituto de Naciónal de Estadística, Geografía y Informática (INEGI) Ciudad Obregón geological sheet (G12-3) and the INEGI Guadalupe Victoria (G12B28), Chínipas de Almada (G12B38), Temoris (G12B39), Milpillas (G12B48), and the Cieneguita Lluvia de Oro topographic maps.
 
3.2
Ownership
 
The Project is held in the name of Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Mexicana.
 
3.3
Mineral Title
 
The Palmarejo Operations consist of 71 mining concessions (27,227 ha).  A summary of the claims is provided in Table 3‑1, and an overall tenure location plan provided in Table 3‑2.  Claim details are provided in Appendix A.  A map showing name, ID, and other details of the mineral tenures as well as the location of the mining complexes is also provided in Appendix A.
 
Locations of the areas that have current mineral resource estimates are shown in Figure 3‑2.  Detailed maps are provided in Appendix A. The Guadalupe Complex mining operations are within concessions 188817 and 186009.  The Independencia Complex mining operations are within concessions 186009 and 243762.  The La Nación Complex mining operations are within concessions 221490 and 243762.
 
As per Mexican requirements for grant of tenure, the mining concessions were surveyed on the ground by a licensed surveyor.  Required payments for the concessions were made as required.  Statutory reporting obligations were met as required.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 3‑1:    Mineral Tenure Summary Table
 
No
Concession Name
Title No
Valid Through
Area
(ha)
Holder
Royalty
1
Ampl. Trogan Oeste
225223
4/8/2055
1,699.99
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
2
Ampliación Trogan
224118
7/4/2055
703.2318
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
3
Caballero Azteca
209975
30/08/2049
5.051
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
4
Carmelita
209976
30/08/2049
5.343
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
5
El Risco
210163
9/9/2049
24
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
6
La Aurelia
209541
2/8/2049
10
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
7
La Buena Fe
188820
28/11/2040
60
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
8
La Buena Fe Norte
226201
28/11/2055
98.0878
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
9
La Estrella
189692
4/12/2040
59.5863
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
10
La Mexicana
212281
28/09/2050
142.141
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
11
La Moderna
225574
22/09/2055
75.8635
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
12
Lezcura
210479
7/10/2049
14.5465
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
13
Los Tajos
186009
13/12/2039
2.7043
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
14
Maclovia
167282
29/10/2030
6
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
15
Nueva Patria
167281
29/10/2030
11
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
16
Palmarejo
164465
8/5/2029
52.0755
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
17
Patria Vieja
167323
2/11/2030
4
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
18
Reyna De Oro
198543
29/11/2043
27.1791
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
19
San Carlos
188817
28/11/2040
160
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
20
San Juan De Dios
167322
2/11/2030
23
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
21
Santo Domingo
194678
6/5/2042
15.3737
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
22
Tres De Mayo
187906
21/11/2040
39.8582
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
23
Trogan
221490
18/02/2054
3,844.54
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
24
Trogan Fracción
221491
18/02/2054
7.9682
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
25
Trogan Norte 1
225278
11/8/2055
1,024.00
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
26
Trogan Norte 2
225279
11/8/2055
1,019.22
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
27
Trogan Oeste
225308
15/08/2055
2,699.07
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
28
Unificación Guerra Al Tirano
170588
1/6/2032
27.4471
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
29
Unificación Huruapa
195487
13/09/2039
213.7755
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
30
Victoria
210320
23/09/2049
76.0883
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
31
Virginia
214101
9/8/2051
12.0906
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
32
El Rosario
185236
13/12/2039
10.9568
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
33
La Curra
222319
24/06/2054
37.6593
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
34
La Currita
223292
24/11/2054
13.6805
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
35
Sulema No. 2
191332
18/12/2041
15.828
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
36
Ampliación La Buena Fe
209648
2/8/2049
40.8701
Coeur Mexicana
N/A

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


No Concession Name Title No Valid Through
Area
(ha)
 Holder Royalty
37
El Carmen
166426
3/6/2030
59.0864
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
38
El Rosario
166430
3/6/2030
14
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
39
Empalme
166423
3/6/2030
6
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
40
Guadalupe De Los Reyes
172225
26/10/2033
8
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
41
Las Tres B.B.B.
166427
3/6/2030
23.001
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
42
Las Tres S.S.S.
166429
3/6/2030
19.1908
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
43
San Juan
166402
3/6/2030
3
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
44
San Luis
166422
3/6/2030
4
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
45
San Miguel
166401
3/6/2030
12.9458
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
46
Sangre De Cristo
166424
3/6/2030
41
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
47
Santa Clara
166425
3/6/2030
15
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
48
Swanwick
166428
3/6/2030
70.1316
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
49
Constituyentes 1917
199402
18/04/2044
66.2411
Coeur Mexicana
1% NSR
50
Montecristo
213579
17/05/2051
38.056
Coeur Mexicana
1% NSR
51
Montecristo Fraccion
213580
17/05/2051
0.2813
Coeur Mexicana
1% NSR
52
Montecristo Ii
226590
1/2/2056
27.1426
Coeur Mexicana
1% NSR
53
Santa Cruz
186960
16/05/2040
10
Coeur Mexicana
3% NSR
54
Elyca
179842
16/12/2036
10.0924
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
55
Ampl. San Antonio
196127
22/09/2042
20.9174
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
56
Cantilito
220788
6/10/2053
37.035
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
57
Guazapares
209497
2/8/2049
30.9111
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
58
Guazapares 1
212890
12/2/2051
451.9655
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
59
Guazapares 2
226217
1/12/2055
404.0016
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
60
Guazapares 3
211040
23/03/2050
250
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
61
Guazapares 4
223664
1/2/2055
63.9713
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
62
Guazapares 5
213572
17/05/2051
88.8744
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
63
San Antonio
204385
12/2/2047
14.8932
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
64
San Antonio
222869
13/09/2054
105.1116
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
65
San Francisco
191486
18/12/2041
38.1598
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
66
Vinorama
226884
16/03/2056
474.222
Coeur Mexicana
2% NSR
67
Guazapares
232082
17/05/2057
4,242.12
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
68
Temoris Centro Fracc. 1
243762
17/05/2057
4,940.20
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
69
Temoris Centro Fracc. 2
243763
17/05/2057
2,380.00
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
70
Temoris Centro Fracc. 6 R1a
243767
17/05/2057
956.201
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
71
Temoris Fraccion 4
229553
17/05/2057
18.6567
Coeur Mexicana
N/A
       
27,226.65
    
 
Note:  dates use month/day convention.  N/A = not applicable
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Location Map
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 3‑2:
    Deposit Locations Within Mineral Concession Areas

 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


3.4
Surface Rights
 
Coeur has occupancy agreements in place with selected ejidos for exploitation or exploration purposes (Table 3‑2), collectively covering an area of 15,111.19 ha (Figure 3‑3).
 
3.5
Water Rights
 
Water rights supporting exploration, mining, and processing activities are summarized in Table 3‑3.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 3‑2:    Key Surface Rights Agreements
 
Eijido
Purpose
Area
(ha)
Fees
Agreement Duration
Comment
Agua Salada
Exploration, exploitation and beneficiation
443.4
Annual
765,000
(MXN$)
25 years, from November 20, 2013; option to extend for an additional five years
Five scholarships to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido
Chínipas
Water pumping station and associated infrastructure
7.8
Annual
24,000
(US$)
11 years, from October 15, 2012; option to extend for an additional 11 years
Five higher-education scholarships to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido. It also provides for a contribution of MXN$120,000 annually towards meal programs for senior citizens of the ejido.  Payments subject to annual adjustment for CPI
Guazapares
Exploration, exploitation and beneficiation
1,830.6
Annual
15,432,000
(MXN$)
adjusted for CPI annually
25 years, from October 20, 2013; option to extend for an additional five years
Five higher-education scholarships to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido. It also provides for a contribution of MXN$120,000 annually towards meal programs for senior citizens of the ejido and an additional MXN$120,000 annually towards school infrastructure.  Payments subject to annual adjustment for CPI
Guazapares
Exploration and the installation of ventilation infrastructure
1,778.9
One-time rent
595,000
(MXN$)
10 years, from March 29, 2015
Nominal payments made for any surface disturbance to the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench and meter of road construction.  Nominal payments subject to annual adjustment for CPI
Guazapares
Exploration and installation of ventilation infrastructure
5,203.0
One-time rent
595,000
(MXN$)
10 years, from March 29, 2015
Nominal payments made for any surface disturbance to the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench, and meter of road construction.  Nominal payments subject to annual adjustment for CPI

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Eijido Purpose  
Area
(ha)
 Fees Agreement Duration Comment
Palmarejo
Exploration, exploitation, and beneficiation
657.5
Annual
7,200,000
(MXN$)
adjusted for CPI annually
17 years, from October 16, 2013; option to extend for an additional five years
Five higher-education scholarships to a maximum of MXN$50,000 to children of members of the ejido
Guerra Al Tirano
Exploration, exploitation, and beneficiation
5,190.39
One-time rent
1,500,000
(MXN$)
10 years, from March 12, 2017
Nominal payments made for any surface disturbance to the ejido and any affected ejiditario on a unit cost basis per drill pad, trench and meter of road construction.  Nominal payments subject to annual adjustment for CPI
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 3‑3:
Surface Rights Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 3‑3:    Key Water Rights
 
Permit/Concession
Dates
(from–to)
Comments
03CHI141177/10EBDL16
July 30, 2015 to July 30, 2025
Tailings dam permit for leased area of 42,613.49 m2
03CHI140198/10EDDL13
April 2009 to April 2024
Water treatment plant 1 discharge permit for 34,700 m3 per year
03CHI140900/10ERDL15
November 17, 2012 to November 17, 2022
Water treatment plant 2 discharge permit for 37,230 m3 per year
03CHI156149/10EMDA17
June 10, 2017 to June 10, 2027
Groundwater concession, Palmarejo water well
03CHI140154/10FAGC10
September 18, 2009 to September 18, 2029
Infiltration gallery (tunnel) at Chínipas River riverbed, facility within Federal Area, occupation permit of 1,100 m2
03CHI141257/10FDDL16
March 2, 2016 to March 2, 2026
Water treatment plant at tailings storage facility discharge permit for 2,628,000 m3 per year
03CHI155096/10FBDA15
November 16, 2014 to November 16, 2034
Concession for the extraction of 100,000 m3 per year of surface water.
03CHI141394/10EDD17
December 8, 2016 to December 8 2026
Federal Area 1630; concessional area of 4,302.066 m2
03CHI141393/10EDD17
December 8, 2016 to December 8 2026
Federal Area 1644; concessional area of 28,969.965 m2
CHI818344
December 21, 2020 to December 21, 2050
Federal Area 1654; concessional area of 3,114.020 m2
03CHI141395/10EDD17
December 8, 2016 to December 8, 2026
Federal Area 1647; concessional area of 469.15 m2
03CHI141396/10EDDL17
December 8, 2016 to December 8, 2026
Federal Area 1645; concessional area of 10,673.206 m2
03CHI141392/10EDD17
December 8, 2016 to December 8, 2026
Federal Area 1631; concessional area of 670.649 m2
03CHI141391/10EDDL17
December 8, 2016 to December 8, 2026
Federal Area 1641; concessional area of 2,518.924 m2
03CHI141390/10EDD17
December 8, 2016 to December 8, 2026
Federal Area 1642; concessional area of 2,148.414 m2
CHI832319
October 2, 2014 to October 2, 2024
Federal Area 1885; concessional area of 442,641 m2
03CHI141176/10EBDL15
May 20 2016 to May 20 2026
Environmental control dam, permit for leased area of 45,865.87 m2
03CHI800002/10FPGC10
February 22 2010 to February 22 2029
Water extraction permit of 2,000,000 m3 per year at infiltration gallery, Chínipas River.
8120017
April 16 2021 to April 16 2031
Federal Area 1649; concessional area of 3,211.45 m2

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Permit/Concession
Dates
(from–to)
 Comments
No Concession title 3, Tillage water
Indefinite
Extraction groundwater at Guadalupe
No Concession title 4, Tillage water
Indefinite
Extraction groundwater at Independencia
 
3.6
Royalties
 
3.6.1
Franco-Nevada
 
On 2 October 2014, a Gold Purchase and Sale Agreement (the Agreement) was entered into by and among Coeur Mexicana, Franco-Nevada (Barbados) Corporation (Franco–Nevada), Ocampo Resources Inc., and Ocampo Services Inc., whereby Coeur Mexicana agreed to sell to Franco–Nevada 50% of the refined gold produced from selected mining concessions at a gold price of $800/oz, in consideration of Franco–Nevada providing investment capital for Project development.
 
The initial term of the Agreement (which became effective in August 2016) is 40 years.  This Agreement encumbers all mining concessions owned or controlled by Coeur Mexicana except for the El Rosario (185236), La Curra (222319), La Currita (223292) and Sulema No. 2 (191332) mining concessions and the mining concessions acquired from Paramount.  There is also an area of interest (AOI), whereby any mining concessions acquired within the boundaries of the AOI are subject to the terms of the Agreement.  The AOI boundary generally follows the exterior boundary of Agrupamiento Unificación Huruapa.
 
This royalty is included in the LOM cashflow analysis.
 
3.6.2
Minera Azteca
 
On 10 October 2011, Coeur Mexicana purchased the Unificación Guerra al Tirano (170588), Reyna de Oro (198543), and Tres de Mayo (187906) mining concessions from Minera Azteca de Oro y Plata S.A. de C.V. (Minera Azteca).  Minera Azteca reserved a 2% net smelter returns royalty (NSR) on production, as defined in the agreement, of all gold and silver mined and produced from these three mining concessions.  Coeur Mexicana may re-acquire, at any time, up to 75% of the NSR (i.e., 1.5%), at a fixed price of US$50,000 per one-tenth of every 1%.  The maximum re-purchase price of this NSR is US$750,000.  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.3
Hernández and Gomez
 
Pursuant to a Convenio (Paramount Mexico Royalty Agreement) by and among Isidro Hernández Pompa and wife (Hernández), Victor Manuel Gomez Fregoso (Gomez), and Paramount Mexico, dated December 8, 2009, a 1% NSR was granted to Hernández and Gomez, over the Constituyentes 1917 (199402), Montecristo (213579), Montecristo Fraccion (213580), and Montecristo II (226590) mining concessions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Coeur Mexicana (as successor to Paramount Mexico) may purchase this NSR from the Royalty Holders at any time for US$450,000 plus value-added tax (IVA).  Under the terms of the Paramount Mexico Royalty Agreement, Coeur Mexicana (as successor to Paramount Mexico) has a US$190,000 credit against future NSR payments, if any, which may be realized by withholding 50% of the quarterly NSR payments Hernández and Gomez would have otherwise received.  Alternatively, Coeur Mexicana (as successor to Paramount Mexico) may apply the US$190,000 credit to the US$450,000 NSR royalty purchase price.  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.4
Rascón
 
The Santa Cruz (T-186960) concession is subject to a 3% NSR royalty payable to Mr. Luis Alberto Rascón Herrera.  The NSR royalty can be purchased at any time, upon the payment of US$200,000 plus value-added tax.  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.5
Minera Río Tinto and Astorga
 
The San Antonio (T-222869), San Antonio (T-204385), Ampl. San Antonio (T-196127) concessions are subject to a 0.5% NSR payable to Minera Río Tinto, S.A. de C.V. (Minera Río Tinto) and a 1.5% NSR payable to Mr. Rafael Fernando Astorga Hernández.  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.6
Minera Río Tinto and Ayub
 
The Guazapares (T-209497), Guazapares 1 (T-212890), Guazapares 2 (T-226217), Guazapares 3 (T-211040), Guazapares 4 (T-223664), Guazapares 5 (T- 213572), Cantilito (T-220788), and Vinorama (T-226884) concessions are subject to a 2% NSR payable to Minera Río Tinto and Mr. Mario Humberto Ayub Touché.  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.7
Minera Río Tinto and Rachasa
 
The San Francisco (T-191486) concession is subject to a 0.5% NSR payable to Minera Río Tinto and a 1.5% NSR payable to Minera Rachasa, S.A. de C.V. (Rachasa).  Currently, there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves associated with this royalty.
 
3.6.8
Mexican Mining Taxes
 
Mexican mining taxes include the following:
 
•
Special Mining Duty (tax) of 7.5% (Derecho Especial Sobre Mineria) applied to income from mining activities.  The tax is calculated on the basis of earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, and amortization (i.e., EBITDA);
 
•
Extraordinary Mining Duty (tax) of 0.5% (Derecho Extraordinario Sobre Mineria) applied to all revenue from the gold and silver produced.
 
Both of these taxes are assumed to be deductible against income before the calculation of corporate income tax.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


3.7
Encumbrances
 
3.7.1
Permitting Requirements
 
The environmental permitting process in Mexico requires the presentation of two different documents at the federal level: an Environmental Impact Statement (MIA in the Spanish acronym) and a Land Use Change (CUS in the Spanish acronym).  These documents are reviewed by Mexico’s environmental authority, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT).  In addition, authorization from Mexico’s water authority CONAGUA (Comisión  Naciónal del Agua) is needed for water use, effluent discharge, and for the construction of facilities in federal watersheds.
 
To cover the life-of-mine (LOM), a new environmental authorization was requested of SEMARNAT on March 23, 2021, through the presentation of a Regional MIA (MIA-R).  A MIA-R is a preventive instrument that defines the environmental and social effects of a project of regional extension which includes several watersheds and different towns or communities. The MIA-R is SEMARNAT’s preferred instrument for large-scale mining projects.
 
Additional information on permitting is provided in Chapter 17.
 
3.7.2
Permitting Timelines
 
In late July 2021, SEMARNAT requested additional information on the MIA-R document; this information was provided by Coeur on August 10, 2021.  It is expected that the MIA-R will be approved in the first quarter of 2022.  When granted, it will add 10 years to the current environmental license and will consolidate all existing authorizations under a single global license.  The MIA-R will also include the new facilities and mine development expected for the LOM plan presented in this Report.
 
No special conditions are anticipated to be imposed in the approval of the MIA-R.
 
3.7.3
Violations and Fines
 
There are no major violations or fines as understood in the United States mining regulatory context that have been reported for the Palmarejo Operations.
 
3.8
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
 
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Palmarejo Operations that are not discussed in this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
 
4.1
Physiography
 
The Palmarejo Operations are located on the western flank of the Sierra Madre Occidental, a mountain range that comprises the central spine of northern Mexico.
 
The elevation at Palmarejo is about 1,150 masl, and the elevation at Guadalupe and Independencia is about 1,300 masl.
 
Hills are typically densely vegetated, steep-sided slopes with local stands of cacti.  Conifers occur at high elevations, while oak trees, cacti, and thorny shrubs dominate the vegetation at low levels.
 
Local ranchers and farmers graze cattle and grow corn and other vegetables on small-scale plots.
 
4.2
Accessibility
 
Access to the Palmarejo Operations is from the city of Chihuahua, in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, via paved Highways 16 and 127 to the town of San Rafael.  From San Rafael, travel is by gravel road through Temoris to the town of Palmarejo which is adjacent to the processing plant.  Access via Temoris is along 35 km of company-maintained gravel road, an extension of Highway 127 that continues on through to Chínipas.  The majority of the supplies and personnel are transported via this road from Chihuahua to the site.  Total driving time from Chihuahua is approximately seven hours.
 
Access to the individual mines and local exploration sites is via a company-controlled road approximately 10 km from the process plant.
 
The Chihuahua–Pacifico rail service operates between Chihuahua and Los Mochis (Topolobampo seaport) on the northwest coast of Mexico.  A passenger train operates weekly, and one freight train operates daily between these cities with nearest stop in Estación Temoris.  The Estación Temoris railway station is located 10 km south of Temoris.
 
An airstrip services light aircraft located at the Palmarejo site.
 
4.3
Climate
 
The climate is moderate, with average maximum and minimum temperatures at 34° C and 5° C, respectively.  Rainfall occurs mainly in the summer and fall months (August through to the end of October), with average annual precipitation of 620 mm (McCullagh and Hall, 2014).
 
Mining operations are conducted year-round.  All anticipated exploration activities can be conducted year-round.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


4.4
Infrastructure
 
Local and regional (state) contractors and vendors provide most of the services required to support the Palmarejo Operations.
 
The area around the Palmarejo Operations has moderately well-developed infrastructure and a local workforce familiar with mining operations. Four to five thousand inhabitants reside within a one-hour drive, on all-weather compacted dirt roads (Skeet, 2004).  Chínipas and Temoris are the two nearest towns.  The small village of Palmarejo lies immediately northwest of the Palmarejo mine.  Many of the employees live in these three communities.
 
Electrical power is supplied by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE).
 
Water is sourced from the tailings storage facility (TSF), the Chínipas River, or is purchased from local municipalities.
 
The Palmarejo Operations currently have all infrastructure in place to support mining and processing activities (see also discussions in Chapter 13, Chapter 14, and Chapter 15 of this Report).  These Report chapters also discuss water sources, electricity, personnel, and supplies.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


5.0
HISTORY
 
5.1
Project Ownership History
 
The current Project is managed through Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary Coeur Mexicana S.A. de C.V. This Project was acquired through a combination of mergers and acquisitions starting in 2007.
 
From 2003 to 2007, Planet Gold S.A.de C.V. (Planet Gold), Bolnisi Gold NL’s operating company, held a majority interest in Palmarejo Silver and Gold Co., which held concessions over the Palmarejo mine, Guadalupe and Independencia Oeste deposits, and surrounding mineral concessions,
 
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. (Paramount) held the San Miguel project, which included the Independencia Este, La Union Sur, San Miguel, and San Francisco deposits and prospects and surrounding mineral concessions through its operating subsidiaries, Paramount Gold de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Paramount Mexico) and Minera Gama S.A. de C.V. (Minera Gama).  Coeur acquired Paramount in 2015.  In November 2015, Minera Gama was merged into Paramount Mexico and in October 2016, the combined Paramount Mexico was merged and incorporated into Coeur Mexicana.
 
5.2
Exploration and Development History
 
The Palmarejo Operations are located in the Temoris and Guazapares mining districts.  Silver and gold production from these districts, though poorly documented, has a long, intermittent history dating from at least Spanish colonial exploitation beginning in the 1620s.  Over the 400-year mining history, there has been consolidation and renaming of many of the key areas.  These are summarized in Table 5-1, which provides the historical names and the names that Coeur currently uses for the areas.
 
A summary of the Project exploration and development history is provided in Table 5-2.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 5‑1:     Project Nomenclature Over Time
 
Area
District
Deposit
Deposit
Palmarejo Operations
Palmarejo District
Palmarejo
La Blanca
La Prieta
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
La Curra
La Currita
Zapata
Las Animas
La Patria
Independencia
Independencia
La Bavisa
Hidalgo
La Nación
La Nación
Los Bancos
Guazapares District
San Miguel
San Miguel
Guazapares
La Union
San Jose
San Luis
San Antonio
Monte Cristo
Sangre de Cristo
San Francisco
Canutillo
 
Table 5‑2:    Exploration and Development History Summary Table
 
Company
Year
Comment
Early artisanal mining, including by the Spanish
1620s to circa 1886
Intermittent small-scale production.
Stamp mill constructed at Palmarejo mine in 1881.
Palmarejo Mining Co; later renamed Palmarejo and Mexican GoldFields, Ltd. (Palmarejo and Mexican GoldFields)
1886–1910
Purchased Palmarejo mine.  Constructed a mill located two miles east of Chínipas, an aqueduct for power, and a railroad from the mine site to the mill. Mining activity halted by Mexican Revolution.
Unknown
Unknown
Historic reports of mining at Guadalupe suggest that approximately 3,700 t grading 458 g/t Ag were mined from the deposit.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Company
Year
Comment
American Smelting and Refining Company
1950s
Reportedly drilled 15 core holes in the San Luis and San Jose Mine areas.  No drill data available.
Hilos de Plata
1957
Restarted the San Luis mine.
Alaska-Juneau Mining Company
1958–1968
Evaluated the San Luis mine. Mining operations accessed via a 270 m inclined shaft, with the gold-silver ore processed in a 150 tons-per-day flotation mill.  No production records located to date.
Earth Resources Company and Industrias Peñoles
1975–1976
Joint venture over concessions in the Guazapares district.  Sampled the most accessible workings; conducted grid-based geochemical sampling; completed 39 short air-track holes (944 m) with poor sample recovery; metallurgical testwork; resource estimation.
Minas Huruapa, S.A. de C.V.
1979–1992
Restarted operations at Palmarejo mine.  Available records show production of 168,352 t grading 297 g/t Ag and 1.37 g/t Au.
Consejo de Recursos Minerales
1985–1988
District-scale sampling of underground workings in the Guazapares district.
Unknown
1985–1998
La Currita mine, located along the southeast extension of the Guadalupe area, produced at a rate of about 100 tons per day
Noranda Exploration Inc.
1990s
Optioned concessions in the Guazapares district.
Kalahari Resources
1991
Exploration drilling at La Currita; number and type of drill holes unknown.
War Eagle Mining Company Inc.
1991–2002
Completed 50 drillholes within the Guazapares 4 concession (Agrupamiento San Francisco) and on ground adjacent to that concession.  No data available.
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
1994–2000
Acquired the Sangre de Cristo property in July 1994, and conducted surface and underground sampling, drilled 12 reverse circulation (RC) holes (2,268 m).  Limited data available.
Silver Standard Resources Inc.
1998
Exploration drilling at La Currita; number and type of drill holes unknown.
Bolnisi
2003–2007
Reconnaissance surface mapping and underground mapping; collection of 286 underground channel samples from the 6, 7, and 8 levels of the historic La Prieta workings; collected 79 channel samples from underground workings in nine prospect areas; excavation of 180 trenches (totaling 3,960 m) over selected exploration targets; RC and core drill testing of selected exploration targets totaling 1,135 drill holes (246,830.9 m); collection of shortwave infrared (SWIR) spectral measurements; trace-element study to evaluate vertical and lateral zoning of major and trace elements in the mineralized shoots at Palmarejo and Guadalupe; Mineral Resource estimates; baseline and supporting environmental studies
Mexoro Minerals Ltd.
2006–2007
Geological mapping of San Francisco area; collected 398 rock-grab, rock-channel, and rock-chip samples of accessible workings and surface exposures of veins and silicification; 31 core holes (4,682 m) at San Francisco, primarily at Canutillo and surrounding areas

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Company
Year
Comment
Garibaldi Resources Corp.
Unknown, pre-2009
Field reconnaissance, geologic mapping, and sampling of surface exposures and old workings in the Temoris area to define drill targets
Paramount
2006–2015
Surface geologic mapping and sampling, mapping, and sampling of accessible underground workings; 92 trenches (4,851 m); ground magnetic and induced polarization (IP) geophysical surveys; RC (59 drillholes, 13,332m) and core drilling (569 drillholes, 160,837m); Mineral Resource estimates; preliminary economic assessment (PEA) mostly relating to deposits within the Guazapares district. Coeur does not consider any of these estimates or the PEA to be current and does not report any resources for deposits within the Guazapares district.
Coeur Mexicana/Coeur
2007–date
Acquired property interests of Bolnisi and Paramount; conducted helicopter-borne magnetic surveys; helicopter-borne Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic (ZTEM) and magnetic survey; reviews of available geophysical data sets; geological mapping; core and RC drilling; metallurgical testwork; Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates; mining studies; permitting activities; baseline and supporting environmental studies.
Mining at the Palmarejo open pit and underground mines began in 2008 and milling operations and metal recovery commenced in 2009, ramping up to full capacity in 2010.  In late 2014, production commenced from the Guadalupe underground mine.  In late 2016, production commenced from the Independencia underground mine.  Open pit and underground mining operations from the Palmarejo deposit ceased in 2016.  Underground mining from the La Nación deposit commenced in 2019.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
 
6.1
Deposit Type
 
The deposits within the Palmarejo Operations area are considered to be examples of epithermal deposits displaying both intermediate- and low-sulfidation features.
 
Epithermal mineralization is associated with hydrothermal activity related to volcanism or the resulting geothermal activity of circulating meteoric waters at relatively shallow depths and low temperatures.  Precious metal epithermal deposits may exhibit various styles of mineralization with the level of sulfidation state (high, intermediate, or low-sulfidation) referring only to sulfide mineralogy.  At Palmarejo the mineralization commonly takes the form of quartz–calcite veins or quartz vein breccias.  Mineralization is typically zoned with silver dominant mineralization in the upper parts of the system transitioning to more gold dominant and eventually base metal dominant at depth.
 
6.2
Regional Geology
 
The basement rocks to the Sierra Madre Occidental consist of Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic rocks locally exposed in deeply-incised canyons.
 
The Sierra Madre Occidental hosts sequences of volcanic and plutonic rocks that are believed to reflect calc-alkaline, subduction-related, continental arc magmatism active from the Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary to the end of the Oligocene.  These sequences are divided into the Lower Volcanic Complex or Lower Volcanic Series, which consists of over 2,000 m of predominantly andesitic volcanic rocks with a few interlayered ash flows and related hypabyssal intrusions, and the Upper Volcanic Series, with >1,000 m of rhyolitic ignimbrites and flows with subordinate andesite, dacite, and basalt that unconformably overlie the Lower Volcanic Complex and were formed by a series of caldera eruptions.  Some altered acidic intrusive bodies, often associated with mineralization, may be related to early phases of this upper sequence.
 
The Sierra Madre Occidental hosts gold–silver districts along its entire length in at least four wide, northwest-trending structural belts.  Vein and fault hosted epithermal deposits range in age from 42–18 Ma.  Pre-30–32 Ma veins, dikes and extensional faults typically trend northeast and reflect the period when the volcanic arc was in contraction during the early Tertiary.  Post-30 Ma veins, faults and dikes typically trend northwest and reflect the period when the volcanic arc migrated back toward the current Pacific coast.
 
6.3
Local Geology
 
The two main mining districts within the Project area are the Palmarejo and Guazapares districts.
 
6.3.1
Lithologies
 
Weakly propylitically-altered andesitic rocks with lesser amounts of rhyodacitic volcanic tuffs and related hypabyssal intrusions of the Lower Volcanic Complex cover the lower elevations of the Palmarejo Operations area.  In the Guazapares mining district, the lowest exposed unit of the Lower Volcanic Complex consists of rhyolitic flows and related shallow intrusions, volcaniclastic units, including siltstones and fine-grained sandstones.  This unit is overlain by andesitic flows and epiclastic rocks with related andesitic porphyry intrusions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Cliff-forming rhyolitic ignimbrites of the Upper Volcanic Series are generally unmineralized and are well exposed in the eastern and southern parts of the Project area or along higher ridge tops. Miocene basaltic andesites and basalts locally overlie the Upper Volcanic Series immediately west of the San Miguel area.
 
Geology maps of the general Project area are provided in Figure 6‑1, and Figure 6‑2, a geological cross-section through the central Palmarejo area is included in Figure 6‑3 and a stratigraphic column in Figure 6‑4.
 
6.3.2
Structure
 
6.3.2.1
Palmarejo District
 
Within the Palmarejo district, the principal mineralized structures form part of a large sigmoidal network of faults both along strike and down dip with orebodies typically located at structural intersections.  These are areas of high permeability-porosity that localize fluids and ore-shoots and are often associated with the development of sets of sheeted quartz extension veins that expand mineralized zones where they are silver–gold bearing.
 
Mineralized structures occur:
 
•
In intersections between faults, especially at fault tips, where curved faults have linked to form rhombic intersections in plan view (e.g., steeply-plunging main ore-shoots at Palmarejo, Clavo 76);
 
•
At curves and bends in faults, where what were originally separate fault segments may have joined, multiple veins often diverge from such bends forming wider ore zones (e.g., southeastern sectors of the Guadalupe mine);
 
•
Where minor faults splay off the principal faults.  These also occur at bends or steps in the main fault; the minor fault may accommodate some of the displacement around the irregularities (Guadalupe footwall and hanging wall veins);
 
•
Where faults pass across or abut against more competent units (andesite and basalt at Palmarejo, rhyolite dome and hanging wall andesite at Guadalupe), resulting in a steepening of the fault surface that may allow greater dilation;
 
•
At downward en-echelon steps and splays in the fault system (normal fault relays), which are associated with steepening and refraction across units of varying competency, a setting that hosts much of the ore at Guadalupe.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑1:
Regional Geology Map
 


Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑2:
Project Geology Map
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑3:
Geologic Cross-Section
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑4:
Stratigraphic Column
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Extension is the dominant form of tectonics across the Palmarejo Operations area and is characterized by listric normal faults, typically parallel to the regional trend of the Sierra Madre Occidental, striking north–south to north–northwest, with west–northwest-trending flexures, as well as dilation of west–northwest-trending fractures, caused by strike-slip faulting.  Mineralization in the Palmarejo Operations is spatially associated with these faults, as well as with structural offshoots.  Although referred to as faults and often mapped as single lines, these structures are a series of sub-parallel curved faults that make up a sigmoidal network.  Several rhyodacitic dikes follow these fault zones and appear to be associated with mineralization (pre and syn).
 
Structural intersections and dilatational portions of fault zones, such as flexures, link veins in fault jogs, or stockwork tension veins favor development of mineralized shoots.  Throughout the Palmarejo Operations, left-stepping (west–northwest) bends in the generally northwest-trending structures are particularly favorable sites for mineral shoot development.  Increased normal fault displacement also appears to be important, and structures that have little normal fault displacement tend not to be well mineralized.
 
6.3.2.2
Guazapares District
 
Classic extensional fault relays at en-echelon steps in the normal fault system occur along the Guazapares–La Union fault corridor in the Guazapares district.  The Guazapares structure has a strike length of about 8 km and is broken into segments by small-displacement, northeast-trending faults.  A subparallel structure, the Batosegachi fault, lies about 3 km to the west of the Guazapares structure and hosts the San Miguel vein system.  Right-handed en-echelon steps in the principal fault system are associated with the development of sheeted zones of northwest-trending extensional veining.
 
Faults within the district generally trend north–northwest, parallel to the regional trend of the Sierra Madre Occidental.  Mineralization is spatially associated with these faults, as well as with structural offshoots.  Similar to Palmarejo, these structures are actually a series of sub-parallel curved faults that form part of the sigmoidal network.  As is seen at Palmarejo, rhyodacitic dikes follow these fault zones and appear to be associated with mineralization.
 
6.3.3
Alteration
 
Alteration zonation is apparent vertically along faults and surrounding vein systems in patterns that may aid in vectoring towards favorable structural settings and/or elevations.  In surface exposures well above mineralization (70 to >150 m), faults are generally clay-altered, with white to red–brown oxide altered clay and gouge and are often recessively weathering.  Locally, silicification affects gouge strands and the immediate wall rock with quartz veinlets typically present above more productive systems.
 
At greater depth and closer to productive veins (immediately surrounding veins and within tens of meters above veins along faults), alteration around quartz-dominant veins generally comprises pale grey to greenish, hard bleaching of wall rocks that can extend several meters from quartz veins.
 
Outcropping areas of adularia alteration are resistant to erosion and form ridges (e.g., Guadalupe South, Guazapares area veins).  In areas of abundant late calcite and Fe-oxide veins, clay alteration overprints the earlier adularia-dominant alteration associated with the quartz vein silver–gold stages.  This results in friable, clay-rich altered areas often internal to outer adularia altered areas around veins; these late clay assemblages are interpreted to be kaolinite–smectite-rich.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


6.3.4
Mineralization
 
6.3.4.1
Palmarejo District
 
Mineralization in the district is largely blind with orebody tops 50–300 m below the current surface elevations.  The major orebodies occur mainly at elevations of between 950–1300 m above sea level in the Guadalupe–Independencia area.
 
Mineralization within the Palmarejo district consists of epithermal, intermediate to low sulfidation, silver–gold vein and vein-breccia deposits that exhibit vertical and lateral zoning.  Mineralization occurs along the principal northwest-trending faults and is largely confined to fault-hosted veins.  The largest deposits occur on the faults that have the greatest displacement and strike length.  Veins are polyphase and comprise generations of early quartz breccia with sphalerite-pyrite-galena dominant sulfide and silver–gold phases as disseminations and bands.  Later vein generations include iron oxide and calcite fillings that overprint quartz breccia vein phases.
 
Veins, in most cases, are late in the fault history and are best developed in ore-shoots at structural intersections where dilation is greatest.
 
Silver–gold deposits in the Palmarejo district are characterized by pervasive silicification, quartz-fill expansion breccias, and sheeted veins.  Multiple stages of mineralization produced several phases of silica, ranging from chalcedony to comb quartz, and typically two periods of silver–gold mineralization.  This strongly-zoned mineralization is characterized by pyrite, sphalerite, galena, and argentite (acanthite) deposited within the quartz vein/breccias at lower elevations and higher-grade precious-metals mineralization with fine grained, black, silver-rich sulfide bands or breccia-infill in the upper portions of the structures.  There is a general sense across the Palmarejo Operations that higher gold values occur deeper in the original mineral system, while richer silver values were deposited in the upper levels of these systems.
 
6.3.4.2
Guazapares District
 
The major structures that host the mineralized veins, stockworks, and breccias generally occur in propylitically altered andesite and to a lesser extent, in rhyodacitic volcanic tuffs and related hypabyssal intrusions of the Lower Volcanic Series.  Contacts between andesitic and felsic sequences or within the more competent and brittle felsic sequences that allowed for development of through-going fractures are favorable locations.  Dilational portions of the fault zones, such as flexures, link veins in fault jogs, and stockwork tension veins appear, at least locally, to preferentially accommodate development of higher-grade mineralized shoots.
 
Silver–gold mineralization, with variable but typically low amounts of lead and zinc, occurs within en echelon structural zones characterized by multi-phase quartz veining, quartz + carbonate + pyrite veinlet stockworks, silicified hydrothermal breccias, and quartz-filled expansion breccias.
 
Three distinct styles of mineralization are identified:  high-grade vein systems, sheeted vein/stockwork/fracture complexes, and volcanic dome complexes:
 
•
High-grade quartz + carbonate vein systems:  trend north-northwest to northwest.  These vein systems are typically silver-rich, with an Ag:Au ratio of 100:1.  The principal sulfide minerals within the veins include sphalerite and argentite, with pyrite being less abundant.  Gold-rich veins have pyrite and traces of chalcopyrite as the principal sulfide minerals, and often represent the deeper portions of the silver-rich vein systems:
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Sheeted vein/stockwork/fracture complexes:  occur as wide zones with the potential for bulk mining.  These broad zones include various thin quartz veins, quartz-veinlet stockworks, gouge/fault breccias, and fractures and also trend northwesterly.  Silver and low levels of associated base metals tend to occur in the quartz veins at shallow depths, with potential for higher-grade gold mineralization at depth;
 
•
Volcanic dome complexes are apparently controlled by the intersection of north-northwest- and east–northeast-trending structures.  Intrusive dacitic to andesitic bodies are common and may be related to the volcanic dome complexes.  Mineralization occurs in broad zones along the margin of the domes, typically as disseminated, low-grade gold, with alteration, zoning, and mineralization suggestive of a separate and later mineralizing event.
 
6.4
Property Geology
 
Geology descriptions are provided for the deposits that have current mineral resource estimates in this sub-section.
 
6.4.1
Guadalupe
 
The Guadalupe deposits include the principal Guadalupe deposit and a number of associated zones, the economically most important being Zapata and La Patria.
 
6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The principal Guadalupe deposit comprises 18 domains with a known strike extent of 4.0 km and a vertical extent of 500 m.  Individual domains are typically between 1-6 m wide, but mineralization locally reaches 25 m wide in areas of structural intersections.  The Zapata zone is located in the immediate footwall of the Guadalupe deposit and comprises 14 domains with a known strike length of 1.4 km that is open to the northwest.  The La Patria zone is approximately 2 km southwest of Guadalupe and is a sub-parallel structure comprising 12 domains with a known strike length of 2 km.  The individual domains at the Zapata and La Patria zones are typically narrower than those of the Guadalupe deposit.
 
6.4.1.2
Lithologies
 
Mineralization is preferentially hosted in a sequence of amygdaloidal andesites (Ktam) close to the base of the Lower Volcanic Group, particularly when in fault contact with younger volcaniclastics or rhyolite tuffs.  Mineralization appears to be strongest when spatially associated with rhyolite dike/dome complexes.
 
6.4.1.3
Structure
 
Mineralized veins and breccias are located along a major northwest-trending structural corridor that can be traced for over 4 km along strike.  The Guadalupe and La Patria deposits have an average dip of approximately -60° and -45° to the northeast, whereas Zapata typically dips -70°.  Mapping by Stewart (2005) indicates both normal and strike-slip offsets along the fault, with vertical displacement estimated to be at least a few hundred meters (Davies, 2007).  Secondary west–northwest- and north–northeast-trending structures were identified by surface mapping in the Guadalupe area (Laurent, 2004; Davies, 2007).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Both Guadalupe and La Patria crop out where a number of small, historic surface workings are located.  Along the remaining extents, expressions are typically characterized by essentially barren, moderately to pervasively clay-altered wall rocks and laterally discontinuous quartz veins, with thicknesses ranging from millimeters to a few meters.  Beneath the clay-rich upper zone, the breccia veins are spatially associated with quartz–carbonate–pyrite–sericite–clay–epidote–chlorite alteration in the wall rock.
 
6.4.1.4
Alteration
 
The Guadalupe vein system is surrounded by pale grey to greenish alteration that extends a few meters from veins but can widen to tens of meters where veins are more complex and ore controlling structures split into multiple strands.  Hard adularia–quartz alteration is common around quartz-rich phases of the vein system.  Greenish clays become more abundant towards surface, and in areas where late calcite veins are abundant, the latter likely overprints earlier adularia–quartz alteration phases with lower temperature clay assemblages.
 
6.4.1.5
Mineralization
 
In underground exposures mineralization occurs in polyphase veins, which display a typical paragenesis from multiple, early silver–gold-bearing quartz-rich phases of dominantly quartz breccia veins to later, often voluminous, calcite-dominant and iron oxide-bearing veins and fault fill phases that overprint and include early quartz phases as breccia fragments.
 
The early silver–gold-rich quartz vein phases comprise banded crustiform quartz vein fill, often with thin bands of dark gray to black sphalerite–pyrite–galena with silver–copper phases in higher-grade areas.  These are variably brecciated by younger quartz phases that contain similar metal assemblages.  Sulfides and silver–gold phases are disseminated in the breccia matrix with quartz, often as blebs, disseminations, and patches.  Many of the higher-grade breccias are fine-grained; forming diffuse, now partially recrystallized 0.5–3 cm fragments of earlier quartz set in a matrix of chalcedonic to finely crystalline quartz.  Layered breccias are locally developed, suggesting gravitational filling generated by fault displacement and hydrothermal brecciation.
 
The quartz-rich phases are locally overprinted by calcite.  The calcite is multi-stage and forms crystalline massive to banded, crustiform vein fillings that incorporate breccia fragments of earlier, mineralized, quartz breccia vein material.  The dark gray-brown color to the calcite may indicate a manganiferous or iron-bearing composition.  Quartz fragments and lenses in the calcite filling are often oxidized.  Silver–gold grades are typically diluted by areas of abundant calcite, with grades occurring primarily in quartz breccia fragments. Dissolution of calcite leads to formation of natural voids, particularly along the vein boundaries.
 
Higher-grade quartz veins locally splay off the main fault-vein system into the hanging wall in the areas of underground development, where they are less affected by later calcite–iron oxide phases and can be individually mined.
 
Brecciation and overprinting of vein phases by fault surfaces on the footwall of the vein system occurs in some areas.
 
Patterns of vein distribution that may aid in focusing ore-shoots, or higher-grade areas within larger ore-shoots, include:
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Irregularities in the strike of the vein sigmoids: bends to more northerly–north–northwesterly-trending in southern parts of the workings and east–west trends in northern parts of the workings may represent the linking segments of initially separate faults.  As these splays diverge from the main vein system, the vein system locally widens.  Local intersections of east–west and north–northwest-oriented segments are associated with widening of the vein system;
 
•
Steepening and downward stepping/splitting of the fault system:  this is most apparent where the hanging wall diverges away from the main fault, or where the fault zone steepens below rhyolite or andesite units.
 
Collectively, these irregularities and linking zones of fault sets aid in focusing wider segments of the Guadalupe vein system.  Northwest trends (290 to 320º azimuth) are generally associated with the widest, higher-grade vein segments and may reflect the optimal orientation for dilation.
 
A geology map for Guadalupe is provided in Figure 6‑5, and cross-sections through the Guadalupe and Zapata deposits are included as Figure 6‑6 and Figure 6‑7 respectively.  A geology map for the La Patria area is shown in Figure 6‑8 and a cross-section through the deposit in Figure 6‑9.
 
6.4.2
Independencia
 
The Independencia deposits include the Independencia deposit and a number of associated zones, the economically most important being Hidalgo and La Bavisa.
 
6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The principal Independencia deposit consists of 12 domains with a known strike extent of 1.5 km and a vertical extent 400 m.  Individual domains are typically between 1–4 m wide, but mineralization locally reaches 15 m wide in areas of structural intersections.
 
Individual domains at the Hidalgo and La Bavisa zones are typically narrower than at Independencia.  The Hidalgo zone is located immediately northwest of the Independencia deposit and comprises seven domains with a known strike length of 1.5 km, remaining open to the northwest.  The La Bavisa zone is approximately 1 km northeast of Independencia and is a sub-parallel structure comprising five domains with a known strike length of 1 km.
 
The Independencia deposit extends off the Project area to the southeast and appears to die out to the northwest as major displacement seems to have been transferred to the Hidalgo fault.  Hidalgo remains open to the northwest and most recent drilling discovered a high-grade shoot at the presently known northwestern extent.
 
6.4.2.2
Lithologies
 
Similar to the Guadalupe deposits, mineralization is preferentially hosted in a sequence of amygdaloidal andesites (Ktam) close to the base of the Lower Volcanic Group, particularly when in faulted contact with younger volcaniclastics or rhyolite tuffs.  Mineralization appears to be strongest when spatially associated with rhyolite dike/dome complexes.  The role of syn-mineral rhyolitic dikes appears to be more important at Independencia.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑5:
Geology Map, Guadalupe
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑6:
Geologic Cross-Section, Guadalupe
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑7:
Geologic Cross-Section, Zapata
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-14
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑8:
Geology Map, La Patria Zone
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-15
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑9:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Patria
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-16
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


6.4.2.3
Structure
 
Faults are common within the Independencia fault-vein system, although many areas of late, iron-oxide breccia that have been classified as faults in mine mapping likely instead represent dissolution and hydrothermal breccias.  Quartz veins locally have silicified cataclastic breccias on their margins that represent syn-vein fault surfaces overprinted by later breccia phases.  Iron-oxide matrix breccias often contain fault strands that are late in the paragenetic history and may be present on vein and breccia margins with mine maps currently implying that most of the iron-oxide matrix breccias are fault related.
 
Fault surfaces are in general within, and parallel to, main vein strands or occur in wall rocks just beside the veins with northwest trends and steep dips.  Some minor fault surfaces were observed to be oblique to the main vein, but these occur within the vein zone and may join, and not extend beyond the principal fault surfaces.
 
6.4.2.4
Alteration
 
Mineralized zones are typically surrounded by several meters to more than 15 m of alteration that varies in style and overall geotechnical competency.
 
In the northwestern sector of the vein system, a greenish alteration likely represents a combination of crystalline illite and adularia with disseminated pyrite.  Adularia ± quartz is present and most abundant where the alteration is hardest (most competent) close to veins.
 
Younger clay phases have also developed along fractures, surrounding and affecting wall rock fragments within iron-oxide matrix breccias.  To the southeast more pervasive alteration surrounds the mineralized zone with a higher kaolinite–smectite content.
 
6.4.2.5
Mineralization
 
Mineralization in the Independencia vein system is thickest where the zone trends northwest, thinning rapidly and dropping silver–gold grades to the north of the main ore-shoot, where the sigmoidal geometries result in pinching down and a change in strike to a more northerly trend.  A second ore-shoot further north suggests the vein sigmoids result in a zone of opening and a change back to more favorable northwesterly trends.  The lack of significant obliquely intersecting post-mineral faults, and the wholesale change in orientation of the Independencia structure suggest that these changes in vein thickness and orientation are primary, and not the result of post-mineral displacement on late faults that may offset or obliquely intersect the vein system.
 
Significant variations occur in vein style across the width of the vein.  The highest-grade areas are associated with grey quartz breccia and veins that form the earliest vein phases.  The veins consist of chalcedonic to crystalline quartz, and locally calcite ± probable adularia.  Sulfide–silver phases form breccia fragments implying early deposition and brecciation, but the breccia matrix also contains disseminated silver-bearing minerals and sulfides indicating multiple phases of sulfide deposition.  Quartz is locally partially recrystallized so that boundaries between quartz matrix and quartz in the diffuse sulfide-rich fragments are generally gradational, and the fragments themselves are sometimes poorly defined.  Shallowly dipping, gravitational layering of breccias is locally apparent within otherwise steeply dipping veins, indicating significant, rapid brecciation events and fragment settling.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-17
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Quartz vein phases are overprinted by widespread, often voluminous younger calcite and iron-oxide matrix breccia phases.  These later vein phases locally form much of the width of the Independencia vein system at its widest points (>10 m thick).  Calcite phases may be intergrown with quartz phases forming alternating bands, and iron–manganese oxides occur as bands or fragments within the calcite.
 
Iron–manganese oxide matrix breccias are abundant in the Independencia orebody and form much of the southeast portions of the vein system.  The combination of high clay and manganese content is associated with poor ground conditions and may also contribute to the lower process recoveries for ore from this area.
 
These calcite and iron oxide events (albeit with less manganese) are also present along much of the currently known extents of the Hidalgo zone but tend to be absent in the La Bavisa zone.  Significantly more adularia locally occurs in the La Bavisa zone than occurs at any other deposit and is at least spatially related to significantly lower precious metal content.
 
The Independencia and Hidalgo structures are surrounded by a fringe of extensional quartz and calcite veinlets that trend northwest, generally parallel in strike, with, steep or opposing dips to the main fault–vein system.  These seldom carry sufficient silver–gold grades and/or widths for mining in the current areas of development but have the potential to form broadened mineralized zones if quartz-rich varieties occur in high density with silver–gold phases.
 
A geology map is provided in Figure 6‑10 and cross-sections through the Independencia and La Bavisa deposits are shown in Figure 6‑11 and Figure 6‑12 respectively.
 
6.4.3
La Nación
 
The La Nación deposits include the La Nación deposit and the Los Bancos zone.
 
6.4.3.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The La Nación deposit consists of six domains with a known strike extent of 1.5 km and a vertical extent of 250 m.  Individual domains are typically between 1-4 m wide, but mineralization is locally 12 m wide in areas of structural intersections.
 
The Los Bancos zone is located to the approximately 400 m northwest of the La Nación deposit and comprises five domains with a known strike length of 400 m.  The individual domains at the Los Bancos zones are much narrower than at La Nación.
 
Both La Nación and Los Bancos are considered to be well constrained by drilling in both dip and strike extents and only limited infill drill programs are planned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-18
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑10:
Geology Map, Independencia
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-19
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑11:
Geologic Cross-Section, Independencia
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-20
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑12:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Bavisa
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-21
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


6.4.3.2
Lithologies
 
The geology surrounding the La Nación deposits is the same as that at the nearby, larger Independencia and Guadalupe deposits, and similar lithological controls on mineralization define the location of higher-grade, wider mineralization.
 
6.4.3.3
Structure
 
La Nación and Los Bancos form a northwest-trending and southwest-dipping fault–vein corridor that is subsidiary to, and between Independencia and Guadalupe.  It is possible that at significant depth this vein corridor splays off the hanging wall of the Guadalupe fault system.  Lithological offsets across the La Nación and Los Bancos fault–vein systems indicate normal displacement locally exceeding 100 m, which diminishes northward into the Los Bancos area.
 
Although La Nación and Los Bancos are separate veins, overall field relationships support a connection between them within the same fault corridor.  These include the continuity of fault displacement between the two zones, and the continuity of intersections and exposures of north–northwest-trending faulting and adularia–silica alteration that forms ridges between La Nación and Los Bancos.  The latter forms a prominent, resistant zone that is partially intruded by rhyolite dikes between the two areas.
 
As with other vein systems in the area, La Nación and Los Bancos may represent initially separate but now connected fault segments that had non-planar and locally curved geometry.  Ore shoots, as in other local vein systems, occur in northwest-trending segments, consistent with formation during northeast–southwest regional extension that is also indicated on shear sense indicators and implies syn-vein extension in the vein system.
 
6.4.3.4
Alteration
 
Alteration at upper elevations in the La Nación area is dominated by clay assemblages.  At lower elevations along the creek between La Nación and Los Bancos, while the structure is clay filled, rocks around it are resistant and are adularia–quartz altered based on K-feldspar (Na-cobaltinitrite) staining.  Such patterns are visible in drill core, with a hard, gray-colored alteration noted in proximity to the veins.
 
Early adularia–quartz alteration may form a competent host for vein development, as opposed to clay-altered areas.
 
6.4.3.5
Mineralization
 
In the La Nación area, the best mineralized portions typically occur between elevations of 1050 m and 1200 m.  Drilling in this area suggests that the vein system dips steeply to the southwest. Above the productive vein levels, the structure is present as a fault without significant vein development as in other vein systems in the area.  Mineralization is best developed where the Ktam (amygdaloidal basalt) unit is present in the vein hanging wall, where the zone widens into multiple subparallel partially vein-filled faults defining a probable fault relay.
 
Rhyolite dikes are common in the corridor close to the La Nación and Los Bancos structures, and directly intrude the structures hosting the vein systems in several areas, particularly in the Los Bancos area. These typically predate the vein development since they are affected by alteration and overprinted by veining but generally form a poor host to vein development.  The largest dike, in the hanging wall of the structure in the Los Bancos area, continues up slope to the west of the vein and may feed the flow dome on the ridge top above.
 
A geology map for La Nación is provided in Figure 6‑13, and a cross-section is included as Figure 6-14.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-22
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑13:
Geology Map, La Nación
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-23
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 6‑14:
Geologic Cross-Section, La Nación
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-24
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


7.0
EXPLORATION
 
7.1
Exploration
 
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
 
Coeur uses the UTM Zone 12 WGS-84 datum for the capture and projection of all geo-referenced data, including drill collars and surface/ trench sample locations.
 
Surface topography is based on a 1 m digital elevation model calculated from satellite imagery acquired in 2021 with a 0.5m pixel resolution.  All surface drill collars are surveyed by a certified surveyor using a differential global positioning system (GPS) instrument.  All underground mine workings and drill collars are surveyed with a total station instrument, from a fixed, georeferenced point on surface.
 
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
 
Exploration included geological mapping and sampling of known surface fault and vein occurrences, prospecting for new fault and vein occurrences and visible argillic alteration or “clay-blooms”.

In 2014, Coeur commenced a detailed 1:1,000 scale field mapping campaign initially focused on the areas around the Independencia and Guadalupe deposits, with the aim of better understanding the geology and identifying new structural targets to drill test at depth.  This program has now been extended to cover other areas of the Project and is ongoing at present. It will likely take several more years to complete coverage of the entire Project area.
 
The majority of new exploration targets, particularly in the Guadalupe–Independencia area, are typically blind as the surface elevations are above the known mineralized horizon; therefore, structures that show little surface indication of mineralization are considered drill targets if they are associated with a significant fault system and alteration at surface.  Proximity to rhyolite dikes and dome complexes is also considered important.
 
All underground faces are mapped and sampled at 1:250 scale. The maps are then digitized for inclusion in the geological model.
 
7.1.3
Geochemistry
 
Although the surface geochemical expression of blind mineralization is typically subdued, rock sampling has indicated some correlation with certain elements, such as barium, antimony and certain clay assemblages including muscovite- sericite.  Surface channel chip sampling is routine over areas of surface alteration, particularly related to northwest trending structures and brecciation.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


In 2020 Coeur commenced a detailed soil sampling program over the Bavisa area.  All samples were analyzed by modern ultra-low level inductively-coupled plasma (ICP) techniques and individual hypersprectral analytical methods, both completed by ALS Minerals.  Preliminary results suggest that kaolinite crystallinity may be an important vector towards more prospective areas along mapped faults.
 
Limited trenching and associated trench mapping and sampling were completed in areas of poor outcrop exposure, specifically over portions of the La Patria, Guadalupe and La Union deposits.
 
A tire-mounted hydraulic backhoe with a 24-inch-wide bucket was used, and trenches were excavated approximately perpendicular to the structures.  Excavation length was dependent on the suspected width of mineralization, topography, and local ground conditions.  Trenches were dug as deep as the bedrock hardness would allow, generally to a depth of 1.5–2.5 m, rarely to 3.5 m.  The endpoints and inflection points of all trenches were surveyed.  All trenches were mapped for lithology, alteration, structural controls of mineralization, and oxidation, and sampled in detail.
 
Accessible underground workings have mostly been mapped and channel sampled throughout the Project area.  Most legacy workings would require extensive rehabilitation to permit safe access and therefore have not been entered or sampled.
 
7.1.4
Geophysics
 
Paramount commissioned Quantec Geoscience USA Inc. to conduct ground magnetic and induced polarization (IP) geophysical surveys over selected target areas.  The primary purpose of the IP survey was to map chargeability and conductor signatures to depths of 150 m or more with sufficient resolution to assist in the definition of drill targets.  Lines were approximately east–west, with a line separation of 100–200 m and station intervals of 50 m.  Ground magnetic data were collected on 72 lines using a 12.5 m station separation. Total coverage was approximately 255.5 line-km.
 
MPX Geophysics Ltd. (MPX) completed a helicopter-borne magnetic survey in 2012 on behalf of Coeur over the western Project area.  Lines were flown east–west at 75 m spacing, with tie lines every 750 m.  A total of 2,571.5 line-km were flown.  In 2014, SRK reviewed the data collected (SRK, 2014), as part as a larger study, and concluded that the survey identified the location and along-strike continuity of faults.
 
In 2015, MPX completed a similar survey over the eastern Project area that was later merged with the 2012 dataset.  A total of 6,823.5 line-km were flown along east-west lines at 200 m spacing, with tie-lines every 2 km.  This survey highlighted the continuation of northwest-trending structures, and as well as the importance of long-lived northeast structures. These structures appear to act both as a focus for mineralization, when they intersect northwest structures, but also appear to offset mineralization.
 
In 2014, Geotech Ltd. flew a helicopter-borne Z-axis Tipper electromagnetic and magnetic survey over the western Project area.  Lines were flown east-west at 200m spacing with tie lines every 2km. A total of 1,130 line-km were flown.  Condor Consulting provided data interpretations.  The electromagnetic data provide useful information on geology using resistivity contrasts, while magnetometer data provide additional information on geology and structure using magnetic susceptibility contrasts.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Exploration Information collected by Coeur is in line with standard industry practices for the exploration of epithermal precious metal deposits in a semi-arid climate.
 
As a result of the approximately 15 years of exploration at the Project, Coeur identified a number modifying factors that appear to be important in the generation of mineral deposits in the district. These include the presence of northwest trending structures with large displacements (whether they be mapped or interpreted from geophysical surveys), surficial areas of clay dominant alteration, favorable lithologies in the typical mineralized horizon, surface elevation to ensure preservation of the system and surface geochemical indicators.  Coeur developed a detailed multi-layer GIS based analysis by giving different weightings to the individual characteristics. Targets are then defined and prioritized based on areas where there is the most superposition.  Surface mapping and sampling of the individual targets is then completed to define areas/structures for initial drill testing. Results are included in the GIS project to update/ refine the different parameters used in the targeting exercise.
 
Vein patterns, particularly associated with extensional fault linkage features, steps, and bends, form prospective sites for ore shoot development where ore-hosting structures trend west-northwest to northwest in optimal extensional orientations, with ore thinning where more east-west and north–northwest trends are present.
 
Tracking of vein and fault patterns and stratigraphic offsets to trace the distribution of faults, along with assessing relative position in the system with associated alteration and stratigraphic position can aid in vectoring to target elevations and sites along prospective structures.
 
Given the geologically blind nature of the majority of new deposits, field mapping with surface geochemical sampling (rocks and soils) is considered to be the best methodology to develop high priority targets and define drill programs.  Drilling remains the ultimate exploration technique to determine the economic viability of any target.
 
In the underground areas of the Independencia and Guadalupe mines, better definition of vein texture and breccia generations from core logging and underground development mapping have aided in the modeling of higher-grade textural types that can lead to efficiency in ore definition, stope design, and extraction.
 
7.1.5
Exploration Potential
 
A large part of the land package has still to receive the detailed geological field work necessary to define drill programs, including many of the targets identified in the GIS targeting exercise.
 
New targets developed for drill testing include the La Carmela area to the south of the Guazapares district, the Palmarejo North area located to the northwest of the legacy open pit operation and the southeastern projection of the La Patria zone.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


7.2
Drilling
 
7.2.1
Overview
 
Drilling completed on the Project includes air track, RC, and core drilling, totaling 4,284 drill holes (1,189,478 m).  Air track and RC drilling was employed in the early years of exploration (2009 and prior), with the exception of four RC drill holes completed in 2014.  Approximately 93% of all drilling completed to date at the Project has been core drilling.  Drilling is summarized in Table 7‑1.  A Project-wide drill collar location map is provided in Figure 7‑1.
 
There are 1,388 drill holes (395,996 m) supporting the mineral resource estimates for the Guadalupe deposits (Table 7‑2), 631 drill holes (240,571 m) supporting the mineral resource estimates for the Independencia deposits (Table 7‑3), and 261 drill holes (105,765 m) supporting the mineral resource estimate for the La Nación deposits (Table 7‑4).  Locations of the drill holes on the individual deposits were included in the geologic maps for the deposits in Chapter 6.
 
7.2.2
Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes
 
Historic RC drilling may be used to inform exploration modeling and drill targeting but is not used for mineral resource estimates.
 
Core and RC drill data from the Mexoro and Paramount drill programs do not currently support mineral resource estimates, with the exception of the Independencia East area (core drilling only).
 
Underground channel samples and grade control drilling are excluded from mineral resource estimation; however, these data are used to support the geological interpretation.
 
7.2.3
Drill Methods
 
Where known, drill companies included G4 Forage Drilling of Val-d‘Or, Quebec, Layne de Mexico S.A. de C.V., Dateline, S.A de C.V.; Major Drilling, S.A. de C.V.; Perforaciones Godbe de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Jorder Lyons Drilling, Landdrill, Maza Diamond Drilling and Ingenieria, Excavaciones y Perforaciones de Palmarejo.
 
Rigs, where known, included a skid-mounted Atlas Copco CS1000 drill rig, track-mounted Atlas Copco CS1500 for core drilling, a Prospector W-750 RC drill, Drill Systems W-750 buggy-mounted all-terrain rig, Drill Systems track drill MPD-1500 all-terrain drill, CS-1000 skid-mounted wireline rig, Schramm-685 all-terrain rig, Prospector buggy-mounted all-terrain drill, Boyles 20 (B-20) skid-mounted wireline core-rig, Longyear 44, Boart Longyear 38, a skid-mounted Sandvik UDR 200 wireline core-rig, a track-mounted HTM-2500 core drill, a track-mounted Versa-1400 rig and various man-portable rigs such as the Mancore-600.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 7‑1:    Property Drill Summary Table
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Meters
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC
24
2,874
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC–core
4
547
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
Core
31
5,817
Paramount
Exploration
2005
Core
9
183
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC
142
27,569
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC–core
3
865
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
Core
64
17,707
Paramount
Exploration
2006
Core
50
7,022
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC
100
24,407
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC–core
4
1,411
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
Core
92
36,304
Paramount
Exploration
2007
RC
2
515
Paramount
Exploration
2007
Core
106
20,807
Coeur
Exploration
2008
Core
53
19,409
Coeur
Infill
2008
Core
50
5,298
Coeur
Infill
2008
RC
41
280
Paramount
Exploration
2008
RC
3
753
Paramount
Exploration
2008
Core
55
19,218
Coeur
Exploration
2009
Core
76
23,944
Coeur
Infill
2009
Core
136
18,208
Coeur
Infill
2009
RC
157
4,450
Paramount
Exploration
2009
RC
1
250
Paramount
Exploration
2009
Core
24
8,505
Coeur
Exploration
2010
Core
80
24,840
Coeur
Infill
2010
Core
186
33,640
Paramount
Exploration
2010
RC
53
14,814
Paramount
Exploration
2010
Core
44
14,310
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
132
37,327
Coeur
Infill
2011
Core
182
43,305
Paramount
Exploration
2011
Core
105
27,897
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
146
58,375
Coeur
Infill
2012
Core
139
45,859

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


 Company  Purpose  Year  Type
No.
Drill Holes
  Meters
Paramount
Exploration
2012
Core
106
31,715
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
192
35,970
Coeur
Infill
2013
Core
144
39,218
Paramount
Exploration
2013
Core
26
12,463
Coeur
Exploration
2014
Core
72
24,595
Coeur
Infill
2014
Core
102
25,403
Coeur
Infill
2014
RC
4
96
Paramount
Exploration
2014
Core
44
18,717
Coeur
Exploration
2015
Core
53
19,898
Coeur
Infill
2015
Core
28
14,438
Coeur
Exploration
2016
Core
62
22,922
Coeur
Infill
2016
Core
158
29,650
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
157
68,282
Coeur
Infill
2017
Core
111
23,392
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
99
40,267
Coeur
Infill
2018
Core
139
33,595
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
62
30,312
Coeur
Infill
2019
Core
81
29,941
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
74
40,428
Coeur
Infill
2020
Core
106
27,290
Coeur
Exploration
2021
Core
63
31,756
Coeur
Infill
2021
Core
107
42,421
Total
      
4,284
1,189,478
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 7‑1:
Property Drill Collar Location Map
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 7‑2:    Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, Guadalupe
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Meters
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC
18
2,054
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC–core
4
547
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
Core
31
5,817
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC
88
18,096
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC–core
3
865
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
Core
54
15,299
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC
74
16,839
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC–core
4
1,411
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
Core
92
36,306
Coeur
Exploration
2008
Core
53
19,413
Coeur
Exploration
2009
Core
71
22,182
Coeur
Exploration
2010
Core
61
20,621
Paramount
Exploration
2010
Core
4
663
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
120
33,931
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
78
31,498
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
109
18,664
Coeur
Infill
2013
Core
21
5,916
Coeur
Infill
2014
Core
17
7,153
Coeur
Infill
2015
Core
25
11,657
Coeur
Infill
2016
Core
60
11,639
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
52
18,839
Coeur
Infill
2017
Core
49
9,718
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
70
25,844
Coeur
Infill
2018
Core
90
19,604
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
26
11,292
Coeur
Infill
2019
Core
35
9,676
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
11
4,493
Coeur
Infill
2020
Core
48
10,565
Coeur
Infill
2021
Core
20
5,394
Total
      
1,388
395,996
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 7‑3:    Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, Independencia
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Meters
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC
18
2,054
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
RC–core
4
547
Bolnisi
Exploration
2005
Core
31
5,817
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC
88
18,096
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
RC–core
3
865
Bolnisi
Exploration
2006
Core
54
15,299
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC
74
16,839
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC–core
4
1,411
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
Core
92
36,304
Coeur
Exploration
2008
Core
53
19,409
Coeur
Exploration
2009
Core
71
22,182
Coeur
Exploration
2010
Core
61
20,620
Paramount
Exploration
2010
Core
4
663
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
120
33,931
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
78
31,498
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
109
18,664
Coeur
Infill
2013
Core
21
5,916
Coeur
Infill
2014
Core
15
7,096
Coeur
Infill
2015
Core
22
11,195
Coeur
Infill
2016
Core
60
11,639
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
52
18,839
Coeur
Infill
2017
Core
48
9,670
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
70
25,844
Coeur
Infill
2018
Core
87
19,306
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
25
10,971
Coeur
Infill
2019
Core
32
9,195
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
11
4,493
Coeur
Infill
2020
Core
48
10,565
Total
      
1,355
388,927
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 7‑4:    Drilling used in Mineral Resource Estimations, La Nación
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Meters
Bolnisi
Exploration
2007
RC
20
5,741
Coeur
Exploration
2009
Core
5
1,762
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
2
1,073
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
11
6,021
Paramount
Exploration
2014
Core
8
4,723
Coeur
Exploration
2015
Core
51
19,121
Coeur
Infill
2015
Core
1
300
Coeur
Exploration
2016
Core
34
9,873
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
63
27,625
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
17
9,144
Coeur
Infill
2019
Core
49
20,382
Total
      
261
105,765
 
PQ-size (85 mm core diameter), HQ (63.5 mm) and NQ (47.6 mm) core is used for surface programs, with HQ and NQ used for underground.  Core holes that are collared at the surface initially recover HQ or PQ core, unless the intersection of voids or downhole drilling problems were encountered, in which case the drillers reduce to NQ or HQ, respectively. Depending on the type of drill rig employed, it may be necessary to reduce to NQ at depth. Core tails, which were drilled when RC holes were terminated prematurely due to encountering groundwater and/or downhole problems, recovered NQ or HQ core.
 
Core barrels are a maximum of 3 m in length and reducing to 1.5 m in length near projected structures to ensure minimum deviation of the hole.  RC drilling used 4.75-inch diameter bits.  Current grade control drilling uses NQ or ATK diameter bits.
 
More recently, HQ3/NQ3 (or triple tube core barrels) has been used to ensure maximum core recovery.  This is considered particularly important as ore zones in certain deposits/areas locally contain significant broken ground and also because of the risk of washing of fine gold present in the hematite matrix to quartz breccias, if drilling conditions were not optimal.
 
7.2.4
Logging
 
All drill core from the Mexoro program was digitally photographed and logged, and geotechnical data were gathered prior to sampling.  No information on the logging protocols is available.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


During all Paramount core drilling programs filled core boxes were removed from the drill site by company personnel and taken to a secure core logging and sampling facility that was rented in the village of Guazapares.  At the facility, the core was cleaned, and the broken core pieces reassembled to a best fit and aligned in the boxes.  Geotechnical data collected included core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD).  Geological logging was originally completed on paper as a graphic log of stratigraphy, vein orientation, and mineralized zones and a detailed descriptive log including rock type, alteration, structure, mineralization, and vein density/percentage.  Data were later entered into a proprietary database.  Core was digitally photographed.  An ASD FieldSpec 3 NIR spectrometer was used on selected drill core samples to identify alteration mineralogy.
 
For all Coeur programs, core is transported from the drill site to a logging facility, where the core is laid on wooden tables and pieced together by a geologist or technician, with any orientation mark facing up.
 
Geotechnical data collected includes core recovery, rock quality designation (RQD), fracture density and other parameters used to calculate the rock mass rating (RMR).  Geological logging is completed directly into Coeur’s acQuire database and includes a descriptive log recording rock type, alteration, structure, mineralization, and vein density/percentage.
 
An ASD FieldSpec 3 NIR spectrometer is used on selected core samples to identify alteration mineralogy.
 
Cut lines are traced along the core axis and sample intervals marked.
 
Digital photographs of wet core are taken and archived before the core is cut and sampled.  A second photo of the half core is taken after cutting in order to clearly show the vein intercept angle. Individual photos are taken of all samples used for density calculations.
 
7.2.5
Recovery
 
Core recoveries in the Mexoro campaign averaged over 86% for all drill holes, with a high of 96% (Besserer, 2008).
 
Core recoveries during the different Paramount drill programs were typically greater than 90%, although they varied depending on the deposit or zone being drilled.  For example, the San Miguel deposit typically had worse recoveries than the La Union zone.
 
Core recoveries during the different Coeur drill programs have improved over the life of the Project, partly due to improved drilling technologies, such as the introduction of triple tube core barrels and also because the drillers now have a better understanding of the geological conditions/ rock quality in different deposits/zones.  Natural, open space voids are present in all areas, which can significantly complicate both drilling and mining operations.  Coeur has worked extensively over the past few years to develop a better understanding of the location/causes of these voids to help guide drilling and mining decisions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


7.2.6
Collar Surveys
 
The drill hole collar coordinates and elevations for drilling completed in the Guazapares district were initially located using hand-held global positioning system (GPS) receivers in UTM coordinates, Zone 12, (NAD27 Mexico datum).  Upon completion of drill holes in 2006 through part of the 2009 drilling program, the collars were resurveyed by contractor Lopez Olivas and Associates of Hermosillo, Sonora, using a high-accuracy DGPS survey instrument.  In 2009–2011 drill hole collars were surveyed by a Paramount technician using a DGPS Trimble Geo XT (GeoExplorer Series), with the collected data downloaded into the database by hand.  Contractor Lopez Olivas and Associates resurveyed the 2010–2011 drill collars using two R3 and two Trimble 4600LS devices, and these data replaced those collected by the Paramount technician.  Lopez Olivas and Associates completed all drill-hole collar surveys for the 2012–2014 drill holes.
 
Surface collar surveys for the current operations and Coeur drill holes are conducted using a differential GPS.  Collars are usually not preserved because monuments are not built, and the marks are typically washed away by rain or covered when building access roads.  Underground collars are surveyed by a mine surveyor using a total station instrument.
 
7.2.7
Down Hole Surveys
 
Layne completed down hole directional surveys on all core drill holes in the Guazapares district at approximately 50-m intervals.  Initial drill holes were surveyed using a single-shot camera system. After November 2008, down hole surveys were completed with a Reflex EZ-shot single-shot digital survey tool.
 
Coeur has used a Reflex non-magnetic single-shot system or similar systems, and a “Devishot” non-magnetic multi-shot system instrumentation for downhole surveying.
 
Reflex system measurements were taken at 21 m and then approximately every 50 m to the bottom of the hole.  Devishot measurements are taken at 21 m and then at approximately every 50 m and finally the bottom of the drill hole.  Upon completion of the drillhole, multi-shot readings are taken every 25 m, so that they can be compared with the single-shot readings to ensure no significant differences.
 
Results from the downhole surveying show a minor increase in the hole dip due to the droop from the weight of the rods, especially in holes drilled to depths of 400 m or greater.  Historically, the greatest change in dip and bearing has been found in drill holes that have drilled through workings, which often re-enter the footwall at a greater dip and slight change of bearing in a counter-clockwise direction.
 
7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
 
Almost all underground drilling has been completed as fans of drill holes, meaning that the reported mineralized intercepts are typically longer than the true thickness of the mineralization.
 
Drilling from surface is a mixture of fan drilling from certain platforms that permitted acceptable intercept angles both in strike and dip and drilling from individual platforms designed to intersect the structures as perpendicular as possible.
 
Drill protocols employed are in line with current industry best practices and the QP considers the quality of all data related to the core drilling programs to be appropriate for use in Mineral Resource estimates.  Assay results from historic RC drilling, grade control drilling and underground sampling should not be used in mineral resource estimations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


7.3
Hydrogeology
 
Hydrogeology on site varies across different work areas.  Overall, the site manages a significant negative water balance.  Site water is primarily soured from the underground mines, but seasonal rain is also collected, and offsite sources provide additional water through a collection system located on within the Rio Fuerte drainage in Chínipas.  The volcanic units hosting the deposits are of low permeability and low storage.
 
Mine dewatering is conducted using a sump-and-pump system with inflows limited to vertical development and early storage release.  Local models have been developed to support mining at Guadalupe and Independencia.  Additional groundwater modeling was completed from 2017–2019 to support tailing storage facility (TSF) permitting in the now abandoned Palmarejo pit and underground complex.
 
Monitoring consists of documenting outflows from the mines, groundwater levels in and around the tailings and plant site, and groundwater elevations in the TSF and freshwater storage ponds.  Water discharged through the treatment plant is additionally tracked to support permit reporting requirements.
 
7.3.1
Groundwater Models
 
Global Resource Engineering Ltd. (GRE) prepared a hydrogeological model for the mine operations in 2017 and predicted that the largest inflows for Guadalupe will occur in year 2022 and result in a total flow of approximately 800 m3/day.  From Independencia the highest predicted flow was in 2021, of 2,600 m3/day.  No regional model has been constructed due to the nature of the volcanic geology.  Quantification of overall water levels due to low permeability rock mass, structural complexity, and distances between mines, tailings, and pits will require more local models.  See also discussion on water ingress in the mining operations in Chapter 13.
 
Groundwater models were developed by Golder Associates during 2017 and updated by Klohn Crippen in 2019 to support TSF permitting and development of an in-pit storage facility in the abandoned Palmarejo pit.  This facility is scheduled to be in operation starting in 2023.
 
7.3.2
Water Balance
 
Water balance tracking and reports are maintained for mining, process, and permitting purposes.  A preliminary water balance of local subsurface flow is not well developed or maintained since permeability and recharge are very low.  Water balances for process and permitting actively track inflow related to rainfall and the process cycle to track water consumption and usage.  Balances include and document outflows and transient flow at designated and permitted offsite discharge points where reporting to the Mexican environmental authority is required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


7.3.3
Comment on Results
 
The Project area lithologies are low permeability and low storage, resulting in most of the water being sourced from underground operations.  Groundwater models were first developed in 2017 and used for Project permitting purposes.
 
The hydrological data and hydrogeological models developed from those data are suitable for use in mine planning.
 
7.4
Geotechnical
 
The geotechnical characterization of the rock mass is determined as part of the logging process during drilling of all core holes drilled as part of infill and exploration drilling on site.  A standard operating procedure was developed to support this work using standard rock mass rating (RMR) following Bieniawski, 1973, which consists of measurement and qualification of mechanical and structural properties of the rock providing and quantified range between 0 and 100.
 
The host rock volcanic rocks in the and around the current active and exploration areas consist of Moderate to High quality ranging from 45 to 100 RMR.  Due to alteration, structure, and brecciation the rock quality ranges from Poor to Moderate within the ore zones, generally ranging from 25 to 55 RMR with local variability ranging lower to <25 in areas of Independencia and La Nación.
 
For mine operations and design the RMR data were used to develop a geotechnical block model for each mining areas.  This model is reconciled and updated with mapping and drilling data as the mines develop.  For determining support options and requirements, the RMR values are consolidated into five types ranging from 1 (Very Good) to 5 (Poorest) with mandatory minimum support requirements attached to each type.
 
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Core samples were collected and tested for intact rock strength for principal units within the orebody and probable development areas.  Uniaxial compressive strength testing was conducted.
 
7.4.2
Comment on Results
 
Geotechnical data and geotechnical models developed from those data are suitable for use in mine planning.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-14
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
 
8.1
Sampling Methods
 
8.1.1
Trenches
 
Trenches sampled in the Guazapares district were marked by the geologist, and the samples were collected from near the base of the trench wall. In rock that did not appear mineralized, the sample interval was two meters.  In mineralized rock, the maximum sample interval was 1 m.  Shorter intervals were often sampled in areas with prominent veining, old workings, or structural zones.  Samples were cut with a pick as a continuous chip sample near the base of the trench wall.
 
8.1.2
RC Drilling
 
No information is available on the sampling methods for the Mexoro drill holes.
 
In the Paramount drill programs, RC holes were sampled at 1 m intervals.  The entire sample interval was split at the drill site with a Gilson splitter into two samples.  One sample was sent for assay, and the other was archived at a fenced compound operated by Paramount in Guazapares.  Field duplicates were collected from the original 50% split, splitting it in half by pouring it over a Gilson-type splitter.  Slurry was poured into a large strainer.  The strained material and material remaining in the bucket were combined for a final primary sample.
 
RC drilling was a major part of the initial drilling campaigns prior to Coeur’s acquisition of Bolnisi.  RC holes were sampled every 1.52 m down the hole.  Holes drilled in greenfield areas were sampled along the entire length of the hole, while infill or closed spaced drilling was sampled every 1.52 m, through zones of suspected mineralization.  Standard procedure was to only sample during dry drilling.  Once water was encountered, the RC hole was terminated and continued with a core tail.  Depth to groundwater was recorded by the supervising geologist.
 
The entire sample was collected in a cyclone and then released into a hopper and then into a Gilson-type riffle-type splitter.  The sample was initially split so that half of the material was discarded.  The remaining half was split in half again, and each of these quarter splits were poured directly from the splitter pans into buckets lined with sample bags.  One of the one-quarter splits was used as the sample for assaying and the other one-quarter split was stored as an archive duplicate.
 
8.1.3
Core Drilling
 
Mexoro drill core was either cut or sawn in half, with one half of the core sent for geochemical analyses and assaying.  No other information is currently available to Coeur.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


For the Paramount drill programs, sample intervals were generally based on geologic contacts, alteration, and mineralization.  The sample interval was typically about 1 m, with intervals ranging from 0.5–2 m, but rarely exceeding 1.5 m.  Where a geologist interpreted that strongly mineralized zones could be present, sample breaks were made at significant changes, such as vein or breccia margins, which frequently resulted in intervals <1 m in length.
 
Core drilled by Coeur in the Palmarejo district is only sampled on intervals suspected to contain precious metal mineralization.  Sample intervals are marked on the core and the intervals are assigned sample numbers.  The sample lengths for wall rock average 1.5–2 m. Suspected mineralized zones were sampled at intervals averaging 0.5 m, prior to the acquisition of Bolnisi Gold, and 0.5–1.5 m following the acquisition.  Sample length is adjusted to avoid sampling across geologic contacts and structures.  The half of the core to the right of the orientation line is selected for assaying and placed in a numbered bag along with a sample tag.  A duplicate tag is kept in a sample tag book and archived at the field office.  The left side of the core is retained in core boxes in a secure facility on site.  Poor RQD or recovery may necessitate sampling of the entire core. When core is very broken and cutting is not possible the samples are manually split though a homogenization and quartering process.
 
8.1.4
Production Sampling
 
Channel sampling of all active faces is completed on a daily basis.  After thoroughly cleaning the face, the geologist delimits the channel across the face at waist height. Similar to sampling of drill core, individual samples are between 0.5–2 m in length and are defined by changes in lithology or vein type.  A handheld saw is used to cut the top and bottom of the channel, with the material being removed by hammer and chisel, ensuring as complete and consistent sampling as possible.  All information related to each sample is recorded in the acQuire database.
 
Underground mapping and sampling are used as part of the geological modeling process (shape designs) but are not used in mineral resource estimates.
 
8.2
Sample Security Methods
 
Samples are staged and prepared for shipment to the ALS preparation facility in Chihuahua.  ALS collects the samples on site where they are reviewed by a laboratory representative and chain of custody is transferred.  Chain-of-custody documentation is maintained throughout the shipping and receiving process. Samples typically reach the ALS facility the same day they leave site.
 
Drill core from sampled intervals of all deposits is stored in secure warehouses at the Palmarejo Operations.  In recent years most drill core from mined-out deposits or mined-out portions of deposits has been discarded, with the exception of select drill holes kept for future reference.  Drill core from non-sampled intervals is retained on site in an open-air environment if it is from unmined areas and is used for geotechnical purposes.
 
Drill core from programs completed by Paramount is currently stored either in a secure facility in Guazapares, for projects drilled within the Guazapares district or a similar facility located at the exploration office in Guadalupe.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.3
Density Determinations
 
Paramount personnel collected bulk density measurements on half-core samples approximately 10 cm in length using water immersion methods.  Prior to 2011, the core samples were uncoated.  This changed in 2011 to wax coating samples due to the presence of natural cavities in veins and veinlets that host gold and silver mineralization.  There are about 3,980 determinations available for the deposits in the Guazapares district.  The bulk density in mineralization ranges from about 2.40–2.51 g/cm3, and in waste ranges from approximately 2.37–2.48 g/cm3.
 
The method used by Coeur for obtaining bulk density values for the Palmarejo Operations is the standard wax immersion method for determining the bulk density of fractured materials.  This method was selected due to the porous and absorbent nature of some of the rocks and mineralized breccias.  Measurements are taken on whole core samples typically between 10-15 cm in length. The method used is ASTM C914-09 (re-approved 2015), published by the American Society for Testing and Materials and obtained under license by Coeur.
 
Bulk density data have been collected by Coeur personnel over most years of exploration activity in the Palmarejo Operations area.  Samples of all mineralized zones, structures, and lithologies are tested.  The ASTM C914-09 (Reapproved 2015) test method covers the basic procedure for determining the bulk density and volume of fractured material.  This test is applicable to all rock types, independent of the composition or method of formation.  It is particularly suitable to determine the apparent density and volume of irregular shapes.
 
A summary of the available density data is provided in Table 8‑1.
 
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
 
The majority of the laboratories used over the long exploration and development history have not been recorded in the database.
 
The following laboratories have been used:
 
•
ALS (formerly Chemex/ALS Chemex):  used for the Mexoro 2006–2007 drill programs; used for all Paramount programs from 2006–2013; used for all Coeur drilling to date.  ALS in Chihuahua (ALS Chihuahua) has been the primary sample preparation laboratory used by Coeur since 2005.  ALS in Vancouver, Canada (ALS Vancouver) has been the primary analytical laboratory used by Coeur since 2005.  Independent of Mexoro, Paramount and Coeur.  ALS is ISO:9001:2000 accredited and holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques;
 
•
Bureau Veritas (formerly Acme Analytical Laboratories):  used for all Paramount programs from 2013–2015 and used as secondary laboratory for Coeur campaigns since 2013.  Independent of Paramount and Coeur.  Currently holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 8‑1:    Density Data Supporting Mineral Resource Estimation
 
Deposit
Number of
Determinations
Comment
Guadalupe
2,092
The mean density is 2.52 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.47 g/cm3 and 2.53 g/cm3. There is little variation in the dataset for each domain
Zapata
582
The mean density is 2.55 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.50 g/cm3 and 2.61 g/cm3.  The higher values are related to sulfides in the high-density samples.
La Patria
459
The mean density is 2.52 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.47 g/cm3 and 2.63 g/cm3.  The variation is related to voids/porosity for the low-density samples and sulfides in the high-density samples.
Independencia
2,176
The mean density is 2.50 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.32 g/cm3 and 2.56 g/cm3.  The extreme values are related to voids/porosity for the low-density samples and sulfides in the high-density samples.
La Bavisa
373
The mean density is 2.57 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.55 g/cm3 and 2.58 g/cm3.  There is very little variation in the dataset for each domain.
Hidalgo
429
The mean density is 2.54 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.51 g/cm3 and 2.55 g/cm3.  There is very little variation in the dataset for each domain.
La Nación
634
The mean density is 2.54 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.52 g/cm3 and 2.59 g/cm3.  The higher values are related to sulfides in the high-density samples.
Los Bancos
215
The mean density is 2.52 g/cm3 for the total dataset, with the individual estimation domains varying between 2.49 g/cm3 and 2.53 g/cm3.  There is very little variation in the dataset for each domain.
Total
6,960
The mean density is 2.52 g/cm3 for the entire dataset, with the individual deposit averages varying between 2.50 g/cm3 and 2.57 g/cm3.
 
•
SGS de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. Durango, Mexico (SGS):  used as secondary laboratory for Paramount programs from 2013–2015 and Coeur campaigns up to 2012.  Independent of Paramount and Coeur.  Currently holds ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques.
 
The Palmarejo mine laboratory is used for underground and ore control sample preparation and analysis.  The laboratory is not independent and does not hold accreditations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.5
Sample Preparation
 
Sample preparation methods included:
 
•
Chemex:  Mexoro campaigns; drying, crushing to 70% passing 10 mesh, and pulverizing to 95% passing 150 mesh;
 
•
Chemex:  early Paramount and Coeur campaigns; drying, crushing to 60% passing 2 mm, and pulverizing to 90% passing 106 μm;
 
•
Chemex:  later Paramount campaigns; crushing to 60% passing 2 mm (Tyler 9 mesh) followed by grinding to 85% passing 75 µm;
 
•
ALS Chemex, ALS Minerals, ALS Chihuahua:  later Coeur campaigns; drying, crushing to better than 70% passing 2 mm; and pulverizing to 85% passing 75 µm.
 
The Palmarejo mine laboratory crushes and sieves to the same specifications as ALS Chihuahua and also follows QA/QC processes and procedures to confirm the quality of the sample preparation.
 
8.6
Analysis
 
Analytical methods used at Chemex, ALS Chemex, ALS Minerals, ALS Vancouver included:
 
•
Gold and silver:
 

 o
Mexoro campaigns:  fire assay with gravimetric finish on 30 g samples; The lower detection limits were 0.05 g/t Au and 5 g/t Ag. Overlimits by fire assay;
 

 o
Early Paramount campaigns:  fire assay with gravimetric finish or fire assay with atomic absorption (AA) finish, with samples exceeding 3 g/t Au being re-analyzed.  Protocol changes in 2009 to AA, with samples exceeding 10 g Au/t being re-analyzed by fire assay with gravimetric finish.  The limit of the AA gold analyses that triggered re-assaying was lowered to 7 g/t Au in 2011;
 

 o
Later Paramount and Coeur campaigns:  fire assay with inductively coupled plasma with atomic emission spectrophotometry (ICP-AES) finish for gold.  The detection limit was 0.001 g/t Au; the upper limit was 10 g/t Au, and the trigger limit for reanalysis is 8 g/t Au.  Silver analyses were completed by four-acid digestion with an ICP-AES finish.  Overlimits completed using a fire assay with a gravimetric finish;
 
•
Multi-element suite:  34 element ICP-AES.
 
Gold analyses for the Paramount drill campaigns were completed by Acme using fire assay with AA finish.  The detection limit was 0.002 g/t Au; the upper limit was 10 g/t Au, and the trigger limit for reanalysis was 8 g/t Au.  Silver and other element analyses were completed using a 33-element ICP emission spectroscopy (ES) method.  Fire assay with gravimetric finish was used for silver analysis if the overlimit value of 100 g/t Ag was reached.
 
The check assays conducted by Bureau Veritas on the Coeur campaigns consisted of gold analyses completed by fire assay with ICP-AES finish.  Over limits were completed by fire assay fusion with gravimetric finish.  Silver analyses were completed by four-acid digestion with ICP-AES finish.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


SGS analyzed gold by fire assay with AA finish, with overlimit samples (>10 g/t Au) being reanalyzed by fire assay with gravimetric finish.  Silver is analyzed by three-acid digestion, aqua regia digestion and ICP, or fire assay with gravimetric finish.
 
The mine laboratory uses fire assay with AA finish for gold and two-acid digestion with AA finish for silver.
 
8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
 
8.7.1
Mexoro
 
Mexoro performed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures, including the insertion of blanks, certified reference materials (standards), and duplicate samples into the sample stream for each sample batch, and analyses of selected samples were repeated.  Mexoro's certified standards were obtained from Rocklabs Ltd.  Mexoro requested that any batches falling outside a 5% deviation of the standards be re-analyzed.
 
8.7.2
Paramount
 
Paramount used 24 standards sourced from Rocklabs, Geostats Pty Ltd (Geostats) and CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd.  Other QA/QC measures included the insertion of preparation blanks, preparation duplicates, rig duplicates and check assays.
 
8.7.3
Coeur
 
8.7.3.1
QA/QC
 
The QA/QC program for gold and silver assays has changed since Coeur implemented the program in 2003.  Initially, the reference samples were inserted into the sample stream at a 1:200 ratio, whereby one reference sample was inserted for every 200 samples. Starting mid-2005, the proportion was increased to approximately 1:25, to ensure that every fire-assay furnace lot contained reference samples.  In late 2007, the following protocols were implemented for exploration and development drilling: one reference standard is inserted for every 20 field samples; one blank sample is inserted for every 20 field samples; and, one field duplicate is collected for every 20 field samples.  Additionally, 5% of the sample pulps are sent to a different laboratory for check analysis.  In 2012, a new protocol for exploration and development was initiated: one standard and one blank for every 20 field samples, but one duplicate is collected for every 40 field samples.
 
In 2018, a new protocol for exploration and development drilling was implemented.  Standards are selected to match the grade range of the sample of interest, i.e., high-grade standards are inserted into areas of probable high-grade sampling.  A sequence of a fine and then a coarse blank is inserted into the sample stream after the mineralized structures to better understand contamination during preparation and analysis stages.  Duplicate samples are inserted into areas of economic interest to assess analytical precision.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.7.3.2
Reviews
 
Coeur uses the acQuire data management system to store and analyze QA/QC results as they are made available.  Results are not released until QC has been completed and confirmed on each assay certificate.
 
QA/QC results are examined for each batch of assays received from the laboratory.  Failures are defined for standards by the certified values provided by the certifying laboratory.  A standard fails when the value exceeds or falls short of ± three standard deviations of the certified value.  Prior to 2016, a blank failed when the value exceeded five times the lower detection limit of the assay method; in 2016, this was changed to 10 times the lower detection limit.
 
Failure of standard or blank samples requires re-submitting of pulps on either side of the failure, back to or up to the next passing standard or blank.  The original results associated with the failure are entered into the acQuire database as rejected results.  If the results from the re-analysis pass QA/QC, they are entered in the acQuire database, as approved.  All sample re-runs are given precedence over the original results when used in resource estimation. If the re-run analysis also fails, the geologist may choose to send the samples to the secondary laboratory for a third analysis, or to accept the original results.  Results are reviewed quarterly, and elements of the QC program are adjusted, as necessary.
 
8.7.3.3
Check Assays
 
Pulp samples are currently submitted to Bureau Veritas for check analysis.  The samples are submitted in batches that contain multiple projects.  The total sample count equates to a 10% check rate, which is acceptable per Coeur protocols. Gold and silver fire assays indicate low biases and acceptable correlation.  Silver analyses by acid digestion indicates a positive bias towards the umpire laboratory, with acceptable correlation.  Silver results by fire assay and gravimetric finish have excellent correlations and no significant biases.  Prior to 2013 pulp samples were submitted to SGS following the procedures.  No significant biases were identified in the results.
 
8.7.3.4
Down Hole Surveys
 
Downhole survey instruments are calibrated once a week at a fixed “borehole” constructed from a PVC pipe set in concrete.  Six readings are taken per instrument and uploaded automatically into the acQuire database where the information is reviewed quarterly to ensure no instrument drift or bias over time.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


8.7.3.5
Collar Surveys
 
At Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación, audits conducted by external, certified surveyors have not found any errors in the collar coordinates determined by Coeur personnel.
 
8.8
Database
 
Once collected, all data are entered into an acQuire database and all supporting digital documentation is securely stored on the Company’s servers.  The data are also exported into 3D modeling software for further understanding of the geology and mineral controls.  The original physical documents for each drill hole are archived and stored in the Chihuahua or Palmarejo exploration offices.
 
A unique resource database was created in 2014 for those areas that Paramount was reporting Mineral Resource estimates.  The databases were constructed from digital data provided by Paramount.  Following the acquisition of Paramount, all information associated with the previous drilling campaigns was uploaded to the Coeur acQuire database, with adaptations made to the geology to be consistent with Coeur methodology.  Detailed QA/QC review (and corrective actions if necessary) was completed for all the priority Paramount deposits/prospects near current mine infrastructure but remains to be completed for the remainder of the deposits in the Guazapares district.
 
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
 
Sample collection, preparation, analysis and security for RC and core drill programs are in line with industry-standard methods for gold–silver deposits.
 
Drill programs included insertion of blank, duplicate, and standard reference material samples.  QA/QC program results do not indicate any problems with the analytical programs.
 
Data are subject to validation, which includes checks on surveys, collar co-ordinates, and assay data.  The checks are appropriate, and consistent with industry standards.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the quality of the gold and silver analytical data collected by Coeur and Paramount in the Palmarejo district are sufficiently reliable to support Mineral Resource estimation without limitations on Mineral Resource confidence categories.
 
Gold and silver analytical data collected by Paramount in the Guazapares district is not currently used to support Mineral Resource estimates and is still in the validation phase.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
 
9.1
Internal Data Verification
 
A detailed review of all documentation and assay data related to each drill hole is completed as part of the drill hole “lock down” procedure in acQuire.  The final review is conducted and signed off by the QP once final assay results are available.  A digital file of all supporting documentation for each drill hole is created and stored on Coeur’s servers.
 
Coeur routinely conducts drill hole collar audits with an external, qualified surveyor with any discrepancies reviewed and corrected where necessary.
 
Downhole survey measurements are taken every 50 m as the drillhole advances and at final depth.  Measurements are also taken every 25 m after completion of each drillhole.  The latter measurements are considered highest priority for use in geological modeling and subsequent work, although these are compared against the 50 m measurements to ensure no significant deviation is occurring downhole.  Survey instruments are also calibrated weekly using a fixed, surface structure with constant azimuth and dip.  All measurements are imported to the Company’s acQuire database.
 
Coeur monitors balance sensitivities on a daily basis with the use of metal bars with fixed weights. One reading is taken before any drill core is weighed and a second after.  All data are imported to an acQuire database.
 
Coeur prepares quarterly QA/QC reports for internal review by the QP and personnel in the corporate Technical Services department.  Any issues identified during this process are reviewed and the required corrective actions are taken.  The QP routinely reviews on site procedures to ensure compliance with the company’s protocols based on industry-accepted practices.
 
Prior to the involvement of the QP, the following checks were performed by Coeur personnel:
 
•
Imported and conducted QA/QC on all assay data from 2008–2013;
 
•
Quarterly QA/QC reports of gold and silver assay data in 2013;
 
•
All geologic data logged and entered into acQuire from 2008–2013;
 
•
Conducted a 10% check of gold and silver assays with an independent laboratory in 2013.
 
The Palmarejo Operations staff perform monthly, quarterly, and annual reconciliation evaluations.  Results indicate that the tonnages and grades of the long-term model are controlled within acceptable limits.
 
The QPs requested that information, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the body of this Report be reviewed by Coeur experts or experts retained by Coeur in each discipline area as a further level of data verification.  Checks completed by the subject matter experts could include cross-checks of data, checks on consistency of presentation of information between the different Report chapters, checks for data omissions, verification that any errors or inconsistencies identified during the reviews were either addressed or had mitigation planned, and checks on the applicability and appropriateness of the QP’s opinions, interpretations, recommendations, and conclusions based on the subject matter experts’ Project and discipline knowledge.  Feedback from the subject matter experts was incorporated into the Report as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


9.2
External Data Verification
 
External reviews of the Project were undertaken and are summarized in Table 9‑1.
 
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
 
The QP personally performed the following data verification:
 
•
Imported and conducted QA/QC on all assay data from 2014–present;
 
•
Quarterly QA/QC reports of gold and silver assay data from 2014–present;
 
•
All geologic data logged and entered into acQuire from 2014–present;
 
•
Conducted a 10% check of gold and silver assays with an independent laboratory from 2014–present;
 
•
Participated in the 2021 database merge project to combine mine and exploration databases;
 
•
Conducted drillhole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports that the QP signed off;
 
•
Working at site of the Palmarejo Operation from 2014–present.
 
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
The process of data verification for the Project was performed by external consulting firms from 2005 to present, and by Coeur personnel, including the QP.  The QP reviewed the appropriate reports.  The QP considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed, and that no material issues would have been left unidentified from the programs undertaken.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 9‑1:    External Data Reviews
 
Company
Year
Note
Applied Geoscience LLC
2005–2008
Data reviewed included reference sample results, duplicate sample, duplicate assay results, and second-laboratory check assays.  No major issues with the data were noted
Delve Consultants, LLC
2006–2009
Data review in support of technical reports on the Guazapares district area.  No major issues with the data were noted
A.C.A. Howe International Limited
2008
Reviewed QA/QC data in support of a technical report.  QC results indicated that there were no major problems with the accuracy and precision of the analyses, and the sampling and analytical protocols were appropriate.
Collected witness samples.  Gold and silver grades from this sampling were consistent with the grades returned from drill holes at San Miguel.
AMEC International (Chile) S.A
2008
Drill data and QA/QC review. No major issues with the data were noted.
Mine Development Associates
2011–2012
No major issues with the data were noted.  Recommendations made on improvements to the QA/QC programs.
Metal Mining Consultants Inc.
2013–2014
The project data were considered acceptable for use in resource estimation.
KPMG
Pre 2016
Accounting firm reviewed assay data for select drill holes chosen by them at random as part of Coeur’s general audit process required by its NYSE listing
Grant Thornton
2016 to date
Accounting firm reviewed assay data for select drill holes chosen by them at random as part of Coeur’s general audit process required by its NYSE listing.
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
 
10.1
Test Laboratories
 
Independent metallurgical test work facilities used over the Project life included SGS Laboratories, Durango, Mexico; SGS in Lakefield, Canada (SGS Lakefield), ALS, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada; and Corporación Química Platinum S.A. de C.V. located in Silao, Guanajuato, Mexico.
 
Palmarejo Operations have an on-site analytical and metallurgical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and process characterization of new ores.  The on-site laboratories are not independent and are audited with third parties.
 
There is no international standard of accreditation provided for metallurgical testing laboratories or metallurgical testing techniques and selection of laboratories is based on experience and reputation within the industry.
 
10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
 
10.2.1
Historical Testwork
 
The focus of the historical test work was to obtain representative metallurgical samples; conduct mineralogy examinations; determine the most favorable processing routes; collect sufficient design information to select equipment that fit the preferred processing flow sheet; and provide guidance for operating performance.
 
Major testwork conducted included:
 

 •
Comminution:  Bond work index (BWi) test work, unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing, advanced media competency (AMC) testing, JK Drop weight (DWi) and Steve Morrell Pty Ltd (SMC) testing used for modeling.
 

 •
Flotation:  conducted at batch scale on Palmarejo ores, followed by locked cycle testing, and finally, pilot plant scale tests to produce intermediate products for cyanidation of flotation concentrates and solutions for Merrill-Crow and electrowinning.
 

 •
Leaching:  conducted to optimize reagent additions and define the plant extractions.
 
These parameters were used to construct the process plant as outlined in Chapter 14.
 
10.2.2
Guadalupe
 
Test programs were conducted from 2007–2014.  These included mineralogical studies, whole ore bottle roll cyanidation, rougher flotation followed by tailing cyanidation, and gravity separation.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Electrum and native gold were the primary gold species.  Acanthite, argentite, and native silver were the primary silver species.  Sulfides included sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, chalcocite, enargite, bornite, and tennantite–tetrahedrite.
 
Of the methods tested, the best results were achieved by flotation followed by tailing leaching.  Whole ore cyanidation was shown to be less suitable because of lower recoveries.  The poorest overall recovery was found with the gravity concentrate method.
 
The 2013 flotation test results indicated that the Guadalupe ore sample achieved an average gold and silver recovery of 80.4% and 78.3%.  Flotation, followed by tails leaching results, indicates that gold and silver recoveries could be improved.  The achieved overall recoveries were 94.8% and 95.6%, respectively.
 
The 2014 test work on Guadalupe North ores were amenable direct agitated cyanidation treatment at nominal P80 = 75 µm feed size with minor conversion of plant parameters required with the transition for Palmarejo ore to Guadalupe.  Gold and silver recoveries tended to increase with increasing grade.  Gold and silver recoveries were improved significantly after flotation tailings were subjected to whole cyanidation.  Global Gold laboratory recoveries for flotation/tailings cyanidation unadjusted for plant solution losses ranged from 94.2% to 98.1% and averaged 95.7%.  Global Silver laboratory recoveries for flotation/tailings cyanidation unadjusted for plant solution losses ranged from 93.6% to 97.2% and averaged 97.2%.
 
10.2.3
Independencia
 
Testwork on the Independencia Oeste and Este deposits was conducted from 2014–2015.  Work completed included mineralogy, multi-element ICP scan, whole-rock analyses, and carbon and sulfur speciation analyses, BWi, timed grinding series, bulk rougher flotation tests, and bottle roll tests, matching Palmarejo plant specifications.
 
Independencia Oeste mineralization was found to contain 68% silver–copper sulfide, 19% acanthite/argentite, 6% native silver/electrum, 5% silver–copper–arsenic sulfide, and the remaining 2% comprises various sulfides.  The BWi was estimated to be 16.4 kWh/t.  This value was considered to be moderate to hard for ball milling and within the operating capabilities of the Palmarejo grinding circuit.  The master composite flotation test recovered 90% of the silver and 89% of the gold into a bulk concentrate that pulled 21% of the initial mass.  Duplicate bottle roll cyanidation leach tests averaged 81% silver and 86% gold extraction in solution.  As is common for cyanidation, silver leached slower than gold.
 
Independencia Este flotation test results showed the mass pulls were generally 15–23%; silver recoveries were variable.  Flotation response demonstrated that flotation could separate silver and gold into a rougher concentrate with low concentrate to bulk ore ratios.  The kinetic extraction curves from the bottle roll tests demonstrated typical rapid gold extraction and slower silver extraction.  Cyanidation extraction values were better than the flotation lab results.  This observation agreed with similar test results using both flotation and cyanidation for the Independencia master composite.  Composites responded well to bulk conventional flotation treatment at a P80 minus 106 μm feed size.  Combined (flotation + tailings cyanidation) proved to be more effective on recoveries above recoveries obtained by separate whole ore cyanidation or flotation circuits.  Leach cyanide consumption rates were low on flotation tailings.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


10.2.4
La Nación
 
Testwork was performed in 2016–2019, on samples from the La Nación, La Nación Central, and La Nación Sur areas, using the Palmarejo plant specifications and mineralogy, bottle roll tests, head analysis, multi-element ICP scan and carbon sulfur speciation analyses, and whole ore cyanidation tests were performed.
 
The La Nación composites tested in 2016 were amenable to whole ore milling cyanidation treatment with respect to gold recovery but were more varied with respect to silver extraction and recovery.  Silver solution extraction rates were slower than for gold.
 
La Nación composites tested in 2017 were amenable to whole ore milling cyanidation treatment with respect to gold recovery.  Gold leach rates were generally rapid and substantially peaked the first eight hours of leaching.  Gold in solution obtained from the 72-hour leach tests ranged from 81.0–99.8% and averaged 94.3%.  Composites were more varied with respect to silver extraction in solution by whole ore milling cyanidation.   Silver extractions obtained from the 72-hour leach tests ranged from 43.6–96.6% and averaged 86.0%.  Whole ore leaching cyanide consumptions were generally high and ranged from 2.8–4.0 kg/t NaCN ore (3.42 kg/t NaCN ore, avg.) for the 72-hour tests.  No strong evidence of the high cyanide consumption was related to sulfide content in the evaluated composites.  pH control lime requirements were low and averaged 1.08 kg/t ore.
 
Tests on material from La Nación Central and Sur were conducted in 2019.  Eight size fractions from La Nación Central were subject to mineralogical study.  The predominant silver mineral in each of the size fractions was argentite, with small quantities of stromeyerite and native silver.  Argentite was primarily associated with quartz in each of the size fractions.  Silver liberation was not detected in the size fractions >37 µm.  Gold was found only in the 44 and 53 µm size fractions, as electrum associated with quartz with a size of <1 µm.
 
Mineralogy test work on La Nación Sur composites was performed on eight size fractions.  The predominant silver mineral in each of the size fractions was argentite.  The argentite was primarily associated with quartz with less than 10% associated with pyrite in the coarse size fractions.  Liberation was relatively low in the coarse fractions (<5% liberated in particle sizes >53 µm).  The liberation increased with reducing particle size with a 70% liberation in the +37-micron size fraction and 98% liberation in the -37 µm fraction.  Gold was found only in the +74 and +53 µm size fractions in the form of electrum associated with quartz with a size of <2 µm.
 
The manganese minerals psilomelane and coronadite were present throughout all size fractions at La Nación Central and Sur.  These minerals can potentially lead to lower silver recovery.  Sulfide minerals present in minor quantities included galena, sphalerite, and covellite.
 
10.2.5
2020–2021 Testwork
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


10.2.5.1
Tailings Pre-Concentration
 
A sample from the Palmarejo milling circuit tails stream was submitted to SGS Lakefield for bulk mineralogy, heavy liquid separation preconcentration and silver deportment studies in early 2020.  The flotation tails sample contained a relatively high grade at 1.64 g/t Au and 45.6 g/t Ag.  Bulk mineralogy was completed using quantitative evaluation of minerals by scanning electron microscopy (QEMSCAN) analysis and supported by X-ray diffraction analysis.  The primary minerals were quartz and calcite, with minor amounts of potassium feldspar, clays, iron oxides and trace amounts of dolomite, chlorite.
 
Results from the preconcentration showed that it would not be an effective method.
 
The microscopic silver examination of the tails composite sample showed 49.1% of the silver being liberated, 37.6% exposed and 13.2% locked.  The primary silver minerals were acanthite, naumannite and jalpaite with minor amounts of electrum, aguilarite, native silver and others.  The exposed and locked silver minerals were primarily associated with quartz with moderate amounts associated with lead oxide, and minor amounts associated with willemite, iron oxide, dolomite, and calcite.
 
10.2.5.2
Solid-Liquid Separation and Rheology Testing of Leach Circuit Tails Sample
 
A tails slurry sample from the Palmarejo circuit was submitted for solid-–liquid separation, rheology testing, and counter-current decantation washing modeling as part of 2020 testwork conducted by SGS Lakefield.  Flocculant scoping tests were performed to match flocculant to sample recovery and thickening/clarification results.  Additional dynamic tests were conducted to compare outcomes.  Even at higher flocculant dosage the current flocculant could not achieve similar clarity or comparable total suspended solids levels.  Other competitive flocculants were tested with variable dosage to test dosage to overflow total suspended solids rates.  The solution densities on the underflow and yield stress were also calculated and tracked during the process providing results ranging from 57.1–58.2% solids depending on solids loading and residence time.
 
The critical solids density was calculated to be approximately 54% solids at a shear stress of 40Pa under unsheared flow conditions and 15 Pa under sheared conditions.
 
The resulting samples following the previous testwork were used to for various counter-current decantation modeling scenarios, using fixed parameters of cyanide leached discharge at 42% solids, silver and gold tenor in feed solution at 26 mg/L and 1.3mg/L, underflow on thickener at 55% solids, and perfect mixing at each wash stage.  The results showed that the best response was achieved using a tested market flocculant at fixed dosage.  Underflow slurry characteristics were within specifications for pumping.
 
10.3
Recovery Estimates
 
Current recovery estimates for each deposit are summarized in Table 10‑1.
 
The LOM forecast average gold blended recovery is 90%.  The LOM forecast average blended silver recovery is 82.5%.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 10‑1:    LOM Metallurgical Recovery Forecasts
 
Deposit
Forecast LOM average Au Recovery (%)
Forecast LOM average Ag Recovery (%)
Guadalupe
88.0
80.0
Independencia Oeste
91.0
77.0
Independencia Este
90.0
57.0
La Nación
90.0
83.0
Los Bancos
93.5
84.5
Zapatas
90.0
84.0
La Baviza
89.0
80.0
 
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
 
Samples selected for metallurgical testing were representative of the various locations, ore types, and minerology.  Additional samples were selected at periods during mining to test or reconcile results.  Individual and composite tests were selected and taken to provide sufficient sample mass.
 
10.5
Deleterious Elements
 
The anticipated gold and silver recoveries could be affected by alteration states.  Highly oxidized material is not responsive to the flotation process. Highly oxidized ore will significantly affect recovery if blended at a high ratio.  Ores that have a high clay content increase slurry viscosity, which has a detrimental effect on precious metals recovery in flotation.
 
No other deleterious elements are known from the processing perspective.
 
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
Industry-standard studies were performed as part of process development and initial plant designs.  Subsequent production experience and focused investigations, as well as marketing requirements, have guided process improvements and changes.
 
Testwork programs, both internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements.
 
Current metallurgical test work confirms the material to be mined as having similar response to the flotation-leach process as historically mined ores.  Metal recovery assumptions are derived from past performance of the plant.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The QPs reviewed the information compiled by Coeur, as summarized in this Chapter, and performed a review of the reconciliation data available to verify the information used in the LOM plan.
 
 
Based on these checks, in the opinion of the QPs the metallurgical testwork results and production data support the estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves and can be used in the economic analysis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
 
11.1
Introduction
 
Mineral Resources are estimated for the following deposits.  The database closeout date for all estimates was July 13, 2021.
 
•
Guadalupe:  Main, Zapata, and La Patria Zones;
 
•
Independencia:  Main, La Bavisa, and Hidalgo Zones;
 
•
La Nación:  Main Zone and Los Bancos Zone.
 
11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
 
Composites exhibit near log normal distributions.  Statistics were compiled and compared for raw drill hole data, length weighted drill holes, composites, declustered composites, and capped declustered composites to ensure that the grade distribution and true mean of the system were documented and conserved through the estimation process.  The coefficient of variation was analyzed to determine if domaining produced sufficient stationarity for the estimate.
 
11.3
Geological Models
 
Mineralization is hosted in primary northwest-trending, northeast- and southwest-dipping structures, and secondary diverging structures.  The main mineralization type is defined by epithermal quartz vein breccias surrounded by a low-grade halo, consisting of various types of mineralized structures including discontinuous splays and vein arrays.  Many of the deposits consist of various anastomosing quartz vein breccias with a sigmoidal geometry.  There is also a broad geotechnical domain, used to estimate rock mass rating, or RMR.
 
A plan view, showing the estimation domains, with royalties applicable to each model, is provided in Figure 11‑1.
 
The implicit modelling algorithm in Leapfrog Geo software was used to create all the estimation domains through interpretation of relevant intervals of drill data, digitized mapping, and underground production data.
 
11.4
Density Assignment
 
The density determinations discussed in Chapter 8.3 were used in interpolation.  Density was estimated using inverse distance weighting to the second power (ID2).
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 11‑1:
Palmarejo Operations with Royalty and Claims Zones Plan View
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
 
Caps for each estimation domain were determined using various methods such as histograms, probability plots and a metal loss calculation.  Histograms and probability plots were examined for changes in slope and data distribution, while metal loss was calculated to keep the effect of capping to a maximum metal loss of 10%.  The ranges of applied capping values are provided in Table 11‑1.  Grade caps ranged from 100–3,500 g/t Ag and from 0.5–70 g/t Au, depending on estimation domain.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑1:    Silver and Gold Cap Values per Estimation Domain
 
Estimate
Ag (g/t)
Au (g/t)
Guadalupe; Main Zone
200–4,000
4–70
Guadalupe; Zapata Zone
100–900
2–14
Guadalupe; La Patria Zone
100–1,000
2–25
Independencia; Main Zone
300–2,000
1–70
Independencia; La Bavisa Zone
100–500
1–5
Independencia; Hidalgo Zone
250–1,000
3.5–10
La Nación; Main Zone
200–1,200
2–20
La Nación; Los Bancos Zone
200–1,000
0.5–5
 
11.6
Composites
 
Core samples were composited at 2 m intervals by estimation domain for gold and silver.  The composite length was chosen as one of the most common sample lengths and reduces the amount of sample splitting during the compositing process.  Unsampled intervals were given a value of 0.001 ppm, as these intervals were deemed to be waste by the logging geologist and were not assayed.  Composites were broken at domain boundaries, and composites <2 m at boundaries were distributed to the other composites within the domain.  Natural rock caverns and drill intervals with no recovery, logged as “voids”, were omitted from the estimate.
 
Los Bancos, Zapata, and La Bavisa zones are full thickness composites within the domain.  This resulted in a single variable length composite per drill hole within the estimation domain.  This method of compositing is useful for discrete planar deposits of relatively consistent and narrow width, as it allows for the execution of a two-dimensional estimate.
 
11.7
Variography
 
Variogram searches were oriented along strike of the domains, with the major axis horizontal on-strike, the secondary axis down dip, and the minor axis across the width of the domain.  Silver and gold variograms for each of the 12 estimation domains were created.  Orthogonal variograms were fitted for gold and silver, consisting of three variograms oriented along the anisotropy.  Downhole variograms were also fitted to provide the nugget.  Where orthogonal variograms were not possible, omni-directional variograms were used.
 
Two and three structure, general relative, pairwise relative, and semi-variogram models were fitted to the experimental variograms.  The Guadalupe–La Bavisa zone does not employ variography as it was estimated using ID2.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


11.8
Estimation/interpolation Methods
 
The various deposits were estimated using ordinary kriging (OK), with hard boundaries between geologic units.  The enveloping disseminated domain was estimated using ID2.  Search orientations were locally adjusted using dynamic anisotropy.  The Guadalupe–La Bavisa zone was estimated using ID2.
 
Block models were constrained using the estimation domains.  Models were rotated in two dimensions to represent the general strike and dip of the deposits.  The parent block size was 2 x 25 x 25 m (X, Y, Z). The block size was based on the minimum mining width, composite length, and the average drill spacing of 40–50 m in the Y–Z plane.  The block size was generally selected as one-half to one-third of the drill spacing.  To provide a volumetric fit when filling the wireframes, the block models were sub-celled to a minimum of 1.0 x 2.5 x 2.5 m.  Estimation took place in the parent cells, therefore, all sub-cells within a parent cell have the same grade.  The estimation used a discretization grid of 1 x 5 x 5, which was based on the discrete dimensions in the X direction, and that a discretization of >5 in the Y and Z dimensions was inefficient and did not improve the block variance.
 
The full thickness model parent block size was set to the variable width of the vein in the X-dimension, and 30 x 30 m in the Y–Z dimensions.  These models are not sub-celled and use a discretization grid of 1 x 3 x 3 m.
 
The search parameters for the estimate are summarized in Table 11‑2.  The maximum number of samples was optimized by minimizing kriging variance while maximizing slope of regression, while attempting to maintain some degree of localization to improve production reconciliation.  Each domain was estimated with one set of search ranges in one pass to achieve the optimal number of samples, and to avoid estimation artifacts created when using a multiple-pass method.
 
A high-grade search ellipse restriction was employed for the Independencia silver estimate, which applied the restriction at 75% of the capping value.  Constant search volumes and number of samples were used for each domain.
 
The block model was depleted using the in-situ variable, proportionally depleting from 100 (in situ) to 0 (completely mined).
 
11.9
Validation
 
The grade estimates were validated visually by stepping through sections and comparing the drill data and composites with the block values.  Local bias validation was completed using swath plots.  Reconciliation factors for mill to model reconciliation were used for global bias validation, as well as to drive iterative improvements in the estimation parameters.  Geologic interpretation was validated and improved through underground mapping, channel sampling, and ore control drilling.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑2:    Search Parameters by Zone and Variable
 
 
Variable
Ellipse Ranges (m)
 
Sample
Count
  
Discretization
 
Max Samples per
Drill Hole
   
X
Y
Z
Min
Max
X
Y
Z
  
Guadalupe; Main Zone
Ag
250-200
200-100
30
9
12
1
5
5
3
Au
200
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Density
500
500
500
2
5
1
5
5
—
Guadalupe; Zapata Zone
Ag
130
80
30
6
12
1
3
3
—
Au
130
80
30
6
12
1
3
3
—
Density
250
200
100
3
6
1
3
3
—
Guadalupe; La Patria Zone
Ag
150
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Au
150
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Density
500
500
500
2
5
1
5
5
—
Independencia; Main Zone
Ag
200
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Au
200
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Density
1,000
600
300
2
5
1
5
5
—
Independencia; La Bavisa Zone
Ag
150
100
30
3
9
1
3
3
—
Au
150
100
30
3
9
1
3
3
—
Density
200
150
50
3
5
1
3
3
—
Independencia; Hidalgo Zone
Ag
200
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Au
200
100
30
9
15
1
5
5
3
Density
1,000
600
300
2
5
1
5
5
—
La Nación; Main Zone
Ag
150
100
30
3
9
3
1
3
—
Au
150–250
100–150
30
3-6
9-12
3
1
3
—
Density
200
150
50
3
6
3
1
3
—
La Nación; Los Bancos Zone
Ag
100
80
30
3
6
3
1
3
—
Au
130
80
30
3
6
3
1
3
—
Density
150
150
150
3
6
3
1
3
—

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
 
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
 
The classification is based primarily on the data spacing and geological confidence.  To estimate a block, a minimum of nine samples from at least three separate drill holes must be consulted, or for the full thickness models three composites from three separate drillholes.  The confidence classifications are summarized in Table 11‑3.  An example showing the confidence classifications in Guadalupe domain 100 is provided in Figure 11‑2.
 
The measured classifications are based on proximity to ore control and production data.  This limits the classification of measured material to the area around current mining where there is a very good understanding of the deposit geometry and grade distribution.
 
Indicated blocks were classified using a script and then manually modified using polygons (in the plane of the domain) based on geologic confidence.
 
All remaining estimated material is classified as inferred, as the geological solids are considered conservative and do not extrapolate unsupported distances beyond or between data points.
 
Classification distances are based on variable grade continuity for each zone quantified with variography.
 
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
 
Following analysis that classified the mineral resource estimates into the measured, indicated, and inferred confidence categories, uncertainties regarding sampling and drilling methods, data processing and handling, geological modelling, and estimation were incorporated into the classifications assigned.  The areas with the most uncertainty were assigned to the inferred category, and the areas with fewest uncertainties were classified as measured.
 
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
 
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was undertaken that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting, and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
 
Mineral resources are confined within conceptual mineable shapes that use the assumptions in Table 11‑4.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑3:    Confidence Category Assignments
 
Deposit
Confidence
Classification
Criteria
Guadalupe; Main Zone
Measured
Based on volumetric control derived from grade control mapping, i.e., if a block is within 5 m of grade control data; and if the block was first classed as indicated
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤60 m; and if the closest sample is within 45 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
Guadalupe; Zapata Zone
Measured
N/A
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤70 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
Guadalupe; La Patria Zone
Measured
N/A
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤60 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drillholes
Inferred
Material within a central corridor in which the historic drillholes have been sufficiently validated with a modern drill campaign
Independencia; Main Zone
Measured
Based on volumetric control derived from grade control mapping, i.e., if a block is within 3 m of grade control data; and if the block was first classed as indicated
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤60 m; and if the closest sample is within 45 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
Independencia; La Bavisa Zone
Measured
N/A
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤60 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
Independencia; Hidalgo Zone
Measured
N/A
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤60 m; and if the closest sample is within 45 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
La Nación; Main Zone
Measured
Based on volumetric control derived from grade control mapping, i.e., if a block is within 5 m of grade control data; and if the block was first classed as Indicated
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤75 m; and if the closest sample is within 45 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Deposit
Confidence
Classification
Criteria
La Nación; Los Bancos Zone
Measured
N/A
Indicated
If the average sample distance is ≤55 m; and if the estimate uses at least three drill holes
Inferred
Remaining estimated material
 
Note:  NA = not applicable
 
Figure 11‑2:
Example Confidence Classification, Guadalupe Main Deposit (domain 100)
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Red is measured, orange is indicated, and blue is inferred.  Section looks west.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑4:    Underground Mineable Shape Input Assumptions
 
Parameter
Units
Range
(from–to)
Gold price
$/oz
1,700
Silver price
$/oz
22
Gold mining duty & refining cost
$/oz Au
0.491
Silver mining duty & refining cost
$/oz Ag
0.491
Gold recovery
%
93.1
Silver recovery
%
81.9
Gold payable
%
99.88
Silver payable
%
99.86
Au:Ag value ratio
Au:Ag
89.86
Mine cost
$/t
36.01–41.75
Surface mineralized material haulage
$/t
3.52
Process
$/t
27.29
G&A
$/t
11.00
Support, aux equipment
$/t
3.19
AuEq cut-off grade
g/t
1.59-2.21
 
11.11.2
Commodity Price
 
The gold and silver prices used in resource estimation are based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The estimated timeframe used is the eight-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,700/oz and the silver price is US$22/oz.  The QP reviewed the forecasts as outlined in Chapter 16.
 
11.11.3
Cut-off
 
The mineral resources are reported using a cut-off of 1.59 to 2.21 g/t gold equivalent (AuEq).  Gold equivalent cut-off grades were calculated for the deposits, with mineral resources estimated and reported above this cut-off.  The AuEq cut-off was calculated as follows:

 
Where mining, processing and G&A are costs expressed as US dollars per tonne, and gold price and refining costs are expressed as US dollars per troy ounce.  The payability refers to the percentage of metal payable after refining.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


A gold:silver value ratio was used to convert silver grades to gold equivalent grades and is calculated using the following formula:


Gold equivalent grades were calculated using the following formula:


where AuEq, gold and silver are the gold equivalent grade, gold grade, and silver grade, respectively, in g/t.
 
The input parameters to the cut-off grades and the resulting grade cut-off for mineral resources reporting was provided in Table 11‑4.
 
11.11.4
QP Statement
 
The QP is of the opinion that any issues that arise in relation to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.  The mineral resource estimates are performed for deposits that are in a well-documented geological setting.  Coeur is very familiar with the economic parameters required for successful operations in the Palmarejo area; and Coeur has a history of being able to obtain and maintain permits, social license and meet environmental standards.  There is sufficient time in the four-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecast for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, testwork and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates.
 
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.
 
Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 11‑5 and inferred mineral resources in Table 11‑6.  Mineral resources are current at December 31, 2021.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑5:    Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral
Resource
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Guadalupe
Measured
2,580
116
1.74
9,625
144
1.62–2.21
81.9
93.1
Indicated
9,519
102
1.92
31,241
586
1.62–2.21
81.9
93.1
Subtotal measured and indicated
12,099
105
1.88
40,867
731
1.62–2.21
81.9
93.1
Independencia
Measured
588
189
2.19
3,578
41
1.64–1.71
81.9
93.1
Indicated
5,075
127
1.33
20,794
217
1.64–1.71
81.9
93.1
Subtotal measured and indicated
5,664
134
1.42
24,373
258
1.64–1.71
81.9
93.1
La Nación
Measured
185
197
1.59
1,169
9
1.59–1.63
81.9
93.1
Indicated
1,171
194
1.30
7,304
49
1.59–1.63
81.9
93.1
Subtotal measured and indicated
1,355
194
1.34
8,473
58
1.59–1.63
81.9
93.1
Total measured and indicated mineral resources
Total Measured
3,353
133
1.81
14,373
195
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
Total Indicated
15,764
117
1.68
59,340
852
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
Total measured and indicated
19,117
120
1.70
73,712
1,047
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 11‑6:    Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral
Resource
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Guadalupe
Inferred
1,469
102
2.42
4,798
114
1.62–2.21
81.9
93.1
Independencia
Inferred
2,400
130
1.40
10,048
108
1.64–1.71
81.9
93.1
La Nación
Inferred
406
200
1.81
2,607
24
1.59–1.63
81.9
93.1
Total inferred mineral resource
Inferred
4,275
127
1.79
17,453
246
1.59–2.21
81.9
93.1
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The estimate is current at December 31, 2021.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Joseph Ruffini, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  Assumption of conventional longhole underground mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz, silver price of US$22/oz; reported above a variable gold equivalent cut-off grade that ranges from 1.59–2.21 g/t AuEq; metallurgical recovery assumption of 93.1% for gold and 81% for silver; variable mining costs that range from US$36.01–US$41.75/t, surface haulage costs of US$3.52/t, process costs of US$27.29/t, general and administrative costs of US$11.00/t, and surface/auxiliary support costs of US$3.19/t.  Mineral resources exclude the impact of the Franco-Nevada gold stream agreement at Palmarejo in estimation.
 
5.
Rounding of tonnes, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tonnes, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:
 

 •
Metal price and exchange rate assumptions;
 

 •
Changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade;
 

 •
Changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones;
 

 •
Changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions;
 

 •
Density and domain assignments;
 

 •
Changes to geotechnical, mining, and metallurgical recovery assumptions;
 

 •
Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain underground mining designs that constrain the estimates;
 

 •
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
 
12.1
Introduction
 
Mineral reserves are estimated at Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación mines (Figure 12‑1 to Figure 12‑9).  All estimates envisage underground mining methods.  Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping using trackless equipment and cemented rock fill (CRF) backfill.  Target mining rates are 150,000 t/month.
 
12.2
Development of Mining Case
 
The mineral reserve estimate is based on the following inputs and considerations:
 

 •
Mineral resource block model, with estimated tonnage, gold, and silver grades;
 

 •
Cut-off grade calculations;
 

 •
Stope and development designs;
 

 •
Geotechnical and hydrogeological information;
 

 •
Estimates for mining recovery and dilution;
 

 •
Depletion from previous mining;
 

 •
Consideration of other modifying factors.
 
Deswik mine planning software was used for the mine design, 3D modeling, and interrogation of the 3D mining model against the block model.
 
The surveyed “as-built” mining excavations were depleted from the designed solids and the resource block model.
 
Mining, geotechnical, and hydrological factors were considered in the estimation of the mineral reserves, including the application of dilution and ore recovery factors.
 
12.3
Designs
 
Mining excavations (stopes and ore development) were designed to include mineralized material above the cut-off grade.  These excavations were then assessed for economic viability.  In addition to the mining cut-off grade, an incremental cut-off grade (excluding the mining cost) was calculated to classify mineralized material mined as a result of essential development to access higher grade mining areas.  Mineralized material above this cut-off grade will add value, and is therefore, included as process plant feed.  Mineralized material below the incremental cut-off will be disposed of on surface in waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs) or will be used underground as backfill.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure12‑1:
Deposit Layout Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑2:          Guadalupe Looking Northeast
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑3:
Zapata Looking South
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑4:
Independencia Looking Northeast
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑5:
La Bavisa Looking Northeast
 
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑6:
La Nación Looking Southwest
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑7:
Los Bancos Looking Northeast
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑8:
Hidalgo Looking Northeast
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2020.  Legend key included as Figure 12‑9.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 12‑9:
Mine Layout Legend Key
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
All designed excavations in the Mineral Reserve meet or exceed the cut-off grade. However, other costs not included in the cut-off grade calculation, will be incurred, such as costs related to capital development, underground infrastructure installations, capital equipment purchases, and sustaining capital. In addition to these costs, there are taxes and royalties that are payable based on net income.
 
The resulting mine plan was analyzed in a financial model and is economically viable.
 
12.4
Input Assumptions
 
Stope designs were generated for the planned mining methods using the cut-off grade to target material for inclusion.  Stope designs were completed using the Deswik Stope Optimizer software.  Centerlines representing ore development drives were digitized to represent ore development and were used to create a 3D solid model.  The stope solids were cut using the ore development solids, using Boolean routines in the planning software.  The resulting 3D model formed the basis of the mineral reserve estimate.
 
Gold equivalent (AuEq) cut-off grades were calculated for the deposits, with mineral reserves estimated and reported above this cut-off.  The AuEq cut-off was calculated as follows:
 
 
where mining, processing and G&A are costs expressed as US$ per tonne, and gold price and refining costs are expressed as US$ per troy ounce and do not reflect the realized gold price from the Franco-Nevada royalty.  The payability refers to the percentage of metal payable after refining.
 
A gold:silver value ratio was used to convert silver grades to gold equivalent grades and is calculated using the following formula:
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Gold equivalent grades were calculated using the following formula:
 
 
where AuEq, Au and Ag are the gold equivalent grade, gold grade, and silver grade, respectively, in g/t.
 
The input parameters to the cut-off grades and the resulting grade cut-off for Mineral Reserves reporting is provided in Table 12‑1.
 
12.5
Ore Loss and Dilution
 
The following sources of dilution were identified:
 

 •
Overbreak into the hanging wall or footwall rocks following drilling and blasting operations;
 

 •
Rock failures (slough) from rock walls adjacent to the stope boundaries as a result of weak rock mass characteristics;
 

 •
Unconsolidated rockfill (backfill) from over mucking into the stope floor.
 
Operational experience shows that dilution from the cemented rockfill (CRF) material is negligible, and this has not been considered as a dilution source.
 
Ore dilution factors to account for overbreak and wall slough (waste rock dilution) from the hanging wall and footwall surfaces were estimated based on the consideration of geotechnical information and stope reconciliations and were applied to stope shapes in the stope optimization software.  One meter of dilution was applied to the hanging wall, and 0.5 m to the footwall.  No dilution is assigned to ore development.  No gold or silver grades were assigned to the rockfill (RF) dilution.
 
CRF and RF are used to backfill mined-out stopes in order to enhance ore recovery, provide mine stability, and eliminate the need for permanent ore pillars to be left.
 
Ore losses can occur during mining as a result of:
 
•
Stope under-break and unrecoverable bridging;
 
•
Unrecovered ore stocks due to flat dipping footwalls and stope draw point geometry;
 
•
Misclassification of material resulting in ore hauled inadvertently to waste dumps; and
 
•
Abandoned ore stocks due to excessive dilution from stope wall failures.
 
To account for potential ore losses, a factor of 5% was applied to primary, secondary, and longitudinal stopes, and ore mine development.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 12‑1:
Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Reserves
 
Parameter
Units
Value/Value Range
(from/to)
Gold price
$/oz
1,400
Silver price
$/oz
20.00
Gold mining duty and refining cost
$/oz Au
0.491
Silver mining duty and refining cost
$/oz Ag
0.491
Gold recovery
%
93.1
Silver recovery
%
81.9
Gold payable
%
99.88
Silver payable
%
99.86
Au:Ag value ratio
Au:Ag
81.59
Mining cost
$/t
36.01–41.75
Surface ore haulage
$/t
3.52
Processing
$/t
27.29
G&A
$/t
11.00
Other
$/t
3.19
AuEq cut-off grade
g/t
1.94–2.51
Marginal development AuEq cut-off grade
g/t
1.08

12.6
Commodity Price
 
The gold and silver prices used in mineral reserve estimation are based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The estimated timeframe used is the nine-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,400/oz, and the silver price forecast is US$20/oz. The QP reviewed the forecast as outlined in Chapter 16.
 
12.7
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves are reported using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 12‑2.  Mineral reserves are current at December 31, 2021.  Estimates are reported on a 100% basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 12‑2:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral Reserve
Classification
Tonnes
(kt)
Grade
Contained Ounces
Gold
Equivalent
Cut-off Grade
(g/t AuEq)
Metallurgical Recovery
Ag
(g/t)
Au
(g/t)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
(%)
Au
(%)
Guadalupe
Proven
2,005
120
2.09
7,736
135
1.97–2.51
81.9
93.1
Probable
6,527
121
1.82
25,412
381
1.97–2.51
81.9
93.1
Subtotal proven and probable
8,532
121
1.88
33,147
516
1.97–2.51
81.9
93.1
Independencia
Proven
1,044
190
2.68
6,377
90
1.99–2.07
81.9
93.1
Probable
3,551
137
1.76
15,588
201
1.99–2.07
81.9
93.1
Subtotal proven and probable
4,595
149
1.97
21,965
291
1.99–2.07
81.9
93.1
La Nación
Proven
357
206
1.96
2,367
22
1.94–1.98
81.9
93.1
Probable
934
162
1.81
4,876
54
1.94–1.98
81.9
93.1
Subtotal proven and probable
1,291
175
1.85
7,242
77
1.94–1.98
81.9
93.1
Total proven and probable mineral reserves
Total proven
3,405
151
2.26
16,480
247
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
Total probable
11,012
130
1.80
45,875
637
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
Total proven and probable
14,418
135
1.91
62,355
884
1.94–2.51
81.9
93.1
 
Notes to Accompany Mineral Reserves Table:
 
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional underground mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz and silver price of US$20/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 1.94–2.51 gold equivalent and an incremental development cut-off grade of 1.08 g/t AuEq; metallurgical recovery assumption of 93.1% for gold and 81.9% for silver; mining dilution assumes 1 meter of hanging wall waste dilution; mining loss of 5% was applied; variable mining costs that range from US$36.01–US$41.75/t, surface haulage costs of US$3.52/t, process costs of US$27.29/t, general and administrative costs of US$11.00/t, and surface/auxiliary support costs of US$3.19/t.  Mineral reserves exclude the impact of the Franco-Nevada gold stream agreement at Palmarejo in estimation.
 
4.
Rounding of tonnes, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tonnes, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-13
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


12.8
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the Mineral Reserve estimates include:
 
•
Commodity prices:  the mineral reserve estimates are most sensitive to metal prices.  Coeur’s current strategy is to sell most of the metal production at spot prices, exposing the company to both positive and negative changes in the market, both of which are outside of the company’s control.  Gold is subject to a streaming agreement with Franco-Nevada where 50% of the gold ounces produced from a portion of the Project are sold to Franco-Nevada at US$800/oz;
 
•
Metallurgical recovery:  long term changes in metallurgical recovery could also have an impact on the mineral reserve estimates.  For example, a 10% change in metallurgical recovery has approximately the same impact as a 10% change in metal prices.  However, the metallurgy is well understood, and as a result, the mineral reserve estimates are considered to be less sensitive to long-term factors affecting metallurgical recovery, compared to the sensitivity to metal prices, which tend to have greater variances;
 
•
Mining method will change from transverse to longitudinal longhole stoping over time as narrower portions of veins are mined which could result in higher cost, lower productivities and higher dilution quantities which can impact grade. All of these factors could impact cut-off grades, reserve estimates and economics;
 
•
Operating costs:  higher or lower operating costs than those assumed could also affect the mineral reserve estimates.  While the trend over 2014 to 2020 showed operating cost reductions at the Palmarejo Operations, this trend could reverse and costs could increase over the life of the Project, due to factors outside of the company’s control.  However, of the factors discussed in this section, the QP considers the mineral reserve to be least sensitive to changes in operating costs;
 
•
Dilution:  additional dilution has the effect of increasing the overall volume of material mined, hauled and processed.  This results in an increase in operating costs and could result in mineral reserve losses if broken stocks are diluted to the point where it is uneconomic to muck, haul, and process the material and the broken stocks are abandoned.  The operations have developed a number of methods to control dilution, including the installation of stope support, a flexible mine plan with the ability to limit stope wall spans, and good development practices that avoid undercutting the stope hanging wall.  To assist in these efforts, site geotechnical reviews are regularly completed by external consultants, and a geotechnical engineer is employed by the mine.  In the opinion of the QP, sufficient controls are in place at the Palmarejo Operations to manage dilution, and the risk of material changes to the mineral reserve from dilution above the amounts used in the mineral reserve estimate is low.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-14
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Geotechnical: geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the ore body, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  In addition to the controls discussed in the dilution section there are significant management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks.  Designed openings are evaluated for stability using the Modified Stability Graph method.  There is regular underground geotechnical mapping, and comprehensive geotechnical reviews are held on a weekly basis.  The QP considers that sufficient controls are in place at the Palmarejo Operations to effectively manage geotechnical risk, and the risk of significant impact on the mineral reserve estimate is low.
 
•
Hydrogeological: unexpected hydrogeological conditions could cause issues with access and extraction of areas of the Mineral Reserve due to higher than anticipated rates of water ingress.  The QP considers the risk of encountering hydrogeological conditions that would significantly affect the mineral reserve estimate is low.
 
•
Geological and structural interpretations: changes in the underlying geology model including changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones, changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions, and density and domain assignments could result in changes to the geology model upon which mineral reserve estimate is based.
 
•
Permitting and social license: inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain social license to operate could result in the inability to extract some or all of the mineral reserves.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Page 12-15
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


13.0
MINING METHODS
 
13.1
Introduction
 
The Guadalupe, Independencia and La Nación mines use conventional underground mining methods and conventional equipment.  The overall production rate is approximately 165,000 t/month.
 
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
 
The Palmarejo Operations technical services department maintains a Ground Control Management Plan that is updated annually and serves to provide mine personnel with operating, monitoring, and quality control/assurance guidance.  The Ground Control Management Plan specifies ground support standards and identifies where there are applicable in the mines.
 
13.2.1
Guadalupe
 
Golder Associates (Golder) performed a geotechnical assessment of the mine area in 2011 and provided guidance on developing RMR logging procedures and calculated rock mass rating (RMR76).  Most of the rock types show similar RMR76 values, with the bulk of the values in the range of 40–60, or a “Fair” rock quality.
 
Ingeroc SpA of Chile (Ingeroc) was commissioned in 2015 to perform additional geotechnical characterizations and provide onsite engineering support.  Starting in 2017, this was replaced with an inhouse geotechnical team to support onsite engineering, planning and operations.
 
Pakalnis and Associates of Canada performed geotechnical design and operations reviews from 2011–2019.  In 2019, Ingeroc was contracted to provide operations support with biannual reviews.
 
Due to highly variable rock mass quality and the intersection of dissolution voids during early development and operations, a geotechnical block model was developed in 2018.  This model is continually updated with infill drilling and development mapping to support geotechnical design and mine planning.  The model provides RMR ranges demarcated by six quality types which are then matched to minimum support requirements as part of the design and planning process.  These ranges are represented by color coded blocks in a three-dimensional computer model and documented in the Ground Control Management Plan, matching minimum ground support requirements to the material classification.
 
Initial stope dimensions were developed using the Modified Stability Graph method, which predicts equivalent linear overbreak slough values (Pakalnis, 2016).  Modifications based on variability and update geotechnical models were made as the mine developed.  Updated designs are modelled using two and three-dimensional numerical simulation software to provide final design for each access and stope.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Based on the calculated modified stability number (N’) values, the majority of the planned stope surfaces at Guadalupe are estimated to have equivalent linear overbreak slough values of <1.0 m for unsupported stope hanging wall surfaces and <0.5 m for unsupported stope footwall surfaces for stope spans of up to 14 m along strike.  Primary and secondary stope spans range from 10–14 m, and longitudinal stopes can range from 14 m along strike up to 20 m, depending on vein dimensions, structural interpretation, and rock quality locally.
 
Standard ground support initially consisted of pattern welding wire mesh pinned by rock bolting.  With advanced development, and installation of a modernized shotcrete plant in 2020, fibercrete and bolting is currently replacing bolts and mesh in areas of higher quality rock.  In poor ground, hanging wall support, or at intersections, the option of 6 m length cable bolts is available and installed in addition to shotcrete and mesh.
 
The most recent geotechnical review was conducted in June 2021 to review updated support methods, maximum allowable stable stope spans, mining sequence, and overall mine stability.
 
13.2.2
Independencia
 
Pakalnis provided geotechnical inputs for startup design and operation from 2015–2019 with Ingeroc providing ongoing operational review support from 2019 to present.  A geotechnical model was developed in 2017 due to poorer overall rock quality encountered in Independencia versus earlier development in Guadalupe.
 
Most stope surfaces at Independencia were designed to have equivalent linear overbreak slough values of <1.0 m for unsupported stope hanging wall surfaces, and <0.5 m for unsupported stope footwall surfaces.  Rock quality in Independencia is considered to range between very low to moderate quality with variability requiring local changes to design to maintain stability.  Similar support methods are available between mines following range classification as outlined in the Ground Control Management Plan that covers the operation.  Common to Independencia, areas of Very Poor-quality rock typically require installation of horizontal steel spilling bars in advance of development for perimeter control, followed by reinforced shotcrete arches in addition to typical mesh and bolting standard support.
 
The most recent geotechnical review was conducted in June 2021 to review updated support methods, maximum allowable stable stope spans, mining sequence, and overall mine stability.
 
13.2.3
La Nación
 
The geotechnical conditions at La Nación are classified with rock qualities ranging from Poor to Good.  Conditions are similar to Guadalupe with most geotechnical concerns controlled by structure versus Poor rock quality.  Pakalnis (2017) provided guidance and approval to increase stope heights from 20 m in Guadalupe and Independencia to 25 m in La Nación based on the orebody geometry and rock quality.  This increase in stope height was implemented, and extraction has been proven effective.
 
Based on the calculated N’ values, stopes at La Nación were designed initially to have equivalent linear overbreak slough values of <1.0 m for unsupported stope hanging wall faces.  Transverse stopes have a maximum primary/secondary exposure of 20 m for ore with >55% RMR, and a maximum hanging wall exposure of 32 m for hanging wall material with >65% RMR.  Longitudinal stoping has a maximum hanging wall exposure of 32 m for hanging wall material with >65% RMR.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Similar methods of support are available to La Nación as other areas of operation following the Ground Control Management Plan released in 2016 and updated annually.
 
The most recent geotechnical review was conducted in June 2021 to review updated support methods, maximum allowable stable stope spans, mining sequence, and overall mine stability.
 
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
 
13.3.1
Guadalupe
 
Permeability of the volcanic rock units in all mines is low to very low.  Persistent inflows generally occur within larger fault structures.  Flows increase and decrease seasonally if the structure is connected to the surface.  Access ramps encountered significant water inflows from these structural features during early development; however, over time, inflows into the mine have diminished as local storage is removed.  Increases in flow currently are directly related to opening new developments laterally or ramping downward to lower levels.  A primary sump and pumping station is located on the 1,140 m level and fed by a series of level and ramp sumps that allow final settling before pumping from the mine to the water treatment plant on surface.
 
GRE prepared a hydrogeological model for the operations in 2017.  The largest predicted inflows for Guadalupe will occur in year 2022 and result in a total flow of approximately 800 m3/day coinciding with the maximum lateral development of new mines at Animas and Zapata.  Through 2021, flows are matching predicted values.
 
13.3.2
Independencia
 
Water inflows tend to occur mainly where the development intersects larger scale structures, such as faults and shear zones.  These structures are typically located in the footwall accesses and ore zones with generally higher flows than other mines due to the higher degree of brittle fracture and permeability along structures.  Initial development encountered highest flows that diminished over time as local storage is drained.  Outside of structures, similar host rock types of low overall permeability and storage to Guadalupe are present.
 
The primary sump and a pumping station is located on the 1090 m level to manage these inflows from satellite sumps and pumping systems located on various levels.  The central pump station sends the water from settling sumps to the water treatment plant on surface for further sediment removal.
 
GRE prepared a hydrogeological model for the mine in 2017 with the highest predicted flow expected to be in 2021 of 2,600 m3/day.  Actual water inflows in 2021 were slightly off the predicted flow estimate with a peak at 2,100 m3/day.  This may increase through to 2023 with the development of the lower levels and Independencia and access development laterally to the north for the Hidalgo mine.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


13.3.3
La Nación
 
La Nación is located midway between the Guadalupe and Independencia mines.  Hydrological conditions in the mine were affected by the development and dewatering of the two adjacent mines.  Zones of intermediate inflow into the mine were intercepted along structures similar to those encountered in both Guadalupe and Independencia, but at much lower rates.  This had little effect on mine development rates.  Mine dewatering in the area is accomplished using satellite sumps on each level that drain down to the 1140 m level entry ramp access.  Water collected from the 1140 m level sump is drained back to the primary sump and pump station on the 1090 m level in Independencia for transfer to the water treatment plant.
 
13.4
Operations
 
13.4.1
Guadalupe
 
Primary access to the Guadalupe mine is from surface via two ramps.  The West (Poniente) Decline and East (Oriente) Level are located 700 m north of the deposit in the hanging wall.  A third portal for primary ventilation is the South Portal (Portal Sur) which is situated on the southern strike extent of the the deposit footwall approximately 2,200 m south–southeast from the main access portals.  The West Decline serves as the primary access for haulage, while the East provides both haulage and support access.  Both main ramps are used for primary ventilation intake while the main fans at South Portal are in operation.  When the South Portal fans are down for maintenance, a secondary system is engaged providing intake on the East and exhaust on the South and West.  The South portal is used as a primary exhaust for the mine as well as secondary escapeway for extended work areas of Guadalupe and Animas.
 
Two new developments at Zapata and Animas are underway as extensions of the Guadalupe mine.  The Zapata deposit is located approximately 250 m from the footwall of Guadalupe.  Two accesses have been developed to connect the Guadalupe ramp system to the Zapata ramp system.  First ore development from Zapata was in 2021.  The Animas extension is located at the far south end of the Guadalupe mine and is accessed via a single ramp.  Development will have extended to first ore in late 2021.  Ventilation and secondary egress will be provided via a ventilation raise to surface and an escapeway.
 
Mine access drifts were advanced through the ore structure and into the footwall where ramps were developed for vertical access to the level footwall drives.  The access ramps are designed at 5.5 m high x 5.0 m wide and have been driven at 15% grades.
 
Key input parameters to the mine design include mechanized diesel and electric drill, load, and haulage systems.  A preliminary production rate of 150,000 t/month was increased to 165,000 t/month in 2021 with the development of new orebodies and accelerated development rates.  The material handling system uses a load-haul-dump (LHD) and truck transport system of ore loading and hauling to an interim surface stockpile.  Ore is separated at surface into stockpiles to support blending prior to transport to the plant run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile.  Waste from development is either directly transported from development to backfilling pockets in active stopes or stockpiled underground for later use as backfill.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Mining methods used at Guadalupe include both transverse and longitudinal sublevel stoping.  The operation has changed from principally transverse longhole stoping from startup in 2014 where veins were wider to narrow vein longitudinal stoping in 2021.  The continuous nature of the mineralized zones, significant orebody thickness, favorable deposit geometry and generally good ground conditions resulted in productive longhole stoping with low costs.
 
Access to transverse stoping areas is via footwall drives developed parallel to the orebody strike.  Drawpoints are developed perpendicular to the footwall sublevels to access the stopes.  A sequence of primary and secondary stopes is developed and extracted in sequence along strike of the vein.  The primary stopes (roughly 10 m of strike) are excavated and backfilled with cemented backfill providing pillar support for the extraction of the secondary.  The secondaries are then backfilled with waste to support ramping up to the next level.  Access to longitudinal stopes is along and within the ore zones where drifts are driven along strike within the vein and extraction is in sequence from level to level in 15–20 m increments depending on ground conditions.  The open stope is backfilled, and the extraction continues in sequence.  Level or stope heights in Guadalupe are generally 20 m.
 
Lateral development is completed using conventional mechanized drilling and blasting methods.  Drift rounds are drilled using twin boom, electric/hydraulic drill jumbos.  Ground support is installed using mechanical/electrical bolting machines and (when required) shotcrete is applied with a shotcrete machine.  Mine services (air, water, compressed air, electrical and communication cables) are extended to the working areas.
 
Longhole production drilling of stopes is completed using electric/hydraulic vertical hammer drill rigs.  Production drilling is mainly done in pattern format in a down dip configuration, with the holes drilled parallel to the dip of the orebody.
 
13.4.2
Independencia
 
The North and South declines provide access to the deposit and provide secondary intake (south) and primary exhaust ventilation (north) for the mine.  The access ramps are designed at 5.5 m high x 5.0 m wide and have been driven at a grade of -15%.  Primary ventilation intake is from a vertical surface raise and fan system constructed in the La Nación Mine and connected via dual ramps to the La Nación orebody on the 1140 and 1260 levels.
 
The design philosophy and key mine design parameters for the Independencia mine are similar to those described for the Guadalupe mine.  Mine access drifts were advanced through the ore structure and into the footwall where ramps were developed for vertical access to the level footwall drives.  The access ramps were designed at 5.5 m high x 5.0 m wide and were driven at 15% grade.  Starting in 2021, ramps and accesses were reduced to 5.3 x 5.0 m to provide support for increased development rates and reduced unit costs.
 
Mining methods used at Independencia include both transverse and longitudinal sublevel stoping.  The operation transitioned from principally transverse longhole stoping from startup in 2016 where veins were wider to narrow vein longitudinal stoping in 2021.  Due to the sinusoidal nature of the mineralized zones, reduced orebody thickness, and generally poorer ground conditions, productive longhole stoping has been achieved, but at higher costs due to slower development and mining rates and increased support requirements.  Stope and level heights in Independencia are 20 m.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Preliminary designs were completed for the development of the Hidalgo extension anticipated for production in 2023.  The plans call for dual access ramps, one from Independencia along the north extension and the second located from surface approximately 200 m north of Independencia north portal.  Current designs are in conceptual, with final designs to be completed in early 2022.
 
13.4.3
La Nación
 
The mine can be accessed from two levels, one from the south decline ramp access on the 1140 level from Independencia, and the other from the footwall drive at the 1260 level.
 
The two drifts provide access to the deposit along with primary intake and exhaust ventilation for both the La Nación and Independencia mines.  The access ramps are designed at 5.5 m high x 5.0 m wide with a gradient of 2%.  The access ramps from Independencia are connected via a spiral ramp developed in the footwall of the La Nación orebody to connect the lower and upper part of the orebody and access to the sublevels.
 
The La Nación deposit is mined using similar equipment, personnel, and mining methods as the adjacent Independencia and Guadalupe mines.  Much of the ore mining will be completed using longitudinal sublevel stoping due to the narrow width of the vein.  Mine level and stope heights were increased to 25 m following a rock mechanics study supporting increasing the stope heights.
 
13.5
Backfill
 
Primary stopes as extracted using transverse sublevel method are filled with cemented rock fill once the ore is drilled, blasted, and extracted.  The cemented rock fill is produced on surface directly from a 3000 t/d mixing plant and hauled underground to the stope location.  The majority of cemented backfill is used specifically for this method with secondary placement required for sill pillars and curtains where longitudinal retreat extraction method is applied.  Sill pillars require the backfill of cemented fill along the entire length of the sublevel.  All three active mines have completed sill pillars within the vertical profile of the orebody.
 
Curtains are designed and backfilled in those areas where longitudinal retreat mining requires the installation of a curtain to allow backfilling of the stope prior to continuing stope extraction.  This curtain is required every 15–25 m depending on the design span distance as determined from a calculated hydraulic radius.  In areas where the Avoca method is applied, cemented backfill is limited or not required.
 
Waste rock backfill from development mining is the principal backfill for secondary transverse stopes and for longitudinal stopes.  In most cases, the rock fill is loaded on to trucks from waste development headers outside the orebody and delivered directly to the stope.  Extra material is stored underground on previously-mined levels to be used later where needed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


13.6
Ventilation
 
13.6.1
Guadalupe
 
The primary ventilation system is powered by two 224 kW central fans located at the South Portal.  A second set of fans is installed in the East Portal for contingency and are only activated when the primary is down.  When the central fans are active, air is drawn from the East and West portals and vented out the South portal directing air from north to south along the length of the orebody.  Secondary ventilation is directed through booster fans installed on levels and directed through sublevel raises vertically and laterally along horizontal drives to the work areas.  Vertical raises are installed level to level using a raisebore.
 
The capacity of the primary ventilation circuit is approximately 250 m3/sec.
 
13.6.2
Independencia
 
The primary ventilation fans consist of two 224 kW fresh air intake fans installed in a ventilation bypass drift developed in the South ramp, and two 224 kW fans installed on the 1260 level in La Nación that pull air from a raisebored shaft connected to surface.  The North portal provides a single exhaust exit from the mine for both intake points.  Additional booster fans are installed underground to direct intake air to the active mining blocks.  Ventilation raises are developed by longhole drill and blast methods or bored with a raisebore machine.
 
The capacity of the primary ventilation circuit is approximately 300 m3/sec when three of the four primary fans are operating.
 
13.6.3
La Nación
 
The mine ventilation is designed and configured to support both Independencia and La Nación.  Two access drifts developed from the Independencia mine provide exhaust routes from the mine.  A vertical raise was constructed from the lower 1140 level through to surface as part of early development to support ventilation for the entire mine.  The main fans are located on the 1260 level and consist of two 224 kW fans in parallel.  During the early stages of development and operation, a single fan is in operation.  As both La Nación and Independencia mature, and mining distances increase the second fan will be brought online.
 
13.7
Blasting and Explosives
 
Longhole drilling of stope production holes are completed using electric/hydraulic downhole hammer drills.  Drill and blast design is customized to match individual conditions found in each stope and development headings.  Blasting is conducted using controlled spacing and timing method via a central electronic timing and detonation system.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


13.8
Underground Sampling and Production Monitoring
 
Preliminary in situ channel sampling is conducted across the vein intercepts by the geologists to support preliminary ore control.  Follow-up samples are taken during and post extraction from individual stope stockpiles on surface to support blending and reconciliation with the plant on a continuous basis as part of day-to-day operations.
 
13.9
Infrastructure Facilities
 
Infrastructure for the operation is discussed in Chapter 15.  All underground operations share the same surface infrastructure excluding stockpiles and compressed air and ventilation systems.
 
Underground maintenance facilities in Guadalupe and Independencia support field and preventative maintenance activities.  Primary maintenance is conducted in joint facilities located on surface between the mine portals and a large main facility located at the Palmarejo office and plant site.  An additional facility is planned for construction in Zapata in 2023 to support ongoing operations.
 
Underground magazines in Guadalupe support Zapata and Animas, and in Independencia support La Nación.
 
13.10
Production Schedule
 
The Palmarejo Operations have nine years of mine life remaining overall.  The Guadalupe mine has a remaining nine-year mine life with the expansion components of Zapata and Animas.  Independencia has a remaining nine-year mine life with expansions to the north and south and addition of the Hidalgo deposit.  La Nación has five years of mine life remaining.
 
A production schedule is provided in Table 13‑1.
 
13.11
Equipment
 
The equipment listed in Table 13‑2 is shared between the three underground mines.
 
Surface mining equipment consists of trucks, loaders, drills, and dozers.  Some ex-open pit equipment is used for ore haulage from the underground mines to the ROM pad; as well as ore blending, backfill operations, road construction, and road maintenance.  The main surface equipment assets are listed in Table 13‑3.
 
The equipment on site is sufficient to meet LOM plan requirements.
 
13.12
Personnel
 
Mining operations are forecast to employ approximately 330 persons over the LOM.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 13‑1:
Production Schedule
 
 
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
LOM
Underground Guadalupe
Ore mined
kt
941
962
940
983
1,251
1,329
1,226
681
218
8,532
Silver grade mined
g/t
118.5
126.1
98.6
116.4
115.2
123.4
121.4
146.2
157.5
120.8
Gold grade mined
g/t
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.6
0.3
1.9
Silver contained metal
koz
3,583
3,903
2,980
3,679
4,637
5,273
4,786
3,199
1,106
33,147
Gold contained metal
koz
57
61
49
60
79
92
80
34
2
516
Vent Rise
m
386
275
168
128
—
—
—
—
—
957
Meters capital cost
m
3,180
2,791
2,140
1,985
—
185
—
—
—
10,280
Meters operating cost waste
m
1,157
1,091
1,773
937
848
673
145
—
—
6,625
Meters operating cost ore
m
2,909
4,094
3,630
3,513
2,687
1,570
249
—
—
18,652
Waste mined
kt
303
266
267
197
63
63
13
—
—
1,171
Underground Independencia
Ore mined
kt
547
516
561
795
511
435
405
573
251
4,595
Silver grade mined
g/t
176.2
155.0
148.7
138.1
131.6
143.9
141.6
158.7
140.5
148.7
Gold grade mined
g/t
2.5
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.6
2.0
Silver contained metal
koz
3,102
2,570
2,680
3,532
2,164
2,015
1,845
2,923
1,135
21,965
Gold contained metal
koz
43
35
38
49
34
29
22
27
13
291
Vent Rise
m
21
141
271
151
-
394
515
36
—
1,528
Meters capital cost
m
856
2,662
2,982
1,608
63
836
1,012
212
—
10,230
Meters operating cost waste
m
396
414
497
1,043
352
95
522
51
—
3,369
Meters operating cost ore
m
834
1,422
2,539
2,781
748
959
1,260
590
—
11,133
Waste mined
kt
86
202
230
171
26
77
124
19
—
934
Underground La Nación
Ore mined
kt
313
326
410
156
86
—
—
—
—
1,291
Silver grade mined
g/t
141.2
187.5
200.2
182.9
108.8
—
—
—
—
174.5

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


 
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
LOM
Gold grade mined
g/t
1.5
2.1
2.2
1.6
0.7
—
—
—
—
1.9
Silver contained metal
koz
1,420
1,967
2,641
914
300
—
—
—
—
7,242
Gold contained metal
koz
15
22
29
8
2
—
—
—
—
77
Vent Rise
m
247
30
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
278
Meters capital cost
m
1,543
189
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,732
Meters operating cost waste
m
453
81
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
534
Meters operating cost ore
m
1,992
422
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,414
Waste mined
kt
146
19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
165
Underground Total
Ore mined
kt
1,801
1,804
1,911
1,934
1,848
1,765
1,632
1,253
470
14,418
Silver grade mined
g/t
140.0
145.5
135.1
130.7
119.5
128.5
126.4
151.9
148.4
134.5
Gold grade mined
g/t
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.9
Silver contained metal
koz
8,106
8,440
8,301
8,126
7,100
7,288
6,631
6,122
2,241
62,355
Gold contained metal
koz
116
118
117
118
115
122
102
62
15
884
Vent Rise
m
654
446
439
279
-
394
515
36
—
2,763
Meters capital cost
m
5,578
5,641
5,122
3,593
63
1,021
1,012
212
—
22,242
Meters operating cost waste
m
2,006
1,586
2,270
1,980
1,200
768
667
51
—
10,529
Meters operating cost ore
m
5,734
5,938
6,169
6,294
3,435
2,530
1,510
590
—
32,199
Waste mined
kt
534
487
496
368
89
140
137
19
—
2,270
 
Note:  numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 13‑2:
Underground Mining Equipment
 
Equipment Type
Make/Model
Peak Number
Wheel loader
Caterpillar R1700G, R1600G, R1700K; Sandvik Toro 006, Toro 1400; Atlas Copco ST1030
21
Articulated truck
Caterpillar AD45B, AD30; Sandvik T40D;
19
Mine truck
Atlas Copco MT42
4
Boltecs
Atlas Copco B235, Boltecs
11
Boltmaster
Atlas Copco RDH, 200EH
1
Drills
Atlas Copco 1254, M4CITH, J281, J282, S1D; Redpath 40S; Boart Longyear Stope Mate; Termite AQTK; Ingetrol 60E, 75E, Minitroner
22
Cabletec
Atlas Copco Cabletec LC
2
ANFO
Getman A64; RDH 150H
5
Concrete/shotcrete
EJC concrete mixer, 415; RDH 600R; Normet LF600, SB307, BS7622; Kubota; Transcrete P20 pump;
21
Auxiliary (pallet, scissor, utili lifts)
Getman A64; Marcotte M40; RDH 600R; Normet MF540
12
Motor grader
Caterpillar 120K
1
Telehandler
Caterpillar TL1255, TL1255D
11
Backhoe loader
Caterpillar 430D, 450E, 420F
  
Lube truck
Getman A64; RDH
 
3
Pallet handler
Getman A64
1
Forklift
Caterpillar R80T
1
 
Table 13‑3:
Surface Mining Equipment
 
Item
Manufacturer
Model
Number
Loader
Caterpillar
988H
2
Loader
Caterpillar
992G, 992K
3
Truck
Caterpillar
777F
11
Truck
Caterpillar
740E
4
Water Truck
Caterpillar
770F
1
Lube Truck
Caterpillar
725E
1
Grader
Caterpillar
140H, 140M, 14H
3
Excavator
Caterpillar
315D, 330D, 336D2, 365C
4
Dozer
Caterpillar
D10T, D4G, D5K2, D9T
7
Compactor
Caterpillar
CS536D, E
2
Integrated Tool Carrier
Caterpillar
IT62H
1
Mobile Crusher
Metso
LT106
2
Backhoe Loader
Caterpillar
420F2
2
Drill
Atlas Copco
CM780
1
Telehandler
Caterpillar, JCB
Various models
5
Forklift
Caterpillar
DP40K, P5000
3
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
 
14.1
Process Method Selection
 
The process design is based on a combination of metallurgical test work, study designs and industry-standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities through the operational history of the plant since operations startup in 2007.  The design is conventional to the silver and gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 
14.2
Process Plant
 
The processing plant is located immediately south and overlooks the village of Palmarejo at an elevation of approximately 880 m.  The plant is designed to operate 365 days per year at 91.3% availability.  The plant design mill throughput is 6,000 t/day of ore with upgrades providing a nominal throughput up to 7,000 t/day.
 
14.3
Flowsheet
 
A schematic of the flowsheet is provided as Figure 14‑1.
 
14.4
Plant Operations
 
The flow sheet consists of a standard crushing and grinding circuit (jaw crusher, semi-autogenous grind (SAG) mill and ball mill), followed by flotation circuit, where the flotation concentrate is directed to a sequence of clarification tanks then to agitated cyanidation tanks.  Floatation tailings are directed to and treated in agitated cyanidation tanks.  A Merrill Crowe circuit is used to recover gold and silver from the leachates of concentrate and tailings solutions through a carbon in leach (CIL)- absorption, desorption, recovery (ADR) system.
 
14.4.1
Crushing
 
Ore is delivered from the underground mines to a ROM stockpile located adjacent to the primary crusher area and feed to the primary crusher dump hopper.  The dump hopper has a fixed grizzly on top with an approximate opening of 51 cm and an apron feeder at the discharge.  The ROM is fed with a front-end loader with secondary breakage using a rockhammer for oversize to the crusher.  The primary crusher is a Nordberg C-140 jaw crusher with an approximate opening of 1.1 m x 1.4 m capable of handling 350 t/hr at a 12.7 cm close side setting.
 
Crushed ore is discharged vertically from the jaw crusher onto a conveyor and delivered to a 1,250-t capacity interim coarse ore stockpile.  Two variable vibrating feeders reclaim the crushed ore through a vertical feed onto a belt conveyor for delivery to the SAG mill for grinding.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 14‑1:
Process Flowsheet
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


14.4.2
Grinding
 
Coarse ore from the primary crusher is directly fed to the grinding circuit from the interim crushed ore stockpile.  The grinding circuit consists of a SAG mill and a ball mill operating in a circuit with a series of cyclones for classification and passing to flotation or return to grind.  Both mills are 6.7 m in diameter and 7.5 m long equipped with 2,500 kW motors.  The grinding circuit feed and product is controlled and varied depending on ore type and blend from the mines.
 
The cyclone battery consists of nine 203 cm Krebs cyclones with an apex opening of 10.8 cm and vortex opening of 15.2 cm.  Cyclone operational pressure is maintained in a range from 96–110 kPa.  The cyclone battery underflow reports to the ball mill to maintain a recirculating load to have better control of the flotation feed size, while the cyclone overflow reports to flotation.
 
14.4.3
Flotation
 
The ball mill cyclone overflows at a nominal P80 minus 75 µm in size with a pulp density of 30% solids flows by gravity to the rougher flotation conditioner tank, where the slurry is conditioned with Aero 404 and potassium amyl xanthate (PAX).  The conditioner tank overflows to feed a bank of five 100 m3 capacity rougher flotation cells.  Rougher flotation occurs at the first bank of two tank cells, and scavenger flotation occurs sequentially down the bank.  Frother and PAX are added to rougher feed and during the scavenging flotation.
 
Rougher flotation concentrates report either to the cleaner concentrate tank, where they are combined with the cleaner concentrate, or to the scavenger concentrate tank, where they are combined with the scavenger concentrate.  Scavenger concentrate reports to a bank of two 17 m3 capacity cells where the first cleaner stage is provided.  The first cleaner concentrate reports to a conditioning tank for additional reagents adjustment, and then flows to a bank of three 17 m3 capacity cells, where the final cleaner flotation is obtained.  The final cleaner concentrate is pumped to the concentrate thickener for dewatering.  The concentrate thickener overflow reports to the grinding circuit as recycled water.  The thickener underflow, at approximately 65% solids, is pumped to the concentrate leach circuit for intense cyanide mixing and agitation.  The blended solution is passed to the clarifiers for final processing as discussed in Chapter 14.4.4.
 
Cleaner flotation tailings are recycled to the rougher flotation conditioner tank or alternatively to the 3rd rougher cell for additional treatment.
 
Flotation underflow is transferred to a thickener for dewatering with the fluid overflow reporting back to the grinding circuit as recycled water.  Thickener underflow, at approximately 60% solids, is transferred to an agitated leach circuit for cyanide leaching and dissolution of residual gold and silver values to be recovered in the ADR circuit discussed in Chapter 14.4.6.
 
14.4.4
Flotation Concentrate Leaching
 
The concentrate leaching circuit is located in the leaching/recovery area of the mill facilities and is comprised of four agitated leach tanks, each with a nominal capacity of 200 m3, providing a total average leaching time of roughly 48 hours.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Thickened flotation concentrate is diluted from 65% solids to approximately 50% solids and sodium cyanide solution is added to maintain a concentration of 10 g/L NaCN.  The plant switched from air injection using compressors prior to 2019 to liquid oxygen which is injected into the concentrate solution to enhance the silver-CN bonding process at lower cyanidation rates resulting in lower cyanide consumption and reduced power.
 
The mixed concentrate is pumped from the concentrate leach circuit to a triple stage countercurrent clarification (CCD) circuit to recover the gold and silver bonded to the cyanide in solution.  Each stage consists of a high-rate, 9.0 m diameter clarifier-thickener and an inter-stage mixing tank to enhance washing efficiency.  Pregnant solution containing the recoverable metal is collected from the overflow at the first CCD thickener. This solution is pumped to the pregnant solution tank for delivery to the Merrill Crowe circuit at the refinery building for metal extraction.  Thickened underflow from the final CCD thickener is pumped to an agitated leach circuit with the flotation underflow for additional leaching and potential recovery of residual metal values.
 
14.4.5
Flotation Tailings Leaching
 
The flotation tailings leaching circuit is also located in the leaching/recovery area of the mill facilities.
 
The leach circuit comprises a total of eight leach tanks.  The tanks each have different capacities, ranging from 2,000 m3 to 1,162 m3 for tanks No. 1 and No. 8, respectively, providing an overall retention time of 24 hours.
 
Activated carbon is introduced to the last four tanks of the circuit (tanks 4 to 8) with the main objective of capture dissolved gold and silver values content in solution before it is transferred to the final tailing thickener.  The loaded carbon is washed, bagged, and shipped to an outside refinery facility for processing.
 
Thickened flotation tails are pumped to the tailings leach circuit.  The slurry is combined with the concentrate leached residue; the slurry is diluted to approximately 42% solids, and the sodium cyanide solution and lime slurry are added along with injected oxygen through the agitator shafts in Tank No. 1 and compressed air for tanks No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 7.
 
Liquid oxygen is injected in tank No. 1.  The liquid oxygen has proven success enhancing silver-cyanide leaching reaction resulting in additional silver values extraction and a significant cyanide consumption reduction.  The leaching circuit tailings slurry is transferred to the cyanide detoxification circuit.
 
14.4.6
Carbon Desorption
 
This circuit was re-introduced the second quarter of 2018.  Prior to this the carbon was shipped to external refineries from 2016–2018. The circuit was upgraded with an ADR stripping circuit to support recovery improvement efforts on the flotation tailings circuit.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


14.4.7
Carbon Regeneration
 
As part of the carbon desorption and ADR project in 2018, a carbon regeneration furnace was added to reduce carbon consumption by reactivating stripped carbon.  This system was active through 2021.
 
14.4.8
Merrill Crowe and Refining
 
Pregnant solution from the flotation concentrate leach CCD first thickener overflow is pumped to one of three batch solution tanks, and then pumped to the primary Merrill Crowe system.  The primary Merrill Crowe circuit capacity is 83 m3/hr.
 
A secondary Merrill Crowe unit handles low-grade pregnant solution from the floatation tailings leach circuit.  The final tailings thickener overflow is the source of this low-grade pregnant solution, which is pumped throughout the secondary Merrill Crowe circuit.  The secondary Merrill Crowe circuit has a capacity of 175 m3/hr.  The secondary Merrill Crowe system was designed to handle higher grade pregnant solution from the flotation concentrate leach CCD circuit.
 
In the Merrill Crowe process, total suspended solids are first removed from the pregnant solution using a series of clarification filters.  The clarified pregnant solution is routed to a deaeration tower to impact a bed of high-surface area plastic tower packing. As the solution travels down the packing, dissolved oxygen is removed from the solution and routed through the vacuum system piping to the vacuum pump, and then to the atmosphere.  The dissolved oxygen is removed to a concentration of approximately to <0.7 ppm.  Once the pregnant solution has been clarified and de-aerated, it is ready for precious metal precipitation by zinc cementation.  The precipitated gold and silver resulting from the zinc cementation reactions are routed to the precipitate filters.  The spent solution is pumped back to different points of the flotation tailings leaching circuit and/or the concentrate leach circuit for slurry washing and dilution.
 
The precipitate produced by Merrill Crowe is dried in two electrical dryer ovens before being smelted in a 600 kg/hr capacity electric induction furnace and poured into 30 kg doré ingots.  Dore ingots are shipped directly to an offsite refinery.
 
14.4.9
Cyanide Detoxification
 
Flotation tailings leaching slurry at approximately 48% solids is transferred to a tailings thickener for water and cyanide recovery purposes, prior to delivery to the cyanide detoxification circuit.  Thickener overflow is pumped to the secondary Merrill Crowe circuit or recycled back to the leaching circuit, while the thickened underflow is pumped to two 534 m3 capacity agitated tanks in series for detoxification.
 
The final tailings detoxification circuit is based on the use of trademarked cyanide destruction reagents and oxygen for neutralization of slurry prior to final thickening and disposal in the tailing's facility.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


14.5
Equipment Sizing
 
The equipment is sized for a design plant throughput of 5,500–7,000 t/d mill feed.  Variability is built into the design to address ranges of grade and grind indices.
 
The major equipment list is provided in Table 14‑1.
 
14.6
Power and Consumables
 
The average monthly electrical power consumption is 6,218 MWhrs at a cost of $0.081/kWhr.  Power is supplied by the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE).
 
The processing circuit cycles approximately 6,650 m3 of water daily; this consists of approximately 650 m3 of fresh water from a local dam and the remaining 6,000 m3 being water reclaimed from the TSF and reused in the mill.
 
The consumables used in the process include:
 
•
Xanthate;
 
•
Frother;
 
•
Aerofloat 404;
 
•
Sodium cyanide;
 
•
Lime;
 
•
Flocculant;
 
•
Activated carbon;
 
•
Sodium hydroxide;
 
•
Hydrochloric acid;
 
•
Zinc;
 
•
Diatomaceous earth;
 
•
Neutralite;
 
•
Liquid oxygen.
 
14.7
Personnel
 
The personnel requirements in the process plant for the LOM total 128.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 14‑1:
Major Equipment List
 
Area
Equipment
Primary crusher
Jaw crusher is a Nordberg C-140 (350 t/hr)
Grinding area
Allis Chalmer SAG and Ball mills, 6.7 m in diameter and 7.5 m length (250 t/hr)
Classification area
Cyclone battery consists of nine 203cm Krebs cyclones
Flotation area
Six 100 m3 capacity tank cells.  Rougher flotation occurs at the first bank of two tank cells, and scavenger flotation occurs sequentially down the bank.
The cleaners bank consists of two 17 m3 capacity cells where the first cleaner stage is provided. Then the first cleaner concentrate reports to a conditioning tank for additional reagents adjustment, and then flows to a bank of three 17 m3 capacity cells
Flotation concentrate leaching
The leach area is comprised of four agitation leach tanks for flotation concentrate, each with a nominal capacity of 200 m3.  Leached slurry from the concentrate leach circuit is then pumped to a triple-stage countercurrent decantation circuit. Each stage consists of a high rate, 9.0 m diameter clarifier
Flotation tailings leaching
The leach circuit comprises a total of eight leach tanks.  The tanks each have different capacities, ranging from 2,000 m3 to 1,162 m3 for tanks No. 1 and No. 8, respectively. Leached slurry from the tailing leach circuit is then pumped to a double stage countercurrent decantation. Each stage consists of a high rate, 23.0 m diameter clarifier (thickener)
ADR circuit
The ADR comprises an acid wash column, elution column, and regeneration kiln, for process 4 of carbon tons per cycle.
Merrill Crowe
Pregnant solution from the flotation concentrate leach countercurrent decantation is pumped to a Merrill Crowe system (#1) at a flow rate ranging from 85–92 m3/hr.
Pregnant solution from the flotation tailing leach countercurrent decantation is pumped to a second Merrill Crowe system (#2), at a flow rate ranging from 285–295 m3/hr.
Cyanide detoxification
Thickened underflow is pumped to two 534 m3 capacity agitated tanks in series
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
 
15.1
Introduction
 
Infrastructure to support operations is in place, and includes:
 
•
Three operating underground mines:
 

 o
Underground ventilation systems, including ventilation fans, raises, primary bulkheads, airlock doors and booster fans;
 

 o
Settling sumps and primary pump stations;
 

 o
Blasting agent and explosives magazines;
 

 o
Electrical substations and switch gears;
 

 o
High and low voltage electrical cabling;
 

 o
Mine communications system leaky feeder and fiber optic;
 

 o
Cabling for central blasting system;
 

 o
Underground lunchrooms and portable refuge stations;
 

 o
Underground maintenance facilities (electrical and equipment);
 

 o
Secondary egress raises with ladders;
 

 o
Mine services (piping for dewatering, process water and compressed air);
 

 o
Compressed air plant;
 

 •
Two shotcrete mixing plants;
 

 •
Backfill cement mixing plant;
 

 •
ROM pads at the mine portal areas and plant;
 

 •
Process plant;
 

 •
TSF and associated tailings pipelines, pumps and tailings water return infrastructure;
 

 •
Heavy and lift vehicle maintenance facilities (underground and surface);
 

 •
Materials storage areas and laydown facilities;
 

 •
Various support facilities including warehouse, administration, contractor and temporary offices, raw water storage, fuel storage, core processing facilities, clinic and emergency response facilities, gatehouse, change rooms, personnel training facilities, information technology (IT) communications setups and towers, environmental monitoring facilities, sewage treatment plants, and reagents shed;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary



•
Electrical substations and power transmission lines, including an overhead high voltage power line from the main substation near the Palmarejo process plant to the Guadalupe substation and associated electrical substations and switch gear;
 

 •
Emergency powerhouse with 12 diesel generators;
 

 •
Gravel airstrip;
 

 •
Water treatment plant;
 

 •
Water pipelines and pumping stations;
 

 •
Mine permanent camp and contractor facilities and kitchens.
 
An infrastructure layout map is provided as Figure 15‑1.
 
15.2
Roads and Logistics
 
Road access to the operations is discussed in Chapter 4.2.
 
The state road between San Rafael and Palmarejo was upgraded in late 2007 for the mobilization of equipment and construction materials.  Coeur Mexicana maintains this road on an on-going basis to support majority of logistic material delivery to support operations along this route.  A secondary poorly maintained route exists to the west through Chínipas to the state of Sonora, which provides limited access for material and site personnel.  Coeur also constructed and maintains the access/ore haulage road from the Guadalupe and Independencia portals to the Palmarejo process plant.  The road allows CAT 777F haul truck transit used as primary transport or ore from the mine portals to the ROM stockpiles located at the process plant.
 
15.3
Stockpiles
 
The Palmarejo Operations currently maintain limited ROM stockpiles with multistage load-transport-feed sequencing to manage blending at the mine and plant.  A set of stockpiles are located at the mine portals at Independencia and Guadalupe. And larger pad areas are located to the south of the primary crusher at the plant site.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Figure 15‑1:
Infrastructure Layout Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2020.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


15.4
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
 
A series of WRSFs are located at the currently closed Palmarejo open pit operation.  No mine waste has been added to the WRSFs since 2015 when the pit was closed.  Waste is currently being excavated and processed to support backfill operations underground.  Following the current LOM underground plan these WRSFs will continue to be excavated to support waste rock and cemented backfill requirements underground and surface projects, including tailings raises, road works, and various civil projects to support on-going operations.
 
15.5
Tailings Storage Facilities
 
The TSF was constructed and commissioned in 2010.  It is a zoned downstream earthfill dam with progressively coarser fill zones to reduce seepage and facilitate seepage collection with the finest zone adjacent to the upstream slope and the coarsest zone adjacent to the downstream slope.  The upstream slope is constructed at 2H:1V and lined with a high-density polyethylene geomembrane and keyed into the foundation materials.  The downstream slope is also 2H:1V.  Instrumentation installed include vibrating wire piezometers, vibrating wire settlement plates, and survey prisms.  The facility has been raised through a series of stages with the current Stage 5 scheduled for completion in May, 2022.  An emergency spillway was constructed in mid-2021 to support final design and closure requirements.
 
The initial stage created a crest elevation of 790 m and was raised to 818 m in four stages using the downstream construction method.  The fifth stage is currently being constructed to raise the crest elevation to 823 m in three stages (5a, 5b, and 5c) using a modified-centerline construction method.  The facility is projected to reach capacity in Q1 2023 at a capacity of 15.4 Mm3, by which time the operation will transition to disposal of tailings in the mined-out Palmarejo open pit.  A follow-up design of Stage 6 was completed to support a 1.5 m raise and eight months of storage capacity as contingency to support this transition.
 
The proposed TSF facility in the abandoned open pit will include an underdrain system within the abandoned underground below the pit, surface tailings discharge and pump-back systems, and a high compression thickener to provided high solids tails and increased water recovery.
 
15.6
Water Management Structures
 
The three primary water management structures located at the TSF are a freshwater diversion dam, freshwater diversion channel, and an environmental control dam.
 
The freshwater diversion dam is a zoned earthfill dam constructed to divert a large drainage around the tailings basin and provide limited permitted water support to the plant.  A bituminous geomembrane is installed on the upstream face of the freshwater diversion dam as erosion protection and seepage control.  Construction of the freshwater diversion dam was completed in 2009 and filling of the freshwater diversion dam basin commenced immediately thereafter.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The freshwater diversion channel was constructed to convey stormwater from the freshwater diversion dam basin around the tailings pond to the environmental control dam basin located downstream of the tailings facility.  Construction of the freshwater diversion channel was completed in 2009–2010.  The channel apex is located approximately 10 m below the top of the freshwater diversion dam to accommodate and control flood release during heavy rain events.
 
The environmental control dam is a roller-compacted concrete dam constructed to provide a single collection and discharge location for all potentially impacted flow from the diversion and lateral streams entering the basin.  The dam was designed as an overtopping structure with a stepped spillway constructed on the downstream face under high flow conditions.  The facility is managed dry during most of the year with underflow pipe to manage and release smaller flows and maintain flow through within the basin.  Construction of the environmental control dam was completed in June 2009.  Since the dam was constructed, flow over the environmental control dam spillway has occurred serval times periodically during the wet season.  Since 2018, the underflow drain has remained open to eliminate long term storage and limit the topping to a single event.
 
In 2016, a water treatment plant was constructed to treat and release excess water from the tailings pond.  A water discharge permit obtained from the Mexican National Water Regulatory Agency (CONAGUA) allows discharge of a maximum of 2.0 Mm3/a of treated water into a downstream creek.  The water treatment system can treat the outstanding water over balance in the TSF and comply with water quality requirements as per the CONAGUA permit.
 
Groundwater from the underground mines is collected in level sumps constructed in the underground mines.  The collected water is drained and pumped to central collection sumps in each mine to allow suspended solids to settle before it is pumped to a surface treatment plant, constructed in 2019, for further clarification.  The water is then cycled both back to the underground mine to support operations, and to the plant, via a pipeline constructed in 2020, to support process at the plant.
 
15.7
Water Supply
 
Water for the process facilities is obtained from a variety of sources.  Reclaimed water from the wet tailings including underflow collection is recycled back to the plant from the TSF.  When needed, additional make-up water is pumped from the underground mines, additional subsurface sources from areas wells, limited permit options from the freshwater diversion dam, and a pump station located at the Chínipas River.
 
Domestic use water is purchased from local municipalities or is trucked to site from various stations that hold water sourced from the Chínipas River.  All gray water is stored and blended for use in the process cycle at the plant.
 
15.8
Camps and Accommodation
 
The mine camp facilities and kitchen support the requirements of the workforce.  Contractors and employees live at the camp while working on site.  The camp has a capacity of 532 beds.  Satellite camp complexes accommodate housekeeping, security, and kitchen staff with a capacity of 126 beds.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


15.9
Power and Electrical
 
The main substation for the Palmarejo Operations has a 115 kV/13.8 kV transformer, with capacity of 20/25 mVA (one in back up).  The system includes a 66 km overhead 115 kV distribution line ceded to the CFE that was built in 2009.  The process plant and all other electrical loads are connected to this grid.  The overall power requirement for the operation is 18 MW, and the maximum capacity of the current infrastructure is 21 MW.
 
A 5.9 km-long power line is in place from the main substation to the Guadalupe and Independencia mines, with capacity for 115 kV, although it is currently operating on 13.8 kV.  This infrastructure will allow for power capacity expansion in the future.  Substations have been constructed on the surface at the Guadalupe and Independencia mines, and underground at the La Nación mine.  The estimated capacity for Guadalupe, Independencia, and La Nación complexes (at full production) is approximately 5.0 MW.
 
An emergency powerhouse is located near the process plant and contains 12 diesel generators that operate during main power outages.  The total installed emergency power capacity is 21.9 MW, which is sufficient for LOM requirements.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
 
16.1
Markets
 
No market studies are currently relevant as the Palmarejo Operations consist of operating mines producing a readily-saleable commodity in the form of doré.  Gold and silver are freely traded, at prices that are widely known, and the prospects for the sale of any production are well understood.
 
Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
There are no agency relationships relevant to the marketing strategies used.
 
Product valuation is included in the economic analysis in Chapter 19 and is based on a combination of the metallurgical recovery, commodity pricing, and consideration of processing charges.
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty would not impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 
Coeur’s strategy on hedging silver and gold is focused on providing downside protection.  To accomplish that, the company may enter into derivative contracts to protect the selling price for a certain portion of the production if terms are attractive.
 
To mitigate the risks associated with gold and silver price fluctuations, Coeur may enter into option contracts to hedge future production.  Coeur is targeting to hedge up to 50% of expected gold production through 2021 and 2022 and may in the future layer on additional hedges as circumstances warrant.
 
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves: US$1,400 US$/oz;
 
•
Mineral resources:  US$1,700 US$/oz;

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The long-term silver price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves: US$20.00/oz;
 
•
Mineral resources:  US$22.00/oz.
 
The price forecasts used in the cashflow analysis for gold vary from US$1,400/oz to US$1,750/oz and US$22/oz to $US24/oz for silver.
 
All commodity prices are advised by the corporate investment committee and revised as necessary throughout the budget and forecast process.  This guidance is used to keep all sites using the same basis for revenue.  The sites do not advise prices or deviate from the prices provided.
 
16.3
Contracts
 
The Palmarejo Operations produce silver and gold doré, which is transported from the mine site to the refinery by a secure transportation provider.  The transportation cost consists of a fixed charge plus a liability charge based on the declared value of the shipment and is approximately $0.065/oz of doré shipped.
 
Coeur Mexicana has contracts with one U.S. based refiner and one Switzerland-based refiner, which refine the Palmarejo Operations’ doré bars into silver and gold bullion. The bullion meets certain benchmark standards set by the London Bullion Market Association, which regulates the acceptable requirements for bullion traded in the London precious metals markets.  The terms of these contracts include:
 
•
A treatment charge based on the weight of the doré bars received at the refinery;
 
•
A metal return percentage applied to recoverable gold;
 
•
A metal return percentage applied to recoverable silver;
 
•
Penalties charged for deleterious elements contained in the doré bars.  The total of these charges can range from $0.30–$0.40/oz doré.
 
Currently, there are contracts in place at the Palmarejo Operations to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise boring, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  These contracts are periodically put up for bid or negotiated to ensure the rates remain favorable to Coeur.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


16.4
QP Statement
 
For the purposes of the gold and silver price forecasts used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, the QPs reviewed the corporate pricing provided by Coeur, and accepted these prices as reasonable.  The reviews included checking the pricing used in technical reports recently filed with Canadian regulatory authorities, pricing reported by major mining company peers in recent public filings, the current spot gold and silver pricing, and three-year trailing average pricing.
 
The US$1,400/oz Au and US$20/oz Ag prices are considered to be a reasonable forecast for the nine-year mine life envisaged in the mine plan.  The US$1,700/oz Au and US$22/oz Ag mineral resource price is, as noted, selected to ensure that the mineral reserves are a subset of the mineral resources and assume that there is sufficient time in the nine-year mine life forecast for the mineral reserves for the mineral resources to potentially be converted to mineral reserves.
 
Overall, the QPs conclude that there is sufficient time in the nine-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecasts for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, testwork and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates or upgrade the confidence categories that are currently assigned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
 
17.1
Introduction
 
The environmental permitting process in Mexico requires the presentation of two different documents at the federal level: an Environmental Impact Statement (MIA in the Spanish acronym) and a Land Use Change (CUS in the Spanish acronym).  These documents are reviewed and approved by Mexico’s environmental authority SEMARNAT.  In addition, authorization from CONAGUA is needed for water use, effluent discharge, and for the construction of facilities in federal watersheds.
 
17.2
Baseline and Supporting Studies
 
Baseline studies and monitoring reports were required for each mine permit obtained.
 
Several environmental studies were completed in support of permitting activities.  These studies included:
 
•
Air quality;
 
•
Weather;
 
•
Landscape;
 
•
Seismicity and natural hazards;
 
•
Groundwater and surface water quality;
 
•
Biodiversity, terrestrial and aquatic;
 
•
Soils characteristic, uses, and potential use;
 
•
Noise and vibration;
 
•
Geochemical mineral waste characterization;
 
•
Archaeology/cultural heritage;
 
•
Socioeconomics and cultural aspects.
 
17.3
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
 
Coeur Mexicana conducts routine monitoring of physical and biological parameters required in the MIA approval resolution and the MIA document itself.  These include groundwater and surface water quality, air quality, emissions to the air, biodiversity, water discharges, etc.  Results from these monitoring activities are presented to the authorities through their official digital platform.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


As part of the environmental management program of the Palmarejo Operations, there is a continuous evaluation of the acid rock drainage (ARD) potential for waste rock and tailings in the extraction process.  The initial ARD testing by Environmental Geochemistry International Pty Ltd. in 2005 indicated a very low ARD potential for waste rock and tailings.
 
In 2012, a long-term humidity cell test was conducted on composite tailings samples to assess the potential for the generation of acid.  Results from testing conclusively indicate that pre-2012 tailings deposited in the TSF will not present problems with acid generation.  Additional studies conducted in 2016 and 2017 indicate that the potential for acid generation of the tailings in the TSF is low and that the tailings are essentially anoxic and incapable of oxidizing while inundated with water.
 
In November 2017, Knight Piésold collected samples from tailings and waste rock as part of their Site Wide Closure Plan, including samples from Guadalupe and Independencia.  From their study, Knight Piésold concluded that the samples collected are not potentially acid generating nor metal leaching and do not pose a threat to the environment.
 
Coeur continuously updates the information with data from the material mined from the underground operations.  Concurrent sampling and paste pH testing of the underground works at Guadalupe and Independencia support the absence of ARD and the strong neutralization potential of the waste rock.
 
Wildlife and biodiversity monitoring is conducted by CIMA Consultores, a Chihuahua-based consulting firm, four times during the year.  The most recent study was conducted in August and reported on September 2021.
 
17.4
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
The SEMARNAT Environmental and Forestry Authorizations for the Project and NOM-141-SEMARNAT-2003 requires a restoration and monitoring program for mining areas that will recover the soil for landscape restitution and restore pre-mining land-use and ecosystem conditions.
 
Coeur conducts an annual review of its potential reclamation responsibilities company wide.  A site-wide Closure Plan was prepared by Knight Piésold Consulting in December 2017.  This document served as the base for potential closure and reclamation cost estimation, prepared by KC Harvey Environmental in October 2021.  The 2021 year-end closure assessment for the actual disturbance for final reclamation at the Palmarejo Operations, is estimated at US$40.6 M.
 
17.5
Permitting
 
17.5.1
Environmental Impact Statements
 
Coeur Mexicana submitted its initial MIA for Palmarejo in March 2008 (Palmarejo Phase 1) and received its first environmental authorization from SEMARNAT in May 2008 for a period of 13 years (including 11 years of operation and two years for closure and reclamation).  This authorization covered the Palmarejo Phase 1 project that included all production facilities (process plant, tailings area, most waste deposits, open pit and underground facilities), for a total of 378 ha.  Under the first environmental license, Coeur was authorized to operate Palmarejo until May 2017, followed by two years of reclamation activities until May 2019.  This first authorization was extended for an additional 6.5 years in 2017 and is valid for production through October 2023 followed by a two-year closure period.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Coeur Mexicana filed for, and received, approval for a second environmental authorization (Palmarejo Phase 2) for an additional 290.34 ha, which was issued in 2010 for 10 years, ending in December 2020.  This authorization was extended for five additional years and is valid through November 2025.
 
Coeur Mexicana submitted separate MIAs for some aspects of the Palmarejo Operations, including:
 
•
Development of the Guadalupe and Independencia mines for an additional 43.93 ha, expiring on November 2023 plus the closure stage;
 
•
Construction of a haul road between Palmarejo and Guadalupe covering 4.38 ha, expires November 2027;
 
•
The power line and electric substation for Guadalupe, covering 6.47 ha, expires October 2025;
 
•
The Guadalupe and Independencia South Portal, expires June 2027;
 
•
Water treatment plant, expires May 2023;
 
•
Los Gavilanes–El Guamuchil aqueduct, expires December 2028.
 
As noted in Chapter 3.7.1, Coeur has initiated the process of obtaining an MIA-R.  In late July 2021, SEMARNAT requested additional information to the MIA-R document.  This was supplied by Coeur on August 10, 2021.  It is expected that the MIA-R will be approved in the first quarter of 2022.  When approved the MIA-R will add 10 additional years to the current present environmental license, will consolidate 13 different authorizations under a single global license, and will include all new facilities and mine development expected for the LOM in this Report.
 
17.5.2
Change in Land Use Authorizations
 
Following the acceptance of the various MIAs, a vegetation disturbance permit or change in land use authorization (Cambio de Uso de Suelo, or CUS) was applied for.  The original Palmarejo Phase I CUS was approved in 2008 for a period of 10 years, and then extended in 2016 for five additional (Dec 2021) years covering 327.3 ha for land disturbance.  Concurrently, Palmarejo Phase II has a CUS approval for 290.34 ha, granted in 2010 for a seven-year period, extended for additional 3.5 years until December 2021.  To date, the Project has CUS approval for mining activities over a total of 723 ha, including 668 ha for Palmarejo, 43 ha for Guadalupe, and 12 ha for other related facilities.  The operations also have CUS approval for 3.8 ha for exploration activities at La Patria.
 
The Phase I MIA and corresponding CUS authorizations were extended by SEMARNAT through a relatively simple notification procedure for additional time equivalent to one-half of the initial authorized period.  In the case of Palmarejo Phase I MIA, this represents 6.5 years of additional environmental authorization, starting May 2019.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


The CUS is an authorization to clear natural vegetation and within the Phase I and Phase II areas, required areas were cleared during the construction phase. There is no need to further extend these authorizations. If additional land disturbance for mining activities is required, it can be added through a new CUS request.  Payment to the Forestry Fund, in accordance with the additional disturbance, would be required.
 
17.5.3
Current Permits
 
Coeur Mexicana was granted full authorization for open pit and underground gold and silver mining activities within the areas outlined in the different MIAs.  This includes permits for exploration, construction, and operation of the underground gold and silver mines, and land use/disturbance permits.  The key authorizations and their terms are summarized in Table 17‑1.  The authorizations required for production are in good standing.
 
Current permitting includes the cyanide leaching process, refining and cyanide detoxification of the tailings prior to TSF discharge.  In 2012, SEMARNAT set a specific limit for cyanide concentrations in the tailings disposed in the TSF; this limit is consistent with other Coeur operations at 50 ppm weakly acid-dissociable cyanide.  Coeur continues to meet the standards recommended in the International Cyanide Management Code.
 
All MIAs will expire prior to the planned end of mine life except one, “MIA Culvert extension at GPE”.  Coeur is in the process of obtaining a new environmental license, MIA-R (refer to discussion in Chapter 17.5.1), to cover the remining LOM.
 
17.6
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur actively engages with the local community with a series of cultural social and economic programs divided into four main categories:
 
•
Local hiring and local purchases:  through the apprentice program, local youth are trained for different job opportunities and several of the apprentices are hired by the company. Priority is given to local providers and contractors;
 
•
House improvement program:  the community relations group together with the projects department has developed the house improvement program that consists of community house roof and floor repair, installation of rainwater collection systems, backyard vegetable gardens, fruit tree donations, and hen coops for egg supply;
 
•
Social investment in vulnerable groups:  families with vulnerable members are supported through a series of social programs: a) the 65+ program for vulnerable elderly through the sale of scrap metal, b) grocery donation programs;
 
•
Productive community programs: a) handcrafted soap and shampoo, b) herbs and medicinal plants/ointments and creams.
 
The surrounding communities are supportive of the Palmarejo Operations, and the employment and benefits that the mines provide.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 17‑1:
Granted Authorizations
 
Authorization Name
Granting
Authority
Date
Granted
Term
Granted
Comment
MIA Palmarejo I
SEMARNAT
23-May-06
29-Oct-25
Extended for 7.5 years.  Production until May 29, 2023, followed by closure period up to Oct 29, 2025.
CUS Palmarejo I
SEMARNAT
14-Jul-08
31-Dec-21
  
MIA Palmarejo II
SEMARNAT
7-Dec-10
16-Nov-25
Extended for 5 years.  Operative until Nov 16th 2023 plus 2 year closure up to Nov 16 2025
CUS Palmarejo II
SEMARNAT
3-Nov-10
03-Nov-21
  
MIA Guadalupe I
SEMARNAT
24-Sep-10
26-Nov-23
Plus 2 years of closure stage.
CUS Guadalupe I
SEMARNAT
26-Nov-10
26-Nov-19
No extension required. No additional soil use changes necessary.
CUS Guadalupe II
SEMARNAT
27-Feb-13
16-Apr-17
No extension required. No additional soil use changes necessary.
MIA Hauling Road I
SEMARNAT
30-May-11
11-Jan-15
New MIA approved on 11 Nov 2015 for hauling road expansion.
CUS Hauling Road I
SEMARNAT
11-Jul-11
11-Jul-16
No extension required
CUS Hauling Road II
SEMARNAT
8-May-14
8-May-16
No extension required
MIA WTP FTD
SEMARNAT
31-May-13
31-May-23
Authorization for PTAR 3 operation, located at FTD, not included in previous MIAs
MIA ICA/GPE S Portal
SEMARNAT
4-Mar-16
16-Jun-27
  
CUS ICA/GPE S Portal
SEMARNAT
16-Jun-16
16-Jun-26
  
MIA Power Line GPE
SEMARNAT
19-Mar-15
15-Oct-25
  
CUS Power Line GPE
SEMARNAT
23-Jun-15
15-Oct-17
No extension required
MIA Water line Gavilanes-Guamuchil
SEMARNAT
5-Dec-08
5-Dec-28
  
MIA Borrow Materials Area
SEMARNAT
6-Feb-18
6-Feb-22
3.5 ha), to use in FTD Stage 5 construction in 2018.  No extension required.
CUS Borrow Materials Area
SEMARNAT
8-Aug-18
8-Aug-22
  
MIA PJO-GPE Hauling Road Expansion
SEMARNAT
11-Nov-15
19-Nov-27
  
CUS PJO-GPE Haul Road Expansion
SEMARNAT
13-Aug-18
13-Aug-21
No extension required
MIA Deposit dredged material from ECD
SEMARNAT
10-Apr-18
10-Apr-28
Material dredged from environmental control dam and freshwater diversion channel stabilization
CUS Deposit dredged material from ECD
SEMARNAT
13-Aug-18
13-Aug-21
No extension required
MIA Culvert extension at GPE
SEMARNAT
6-Jun-18
6-Jun-48
  
CUS Culvert extension at GPE
SEMARNAT
28-Aug-18
28-Aug-20
No extension required
CUS Spillway construction
SEMARNAT
30-Apr-19
30-Apr-20
No extension required
CUS modification for Spillway
SEMARNAT
30-Apr-19
30-Apr-20
No extension required
Water extraction permit, location change
CONAGUA
16-Nov-14
16-Nov-34
Water extraction license modification, relocation from environmental control dam embankment to freshwater dam embankment.
Water well
CONAGUA
9-Jun-17
9-Jun-27
Water extraction license for 189,216 m3/year. Valid for 10 years.
Water discharge permit, PTAR 3
CONAGUA
25-Feb-16
25-Feb-26
Discharge permit for Palmarejo tailings area, water treatment plant PTAR3. Authorized discharge volume: 2,628,000 m3/year
Water discharge permit, PTAR 1
CONAGUA
28-Jan-09
28-Jan-24
water treatment plant authorized discharge volume: 34,700 m3/year
Water discharge permit, PTAR 2
CONAGUA
3-Aug-12
3-Aug-22
Water treatment plant authorized discharge volume: 37,250 m3/year
Explosive use and storage
SEDENA
1-Jan-21
31-Dec-22
Secretaria de la Defensa Naciónal (SEDENA) Permit # 4361-Chih.
Sanitary Landfill
SEDUE
23-Apr-19
30-Apr-24
Secretaría de Desarrrollo Urbano y Ecológico (SEDUE)
 
Note:  Acronyms used in table:  MIA: Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental or Environmental Impact Statement; CUS: Cambio de uso del suelo or soil change use for vegetation clearing; GPE: Guadalupe mine; ICA: Independencia mine; FTD: Final tailings dam
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Coeur Mexicana received the distinguished Social Responsibility Award from the Mexican Center of Philanthropy-CEMEFI on February 26, 2021.  This award is bestowed on companies that have demonstrated a commitment to promoting social responsibility within the company as well as in the communities in which the company operates.  This is the 11th year that Coeur Mexicana was an award recipient.
 
17.7
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
 
Based on the information provided to the QP by Coeur (see Chapter 25), there are no material issues known to the QP that will require mitigation activities or allocation of remediation costs in respect of environmental, permitting, closure or social license considerations beyond what is included in the existing plans. Currently Coeur Mexicana is a mature mining operation that has demonstrated its ability to maintain environmental compliance, attain permits in a timely manner and has a strong social license to operate within its local communities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
 
18.1
Introduction
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
 
18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
 
Major LOM capital costs include, but are not limited to mine development, plant expansions or upgrades, equipment replacement, and tailings storage.
 
Capital costs are based on recent prices or operating data.  No allowance for contingency is included.
 
The basis of the capital estimates is derived from expected equipment needs and Project plans and is determined with the assistance of vendor and contractor quotes, previous buying experience and/or experience with construction of similar projects using Owner equipment and labor.  The capital cost estimate includes consideration of historical capital cost estimates reconciled where Owner equipment and labor are used.
 
Capital expenditures consist largely of mining and processing equipment upgrades and replacement, capital leases, TSF construction and raises, small projects to support community or logistics, and general and administrative (G&A) support equipment, leases, and offices.  Capital costs are split into:
 
•
Sustaining capital:  Costs support the existing LOM plan.
 
•
Non-sustaining capital:  Costs are for a long-term structure or external project that does not necessarily relate directly to the mine plan.  Non-sustaining capital allocations include TSF raises and closure costs, as well as community support projects.
 
Labor assumptions for capital projects are based on third-party contractor costs, internal employee wage rates plus benefits, or a combination of the two where combined support is required.
 
Material costs are based on current prices for consumables without market or inflation rate assumed.
 
Owner labor costs to support mechanical rebuilds or internal projects that are included in capital costs at operating rates.  Where the labor is to be provided by a contracted entity, contractor labor costs are included in the estimate.
 
Mine capital costs are estimated based on historic and reconciled Owner operating cost-plus adjustments.  Rebuilds and equipment replacement costs are estimated based on current material and part costs.  Major mine equipment fleet replacements are assumed to be conducted on an as-needs basis, depending on equipment condition, utilization, and hours.  A capital cost of US$167.0 M is estimated for the LOM.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


A major sustaining capital cost at Palmarejo is underground development for a LOM total of US$71.1 M.
 
Process capital costs include estimates of approximately US$2.7 M plus another average of US$1.5 M per year for process sustaining capital for a total of US$9.2 M.  The LOM mobile equipment capital is estimated at US$34.0 M.   The TSF and in-pit tailing disposal facilities have US$20.1 M estimated capital spend remaining over the Project life.
 
General and administrative capital costs average US$0.7 M per year in sustaining capital costs.  Total general and administrative capital costs are US$3.9 M over the LOM.
 
The total reclamation and closure capital cost is estimated at US$40.6 M, with costs spread over the last four years of mine life.
 
18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
 
Capital expenditure for the LOM is estimated at US$167.0 M from January 1, 2022.  Estimated capital expenditures are shown in Table 18‑1.
 
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
 
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
 
Operating costs were developed based on historical cost performance and first principal calculations based on current commodity costs, labor rates, and equipment costs.  The costs are provided for each major cost center: mining, processing, selling expense, and G&A.  The total operating cost estimate includes all site costs, off-site costs associated with gold and silver metal sales, gold stream payments, and corporate overheads.  The cost estimates are based on budgeted and expected LOM costs.
 
Mine operating costs are estimated by area, based on an average mining rate of approximately 5,000 t/d.  Mine and transport unit costs are estimated at US$53.80/t milled.
 
Processing costs include all activities related to crushing, grinding, flotation concentrate and tailings leaching, carbon elution and regeneration, cyanide destruction, electrowinning and refining, tailings storage facility, water reclaim, reagent systems, and the metallurgical laboratory.  Processing costs are modelled as variable and period costs.  Variable costs are costs that change with throughput rate, consisting largely of consumables/supplies and power costs, as well as maintenance and other allocations.  Period costs are time related costs incurred regardless of production, including labor, contractors, and a portion of maintenance and other distributed costs.  Total process costs vary year over year depending on the operational plan.  The process operating cost is estimated to average US$34.05/t milled over the process LOM.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 18‑1:
Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year (US$ M)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Mine development
17.5
17.4
16.4
11.6
0.2
3.9
4.0
0.7
—
71.7
Infrastructure
6.4
3.6
4.7
3.4
-
2.8
0.8
0.4
—
15.8
Mobile equipment
5.2
5.2
6.5
6.5
5.3
5.3
—
—
—
34.0
GPE substation
1.8
2.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.3
Process equipment
2.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.7
Process sustaining capital
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.75
—
—
—
9.2
Mine & site capital
3.0
2.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.3
G&A & others
1.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
—
—
—
—
3.9
Tailings/water treatment
15.8
4.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20.1
Total Capital Cost Estimate
49.0
37.8
29.7
23.0
8.5
12.7
5.3
1.1
—
167.0
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Infrastructure and other distributable costs such as power, light vehicles, maintenance, fuel, travel, and camp are distributed through the mining, processing, and site general costs as applicable.
 
General and administrative costs are modelled as period costs.  These include period costs for administrative labor and supplies costs, information technology services, health and safety, environmental, security, supply chain, and accounting costs.  Total G&A costs vary year over year depending on the operational plan.  The G&A cost is projected to average $11.37/t milled.
 
General and administrative costs are modelled as period costs.  These include period costs for administrative labor and supplies costs, information technology services, health and safety, environmental, security, supply chain, and accounting costs.  Total G&A costs vary year over year depending on the operational plan.  The G&A cost is projected to average US$15.76/t milled.
 
Selling expenses include treatment and refining costs of the doré and product transport from site to refinery for a LOM total of US$23.4 M for an average of US$0.44/oz Ag.
 
18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
 
Operating expenditure for the LOM is estimated at $US1,500.3 M from January 1, 2022 to forecast end of the LOM in 2030.
 
Operating costs are summarized in Table 18‑2.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 18‑2:
Operating Costs by Year (US$ M)
 
Operating Cost Type
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Underground mining
91.0
92.0
97.9
103.8
102.4
81.7
82.9
63.9
28.4
711.8
Surface haulage
5.7
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.7
5.5
4.8
2.8
48.2
Processing
59.3
59.7
63.6
64.3
61.8
60.2
56.5
44.7
19.9
490.1
General and administrative
27.6
27.6
28.4
28.9
28.1
28.3
26.6
21.3
10.0
226.8
Transportation, refining, and sales costs
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.4
0.8
23.4
Total Operating Costs
173.0
192.5
190.1
187.0
186.0
166.8
159.1
132.6
57.0
1,500.3
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
18.4
QP Statement
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  The estimate accuracies and ranges comply with the stated accuracy and contingency ranges required to meet a pre-feasibility level of study under SK1300.  The QPs considered the risks associated with the engineering estimation methods used when stating the accuracy and contingency ranges and preparing the cost estimate forecasts.
 
The capital and operating cost estimates are presented for an operating mine, with an 11 year production history.  Analogues to prior similar environments are not relevant to the Palmarejo Operations given the production history and that the mine was in production as at year-end December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
 
19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 
19.2
Methodology Used
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model, which was built on a zero-based budgeting process that was validated through a historical cost comparison from the previous financial year.  All the figures in this section are LOM averages and may vary from year to year depending on capital and production needs.
 
The gold price used in the financial analysis varies from US$1,750 to $1,400/oz Au and the silver price varies from US$24.00 to $22.00/oz Ag.
 
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
 
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
 
The mineral resources are discussed in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserves in Chapter 12.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of nine years to 2030.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
 
Forecast metallurgical recoveries are provided in Chapter 10.
 
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
 
Smelting and refining terms for the gold concentrates are outlined in Chapter 16.
 
19.3.4
Metal Prices
 
Metal price assumptions are provided in Chapter 16.
 
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
 
Capital and operating cost forecasts price assumptions are outlined in Chapter 18.
 
19.3.6
Working Capital
 
Working capital is based upon historical trends for movement in payables and receivables.  This is adjusted year over year for changes in spending levels.  Inventory movement is also adjusted annually for production levels. In future years the working capital is adjusted from recent historical values based upon the timing of the remaining mine life.
 
 
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
 
Royalties are discussed in Chapter 3.7.  The Franco-Nevada agreement is included in the cashflow analysis.  No other royalties are included in the cashflow analysis as there are no mineral resources or mineral reserves within the other royalties referenced in Chapter 3.7.
 
The economic model includes the Extraordinary Mining duty of 0.5% applied to all metal sales, and the Special Mining Duty of 7.5% applied to the pre-tax cash flow.
 
The income tax rate is 30%.
 
19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
 
The 2021 year-end closure assessment for the actual disturbance for final reclamation at the Palmarejo Operations, is estimated at US$40.6 M and is discussed in Chapter 17.4.
 
No salvage value is assumed or included in the economic analysis.
 
19.3.9
Financing
 
The economic analysis is reported on a 100% Project ownership basis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


19.3.10
Inflation
 
The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
19.4
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV 5% is US$229.5 M.
 
As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk to December 31, 2021, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
A summary of the financial results is provided in Table 19‑1.  An annualized cashflow statement is provided in Table 19‑2.
 
The active mining operation ceases in 2030; however, closure costs are estimated to be paid out the last four years of operation for the purposes of the financial model.
 
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to ± 20% changes in metal prices, grade, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested and can be seen in Table 19‑3.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal prices, less sensitive to grade, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 19‑1:
Cashflow Summary Table
 
Item
Units
Value
Revenue
Average gold price
US$/oz
1,644
Average silver price
US$/oz
22.56
Gross revenue
US$M
2,230.0
Operating Costs
Mining
US$M
(760.0)
Processing
US$M
(490.1)
General and administrative
US$M
(226.8)
Smelting and refining
US$M
(23.4)
Total Operating Costs
US$M
(1,500.3)
Cash Flow
Operating cash flow*
US$M
729.7
Capital expenditures
US$M
(167.0)
Reclamation
US$M
(40.6)
Total Pre-Tax Cash Flow (Net Cash Flow)
US$M
522.1
30% corporate income tax
US$M
(173.0)
7.5% special mining duty
US$M
(59.5)
0.5% extraordinary mining duty
US$M
(11.2)
Total After-Tax Cashflow (Net Cash Flow)
US$M
278.4
Total After-Tax NPV (5% Discount Rate)
US$M
229.5
 
Note: * Operating cash flow is inclusive of the Franco Nevada encumbrance.  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 19‑2:
Annualized Cashflow (2022–2030)
 
Item
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Revenue
Gross revenue*
US$M
306.7
315.6
302.3
284.3
268.8
271.9
239.6
186.9
53.9
Operating Costs
Mining
US$M
(96.7)
(97.9)
(103.8)
(102.4)
(96.5)
(87.4)
(82.9)
(63.9)
(28.4)
Processing
US$M
(59.3)
(59.7)
(63.6)
(64.3)
(61.8)
(60.2)
(56.5)
(44.7)
(19.9)
General and administrative
US$M
(27.6)
(27.6)
(28.4)
(28.9)
(28.1)
(28.3)
(26.6)
(21.3)
(10.0)
Smelting and refining
US$M
(2.9)
(3.0)
(3.0)
(3.0)
(2.8)
(2.9)
(2.6)
(2.4)
(0.8)
Total operating costs
US$M
(186.5)
(188.3)
(198.8)
(198.7)
(189.2)
(178.8)
(168.6)
(132.3)
(59.2)
Cash Flow
Operating cash flow
US$M
120.2
127.4
103.5
85.6
79.6
93.1
71.0
54.7
(5.3)
Capital expenditures
US$M
(49.0)
(37.8)
(29.7)
(23.0)
(8.5)
(12.7)
(5.3)
(1.1)
  
Reclamation
US$M
          
(10.0)
(10.0)
(10.0)
(10.6)
Total pre-tax cash flow (net cash flow)
US$M
71.2
89.6
73.7
62.6
71.1
70.4
55.7
43.6
(15.9)
30% corporate income tax
US$M
(28.6)
(29.6)
(23.8)
(20.9)
(19.6)
(22.7)
(16.3)
(11.6)
—
7.5% special mining duty
US$M
(9.5)
(10.1)
(8.4)
(7.0)
(6.6)
(7.5)
(5.8)
(4.5)
—
0.5% extraordinary mining duty
US$M
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(1.3)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.3)
Total after-tax cashflow (net cash flow)
US$M
31.6
48.2
40.0
33.3
43.7
38.8
32.3
26.5
(16.2)
 
Note:  * Gross revenue includes Franco-Nevada encumbrance. Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Table 19‑3:
Sensitivity Analysis (US$ M)
 
Parameter
-20%
-10%
-5%
Base
5%
10%
20%
Metal price
-6.5
111.5
170.5
229.5
288.5
347.4
465.2
Operating cost
388.8
309.3
269.5
229.5
189.6
149.7
69.8
Capital cost
242.3
236.2
232.7
229.5
226.3
223.1
216.7
Grade
-0.1
114.8
172.2
229.5
286.9
344
458.3
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.  Base case is highlighted.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 20-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 21-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
22.1
Introduction
 
The QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions within their areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Report.
 
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Mexicana, as the operating entity.
 
The Palmarejo Operations consist of 71 mining concessions (27,227 ha).
 
Coeur has occupancy agreements in place with selected ejidos for exploitation or exploration purposes, collectively covering an area of 15,111.19 ha.
 
Water rights held are sufficient to support the LOM plan.
 
There are numerous net smelter return (NSR) royalties that cover the Palmarejo Operations area and range from 1–3% depending on the royalty agreement.  The majority of the royalties are not payable under the LOM plan envisaged in this Report.
 
Coeur Mexicana agreed to sell to Franco–Nevada 50% of the refined gold produced from selected mining concessions at a gold price of $800/oz, in consideration of Franco–Nevada providing investment capital for Project development.  The Agreement has a 40-year term, starting in 2016.
 
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
 
The deposits within the Palmarejo Operations area are considered to be examples of epithermal deposits displaying both intermediate- and low-sulfidation features.
 
The geological understanding of the settings, lithologies, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization is sufficient to support estimation of mineral resources.
 
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
 
The exploration programs completed by Coeur to date and predecessor companies are appropriate for the mineralization styles.
 
The quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and down hole survey data collected in the exploration program completed are sufficient to support mineral resource estimation.  No drilling, sampling, or core recovery issues that could materially affect the accuracy or reliability of the core samples have been identified.
 
The collected sample data adequately reflect deposit dimensions, true widths of mineralization, and the deposit style.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Sampling is representative of the gold and silver values, reflecting areas of higher and lower grades.
 
The independent analytical laboratories used by Coeur and predecessor companies, where known, are accredited for selected analytical techniques.
 
Sample preparation used procedures and protocols that are/were standard in the industry and has been adequate throughout the history of the Project.  Sample analysis uses procedures that are standard in the industry.
 
The QA/QC programs adequately address issues of precision, accuracy and contamination, and indicate that the analytical results are adequately accurate, precise, and contamination free to support mineral resource estimation.
 
The sample preparation, analysis, and security procedures are adequate for use in the estimation of mineral resources.
 
22.5
Data Verification
 
The QP undertook QA/QC verification, participated in programs to verify drill data prior to mineral resource estimation, checked selected gold and silver assay data, conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports, and signed off in 2014–present definition drill holes and the 2021 drilling.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
 
Metallurgical testwork was conducted by reputable laboratories and is supported by nearly a decade of production data.  Test results were used as a guideline for plant design.  Metallurgical testing results were consistent in the recommended methods of process design, extraction and recovery estimates.
 
Recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data.  Recovery factors are appropriate to the mineralization types and the selected process route.  The LOM forecast average gold blended recovery is 90%.  The LOM forecast average blended silver recovery is 82.5%.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
 
The mineral resource estimate is reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves. The reference point for the estimate is in situ.  The estimate is current at December 31, 2021.
 
The estimate is primarily supported by core drilling.  The estimate was constrained using reasonable prospects of economic extraction that assumed longhole stoping underground mining methods.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include: metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions for the underground mine designs constraining the estimates; assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
The mineral reserve estimate is reported using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK-1300.  The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities.  Mineral reserves are current at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping using trackless equipment and cemented rock fill backfill.  Target mining rates are 150,000 t/month.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the mineable shapes constraining the estimates; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


22.9
Mining Methods
 
The Palmarejo Operations use conventional underground equipment and mining methods.  The underground operations have been active since 2014.
 
Geotechnical conditions are reasonably understood.  Depending on the deposit, rock mass quality is variable, and ranges from Poor to Good.  Modifications based on variability and update geotechnical models were made as the mines developed.
 
There are few hydrogeological aspects to be considered beyond natural inflow of water to the workings.  The permeability of the volcanic rock units in all mines is low to very low.
 
Stoping and cemented rock backfill mining methods were selected and implemented based on the orebody location, ground conditions and geological settings.  Mining design assumptions for each mining region are typically standardized for each area and mining method assumed.
 
Ventilation is provided by fans and ventilation raises.
 
Backfill is a combination of CRF and straight waste fill.
 
The Palmarejo Operations have nine years of mine life remaining.  The Guadalupe mine has a remaining nine-year mine life with the expansion components of Zapata and Animas.  Independencia has a remaining nine-year mine life with expansions to the north and south and addition of the Hidalgo deposit.  La Nación has five years of mine life remaining.
 
22.10
Recovery Methods
 
The process plant design was based on a combination of metallurgical testwork, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the mill was operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 
22.11
Infrastructure
 
All major infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  Facilities include:  three operating underground mines; two shotcrete mixing plants; backfill cement mixing plant; water treatment plants and associated infrastructure; ROM pads; process plant; TSF and associated infrastructure; maintenance facilities; materials storage and laydown areas; various support facilities; electrical facilities including an emergency powerhouse; gravel airstrip; and a mine permanent camp and contractor facilities and kitchens.
 
The Palmarejo Operations currently maintain limited ROM stockpiles.  Waste is currently excavated from the WRSFs around the former open pit and used underground as backfill.
 
The TSF, a zoned downstream earthfill dam, is projected to reach capacity in Q1 2023 at a capacity of 15.4 Mm3, by which time the operation will transition to disposal of tailings in the mined-out Palmarejo open pit.
 
Water treatment plants treat water pumped from underground to the surface, and water from the tailings pond.
 
Electrical power is supplied by the Mexican grid.  A backup power generating facility is on site.
 
Water for the process facilities is obtained from a variety of sources, including wet tailings, the underground mines, additional subsurface sources from areas wells, limited permit options from the freshwater diversion dam, and a pump station located at the Chínipas River.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


22.12
Market Studies
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty would not impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 
To mitigate the risks associated with gold and silver price fluctuations, Coeur may enter into option contracts to hedge future production.
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
Coeur Mexicana has contracts with one U.S. based refiner and one Switzerland-based refiner, which refine the Palmarejo Operations’ doré bars into silver and gold bullion that meet certain benchmark standards set by the London Bullion Market Association.
 
Currently, there are contracts in place at the Palmarejo Operations to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise boring, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  These contracts are periodically put up for bid or negotiated.
 
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required in support of Project permitting.
 
The 2021 year-end closure assessment for the actual disturbance for final reclamation at the Palmarejo Operations, is estimated at US$40.6 M.
 
All required local, state, and federal permits for operation have been issued.  The authorizations required for production are in good standing.
 
Coeur initiated the process of obtaining an MIA-R.  In late July 2021, SEMARNAT requested additional information to the MIA-R document.  This was supplied by Coeur on August 10, 2021.  It is expected that the MIA-R will be approved in the first quarter of 2022.  When approved the MIA-R will add 10 additional years to the current present environmental license, consolidate 13 different authorizations under a single global license, and include all new facilities and mine development expected for the LOM in this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Coeur actively engaged with the local community with a series of cultural, social, and economic programs.  The surrounding communities are supportive of the Palmarejo Operations, and the employment and benefits that the mines provide.
 
Coeur Mexicana received the distinguished Social Responsibility Award from the Mexican Center of Philanthropy-CEMEFI on February 26, 2021, the eleventh time the company has been so recognized.
 
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Capital expenditure for the LOM is estimated at US$167.0 M from January 1, 2022.
 
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Operating expenditure for the LOM is estimated at $US1,500.3 M from January 1, 2022, to the end of the LOM in 2030.
 
22.16
Economic Analysis
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of nine years to 2030.
 
The NPV at a discount rate of 5% is US$229.5 M.  As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, mined grade, exchange rate, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 20% above and below the base case values.  The Project is most sensitive to metal price, less sensitive to grade, less sensitive to operating cost, and least sensitive to capital cost
 
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 
22.17.1
Risks
 
Other risks noted include:
 
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires and other consumables would negatively impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Mining method will change from transverse to longitudinal longhole stoping over time as narrower portions of veins are mined which could result in higher cost, lower productivities and higher dilution quantities which can impact grade. All of these factors could impact cut-off grades, reserve estimates and economics;
 
•
Metallurgical recovery assumptions used in planning and operations are reasonable and based on historic performance. Any changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions could affect revenues and operating costs. This could also require revisions to cut-off grades and mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
The mineral resource and reserve estimates are sensitive to metal prices.  Lower metal prices require revisions to the mineral resource estimates;
 
•
Changes in climate could result in drought and associated potential water shortages that could impact operating cost and ability to operate;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Palmarejo Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 
22.17.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
•
Ability to expand mineralization around known veins through exploration;
 
•
Discovery and development of new exploration targets across the district;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new mineralization that could be processed at the existing Palmarejo process facilities;
 
•
Ability to add additional process plant throughput as additional mineral resources are converted to mineral reserves.  Coeur Mexicana has a track record of success on this in recent years as the mill was originally design for a larger open pit operation.
 
22.18
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
 
As the Palmarejo Operations consist of operating mines, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 23-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


24.0
REFERENCES
 
24.1
Bibliography
 
Ammtec Ltd., 2005:  Comminution Testwork Conducted Upon Samples of Ore from the Palmarejo Gold and Silver Deposit:  report prepared for Bolnisi Gold NL, Report Number A9848, September, 2005.
 
Coeur, 2012:  Coeur Expl_QAQC Procedures and Protocols:  version 01_31_2012_Final_Spanish, 2012.
 
Condor Consulting, Inc., 2014: Processing, Analysis & Interpretation of a ZTEM airborne EM and magnetics survey, Palmarejo project, Chihuahua, Mexico: report prepared for Coeur Mining, Inc., October, 2014
 
Davies, R.C., "Guadalupe Project Structural Study", internal memorandum of Bolnisi Gold NL, 2007.
 
Galvan, V., 2012: Palmarejo Carbonate - Base Metal Epithermal Ag-Au District, Chihuahua, México: PhD dissertation, Mar. 2012
 
KC Harvey Environmental, 2021: 2021 Reclamation and Closure Annual Asset Retirement Obligation for the Palmarejo, Guadalupe, Independencia, and South Guadalupe Mines, October 2021
 
Knight Piésold, 2017, Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. Palmarejo Mine Site-wide Closure Plan, 2017, October 2017
 
Laurent, I., “Palmarejo/Trogan Project: Annual Technical Report, 1st July 2003 – 30th June 2004”, internal report of Planet Gold, S.A. de C.V., 2004.
 
Mahar, A.L., Goodell, P.C., Ramirez, A., and Garcia, J., 2019: Timing and Origin of Silici Volcanism in Northwestern Mexico:  Insights from Zircon U–Pb Geochronology, Hf Isotopes and Geochemistry of Rhyolite Ignimbrites from Palmarejo and Guazapares in Southwest Chihuahua: Lithos 324–325, pp. 246–264, 2019.
 
Molina, C., 2016: Geology and mineralization controls surrounding the Palmarejo mining district - a compilation of remote and hands on exploration techniques: PhD dissertation, Dec. 2016
 
Murray, B.P., and Busby, C.J., 2015:  Epithermal Mineralization Controlled by Synextensional Magmatism in the Guazapares Mining District of the Sierra Madre Occidental Silicic Large Igneous Province, Mexico:  Journal of South American Earth Sciences 58.
 
Murray, B.P., Busby, C.J., Ferrari, L., and Solari, L.A., 2013:  Synvolcanic Crustal Extension During the Mid-Cenozoic Ignimbrite Flare-Up in the Northern Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico: Evidence from the Guazapares Mining District Region, Western Chihuahua:  Geosphere published online 13 September 2013
 
Orway Mineral Consultants Pty. Ltd., undated:  Analysis and Comminution Circuit Modeling: draft report prepared for Planet Gold.
 
Pakalnis & Associates, 2016:  Independencia/Guadalupe Mine Operations – Site Visit/Technical Review:  October 2016.
 
Pakalnis & Associates, 2017:  La Nación Geotechnical Assessment:  December 2017.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Melchor, A., 2010:  Mineralogy of Guadalupe Au-Ag Vein Deposit:  report prepared by Petrolab Laboratorio de InveStigaciones Geologicas, January, 2010.
 
Rhys, D., 2017: Geological observations regarding ore controls and new exploration target areas in the Palmarejo district: report prepared by Panterra Geoservices Inc. for Coeur Mining, Inc., May 24, 2017
 
Rhys, D., Lewis, P., and Rowland, J., 2020: Structural controls on ore localization in epithermal gold-silver deposits: A mineral systems approach: in Reviews in economic geology, Applied structural geology of ore-forming hydrothermal systems: Jan, 1, 2020
 
Stewart, H. H., "Progress report for the Guadalupe/Las Animas Target May 3, 2005", internal memorandum of Bolnisi Gold NL, 2005.
 
Sillitoe, R.H., 2010:  Comments on Geology and Exploration of the Palmarejo Epithermal Silver-Gold Deposit and Environs, Chihuahua, Mexico: report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, August 2010.
 
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2014: Geological Mapping Program and Aeromagnetic Interpretation of the Palmarejo Property, Chihuahua State, Mexico: report prepared for Coeur Mining, Inc., September 6, 2014
 
Wilson, S., Gustin, M., and Pennstrom, W., 2014: Technical report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the San Miguel project, Guazapares mining district, Chihuahua, Mexico: report prepared by Metal Mining Consultants Inc. for Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., August 22, 2014
 
Weis, T., 2021: Palmarejo project, Magnetic Interpretation, Geophysical Report: report prepared by Thomas Weis and Associates Inc. for Coeur Mining, Inc., May, 14, 2021
 
Zesati, C., 2016: GIS and Remote Sensing applied to generate targets of exploration in Epithermal Deposits, Case Study: Palmarejo Mining District, Chihuahua, Mexico: MSc dissertation, Mar. 2016.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
 
Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
'
minutes (geographic)
"
seconds (geographic)
#
number
%
percent
<
less than
>
greater than
µm
micrometer (micron)
g
gram
g/t
gram per tonne

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
HQ
2.5 inch core size
in
inches
km
kilometer
koz
thousand ounces
kV
kilovolt
kW
kilowatt
kWhr
kilowatt hour
m
meter
Ma
million years ago
masl
meters above sea level
mesh
size based on the number of openings in one inch of screen
MW
megawatts
NQ
1.87 inch core size
º
degrees
oz
ounce/ounces (troy ounce)
pH
measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution
ppm
parts per million
PQ
3.35 inch core size
t/d
tons per day
t/day
Tons per day
t/hr
tons per hour
AA
atomic absorption spectroscopy
ARD
acid-rock drainage
AuEq
gold equivalent
CRF
cemented rock fill
DGPS
differential global positioning system
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
GPS
global positioning system
ICP
inductively-coupled plasma
ICP ES
inductively-coupled plasma emission spectroscopy

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
ICP-OES
inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
ID2
inverse distance interpolation; number after indicates the power, e.g., ID2 indicates inverse distance to the 2nd power.
LOM
life-of-mine
NSR
net smelter return
OK
ordinary kriging
QA/QC
quality assurance and quality control
QP
Qualified Person
RC
reverse circulation
RMR
rock mass rating
ROM
Run-of-mine
RQD
rock quality designation
SAG
semi-autogenous grind
 
24.3
Glossary of Terms
 
Term
Definition
acid rock drainage/ acid mine drainage
Characterized by low pH, high sulfate, and high iron and other metal species.
adjacent property
A property in which the issuer does not have an interest; has a boundary reasonably proximate to the property being reported on; and has geological characteristics similar to those of the property being reported on
argillic alteration
Introduces any one of a wide variety of clay minerals, including kaolinite, smectite and illite.  Argillic alteration is generally a low temperature event, and some may occur in atmospheric conditions
azimuth
The direction of one object from another, usually expressed as an angle in degrees relative to true north.  Azimuths are usually measured in the clockwise direction, thus an azimuth of 90 degrees indicates that the second object is due east of the first.
ball mill
A piece of milling equipment used to grind ore into small particles.  It is a cylindrical shaped steel container filled with steel balls into which crushed ore is fed.  The ball mill is rotated causing the balls themselves to cascade, which in turn grinds the ore.
Bond work index
A measure of the energy required to break an ore to a nominal product size, determined in laboratory testing, and used to calculate the required power in a grinding circuit design.
bullion
Unrefined gold and/or silver mixtures that have been melted and cast into a bar or ingot.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-5
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
comminution/crushing/grinding
Crushing and/or grinding of ore by impact and abrasion. Usually, the word "crushing" is used for dry methods and "grinding" for wet methods. Also, "crushing" usually denotes reducing the size of coarse rock while "grinding" usually refers to the reduction of the fine sizes.
concentrate
The concentrate is the valuable product from mineral processing, as opposed to the tailing, which contains the waste minerals. The concentrate represents a smaller volume than the original ore
cut-off grade
The grade (i.e., the concentration of metal or mineral in rock) that determines the destination of the material during mining. For purposes of establishing “prospects of economic extraction,” the cut-off grade is the grade that distinguishes material deemed to have no economic value (it will not be mined in underground mining or if mined in surface mining, its destination will be the waste dump) from material deemed to have economic value (its ultimate destination during mining will be a processing facility). Other terms used in similar fashion as cut-off grade include net smelter return, pay limit, and break-even stripping ratio.
cyanidation
A method of extracting gold or silver by dissolving it in a weak solution of sodium cyanide.
data verification
The process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, has been accurately transcribed from the original source and is suitable to be used for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation
decline
A sloping underground opening for machine access from level to level or from the surface.  Also called a ramp.
density
The mass per unit volume of a substance, commonly expressed in grams/ cubic centimeter.
depletion
The decrease in quantity of ore in a deposit or property resulting from extraction or production.
development
Often refers to the construction of a new mine or; Is the underground work carried out for the purpose of reaching and opening up a mineral deposit. It includes shaft sinking, cross-cutting, drifting and raising.
dilution
Waste of low-grade rock which is unavoidably removed along with the ore in the mining process.
dip
  
drift
A horizontal mining passage underground.  A drift usually follows the ore vein, as distinguished from a crosscut, which intersects it.
easement
Areas of land owned by the property owner, but in which other parties, such as utility companies, may have limited rights granted for a specific purpose.
electrowinning.
The removal of precious metals from solution by the passage of current through an electrowinning cell.  A direct current supply is connected to the anode and cathode.  As current passes through the cell, metal is deposited on the cathode.  When sufficient metal has been deposited on the cathode, it is removed from the cell and the sludge rinsed off the plate and dried for further treatment.
elution
Recovery of the gold from the activated carbon into solution before zinc precipitation or electro-winning.
encumbrance
An interest or partial right in real property which diminished the value of ownership, but does not prevent the transfer of ownership.  Mortgages, taxes and judgements are encumbrances known as liens.  Restrictions, easements, and reservations are also encumbrances, although not liens.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-6
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
exploration information
Geological, geophysical, geochemical, sampling, drilling, trenching, analytical testing, assaying, mineralogical, metallurgical, and other similar information concerning a particular property that is derived from activities undertaken to locate, investigate, define, or delineate a mineral prospect or mineral deposit
feasibility study
A feasibility study is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project, which includes detailed assessments of all applicable modifying factors, as defined by this section, together with any other relevant operational factors, and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable. The results of the study may serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project.
A feasibility study is more comprehensive, and with a higher degree of accuracy, than a pre-feasibility study. It must contain mining, infrastructure, and process designs completed with sufficient rigor to serve as the basis for an investment decision or to support project financing.
flotation
Separation of minerals based on the interfacial chemistry of the mineral particles in solution. Reagents are added to the ore slurry to render the surface of selected minerals hydrophobic. Air bubbles are introduced to which the hydrophobic minerals attach. The selected minerals are levitated to the top of the flotation machine by their attachment to the bubbles and into a froth product, called the "flotation concentrate." If this froth carries more than one mineral as a designated main constituent, it is called a "bulk float". If it is selective to one constituent of the ore, where more than one will be floated, it is a "differential" float.
flowsheet
The sequence of operations, step by step, by which ore is treated in a milling, concentration, or smelting process.
footwall
The wall or rock on the underside of a vein or ore structure.
frother
A type of flotation reagent which, when dissolved in water, imparts to it the ability to form a stable froth
gravity separation
Exploitation of differences in the densities of particles to achieve separation. Machines utilizing gravity separation include jigs and shaking tables.
hanging wall
The wall or rock on the upper or top side of a vein or ore deposit.
indicated mineral resource
An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling.  The term adequate geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to establish geological and grade or quality continuity with reasonable certainty. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
inferred mineral resource
An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling.  The term limited geological evidence means evidence that is only sufficient to establish that geological and grade or quality continuity is more likely than not. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability.
A qualified person must have a reasonable expectation that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with continued exploration; and should be able to defend the basis of this expectation before his or her peers.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-7
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
internal rate of return (IRR)
The rate of return at which the Net Present Value of a project is zero; the rate at which the present value of cash inflows is equal to the present value of the cash outflows.
liberation
Freeing, by comminution, of particles of specific mineral from their interlock with other constituents of the ore.
life of mine (LOM)
Number of years that the operation is planning to mine and treat ore, and is taken from the current mine plan based on the current evaluation of ore reserves.
locked cycle flotation test
A standard laboratory flotation test where certain intermediate streams are recycled into previous separation stages and the test is repeated across a number of cycles.  This test provides a more realistic prediction of the overall recovery and concentrate grade that would be achieved in an actual flotation circuit, compared with a simpler batch flotation test.
measured mineral resource
A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling.  The term conclusive geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to test and confirm geological and grade or quality continuity. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
merger
A voluntary combination of two or more companies whereby both stocks are merged into one.
Merrill-Crowe (M-C) circuit
A process which recovers precious metals from solution by first clarifying the solution, then removing the air contained in the clarified solution, and then precipitating the gold and silver from the solution by injecting zinc dust into the solution. The valuable sludge is collected in a filter press for drying and further treatment
mill
Includes any ore mill, sampling works, concentration, and any crushing, grinding, or screening plant used at, and in connection with, an excavation or mine.
mineral reserve
A mineral reserve is an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.
The determination that part of a measured or indicated mineral resource is economically mineable must be based on a preliminary feasibility (pre-feasibility) or feasibility study, as defined by this section, conducted by a qualified person applying the modifying factors to indicated or measured mineral resources. Such study must demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The study must establish a life of mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, which will be the basis of determining the mineral reserve.
The term economically viable means that the qualified person has determined, using a discounted cash flow analysis, or has otherwise analytically determined, that extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions.
The term investment and market assumptions includes all assumptions made about the prices, exchange rates, interest and discount rates, sales volumes, and costs that are necessary to determine the economic viability of the mineral reserves. The qualified person must use a price for each commodity that provides a reasonable basis for establishing that the project is economically viable.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-8
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
mineral resource
A mineral resource is a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
The term material of economic interest includes mineralization, including dumps and tailings, mineral brines, and other resources extracted on or within the earth’s crust.  It does not include oil and gas resources as defined in Regulation S-X (§210.4-10(a)(16)(D) of this chapter), gases (e.g., helium and carbon dioxide), geothermal fields, and water.
When determining the existence of a mineral resource, a qualified person, as defined by this section, must be able to estimate or interpret the location, quantity, grade or quality continuity, and other geological characteristics of the mineral resource from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling; and conclude that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resource based on an initial assessment, as defined in this section, that he or she conducts by qualitatively applying relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction.
modifying factors
The factors that a qualified person must apply to indicated and measured mineral resources and then evaluate in order to establish the economic viability of mineral reserves. A qualified person must apply and evaluate modifying factors to convert measured and indicated mineral resources to proven and probable mineral reserves. These factors include, but are not restricted to: mining; processing; metallurgical; infrastructure; economic; marketing; legal; environmental compliance; plans, negotiations, or agreements with local individuals or groups; and governmental factors. The number, type and specific characteristics of the modifying factors applied will necessarily be a function of and depend upon the mineral, mine, property, or project.
net present value (NPV)
The present value of the difference between the future cash flows associated with a project and the investment required for acquiring the project.  Aggregate of future net cash flows discounted back to a common base date, usually the present.  NPV is an indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to a company.
net smelter return royalty (NSR)
A defined percentage of the gross revenue from a resource extraction operation, less a proportionate share of transportation, insurance, and processing costs.
open pit
A mine that is entirely on the surface. Also referred to as open-cut or open-cast mine.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-9
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
open stope
In competent rock, it is possible to remove all of a moderate sized ore body, resulting in an opening of considerable size.  Such large, irregularly-shaped openings are called stopes.  The mining of large inclined ore bodies often requires leaving horizontal pillars across the stope at intervals in order to prevent collapse of the walls.
ounce (oz) (troy)
Used in imperial statistics.  A kilogram is equal to 32.1507 ounces.  A troy ounce is equal to 31.1035 grams.
plant
A group of buildings, and especially to their contained equipment, in which a process or function is carried out; on a mine it will include warehouses, hoisting equipment, compressors, repair shops, offices, mill or concentrator.
portal
The surface entrance to a tunnel or adit
preliminary feasibility study, pre-feasibility study
A preliminary feasibility study (prefeasibility study) is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a qualified person has determined (in the case of underground mining) a preferred mining method, or (in the case of surface mining) a pit configuration, and in all cases has determined an effective method of mineral processing and an effective plan to sell the product.
A pre-feasibility study includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions, based on appropriate testing, about the modifying factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors that are sufficient for a qualified person to determine if all or part of the indicated and measured mineral resources may be converted to mineral reserves at the time of reporting. The financial analysis must have the level of detail necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable
probable mineral reserve
A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.  For a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve.  A qualified person must classify a measured mineral resource as a probable mineral reserve when his or her confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors to the measured mineral resource is lower than what is sufficient for a proven mineral reserve.
propylitic
Characteristic greenish color.  Minerals include chlorite, actinolite and epidote.  Typically contains the assemblage quartz–chlorite–carbonate
proven mineral reserve
A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource.  For a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person has a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality.  A proven mineral reserve can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-10
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
qualified person
A qualified person is an individual who is a mineral industry professional with at least five years of relevant experience in the type of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and in the specific type of activity that person is undertaking on behalf of the registrant; and an eligible member or licensee in good standing of a recognized professional organization at the time the technical report is prepared.
For an organization to be a recognized professional organization, it must:
(A)          Be either:
(1)          An organization recognized within the mining industry as a reputable professional association, or
(2)          A board authorized by U.S. federal, state or foreign statute to regulate professionals in the mining, geoscience or related field;
(B)          Admit eligible members primarily on the basis of their academic qualifications and experience;
(C)          Establish and require compliance with professional standards of competence and ethics;
(D)          Require or encourage continuing professional development;
(E)          Have and apply disciplinary powers, including the power to suspend or expel a member regardless of where the member practices or resides; and;
(F)          Provide a public list of members in good standing.
raise
A vertical or inclined underground working that has been excavated from the bottom upward
reclamation
The restoration of a site after mining or exploration activity is completed.
refining
A high temperature process in which impure metal is reacted with flux to reduce the impurities.  The metal is collected in a molten layer and the impurities in a slag layer.  Refining results in the production of a marketable material.
rock quality designation (RQD)
A measure of the competency of a rock, determined by the number of fractures in a given length of drill core.  For example, a friable ore will have many fractures and a low RQD.
royalty
An amount of money paid at regular intervals by the lessee or operator of an exploration or mining property to the owner of the ground. Generally based on a specific amount per tonne or a percentage of the total production or profits. Also, the fee paid for the right to use a patented process.
run-of-mine
A term used to describe ore of average grade for the deposit, typically used for the ore pile adjacent the process plant.
semi-autogenous grinding (SAG)
A method of grinding rock into fine powder whereby the grinding media consists of larger chunks of rocks and steel balls.
shaft
A vertical or inclined excavation for the purpose of opening and servicing a mine. It is usually equipped with a hoist at the top, which lowers and raises a conveyance for handling men and material
specific gravity
The weight of a substance compared with the weight of an equal volume of pure water at 4°C.
stope
An excavation in a mine, other than development workings, made for the purpose of extracting ore.
strike length
The horizontal distance along the long axis of a structural surface, rock unit, mineral deposit or geochemical anomaly.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-11
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


Term
Definition
sublevel stoping
A large-scale open stoping method.  Access is provided to the ore body at various sub-intervals between the main haulage levels to drill and blast the intervening ore
tailings
Material rejected from a mill after the recoverable valuable minerals have been extracted.
uniaxial compressive strength
A measure of the strength of a rock, which can be determined through laboratory testing, and used both for predicting ground stability underground, and the relative difficulty of crushing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-12
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
 
25.1
Introduction
 
The QPs fully relied on the registrant for the guidance in the areas noted in the following sub-sections.  As the operations have been in production for 11 years, the registrant has considerable experience in this area.
 
The QPs took undertook checks that the information provided by the registrant was suitable to be used in the Report.
 
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
 
•
Information relating to inflation, interest rates, discount rates, taxes.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.3
Markets
 
•
Information relating to market studies/markets for product, market entry strategies, marketing and sales contracts, product valuation, product specifications, refining and treatment charges, transportation costs, agency relationships, material contracts (e.g. mining, concentrating, smelting, refining, transportation, handling, hedging arrangements, and forward sales contracts), and contract status (in place, renewals).
 
This information is used when discussing the market, commodity price and contract information in Chapter 16, and in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.4
Legal Matters
 
•
Information relating to the corporate ownership interest, the mineral tenure (concessions, payments to retain, obligation to meet expenditure/reporting of work conducted), surface rights, water rights (water take allowances), royalties, encumbrances, easements and rights-of-way, violations and fines, permitting requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits
 
This information is used in support of the property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-1
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


25.5
Environmental Matters
 
•
Information relating to baseline and supporting studies for environmental permitting, environmental permitting and monitoring requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits, emissions controls, closure planning, closure and reclamation bonding and bonding requirements, sustainability accommodations, and monitoring for and compliance with requirements relating to protected areas and protected species.
 
This information is used when discussing property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
 
•
Information relating to social and stakeholder baseline and supporting studies, hiring and training policies for workforce from local communities, partnerships with stakeholders (including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; fishing organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and, state and federal governments), and the community relations plan.
 
This information is used in the social and community discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.7
Governmental Factors
 
•
Information relating to taxation and royalty considerations at the Project level, monitoring requirements and monitoring frequency, and bonding requirements.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.8
Internal Controls
 
25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
 
Internal controls are discussed where required in the relevant chapters of the technical report summary.  The following sub-sections summarize the types of procedures, protocols, guidance and controls that Coeur has in place for its exploration and mineral resource and reserve estimation efforts, and the type of risk assessments that are undertaken.
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for exploration data:
 

 •
Written procedures and guidelines to support preferred sampling methods and approaches; periodic compliance reviews of adherence to such written procedures and guidelines;
 

 •
Maintenance of a complete chain-of-custody, ensuring the traceability and integrity of the samples at all handling stages from collection, transportation, sample preparation and analysis to long-term sample storage;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-2
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary



•
Geological logs are checked and verified, and there is a physical sign-off to attest to the validation protocol required;
 

 •
Quality control checks on collar and downhole survey data for errors or significant deviations;
 

 •
Appropriate types of quality control samples are inserted into the sample stream at appropriate frequencies to assess analytical data quality;
 

 •
Third-party fully certified labs are used for assays used in public disclosure or resource models
 

 •
Regular inspection of analytical and sample preparation facilities by appropriately experienced Coeur personnel;
 

 •
QA/QC data are regularly verified to ensure that outliers sample mix-ups, contamination, or laboratory biases during the sample preparation and analysis steps are correctly identified, mitigated or remediated.  Changes to database entries are required be documented;
 

 •
Database upload and verification procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data being entered into the Project database(s).  These are typically performed using software data-checking routines.  Changes to database entries are required to be documented.  Data are subject to regular backups.
 
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation:
 

 •
Prior to use in mineral resource or mineral reserve estimation, the selected data to support estimation are downloaded from the database into a project file and reviewed for improbable entries and high values;
 

 •
Written procedures and guidelines are used to support estimation methods and approaches;
 

 •
Completion of annual technical statements on each mineral resource and mineral reserve estimate by qualified persons.  These technical statements include evaluation of modifying and technical factors, incorporate available reconciliation data, and are based on a cashflow analysis;
 

 •
Internal reviews of block models, mineral resources and mineral reserves using a “layered responsibility” approach with Qualified Person involvement at the site and corporate levels;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-3
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


25.8.3
Risk Assessments
 
Coeur has established mine risk registers that are regularly reviewed and maintained.  The registers record the risk type, the nature of the impact if the risk occurred, the frequency or probability of the risk occurrence, planned mitigation measures, and record of progress of the mitigation undertaken.  Risks are removed from the registers if mitigation measures are successful or added to the registers as a new risk is recognized.
 
Other risk controls include aspects such as:
 

 •
Active monitoring programs such as mill performance, geotechnical networks, water sampling, waste management;
 

 •
Regular review of markets, commodity and price forecasts by internal specialists; reviews of competitor activities;
 

 •
Regular reviews of stakeholder concerns, accommodations to stakeholder concerns and ongoing community consultation;
 

 •
Monitoring of key permits and obligations such as tenures, surface rights, mine environmental and operating permits, agreements and regulatory changes to ensure all reporting and payment obligations have been met to keep those items in good standing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-4
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


APPENDIX A

No.
Title No.
Concession Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Expiry Date
 
Hectares
Acres
Annual Holding Costs
Royalty
Group
1
164465
Palmarejo
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2029-05-08
52.0755
128.681
$18,320.00
N/A
Huruapa
2
167281
Nueva Patria
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-10-29
11.0000
27.181
$3,870.00
N/A
Huruapa
3
167282
Maclovia
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-10-29
6.0000
14.826
$2,110.00
N/A
Huruapa
4
167322
San Juan de Dios
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-11-02
23.0000
56.834
$8,092.00
N/A
Huruapa
5
167323
Patria Vieja
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-11-02
4.0000
9.884
$1,408.00
N/A
Huruapa
6
170588
Unificación Guerra al Tirano
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2032-06-01
27.4471
67.823
$9,656.00
2%NSR
Huruapa
7
185236
El Rosario
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2039-12-13
10.9568
27.075
$3,854.00
N/A
Huruapa
8
186009
Los Tajos
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2039-12-13
2.7043
6.682
$952.00
N/A
Huruapa
9
187906
Tres de Mayo
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2040-11-21
39.8582
98.491
$14,022.00
2%NSR
Huruapa
10
188817
San Carlos
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2040-11-28
160.0000
395.367
$56,288.00
N/A
Huruapa
11
188820
La Buena Fe
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2040-11-28
60.0000
148.263
$21,108.00
N/A
Huruapa
12
189692
La Estrella
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2040-12-04
59.5863
147.240
$20,962.00
N/A
Huruapa
13
191332
Sulema No. 2
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2041-12-18
15.8280
39.112
$5,568.00
N/A
Huruapa
14
194678
Santo Domingo
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2042-05-06
15.3737
37.989
$5,408.00
N/A
Huruapa
15
195487
Unificación Huruapa
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2039-09-13
213.7755
528.249
$75,206.00
N/A
Huruapa
16
198543
Reyna de Oro
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2043-11-29
27.1791
67.161
$9,562.00
2%NSR
Huruapa
17
209541
La Aurelia
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-08-02
10.0000
24.710
$3,518.00
N/A
Huruapa
18
209648
Ampliación La Buena Fe
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-08-02
40.8701
100.992
$14,378.00
N/A
Huruapa
19
209975
Caballero Azteca
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-08-30
5.0510
12.481
$1,776.00
N/A
Huruapa
20
209976
Carmelita
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-08-30
5.3430
13.203
$1,880.00
N/A
Huruapa
21
210163
El Risco
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-09-09
24.0000
59.305
$8,444.00
N/A
Huruapa
22
210320
Victoria
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-09-23
76.0883
188.018
$26,768.00
N/A
Huruapa
23
210479
Lezcura
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-10-07
14.5465
35.945
$5,118.00
N/A
Huruapa
24
212281
La Mexicana
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2050-09-28
142.1410
351.237
$50,006.00
N/A
Huruapa
25
214101
Virginia
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2051-08-09
12.0906
29.876
$4,254.00
N/A
Huruapa
26
221490
Trogan
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2054-02-18
3,844.5413
9,500.031
$1,352,510.00
N/A
Huruapa
27
221491
Trogan Fracción
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2054-02-18
7.9682
19.690
$2,804.00
N/A
Huruapa
28
222319
La Curra
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2054-06-24
37.6593
93.058
$13,248.00
N/A
Huruapa
29
223292
La Currita
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2054-11-24
13.6805
33.805
$4,812.00
N/A
Huruapa

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


No.
Title No.
Concession Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Expiry Date
Hectares
Acres
Annual Holding Costs
Royalty
Group
30
224118
Ampliación Trogan
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-04-07
703.2318
1,737.717
$247,396.00
N/A
Huruapa
31
225223
Ampl. Trogan Oeste
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-08-04
1,699.9939
4,200.760
$598,058.00
N/A
Huruapa
32
225278
Trogan Norte 1
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-08-11
1,024.0000
2,530.349
$360,244.00
N/A
Huruapa
33
225279
Trogan Norte 2
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-08-11
1,019.2222
2,518.543
$358,562.00
N/A
Huruapa
34
225308
Trogan Oeste
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-08-15
2,699.0748
6,669.533
$949,534.00
N/A
Huruapa
35
225574
La Moderna
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-09-22
75.8635
187.462
$26,688.00
N/A
Huruapa
36
226201
La Buena Fe Norte
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-11-28
98.0878
242.379
$34,508.00
N/A
Huruapa
37
166401
San Miguel
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
12.9458
31.990
$4,554.00
N/A
None
38
166402
San Juan
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
3.0000
7.413
$1,056.00
N/A
None
39
166422
San Luis
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
4.0000
9.884
$1,408.00
N/A
None
40
166423
Empalme
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
6.0000
14.826
$2,110.00
N/A
None
41
166424
Sangre De Cristo
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
41.0000
101.313
$14,424.00
N/A
None
42
166425
Santa Clara
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
15.0000
37.066
$5,278.00
N/A
None
43
166426
El Carmen
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
59.0864
146.005
$20,786.00
N/A
None
44
166427
Las Tres B.B.B.
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
23.0010
56.836
$8,092.00
N/A
None
45
166428
Swanwick
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
70.1316
173.298
$24,672.00
N/A
None
46
166429
Las Tres S.S.S.
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
19.1908
47.421
$6,752.00
N/A
None
47
166430
El Rosario
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2030-06-03
14.0000
34.595
$4,926.00
N/A
None
48
172225
Guadalupe De Los Reyes
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2033-10-26
8.0000
19.768
$2,814.00
N/A
None
49
179842
Elyca
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2036-12-16
10.0924
24.939
$3,550.00
N/A
None
50
186960
Santa Cruz
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2040-05-16
10.0000
24.710
$3,518.00
3%NSR
None
51
199402
Constituyentes 1917
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2044-04-18
66.2411
163.685
$23,304.00
1%NSR
None
52
213579
Montecristo
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2051-05-17
38.0560
94.038
$13,388.00
1%NSR
None
53
213580
Montecristo Fraccion
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2051-05-17
0.2813
0.695
$98.00
1%NSR
None
54
226590
Montecristo II
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2056-02-01
27.1426
67.071
$9,548.00
1%NSR
None
55
191486
San Francisco
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2041-12-18
38.1598
94.295
$13,424.00
2%NSR
None
56
196127
Ampl. San Antonio
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2042-09-22
20.9174
51.688
$7,358.00
2%NSR
None
57
204385
San Antonio
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2047-02-12
14.8932
36.802
$5,240.00
2%NSR
None
58
209497
Guazapares
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2049-08-02
30.9111
76.383
$10,874.00
2%NSR
None
59
211040
Guazapares 3
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2050-03-23
250.0000
617.761
$87,950.00
2%NSR
None
60
212890
Guazapares 1
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2051-02-12
451.9655
1,116.827
$159,002.00
2%NSR
None
61
213572
Guazapares 5
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2051-05-17
88.8744
219.613
$31,266.00
2%NSR
None

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


No.
Title No.
Concession Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Expiry Date
Hectares
Acres
Annual Holding Costs
Royalty
Group
62
220788
Cantilito
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2053-10-06
37.0350
91.515
$13,028.00
2%NSR
None
63
222869
San Antonio
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2054-09-13
105.1116
259.735
$36,978.00
2%NSR
None
64
223664
Guazapares 4
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-02-01
63.9713
158.076
$22,506.00
2%NSR
None
65
226217
Guazapares 2
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2055-12-01
404.0016
998.306
$142,128.00
2%NSR
None
66
226884
Vinorama
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2056-03-16
474.2220
1,171.823
$166,832.00
2%NSR
None
67
229553
Temoris Fracción 4
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2057-05-17
18.6567
46.102
$6,564.00
N/A
None
68
232082
Guazapares
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2057-05-17
4,242.1190
10,482.463
$1,492,378.00
N/A
None
69
243762
Temoris Centro Fracc. 1
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2057-05-17
4,940.1997
12,207.451
$1,737,962.00
N/A
None
70
243763
Temoris Centro Fracc. 2
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2057-05-17
2,380.0000
5,881.085
$837,284.00
N/A
None
71
243767
Temoris Centro Fracc. 6 R1A
Coeur Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Concesión Minera
2057-05-17
956.2010
2,362.815
$336,392.00
N/A
None
 
Totals
 
 
 
 
27,226.6466
67,278.24
$9,578,336.00
  
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary




Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary


 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Palmarejo Operations
Mexico
Technical Report Summary




Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix A
Exhibit 96.2
 
 
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
 
 
Prepared for:
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Prepared by:
Mr Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E.
Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME
Mr. Matthew Hoffer, P.G.
 
Report current as at:
December 31, 2021
 
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Date and Signature Page
 
The following Qualified Persons, who are employees of Coeur Mining, Inc. or its subsidiaries,  prepared this technical report summary, entitled “Rochester Operations, Nevada, Technical Report Summary” and confirm that the information in the technical report summary is current as at December 31, 2021 and filed on February 16, 2022.
 
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
 
/s/ Brandon MacDougall
Brandon MacDougall, P.E.
 
/s/ Matthew Bradford
Matthew Bradford, RM SME
 
/s/ Matthew Hoffer
Matthew Hoffer, P.G.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   a
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
CONTENTS
 
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Terms of Reference
1-1
1.3
Property Setting
1-1
1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
1-2
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
1-2
1.6
History and Exploration
1-3
1.7
Drilling and Sampling
1-3
1.8
Data Verification
1-4
1.9
Metallurgical Test Work
1-5
1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
1-6
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
1-6
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
1-7
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
1-8
1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
1-9
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
1-9
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
1-9
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
1-10
1.12
Mining Methods
1-10
1.13
Recovery Methods
1-11
1.14
Infrastructure
1-12
1.15
Markets and Contracts
1-13
1.15.1
Market Studies
1-13
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
1-13
1.15.3
Contracts
1-14
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
1-14
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
1-14
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
1-14
1.16.3
Permitting
1-14
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
1-15
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
1-15
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
1-15
1.19
Economic Analysis
1-18
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
1-18
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
1-18
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
1-18
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
1-19
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
1-19
1.20.1
Risks
1-19
1.20.2
Opportunities
1-21
1.21
Conclusions
1-21
1.22
Recommendations
1-21
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1
Registrant
2-1
2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.2.1
Report Purpose
2-1
2.2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.3
Qualified Persons
2-4
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
2-4

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    i
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
2.5
Report Date
2-4
2.6
Information Sources and References
2-5
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
2-5
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3-1
3.1
Property Location
3-1
3.2
Ownership
3-1
3.3
Mineral Title
3-1
3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
3-1
3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
3-1
3.4
Property Agreements
3-4
3.4.1
Pershing County Road Maintenance Agreement
3-4
3.4.2
Pipeline, Electric Power Line, and Telephone Line License
3-4
3.4.3
Rights of Way
3-4
3.5
Surface Rights
3-5
3.6
Water Rights
3-5
3.7
Royalties
3-5
3.7.1
Asarco Royalty
3-5
3.7.2
Nelsen, Stice, and Kilrain Royalty
3-7
3.7.3
Davis Royalty
3-7
3.7.4
Midway Gold US Inc. and Barrick Royalty
3-7
3.8
Encumbrances
3-7
3.8.1
Credit Agreement
3-7
3.8.2
Permitting Requirements
3-8
3.8.3
Permitting Timelines
3-8
3.8.4
Permit Conditions
3-8
3.8.5
Violations and Fines
3-8
3.9
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
3-8
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
4-1
4.1
Physiography
4-1
4.2
Accessibility
4-1
4.3
Climate
4-1
4.4
Infrastructure
4-2
5.0
HISTORY
5-1
5.1
Project Ownership History
5-1
5.2
Exploration and Development History
5-1
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
6-1
6.1
Deposit Type
6-1
6.2
Regional Geology
6-1
6.3
Local Geology
6-3
6.3.1
Lithologies
6-3
6.3.2
Structure
6-6
6.3.3
Metamorphism and Alteration
6-6
6.3.4
Mineralization
6-6
6.4
Property Geology
6-7
6.4.1
Rochester
6-7
6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-7
6.4.1.2
Lithologies
6-7
6.4.1.3
Structure
6-7
6.4.1.4
Alteration
6-8
6.4.1.5
Mineralization
6-8

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    ii
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4.2
Nevada Packard
6-11
6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-11
6.4.2.2
Lithologies
6-11
6.4.2.3
Structure
6-11
6.4.2.4
Alteration
6-11
6.4.2.5
Mineralization
6-11
7.0
EXPLORATION
7-1
7.1
Exploration
7-1
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
7-1
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
7-1
7.1.3
Geochemistry
7-1
7.1.4
Geophysics
7-2
7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
7-2
7.1.6
Exploration Potential
7-2
7.2
Drilling
7-4
7.2.1
Overview
7-4
7.2.2
Drilling Excluded For Estimation Purposes
7-4
7.2.3
Drill Methods
7-4
7.2.4
Logging
7-16
7.2.5
Recovery
7-18
7.2.6
Collar Surveys
7-18
7.2.7
Down Hole Surveys
7-18
7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
7-18
7.3
Hydrogeology
7-19
7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-19
7.3.2
Hydrogeology
7-19
7.3.3
Comment on Results
7-20
7.3.4
Groundwater Models
7-20
7.3.5
Water Balance
7-21
7.4
Geotechnical
7-21
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-21
7.4.2
Comment on Results
7-22
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
8-1
8.1
Sampling Methods
8-1
8.1.1
Reverse Circulation
8-1
8.1.2
Core
8-1
8.1.3
Grade Control
8-1
8.2
Sample Security Methods
8-2
8.3
Density Determinations
8-2
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
8-2
8.5
Sample Preparation
8-3
8.5.1
Pre-2008
8-3
8.5.2
2008–Current
8-3
8.6
Analysis
8-3
8.6.1
Coeur Pre-2008
8-3
8.6.2
2008–2011
8-4
8.6.3
2012–Current
8-4
8.6.4
Multi-element Analysis
8-6
8.6.5
Alio Gold
8-7
8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
8-7
8.7.1
Coeur Pre-2008
8-7

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    iii
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
8.7.2
2008–2015
8-8
8.7.3
2016–Current
8-8
8.7.4
Alio Gold Results
8-9
8.8
Database
8-9
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
8-9
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
9-1
9.1
Internal Data Verification
9-1
9.1.1
Rochester Review
9-1
9.1.2
Nevada Packard Review
9-2
9.1.3
Nevada Packard Stockpiles
9-3
9.1.4
South and Charlie Stockpiles
9-4
9.1.5
Rochester In-Pit Stockpile
9-4
9.2
External Data Verification
9-4
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
9-5
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
9-5
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
10-1
10.1
Test Laboratories
10-1
10.2
Metallurgical Test Work
10-1
10.2.1
Rochester
10-1
10.2.2
Packard
10-1
10.2.3
Current Metallurgical Testing
10-2
10.3
Recovery Estimates
10-3
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
10-7
10.5
Deleterious Elements
10-7
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
10-8
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
11-1
11.1
Introduction
11-1
11.2
Geological Model
11-1
11.3
Exploratory Data Analysis
11-3
11.4
Density
11-3
11.5
Composites
11-3
11.6
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
11-4
11.7
Variography
11-4
11.8
Interpolation
11-4
11.9
Block Model Validation
11-8
11.10
Classification of Mineral Resources
11-9
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
11-9
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
11-9
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
11-9
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
11-9
11.11.2
Commodity Price
11-13
11.11.3
Cut-off
11-14
11.11.4
QP Statement
11-14
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
11-15
11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
11-20
12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
12-1
12.1
Introduction
12-1
12.2
Development of Mining Case
12-1
12.3
Designs
12-1
12.4
Input Parameters
12-1
12.5
Net Smelter Return Cut-off
12-2

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    iv
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
12.6
Cut-Off Grades
12-2
12.7
Surface Topography
12-3
12.8
Density and Moisture
12-3
12.9
Dilution and Mine Losses
12-3
12.10
Mineral Reserve Statement
12-4
12.11
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
12-4
13.0
MINING METHODS
13-1
13.1
Introduction
13-1
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
13-1
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
13-1
13.4
Design Considerations
13-2
13.5
Blasting and Explosives
13-3
13.6
Grade Control and Production Monitoring
13-3
13.7
Waste Rock and Backfill
13-6
13.8
Production Schedule
13-6
13.9
Equipment
13-11
13.10
Personnel
13-11
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
14-1
14.1
Process Method Selection
14-1
14.2
Flowsheet
14-1
14.3
Process Plant
14-1
14.3.1
Overview
14-1
14.3.2
Heap Leach Pads
14-4
14.3.3
Merrill-Crowe Plant
14-5
14.4
Equipment Sizing
14-6
14.5
Power and Consumables
14-6
14.6
Personnel
14-6
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
15-1
15.1
Roads and Logistics
15-3
15.2
Stockpiles
15-3
15.3
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
15-5
15.4
Water Management
15-5
15.5
Water Supply
15-5
15.6
Power and Electrical
15-6
15.7
Fuel
15-7
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
16-1
16.1
Markets
16-1
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
16-1
16.3
Contracts
16-2
16.4
QP Statement
16-3
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
17-1
17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
17-1
17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
17-1
17.2.1
Environmental Protection Measures
17-1
17.2.2
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the United States
17-2
17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
17-2
17.4
Permitting
17-5
17.4.1
Current Permits
17-5
17.4.2
POA 11
17-5
17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
17-5

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    v
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
17-8
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
18-1
18.1
Introduction
18-1
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
18-1
18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
18-1
18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
18-2
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
18-2
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
18-2
18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
18-2
18.4
QP Statement
18-5
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
19-1
19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
19-1
19.2
Methodology Used
19-1
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
19-1
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
19-1
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
19-1
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
19-2
19.3.4
Metal Prices
19-2
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
19-2
19.3.6
Working Capital
19-2
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
19-2
19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
19-2
19.3.9
Financing
19-2
19.3.10
Inflation
19-3
19.4
Economic Analysis
19-3
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
19-3
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
20-1
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
21-1
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
22-1
22.1
Introduction
22-1
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
22-1
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
22-1
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
22-1
22.5
Data Verification
22-2
22.6
Metallurgical Test Work
22-2
22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
22-3
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
22-3
22.9
Mining Methods
22-4
22.10
Recovery Methods
22-4
22.11
Infrastructure
22-4
22.12
Market Studies
22-5
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
22-6
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
22-6
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
22-7
22.16
Economic Analysis
22-7
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
22-7
22.17.1
Risks
22-7
22.17.2
Opportunities
22-8
22.18
Conclusions
22-9
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
23-1
24.0
REFERENCES
24-1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    vi
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
24.1
Bibliography
24-1
24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
24-2
24.3
Glossary of Terms
24-6
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
25-1
25.1
Introduction
25-1
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
25-1
25.3
Markets
25-1
25.4
Legal Matters
25-1
25.5
Environmental Matters
25-1
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
25-2
25.7
Governmental Factors
25-2
25.8
Internal Controls
25-2
25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
25-2
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
25-3
25.8.3
Risk Assessments
25-3
 
TABLES
 
Table 1‑1:
Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
1-8
Table 1‑2:
Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price))
1-8
Table 1‑3:
Summary of Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Estimates, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
1-11
Table 1‑4:
Capital Cost Estimate Summary
1-16
Table 1‑5:
Operating Cost Estimate Summary
1-17
Table 1‑6:
Summary Cashflow Table
1-19
Table 1‑7:
NPV Sensitivity
1-20
Table 2‑1:
QP Chapter Responsibilities
2-5
Table 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Summary Table
3-2
Table 5‑1:
Exploration and Development History
5-2
Table 7‑1:
Property Drill Summary Table
7-5
Table 7‑2:
Drill Summary Table, Rochester
7-11
Table 7‑3:
Drill Summary Table, Nevada Packard
7-12
Table 8‑1:
Historical Primary and Secondary Laboratory Analysis Methods (2008–2011)
8-5
Table 10‑1:
Metallurgical Test Work Summary Table
10-3
Table 10‑2:
Leach Pad Recoveries to Date
10-4
Table 10‑3:
Historical Crushed and ROM Product Recoveries
10-4
Table 10‑4:
Stage III Crushed and ROM Product Recoveries
10-6
Table 10‑5:
Stage VI Recovery Confidence Intervals
10-6
Table 10‑6:
Ultimate Recovery Summary by Ore Type
10-8
Table 11‑1:
Capping Statistics for Rochester Silver Composites
11-5
Table 11‑2:
Capping Statistics for Rochester Gold Composites
11-6
Table 11‑3:
Capping Statistics for Nevada Packard Silver Composites
11-7
Table 11‑4:
Capping Statistics for Nevada Packard Gold Composites
11-7
Table 11‑5:
Confidence Classifications
11-10
Table 11‑6:
Operating Cost and Cut-offs for Mineral Resource Estimates
11-13
Table 11‑7:
Metallurgical Process Recoveries Used in Rochester Mineral Resources NSR Cutoff Calculations
11-15

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    vii
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑8:
Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-16
Table 11‑9:
Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-16
Table 11‑10:
Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-16
Table 11‑11:
Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-17
Table 11‑12:
Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester Stockpile (South-Charlie and In-pit), as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-17
Table 11‑13:
Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester Stockpile (South-Charlie and In-pit), as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-17
Table 11‑14:
Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard Stockpile as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-18
Table 11‑15:
Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard Stockpile Inferred Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-18
Table 11‑16:
Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
11-19
Table 11‑17:
Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price))
11-19
Table 12‑1:
Pit Shell Input Parameters
12-2
Table 12‑2:
LOM Operating Cost and Cut-offs for Mineral Reserve Estimates
12-3
Table 12‑3:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-5
Table 12‑4:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-5
Table 12‑5:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Rochester Stockpile (South and Charlie) as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-6
Table 12‑6:
Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Nevada Packard Stockpile, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-6
Table 12‑7:
Summary of Gold and Silver Mineral Reserve Estimates, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
12-7
Table 13‑1:
Rochester Zone Solid Pit Slope Design Criteria
13-2
Table 13‑2:
Nevada Packard Pit Slope Design Criteria by Material Type
13-2
Table 13‑3:
Pit Design Assumptions
13-3
Table 13‑4:
Rochester LOM Production Schedule (2022–2028)
13-7
Table 13‑5:
Rochester LOM Production Schedule (2029–2034)
13-8
Table 13‑6:
Nevada Packard LOM Production Schedule
13-9
Table 13‑7:
Combined LOM Production Schedule, Rochester and Nevada Packard
13-10
Table 13‑8:
LOM Equipment List
13-11
Table 14‑1:
Approximate Heap Leach Volumes
14-5
Table 14‑2:
Stage IV Heap Leach Pad Design Criteria
14-6
Table 14‑3:
Major Process Equipment
14-7
Table 14‑4
 Power Requirements
14-8
Table 17‑1:
Monitoring Components, Permit, Plans and Agencies
17-3
Table 17‑2:
Rochester Pit Waste Rock Management Procedures
17-4
Table 18‑1:
Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year ($M)
18-3

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    viii
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 18‑2:
Operating Costs by Year ($M)
18-4
Table 19‑1:
Tax Rates for Primary Taxes
19-3
Table 19‑2:
Cashflow Summary Table
19-4
Table 19‑3:
Annualized Cashflow (2022–2035)
19-5
Table 19‑4:
Annualized Cashflow (2036–2040)
19-6
Table 19‑5:
NPV Sensitivity
19-7

FIGURES
     
Figure 2‑1:
Project Location Plan
2-2
Figure 2‑2:
Mining Operations Layout Plan
2-3
Figure 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Location Map
3-3
Figure 3‑2:
Claims Subject to Royalties Plan
3-6
Figure 6‑1:
Regional Geology Plan
6-2
Figure 6‑2:
Project Geology Plan
6-4
Figure 6‑3:
Stratigraphic Column
6-5
Figure 6‑4:
Geological Plan, Rochester
6-9
Figure 6‑5:
Geological Cross Section, Rochester
6-10
Figure 6‑6:
Geological Plan, Nevada Packard
6-12
Figure 6‑7:
Geological Cross Section, Nevada Packard
6-13
Figure 7‑1:
Exploration Prospects
7-3
Figure 7‑2:
Project Drill Collar Location Plan
7-10
Figure 7‑3:
Drill Collar Location Plan, Rochester
7-13
Figure 7‑4:
Drill Collar Location Plan, Nevada Packard
7-14
Figure 7‑5:
Rochester Stockpile Drill Collar Location Map
7-15
Figure 7‑6:
Nevada Packard Stockpile Drill Collar Location Map
7-16
Figure 11‑1:
Rochester and Nevada Packard Model Areas
11-2
Figure 11‑2:
Cross-Sectional View Of Rochester Model Classification
11-11
Figure 11‑3:
Cross-Sectional View Of South-Charlie Stockpile Model Classification
11-11
Figure 11‑4:
Cross-Sectional View Of Rochester In Pit Stockpile Model Classification
11-12
Figure 11‑5:
Cross-sectional View Of Nevada Packard Model Classification
11-12
Figure 11‑6:
Cross-sectional View Of Nevada Packard Stockpile Model Classification
11-13
Figure 13‑1:
2020 Rochester LOM Pit Design (final pit outline)
13-4
Figure 13‑2:
2020 Nevada Packard LOM Pit Design (final pit outline)
13-5
Figure 14‑1:
Process Flowsheet, Rochester
14-2
Figure 15‑1:
POA 11 Authorized Facilities at Rochester
15-4
 
APPENDICES
 
Appendix A:  Mineral Tenure
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    ix
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

 1.1
Introduction
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, and Mr. Matthew Hoffer, P.G., prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Rochester Gold Operations (the Rochester Operations or the Project), located in Nevada.
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Rochester, Inc. (Coeur Rochester) is the operating entity.
 

 1.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates, for the Rochester Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported for Rochester and Nevada Packard.  Mineral reserves are also estimated for material in stockpiles.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.  Unless otherwise indicated, the US customary system is used in this Report.  Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.  The Report uses US English.
 

 1.3
Property Setting
 
The Rochester Operations are located in the Humboldt Range of northwestern Nevada, approximately 13 miles east of Interstate 80 from the Oreana–Rochester exit, and 26 miles northeast of the City of Lovelock in Pershing County, Nevada.  Lovelock, located approximately 90 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada, is the nearest town.
 
Primary access to Rochester is by way of the Limerick Canyon Road from Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) at the Oreana-Rochester exit (Exit 119).  Primary access to Nevada Packard is by way of a two-mile haulage road from the Rochester Pit located on land controlled by Coeur Rochester.
 
The climate in the Rochester Operations area is typical of north–central Nevada, with hot summers and cold winters.  Operations are conducted year-round.
 
The Rochester Operations are located within the basin-and-range physiographic province in the north–south trending Humboldt Range.  The operations area encompasses elevations ranging from 4,960 ft at the Nevada Packard deposit, to approximately 7,090 ft at the highest point of the Rochester Operations.  Vegetation is sparse, consisting of high desert grasses and shrubs with a sparse assortment of trees in the higher elevations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
The entire Project area covers 17,004 net acres, consisting of 761 owned and 13 leased federal unpatented lode claims and six (6) owned federal unpatented placer claims, totalling 11,625 net acres of public land owned and 269 net acres of public land leased, in total 11,894 acres of public land; 21 patented lode claims consisting of 357 acres; and interests owned in 4,793 gross acres of additional real property.
 
The federal mining claims and fee lands provide Coeur with the required surface rights to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan.
 
An agreement is in place with Pershing County for road maintenance.  Coeur also has a nonexclusive pipeline, electric power line, and telephone line license in place, which is maintained with an annual fee payment.  Coeur also holds a number of rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
 
Coeur holds a number of water right permits issued by the Nevada Division of Water Resources.  These permits allow Coeur to appropriate water in the Buena Vista Valley Hydrographic Sub-Basin and the Packard Valley Sub-Basin.  The water right permits held by Coeur are sufficient to operate under the current LOM plan.
 
There are a number of royalties payable on the claims.  However, the only royalty that would be payable in the current LOM plan is to Asarco, and that royalty is tied to the silver price.  The royalty is payable when the average quarterly market price of silver equals or exceeds $26.58/oz Ag, indexed for inflation, up to a maximum rate of 5% with the condition that the Rochester mine achieves positive cash flow for the applicable year.  If cash flow is negative in any calendar year, the maximum royalty payable is $250,000.
 
The Rochester property is secured pursuant to Coeur’s revolving credit facility.
 

 1.5
Geology and Mineralization
 
Mineralization in the Rochester district exhibits characteristics of both low-sulfidation and intermediate-sulfidation precious metal systems, complicated by supergene enrichment processes and significant oxidation.
 
The Rochester and Nevada Packard mines are located on the southern flank of the Humboldt Range within the Basin-and-Range province, where late Tertiary extension created large listric normal faults bounding generally north–south-trending mountain ranges and adjacent down-dropped valleys.  Tertiary volcanism produced the Limerick, Rochester, and Weaver Formations of the Koipato Group.  Both the Rochester and Nevada Packard deposits are hosted in predominately rhyolitic flows and tuffs of the Koipato Group.
 
A major structural feature within the southern portion of the Humboldt Range is the Black Ridge fault system, which is an extensive shear zone that is, in places, hundreds of feet wide.  Most of the Rochester silver–gold mineralization occurs in hanging wall faults, splays, and cross-faults within the Black Ridge system.
 
Mineralization is structurally controlled.  Economic mineralization is hosted mainly in the oxide zone, where the Rochester–Weaver Formation contact is the primary host for silver–gold mineralization, followed and influenced by mineralized fault zones with associated fracture, stockwork and disseminated mineralization away from the faults.  The contact is extensively brecciated and healed by silica in both the Rochester and Weaver Formations.  Quartz veins and veinlets typically exhibit both parallel and cross-cutting features, indicating multiple mineralizing events.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Acanthite and chlorargyrite are the most abundant oxide silver phases.  Below the oxidation zone, the hypogene profile is preserved, with the main minerals including pyrite, sphalerite, galena, argentiferous tetrahedrite, chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, and pyrargyrite.
 

 1.6
History and Exploration
 
Mineralization was discovered in the area in the early 1900s.  Where known, the following companies have had involvement in the Project area, prior to Coeur’s Project interest:  Rochester Hills Mining Co., Rochester Mines Co., Nevada Packard Mines Co., Rochester Silver Corp., Nenzel Crown Point Mining Co., Rochester Consolidated Mines Co., Western Properties Co., Silver State Mines Co., Asarco, Nevada Packard Mines Company, Cordero Mining Company, D.Z. Exploration, the Nevada Packard Joint Venture, Wharf Resources, Rye Patch Gold, and Alio Gold.  Work completed included production from underground workings during the earlier 20th century, grab sampling, mud rotary, percussion, and reverse circulation (RC) drilling, metallurgical test work, production scale heap leach test work, and permitting activities.
 
Coeur acquired the Rochester property from Asarco in 1983, and the Nevada Packard property in 1996, from local prospectors.  Work completed includes geological mapping, geochemical sampling (soil, rock chip, stream sediment), ground and airborne geophysical surveys (induced polarization, gravity, magnetic) RC and limited core drilling, mining studies, permitting activities, metallurgical test work, mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, open pit mining, and heap leaching.  Mining commenced in 1986 from the Rochester open pit and in 2003 from the Nevada Packard open pit.
 
The Rochester deposit remains open at depth in areas where earlier drilling terminated in potentially economic grades.  Several structural trends are being explored where the structures exit the pit walls.  These areas are targeted based on grade and structural mapping.  The area northwest of the pit is considered to have the most potential.
 

 1.7
Drilling and Sampling
 
The drill database for the Project area contains 3,461 drill holes (1,563,181 ft).  These data are primarily reverse circulation (RC) holes with limited core drilling.  Core and RC drilling supports mineral resource estimation.
 
There are 588 drillholes completed by multiple operators that are flagged in the acQuire drill hole database to be excluded from the resource estimates.  The drill holes are excluded due to unvalidated collar, survey, and/or analytical data.  Of these drill holes, 529 are excluded from the Rochester model, 42 are excluded from the Nevada Packard model, and two are excluded from the stockpile model.
 
Depending on the drill program and drill type, geological data that could be collected from drill hole logging included location details, recovery data, rock character, lithology, alteration (type/degree), quartz veining, sulfide presence, oxidation intensity, structural indicators, and accessory mineralogy.  Geotechnical data are collected from core holes.  Currently, RC chip trays are retained, and core is photographed.
 
Core recovery is generally good.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Collar survey methods varied, depending on drill campaign, operator and deposit, and could include Total Station and global positioning system (GPS) instruments.
 
Prior to 1995, drill holes were sporadically down-hole surveyed with gyroscopic instruments. Downhole surveys were used after 1995 for all angled holes and for vertical holes >400 ft deep using either surface recording gyroscopic, Maxibor, or North Seeker gyroscopic instruments.
 
Coeur samples RC drill cuttings on either 5 ft or 10 ft intervals.  Core logging and sampling intervals ranged from a minimum of 1 ft. to a maximum of 10 ft., based on geologic characteristics.
 
A density of 0.078 st/ft3 was used for both Rochester and Nevada Packard.  This density was confirmed by the on-going mining operations and third-party studies.
 
Independent primary and umpire laboratories used, and where recorded in the database, include American Assay Laboratories in Sparks, Nevada, ALS Chemex, located in Sparks, Nevada (ALS); Pinnacle Laboratories, located in Lovelock, Nevada; Inspectorate/Bureau Veritas Laboratory, located in Sparks, Nevada; Skyline Laboratories, located in Tucson, Arizona; and McClelland Laboratories Inc., located in Sparks, Nevada (McClelland).  Depending on the laboratory and time used, accreditations could include ISO17025:2005, ISO9001 and ISO9002.  Samples were also submitted to the Rochester mine laboratory, which was not independent and was not ISO-certified.  The Rochester mine laboratory is primarily used for grade control analysis.
 
Sample preparation depended on the analytical laboratory used.  Methods included drying; crushing to -⅜ in, primary crushing to ¼ in, secondary crushing to 10 mesh, crushing to 10 mesh (70% passing) and pulverizing to -100 mesh, 150 mesh or 200 mesh (85% or 80% passing).
 
Analytical methods included:
 

 •
Gold:  one assay ton fire assay, atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS); fire assay with gravimetric finish; inductively-coupled plasma (ICP) finish
 

 •
Silver:  fire assay with AAS finish; fire assay with gravimetric finish; ICP finish; ICP atomic emission spectroscopy (AES) finish; ICP emission spectroscopy (ES) finish; ICP optical emission spectroscopy (OES) finish;
 

 •
Total sulfur:  LECO;
 

 •
Multi-element:  33-element suite using ICP-ES; 35 element suite using ICP-ES; 45-element suite using ICP-ES or ICP mass spectrometry (MS).
 
Prior to 2008, Coeur inserted blanks, duplicates and standard reference materials (standards) into the sample stream.  From 2008–2015, insertions included a minimum of 5% standards, 5% blanks, and 7.5% duplicates. On a quarterly basis, 11% of all samples were selected (10% from pulps and 1% from coarse rejects) and sent to ALS for analysis as umpire samples.  From 2016 onward, the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program included insertion of blanks, duplicates and standards into the sample stream, and check assaying of selected samples at either Bureau Veritas or McClelland.
 

 1.8
Data Verification
 
Data verification included internal and external database audits.  Internal verification included:  a detailed review of all documentation and assay data related to each drill hole; drill hole collar audits; and QA/QC reports.  External verification was undertaken by third-parties.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The QP personally undertook selected QA/QC verification and participated in programs to verify selected drill data prior to mineral resource estimation.  The QP also works on site, and is familiar with the ongoing operations.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
For a portion of the drilling in the Nevada Packard stockpile area where no physical collar or downhole surveys were conducted, the confidence classification for blocks not supported by other drill holes was restricted to inferred.
 

 1.9
Metallurgical Test Work
 
Independent metallurgical test work facilities used over the Project life include McClelland Laboratories, Kappes, Cassiday & Assoc., Newfields, FLSmidth and Eagle Engineering.  Test work conducted included permeability testing, column leach and bottle roll leach test work. Additionally, bench-top high pressure grind roll (HPGR) test work as well as clay and mineralogical categorization have been performed.
 
The Rochester Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays process solutions, crusher and run-of-mine (ROM) ore samples, and refinery samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for column leach test, bottle roll tests, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
Current metallurgical test work can include:
 

 •
Daily samples:  contained moisture, size fractions and assayed for precious metal content.  Data generated from these daily samples is used to characterize daily production; dry tons produced from each ore source and gold and silver quantities delivered to the leach pad from each ore source;
 

 •
Monthly column leach tests and bottle roll leach tests:  recovery trends for gold and silver, size by grade recovery, reagent consumption, and permeability.  Results are used to forecast leach pad recoveries.
 
Metallurgical test work at Rochester, in coordination with modern heap leach modeling programs, continues to refine and confirm expected metal recovery rates and ultimate recovery values.  This testing provides better understanding of process optimization of the leach pads, metal inventory in the leach pads, potential cost reduction, increase crusher throughput, and to provide engineering support on future operational planning.  Ultimate recovery of Rochester ore is assumed to be 20 years from the date leaching commences.
 
Coeur uses heap leach recovery models and recovery curves based on test work and operations to forecast recovered gold and silver production from actual and/or forecasted mineralized product placed on the leach pads.  The models apply recovery rates to the product type (crushed, ROM), tonnage, depth to liner, contained ounces placed on each leach pad, and various kinetic factors to determine the expected recovered production in each month.  The predicted values are compared to actual production to ensure accuracy and provide confidence in the models’ ability to predict ounce production.
 
Metallurgical test results obtained from several test work programs conducted during the past three years show relatively low variability between several different locations with respect to gold and silver recovery assuming the sulfur content is below 0.7% and the crush size is held constant.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and test work, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.  None of the deposits contain sufficient quantities of sulfide minerals, organic carbon or silica encapsulation to be categorized as refractory ore
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
 

 1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Mineral resources were estimated for Rochester and Nevada Packard, and for the Rochester in-pit, Charlie, South, and Nevada Packard stockpiles.
 
Geologic modeling can include inputs from in-pit geologic mapping, drill log interpretation and surface mapping.  A total of 37 domains were generated for Rochester, seven for Nevada Packard.  No domaining was used for the Charlie and South stockpiles.  The Nevada Packard stockpile has four zones assigned, based on stockpile location, not geology.
 
All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis methods, which included histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.  In general, domains were treated as soft for mineral resource estimation purposes.
 
Rock types were assigned a density of 0.078 st/ft3 at Rochester and Nevada Packard.  The density assumption for stockpile material also 0.078 st/ft3, with a 37% swell factor applied.
 
All of the models use 10 ft composites.  Review of outlier data indicated that gold and silver grade caps should be imposed at Rochester, Nevada Packard, and the South and Charlie stockpiles but no caps were required for the Rochester in-pit and Nevada Packard stockpiles.
 
Variography was performed on all models in Supervisor to obtain search distances and directions for interpolation.
 
Ordinary kriging (OK) was selected as the estimation method for all silver and gold domains in the Rochester model.  A single pass estimate was completed for each domain.  The Rochester search distances varied by domain.  All domains were informed by a minimum of two composites, but the maximum number of composites used could vary from 20–32.  The maximum number of composites per drill hole was set at four.  The minimum number of octants was set at two, and the maximum number of composites per octant was set at eight.
 
The resource model for the South and Charlie stockpiles uses inverse distance weighting to the second power (ID2) interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 120 ft search distance, using 3–15 samples, with a limit of three samples per drill hole.  A minimum of one drill hole was allowed for interpolation.  A second estimation pass was applied to blocks that fell outside of the blocks that were estimated in the first pass.  The second pass estimate used a search distance of 1,500 ft and a minimum of one sample and maximum of five samples to estimate outlier blocks.
 
The resource model for the Rochester in-pit stockpile uses a single pass ID2 interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 300 ft search distance, using 3–15 samples, with a limit of three samples per drill hole.  A minimum of one drill hole was allowed for interpolation.
 
OK was selected as the reported estimation method for all silver and gold domains in the Nevada Packard estimate.  A single pass estimation was completed for each domain.  All domains were informed by a minimum of two composites, but the maximum number of composites used could vary from 24–40.  The maximum number of composites per drill hole was set at four.  The minimum number of octants was set at two, and the maximum number of composites per octant was set at eight.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The estimation method chosen for the Nevada Packard stockpile model uses ID2 interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 100 x 100 x 50 ft horizontal search ellipse using 1–12 samples, with a limit of two samples per drill hole.  A second pass model was created to estimate outlier blocks using an ID2 interpolation with a 200 x 200 x 50 ft search ellipse using the same sample restrictions as the primary pass.
 
Model validation included visual validation, construction of grade–tonnage curves and comparison of the grade–tonnage curves to the original estimate, swath plots, comparison of block model statistics to the sample assay and composite statistics, and reconciliation with available blast-hole data by comparing the resource OK estimate to an ID2 blast-hole model for the Rochester and Nevada Packard models.  No material biases or errors were noted from the reviews.
 
Mineral resources were classified based on a combination of the variogram range, distance to the nearest composite, number of composites used in the estimate, and number of drill holes used in the estimate.
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was undertaken that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
 
Mineral resources amenable to open pit mining were constrained within conceptual pit shells. Stockpile material was estimated within the stockpile dimensions.
 
The gold price used in resource estimation is based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts, supplemented with research by Coeur’s internal specialists.  The estimated timeframe used is the 13-year LOM that supports the mineral reserve estimates. The forecast is US$1,700/oz Au and US$22/oz Ag for the mineral resource estimate.
 
The NSR cutoff used to tabulate resources within a constraining pit is not required to consider the mining costs and is only required to pay for the process and G&A costs.  At Rochester, this equates to a NSR cutoff of $2.55 for oxides and $2.65 for sulfides (≥0.7% total sulfur).  At Nevada Packard, this equates to a single NSR cutoff of $3.70 for all material because there are currently no sulfides estimated within the mineral resources there.
 

 1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300.The reference point for the estimate is in situ for those estimates within conceptual open pit outlines, and within stockpiles for those estimates of stockpiled material.
 
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves in Table 1‑1 and Table 1‑2.  The estimates are current as at December 31, 2021.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑1:          Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Measured
191,889,000
0.002
0.29
372,000
56,573,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
Indicated
39,565,000
0.002
0.33
74,000
12,932,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
Total measured and indicated
231,454,000
0.002
0.30
443,000
69,505,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
 
Table 1‑2:          Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price))
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Inferred
128,410,000
0.002
0.30
243,000
38,626,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–59.5
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource estimates:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ and stockpile.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves on a 100% ownership basis.
 
4.
Mineral resources for Rochester and Nevada Packard are tabulated within a confining pit shell that uses the following input parameters: metal price Au = $1,700/oz and Ag = $22/oz; oxide recovery Au = 77.7–93.7% and Ag = 59–61%; sulfide recovery Au = 15.2–77.7% and Ag = 0.0–59% with a net smelter return cutoff of $2.55–$3.70/st oxide and $2.65/st sulfide, where the NSR is calculated as resource net smelter return (NSR) = silver grade (oz/ton) * silver recovery (%) * [silver price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)] + gold grade (oz/ton) * gold recovery (%) * [gold price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)]; and variable pit slope angles that approximately average 43º over the life-of-mine.
 
5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 

 1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; additional drilling, which may change confidence category classification in the pit margins from those assumed in the current pit optimization; additional sampling that may redefine the silver and/or gold grade estimates in certain areas of the resource estimation; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for open pit mining or stockpile rehandling constraining the estimates; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.
 

 1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Mining rates are primarily driven by crusher capabilities based on their physical configuration and environmental permit limits.  The selective mining unit is sized at 50 x 50 x 30 ft.  The LOM plan mines material below the water table, which is considered in the existing permitting.
 
Pit optimizations were done using the Lerchs–Grossmann algorithm using Whittle software.  Appropriate cost and mining schedules were applied using cost estimates forecast for the LOM.
 
Cut-off grades were based on NSR equations.  The break-even NSR cutoff grade is equal to the total estimated long-term processing costs (including general and administrative (G&A) costs.  Mining costs are a sunk cost for blocks contained inside an economic pit limit and therefore do not need to be included in the break-even cutoff grade.  If a given block meets or exceeds the processing cost, it should report to the crusher.  If a block is placed in a low-grade stockpile, it must have an NSR value high enough to meet the break-even cutoff grade plus the cost of rehandle.  If it does not, it is placed in a sub-grade stockpile that is effectively treated as waste.
 
The densities used for the mineral reserve estimate are:
 

 •
In situ (open pit): 0.078 ton/ft3;
 

 •
Stockpile: 0.057 ton/ft3.
 
The assigned in situ moisture is 3–5% and stockpile material is forecast to average 5% moisture.
 
No loss or dilution was modelled in the pit optimization runs.  Due to the disseminated nature of the deposit, the margins around the orebody are mineralized waste, reducing the impacts of dilution during mining.
 
Break-even cut-offs are:
 

 •
Rochester:  oxide:  US$2.55/st; sulfide US$2.65/st;
 

 •
Nevada Packard:  oxide:  US$3.70/st.  There is no sulfide material mined at Nevada Packard.
 

 1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves have been classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported on a 100% ownership basis.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Mineral reserves are current as at December 31, 2021.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 1‑3.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., a Coeur Rochester employee.
 

 1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  predicted commodity prices; metallurgical recovery forecasts; operating cost assumptions; geotechnical and hydrological assumptions; and permitting and social license assumptions.
 

 1.12
Mining Methods
 
Mineral reserves are exploited using conventional open pit methods and equipment.
 
Mining operations at Rochester are currently at planned capacity under the current crusher configuration.  The LOM plan will increase production levels in line with the 11th Plan of Operations Amendment (POA 11), which was issued in 2020.  POA 11 allows for additional pad capacity, additional waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs), construction of new crushing and process facilities, and extensions of the Rochester pit and continued operations through the end of planned mine life.
 
Pit slope designs are based on evaluations and reports prepared by third-party consultants.  The pit slope design parameters for Rochester and Nevada Packard assume overall pit slope angles that range from 20–51º and 37–52.4º respectively.
 
Groundwater pumping requirements to support ongoing mine and process operations are anticipated to be completed as needed through existing production wells.  As such, hydrogeologic factors have not been considered in this report.
 
Detailed pit designs and phase plans are based on the economic pit limits and are used to generate a mining production schedule for both pits.  Designs assumed 30 ft bench heights, double lane haul road design widths of 88 ft, single lane haul road design widths of 65 ft, and maximum haul road gradients of 10%.
 
Blasting services are contracted out, and the contractor is responsible for obtaining, securing explosive agents, loading blast holes, and initiating the blasts.
 
As part of the approved Plan of Operations (PoO), there is a waste rock management plan.  All waste rock is placed either inside the pit perimeter as backfill, or outside the pit in approved WRSFs.  All waste rock is evaluated to determine if it is potentially acid-generating (PAG).
 
Rochester annual crusher throughputs for 2022 through to Q3 2023 are based on the limitations of existing crushing facilities and are estimated at 13.9 Mst/a.  Crusher throughputs are anticipated to increase to 32.0 Mst/a with the addition of a new crushing system in 2023.  Rochester operations are expected to continue through late-2034, a mine life of approximately 12 years.  Low grade stockpiles will be processed through the crushing system at the end of mine life during 2033-2034.  The Nevada Packard production schedule is based on an assumed crusher throughput of 6 Mst/a.  The anticipated LOM for the Nevada Packard deposit 6 years.  Nevada Packard stockpiles will be processed at the end of mine life during years 6-7.
 
Equipment is conventional to open pit operations.  The primary equipment fleet includes front-end loaders, hydraulic shovels, blasthole drills and haul trucks.
 
The personnel requirement for the remaining LOM averages 175 persons.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑3:          Summary of Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Estimates, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces

(koz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Total proven
386,008
0.388
0.003
149,652
998
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
Total probable
31,769
0.365
0.003
11,593
82
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
Total Proven & Probable
417,777
0.386
0.003
161,245
1,080
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve estimates:
 

 6.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 

 7.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., a Coeur Rochester employee.
 

 8.
Mineral reserve estimates are tabulated within a confining pit shell and use the following input parameters:  gold price of US$1,400/oz Au and silver price of US$20/oz Au; Rochester oxide recovery Au = 85% and Ag = 59%; Nevada Packard oxide recovery Au = 95% and Ag = 61%; ROM recovery Au = 71% and Ag = 27%; with a Rochester net smelter return cutoff of $2.55/st oxide and US$2.65/st sulfide, and a Packard net smelter return cutoff of $3.70, where the NSR is calculated as resource net smelter return (NSR) = silver grade (oz/ton) * silver recovery (%) * [silver price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)] + gold grade (oz/ton) * gold recovery (%) * [gold price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)]; variable pit slope angles that approximately average 43º over the life-of-mine.
 

 9.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents
 

 1.13
Recovery Methods
 
Silver and gold recovery at Rochester is via heap leach with a Merrill-Crowe process to recover metal from the leach solutions.  The process design was based on a combination of metallurgical test work, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the leach pads were operational.  The design is conventional to the gold and silver industry and has no novel parameters.
 
From 1986 through mid-2019, Coeur used a three-stage crushing circuit with cone crushing in the tertiary position to produce a nominal ⅜-in product.
 
In 2019 Coeur adopted high-pressure grind roll crushing technology to replace cone crushers in the tertiary position. The product gradation and operational parameters of the high-pressure grind roll are being optimized for gradation, permeability, and recovery.  Crushed material, and at times ROM ore, is placed on heap leach pads.
 
The crushing circuit currently consists of a jaw crusher followed by cone crusher and an HPGR in the tertiary position.  The crusher is directly truck dump fed.  The HPGR product is conveyed to the loadout where it is loaded into haul trucks and truck dumped onto the Stage IV heap leach pad.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Cyanide heap leaching is used to extract silver and gold from the ore.  Metal-laden pregnant leach solution is then collected from a drain system and Merrill-Crowe processing is used to recover the precious metal.
 
The Merrill-Crowe facility is operating and assumptions in this Report were made with reference to actual operational results.  Metal production is done using furnace flux-smelt refining.  Active leaching of new ore and metal recovery is currently taking place on the Stage II, III and IV heap leach pads from material produced through crushing and ROM placement.
 
Future processing facilities include the Limerick Merrill-Crowe process plant that is planned to be in operation from 2023 through approximately 2035.  This process plant is being sized for 13,750 gpm to process solution and recover ounces from the Stage VI leach pad facility, which has a design capacity of 300 Mst.
 
Metallurgical recovery forecasts are variable by source and destination, and over the LOM plan silver recoveries will range 27.1%-61.4% and gold recoveries will range 71.2%-95.9%.  Full details of the various ore sources and destinations can be found in Table 10-6.
 
Power is supplied from an electrical grid, with generator backup.  Water is supplied from production wells.  Major consumables include lime, cyanide and zinc. The plant also consumes antiscalant, diatomaceous earth and refinery flux.
 
Current personnel requirements are approximately 67 persons for crushing and 70 persons for process.  As POA 11 comes online Coeur will require approximately 73 persons for crushing and 93 persons for process.  This ramp-up will occur over multiple years as equipment and processes are commissioned.
 

 1.14
Infrastructure
 
The majority of the infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  This includes:  two open pits (Rochester and Nevada Packard); crusher and conveyor system; three active heap leach pads (Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV), one reclaimed heap leach pad (Stage I), one heap leach pad under construction (Stage VI), and one permitted heap leach pad (Stage V); seven waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs); powerlines; production and monitoring water wells; contingency ponds; potable water treatment plant; water pipelines; site buildings; access, light vehicle, and haul roads; consumables storage; security and fencing; explosives magazines; upper and lower parking areas; and data and communications infrastructure.
 
Additional infrastructure that will be required to support the LOM plan as envisaged in the approved POA 11 consists of the following major areas: expansion of the two open pits; expansion of selected WRSFs; construction of the Stage VI leach pad; Limerick and Nevada Packard Merrill-Crowe process facilities; Limerick crushing and screening facility; installation of a crusher at Nevada Packard; construction of additional water diversion structures, roads, and pipelines; and upgrades to the electrical system.  Low-grade ore is stockpiled in the West WRSF and is segregated from the waste rock for potential future processing.
 
Seven WRSFs have been constructed.  POA 11 includes expansions to existing WRSFs with sufficient capacity to handle all expected waste material over the LOM plan.
 
When mining activities necessitate removal of spent ore from existing leach pads, the spent ore is moved to one of the other heap leach pad facilities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The Rochester Operations are a zero-discharge facility and has no on-site water treatment facilities.  Non-contact stormwater is diverted around process components in permitted conveyances.  Water supply for operations comes from three production wells.  There is also a potable water well that supplies potable water to the site.
 
Power is supplied by NV Energy via a 60 kV transmission line that runs through Rochester Canyon.  Power is initially received at the Sage Hen substation and terminates at a second mine-site substation located in American Canyon.  Step-down transformers are located at the crushing facilities, the maintenance shop and warehouse building, the process building, and several locations along the Stage III leach pad overland conveyor.  Motor control centers, which are located adjacent to these transformers, supply all additional electrical requirements.
 
Upgrades to the electrical utility system will be required to accommodate the proposed infrastructure associated with POA 11.  NV Energy’s existing 60 kV transmission line will need upgrades to meet the load increase associated with the proposed Limerick Canyon and Nevada Packard process plants and associated crushing and conveying systems.  The proposed upgrade will include service from NV Energy’s 120 kV system at the Oreana substation and approximately 10 miles of new transmission line.  A new substation, the Panama substation, will be constructed in Limerick Canyon, on the west side of the proposed Stage VI heap leach pad.
 

 1.15
Markets and Contracts
 

 1.15.1
Market Studies
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for the silver and gold doré product from the Rochester Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for its key products.  Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty would not impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 

 1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts. 
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are US$1,400/oz Au and US$20/oz Ag for mineral reserves and US$1,700/oz Au and US$22/oz Ag for mineral resources.  The QP considers the price forecasts to be reasonable.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-13
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
1.15.3
Contracts
 
Coeur has a contract with a U.S.-based refiner that refines the doré into silver and gold bullion.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, fuel, and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 

 1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
An initial PoO was approved by the BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) in February 1986.  After the approval of the initial PoO, 11 amendments were submitted from 1988–2017, the most recent being POA 11.  POA 11 was considered complete by the BLM in September 2017, which initiated an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by the BLM on March 30, 2020.  A Reclamation Permit for the POA 11 expansion was issued by NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR) on November 5, 2020, with the surety bond in place with the BLM on November 25, 2020.
 

 1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for each mine permit obtained.  Groundwater discharge plans and waste rock management plans are in place.
 
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a determination on October 16, 2018 that there are no Waters of the United States within and surrounding the Project area.  This determination is valid until October 16, 2023.
 
As the mine plans change, permits will be updated as required.  Air permits currently limit production through the crushing circuits to 21.9 Mst/a.
 

 1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
Financial surety sufficient to reclaim mine and processing facilities is up to date and held by the BLM, the primary federal agency responsible for regulatory oversight.  The Reclamation Plan associated with the financial surety was updated in 2020 and accepted by both the BLM and NDEP–BMRR.
 
The reclamation cost estimate for Rochester Operations is approximately $163.7 M based on the 2020 Reclamation Cost Estimate.  There is an additional approximate $11.4 M added to account for new disturbances within Nevada Packard.  This would bring the total reclamation cost estimate to approximately $175.1 M using 2021 cost models.
 

 1.16.3
Permitting
 
The Rochester mine has been in operation since 1986 and obtained the required environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-14
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Operational standards and best management practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable county, state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 
Under POA 11, early works construction began in September 2020 in Limerick Canyon and the construction will be completed in stages.
 

 1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur Rochester has consistently positively impacted the local community and its economy for more than 30 years.  The Rochester Operations generate nearly 1,000 direct and indirect jobs, making it the largest employer in Pershing County.
 
In 2021, Coeur developed a Communication, Community & Government Engagement Strategy to develop new relationships with local communities and leverage existing support during permit actions or other activities influenced by public opinion.
 
Coeur supports future local leaders through multiple partnerships, including Lowry High School, Nevada Mining Association's Educational Committee, and Build NV.  In addition to scholarship funds, Coeur is helping to develop programs that will prepare students for the workforce. 
 
The company is committed to helping preserve Native American cultural heritage while developing mutually beneficial partnerships. Coeur Rochester has also assisted tribes in obtaining vital personal protective equipment to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.
 

 1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The basis of the capital estimates are derived from expected equipment needs and project plans and are determined with the assistance of vendor quotes, previous buying experience and/or experience with construction of similar projects.  The capital cost estimate includes consideration of historical capital cost estimates.
 
Major LOM capital costs include, but are not limited to, POA 11 crusher, Merrill-Crowe plant, heap leach pad construction, new crusher, new tertiary screening, and other infrastructure improvements.  The POA 11 mine expansion is expected be completed in 2023.  Development of the Nevada Packard mine is expected to break ground in 2025 with production commencing in 2027.  This mine will also include a new crusher, Merrill-Crowe plant, heap leach facility, mobile equipment and supporting infrastructure.
 
Capital expenditure for the LOM is estimated at $641 M.  Estimated capital expenditures are summarized in Table 1‑4.
 

 1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Operating costs were developed based on historical cost performance and first principal calculations based on current commodity costs, labor rates, and equipment costs.  The costs are provided for each major cost center: mining, processing, selling expense, and general and administrative (G&A).
 
Estimated operating costs are summarized in Table 1‑5.  The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$2,246.6 M or US$5.38/t placed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-15
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑4:          Capital Cost Estimate Summary ($k)
 
Years
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
POA 11/Development
237,356
151,114
              
Sustaining
27,850
45,449
32,624
55,800
28,679
21,530
4,689
1,680
1,744
Nevada Packard
      
7,305
41,394
359
359
359
359
New Leases
(32,245)
                
Total
232,961
196,563
32,624
63,105
70,073
21,889
5,048
2,039
2,103
Years
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
Total
POA 11/Development
                
388,470
Sustaining
8,695
1,619
1,700
1,500
        
233,559
Nevada Packard
359
359
359
          
51,212
New Leases
                
(32,245)
Total
9,054
1,978
2,059
1,500
        
640,996
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-16
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑5:          Operating Cost Estimate Summary
 
Years
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Mining
$US (1,000)
46,021
59,732
68,656
64,648
81,575
71,916
94,129
70,171
97,726
$/st moved
1.90
1.46
1.39
1.41
1.35
1.46
1.38
1.44
1.36
Process
$US (1,000)
60,201
65,016
74,159
71,679
67,936
80,098
80,662
81,666
82,341
$/st placed
3.54
4.29
2.31
2.23
2.07
2.09
2.09
2.14
2.16
G&A
$US (1,000)
21,503
21,654
22,280
22,600
21,944
22,972
22,326
22,314
22,804
$/st placed
1.26
1.43
0.70
0.70
0.67
0.60
0.58
0.59
0.60
Selling Cost
$US (1,000)
1,205
1,422
2,240
2,829
2,834
2,084
2,035
2,367
2,885
Total Operating Costs
$US (1,000)
128,503
147,823
167,335
161,819
174,289
177,131
199,291
176,671
205,883
$/st placed
7.58
9.76
5.22
5.03
5.30
4.62
5.15
4.64
5.40
Years
  
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
Total
Mining
$US (1,000)
125,072
71,804
71,649
27,417
        
949,796
$/st moved
1.30
1.31
1.35
1.10
        
1.38
Process
$US (1,000)
81,313
83,235
70,248
53,202
13,947
6,626
2,126
2,133
976,624
$/st placed
2.10
2.17
2.11
2.13
        
2.34
G&A
$US (1,000)
22,038
22,358
21,296
19,293
2,749
915
692
374
290,112
$/st placed
0.57
0.58
0.64
0.77
        
0.69
Selling Cost
$US (1,000)
2,671
2,772
2,093
1,795
1,148
211
17
1
30,027
Total Operating Costs
$US (1,000)
230,666
179,450
165,340
101,725
17,844
7,752
2,872
2,508
2,247,329
$/st placed
5.97
4.67
4.98
4.07
        
5.38
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-17
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

1.19
Economic Analysis
 

 1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here. 
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage. 
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 

 1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model.  The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.  The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of 13 years with mining complete in 2034 and processing and gold–silver production continuing to 2037.  Smelting and refining costs are defined by contract.
 
The active mining operation ceases in 2034; however, closure costs are estimated to be US$ 175.1 M.  For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2040 are included in the cash flow in 2040.
 

 1.19.3
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV at 5% is US$ 348.1 M.  As the cashflow is based on existing operations, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
The cashflow is summarized in Table 1‑6.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-18
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑6:          Summary Cashflow Table ($M)
 
 
LOM Total
Gross Revenue
3,800.2
Operating Costs
Mining
(949.8)
Process
(976.6)
G&A
(290.1)
Selling
(30.0)
Total Operating Costs
(2,246.6)
Other Costs
(1.2)
Operating Cashflow
1,552.5
Capital Expenditures
(641.0)
Reclamation
(175.1)
Cash Flow bef. Taxes
736.4
Tax
(48.9)
Total Free Cash Flow
687.5
NPV (5%)
348.1
 

 1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, metallurgical recovery, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 20% above and below the base case values.  The NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 1‑7.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal prices, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs.  Grade sensitivity mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
 

 1.20
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 1.10.3 and Chapter 1.11.3 respectively and discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 

 1.20.1
Risks
 
Risks include:
 
•
Changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions could affect revenues and operating costs. These changes could be due to inability to produce a crushed product with the HPGR that meets specification in terms of top-size or particle size distribution, or other material properties of the ore are different than base case assumptions. This could require revisions to cut-off grades and mineral reserve estimates or could require additional capital cost to upgrade the planned ore flow system;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-19
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑7:          NPV Sensitivity ($M)
 
Parameter 
-20% 
-10% 
-5% 
 Base  
5% 
10% 
20% 
Metal price  
(144.8)
101.8
224.9
348.1
470.0 
591.5
833.2
Operating cost  
 661.3
 505.2
426.8
348.1
268.7 
189.3
30.4
Capital cost  
459.6
403.9 
376.0
348.1
320.1 
292.0
235.9
Grade  
(156.5)
96.0
222.0
348.1
 472.9
597.4
844.5
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
•
Coeur’s ability to timely complete POA 11, Nevada Packard or other future mine expansion and mine life extension projects on budget is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are outside of our control, including, among others, availability of funding on acceptable terms, timing of receipt of permits and approvals from regulatory authorities, extreme weather events, obtaining materials and equipment and construction, engineering and other services at favorable prices and terms, and disputes with third-party providers of materials, equipment or services.  The construction services related to POA 11 will be performed by contractors, which creates a risk of delays or additional costs to the project resulting from inability of contractor to complete work;
 
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires and other consumables could negatively impact operating costs and also the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  As the mine gets deeper, any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Changes in climate could result in drought and associated potential water shortages that could impact operating cost and ability to operate.
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Rochester Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-20
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

1.20.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all of the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all of the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Exploration of the broader district for additional silver and gold targets;
 
•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new ore sources that could be processed at the existing Limerick Canyon leach pad.
 

 1.21
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 

 1.22
Recommendations
 
As the Rochester Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   1-21
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
2.0
INTRODUCTION
 

 2.1
Registrant
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, and Mr. Matthew Hoffer, P.G., prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Rochester Gold and Silver Operations (the Rochester Operations or the Project), located in Nevada as shown in Figure 2‑1.
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Rochester, Inc. (Coeur Rochester) is the operating entity.
 

 2.2
Terms of Reference
 

 2.2.1
Report Purpose
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Rochester Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources are reported for Rochester and Nevada Packard.
 
Mineral reserves are reported for Rochester and Nevada Packard.  Mineral reserves are also estimated for material in stockpiles.
 

 2.2.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Rochester Operations consist of the Rochester and Nevada Packard open pits and associated stockpiles.
 
Mining commenced in 1986 from the Rochester open pit and in 2003 from the Nevada Packard open pit.  Figure 2‑2 shows the location of the current and mined-out open pits, and development prospects.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, the US customary system is used in this Report.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.
 
The Report uses US English.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    2-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 2‑1:          Project Location Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2020.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    2-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 2‑2:          Mining Operations Layout Plan
 
 
Note:  RDS = WRSF; HLP = heap leach pad.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    2-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

2.3
Qualified Persons
 
The following Coeur or Coeur Rochester employees serve as the Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Report:
 

 •
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Senior Director, Technical Services;
 

 •
Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., Engineering Superintendent; Coeur Rochester
 

 •
Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, Geology Superintendent; Coeur Rochester
 

 •
Mr. Matthew Hoffer, P.G., Senior Manager, Geology.
 
The QPs are responsible for, or co-responsible for, the Report Chapters set out in Table 2‑1.
 

 2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
 
Mr. Pascoe’s most recent site visit was December 7, 2021.  He had previously visited the site on a number of occasions from 2015–2021.  During the site visits he reviewed mineral resource estimates, mine planning, metallurgy, and the overall operations.
 
Mr. MacDougall has been employed at the Rochester Operations since 2015, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  During his time at the Rochester Operations, Brandon has been involved in the capacities of long/short range planner, mine shift supervisor, mine operations general supervisor, acting mine operations superintendent, and mine engineering superintendent.  In his current role he is responsible for the mine engineering group where he oversees all mine design and planning activities.
 
Mr. Bradford has been employed as the Geology Superintendent at the Rochester Operations since 2021, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  Prior to this position, Mr. Bradford worked for Coeur from 2017–2021 in multiple capacities including data validation, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), and resource modeling.  In his current role, he is responsible for the mine geology and geotechnical engineering groups together with mineral resource modeling.
 
Mr. Hoffer has been employed at Coeur since 2014.  Mr. Hoffer spent several months onsite at the Rochester Operations in 2021 as the Interim Exploration Manager.  His most recent site visit occurred in July 2021.  This onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  During his time at the operations, Matthew inspected site geology, exploration activities, drilling activities, and supervised the geological data collection.
 

 2.5
Report Date
 
Information in the report is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    2-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 2‑1:          QP Chapter Responsibilities
 
QP Name
Chapter Responsibility
Mr. Chris Pascoe
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9,1.13,1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 2,, 3,4, 10,14,16,17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 22.2, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18, 22.6, 23, 24, 25.
Mr. Brandon MacDougall
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22, 4, 5, , 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22.1, 22.2, 22.8, 22.9, 22.11, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.17, 23, 24, 25
Mr. Matthew Hoffer
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.20, 1.22, 2, 5, 7, 22.1, 22.4, 22.17, 23, 24, 25
Mr. Matthew Bradford
1.1, 1.2, 1.10, 1.20, 1.22, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22.1, 22.3, 22.5, 22.7, 22.17, 23, 24, 25
 

 2.6
Information Sources and References
 
The reports and documents listed in Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 of this Report were used to support Report preparation.
 

 2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
 
Coeur has not previously filed a technical report summary on the Project.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
    2-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
 

 3.1
Property Location
 
The Rochester Operations are located in the Humboldt Range of northwestern Nevada, approximately 13 miles east of Interstate 80 from the Oreana-Rochester exit, and 26 miles northeast of the City of Lovelock in Pershing County, Nevada.
 
The centroid for the Project is 400600 E, 4460300 N, UTM Zone 11T.
 
Centroid locations for the key Project components include:
 

 •
Rochester open pit:  402045 E, 4460050 N, UTM Zone 11T;
 

 •
Nevada Packard open pit:  400600 E, 4456675 N, UTM Zone 11T.
 

 3.2
Ownership
 
The Project is held in the name of Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Rochester.
 

 3.3
Mineral Title
 
3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
 
The Rochester Operations are located within the following sections, which are located within the Mt. Diablo meridian, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of T28N, R34E, and Section 5 of T27N, R34E.
 
The entire Project area covers 17,004 net acres, consisting of 761 owned and 13 leased federal unpatented lode claims and six (6) owned federal unpatented placer claims, totalling 11,625 net acres of public land owned and 269 net acres of public land leased, in total 11,894 acres of public land; 21 patented lode claims consisting of 357 acres; and interests owned in 4,793 gross acres of additional real property.
 
A summary of the claims is provided in Table 3‑1, and an overall tenure location plan provided in Figure 3‑2.  Claim details are provided in Appendix A.
 
3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
 
The federal unpatented lode claims are maintained by the timely annual payment of claim maintenance fees, which are $165.00 per claim, payable to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on or before September 1.  Should the annual claim maintenance fee not be paid by that time, the unpatented lode claim(s) are, by operation of law, rendered forfeited. As of the effective date of this Report, all such payments were up to date.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑1:          Mineral Tenure Summary Table
 
Claims Group
Claim Type
Number of Claims
Area
(net acres)
Coeur Rochester Owned
Patented lode
21
357
Federal unpatented placer
6
120
Federal unpatented lode
761
11,625
Federal unpatented mill site
0
0
Fee Lands
35
4,793
Coeur Rochester Leased
Patented lode
0
0
Patented mill site
0
0
Federal unpatented mill site
0
0
Federal unpatented lode
13
269
Fee Lands
0
00

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑1:          Mineral Tenure Location Map
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The patented lode claims are private land, and therefore not subject to federal claim maintenance requirements.  However, as private land, they, and Coeur Rochester’s additional real property, are subject to ad valorem property taxes assessed by Pershing County, Nevada, which are due annually on the third Monday of August.  As of the effective date of this Report, all payments were up to date.
 
Coeur located new federal unpatented lode claims on grounds previously covered by those that were subject to lease agreements.  Coeur has continued to pay lease fees to the lessors according to the rates set forth in the lease agreements.  Coeur is not currently mining within any of these new claims; instead, it uses the property primarily to facilitate access to other portions of the Rochester Operations area and to provide space for infrastructure.
 

 3.4
Property Agreements
 

 3.4.1
Pershing County Road Maintenance Agreement
 
A Road Maintenance Agreement dated January 3, 2011 was entered into by Pershing County, Nevada, and Coeur Rochester, for the maintenance of a 13-mile segment of the county-owned Limerick Canyon Road from Oreana to the Rochester mine site.  The agreement has no expiry date.
 
The agreement allows for Pershing County to use its equipment, materials, and personnel to maintain and repair the road, with Coeur paying half of the annual materials costs.
 
Coeur is responsible for removing snow and ice from the segment of the road that is subject to the road agreement, using its own personnel and equipment; however, Pershing County supplies the sand and salt for snow removal.
 

 3.4.2
Pipeline, Electric Power Line, and Telephone Line License
 
A nonexclusive pipeline, electric power line, and telephone line license granted by a predecessor in interest to Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC. to Coeur covers 250 acres, and is located in Section 3, Township 28N, Range 34E Mount Diablo base and meridian.
 
The licence, which was granted on February 14, 1986, can be renewed annually, and is subject to an annual licence fee payment, which was $3,225.30 for the 2021 term.
 

 3.4.3
Rights of Way
 
A 30-year right-of-way grant was conveyed by the BLM to Coeur on December 6, 1985.  The right-of-way was amended in 2016 to remove sections of land that were now within the plan of operations, and to extend the right-of-way for a further 20 years.  The right-of-way covers a 3.41 acre area within Section 4, Township 28N, Range 34E Mount Diablo base and meridian. The right-of-way is subject to an annual lease payment, which was $118.27 for the 2021 term.
 
A 30-year right-of-way grant was conveyed by the BLM to Coeur on June 15, 1989, covering an area of 0.459 acres.  The right-of-way is within Section 18, Township 27N, Range 31E Mount Diablo base and meridian, and is subject to an annual lease payment.  The annual lease payment was $2,531.06 in 2021.  The right-of-way was renewed in 2019, with an expiration date of December 31, 2050.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
A non-exclusive right-of-way easement was granted by Coeur to Barrick Gold Exploration, Inc. (Barrick) while Barrick negotiated with the BLM for a right-of-way in its name. The right of way is located within Sections 3, 10 and 11 of Township 28N, Range 34E Mount Diablo base and meridian.  The agreement envisages that if the BLM-granted right-of-way is obtained, the non-exclusive right-of-way agreement will continue for as long as the BLM-granted right-of-way is in effect.
 

 3.5
Surface Rights
 
The federal mining claims and fee lands provide Coeur with the required surface rights to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan.
 

 3.6
Water Rights
 
Coeur holds 13 water right permits issued by the Nevada Division of Water Resources.  These permits allow Coeur to appropriate water in the Buena Vista Valley Hydrographic Sub-Basin for mining, milling, domestic and dewatering which can be applied to beneficial use not to exceed 1,927 acre-feet per annum with a discharge rate of 1,198.38 gpm.
 
Coeur also has permits to appropriate water in the Packard Valley Sub-Basin for mining, milling and dewatering which can be applied to beneficial use not to exceed 967.3 acre-feet per annum with a discharge rate of 725 gpm.
 
The water right permits held by Coeur are sufficient to operate under the current LOM plan.
 

 3.7
Royalties
 
A location map showing the locations of claims subject to royalties is provided in Figure 3‑2.
 

 3.7.1
Asarco Royalty
 
An Agreement of Sale, Assignment and Purchase, dated November 30, 1983 was entered into by Asarco Inc. (Asarco) and Coeur.  Under that agreement, an overriding royalty is payable to Asarco on a quarterly basis on all ores, concentrates, metals, or other valuable mineral products produced and sold from portions of federal unpatented lode claims and patented lode claims located within township 28N, range 34E, Mount Diablo base and meridian, in the portions of S ½ of S ½ of S ½ of 03; portions of S ½ of S ½ of SE ¼ of 04 E ½, E ½ of SW ¼, of 09, 10, NW ¼; portions of SE ¼ of NW ¼ and W ½ of SW ¼, 15, E ¾, NW ¼ of SW ¼ of 16, NE ¼, E ½ of NW ¼; portions of N ½ of S ½ of 21, and N ¾ of 22.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑2:          Claims Subject to Royalties Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The royalty is calculated on the percentage of net amounts paid by any smelter, refinery, or other buyer of said products after deduction of usual and customary charges and freight and insurance charges from the claims to a buyer’s plant.  The overriding royalty varies according to the “adjusted price of silver”, as defined in the agreement.  The royalty is payable when the average quarterly market price of silver equals or exceeds $26.58/oz Ag, indexed for inflation, up to a maximum rate of 5% with the condition that the Rochester mine achieves positive cash flow for the applicable year.  If cash flow is negative in any calendar year, the maximum royalty payable is $250,000.
 

 3.7.2
Nelsen, Stice, and Kilrain Royalty
 
The Canyon and Canyon No. 1 (M.S. 4158, Pat. 469396) patented lode claims are subject to a net smelter return (NSR) royalty of 5.0% that is payable to Gladys L. Nelsen (aka Gladys N. Stice), Pamela M. Kilrain, and Maurice A. Nelsen, as a result of a sales deed dated August 19, 1988.
 
No mineralization within these claims is included in the life-of-mine (LOM) plan described in this Report.
 

 3.7.3
Davis Royalty
 
The Joplin No. 1, Joplin No. 2, Joplin No. 3, Joplin No. 4, Joplin No. 5, Joplin No. 6, Joplin Fraction, and Baltimore (M.S. 4395, Pat. 886486) patented lode claims are subject to a 2½% NSR payable to L.E. Davis and Anne C. Davis, as a result of a sales deed dated August 10, 1956.
 
No mineralization within these claims is included in the LOM plan described in this Report.
 

 3.7.4
Midway Gold US Inc. and Barrick Royalty
 
The 101 Spring Valley unpatented lode claims are subject to a 3.0% NSR, payable to Midway Gold US Inc. and Barrick, under a quitclaim deed dated December 16, 2015.
 
No mineralization within these claims is included in the LOM plan described in this Report.
 

 3.8
Encumbrances
 
3.8.1
Credit Agreement
 
Under a September 29, 2017 Credit Agreement by and between Coeur Mining, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Coeur Mining, Inc. (including Coeur Rochester), and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent, and the other lenders party to the agreement (as amended, the Credit Agreement), a lien was placed upon the legal and beneficial title in and to the lands comprising the Rochester Property, securing a loan under the Credit Agreement, in an aggregate principal amount of up to $300,000,000.  The Credit Agreement matures in March 2025.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
3.8.2
Permitting Requirements
 
Permits in place for operations are discussed in Chapter 17.4.
 
3.8.3
Permitting Timelines
 
All permits required for operations are currently in place.
 
3.8.4
Permit Conditions
 
Permits are discussed in Chapter 17.4.
 
3.8.5
Violations and Fines
 
There are no major violations or fines as understood in the United States mining regulatory context that have been reported for the Rochester Operations. 
 
3.9
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
 
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Rochester Operations that are not discussed in this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   3-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
 

 4.1
Physiography
 
The Rochester Operations are located within the basin-and-range physiographic province in the north–south trending Humboldt Range.  The basin-and-range province consists of narrow, short mountain ranges of moderate to high relief, separated by broad alluvial valleys or basins.  The Humboldt Range is bounded on the east by the Buena Vista Valley and to the west by the Humboldt River Valley.
 
The Rochester Operations area encompasses elevations ranging from 4,960 ft at the Nevada Packard deposit, to approximately 7,090 ft  at the highest point of the Rochester Operations.
 
Vegetation is sparse, consisting of high desert grasses and shrubs with a sparse assortment of trees in the higher elevations.
 

 4.2
Accessibility
 
Lovelock, Nevada, located approximately 90 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada, is the nearest town to the Rochester Operations.
 
Primary access to Rochester is by way of the Limerick Canyon Road from Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) at the Oreana-Rochester exit (Exit 119).  Pershing County maintains the county road from I-80 to the cattle guard at the Limerick Canyon Summit/Spring Valley Pass.  Coeur maintains, and will continue to maintain, the paved road from the Unionville Road cut-off to Rochester throughout the active mine life and post-mining responsibility period.
 
Primary access to Nevada Packard is by way of a two-mile haulage road from the Rochester Pit located on land controlled by Coeur Rochester.  Road maintenance is performed using Rochester equipment.
 

 4.3
Climate
 
The climate in the Rochester Operations area is typical of north–central Nevada, with hot summers and cold winters.
 
Precipitation in the form of snow and rain occurs mostly in the winter and spring months, and averages 13 inches.  Evapo-transpiration is estimated at 53.6 inches per year, based on a site elevation of 6,400 ft.  Average monthly temperatures range from 20.5–69.4ºF.
 
Operations are conducted year-round.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   4-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

4.4
Infrastructure
 
Mining vendors in Reno, Nevada, Winnemucca, Nevada, and Elko, Nevada provide most of the services required to support the Rochester Operations.
 
The Rochester Operations have a well-developed mine infrastructure and a local workforce with extensive experience in mining operations.  Rochester is within a reasonable commuting distance from the Nevada cities of Lovelock, Winnemucca, Fernley, and Fallon.
 
Electrical power is supplied by NV Energy.
 
Water is sourced from three production wells and one potable water well located within the permitted mine boundary.
 
The Rochester Operations currently have all infrastructure in place to support mining and processing activities (see also discussions in Chapter 13, Chapter 14, and Chapter 15 of this Report).  These Report chapters also discuss water sources, electricity, personnel, and supplies.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   4-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
5.0
HISTORY
 

 5.1
Project Ownership History
 
A high-grade silver deposit was discovered on Nenzel Hill in 1912 and mined primarily through underground methods by various operators until the closure of the Rochester Mill in 1929.  Attempts were made to identify additional high-grade areas within the existing mines into the 1970’s with no success.
 
Asarco discovered a large tonnage, low-grade silver deposit at Nenzel Hill in the early 1980s.  Coeur purchased Asarco’s Rochester area interests in 1983, and established its subsidiary company, Coeur Rochester.
 
The Nevada Packard area has been held by the Nevada Packard Mines Company, Cordero Mining Company, D.Z. Exploration, the Nevada Packard Joint Venture, and Wharf Resources.  Coeur obtained a project interest in 1996 and purchased a 100% interest in 1999.
 
  5.2
Exploration and Development History
 
A summary of the exploration and development history for the Rochester Operations is provided in Table 5‑1.  A summary of known total drill footage is provided in Chapter 7 of this Report.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   5-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 5‑1:       Exploration and Development History
 
Year
Operator
Comment
1860s
Unknown
Rochester District discovered, mining in district commenced.  Initial focus on underground exploitation, later on placer mining.
1911–
1912
Joseph Nenzel
Discovered high-grade silver mineralization on west slope of Nenzel Hill
1912
Dick Keyworth and partners
Discovered high-grade silver mineralization at Nevada Packard, sold interest to Frank Margrave Et. Al.
1912–
1917
Rochester Hills Mining Co., Rochester Mines Co., Nevada Packard Mines Co.
Four mining areas established within Rochester District, Nenzel Hill at the eastern head of Rochester Canyon; Lincoln and Independence Hills; north and south slopes of the lower end of Rochester Canyon; and the Nevada Packard Mine south of Rochester Canyon
1918–
1935
Rochester Silver Corp., Nenzel Crown Point Mining Co.,
Production of silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc, antimony, tungsten, dumortierite, and andalusite.  Nevada Packard mill closed in 1923, Lower Rochester mill closed in 1929.
1935–
1961
Rochester Consolidated Mines Co., Western Properties Co.
Limited development and exploration, no production
1961–
1969
Silver State Mines Co.
Expansion of historic underground workings, grab sample campaign, limited drilling
1969–
1980
Cordero Mining Company
Exploration campaign using a mud rotary drill at Rochester
1969–
1983
Asarco
Exploration drilling in the Nenzel Hill area of Rochester.  Drilling consisted of mud rotary and RC drill holes.
1970s
Cordero Mining Company
Cordero Mining Company holds Nevada Packard property under bond and lease, performs reconnaissance exploration at Nevada Packard
D.Z. Exploration
Exploration using a percussion drill rig at Rochester
1977–
1978
D.Z. Exploration
Drilling in Nevada Packard area.  Completed production scale heap leach test work on historical dump material, with facilities to crush, agglomerate, and refine
1979
D.Z. Exploration
Nevada Packard mine permitting initiated
1980–
1983
D.Z. Exploration
Production scale metallurgical test work on a 100,000 st test was performed in 1981 on 70,000 st of newly-mined material and 30,000 st of historical dump material.  Recoveries were lower than expected and the mine was placed on hold. Eight 1,600 st heaps were constructed through 1983, which tested the recoveries of different sized crushed ore, agglomerated with and without cyanide.
1983
Coeur
Coeur acquired the Rochester property from Asarco
1983–
2021
Coeur
Coeur completes several exploration drilling campaigns at Rochester.
1986
Coeur
An initial Plan of Operations (PoO) was approved by the BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP).  Coeur commenced mining operations at the Rochester project in September.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   5-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
1987
Nevada Packard Joint Venture
Daile Scholz leased Nevada Packard surface and mineral rights from Frank (Jr.) and Wilton Margrave.
Nevada Packard Joint Venture and Wharf Resources
Exploration drilling consisting of RC holes and HQ core holes at Nevada Packard; Economic studies indicated a negative return with the addition of crushing and processing facilities.  Wharf Resources subsequently terminated the agreement.
1996
Coeur
Coeur Rochester entered into lease agreements with Scholz and Margrave for the Nevada Packard project area.
1997
Mapping and sampling program at Nevada Packard; results not encouraging.  Focus shifted to shallower mineralization potential
1998
Initiated a development/confirmation drill program to check assay data generated by Scholz and Margrave.  Silver grades were confirmed, but average gold grades dropped from 0.0074 oz/t Au to 0.0044 oz/t Au.  Entered into buyout negotiations with Scholz.  Completed mineral resource estimate.
1999
Buyout negotiations were completed for Nevada Packard area
2000–
2021
Additional drilling in Nevada Packard area
2007–
2011
Coeur shuts down operations at Rochester and Packard and begins residual leaching of existing heap leach pads
2011
Coeur resumes active mining operations at Rochester
2012
Rye Patch Gold
Completed exploration holes on the Nevada Packard deposit; information subsequently acquired by Coeur in 2018 following acquisition of Alio Gold.
2012-
2021
Coeur
Coeur maintains mining operations

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   5-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
 

 6.1
Deposit Type
 
Mineralization in the Rochester district exhibits characteristics of both low-sulfidation and intermediate-sulfidation precious metal systems, complicated by supergene enrichment processes and significant oxidation.
 
Epithermal mineralization associated with hydrothermal activity related to volcanism or the resulting geothermal activity of circulating meteoric waters at relatively shallow depths and low temperatures.  Precious metal epithermal deposits may exhibit stockworks, breccia pipes, and disseminated mineralization.  The level of sulfidation (high, intermediate, or low-sulfidation) refers only to sulfide mineralogy.  Pyrite, chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, polybasite, acanthite, and at depth, other base metals (including the minerals galena and sphalerite) are common.
 
Supergene enrichment is commonly found in porphyry copper deposits, but recent work has shown supergene enrichment in silver-rich deposits (Anderson, 2016).  This appears to be the case at Rochester.
 
Rochester has few directly comparable deposits.  Deposits that share some features include nearby Comstock, Nevada, and Tonopah, Nevada, which are intermediate sulfidation deposits (Sillitoe and Hedenquist, 2003). The degree of oxidation, depth of oxidation, contained metal, average grade, and amount of enrichment vary greatly among these deposits.  These deposits have some characteristics in common with Rochester, including acanthite and usually polybasite as a hypogene mineral and native silver occurring as a supergene mineral (Sillitoe, 2009).
 

 6.2
Regional Geology
 
The Rochester and Nevada Packard mines are located on the southern flank of the Humboldt Range (Figure 6‑1).  The Humboldt Range lies within the Basin-and-Range province, where late Tertiary extension created large listric normal faults bounding generally north–south-trending mountain ranges and adjacent down-dropped valleys.
 
Volcanic activity in the Humboldt Range began in the Permian, in association with the Sonoma orogeny (Silberling, 1973).  Initial eruptions were mafic in composition, transitioning to felsic composition in the early Triassic.  The Limerick, Rochester, and Weaver Formations of the Koipato Group represent the Triassic volcanism.  Interbedded sandstone and siltstone occur near the top of the Triassic volcanic rocks, in some cases capping the rhyolite flows.
 
Large intrusions of leucogranite, accompanied by quartz–sericite–pyrite alteration, intruded the Limerick and Rochester Formations (but not the Weaver Formation) in early Triassic time (Vikre, 1981).  Coeval with deposition of the lower Weaver Formation, intrusions of feldspar porphyry (LeLacheur and others, 2011) intruded Rochester and Weaver Formation rhyolitic ignimbrites and flows.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   6-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑1:          Regional Geology Plan
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2020.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
A thick sequence of marine sediments dominated by limestones, was deposited on top of the transitional sandstones and siltstones of the Triassic units, forming the Star Peak Group and Grass Valley Formation.
 
During a mid-Jurassic orogeny, the southernmost Humboldt Range was intruded by an extensive gabbro lopolith and related dikes, and compressional tectonics related to the Luning-Fencemaker Thrust likely occurred at this time (Wyld et al., 2003).
 
In the mid-Mesozoic the tectonic regime changed with the onset of plate subduction at the western North America continental margin, resulting in back arc volcanism and formation of large batholiths, such as the Sierra Nevada, and time equivalent smaller intrusions in the Humboldt Range (gabbro).  During the Cretaceous, granodiorite stocks intruded older rock units in west-central Nevada, including the Humboldt Range (Vikre 1981, Crosby 2012).  Faulting, folding, and uplift throughout the region accompanied subduction.
 
A period of significant erosion began in the Tertiary, with Miocene gravels deposited in the area of the Humboldt Range.  Bimodal volcanism also occurred at this time.  After the Miocene, basin-and-range extension became dominant.  Uplift was a result with widespread erosion.   Most of the Tertiary and Mesozoic rocks in the area were removed at this time, including some of the mineralized lithologies at Rochester (Vikre, 1981).
 

 6.3
Local Geology
 
Both the Rochester and Nevada Packard deposits are hosted in predominately rhyolitic flows and tuffs of the Permian–Triassic Koipato Group (Figure 6‑2).  A stratigraphic column showing the geology is provided in Figure 6‑3.
 
6.3.1
Lithologies
 
The oldest unit in the Project area is the Limerick Formation, which consists of andesitic flows altered to greenstone, lithic to crystal tuffs, and volcaniclastic siltstones.  It is overlain by the Rochester Formation, comprising felsic to intermediate, poorly to strongly welded tuffs, rhyolitic ash flow tuffs, quartz latite to rhyolitic tuffs; and minor interbedded volcaniclastic rocks, siltstones, and conglomerates.  The Weaver Formation unconformably overlies the Rochester Formation and consists of rhyolitic flows, tuffaceous, and volcaniclastic sediments.
 
Unconsolidated alluvium, colluvium, and minor lacustrine sediments in the Rochester area are limited in extent and deposited in a non-alluvial fan environment.  At the Nevada Packard Mine, the area west of the pit is underlain by alluvial fan sediments along the northern margin of the Nevada Packard Flat.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑2:          Project Geology Plan
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑3:          Stratigraphic Column
 
Note: Figure modified from Chadwick and Harvey, 2001.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

6.3.2
Structure
 
The mid-Jurassic Luning–Fencemaker fold and thrust belt is likely responsible for compressional features evident throughout the Humboldt Range, including the north–south-trending anticlinorium upon which the Rochester Mine is located.  A number of low-angle thrust faults and related drag folds, are cut by younger, high-angle basin-and-range normal faults. These structures are interpreted to originally be related to the Luning–Fencemaker tectonism.

A major structural feature within the southern portion of the Humboldt Range is the Black Ridge fault system, which is an extensive shear zone that is, in places, hundreds of feet wide.  Most of the Rochester silver–gold mineralization occurs in hanging wall faults, splays, and cross-faults within the Black Ridge system.  Renewed movements during the late Tertiary uplifted the core of the Humboldt Range along its principal anticlinal axis.
 
A final tectonic event was related to basin-and-range tectonism.  This event formed a graben block bounded by the Black Ridge Main Fault on the east side and the parallel West Graben Fault on the west side.
 

 6.3.3
Metamorphism and Alteration
 
Weaver Formation lithologies can display a phyllitic texture, which is interpreted to be a product of greenschist facies regional metamorphism associated with the Luning–Fencemaker structure.
 
A hydrothermal quartz–sericite–pyrite alteration occurs throughout the Rochester district, associated with leucogranite intrusive bodies.
 

 6.3.4
Mineralization
 
Mineralization is structurally controlled.  Economic mineralization is hosted mainly in the oxide zone, where the Rochester–Weaver Formation contact is the primary host for silver–gold mineralization, followed and influenced by mineralized fault zones with associated fracture, stockwork and disseminated mineralization away from the faults.  The contact is extensively brecciated and healed by silica in both the Rochester and Weaver Formations.  Quartz veins and veinlets typically exhibit both parallel and cross-cutting features, indicating multiple mineralizing events.
 
Supergene oxide minerals present include acanthite (Ag2S), chlorargyrite (AgCl), embolite (Ag(Cl, Br), hematite, kaolinite, halloysite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4), goethite, amorphous iron oxides, chalcanthite (CuSO4•5H2O), chalcophanite ((Zn,Fe,Mn)Mn3O7 3H2O), melanterite (FeSO4•7H2O), jarosite, manganese oxides, and native silver.  Acanthite and chlorargyrite are the most abundant oxide silver phases.
 
Below the oxidation zone, the hypogene profile is preserved, consisting of pyrite, sphalerite, galena, argentiferous tetrahedrite, chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, pyrargyrite (Ag3SbS3), and possibly pyrrhotite and owyheeite (Pb7Ag2(Sb,Bi) 8S20).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

6.4
Property Geology
 

 6.4.1
Rochester
 
6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
Mineralization is discontinuous over an area of 5,100 ft. north to south and 6,000 ft. east to west. Mineralization dips westerly at an average of 30°, and mineralization is nearly parallel with topography, with an average true depth of 700 ft.
 
6.4.1.2
Lithologies
 
No mineralization is known to occur in the Limerick Formation.
 
The Rochester Formation, as exposed in the Rochester open pit, shows little continuity in the volcanic stratigraphy, either laterally or vertically, and is typically mapped as undifferentiated Rochester tuffs and flow banded rhyolites.  Erratic intervals of conglomerate-breccia as thick as 100 ft, occur at various places in the stratigraphy.  The Rochester Formation is extremely fractured in the mine area.
 
After deposition of the Rochester Formation, leucogranite stocks intruded the stratigraphic sequence.
 
The contact between the Rochester and Weaver Formations is marked by a discontinuous lithic tuff with up to cobble-sized clasts.  A discontinuous lens-shaped ash layer (W1a) that is not a favourable host for mineralization is occasionally found along the base of the Weaver Formation.   volcaniclastic unit (W1c) lies stratigraphically above W1a and is relatively thin, approximately 60 ft. in thickness. Unit W1c is composed of sandstones interbedded with lithic tuffs and minor siltstone.  Overlying W1c is a siltstone unit (W2), followed by the uppermost Weaver unit (W3), which is a predominately dark siltstone with a discontinuous spherulitic tuff at its base.
 
In the mine area, spherulitic tuffs, ash-fall and water-lain ash, shale/siltstone, fine-grained volcaniclastic rocks, tuffs, and lithic tuffs comprise the Weaver Formation.  Basal units of the Weaver Formation (W1t, W1lt) are the most favorable mineralized host rocks. 
 
6.4.1.3
Structure
 
The Rochester deposit geology is characterized by penetrative reverse and normal faults overprinted by a complex structural system of high-angle fracture sets.  Mineralization occurs along high- and low-angle faults, related breccias and veins, and can extend as far as 500 ft. laterally away from the structures in the vicinity of the Weaver–Rochester Formation contact.  Vein intersections form the largest zones of mineralization, with triple point intersections (i.e., intersecting veins in conjunction with the Weaver–Rochester Formation contact) forming the largest volumes of mineralization.
 
Fracture intensity is poorly developed in the upper two units of the Weaver Formation (W2 and W3).  The lack of fracturing resulted in poor mineralization in these units.  Basal Weaver (W1t) and upper Rochester units (Rt) are extremely fractured which prepared these units for mineral deposition by allowing hydrothermal fluids extensive access in these hosts.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4.1.4
Alteration
 
Silicification is common, and well-developed in the conglomerate-breccia that occurs at the Rochester–Weaver Formation contact.
 
Distinct zones of sericitization occur throughout the deposit, including sericitization in some breccia matrices, although zones of breccias are more commonly healed by silica.
 
Hydrothermal clay alteration, other than sericite, also occurs and consists of clay minerals such as kaolinite and halloysite.  However, the presence of some clays is likely the result of the movement of meteoric water and subsequent oxidation of primary pyrite, particularly in the broken hanging wall of high angle normal faults.  Hydrothermal clay zones extend as far as 50 ft. from the fault zones.
 
6.4.1.5
Mineralization
 
High-grade precious metal mineralization at Rochester occurs in discontinuous and anastomosing veins within compressional and extensional fault structures that range in thickness from a few inches to 3 ft.  These veins are steeply dipping at the surface (>60°) but at depth become shallower dipping (<30°) and lower grade.
 
Lower-grade precious metal mineralization occurs in fractures, narrow veins, stockwork breccia stockwork and in disseminated zones associated with structures.  In plan view, veins strike north and northeast with dominate orientations at approximately 0, 10, 30, 55 and 70° azimuth.  The highest-grade, best-developed historical underground silver stopes were located on the East Vein, a conjugate 30°-striking shear between splays of the 10°- or northerly-striking Black Ridge Fault.  In cross-section, mineralization associated with faults dips at 35–65° west, while mineralization occurring near the formational contact exhibits shallow dips (0–30°) both to the east and west.
 
Low-grade mineralization is controlled by hypogene processes and possible supergene enrichment.  These low-grade systems vary in width (both along strike and down dip) from tens to hundreds of feet.  Below the oxidation zone, metal grade typically drops off, but high grades of silver–gold with minor base metal content can be found in narrow quartz veins.  The deposit is strongly oxidized to a depth of 200–500 ft. from the current pit bottom and partially oxidized to a depth of over 700 ft.   Silver mineralization becomes erratic with increasing distance from favorable fault intersections, unit contacts, and structures.
 
Supergene processes are responsible for the remobilization and enrichment of silver at Rochester.
 
A geological plan of the Rochester deposit is included as Figure 6‑4, and a cross-section through the deposit geology is provided as Figure 6‑5.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑4:          Geological Plan, Rochester
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑5:          Geological Cross Section, Rochester
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

6.4.2
Nevada Packard
 
6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Nevada Packard mineralized zones are broad, but in general, smaller than those at Rochester, typically no larger than 200 ft wide.  The discontinuous mineralized zones cover an area of 2,500 ft by 2,300 ft and as deep as 600 ft.  Silver and gold mineralization below 300 ft. rapidly decrease in tenor.
 
6.4.2.2
Lithologies
 
Nevada Packard is situated in the same lithologies as described for Rochester.  Units W2 and W3 of the Weaver Formation do not host mineralization at Rochester, but unit W3 is the dominant host at the Nevada Packard deposit, particularly the spherulitic tuff facies.  Unit W3 at Nevada Packard shows much greater structural preparation, although it exhibits a similar structural domain when compared to the same unit at Rochester.
 
6.4.2.3
Structure
 
The structural setting as described for Rochester is similar to that of Nevada Packard.
 
6.4.2.4
Alteration
 
The alteration styles as described for Rochester is similar to that of Nevada Packard.
 
6.4.2.5
Mineralization
 
Precious metal mineralization at Nevada Packard is like that at Rochester in that northeast-trending, west-dipping faults with associated disseminated metal, veins, and fractures, are the most dominant controls.
 
One difference in the Nevada Packard mineralization is that silver tends to be of higher grade than at Rochester, while the gold grades tend to be lower.
 
A geological plan of the Nevada Packard deposit is included as Figure 6‑6, and a cross-section through the deposit geology is provided as Figure 6‑7.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑6:          Geological Plan, Nevada Packard
 
 

Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑7:          Geological Cross Section, Nevada Packard
 
 

Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
6-13
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
7.0          EXPLORATION
 

 7.1
Exploration
 

 7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
 
Survey data are collected using longitude and latitude in radians and converted into the coordinates of the current mine grid.  The reference location of the mine grid is on Black Knob, south of the Nevada Packard pit.  The mine grid covers the entire mine property and is used throughout the Rochester Operations.
 
All final survey coordinates used for exploration and near mine work are surveyed using Trimble GPS equipment converted to a local mine grid.  Topography used for resource estimates is updated at year end.  All active mining and waste rock storage facilities (WRSF) are surveyed on a regular basis.  A final survey is completed at the end of each year.  Topography contours updated in May 2020 outside the active surveyed areas are obtained from semi-annual orthophotos and photogrammetry.  These contours are merged with the surveyed contours.
 

 7.1.2
Geological Mapping
 
Coeur has combined information from historical geologic maps with mapping conducted by Coeur staff and consultants retained by Coeur to produce a comprehensive property wide geologic map at 1:11,992 scale.  The compilation was augmented by digitized archival materials such as pit mapping data.
 
Highwall pit mapping is completed in hardcopy and/or directly into ESRI arcMap at a scale of 1:480.  Highwall mapping includes the collection of lithologic, alteration, and structural data.  Bench mapping is collected on all blastholes, drilled on 16 foot centers and includes the collection of material properties of the cuttings piles, alteration, oxidation and sulfide content.
 

 7.1.3
Geochemistry
 
Previous exploration programs in outlying targets such as Plainview, LM, Sunflower Ridge, Weaver Canyon, Woody Canyon, and South Mystic, included soil and rock geochemical sampling, and bulk leach extractable gold (BLEG) stream sediment sampling.  These programs identified targets that were investigated post 2008.
 
An extensive soil geochemistry sample grid was collected in the Rochester district by Rye Patch Gold and that dataset became available to Coeur in 2016
 
No significant soil and rock geochemical sampling campaigns have been completed by Coeur Mining since 2008.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

7.1.4
Geophysics
 
An induced polarization (IP) resistivity survey was conducted in 1999 by Zonge Geoscience. Lines were run in a northwest direction across the Packard Deposit into Packard Flat in between Packard Wash and Woody Canyon.  The objective was to identify sulfide mineralization in the Triassic Weaver formation (Ellis, 2013).
 
A high-resolution helicopter magnetic survey was flown in 2011 by New Sense Geophysics Ltd.  The flight line direction was N90W, with lines spaced 75 m apart.  The objective was to identify structures and map the late Cretaceous granodiorite intrusions (Ellis, 2013).
 
A gravity survey was completed by Magee Geophysical Services LLC (MGS) in 2011.  The station interval was variable but a 200m (656 ft) spacing was attempted.  Significant coverage was achieved in mineralized areas.  No official report was provided by MGS (Ellis, 2013).
 
In 2013 EGC, Inc was contracted to document and interpret the geophysical datasets through inversion modeling of the gravity and aeromagnetic surveys.  The result was a three-dimensional (3D) solid of individual cells with assigned magnetic susceptibility which can be used in a number of two-dimensional (2D) and 3D software visualization packages.
 

 7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
 
The Rochester Operations area has been the subject of modern exploration and development activities since the late 1960s, and a considerable information database has been developed as a result of ongoing exploration activities.  Procedures are consistent with industry-standard practices at the time the work was performed.
 

 7.1.6
Exploration Potential
 
The Rochester deposit remains open at depth in areas where earlier drilling terminated in potentially economic grades, stopping typically after drilling encountered un-oxidized rock.  Several structural trends are being explored where the structures exit the pit walls.  These areas are targeted based on grade and structural mapping.  The area northwest of the pit is considered to have the most potential.  Exploration will target structures and known precious metal mineralization in the Plainview Mines and the Limerick Canyon project areas (Figure 7‑1).
 
The East Rochester zone is adjacent to the eastern margin of the Rochester pit, located under an existing leach pad and crushed material conveyer system.  The zone was identified in 2015 and is open both to the north and the south, providing potential for continued near-pit exploration.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑1:          Exploration Prospects
 
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Limited drilling in 2017 tested the extents of the East Rochester zone, with a focus on the area under the Stage 1 leach pad, and the northern and southern extensions of the zone.  Drilling in 2019 through 2021 defined a significant zone of mineralization at East Rochester.
 
Regional mapping, conducted in 2016, indicates favorable lithologic and structural targets between the Rochester and Nevada Packard pits.  These targets were drill tested in 2021 with final results and geological interpretation pending.
 
The hanging wall of the Black Ridge fault, south of the Rochester pit in the Woody Canyon area, has been identified as another potential host of precious metals within Coeur’s land position.
 

 7.2
Drilling
 

 7.2.1
Overview
 
The drill database for the Project area contains 2,938 drill holes (1,556,662.5 ft).  These data are primarily reverse circulation (RC) holes with limited core drilling.
 
Drilling is summarized in Table 7‑1.  A project-wide drill collar location plan is provided in Figure 7‑2.
 
Core and RC drilling supports mineral resource estimation.  Drilling that supports each mineral resource estimate is summarized in Table 7‑2 and Table 7‑3.  Collar location maps for drilling in the areas that support mineral resource estimation are provided in Figure 7‑3 to Figure 7‑6.
 

 7.2.2
Drilling Excluded For Estimation Purposes
 
There are 588 drillholes completed by multiple operators which are flagged in the acQuire drillhole database to be excluded from the resource estimates.  The holes are excluded due to unvalidated collar, survey, and/or analytical data.  Of these drill holes, 529 are excluded from the Rochester model, 42 are excluded from the Nevada Packard model, and two are excluded from the stockpile model.
 

 7.2.3
Drill Methods
 
Where recorded in the database, drill companies have included Boart Longyear, Delong, Eklund, Hackworth, HD Drilling, Layne Christensen, Major, National EWP, O’Keefe, and Timberline.
 
Core diameter was typically HQ (2.5 in. core diameter). RC drilling used 5.5–7.75-inch bits. In 2021 triple tube HQ3 (2.4 in core diameter) drilling was completed to provide better sample quality in fractured formations.  In 2021 PQ (3.4 in core diameter) drilling was completed for metallurgical testing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑1:          Property Drill Summary Table
 
Year
Operator
Area
Number
of
Sonic
Holes
Sonic
Footage
Number
of
Core
Holes
Core
Footage
Number
of RC
Holes
RC
Footage
Unknown
Unknown
Rochester
—
—
4
1,681
3
870
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
104
18,011
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
107
18,881
Pre-1971
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1971
Asarco
Rochester
—
—
—
—
3
1,120
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
3
1,120
1972–1979
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1980
Asarco
Rochester
—
—
—
—
5
2,010
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
5
2,010
1981–1985
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1986
Unknown
Rochester
—
—
—
—
6
3,350
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
14
5,040
 
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
20
8,390
1987
Unknown
Rochester
1
580
—
—
103
48,015
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
86
32,755
 
Sub-total
1
580
—
—
189
80,770
1988
Unknown
Rochester
—
—
—
—
159
82,861
Rochester
—
—
—
—
58
26,075
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
16
6,380
 
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
233
115,316
1989
Unknown
Rochester
—
—
—
—
130
79,630
Rochester
—
—
—
—
107
53,063
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
3
830
 
Sub-total
—
—
–
–
240
133,523

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Year
Operator
Area
Number
of
Sonic
Holes
Sonic
Footage
Number
of
Core
Holes
Core
Footage
Number
of
RC
Holes
RC
Footage
1990
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
159
75,706
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
159
75,706
1991
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
75
53,120
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
75
53,120
1992
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1993
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
1
500
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
1
500
1994
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1995
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
1
460
—
—
Sub-total
—
—
1
460
—
—
1996
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
1997
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
10
3,114
6
2,300
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
11
9,720
Sub-total
—
—
10
3,114
17
12,020
1998
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
3
437
—
—
Sub-total
—
—
3
437
—
—
1999
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
5
2,500
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
5
2,500
2000
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
25
9,940
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
25
9,940
2001
Unknown
Rochester
—
—
4
1,942
—
—
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
2
700
 
Sub-total
—
—
4
1,942
2
700

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Year
Operator
Area
Number
of
Sonic
Holes
Sonic
Footage
Number
of
Core
Holes
Core
Footage
Number
of RC
Holes
RC
Footage
2002
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
5
1,800
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
5
1,800
2003
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
1
280
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
1
280
2004
N/A
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
2005
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
10
4,780
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
10
4,780
2006
NA
N/A
—
—
—
—
—
—
2007
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
7
3,005
—
—
Sub-total
—
—
7
3,005
—
—
2008
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
5
2,045
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
1
415
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
6
2,460
2009
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
2
1,080
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
2
1,080
2010
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
33
13.750
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
33
13,750
2011
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
5
3,770
56
36,495
Nevada Packard
—
—
1
2,121
96
43,650
Stockpile
—
—
—
—
122
16,219
Sub-total
—
—
6
5,890
274
96,364

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Year
Operator
Area
Number
of
Sonic
Holes
Sonic
Footage
Number
of Core
Holes
Core
Footage
Number
of RC
Holes
RC
Footage
2012
RPG
Rochester
—
—
—
—
26
21,900
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
38
20,765
Rochester
—
—
—
—
65
31,620
Coeur
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
22
10,170
Stockpile
40
7,591
—
—
420
88,680
 
Sub-total
40
7,591
—
—
571
173,135
2013
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
56
39,810
Stockpile
—
—
—
—
750
127,280
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
806
167,090
2014
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
5
3,457
156
138,160
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
22
16,050
Sub-total
—
—
5
3,457
178
154,210
2015
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
52
38,710
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
38
34,620
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
90
73,330
2016
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
  
8,786
119
82,600
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
10
7,960
Sub-total
—
—
  
796
129
90,560
2017
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
2
2,118
47
42,740
Sub-total
—
—
2
2,118
47
42,740
2018
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
—
—
62
35,590
Nevada Packard
—
—
—
—
9
6,520
Sub-total
—
—
—
—
71
42,110
2019
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
7
7,171
—
—
Sub-total
—
—
7
7,171
—
—

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Year
Operator
Area
Number
of
Sonic
Holes
Sonic
Footage
Number
of Core
Holes
Core
Footage
Number
of RC
Holes
RC
Footage
2020
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
22
25,697
40
31,310
Sub-total
—
—
22
25,697
40
31,310
2021
Coeur
Rochester
—
—
19
18, 882
61
59,934
Nevada Packard
—
—
8
6,502
21
19,005
Sub-total
—
—
26
23,561
79
75,565
All
All
Rochester
1
580
91
78,402
1,700
1,044,455
Nevada Packard
—
—
15
9,059
322
190,915
Stockpile
40
7,591
—
—
1,292
232,179
Total
41
8,171
106
87,461
3,314
1,467,549
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑2:          Project Drill Collar Location Plan
 
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑2:          Drill Summary Table, Rochester
 
Year
Number of
Core Holes
Core
Footage
Number of
RC Holes
RC
Footage
Unknown
5
1,882
554
249,812
1986
—
—
14
7,020
1987
—
—
182
79,100
1988
—
—
216
108,506
1989
—
—
221
125,563
1990
—
—
158
75,106
1991
—
—
75
53,120
1993
—
—
1
500
1995
1
460
—
—
1997
10
3,114
6
2,300
1999
—
—
5
2,500
2000
—
—
24
9,540
2001
3
1,681
3
962
2002
—
—
5
1,800
2003
—
—
1
280
2005
—
—
10
4,780
2007
2
1,123
—
—
2008
—
—
5
2,045
2011
3
2,145
55
36,035
2012
—
—
62
30,060
2013
—
—
55
39,810
2014
5
3,457
156
138,160
2015
—
—
52
38,710
2016
9
8,786
119
82,600
2017
2
2,118
47
42,740
2018
—
—
51
29,900
2019
7
7,171
—
—
2020
20
24,725
38
29,060
2021
6
3,585
34
36,900
All
73
60,247
2,149
1,226,909
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑3:          Drill Summary Table, Nevada Packard
 
Year
Number of
Core Holes
Core Footage
Number of
RC Holes
RC Footage
Unknown
1
142
457
121,825
1988
—
—
16
6,380
1989
—
—
3
830
1997
—
—
10
8,820
1998
3
437
—
—
2010
—
—
30
12,290
2011
3
1,298
80
34,530
2012
—
—
34
17,805
2014
—
—
22
16,050
2015
—
—
38
34,620
2016
—
—
10
7,960
2018
—
—
9
6,520
All
7
1,877
709
267,630
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑3:          Drill Collar Location Plan, Rochester
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-13
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑4:          Drill Collar Location Plan, Nevada Packard
 
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-14
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑5:          Rochester Stockpile Drill Collar Location Map
 
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-15
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑6:          Nevada Packard Stockpile Drill Collar Location Map
 
 


 7.2.4
Logging
 
Prior drilling and sampling were conducted from 1969 through 1983 by Cordero Exploration, D.Z Exploration, Nevada Packard Joint Venture (NPJV), Wharf Resources, and Asarco.
 
Coeur geologists or contract geologists trained and supervised by Coeur personnel, performed the logging of the drill samples, beginning in 1987.
 
Geologists for Coeur and Asarco recorded detailed sample descriptions of standardized paper drill log forms.  Descriptions included location details, recovery problems, rock character, lithology, alteration (type/degree), quartz veining, sulfide presence, oxidation intensity, structural indicators, and accessory mineralogy.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-16
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
RC cuttings were logged by Coeur personnel for lithology, mineralization, alteration, structure, and oxide mineralogy.  Chip trays are stored off-site at the exploration facility in Lovelock, NV.
 
RC cuttings from stockpile drilling completed from 2011–2013 was logged variably for only lithology information.
 
Coeur core samples are recovered in 5 ft. intervals using a triple tube core barrel.  The core is removed from the split tube core barrel by the drillers and placed in a split PVC pipe.  The length of the recovered core was measured, recorded, and written on a wooden core marker and placed at the end of the run by the drillers.  The core remains in split PVC pipe until photographs are taken and field geotechnical data collection is completed for each run.  Geotechnical data collected for each run at the drill rig includes:
 

 •
Total recovery;
 

 •
Solid core recovery;
 

 •
Rock quality designation (RQD);
 

 •
Natural fracture count;
 

 •
ISRM strength index;
 

 •
Weathering/alteration index;
 

 •
Footage of zones of breccia, gouge and/or broken core.
 
After geotechnical logging, the core is placed in plastic core boxes.  From 2008 to 2015, the full core boxes were picked up by a geologist or geotechnician and delivered to the geology core logging facilities before the end of each drill shift.  Beginning in 2016, boxed core was transported to the core logging facilities by the drill crew before the end of each drill shift.
 
The core is photographed in the boxes and logged for:
 

 •
Lithology;
 

 •
Mineralization;
 

 •
Alteration;
 

 •
Structure;
 

 •
Veining;
 

 •
Oxide mineralization;
 

 •
Detailed discontinuity attributes.
 
Upon completion of geologic and geotechnical logging, the core is split in half and one half is split into quarters.
 
All logging data are stored in an acQuire database.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-17
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

7.2.5
Recovery
 
Drilling and sampling on the Project was historically from RC with limited core drilling completed from 1997–2021.  The drill hole database indicates that recovery data was collected on 64 core holes from 2014–2021.  The total footage logged with recovery data is 57,794 ft with a total recovery of 54,130 ft, which equates to a 6% core loss recorded over the life of the Project.
 

 7.2.6
Collar Surveys
 
Prior to 2008 drill hole locations were surveyed using Total Station survey equipment.
 
After 2008 drill hole locations, were designed using Geovia GEMS software.  The planned coordinates were staked out by mine survey personnel using a Trimble SPS882 GNSS Smart Antenna.  Completed drill hole locations were surveyed with a Trimble GPS system by the Survey department.  Geology personnel used an identical Trimble system to double check drill hole location coordinates.
 
As drilling and mining activities often occurred near each other, some drill holes did not receive a final survey by either the Survey or Geology departments.  The database does not contain collar survey information on holes drilled prior to 2001, or on how non-surveyed holes were handled. Since 2001, geology personnel have attempted to find collar locations of any completed drill holes that did not have a final survey.  If the collar location could not be located, the planned hole location coordinates in the database were used as final coordinates.  This method was used on 1.8% of holes drilled from 2001–2015.  In 2016, only three final surveys were not completed on drill holes.  In 2017–2021, all completed drillholes had final collar surveys collected.
 
Stockpile drill holes completed between 2011–2013 were planned and located in the field using the standard practices described above.  When available, final collar locations were surveyed with a Trimble GPS and the information is stored in the database.  When surveyed coordinates were not collected, planned coordinates were used in the database.
 

 7.2.7
Down Hole Surveys
 
Prior to 1995, drill holes were sporadically down-hole surveyed with gyroscopic instruments.
 
Downhole surveys were used after 1995 for all angled holes and for vertical holes >400 ft deep using either surface recording gyroscopic, Maxibor, or North Seeker gyroscopic instruments.
 

 7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
 
The general orientation of ore zones is well understood at Rochester and drill orientations are targeted to intercept the ore body to best determine true thickness of the ore zone.  In new exploration targets, core drilling is used to gain structural information to estimate accurate true thickness.
 
In the opinion of the QP, the quantity and quality of existing drilling data are sufficient for resource estimation of silver and gold, excluding rotary drilling samples collected by companies prior to Coeur’s Project ownership.  Asarco, Wharf, Cordero, and D.Z. Exploration data are not used in Mineral Resource estimation for the Rochester Mine.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-18
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The QP acknowledges that a limited number of downhole surveys and collar surveys have been completed on the property.  However, the drill hole spacing and generally shallow drill depths support the use of the drill hole data in estimation.  The QP also acknowledges the inherent differences between RC drill sample quality and core sample quality.
 

 7.3
Hydrogeology
 

 7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Monitoring wells are the primary method of collecting hydrogeological data in support of mining operations.  From 1985–2013 a total of 125 hydrologic drill holes were completed in the Rochester Mine and Nevada Packard mine areas, and the Buena Vista Valley area.  During 2017, 10 piezometer wells were drilled and completed in Limerick Canyon. Two monitoring wells were completed and installed downgradient of the Stage VI heap leach pad in 2021.  Currently, there are 62 active monitoring wells and piezometers.
 
Monitoring wells are sampled on a quarterly basis and analyses ran for the State of Nevada Profile I suite at a certified analytical laboratory, currently Coeur Rochester uses Western Environmental Testing Laboratory, located in Reno.  Drill holes that have piezometers installed are monitored for piezometric head. There are also seeps and springs that are sampled on a quarterly basis as required by various permits.  These requirements are detailed in Chapter 17.
 

 7.3.2
Hydrogeology
 
Hydrogeologic units identified in the Rochester Mine include alluvial deposits and bedrock units.  Groundwater flow at the Rochester Mine predominantly occurs in the Black Ridge Fault and adjacent bedrock groundwater system.  Outside of the Black Ridge Fault, groundwater flow is slower and occurs through low hydraulic conductivity bedrock units. Comparatively less groundwater flow occurs within Quaternary alluvium in American Canyon and South American Canyon due to the limited saturated thickness and low hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial deposits.
 
Alluvial groundwater is not continuous within the Rochester Mine.  The area north of the Stage I heap leach pad is not hydraulically connected to the American Canyon Spring or Lower American Canyon Spring.  The area north of the Stage I heap leach pad hosts shallow, discrete, perched groundwater zones in alluvium composed of low permeability silt and clay materials with laterally discontinuous, poorly sorted sandy silt and gravelly silt deposits.  These perched water zones occur at differing elevations with limited hydraulic communication.
 
Groundwater elevations in alluvial wells in the South American Canyon area indicate eastward groundwater flow towards South American Canyon Springs then towards Buena Vista Valley. Groundwater flow in Limerick Canyon alluvium is west towards the springs.  Alluvial groundwater elevations in shallow Spring Valley wells suggest a southeast groundwater flow direction towards Buena Vista Valley.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-19
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The area to the north of the Stage I heap leach pad contains shallow, discrete, perched groundwater zones with limited hydraulic communication.  Groundwater flow is generally towards the pumpback wells and towards the underdrains below the pregnant ponds.  Data suggest the alluvial groundwater in the Stage I heap leach pad area is hydraulically separate from the bedrock aquifers.
 
Groundwater discharge in bedrock aquifers underlying the Project area is through structures, including faults, fractures, and jointing.  The Black Ridge Fault is the primary bedrock groundwater discharge conduit in the Project area.  Groundwater discharges towards the Black Ridge Fault from both the west and the east, primarily through northeast-trending structures.  After intersection with the more permeable Black Ridge Fault, groundwater discharge is re-directed to the north or the south depending on where the structures intersect the basin divide.  Groundwater flow in the Black Ridge Fault is northward from this basin divide towards Spring Valley.  Groundwater flow in the Black Ridge Fault is southward from the basin divide towards Packard Flat.
 
The Black Ridge Fault zone is a key hydrogeologic feature in the Project area.  Most of the groundwater flow within the Project area occurs in this zone and the adjacent bedrock groundwater system.  Outside the Black Ridge Fault zone are numerous north–northeast-trending structures parallel to the Black Ridge Fault.  These parallel features are believed to influence local groundwater flow directions because the groundwater flow is fracture dominated.  However, the transmissivity and volume of water in storage in these parallel northeast trending structures in the Rochester Pit area is much lower than within the Black Ridge Fault zone (SWS 2015a).
 
The flow direction in the alluvial system south of the Packard Pit is primarily to the west–southwest (Piteau, 2019).  The horizontal gradient in this area is approximately five percent, which is steep for alluvium.  Bedrock piezometric levels and horizontal gradient mirror those observed in alluvium with a horizontal gradient of approximately 5%.  Water levels show that alluvial levels are lower than bedrock levels and both levels are below land surface.  The source of Black Knob Spring 1 and Black Knob Spring 2 is likely from bedrock to the northwest, perhaps associated with a splay or parallel structure associated with the northwest-striking fault located a few thousand feet to the northwest of the springs.
 

 7.3.3
Comment on Results
 
The hydrological data and hydrogeological models developed from those data are suitable for use in mine planning.
 

 7.3.4
Groundwater Models
 
The conceptual and numerical flow models were updated in 2019 (Piteau, 2019) to include the key incremental changes expected for the 11th amendment to the Plan of Operations Amendment (POA 11).  The groundwater flow model was calibrated using over 30 years of available data and captures the drawdown response in the Black Ridge Fault and also the lack of drawdown outside the flow model.  The proposed water supply pumping rates are expected to be sufficient to maintain a dry Rochester Pit throughout the LOM for POA 11.  Installation of dewatering wells will not be required as part of POA 11.  By the end of mining, the water level will be approximately 100 ft below the bottom of the Rochester Pit.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-20
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

7.3.5
Water Balance
 
NewFields Companies, LLC produced a revised and updated site wide water balance in 2021 that incorporates information on planned mining rates, the Stage VI heap pad and processing facility, and the existing site water balance.  The water balance accounts for production wells, meteoric water, evaporative losses and production requirements for process, mining and ancillary operations.
 

 7.4
Geotechnical
 
Geotechnical data are collected from purpose-drilled geotechnical drill holes as required.  Information from these drill holes are used for interpretation of structure and lithology in the pit walls.
 

 7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Geotechnical logging of oriented core holes is an integral part of collecting rock mass data. Some of the information collected during logging include rock and structural type, weathering and alteration, total and solid core recovery, RQD, natural fracture count, average joint condition rating and estimated intact rock strength index.  Televiewer surveys for structural orientation and cell mapping details included discontinuity type, length, spacing, orientation, structure frequency etc.  RC chips provide limited geotechnical data so most of this information are collected from core holes and in-pit mapping.
 
Laboratory testing performed include direct shear test, triaxial test, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), splitting disk tensile (Brazilian) test and soil index test on selected core samples by Golder’s Lakewood, Colorado soil and rock testing laboratory, Advanced Terra Testing, Inc. in Lakewood, Colorado and Construction Materials Engineers, Inc. in Reno, Nevada.  These laboratories are independent of Coeur.  There is currently no recognized international accreditation for geotechnical tests.
 
Field point load testing was also conducted on core samples.
 
Structural orientation data from televiewer survey, geotechnical logging, point load, laboratory testing, and cell mapping data are used for geotechnical and structural characterization to support pit walls by defining geotechnical units or sectors to develop strength models and generate design parameters for the units or sectors.  Evaluating the groundwater conditions in the geotechnical units also includes characterization of the groundwater pore pressure conditions in the rock mass.
 
Coeur currently has a prism monitoring system in place to detect any slope movement or disturbance.  Coeur has recently procured real time monitoring radar, Robotic total stations, Seismographs, GPS, and Canary systems to improve existing monitoring processes.  Installation should be completed by end of first quarter 2022.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-21
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

7.4.2
Comment on Results
 
A combination of historical and current geotechnical data, together with mining experience, is used in the operations.  There is an existing geotechnical hazard map to track all historic and current slope failures and rockfall.  The daily field inspection tracking form is also additional tool for assessing active mining areas and keeping track of daily slope observations, including overall slope, highwall, pit crest, active crest, and active toe.  The blast vibration analysis database will serve as a register to keep records on blast vibration effect on slopes after the equipment is received on site.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
7-22
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
 

 8.1
Sampling Methods
 

 8.1.1
Reverse Circulation
 
There is no record of how previous operators such as Wharf and Asarco collected samples during their drill campaigns.
 
Due to the fine nature of the mineralization at Rochester and Nevada Packard, all of Coeur’s RC drilling is completed with wet drilling methods.  The wet rotary splitter continuously splits drill cuttings, producing samples that are equivalent to approximately 20% of the entire drill run.
 
Coeur samples RC drill cuttings on either 5 ft or 10 ft intervals.  Drill samples are collected in porous cloth bags that drain water without losing fine material.  The cyclone is cleaned between samples.  Field duplicate samples are collected from a second port on the cyclone.
 
Filled sample bags are placed on the ground near the drill rig so that residual water can drain.  Before the sample bags are removed from the drill site, the bags are inventoried and checked off a sample list to eliminate the possibility of incorrect sampling.  Filled sample bags and RC chip trays are picked up at least once a day.  Sample bags are placed in a 48 ft3 plastic sample bin, and delivered to a holding area, where they are allowed to continue draining until the bins are placed on a transport vehicle to be taken to the assay laboratory.  Chip trays are delivered to the geology logging facilities.
 

 8.1.2
Core
 
Core logging and sampling intervals ranged from a minimum of 1 ft. to a maximum of 10 ft., based on geologic characteristics.
 
After logging, core was cut, and split for assay.  One quarter of the core was sent to the analytical laboratory for assaying; another quarter was used for metallurgical testing.  The remaining half core was archived.
 
Photographs were taken of the core prior to splitting for a permanent record.  These photographs are stored in binders at the Coeur Rochester geology facilities.
 

 8.1.3
Grade Control
 
Grade control samples are collected with a through-the-deck pipe sampler that collects blast hole drill cuttings in openings along the side of the pipe.  While the blast holes are being drilled, a portion of the sample cuttings go through the openings and fall down the pipe into a labeled sample bag that encases the bottom portion of the pipe.  Prior to moving to the next blast hole, the driller pulls the pipe and the sample up to the drill deck.  At the end of each drill row, the samples are left in organized piles where they are picked up by the survey team and delivered to the on-site laboratory for analysis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
8-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

8.2
Sample Security Methods
 
Samples were staged and prepared for shipment to a commercial analytical laboratory.  The geotechnician either transports the samples directly to the laboratory or the contracted laboratory picks up the samples at the mine site where they are reviewed by a laboratory representative and chain of custody is transferred.  Chain-of-custody documentation was maintained throughout the shipping and receiving process.
 
Core samples, RC trays, standard reference materials (standards), coarse rejects and returned pulps are stored with restricted access in the geology core shed/warehouse or outside covered with tarpaulins.
 
Pulps, RC trays, and core samples are retained for the duration of the project.  Coarse rejects are retained for one to three years depending on resource relevance.
 

 8.3
Density Determinations
 
A dry bank density of 0.078 st/ft3 was used for all Rochester lithologies.  This density was confirmed by the on-going mining operations and third-party studies completed in 1992 and 2002.  These studies looked at the total dry bank tonnage for a known volume of material to calculate the dry bank density.
 
Good monthly reconciliation data between the modeled tonnage, as predicted from the dry bank density of 0.078 st/ft3, and dry loose tonnage, as measured by scales along the conveyor system of the crushing circuit, provide additional confirmation for the density values.
 
This same density was applied to Nevada Packard lithologies because of the proximity of the Nevada Packard deposit to Rochester, and similar lithologies in both pits.  The density was supported by good monthly reconciliation data when the pit was in operation.  There are currently no density determinations that are specific to the Nevada Packard pit.
 
Historically, no density samples were collected other than data collected for geotechnical studies.
 
A program of collecting and testing core samples from specific lithologies and alteration types in different regions of the Rochester and Nevada Packard pits began in 2021.  However, no data were processed in time for use in this Report.
 

 8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
 
Prior to 2008, exploration and development drill samples collected by Coeur were analyzed by Inspectorate America Laboratory (Inspectorate) and American Assay Laboratories, both of which are independent of Coeur and accredited by to ISO 9002.  Samples were also submitted to the Rochester mine laboratory, which was not independent and was not ISO-certified.
 
A number of primary and secondary laboratories were used from 2008 onward to analyze core and RC samples.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
8-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
American Assay Laboratories, located in Sparks, Nevada; independent of Coeur and had ISO-IEC 17025 accreditations;
 

 •
ALS Chemex, located in Sparks, Nevada (ALS); independent of Coeur and had ISO 9001 accreditations;
 

 •
Pinnacle Laboratories, located in Lovelock, Nevada; independent of Coeur and had ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard 17025:2005; Testing Laboratory TL-484 accreditations;
 

 •
Inspectorate/Bureau Veritas Laboratory, located in Sparks, Nevada; independent of Coeur and had ISO-ISD 9002 accreditations;
 

 •
Skyline Laboratories, located in Tucson, Arizona; independent of Coeur and had ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations;
 

 •
McClelland Laboratories Inc., located in Sparks, Nevada (McClelland); independent of Coeur and had ISO 17025:2005; Testing Laboratory TL-466 accreditations.
 
All grade control samples are analyzed by the Rochester mine laboratory.
 

 8.5
Sample Preparation
 

 8.5.1
Pre-2008
 
The sample preparation method used by the Rochester mine laboratory consisted of drying the sample, crushing to -⅜ in, and pulverizing to a -100-mesh product.
 
Sample preparation at Inspectorate and American Assay Laboratories consisted of drying, primary crushing to ¼ in, secondary crushing to 10 mesh, and pulverizing to 150 mesh.
 

 8.5.2
2008–Current
 
RC and core samples are weighed, dried, crushed to 10 mesh (70% passing), split, and pulverized to 200 mesh (85% passing).
 
Grade control samples are weighed, dried, crushed, split, and pulverized to 200 mesh (80% passing).
 

 8.6
Analysis
 

 8.6.1
Coeur Pre-2008
 
Samples were analyzed at the Rochester site laboratory with a one assay ton fire assay using a traditional lead oxide flux with a silver inquart.  Doré were parted and dissolved in sodium cyanide solution.  The analysis was finished using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
8-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

8.6.2
2008–2011
 
During the initial period of time when third-party laboratories were used, there were multiple laboratory changes between primary and secondary laboratories.  The decisions that led to changing laboratories include lack of certification (Rochester laboratory), poor turn-around times, laboratory closure (Pinnacle), and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) issues that necessitated excessive re-assay.  Table 8‑1 shows the laboratories used during 2008–2011, together with the analytical methods.
 

 8.6.3
2012–Current
 
Most of samples were analyzed using a 30 g fire assay with AAS finish.  Due to the lower grade of stockpiled ore, 2012 stockpile inventory drill samples were analyzed using a 30 g fire assay for gold by AAS finish, and a two-acid digestion with AAS finish for silver.  Assays >0.5 ppm Au and >50 ppm Ag were checked by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.
 
Beginning in 2012, Skyline was the primary laboratory.  Four assay methods were used:
 

 •
Silver: Ag FA-3 (gravimetric finish; 0.001 lower detection limit; 29.2 oz/st upper detection limit) and Ag FA-9 (inductively-coupled plasma (ICP) finish; 0.003 oz/st lower detection limit, 2.92 oz/st upper detection limit);
 

 •
Gold: Au FA-2 (gravimetric finish; 0.005 oz/st lower detection limit, 29.2 oz/st upper detection limit) and Au FA-9 (ICP finish; 0.001 oz/st lower detection limit, 0.088 oz/st upper detection limit).
 
McClelland was selected as the primary laboratory after Skyline closed their Reno laboratory in mid-2015.  Initially, McClelland used a palladium rather than silver inquart for fire assaying.  The use of the palladium inquart method of fire assaying was discontinued by Coeur in August 2016.  McClelland continued as the primary laboratory until early August 2016.
 
Four assay methods were used by McClelland:
 

 •
Silver:  4A-AA (0.03 oz/st lower detection limit, 2.92 oz/st upper detection limit), four-acid digestion with AAS finish, and GV-AuAg, (0.10 oz/st lower detection limit, 292.0 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish;
 

 •
Gold:  FA-30-AA-Au (0.001 oz/st lower detection limit, 0.234 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with AAS finish and GV-AuAg, (0.005 oz/st lower detection limit, 292.0 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
8-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 8‑1:          Historical Primary and Secondary Laboratory Analysis Methods (2008–2011)
 
Laboratory
Element
Analysis Name
Analysis Methodology
Lower Detection
Limit (oz/st)
Upper Detection
Limit (oz/st)
Inspectorate Reno
Ag
AR-TR
Aqua regia 2-acid digest (AA finish)
0.003
5.83
Inspectorate Reno
Ag
AuAg-1AT-ICP
1AT fire assay (ICP Finish)
0.03
2.92
Inspectorate Reno
Ag
AuAg-1AT-GV
1AT fire assay (grav finish)
0.146
291.7
Inspectorate Reno
Au
AuAg-1AT-AA
1AT fire assay (AA finish)
0.0001
0.29
Inspectorate Reno
Au
AuAg-1AT-ICP
1AT fire assay (ICP finish)
0.001
0.29
Inspectorate Reno
Au
AuAg-1AT-GV
1AT fire assay (grav finish)
0.029
29.17
American Assay
Ag
D4A
4-acid digest (ICP-OES finish)
0.006
2.92
American Assay
Ag
Ag(G)_GRAV
30 g Fire Assay (grav finish)
0.2
29167
American Assay
Au
FA30
30 g fire assay (aa finish)
0.0001
0.29
American Assay
Au
Au(G)_GRAV
30 g fire assay (grav finish)
0.001
29167
ALS-Chemex
Ag
Ag-AA61
4-acid digest (AAS finish)
0.001
2.92
ALS-Chemex
Ag
Ag-GRA21
30 g fire assay (grav finish)
0.146
291.7
ALS-Chemex
Au
AA23
30 g fire assay (AA finish)
0.0001
0.29
ALS-Chemex
Au
Au-GRA21
30 g fire assay (grav finish)
0.001
291.7
Pinnacle
Ag
AAS-2A-Ag
Aqua Regia 2-acid digest (AA finish)
0.01
0.29
Pinnacle
Ag
Ag-FAG-30
30 g fire assay (grav finish)
0.1
291.7
Pinnacle
Au
Au-FA-30
30 g fire assay (AA finish)
0.001
0.29
Pinnacle
Au
Au-FAG-30
30 g fire assay (grav finish)
0.005
291.7
 
Notes:  AA = atomic absorption; AT = assay ton; ICP = inductively coupled plasma; grav = gravimetric; OES = optical emission spectroscopy; AAS = atomic absorption spectroscopy.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   8-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
In early August 2016, ALS became the primary laboratory.  Four assay methods were used by ALS:
 

 •
Silver:  Ag-GRA21 (0.1 oz/st lower detection limit, 292 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish, and Ag-OG62b, (0.03 oz/st lower detection limit, 21.9 oz/st upper detection limit), four-acid digestion with ICP atomic emission spectroscopy (AES) finish;
 

 •
Gold:  Au-GRA21 (0.001 oz/st lower detection limit, 292 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish and Au-AA23, (0.0001 oz/st lower detection limit, 0.292 z/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with AAS finish.
 
From the beginning of 2017 through the first quarter of 2018 Bureau Veritas/Inspectorate was the primary laboratory for all analysis and McClelland was the secondary laboratory for failed reruns and umpire samples.  Four assay methods were used by Bureau Veritas:
 

 •
Silver:  MA300 (0.15 oz/st lower detection limit, 58.3 oz/st upper detection limit), four-acid digestion with ICP emission spectroscopy (ES) finish, and FA530, (5.83 oz/st lower detection limit, 292.0 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish;
 

 •
Gold:  FA430 (0.001 oz/st lower detection limit, 2.92 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with AA finish, and FA530, (0.26 oz/st lower detection limit, 291.7 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish.
 
Beginning in the second quarter of 2018 through the first quarter of 2021, McClelland was the primary laboratory with Bureau Veritas serving as secondary laboratory and doing the multi-element analysis.  Beginning in the first quarter of 2021 through the effective date of this Report, Bureau Veritas was the primary laboratory for all analysis with McClelland serving as the secondary laboratory.
 
An additional analysis method was used for silver analysis at Bureau Veritas during this time:
 

 •
Silver:  MA401 (0.029 oz/st lower detection limit, 23.3 oz/st upper detection limit), four-acid digestion with AAS finish.
 
Grade control samples are analyzed at the Rochester site laboratory.  Each sample was fire-assayed with a one assay ton sample using a traditional lead oxide flux with a silver inquart.  Doré are parted and dissolved in nitric acid.  The analysis is finished using AAS.  Assays >5 ppm are checked by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.
 

 8.6.4
Multi-element Analysis
 
Beginning in 2016, samples were analyzed for total sulfur through LECO analysis.  This began with a selection of samples in 2016 being shipped to SVL Analytical.  From 2017 through the effective date of this Report, Bureau Veritas has conducted the majority of the LECO analysis as well as multi-assay elemental analysis.  These analyses were conducted under the following analysis methods:
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   8-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
TC000:  LECO analysis for total sulfur and total carbon;
 

 •
MA300:  Multi-acid digestion with ICP-ES finish for 35 elements;
 

 •
MA200:  Multi-acid digestion with ICP-ES/mass spectrometry (MS) finish for 45 elements.
 
For a period of time in 2018, these analyses were conducted by ALS Laboratories. ALS used the following analysis method:
 

 •
ME-ICP61:  Four-acid digestion with ICP-ES finish for 33 elements.
 

 8.6.5
Alio Gold
 
The 38 holes acquired from Alio Gold from the Nevada Packard deposit were analyzed at American Assay. Three assay methods were used:
 

 •
Silver:  D4A (0.006 oz/st lower detection limit, 2.92 oz/st upper detection limit), four-acid digestion with ICP optical emission spectroscopy (OES) finish, and Ag(G)-GRAV, (0.20 oz/st lower detection limit, no limit to upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish;
 

 •
Gold:  FA30 (0.0001 oz/st lower detection limit, 0.29 oz/st upper detection limit), 30 g fire assay with AAS finish.
 

 8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
 

 8.7.1
Coeur Pre-2008
 
Three standard samples were collected from the Rochester area so that those materials had the same rock matrix as the samples being submitted for assay and represented typical Rochester mineralization.  The standards were evaluated using a round-robin assay program, and splits of these standards were inserted into each fire assay tray to monitor the analytical quality and precision at Inspectorate and American Assay Laboratories.
 
Blanks were inserted into each development drill sample lot at regular downhole intervals to monitor potential sample contamination during sample preparation.  The blank was sourced off-site, and assayed by several different laboratories to confirm very low or non-detectable levels of gold and silver.  If the barren sample returned an anomalous value, the lot was considered invalid and the laboratory was instructed to prepare the coarse reject for re-assay.  The re-assay value for the sample interval inserted into the database if the batch passed QA/QC guidelines.
 
Duplicate field samples were collected from random drill intervals.
 
At the Rochester mine laboratory, in addition to each load of 38 samples, two blanks (inquart, flux and silica sand), four duplicate samples, and one standard were included as QC samples (seven total per load).  Every month, while in production, the Rochester mine laboratory randomly selected samples, either blast hole or metallurgical (e.g., column test sample), and sent them to third-party commercial laboratories for check assaying to evaluate the Rochester site laboratory precision and accuracy.  It has been recorded these laboratories were accredited. However, there is no record of which laboratories were used.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   8-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

8.7.2
2008–2015
 
Prior to 2010, check assays were completed by Inspectorate.  From 2010–2016, ALS completed check assays.  From 2017 through the effective date of this Report the secondary laboratory switched between McClelland and Bureau Veritas three times.  The changes to the secondary laboratory conforms with the changes to the primary laboratories.
 
Prior to sample pick-up at site by the assay laboratory, QC samples were inserted into the sample stream.  Those consisted of a minimum of 5% standards, 5% blanks, and 7.5% duplicates.  When results were received, the assay certificate was imported directly into acQuire.  After importing an assay certificate, QA/QC reports for the certificate were immediately generated.  Potential issues with assay quality were identified via failed standards, blanks, and duplicate assays.
 
A standard was considered to have failed if it fell outside three standard deviations from the expected value.  A standard was also considered unacceptable if two standards in sequence fell between two and three standard deviations on the same side of the mean (showing bias).
 
A failed blank was any blank that assayed >5x the detection limit of the analysis method.
 
A pulp duplicate was considered a failure if it was not within ±10% of the original assay.   A crush/preparation duplicate was considered to have failed if it was not within ±15% of the original.
 
Assays associated with any failed QC samples were quarantined from the database so they were not unintentionally used before they passed Coeur’s QA/QC guidelines.  Failed QC samples and their associated samples were rerun by the assay laboratory and the results were imported into the database.  If the rerun assays passed the QA/QC guidelines, they were accepted and could be used for downstream activities.
 
On a quarterly basis, 11% of all samples were selected (10% from pulps and 1% from coarse rejects) and sent to ALS for analysis as umpire samples.
 
QA/QC procedures, along with the sample collection and submission process at Coeur, were unchanged from 2010–2015.
 
In addition to the standards and blanks submitted to the laboratory by Coeur personnel, each laboratory inserted their own standards, blanks, and duplicates into the sample stream.  These consisted of a >10% insertion rate for duplicate and standard samples.
 

 8.7.3
2016–Current
 
After importing an assay certificate and generating QA/QC reports for the certificate, samples are rejected primarily based on failing standards and blanks.  Failed duplicates are considered but are not strictly used as a basis to reject samples.
 
When choosing which associated samples to rerun because of a standard or blank failure, the batch now consists of all assays both up and down the assay stream to, but not including, the next passing standard (in case of a failed standard) or blank (in case of a failed blank).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   8-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Umpire samples were not taken on a quarterly basis in 2016.  In mid-December 2016, at the completion of drilling for the year, umpire samples were chosen at the same rate as previous years and sent to ALS for analysis.  In 2017, umpire samples were sent out to the McClelland on a quarterly basis.  From 2018 through Q1 of 2021, umpire samples were sent to Bureau Veritas. From Q1 2021 to the effective date of this Report, umpire samples were sent to McClelland.  These changes to the secondary laboratory correspond to changes to the primary laboratories.
 

 8.7.4
Alio Gold Results
 
Review of QA/QC results of the 38 Alio Gold drill holes purchased in 2018 showed a lower insertion rate for standards and blanks than Coeur’s internal QA/QC policy.  The review also noted that the criteria for failing batches of assays were less restrictive than Coeur’s internal QA/QC policy.  To ensure the accuracy of these data, 176 out of 4,093 samples were sent for umpire analysis.  This equates to 5% of the total dataset and ~15% of the dataset filtered to ≥0.2 oz/st Ag.  The results of the umpire analysis show excellent correlation to the original analysis, and the 38 Alio Gold drill holes were included in the resource estimate database with no confidence restrictions.
 

 8.8
Database
 
An acQuire SQL Server database was implemented at Rochester in 2010.  The system is secured using Windows based logins for data input and export privileges.  Access to the SQL Server is restricted to Coeur Information Technology personnel and the database administrator at the Corporate level.  An automated daily backup of the system is completed on-site.
 

 8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
 
In the opinion of the QPs, the sample preparation, analyses and security for the samples used in mineral resource estimation are acceptable, meet industry-standard practice, and are acceptable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation and mine planning purposes.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
   8-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
9.0          DATA VERIFICATION
 
9.1
Internal Data Verification
 
Data used for the Rochester open pit and stockpile resource estimates were exported from the Rochester acQuire database prior to verification.  The data in the site acQuire database has been subjected to multiple reviews since its implementation in 2010.  The database is currently under a thorough lockdown review by the Rochester Geology department.
 
The lockdown process is a detailed audit that involves reviewing all available data associated with each drill hole.  All records are reviewed and compared to the records in the database.  This includes collar survey records, downhole survey records, analytical certificates, and geologic logging.  All hard copies are electronically scanned, and the data package associated with each drill hole is organized in an easily queried folder structure.  Additional drill hole data stored include QA/QC reports along with any comments on missing data or data quality.  There are currently 550 drill holes in the database that have been fully locked-down in this manner.
 
As part of any modelling exercise, the data associated with any new drilling is considered for data validation.  In the case of data that has been subjected to Coeur’s QA/QC policy and procedures, ~10% of the drilling is randomly selected and the database records are reviewed for correctness/completeness against hard and/or electronic copies.  In the case of new data coming from a source not subjected to the Coeur’s QA/QC policy and procedures, the entire dataset is investigated for correctness and completeness against hard and/or electronic copies.
 
9.1.1
Rochester Review
 
Several major data reviews were conducted on the Rochester area drilling data.  The most recent, in 2014, included a review of all drill holes in the Rochester resource area.  The review included spatial verification and assay certificate verification.  Based on this review, 384 Asarco drill holes were removed from the resource model dataset.  Ten drill holes completed by Coeur Rochester since 1982, were removed from the resource dataset based on failed verification against original assays certificates.
 
Seventy-nine drill holes in the Limerick resource area were reviewed in 2014.  No drill holes were found to have obvious collar, dip, or azimuth inconsistencies.
 
A total of 10% of the 83 drill holes completed at Rochester between 2018–2020 were selected for review against original assay certificates, while all assays were reviewed in cross-section.  No significant issues were identified for these drill results.  Hard copies of data exist for all drill holes reviewed and the data are properly stored.
 
A total of 73 drill holes completed between 2020–2021 were considered for assay review as part of the Rochester drilling campaigns.  Ten percent of the drill holes were chosen for review against original assay certificates, while all assays were reviewed in cross-section.  No significant issues were identified for these drill results. Hard copies of data exist for all drill holes reviewed and the data are properly stored.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
9-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
All collar locations and downhole surveys for data used in the current resource estimate but acquired since the last resource estimate were investigated in 3D space as well as 100 ft spaced east–west and north–south cross-sections.  Drill hole dip and direction were compared with surrounding assay results and interpreted geologic model structures.  Issues were seen in the downhole survey records of 51 drill holes.  Of these 51 issues, the majority (50 out of 51) were drill holes without a downhole survey.  These were vertical holes that were not downhole surveyed.  A typographic error in a single downhole survey record was the cause of error for the remaining hole.
 
Four East Rochester RC drill holes were twinned with core drilling in 2019.  Detailed statistical analysis along with downhole comparison plots show no significant bias between the core and RC results.  The analysis also shows little evidence of downhole contamination below the water table.  The results compare very well between the datasets and there is no reason to discount the classification confidence for material below the water table.  This had been the procedure for material below the table prior to these twin holes being completed.
 
Additional validation was completed in 2021 that focused on comparing the pre-2008 samples to more modern samples collected post-2008 that were quality controlled under modern industry standard practices.  This comparison included a nearest neighbor search of 20 ft that paired samples from the two datasets.  If the samples were within 20 ft of each other, they were deemed a pair and used in the comparison.  These data were analyzed using similar statistical methods to those used in the twin hole analysis. These data compared well, and no significant issues were noted.
 
9.1.2
Nevada Packard Review
 
A complete review of the Nevada Packard area (all drilling south of the Rochester pit) assay data was conducted as of March 30, 2016.  A total of 678 drill holes were reviewed.  A total of 189 of those drill holes were completed by Wharf Resources.  Documentation for these data is not available.  Only visual validation was completed.  A total of 281 drill holes completed by Coeur between 1988 and 2005, were validated.  Data are available in hard copy only.  A total of 208 drill holes were completed in the area between 2010–2015.
 
Assay validation showed the most significant problem was ‘mis-keyed’ data entry of historic assays from hard copy and inconsistent data entry and flagging of detection limit values.  Visual review of the assay data in cross-section found inconsistencies in some of the 2011 drilling regarding surrounding drill hole intercepts and structural geology models.  This led to 15 drill holes being removed from the resource dataset until remedial work was completed on the data to qualify them for inclusion in the resource estimate.  Four drill holes (pre-1990) were removed after visual inspection of the results against geology and surrounding drilling results.
 
Review of collar surveys shows that the Wharf Resources drill hole locations appeared to be generated on several drilling grids and probably were not surveyed after completion.  Wharf Resources drill hole locations were compared against historic topographic surfaces.  Collars for the Wharf Resources drilling were not corrected back to the topographic surface and were considered reasonably correct.  Drill hole collars for all Coeur drilling completed between 1990–2010 appear correct.  Not all drilling completed in 2011 was surveyed after completion; 60 of the 2011 drill holes used planned coordinates.  All the 2014 and 2015 drill hole locations appear to be correct regarding topography and geologic structures.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
9-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Downhole survey information was reviewed for drilling completed since 1990.  Review of the 2014–2015 drill hole downhole surveys found several drill holes did not have downhole survey information entered.
 
Review of the data for 38 drill holes purchased from Alio Gold in 2018 together with the 19 drill holes completed by Coeur between 2016–2020 was completed in 2020.  Ten percent of the Coeur drill holes were chosen for assay review against original certificates.  All the 38 Alio Gold holes were reviewed against original certificates.  All assays, collars, and downhole surveys were reviewed in cross-section.  The database data were compared to hard copy or electronic assay reports.  No significant issues were identified for these drill results.  Hard copies of data exist for all drill holes reviewed and are properly stored.  These Alio samples were also subjected to an additional umpire check described in Chapter 8.7.4.  The results showed excellent correlation to the original analysis. All 38 drill holes were included in the resource estimation with no confidence restrictions.
 
Collar locations and downhole surveys for all recent drill holes included in the resource estimate were confirmed in 3D space as well as on 100 ft spaced east–west and north–south cross-sections.  Drill hole collars were validated against the topographic surface.  Drill hole dip and direction were compared with surrounding assay results and interpreted geologic model structures.
 
Two RC drill holes were twinned with RC drilling in 2011.  Results of the twin comparison are inconclusive.  The original drill hole samples were assayed at American Assay Laboratories, while the twin was analyzed at Pinnacle Laboratory.  For the purposes of resource interpretation, the original drill holes were retained, while the twins were removed from the dataset.
 
9.1.3
Nevada Packard Stockpiles
 
Forty-six drill holes were considered for review.  Initially, 105 drill holes were examined, but it was determined that the remaining 59 drill holes were not of sufficient quality to be used for resource estimation.  Eleven drill holes from the original dataset of 105 drill holes were reviewed against the hardcopy certificate.  No problems were found with regard to original assay certificates.
 
Seven drill hole locations were re-surveyed as a validation check in April 2015.  Eleven of the 46 drill holes used in the resource estimate do not have final collar surveys.  All drill holes were shifted vertically to the final topography for consistency and the original survey elevation was retained in the database for future review.
 
Drill holes range in length from 40–220 ft.  No downhole surveys were performed.  This drilling is used in the mineral resource estimate, but because no physical collar or downhole surveys were conducted, the confidence classification for blocks not supported by other drill holes is restricted to inferred.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
9-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
9.1.4
South and Charlie Stockpiles
 
Collar locations and downhole surveys were reviewed in tabular format and 3D plots to determine the following:
 

 •
Location correlated with surrounding drill holes;
 

 •
Vertical location relative to topographic surfaces;
 

 •
Downhole dip and azimuth deviation.
 
Minor corrections were made during the review period.  Final collar surveys were not available for 26 of the drill holes and planned coordinates were used in these cases.  All drill holes were used in the mineral resource estimate.
 
Downhole surveys were completed for 38 drill holes.  No obvious dip and azimuth inconsistencies were discovered.
 
Sixteen twin drill holes were recorded for the South stockpile area.  Of these, 15 pairs were analyzed.  The remaining twinned drill hole was not included due to a discrepancy in collar surveys.  During the time between the original and the twin drill holes completion, the primary assay laboratory was changed from Inspectorate to Skyline Laboratory.  The twin data compare well with the original data.
 
9.1.5
Rochester In-Pit Stockpile
 
Twenty-four drill holes were used for the Rochester in-pit stockpile estimate.  All collars and downhole surveys were investigated in tabular format as well as 3D space.  All drill holes had final collars surveyed and all but three of them had downhole surveys.  The three drill holes without downhole surveys were vertical holes less than 500 ft long.
 
The drill holes used for this estimate were designed to drill through the stockpile and test in-situ mineralization at-depth.  The stockpile and in-situ samples were completely segregated from each other to avoid any influence on the other’s estimation.
 
Although the 24 drill holes used in this estimate would fall under the umbrella of existing in-situ data reviews, three were selected for review against their respective hard copy certificates.  No problems were found with regard to original assay certificates and all 24 drill holes were used in the resource estimate.
 
9.2
External Data Verification
 
External data verifications take place on an annual basis as part of the company’s annual auditing process.  External auditors randomly select 25 samples, drilled during the calendar year, and require a full chain of custody from assay certificates to QA/QC reports to screen shots of the samples in the modeling software.  Any issues that come from this audit are promptly addressed. Persistent issues will prompt an additional sample review along with a full internal audit for all drilling conducted during the calendar year.
 
These audits have taken place annually since 2011.  KPMG was Coeur Mining’s external auditor from 2011–2015 with Grant-Thornton taking over from 2016 to present.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
9-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
 
Internal validation work described above was either reviewed or completed by the QP.  The specific data verification completed by the QP include any analyses generated from year-end 2018 to the Report effective date.  This includes the twin hole analysis from 2019, the validation for all drilling added to the resource models from year-end 2018 to the Report effective date, the validation of the entire Alio dataset utilized at Nevada Packard, validation of the Rochester In-pit stockpile dataset, and the comparison of pre- and post-2008 samples.  The QP has also worked at  the Coeur Rochester Operation since April 2021.
 
The data verification reviewed, but not completed, by the QP includes data validation conducted prior to year-end 2018, together with validation of the South-Charlie and Nevada Packard stockpile data.
 
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
The process of data verification for the Project was performed by the QP and other Coeur personnel.  The QP considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed, and that no material issues would have been left unidentified from the programs undertaken.
 
The QPs who rely upon this work have reviewed the appropriate reports and are of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
For a portion of the drilling in the Nevada Packard stockpile area where no physical collar or downhole surveys were conducted, the confidence classification for blocks not supported by other drill holes was restricted to inferred.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
9-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
10.0          MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
 

 10.1
Test Laboratories
 
Independent metallurgical test work facilities used over the Project life include McClelland Laboratories, Kappes, Cassiday & Assoc., Newfields, FLSmidth and Eagle Engineering.  Test work conducted included permeability testing, column leach and bottle roll leach test work. Additionally, bench-top high pressure grind roll (HPGR) test work as well as clay and mineralogical categorization have been performed.
 
The Rochester Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays process solutions, crusher and run-of-mine (ROM) ore samples, and refinery samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for column leach test, bottle roll tests, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
 
There is no international standard of accreditation provided for metallurgical testing laboratories or metallurgical testing techniques.
 

 10.2
Metallurgical Test Work
 

 10.2.1
Rochester
 
Coeur has operated the Rochester Merrill-Crowe circuit since 1986.  Merrill-Crowe is a widely accepted industry standard recovery method for silver in solution.  The plant has operated efficiently since installation and has undergone some improvements.  In 2013, an additional deaerator tower was added to accommodate increased flow and to increase the oxygen removal efficiency.  A second zinc feeder was added in 2014.
 

 10.2.2
Packard
 
Metallurgical test work on Nevada Packard mineralization was conducted by previous mine owners/operators in the period 1988–1990.
 
In 1981 a 100,000 st production-scale heap leach test was conducted using about 70,000 st of newly mined mineralization and 30,000 st of previously-leached dump and surface mineralization.  The material head grade was 1.73 oz/st Ag and 0.010 oz/st Au.  The crush size of the test material was 70%, passing ⅝ in.  The material was agglomerated with cement and heaped by stacker conveyor in 14 ft lifts.  The material produced recovery values of 33% and 51% for silver and gold, respectively.  Low recoveries were attributed to “crushing to too coarse a size especially for deeper ore where there is a higher proportion of acanthite” (N.L. Tribe, 1990).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
In January 1988, Bateman Metallurgical Laboratories conducted column tests on several different rock types taken from core crushed to minus ⅜ in and found the average recoveries of 12 columns, containing 10 different rock types, were 87% for gold and 58% for silver.
 
In 1997, Coeur performed several column tests on HQ core and two column tests on stockpiled material.  The material was crushed to match the size gradations typically seen from tertiary-crushed material at Rochester (nominal ⅜ in).
 
Average recoveries were concluded to be similar to Rochester oxidized material from a cone crushing product and projected to be 95.9% for gold and 61.4% for silver after 20 years.
 
The QP is unable to comment on the representative nature of the mineralized material samples used in test work conducted by previous mine owners and/or operators.  It is presumed these material samples, having been obtained from the Nevada Packard stockpiles and pit, would provide representative test results consistent with the Nevada Packard mineralization.
 

 10.2.3
Current Metallurgical Testing
 
A summary of the test work that may currently be performed is provided in Table 10‑1.
 
Material delivered to each leach pad from the crushing facilities and/or ROM stockpile is sampled and composited daily.  Each sample is evaluated for contained moisture, size fractions and assayed for precious metal content to determine the dry tonnage, silver and gold content delivered to the leach pads.  Daily laboratory bulk samples are categorized and split into proportionate test samples.  One split of each ore type (crushed or ROM) is crushed, pulverized, divided and fire assayed to produce a set of values for contained silver and gold.  The second split is used for moisture determination and screen analysis.  A third split is used to generate monthly composites of ROM and crushed ore for metallurgical analysis using column leaching and bottle roll leaching.  Data generated from these daily samples is used to characterize daily production; dry tons produced from each ore source and gold and silver quantities delivered to the leach pad from each ore source.
 
Monthly column leach tests and bottle roll leach tests are run in a manner that is analogous with production heap conditions and provide test results intended to correlate well with expected heap leach production performance.  Results include recovery trends for gold and silver, size by grade recovery, reagent consumption, and permeability.  Monthly metallurgical columns date back to 1986 and have been used as a resource to confirm historical recovery rates.  Since 2011, metallurgical data have been used to forecast future recovery rates of the active leach pads.
 
Metallurgical test work at Rochester, in coordination with modern heap leach modeling programs, continues to refine and confirm expected metal recovery rates and ultimate recovery values.  This testing provides better understanding of process optimization of the leach pads, metal inventory in the leach pads, potential cost reduction, increase crusher throughput, and to provide engineering support on future operational planning.  Ultimate recovery of Rochester ore is assumed to be 20 years from the date leaching commences.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑1:          Metallurgical Test Work Summary Table
 
In House Test work
Daily Composite
Monthly Composite
Au/Ag assay
X
X
Gradation
X
X
% moisture
X
X
Permeability
  
X
Column leach
  
X
Bottle roll
  
X
 

 10.3
Recovery Estimates
 
Coeur uses heap leach recovery models and recovery curves based on test work and operations to forecast recovered gold and silver production from actual and/or forecasted mineralized product placed on the leach pads.  The models apply recovery rates to the product type (crushed, ROM), tonnage, depth to liner, contained ounces placed on each leach pad, and various kinetic factors to determine the expected recovered production in each month.  The cumulative sum of prior months of placed production at that respective recovery rate in time determines the total ounces expected to be recovered each month.  The predicted values are compared to actual production to ensure accuracy and provide confidence in the models’ ability to predict ounce production.
 
Historically, silver recovery averages about 58% and gold recovery averages about 90%.  Project-to-date metallurgical recoveries calculated from contained ounces delivered to the pads, and recovered settled ounces are shown in Table 10‑2.
 
Coeur is continuing to define and refine HPGR product recovery rates for gold and silver ore types.  Continuing metallurgical test work, both in house and with third parties, is optimizing gradation from mining and mineral processing methods to achieve desired heap leach performance.  Future HPGR product mineralization placed on the Stage VI pad is assigned recovery rates that are indicative of operational crush size and potential recovery rates derived from available metallurgical data.
 
Monthly metallurgical gold and silver recovery information from column tests are compared against historical recoveries of crushed and ROM products.  Historical crushed material recovery rates are provided in Table 10‑3 and were derived from third party verification of in-house metallurgical test results, crusher production and heap leach production results from 1986 through 2004 (KD Engineering Co., Inc., 2004).  The historical recoveries are applied to cone crushed product from 1986 through 2019.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑2:          Leach Pad Recoveries to Date
 
Leach
Pad
Contained
Gold
(oz)
Gold
Recovered
(oz)
Gold
Recovery
(%)
Silver
Contained
(oz)
Silver
Recovered
(oz)
Silver
Recovery
(%)
Stage I (complete)
260,008
235,743
91
39,497,785
22,186,395
56
Stage II
(in-progress)
430,459
421,225
98
64,400,171
39,219,857
61
Stage III
(in-progress)
303,191
285,494
94
51,853,943
24,998,071
48
Stage IV
(in-progress)
1,053,351
902,262
86
135,328,128
81,379,587
60
Total
2,047,009
1,844,724
90
291,080,027
167,783,910
58
 
Table 10‑3:          Historical Crushed and ROM Product Recoveries
 
Leaching
Years
Leaching
Days
Cone Crushed
Ore
Historical ROM
Ore
Packard Crushed
Ore
% Recovery
% Recovery
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
 
30
30.5
73.1
10.4
51.0
30.5
73.1
 
60
35.5
76.0
12.5
53.5
35.5
76.0
 
90
38.2
77.7
13.7
55.0
38.2
77.7
 
180
42.6
80.6
15.8
57.6
42.6
80.6
1
365
46.8
83.5
18.0
60.2
46.8
83.5
2
730
50.6
86.4
20.1
62.7
50.6
86.4
5
1,825
55.2
90.2
22.9
66.1
55.2
90.2
10
3,650
58.4
93.0
25.0
68.7
58.4
93.0
20
7,300
61.4
95.9
27.1
71.2
61.4
95.9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
From mid-2019 through the current period all material from Rochester is assumed to be HPGR crushed at which point HPGR recovery rates are applied. Since the Rochester oxide deposit is relatively consistent, the gold and silver recovery trends have also been consistent over the life of Rochester.  As new minerology is identified metallurgical characterization and recovery determinations will be updated.  Recovery rates of gold and silver can be directly related to material particle size delivered to the leach pad and not contained gold and silver head grades.
 
As a result, the historical cone crushing circuits, operated in open configuration, targeted a product size of P80 3/8” to achieve optimal recovery rates of gold and silver while maximizing throughput.  Historical crushed recovery rates are applied to crushed product placed on Stage II and IV heap leach pads and for X-pit product placed on Stage IV from 2017–2019.  ROM product recovery rates, interpreted and historically adjusted from the same report, are applied to ROM product placed on Stage II and IV heap leach pads.
 
The Stage III heap leach pad was built in 2011 and continuous metallurgical sampling, test work and modeling evaluations provided updated recovery values for this leach pad.  Coeur conducted an extensive study of ROM product via column tests and test heaps to further understand recoveries of material placed on Stage III heap leach pad since 2011.  Historically, interpreted ROM recoveries were 27% Ag and 71% Au but this was for the traditional in situ ROM, which was different from the actual mineralized material characteristics hauled to Stage III for leaching.  ROM delivered to the Stage III leach pad from 2013–2018 was mined from historical stockpiles and the natural material segregation of the piles provided fine ROM material.  This mineralized material was sorted and delivered to the leach pad as an opportunity during mine operations with slightly better recoveries than the traditional ROM recovery rates.
 
These adjusted, improved, and applied recovery values can be seen in Table 10‑4.  Any variation using the dynamic modeling software from these crushed and ROM values are minimal and ultimate recoveries have been consistent.
 
In 2019 Coeur Rochester adopted HPGR technology to replace tertiary cone crushing.  The HPGR circuit was initially operated in an open circuit configuration and was being optimized for gradation and recovery.  During this time the unit was producing material at a P80 of ⅝”, however, it was determined that operating the unit in open circuit configuration at this P80 could produce material that did not display optimum permeability on the leach pad.
 
In response to this, additional flowsheet options were analyzed to determine if a pre-screen option that would allow the fines to bypass the HPGR would produce a permeable product.
 
Crusher modeling was performed to determine the product gradation of a pre-screen system as well as a pre-screen plus edge protection system.  The P80s were as follows:  current 1”, pre-screen ¾” and pre-screen plus edge protection ⅝”.Based on this modeling the recoveries shown in Table 10‑5 are assumed for HPGR material.
 
In addition to the P80 calculations confidence intervals were also determined around the Stage VI ultimate recoveries.  Table 10‑5 provides a summary of these determinations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑4:          Stage III Crushed and ROM Product Recoveries
 
 Leaching Years
Leaching Days
Stage 3 Crushed
Stage 3 ROM
% Recovery
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
 
30
26.3
76.4
1.7
65.0
 
60
31.1
78.8
6.2
68.2
 
90
33.9
80.1
8.8
70.0
 
180
38.7
82.5
13.3
73.1
1
365
43.6
84.9
17.9
76.3
5
1,826
54.8
90.4
28.4
83.6
10
3,653
59.6
92.8
32.9
86.7
20
7,305
64.5
95.2
37.4
89.8
 
Table 10‑5:          Stage VI Recovery Confidence Intervals
 
Leaching Years
Leaching Days
% Recovery Stage VI
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
 
30
51.3%
82.9%
46.2%
78.4%
42.2%
75.1%
 
60
57.4%
86.1%
51.8%
81.5%
47.2%
78.0%
 
90
59.9%
87.3%
54.0%
82.6%
49.3%
79.1%
 
180
62.6%
88.6%
56.5%
83.8%
51.5%
80.3%
1
365
64.2%
89.3%
57.9%
84.5%
52.8%
81.0%
2
730
65.0%
89.7%
58.6%
84.9%
53.5%
81.3%
5
1825
65.5%
89.9%
59.1%
85.1%
53.9%
81.5%
10
3650
65.7%
90.0%
59.2%
85.2%
54.0%
81.6%
20
7300
65.9%
90.1%
59.4%
85.3%
54.2%
81.7%
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Based on historic Rochester performance, as shown in Table 10‑2, the 50% confidence recovery of 59.4% for silver and the 25% confidence recovery of 85.3% Au was used for forecasting production on Stage VI (pre-screen plus edge protection).  The 25% confidence recovery was chosen because gold performance tends to outperform model predictions and gold recoveries in Stages I–IV all have recoveries (Table 10‑2) that are higher than plan, and the 50% confidence recovery.
 
Based on this modeling the ultimate recoveries shown in Table 10‑6 are assumed for HPGR material based on the configuration of the crusher, the leach pads the material is placed on and the resultant P80.
 

 10.4
Metallurgical Variability
 
Metallurgical test results obtained from several test work programs conducted during the past three years show relatively low variability between several different locations with respect to gold and silver recovery assuming the sulfur content is below 0.7% and the crush size is held constant.
 
Potentially acid-generating (PAG) ore is part of the mineral reserve estimate at Rochester.  Historically, Coeur estimated the recoveries for all sulfide materials to be 61% silver and 60% gold from in-house prior test work and results.  However, based on more recent test work the following discount equations are applied to ore over the 0.7% sulfur cut off where TS is equivalent to total sulfur in %.
 

 •
Ag: Recovery = (59.4)(-1.89*TS^2+1.81*TS+.667);
 

 •
Au: Recovery = (85.3)(-0.267*TS+1.09).
 
Metallurgical test work and characterization is continuously performed in parallel with ongoing operations.  Gold and silver recoveries from the operational leach pads are continually being compared again with metallurgical column test work to further refine expected recovery profiles.
 

 10.5
Deleterious Elements
 
Based on extensive operating experience and test work, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
None of the deposits contain sufficient quantities of sulfide minerals, organic carbon or silica encapsulation to be categorized as refractory ore.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑6:          Ultimate Recovery Summary by Ore Type
 
Ore Product
Ultimate Recovery (20 Years)
Silver
(%)
Gold
(%)
Historical cone crushed product
61.4
95.9
Packard cone crushed product
61.4
95.9
Traditional ROM
27.1
71.2
Stage 3 ROM
37.4
89.8
Stage 4 current config.
56.1
82.4
Stage 4 HPGR post pre-screen and side plate
59.4
85.3
Stage 6 HPGR
59.4
90.1
 

 10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
Current and ongoing metallurgical test work confirms the material to be mined presents a similar response to the heap leaching process to previously mined ores.  The ultimate metal recovery assumptions are derived from historic and actual performance of the leaching operation, historical and ongoing metallurgical test work, and use of heap leach modeling tools.
 
Additional test work and operational optimizations will continue to refine high pressure grind roll recovery from operational heap leach pads and ore sources.
 
Crusher gradation, mineralization minerology, and heap leach kinetics have an impact on overall gold and silver recovery from heap leach operations.  These factors are being evaluated to understand their impact on the overall recovery of current and future operations.
 
The QP is not aware of any other processing factors or deleterious elements that could have a significant impact on the economic extraction under similar and historic operating conditions.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
10-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
11.0          MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
 
11.1
Introduction
 
The Rochester mineral resource estimate was updated to include drilling completed and acquired in 2020 and 2021.  The models were built and estimated using Hexagon Mining’s HxGN MinePlan V15.60-1 software (previously known as MineSight).  Geostatistical work, including variography, was completed in Snowden Supervisor V8.13.
 
The mineral resource estimate for Rochester consists of five parts:
 

 •
Rochester mine mineral resource estimate (amenable to open pit mining methods), updated October 5, 2021 (effective date December 31, 2021);
 

 •
Rochester in-pit stockpile mineral resource estimate completed October 5, 2021 (effective date December 31, 2021);
 

 •
South and Charlie stockpile mineral resource estimate completed December 31, 2013. Re-blocking exercise was completed September 30, 2020 to go from a model framework of 50 x 50 x 25 ft to 50 x 50 x 30 ft (effective date December 31, 2021);
 

 •
Nevada Packard mineral resource (amenable to open pit mining methods), updated August 31, 2020 (effective date December 31, 2021);
 

 •
Nevada Packard stockpile mineral resource estimate completed December 31, 2015. Re-blocking exercise was completed August 31, 2020 to go from a model framework of 50 x 50 x 25 ft to 50 x 50 x 30 ft (effective date December 31, 2021).
 
Figure 11‑1 shows the location of the five models.
 
11.2
Geological Model
 
Geologic modeling of the Rochester deposit incorporates in-pit geologic mapping, drill log interpretation and surface mapping.  A total of 37 unique domain combinations were generated; however, seven domains were associated with greenstone and leucogranite lithologies that are considered non-mineralized and were not modeled.
 
The South and Charlie stockpiles along with the Rochester in-pit stockpile are approximately 250 ft thick.  There are no domains delineated within these volumes of material.  Both stockpiles are treated as distinct volumes of material with no domains segregated within them.
 
The Nevada Packard geological model incorporates historic pre-mine surface mapping, pit mapping and drill log interpretation. Seven domains were interpreted.
 
Four domains (Zones 1 through 4) were defined for the Nevada Packard stockpile material based on geographic location.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑1:          Rochester and Nevada Packard Model Areas
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
11.3
Exploratory Data Analysis
 
All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis methods, which included histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.
 
Several domains in the Rochester model were merged based on silver data, resulting in 11 domains used for estimation purposes. All domains were treated as soft for the purposes of the model estimate.
 
Five of the seven domains defined at Nevada Packard were considered sufficiently unique to remain separate domains.  The two westernmost domains, 100 and 800, were merged.  This resulted in a total of six domains used for estimation.  There was a strong correlation to the domains in the silver data at Nevada Packard, with a very weak correlation to any domain in the gold data. All domains were treated as soft for model estimation purposes.
 
Silver and gold values in the Charlie and South stockpiles had relatively high standard deviations.  Ninety-nine percent of the gold values above the detection limit were <0.010 oz/st Au.
 
Silver and gold values in the Rochester in-pit stockpile had low standard deviations, which resulted in low coefficients of variation (CVs) in both datasets.  Ninety-eight percent of the gold values above the detection limit were <0.010 oz/st Au.
 
Silver in the Nevada Packard stockpile has a bimodal distribution for Zones 1 and 3, while Zone 4 has a slightly positive skewed distribution.  Gold values are highly skewed for all zones.  Zone 1 contains five drill holes sampled on 10-ft intervals, approximately 100 ft apart.  Given the volume of material and position of drilling, a resource estimate was not completed for Zone 1.  Zone 2 contains five drill holes sampled on 10-ft intervals.  Four drill holes are clustered within 75 ft of each other, while the fifth is approximately 125 ft from the cluster.  Modeling parameters and classification parameters from Zones 3 and 4 were applied to Zone 2.  Drilling completed in Zones 3 and 4 was spaced 60–250 ft apart.  Sampling was completed on 10-ft intervals. All domains were treated as soft for purposes of the model estimate.
 
11.4
Density
 
Rock types were assigned a density of 0.078 st/ft3 at Rochester and Nevada Packard.  This density was confirmed by mining operations and third-party studies in 1992 and 2002.
 
The density assumption for stockpile material also 0.078 st/ft3, with a 37% swell factor applied.
 
Density samples from varying lithologies and alteration styles in the core drilling have been collected for additional analysis.  However, no results had been returned at Report effective date.
 
11.5
Composites
 
All of the models use 10 ft composites.  End-of-hole composite fractions <10 ft. long were retained and used in the estimate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
11.6
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
 
To limit the over-extrapolation of high-grade samples, population statistics for composites were examined using histograms and cumulative probability plots.  Results for each methodology were reviewed for their effect on the coefficient of variation and metal-at-risk.  The method for capping was to look for disruptions in the distribution in the upper 1-2 % of the data as well as reducing the CV to approximately 2.0, if necessary.
 
The capping statistics for silver and gold in the Rochester model are summarized in Table 11‑1, respectively.
 
A silver grade cap of 2.29 oz/st and gold grade cap of 0.020 oz/st were used for the South and Charlie stockpiles.
 
Review of the data distribution for the Rochester in-pit stockpile material indicated that capping was not required for silver or gold.
 
The capping statistics for silver and gold in the Nevada Packard model are summarized in Table 11‑3 and Table 11‑4, respectively.
 
Review of the data distribution for the Nevada Packard stockpile material indicated that capping was not required for silver or gold.
 
11.7
Variography
 
Variography was performed on all models in Supervisor to obtain search distances and directions for interpolation.
 
Variography conducted on the Nevada Packard stockpile composites was inconclusive and indicated heterogeneity of the sample population.
 
11.8
Interpolation
 
Ordinary kriging (OK) was selected as the estimation method for all silver and gold domains in the Rochester model.  A single pass estimate was completed for each domain.  All domains were estimated using octants to help reduce negative kriging weights.  Additional nearest neighbor (NN) and inverse distance squared (ID2) estimates were run for validation purposes.  Search distances, min/max samples, min/max samples per octant, and discretization were all fine-tuned with kriging neighborhood analysis and experimentation.
 
The Rochester search distances varied by domain.  All domains were informed by a minimum of two composites, but the maximum number of composites used could vary from 20–32.  The maximum number of composites per drill hole was set at four.  The minimum number of octants was set at two, and the maximum number of composites per octant was set at eight.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑1:          Capping Statistics for Rochester Silver Composites
 
Domain
7100
7221
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
7630
7700
7800
7830
Total
Composite cap
22.25
0.3
9.0
NA
4.12
14.2
NA
5.0
8.4
1.2
NA
NA
Total samples
63,179
1,792
11,257
428
17,223
9,964
847
2,061
10,478
2,903
1,000
121,131
Samples capped
2
11
8
0
13
4
0
6
3
8
0
55
Raw mean
0.528
0.031
0.259
0.045
0.207
0.389
0.120
0.260
0.253
0.060
0.287
0.392
Raw STDEV
0.957
0.075
0.635
0.086
0.362
0.807
0.267
0.591
0.505
0.270
0.498
0.802
Raw CV
1.812
2.423
2.453
1.899
1.745
2.076
2.234
2.273
1.997
4.484
1.734
2.044
Capped mean
0.527
0.029
0.255
0.045
0.205
0.387
0.120
0.254
0.252
0.053
0.287
0.391
Capped STDEV
0.916
0.047
0.565
0.086
0.327
0.753
0.267
0.513
0.474
0.112
0.498
0.762
Capped CV
1.739
1.622
2.214
1.899
1.591
1.948
2.234
2.020
1.882
2.104
1.734
1.949
% data affected
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.05
% mean change
-0.2
-7.3
-1.3
0.0
-1.0
-0.6
0.0
-2.3
-0.5
-11.9
0.0
-0.4
% CV change
-4.1
-33.1
-9.7
0.0
-8.8
-6.2
0.0
-11.1
-5.8
-53.1
0.0
-4.6
 
Note:  STDEV = standard deviation; CV = coefficient of variation
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑2:          Capping Statistics for Rochester Gold Composites
 
Domain
7100
7221
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
7630
7700
7800
7830
Total
Composite cap
0.15
NA
0.08
NA
0.05
0.101
NA
0.025
0.07
0.025
0.025
NA
Total samples
63,199
1,792
11,257
428
17,223
9,964
847
2,081
10,451
2,903
1,000
121,172
Samples capped
62
0
62
0
37
12
0
11
19
1
5
209
Raw mean
0.004
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
Raw STDEV
0.016
0.001
0.037
0.002
0.009
0.020
0.001
0.030
0.010
0.001
0.004
0.018
Raw CV
3.961
1.713
7.834
1.320
4.681
7.399
2.167
14.303
4.647
1.492
2.212
5.524
Capped mean
0.004
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
Capped STDEV
0.009
0.001
0.009
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.003
0.008
Capped CV
2.395
1.713
2.526
1.320
2.248
2.226
2.167
2.180
2.341
1.279
1.820
2.546
% data affected
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.2
% mean change
-4.7
0.0
-27.0
0.0
-11.0
-11.0
0.0
-37.0
-8.5
-0.8
-4.9
-9.1
% CV change
-39.5
0.0
-67.8
0.0
-52.0
-69.9
0.0
-84.8
-49.6
-14.2
-17.7
-53.9
 
Note:  STDEV = standard deviation; CV = coefficient of variation
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑3:          Capping Statistics for Nevada Packard Silver Composites
 
Domain
100_800
200
300
400
500
700
Total
Composite cap
4.65
17.6
3.9
6.8
6.65
1.75
NA
Total samples
4,823
7,324
3,548
3,488
1,916
4,802
25,901
Samples capped
5
4
4
3
6
13
35
Raw mean
0.172
0.574
0.179
0.212
0.398
0.084
0.292
Raw STDEV
0.461
1.307
0.369
0.529
1.544
0.287
0.899
Raw CV
2.680
2.279
2.066
2.492
3.878
3.423
3.074
Capped mean
0.168
0.567
0.175
0.209
0.357
0.077
0.285
Capped STDEV
0.367
1.170
0.314
0.472
0.772
0.158
0.735
Capped CV
2.186
2.062
1.792
2.255
2.161
2.046
2.583
% data affected
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.14%
% mean change
-2.6%
-1.1%
-1.9%
-1.5%
-10.3%
-8.0%
-2.65%
% CV change
-18.4%
-9.5%
-13.3%
-9.5%
-44.3%
-40.2%
-16.0%
 
Note:  STDEV = standard deviation; CV = coefficient of variation
 
Table 11‑4:          Capping Statistics for Nevada Packard Gold Composites
 
Domain
100_800
200
300
400
500
700
Total
Total Samples
4,629
6,753
3,301
3,325
1,856
4,753
24,617
Composite cap
NA
0.09
0.03
0.026
0.027
0.012
NA
Samples capped
0
7
8
14
6
4
39
Raw mean
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
Raw STDEV
0.002
0.008
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.002
0.005
Raw CV
2.513
2.896
3.235
5.730
2.202
6.233
3.759
Capped mean
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
Capped STDEV
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.004
Capped CV
2.513
2.308
2.255
2.455
1.981
2.628
2.790
% data affected
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.16
% mean change
0.0
-3.2
-5.9
-18.4
-2.6
-9.0
-5.04
% CV change
0.0
-20.3
-30.3
-57.2
-10.0
-57.8
-25.8
 
Note:  STDEV = standard deviation; CV = coefficient of variation
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Since 2016, all Rochester exploration samples have been analyzed for total sulfur percent.  While early estimates of total sulfur were relegated to the edges of the pit, sufficient data covering the pit were collected in 2020 and 2021 to provide a reliable estimate of the entire resource area.  Total sulfur was estimated using an inverse distance to the sixth power (ID6) interpolation using the available drill holes and blastholes.  This is estimate is currently being used to determine the delineation of oxide and sulfide, which determines the ultimate recoveries assigned to the blocks. Recoveries are described in greater detail in Chapter 10.3.
 
The resource model for the South and Charlie stockpiles uses ID2 interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 120 ft search distance, using 3–15 samples, with a limit of three samples per drill hole.  A minimum of one drill hole was allowed for interpolation.  A second estimation pass was applied to blocks that fell outside of the blocks that were estimated in the first pass.  The second pass estimate used a search distance of 1,500 ft and a minimum of one sample and maximum of five samples to estimate outlier blocks.
 
The resource model for the Rochester in-pit stockpile uses a single pass ID2 interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 300 ft search distance, using 3–15 samples, with a limit of three samples per drill hole.  A minimum of one drill hole was allowed for interpolation. Additional OK and NN estimates were run for validation purposes.  The search distance and min/max samples were all fine-tuned with experimentation.
 
OK was selected as the reported estimation method for all silver and gold domains in the Nevada Packard estimate.  A single pass estimation was completed for each domain.  All domains were estimated using octants to help reduce negative kriging weights.  Additional NN and ID2 estimates were run for validation purposes.  Search distances, min/max samples, min/max samples per octant, and discretization were all fine-tuned with kriging neighborhood analysis and experimentation.  The search distances varied by domain.  All domains were informed by a minimum of two composites, but the maximum number of composites used could vary from 24–40.  The maximum number of composites per drill hole was set at four.  The minimum number of octants was set at two, and the maximum number of composites per octant was set at eight.
 
The estimation method chosen for the Nevada Packard stockpile model uses ID2 interpolation with 10 ft composites and a 100 x 100 x 50 ft horizontal search ellipse using 1–12 samples, with a limit of two samples per drill hole.  A second pass model was created to estimate outlier blocks using an ID2 interpolation with a 200 x 200 x 50 ft search ellipse using the same sample restrictions as the primary pass.
 
11.9
Block Model Validation
 
The block models were validated using the following methods:
 

 •
Visual validation of model results to composites completed by stepping through east-west and north–south cross- sections spaced 100 ft apart as well as plan view sections placed at mid-block elevations (30 ft spacing);
 

 •
Grade-tonnage curves looking at the average grade of OK, NN, and ID2 estimates at a 0.00 oz/st cut-off;
 

 •
X, Y, Z swath plots;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
Comparison of block model statistics to the sample assay and composite statistics;
 

 •
Comparison of grade-tonnage curves to the original estimate;
 

 •
Reconciliation with available blast-hole data by comparing the resource OK estimate to an ID2 blast-hole model for the Rochester and Nevada Packard models.
 
No material biases or errors were noted from the reviews.
 
11.10
Classification of Mineral Resources
 
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
 
Mineral resources were classified based on a combination of the distance to the nearest composite, number of composites used in the estimate, and number of drill holes used in the estimate.  The specific details for these parameters are unique to each deposit and the domains delineated within them.  They are determined through a variety of methods including variogram ranges, reconciliation to production data, and operational history.  The final classification criteria are summarized in Table 11‑5.  Cross-sections showing examples of the block classifications for each of the mineral resources are provided in Figure 11‑2 to Figure 11‑6.
 
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
 
Following analysis that classified the mineral resource estimates into the measured, indicated and inferred confidence categories, uncertainties regarding sampling and drilling methods, data processing and handling, geological modelling, and estimation were incorporated into the classifications assigned.  The areas with the most uncertainty were assigned to the inferred category, and the areas with fewest uncertainties were classified as measured.
 

 11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
 

 11.11.1
Input Assumptions
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was undertaken that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
 
Mineral resources amenable to open pit mining were constrained within conceptual pit shells.  Stockpile material was estimated within the stockpile dimensions.
 
Estimated mining, processing, and general and administrative (G&A) costs are summarized in Table 11‑6.  These costs, together with Coeur’s resource metal price guidance of $22/oz Ag and $1,700/oz Au, were applied to a Lerchs–Grossmann pit optimization, which also considers recoveries and pit slope parameters.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑5:          Confidence Classifications
 
Model
Confidence Classification
Criteria
Rochester
Measured
Distances from nearest composite of 60–135 ft, min 8 composites, min 5 drill holes
Indicated
Distances from nearest composite of 100–175 ft, min 5 composites, min 3 drill holes
Inferred
Distances from nearest composite of 195–330 ft, min 2 composites, min 1 drill hole
South and Charlie stockpile
Measured
Distance from nearest composite of ≤80 ft, min 3 drill holes
Indicated
Distance from nearest composite of ≤160 ft, min 2 drill holes
Inferred
Distance from nearest composite of >160 ft, min 2 drill holes; any block estimated in second pass
Rochester in-pit stockpile
Measured
Distance from nearest composite of ≤80 ft, min 3 drill holes
Indicated
Distance from nearest composite of ≤160 ft, min 2 drill holes
Inferred
Distance from nearest composite of >160 ft, min 1 drill hole
Nevada Packard
Measured
Distances from nearest composite of 75–100 ft, min 12 composites, min 5 drill holes
Indicated
Distances from nearest composite of 105–160 ft, min 7 composites, min 3 drill holes
Inferred
Distances from nearest composite of 165–280 ft, min 3 composites, min 1 drill hole
Nevada Packard stockpile
Indicated
Distances from nearest composite of <100 ft, >3 composites, >2 drill holes
Inferred
Distances from nearest composite of <200 ft, >1 composite, >1 drill hole; any block estimated in second pass
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑2:          Cross-Sectional View Of Rochester Model Classification
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Section shown prior to depletion.
 
Figure 11‑3:          Cross-Sectional View Of South-Charlie Stockpile Model Classification
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Section shown prior to depletion.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑4:          Cross-Sectional View Of Rochester In Pit Stockpile Model Classification
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Section shown prior to depletion.
 
Figure 11‑5:          Cross-sectional View Of Nevada Packard Model Classification
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Section shown prior to depletion.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑6:          Cross-sectional View Of Nevada Packard Stockpile Model Classification
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Section shown prior to depletion.
 
Table 11‑6:          Operating Cost and Cut-offs for Mineral Resource Estimates
 
Item
Unit
Rochester
Nevada Packard
Mining
$/ton
1.30
1.30
Crushing and processing oxide
$/ton crushed
2.05
3.50
Crushing and processing sulfide
$/ton crushed
2.15
N/A
Processing ROM
$/ton
1.00
N/A
G&A
$/ton crushed
0.50
0.20
Break-even NSR cut-off, oxide
$/ton
2.55
3.70
Break-even NSR cut-off, sulfide
$/ton
2.65
n/a
Break-even NSR cut-off, ROM
$/ton
1.50
n/a

The Rochester Engineering Department provided the Lerchs–Grossmann optimized pit that was used to constrain the mineral resources.
 

 11.11.2
Commodity Price
 
Commodity prices used in resource estimation are based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts, supplemented with research by Coeur’s internal specialists.  An explanation of the derivation of the commodity prices is provided in Chapter 16.2.  The estimated timeframe used for the price forecasts is the three-year LOM that supports the mineral reserve estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-13
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

11.11.3
Cut-off
 
Reporting of mineral resources within the optimized pit is based on silver and gold price, associated metallurgical process recoveries, and refining costs.  This produces the following NSR equation:
 

 •
Resource net smelter return (NSR) = silver grade (oz/ton) * silver recovery (%) * [silver price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)] + gold grade (oz/ton) * gold recovery (%) * [gold price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)].
 
The metal prices used in the formula are provided in Chapter 11.11.1 and Chapter 11.11.2.  The refining costs for both silver and gold are estimated at $0.35 per ounce.  Table 11‑7 summarizes the metallurgical process recoveries for silver and gold for the different ore types at the Rochester mineral resources.  The Rochester pit also has an additional run-of-mine (ROM) ore stream.  The ROM ore stream is sub-grade crusher ore that has sufficient grade to be economical when crushing costs are not required.
 
The Nevada Packard mineral resources are currently hosted entirely in oxide ore and there is no ore stream for ROM.  This lack of ore type variability yields a single recovery for silver and a single recovery for gold.  These recoveries are 61% and 92%, respectively.
 
The optimized resource constraining pit determines what volume of material can be economically extracted making the mining costs sunk.  Therefore, the NSR cutoffs used to tabulate resources within the constraining pits are set to the “Break even NSR costs” for the respective material types.  For Rochester mineral resources, this equates to a NSR cutoff of $2.55 for oxides, $2.65 for sulfides (≥0.7% total-sulfur), and $1.50 for ROM.  For Nevada Packard mineral resources, this equates to a single NSR cutoff of $3.70 for oxide material because there are currently no sulfide or ROM mineral resources estimated.
 

 11.11.4
QP Statement
 
The QP is of the opinion that any issues that arise in relation to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.  The mineral resource estimates are performed for deposits that are in a well-documented geological setting.  Coeur is very familiar with the economic parameters required for successful operations in the Rochester area; and Coeur has a history of being able to obtain and maintain permits, social licence and meet environmental standards.  There is sufficient time in the three-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecast for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, test work and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-14
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑7:          Metallurgical Process Recoveries Used in Rochester Mineral Resources NSR Cutoff Calculations
 
Material
Ag Recovery (Crusher Ore)
Au Recovery (Crusher Ore)
Ag Recovery (ROM)
Au Recovery (ROM)
Oxide
59.4%
= (85.3%)*(-0.267*Total-Sulfur+1.09)
27.1%
71.2%
Sulfide (≥0.7% Total-Sulfur)
= (59.4%)*(-1.89*Total-Sulf^2+
1.81*Total-Sulf+0.667)
0.0%
 

 11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 on a 100% ownership basis.  Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ for those estimates within conceptual open pit outlines, and within stockpiles for those estimates of stockpiled material.  Mineral resource estimates are current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves as follows:
 
•
Rochester:  Table 11‑8 and Table 11‑9;
 
•
Nevada Packard:  Table 11‑10 and Table 11‑11;
 
•
Rochester stockpiles (South-Charlie and in-pit): Table 11‑12 and Table 11‑13;
 
•
Nevada Packard stockpiles:  Table 11‑14 and Table 11‑15;
 
Table 11‑16 and Table 11‑17 summarize the mineral resource estimates for all of the areas.  These two tables are not additive to Table 11‑8 to Table 11‑15.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Bradford, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-15
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑8:          Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons (st)
Average
Grade
Contained Ounces
NSR Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
(oz/st)
(oz)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Sulfide
ROM
Au
Ag
Measured
155,049,000
0.002
0.29
313,000
44,695,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
15.2–93.7
0.0–59.5
Indicated
24,325,000
0.002
0.34
51,000
8,353,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
41.6–93.7
0.0–59.5
Total measured and indicated
179,374,000
0.002
0.30
363,000
53,048,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
15.2–93.7
0.0–59.5
 
Table 11‑9: Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Sulfide
ROM
Au
Ag
Inferred
104,833,000
0.002
0.29
201,000
30,307,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
40.8–93.7
0.0–59.5
 
Table 11‑10:          Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR Cut-
off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Au
Ag
Measured
20,558,000
0.002
0.33
39,000
6,754,000
3.70
92.0
61.0
Indicated
2,060,000
0.002
0.25
5,000
509,000
3.70
92.0
61.0
Total measured and indicated
22,618,000
0.002
0.32
43,000
7,263,000
3.70
92.0
61.0

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-16
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑11:          Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Au
Ag
Inferred
5,287,000
0.002
0.36
11,000
1,913,000
3.70
92.0
61.0
 
Table 11‑12:          Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester Stockpile (South-Charlie and In-pit), as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Sulfide
ROM
Au
Ag
Measured
16,282,000
0.001
0.31
20,000
5,124,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
93.7
59.0
Indicated
12,946,000
0.001
0.31
18,000
3,960,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
93.7
59.0
Total measured and indicated
29,228,000
0.001
0.31
37,000
9,084,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
93.7
59.0

Table 11‑13:          Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester Stockpile (South-Charlie and In-pit), as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Sulfide
ROM
Au
Ag
Inferred
17,233,000
0.002
0.34
29,000
5,884,000
2.55
2.65
1.50
93.7
59.0
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-17
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑14:          Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard Stockpile as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Au
Ag
Measured
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Indicated
234,000
—
0.47
—
110,000
3.70
92.0
61.0
Total measured and indicated
234,000
—
0.47
—
110,000
3.70
92.0
61.0

Table 11‑15:          Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Nevada Packard Stockpile Inferred Mineral Resource Statement as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
($/st)
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Oxide
Au
Ag
Inferred
1,057,000
0.002
0.49
2,000
522,000
3.70
92.0
61.0
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-18
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑16:          Summary of Gold and Silver Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Measured
191,889,000
0.002
0.29
372,000
56,573,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
Indicated
39,565,000
0.002
0.33
74,000
12,932,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
Total measured and indicated
231,454,000
0.002
0.30
443,000
69,505,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
 
Table 11‑17:          Summary of Gold and Silver Inferred Mineral Resources, Rochester, Nevada Packard, and Stockpiles, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price and US$22/oz silver price))
 
Category
Tons
(st)
Average
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(oz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Inferred
128,410,000
0.002
0.30
243,000
38,626,000
1.50–2.65
15.2–93.7
0–61.0
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource estimates:
 

 1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in SK1300.
 

 2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ and stockpile.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Matthew Bradford, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 

 3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves on a 100% ownership basis.
 

 4.
Mineral resources for Rochester and Nevada Packard are tabulated within a confining pit shell that uses the following input parameters: metal price Au = $1,700/oz and Ag = $22/oz; oxide recovery Au = 77.7%-93.7% and Ag = 59%-61%; sulfide recovery Au = 15.2%-77.7% and Ag = 0.0%-59% with a net smelter return cutoff of $2.55–$3.70/st oxide and $2.65/st sulfide, where the NSR is calculated as resource net smelter return (NSR) = silver grade (oz/ton) * silver recovery (%) * [silver price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)] + gold grade (oz/ton) * gold recovery (%) * [gold price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)]; and variable pit slope angles that approximately average 43º over the life-of-mine.
 

 5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-19
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:
 

 •
Metal price and exchange rate assumptions;
 

 •
Changes to the assumptions used to generate the NSR grade cut-off grade;
 

 •
Changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones;
 

 •
Changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions;
 

 o
Additional drilling, which may change confidence category classification in the pit margins from those assumed in the current pit optimization;
 

 o
Additional sampling that may redefine the silver and/or gold grade estimates in certain areas of the resource estimation;
 

 •
Density and domain assignments;
 

 •
Changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions;
 

 •
Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for open pit mining or stockpile rehandling constraining the estimates;
 

 •
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
11-20
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
12.0          MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
 

 12.1
Introduction
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources using a detailed pit design and estimated 2021 year-end topography and block model.
 

 12.2
Development of Mining Case
 
Mining rates are primarily driven by crusher capabilities based on their physical configuration and environmental permit limits.  The current operating crushing rate is 13.87 Mst/a, increasing to 32 Mst/a when the Limerick crusher becomes operational in 2023.  Air permits limit production to 21.9 Mst/a (refer to discussion in Chapter 17).  Based on historical experience, the QP considers it a reasonable expectation that this permit can be modified prior to the Limerick crusher becoming operational.
 
The selective mining unit is sized at 50 x 50 x 30 ft.
 
The LOM plan mines material below the water table, which is considered in the existing permitting.
 
12.3
Designs
 
Pit optimizations were done using the Lerchs–Grossmann algorithm using Whittle software.  Whittle software uses the operating and processing costs in conjunction with a range of selling costs for the metal to produce a set of nested pits.  Nested pits begin at the lowest metal price and get successively larger as the metal price is increased.  If the pits are mined in order, they will generate the maximum value.
 
The nested pits generated from the Whittle software are brought into mine planning software and used as a template to design pits and laybacks.  The individual pits are phased by the Coeur Rochester, Inc. engineering staff and consideration is given to mining the highest-grade areas first.  Pits are designed in 30 ft vertical increments, designing in the toe, crest, and catch benches for the appropriate geotechnical domains.
 
Design input parameters used in the pit optimizations are summarized in Table 12‑1.
 

 12.4
Input Parameters
 
Input parameters used in the pit designs were summarized in Table 12‑1.
 
Geotechnical assumptions are discussed in Chapter 13.2.  Hydrological assumptions are included in Chapter 13.3.
 
NSR and cut-off grade considerations are provided in Chapter 12.6 and Chapter 12.7 respectively.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑1:          Pit Shell Input Parameters
 
Parameter
Rochester
Nevada Packard
Backfill
Bench height (ft.)
30
30
30
Batter angle (degrees)
Variable
Variable
45
Catch bench (ft.)
Variable
Variable
20
Minimum mining width (ft.)
80
Road design width (ft.)
88
Haul road grade (maximum; %)
10
 

 12.5
Net Smelter Return Cut-off
 
Cut-off grades are based on the following NSR equation:
 

 •
NSR = ((gold price – refining cost) * gold recovery * gold block grade) + ((silver price – refining cost) * silver recovery * silver block grade)
 

 o
Gold price:  US$1,400/oz;
 

 o
Silver price:  US$20/oz;
 

 o
Gold recovery:  Rochester in oxide: 85%; in sulfide: Variable according to total sulfur percentage, expressed as Recovery = (86 X (-0.267 xTotal Sulfur + 1.09))/100; Nevada Packard in oxide: 95%;
 

 o
Silver recovery:  Rochester in oxide: 59%; in sulfide:  Variable according to total sulfur percentage, expressed as Recovery = (59 X (-1.89 x Total Sulfur^2 + 1.81 x Total Sulfur + 0.667))/100; Nevada Packard in oxide: 61%;
 

 o
Refining cost:  $0.35/oz.
 

 12.6
Cut-Off Grades
 
Coeur annually determines the estimated metal prices used for mineral reserve and mineral resource reporting estimates at each of its operations.  Corporate metal price guidance for the Mineral Reserves for this Report was $1,400/oz Au and $20.00/oz Ag (see discussion in Chapter 16.2).
 
The break-even NSR cutoff grade is equal to the total estimated long-term processing costs (including general and administrative (G&A) costs.  Mining costs are a sunk cost for blocks contained inside an economic pit limit and therefore do not need to be included in the break-even cutoff grade.  If a given block meets or exceeds the processing cost, it should report to the crusher.  If a block is placed in a low-grade stockpile, it must have an NSR value high enough to meet the break-even cutoff grade plus the cost of rehandle.  If it does not, it is placed in a sub-grade stockpile that is effectively treated as waste.
 
Costs and NSR cutoffs are summarized in Table 12‑2.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑2:          LOM Operating Cost and Cut-offs for Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
Item
Unit
Rochester
Nevada Packard
Crushing and processing oxide
$/ton crushed
2.05
3.50
Crushing and processing sulfide
$/ton crushed
2.15
n/a
G&A
$/ton crushed
0.55
0.20
Break even NSR cut-off, oxide
$/ton
2.55
3.70
Break even NSR cut-off, sulfide
$/ton
2.65
n/a
Rehandle cost
$/ton
0.98
1.05
Sub-NSR cut-off
$/ton
3.53
4.75
 

 12.7
Surface Topography
 
The topography used for reserve calculation was an extrapolated 2021 year-end surface that considers estimated depletion measured from the design date to year-end 2021.  A survey of all active mining areas and WRSFs was completed at the end of October 2021, which was used to update the topography in active mining areas.  Topography outside the active surveyed areas is obtained from orthophotos and photogrammetry.  These two topographic sets were merged to create the surface used as the starting point for the extrapolated year end surface.
 

 12.8
Density and Moisture
 
The densities used for the mineral reserve estimate are:
 

 •
In-situ (open pit):  0.078 ton/ft3.
 

 •
Stockpile:  0.057 ton/ft3;
 
The assigned in situ moisture is 3–5% and stockpile material is forecast to average 5% moisture.
 
Mineral reserve tonnages are reported as dry bank tons.
 

 12.9
Dilution and Mine Losses
 
Due to the disseminated nature of the deposit, the margins around the orebody are mineralized waste, reducing the impacts of dilution during mining.
 
Reconciliation of the resource model to ore control is completed weekly and monthly.  Reconciliation indicates that the actual mined material and projected mined material correlate with less than a 5% difference in tonnage.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

12.10
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves have been classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported on a 100% ownership basis.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.  Mineral reserve estimates are current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral reserves are reported as follows:
 
•
Rochester:  Table 12‑3;
 
•
Nevada Packard:  Table 12‑4;
 
•
Rochester stockpiles (South-Charlie and in-pit): Table 12‑5;
 
•
Nevada Packard stockpiles:  Table 12‑6;
 
Table 12‑7 summarizes the mineral reserve estimates for all of the areas.  This table is not additive to Table 12‑3 to Table 12‑6.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. MacDougall, P.E., a Coeur Rochester employee.
 

 12.11
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include:
 
•
Commodity prices:  the mineral reserve estimates are sensitive to metal prices.  Coeur’s current strategy is to sell most of the metal production at spot prices, exposing the company to both positive and negative changes in the market, both of which are outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Metallurgical recovery:  changes in metallurgical recovery could also have an impact on the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Operating costs:  higher or lower operating costs than those assumed could also affect the mineral reserve estimates.  Operating costs could increase over the life of the Project, due to factors outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Geotechnical:  unforeseen geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the orebody, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  There are sufficient management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks.  Designed pit slopes have been evaluated for stability in several geotechnical studies and are regularly evaluated by the engineering group at the mine.  The QP considers that sufficient controls are in place for the Rochester Operations to effectively manage geotechnical risk, and the risk of significant impact on the mineral reserve estimate is low;
 
•
Hydrogeological:  unexpected hydrogeological conditions could cause issues with access and extraction of areas of the mineral reserve due to higher than anticipated rates of water ingress.  The QP considers the risk of encountering hydrogeological conditions which would significantly affect the mineral reserve estimate over the remaining LOM is low;
 
•
Permitting and social license:  inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain social license to operate could result in the inability to extract some or all of the mineral reserve.
 
•
A crushing circuit using HPGR technology was commissioned in 2019, and, in 2020, the operation obtained permitting for, and began construction of POA 11, which is a significant additional expansion, including the construction of a new leach pad, a crushing facility equipped with two HPGR units, processing facilities and related infrastructure to support the extension of Rochester’s mine life.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑3:          Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Rochester, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average Grade
Contained Ounces
NSR
Cut-
off
($/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Ag
(oz/st)
Au
(oz/st)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
Au
Proven
338,323
0.376
0.003
127,340
884
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
Probable
22,174
0.349
0.003
7,730
60
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
Total proven and probable
360,497
0.375
0.003
135,070
944
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
 
Table 12‑4:          Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Nevada Packard, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average
Grade
Contained
Ounces
NSR
Cut-
off
($/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Ag
(oz/st)
Au
(oz/st)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
Au
Proven
34,231
0.502
0.002
17,183
84
3.70
61
95
Probable
1,014
0.363
0.002
368
2
3.70
61
95
Total proven and probable
35,245
0.498
0.002
17,551
86
3.70
61
95
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑5:          Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Rochester Stockpile (South and Charlie) as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average
Grade
Contained
Ounces
NSRCut-
off
($/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Ag
(oz/st)
Au
(oz/st)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
Au
Proven
13,454
0.381
0.002
5,129
30
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
Probable
7,035
0.381
0.003
2,683
18
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
Total proven and probable
20,489
0.381
0.002
7,812
48
2.55–2.65
27-59
71-85
 
Table 12‑6:          Gold and Silver Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, Nevada Packard Stockpile, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average
Grade
Contained
Ounces
NSR Cut-off
($/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Ag
(oz/st)
Au
(oz/st)
Ag
(koz)
Au
(koz)
Ag
Au
Proven
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Probable
1,546
0.525
0.001
812
2
3.70
61
95
Total proven and probable
1,546
0.525
0.001
812
2
3.70
61
95
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑7:          Summary of Gold and Silver Mineral Reserve Estimates, as at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price and US$20/oz silver price)
 
Category
Tons
(Mst)
Average Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Ounces
(koz)
NSR
Cut-off
(US$/st)
Metallurgical Recovery
(%)
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Ag
Au
Total proven
386,008
0.388
0.003
149,652
998
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
Total probable
31,769
0.365
0.003
11,593
82
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
Total Proven & Probable
417,777
0.386
0.003
161,245
1,080
2.55–2.65
27–61
71-95
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve estimates:
 

 1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 

 1.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Brandon MacDougall, P.E., a Coeur Rochester employee.
 

 2.
Mineral reserve estimates are tabulated within a confining pit shell and use the following input parameters:  gold price of US$1,400/oz Au and silver price of US$20/oz Au; Rochester oxide recovery Au = 85% and Ag = 59%; Nevada Packard oxide recovery Au = 95% and Ag = 61%; ROM recovery Au = 71% and Ag = 27%; with a Rochester net smelter return cutoff of $2.55/st oxide and US$2.65/st sulfide, and a Packard net smelter return cutoff of $3.70, where the NSR is calculated as resource net smelter return (NSR) = silver grade (oz/ton) * silver recovery (%) * [silver price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)] + gold grade (oz/ton) * gold recovery (%) * [gold price ($/oz) - refining cost ($/oz)]; variable pit slope angles that approximately average 43º over the life-of-mine.
 

 3.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
12-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
13.0          MINING METHODS
 

 13.1
Introduction
 
Mineral reserves are exploited using conventional open pit methods and equipment.
 
Mining operations at Rochester are currently at capacity and will increase under POA 11, which was issued in 2020.  POA 11 allows for additional pad capacity, additional WRSF facilities, and extensions of the Rochester pit and continued operations through the end of planned mine life.
 

 13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
 
Several geotechnical studies and reports were completed by various independent third-party contractors. The most recent study, conducted in 2020-2021 by Golder Associates in the southeastern region of the current pit, assessed the highwall structures, and was documented in a 2021 engineering report. Prior to the 2020-2021 Golder study, Golder assessed the highwall structures in the southern region of the current pit in 2015, Call and Nicholas, Inc., performed geotechnical analyses and evaluations related to highwall slope and WRSF stability in 2006, 2011, and 2012. Other studies from Golder Associates (1990) and Steffen Robertson & Kirsten (2002) are still used as a basis for mining at Rochester.
 
Pit walls are subject to regular inspection as part of ongoing operations. No major pit wall issues have been detected and pit wall design parameters have been consistently validated.
 
The pit slope design parameters for Rochester and Nevada Packard are provided in Table 13‑1 and Table 13‑2 respectively.
 
The detailed pit designs adhere to the different domains and the pit slope angles recommended by Golder and Associates (1990, 2015 and 2021) and Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (2002) except for Sector 3 of the Rochester pit.  The azimuth attributes for Sector 3 were no longer relevant in the pit design and the area that sector 3 covered displayed similar azimuth attributes to Sector 2.  Coeur Rochester applied the recommended inter ramp angle and bench face angle for Sector 2 to the area previously covered by Sector 3.  The geotechnical assumptions are also based on 37 years of production experience with no major concerns.
 

 13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
 
Ground water was encountered around the 5,975 ft elevation during mining operations in 2007 and the pit was subsequently backfilled to 6,175 ft.  The POA 11 pit expansion will extend the Rochester Pit below the existing groundwater level and dewatering will be required.  Under the currently identified strategic mine plan, assuming the current mining rate is maintained for the Rochester Pit expansion, Coeur Rochester anticipates that mining would encounter saturated areas associated with the BRF, in year 2030 or 2031.  Dewatering activities are projected to be initiated in 2029, if necessary. Dewatering will primarily be accomplished with operation of existing vertical production wells.  As such, Coeur Rochester does not anticipate any hydrogeological issues during LOM operations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑1:          Rochester Zone Solid Pit Slope Design Criteria
 
Zone Solid Description
Overall
Slope
(º)
Catch Bench
Width
(ft.)
Bench Face
Angle
(º)
Inter-Ramp
Angle
(º)
Undefined
20
0
0
0
North wall
47
20
70
57
North to east transition
45
25
70
55
East wall
49
20
70
52
South sector 1
45
25
70
49
South sector 2 Weaver
34
25
59
42
South sector 2 Rochester
39
25
64
45
South sector 3
51
23
70
51
West sector
42
20
70
52
West to north transition
40
20
65
49
Internal
45
25
64
45
Backfill/leach, unconsolidated
27
20
62
27
Default
45
25
64
45
 
Table 13‑2:          Nevada Packard Pit Slope Design Criteria by Material Type
 
Material Description
Overall
Slope
(º)
Catch Bench
Width
(ft.)
Bench Face
Angle
(º)
Inter-Ramp
Angle
(º)
In-situ (oxide)
52.4
25
70
52.4
Unconsolidated (backfill/stockpile)
37
25
47
37
 
Note:  there are no haul roads located in the highwall therefore the inter-ramp angle is equivalent to the overall angle.
 

 13.4
Design Considerations
 
Coeur Rochester developed detailed pit designs and phase plans based on the economic pit limits and used these to generate a mining production schedule for both pits.  Coeur Rochester ran economic sensitivities and financial modeling on the tons, grades, and equipment hours in the production schedules.
 
Design input considerations are summarized in Table 13‑3.  Mine designs also assumed:
 

 •
Shift schedule: two-12-hour shifts/day, seven days/week, 52 weeks/year
 

 •
Operating standby time: 1.8 hours/shift.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑3:          Pit Design Assumptions
 
Item
Unit
Rochester
Nevada Packard
Bench height
ft
30
30
Catch bench vertical spacing
ft
30–60
60
Minimum mining width between phases
ft
120
240
Double lane haul road design width
ft
88
88
Single lane haul road design width
ft
65
65
Max haul road gradient
%
10
10
Rolling resistance
%
2
2
 
The final pit outlines are provided in Figure 13‑1 and Figure 13‑2 for Rochester and Nevada Packard, respectively.
 

 13.5
Blasting and Explosives
 
Blasting services are contracted out, and the contractor is responsible for obtaining and securing explosive agents, loading blast holes, and initiating the blasts.
 
Blast patterns and locations are designed by Coeur Rochester engineers and uploaded to an onboard GPS system in the drills. Blast hole drilling rigs are used to drill the typical square blast pattern of 16 x 16 ft on a 30 ft-high bench, with a 2 ft sub-drill.
 
Current blasting practices at the Rochester Operations employ the use of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO).  Emulsion blends are used where necessary.  Electronic detonators are used for initiating and timing the blast.  Stemming depth with crushed rock varies but is typically 14 to 15 ft deep.
 

 13.6
Grade Control and Production Monitoring
 
Samples for material routing are collected while the blast patterns are being drilled. The blast hole drill rigs use onboard GPS systems to ensure holes are drilled to correct design specifications. Drill hole cuttings are collected in a plastic sample bag that is attached to a through the deck sampler.  Hole numbers are written on the bags and delivered to the on site laboratory once per day.
 
Assay data from the blast hole samples is submitted to the Rochester engineering department where it is imported into Geovia GEMS mining software. Engineers create the ore control polygons within GEMS based on gold and silver grade as well as percent total sulfide.  Ore control shapes are staked in the field by the survey group as well as imported into the onboard grade control system in the loading equipment. Grade values estimated within the ore control polygons are compared against crusher sample grade values at the end of each month.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑1:          2021 Rochester LOM Pit Design (final pit outline)
 
 

Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑2:          2021 Nevada Packard LOM Pit Design (final pit outline)
 
 
Note: Figure Prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
The Rochester Operations engineering department also uses the Blast Movement Technologies Blast Movement Monitoring System in two to four blasts per month to quantify blast induced movement within ore polygons.  Directional transmitters are placed in unloaded drillholes spaced throughout the pattern, following a blast the transmitters are located using a detector and the location data are uploaded to BMM Explorer software which calculates the 3D movement of each BMM.  Ore control polygons are adjusted based on the movement estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

13.7
Waste Rock and Backfill
 
A waste rock management plan is included as part of the approved PoO.  All waste rock is placed either inside the pit perimeter as backfill, or outside the pit in approved WRSFs.  Waste rock is defined as material below cut-off; however, it can still contain some mineralization.  All waste rock is evaluated to determine if it is PAG.  If it is PAG, it is placed inside the West WRSF at a height of 50 ft above native topography and then covered with 20 ft of non-PAG material at closure.  Actual scheduled waste tons do not necessarily fill all locations to maximum capacity.
 
When mining activities necessitate removal of spent ore from existing leach pads, the spent ore is moved to one of the remaining heap leach pad facilities.
 

 13.8
Production Schedule
 
Coeur Rochester based the production schedules on equipment requirements and availability, crusher production requirements, and permit constraints.  A generalized long-range haul road network was used to develop cycle times for all major mining activities in both pits.  The primary scheduling objective was set to maximize the NPV; however, the software routine did not include capital costs and therefore the pits were optimized on operating costs only.
 
Production schedules use dynamic cut-off grade optimization with low-grade and sub-grade stockpiles available. In any given period, material that is above cut-off grade but still could be considered “low-grade” material can be sent to the appropriate stockpile.  If it can pay the rehandle cost, it is reclaimed as required to meet crusher throughput targets or with reclaim deferred to the end of the mine life.
 
The Rochester production schedule is provided in Table 13‑4 and Table 13‑5.  The Nevada Packard production schedule is provided in Table 13‑6.  The tables only include mineral reserve material reporting as ‘ore to crusher’.  Table 13‑7 shows the combined Rochester and Nevada Packard production schedule that is used in the cashflow analysis in Chapter 19.
 
Rochester annual crusher throughputs for 2022 through to Q3 2023 are based on the limitations of existing crushing facilities and are estimated at 13.9 Mst/a.  Crusher throughputs are anticipated to increase to 32.0 Mst/a with the addition of a new crushing system in 2023.  Rochester operations are expected to continue through 2034, a mine life of approximately 13 years.  Low-grade stockpiles will be processed through the crushing system primarily at the end of mine life in 2034.
 
The Nevada Packard production schedule for 2027 through Q1 2033 is based on an assumed crusher throughput of 6 Mst/a.  The anticipated LOM for the Nevada Packard deposit is roughly six years.  Nevada Packard stockpiles will be processed at the end of mine life in 2032 and 2033
 
The Rochester and Nevada Packard production profiles were used as the basis for the economic analysis discussed in Chapter 9
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑4:          Rochester LOM Production Schedule (2022–2028)
 
 
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Crusher ore
t x 1,000
11,602
14,937
29,644
30,048
30,137
30,860
30,225
To stockpile
t x 1,000
3,600
15,626
5,032
3,112
1,993
1,189
1,800
ROM ore
t x 1,000
5,411
205
36
190
870
308
679
Spent leach
t x 1,000
—
—
1,758
5,441
10,672
—
—
Waste
t x 1,000
3,668
10,259
10,395
5,080
14,812
5,800
23,965
Total mined tons
t x 1,000
24,281
41,028
46,865
43,870
58,485
38,157
56,669
Rehandle
t x 1,000
—
—
2,356
1,952
1,863
1,140
1,775
Total moved tons
t x 1,000
24,281
41,028
49,221
45,822
60,348
49,297
68,444
Crushed ore
t x 1,000
11,602
14,937
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
ROM ore
t x 1,000
5,411
205
36
190
870
308
679
Total placed ore
t x 1,000
17,013
15,143
32,036
32,190
32,870
32,308
32,679
Silver grade
oz/st
0.39
0.42
0.45
0.53
0.34
0.39
0.26
Placed silver
oz x 1,000
6,705
6,304
14,377
16,990
11,157
12,573
8,572
Gold grade
oz/st
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.002
Placed gold
oz x 1,000
56
46
75
99
84
124
58
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑5:          Rochester LOM Production Schedule (2029–2034)
 
 
Units
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
LOM
Total
Crusher ore
t x 1,000
29,236
32,000
28,014
32,000
30,921
—
329,623
To stockpile
t x 1,000
955
2,043
306
169
—
—
35,824
ROM ore
t x 1,000
101
102
662
445
432
—
9,442
Spent leach
t x 1,000
75
16,093
-
-
-
—
34,040
Waste
t x 1,000
7,775
14,598
56,092
10,269
19,189
—
181,903
Total mined tons
t x 1,000
38,142
64,837
85,073
42,883
50,542
—
590,832
Rehandle
t x 1,000
2,764
—
3,986
—
1,079
25,004
41,920
Total moved tons
t x 1,000
48,850
71,814
96,054
54,072
53,202
25,004
687,437
Crushed ore
t x 1,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
25,004
371,543
ROM ore
t x 1,000
101
102
662
445
432
—
9,442
Total placed ore
t x 1,000
32,101
32,102
32,662
32,445
32,432
25,004
380,985
Silver grade
oz/st
0.36
0.47
0.38
0.39
0.27
0.23
0.38
Placed silver
oz x 1,000
11,461
14,994
12,370
12,768
8,829
5,782
142,881
Gold grade
oz/st
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
Placed gold
oz x 1,000
69
74
78
102
86
40
991
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑6:          Nevada Packard LOM Production Schedule
 
 
Units
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Total
Crusher ore
t x 1,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
790
36,790
To stockpile
t x 1,000
2,079
2,958
869
0
—
—
—
5,907
ROM ore
t x 1,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Waste
t x 1,000
1,921
1,042
1,074
977
995
72
—
6,080
Total mined tons
t x 1,000
10,000
10,000
7,943
6,977
6,995
6,072
790
48,778
Rehandle
t x 1,000
—
—
—
—
—
5,117
790
5,907
Total moved tons
t x 1,000
10,000
10,000
7,943
6,977
6,995
11,189
1,581
54,685
Crushed ore
t x 1,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
790
36,790
ROM ore
t x 1,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total placed ore
t x 1,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
790
36,790
Silver grade
oz/st
0.44
0.74
0.63
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.28
0.50
Placed silver
oz x 1,000
2,670
4,410
3,765
2,652
2,624
2,018
224
18,363
Gold grade
oz/st
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
Placed gold
oz x 1,000
13
15
14
17
17
11
1
88
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑7:          Combined LOM Production Schedule, Rochester and Nevada Packard (2022-2028)
 
 
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Crusher ore
t x 1,000
11,602
14,937
29,644
30,048
30,137
36,860
36,225
To stockpile
t x 1,000
3,600
15,626
6,790
8,553
12,665
3,268
4,758
ROM ore
t x 1,000
5,411
205
36
190
870
308
679
Waste
t x 1,000
3,668
10,259
10,395
5,080
14,812
7,721
25,007
Total mined tons
t x 1,000
24,281
41,028
46,865
43,870
58,485
48,157
66,669
Rehandle
t x 1,000
-
-
2,356
1,952
1,863
1,140
1,775
Total moved tons
t x 1,000
24,281
41,028
49,221
45,822
60,348
49,297
68,444
Crushed ore
t x 1,000
11,602
14,937
32,000
32,000
32,000
38,000
38,000
ROM ore
t x 1,000
5,411
205
36
190
870
308
679
Total placed ore
t x 1,000
17,013
15,143
32,036
32,190
32,870
38,308
38,679
Silver grade
oz/st
0.39
0.42
0.45
0.53
0.34
0.40
0.34
Placed silver
oz x 1,000
6,705
6,304
14,377
16,990
11,157
15,242
12,982
Gold grade
oz/st
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.002
Placed gold
oz x 1,000
56
46
75
99
84
137
72
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑8:          Combined LOM Production Schedule, Rochester and Nevada Packard (2029-LOM)
 
 
Units
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
LOM
Total
Crusher ore
t x 1,000
35,236
38,000
34,014
38,000
31,711
0
366,414
To stockpile
t x 1,000
1824
2,043
306
169
0
0
41,731
ROM ore
t x 1,000
101
102
662
445
432
0
9,441
Spent leach
t x 1,000
75
16,093
0
0
0
0
34,039
Waste
t x 1,000
8,849
15,575
57,087
10,341
19,189
0
187,983
Total mined tons
t x 1,000
46,085
71,814
92,068
48,955
51,332
0
639,609
Rehandle
t x 1,000
2,764
0
3,986
5117
1,869
25,004
47,826
Total moved tons
t x 1,000
56,793
78,791
103,049
65,261
54,783
25,004
742,122
Crushed ore
t x 1,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
32,790
25,004
408,333
ROM ore
t x 1,000
101
102
662
445
432
0
9,441
Total placed ore
t x 1,000
38,101
38,102
38,662
38,445
33,222
25,004
417,775
Silver grade
oz/st
0.40
0.46
0.39
0.38
0.27
0.23
0.39
Placed silver
oz x 1,000
15,226
17,646
14,994
14,786
9,053
5,782
161,245
Gold grade
oz/st
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
Placed gold
oz x 1,000
83
91
95
113
87
40
1,079
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 

 13.9
Equipment
 
The LOM peak equipment list is provided in Table 13‑9.
 

 13.10
Personnel
 
Mining personnel requirements for the LOM total 175 persons.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑9:          LOM Equipment List
 
Item
Number of Units
Loading unit
4
Haul truck (160 st capacity)
29
Blasthole drill
4
Track dozer
4
Water truck
2
Road grader
3
Rubber tired dozer
1
Utility loader
1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
13-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
14.0          RECOVERY METHODS
 

 14.1
Process Method Selection
 
Silver and gold recovery at Rochester is via heap leach with a Merrill-Crowe process to recover metal from the leach solutions.
 
The process design was based on a combination of metallurgical test work, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the leach pads were operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 
The Limerick facility will use the same method to recover gold and silver as the Rochester facility.  A heap leach pad with a Merrill-Crowe process to recover the metal from the leach solutions.  This new facility will operate at a slightly increased capacity compared to the original Rochester plant but the processing methodology is the same.
 

 14.2
Flowsheet
 
A summary process flowsheet is included as Figure 14‑1 for Rochester and Figure 14-2 for Limerick.
 

 14.3
Process Plant
 

 14.3.1
Overview
 
From 1986 through mid-2019, Coeur used a three-stage crushing circuit with cone crushing in the tertiary position to produce a nominal ⅜-in product.
 
In 2019 Coeur adopted high-pressure grind roll crushing technology to replace cone crushers in the tertiary position. The product gradation and operational parameters of the high-pressure grind roll are being optimized for gradation, permeability, and recovery.  Crushed material, and at times ROM ore, is placed on heap leach pads.
 
The crushing circuit currently consists of a jaw crusher followed by cone crusher and an HPGR in the tertiary position.  The crusher is directly truck dump fed.  The HPGR product is conveyed to the loadout where it is loaded into haul trucks and truck dumped onto the Stage IV heap leach pad.
 
Cyanide heap leaching is used to extract silver and gold from the ore.  Metal-laden pregnant leach solution is then collected from a drain system and Merrill-Crowe processing is used to recover the precious metal.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14‑1:          Process Flowsheet, Rochester
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14-2: Process Flowsheet Limerick
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The Merrill-Crowe facility is operating and assumptions in this Report were made with reference to actual operational results.  Metal production is done using furnace flux-smelt refining.  Table 14‑1 summarizes the approximate total tons placed on Stage I, II, III, IV heap leach pads and future pad capacities.  Active leaching of new ore and metal recovery is currently taking place on the Stage II, III and IV heap leach pads from material produced through crushing and ROM placement.
 
Future processing facilities include the Limerick Merrill-Crowe process plant that is planned to be in operation from 2023 through approximately 2035.  This process plant is being sized for 13,750 gpm to process solution and recover ounces from the Stage VI leach pad facility, which has a design capacity of 300 Mst.
 

 14.3.2
Heap Leach Pads
 
Currently, there are four dedicated valley-fill heap leach pads, Stages I, II, III, and IV, at the Rochester mine.  The leach pads are typically constructed in 30–60 ft lifts with ultimate heights ranging from 200–400 ft above the pad liner.
 
Stages I and II are filled to their design capacity and Stage I has been recontoured and reclaimed with native topsoil and vegetation.  Stage II is periodically leached.
 
The Stage III leach pad has a final design capacity of approximately 90 Mst.  It is in the early residual leaching period, with no fresh ore currently being stacked.  Leaching is expected to continue for another 4–6 years.
 
An expansion to the existing Stage IV leach pad was completed in 2017 and fresh ore is currently being stacked on Stage IV.  Leaching on Stage IV is expected to continue for 4–6 years.
 
Future and expected leach pads to be constructed include Stage V and Stage VI expansions.  The Stage IV and V expansion permitting was approved in July 2016 as part of the tenth amendment to the POA (POA 10) expansion, but Stage V was deferred due to anticipated lower capacity than the Stage IV leach pad at similar financial costs.
 
As part of POA 11, the Stage VI leach pad is permitted to contain 300 Mst of material and be put into operation in 2023.  Stage VI has been engineered with sufficient capacity to contain all mineral reserves that are currently estimated within the LOM plan.  An additional expansion of the Stage IV and Stage VI pads is being contemplated to accommodate some additional tonnage towards the end of mine life (2032+) and will be permitted at a later date.
 
Leaching on the heap leach pads uses a cyanide solution that is applied via drip tube at a rate of ~0.004 gpm/ft2 and allowed to percolate down through the crushed material to extract metals.  Efficient silver extraction occurs at a pH near 10.0.  Metal-laden pregnant solution percolates downward to pad liner and migrates via gravity drain lines to a collection point.  The pregnant solution from each of the active leach pads is processed through a Merrill-Crowe plant.  Table 14‑2 summarizes the heap leach pad design criteria for Stage IV.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑1:          Approximate Heap Leach Volumes
 
Leach Pad Volume
Contained Tons
(Mst)
Design Tons
(Mst)
Remaining
Capacity
(%)
Stage I (complete)
23.8
23.8
0
Stage II (in-progress)
47.3
47.3
0
Stage III (in-progress)
91.8
91.8
0
Stage IV (in-progress)
153.3
180
15
Stage V (future)
0
50
100
Stage VI (future)
1.8
300
99
Nevada Packard (future)
0
60
100
Total
318
752.9
58
 

 14.3.3
Merrill-Crowe Plant
 
The Merrill-Crowe process is a separation method for removing dissolved metals from cyanide solution.  At the plant, leaf filter clarifiers remove suspended solid contaminants from the pregnant solution, and dissolved oxygen is removed using two vacuum de-aerator towers (Crowe towers).  Following clarification and de-aeration, zinc dust is added to the solution, causing precious metals to form solid precipitates.  Precious metal precipitates are separated from solution using plate and frame filter presses in the refinery operation.
 
The refining of metal begins when the metal precipitates are removed from the filter presses, placed into trays, and retorted to remove moisture and extract mercury.  Retorting is followed by batch flux-smelting using a propane-fired furnace.  Slag impurities are skimmed from the top of the molten metal and the final product is poured from the furnace into doré bars.
 
Since 2011, several improvements to the Merrill-Crowe plant were completed with the goal of increasing process capacity and recovery rates.  Over the course of the upgrades the process plant has improved in solution flow from 5,400 gpm to >12,000 gpm at improved gold and silver recovery rates of nearly 99% and 99% respectively from precious metal in solution.
 
Similar Merrill-Crowe processing will be incorporated into the POA 11 expansion for recovery of gold and silver from the Stage VI leach pad.  This process plant is being designed for 13,750 gpm and will operate from 2022 through 2038 which includes residual leaching in the years beyond active stacking of material on the leach pad.  Refining of precipitate and production of doré will take place at the existing refinery at Rochester.
 
The new processing facility will operate in the same manner as the Rochester facility; however, it will be sized to process an additional 1,750 gpm of solution.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑2:          Stage IV Heap Leach Pad Design Criteria
 
Parameter
Unit
Value
Capacity
st
300,000,000
Phases
  
3
Max depth to liner
ft
400
Leach cycle
Days
30
Max application rate
gal/min/ft2
0.005
Pregnant solution flow
gpm
13,750
 

 14.4
Equipment Sizing
 
Table 14‑3 summarizes the major process equipment for Rochester and Limerick.
 

 14.5
Power and Consumables
 
Power supply for the process areas is discussed in Chapter 15.6.
 
Auxiliary generators are located throughout the area.  Generator fuel is stored on the skids with the generators in secondary containment.
 
Updates to the existing Rochester power system are included under the scope of POA 11.  These updates include the installation of new power distribution lines and relocation of existing lines that interfere with planned LOM operations and facilities.
 
The current and future LOM estimated power requirements on an annual basis are shown in Table 14‑4.
 
There are currently three production wells that supply water to the process plant and storage tanks for dust abatement and other uses.  There is also a potable water well that supplies potable water to the site.  A water treatment plant, which was updated in 2014, processes potable water to ensure it is safe for consumption.
 
Major consumables include lime, cyanide and zinc. The plant also consumes anti-scalant, diatomaceous earth and refinery flux.
 

 14.6
Personnel
 
Current personnel requirements are approximately 67 persons for crushing and 70 persons for process.  As POA 11 comes online Coeur will require approximately 73 persons for crushing and 93 persons for process.  This ramp-up will occur over multiple years as equipment and processes are commissioned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑3:          Major Process Equipment
 
Rochester Plant and Leach
Rochester Crusher
Limerick Plant and Leach
Limerick Crusher
Press feed pump 1
Primary crusher
Press feed pump A
Gyratory
Press feed pump 2
Primary crusher MCC
Press feed pump B
Primary discharge CV
East Deaerator Pump
Metal removal MCC
Press feed pump C
Primary discharge apron FDR
West deaerator pump
Secondary crusher MP800
Press feed pump standby
Coarse ore stockpile CV
Barren booster pump
Secondary MCC
Vacuum pump A
Coarse ore stockpile reclaim CV
Clarifier feed pump
Secondary crusher MP1000
Vacuum pump B
Coarse Ore Reclaim Apron FDR
North vacuum pump
Old tertiary crusher MCC
Vacuum pump Standby
Secondary crusher (MP1000)
South vacuum pump
MRS apron feeder
Deaerator FDR pump A
Secondary crusher (MP1000)
Retorts
MRS CV-1
Deaerator FDR pump B
Secondary crushing product CV
Barren pump P1A
Primary apron feeder
Precoat pump
Secondary screen FDR #1
Barren pump P2
Primary A-belt
Barren wash pump
Secondary screen FDR #2
Barren pump P1B
Secondary vibrating grizzly
Preg pump A
Secondary screen #1
Stage IV north pump
Secondary feeder belt
Preg pump B
Secondary screen #2
Stage IV south pump
Secondary B-belt
Preg pump C
Secondary crushed reclaim CV
 
Secondary stacker
Preg pump D - standby
Secondary crushed reclaim FDR
 
Tertiary CV-104
Barren pump A
HPGR #1 feeder
 
Tertiary CV-105
Barren pump B
HPGR #2 feeder
 
Tertiary CV-106
Barren pump C
Tertiary HPGR #1 float motor
 
HPGR fixed drive motor
Barren pump D - standby
Tertiary HPGR #1 fixed motor
 
HPGR float drive motor
 
Tertiary HPGR #2 float motor
 
HPGR MCC Misc
 
Tertiary HPGR #2 fixed motor
 
Tertiary CV-107
 
Tertiary HPGR #1 cooler
 
Tertiary CV-108
 
Tertiary HPGR #2 cooler

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
 
Overland CV-118
 
Tertiary crushing product CV
 
Overland CV-119
 
Tertiary HPGR #1 hydraulic
 
Overland CV-120
 
Tertiary HPGR #2 hydraulic
 
Overland CV-121
 
Final Product Loadout CV
 
 
 
Final product loadout reclaim FDR

Note:  MCC = motor control center, CV = conveyor; FDR = feeder
 
Table 14‑4           Power Requirements
 
Location
Estimated Power in KWH
2022
2023
2024
Rochester crusher
31,113,027
24,771,715
-
Rochester process plant totals
10,804,122
9,263,509
9,288,888
Rochester leaching totals
36,020,307
23,263,850
9,319,739
Limerick crusher totals
—
21,761,324
73,067,796
Limerick process plant totals
—
7,604,046
16,565,956
Limerick leaching totals
—
13,197,038
31,569,386
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
14-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
15.0          INFRASTRUCTURE
 
The existing operations infrastructure includes:
 

 •
Two open pits (Rochester and Nevada Packard)
 

 •
Crusher and conveyor system;
 

 •
3 active heap leach pads (Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV), 1 reclaimed heap leach pad (Stage I), 1 heap leach pad under construction (Stage VI), and 1 permitted heap leach pad (Stage V);
 

 •
7 waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs);
 

 •
Powerlines;
 

 •
Production and monitoring water wells;
 

 •
Contingency ponds;
 

 •
Potable water treatment plant;
 

 •
Water pipelines;
 

 •
Site buildings, including:
 

 o
Administration offices;
 

 o
Security shacks;
 

 o
Maintenance buildings (crusher, process, electro/mechanical and mobile equipment);
 

 o
Warehouse;
 

 o
Ambulance barn;
 

 o
Laboratory (assay and metallurgical);
 

 o
Geology core shed;
 

 o
Merrill-Crowe processing plant;
 

 o
Refinery;
 

 •
Access, light vehicle, and haul roads;
 

 •
Consumables storage;
 

 •
Security and fencing;
 

 •
Explosives magazines;
 

 •
Upper and lower parking areas;
 

 •
Data and communications infrastructure.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Additional infrastructure that will be required to support the LOM plan as envisaged in the approved POA 11 consists of:
 

 •
Expansion of the existing permitted disturbance area by 2,815.4 acres;
 

 •
Expansion of the Rochester pit and the Nevada Packard pit.  The bottom of the Rochester pit will extend below groundwater;
 

 •
Removal of a portion of the existing Stage I heap leach pad and a portion of the Stage II heap leach pad, along with relocation of the existing solution pipelines and utilities from the Stage III heap leach pad to the existing process plant.  Spent ore will be relocated to one of the remaining heap leach pads;
 

 •
Expansion of the South and West WRSFs to provide 297 Mst of additional storage capacity and expansion of the Nevada Packard WRSF to add 45 Mst of waste rock storage capacity;
 

 •
Construction and operation of the Limerick Canyon Stage VI heap leach pad, designed to provide 300 Mst of leaching capacity, and the Nevada Packard heap leach pad that will accommodate 60 Mst of leaching capacity;
 

 •
Construction and operation of the Rochester Stage VI and Nevada Packard Merrill- Crowe process facilities, designed for an application rate on the heap leach pads of 13,750 gpm and 5,000 gpm, respectively;
 

 •
Construction and operation of the Stage VI crushing and screening facility, designed to handle 60,000 st of ore.  Associated infrastructure includes the Stage VI heap leach pad conveyor system, truck loadout, and ore stockpile;
 

 •
Installation of a crusher at Nevada Packard and construction and operation of a conveyor system, associated loadout, and ore stockpile;
 

 •
Construction and maintenance of new stormwater diversions sized to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm event, with sediment collection basins;
 

 •
Construction of a new Stage VI haul road to from the Stage IV heap leach pad to allow placement of material on the new heap leach plant;
 

 •
Construction of a barren distribution pipeline from the Stage IV heap leach pad to the proposed Stage VI barren line to respond to process solution demands, reduce the drain-down in existing heap leach pads, and improve closure efficiency.  The pipeline will follow the proposed Stage VI haul road corridor;
 

 •
Construction of a light vehicle access road from the Stage VI crushing and screening facility to the Stage VI truck loadout, and construction of a light vehicle access road along the perimeter of Stage VI heap leach pad from the truck loadout to the Stage VI process facility
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
Construction and maintenance of a haul road from the Nevada Packard pit to the Packard crushing and screening facility and a light vehicle access road from the Nevada Packard process facility to the existing access road northeast of the Nevada Packard pit;
 

 •
Widening and partial relocation of the existing Packard Flat Road;
 

 •
Installation of a new water conveyance pipeline from existing production wells to the closed process circuit and installation of a new production water well to support the Nevada Packard operations;
 

 •
Construction of six new growth media stockpiles;
 

 •
Upgrades to the electrical utility system to support the proposed infrastructure at Limerick Canyon and Nevada Packard;
 

 •
Construction and operation of ancillary facilities associated with the Limerick Canyon and Nevada Packard operations.
 
An infrastructure layout plan for the Rochester Operations is provided in Figure 2‑2.  Figure 15‑1 shows the layout of the proposed Stage VI heap leach and attached facilities as approved in POA 11.  Construction of a mine at Nevada Packard requires an additional, permitted, heap leach pad, the location of which is also shown in Figure 15‑1.
 

 15.1
Roads and Logistics
 
Rochester is accessed by a three-mile-long arterial branch of Unionville–Lovelock County Road.  This arterial branch leaves Unionville-Lovelock County Road nine miles from where the county road converges with Interstate 80 (I-80) at the Oreana–Rochester exit, which is located 13 miles north of Lovelock.  Pavement terminates at the security building and gate that controls access to the mine.  The county road is maintained for continuous access from I-80 to the security gate in all weather conditions by Coeur, and through a right-of-way agreement (N-042727) with the BLM and a road maintenance agreement with the Pershing County Road Department.
 
Active mining and processing areas are fenced to maintain perimeter safety and security.
 

 15.2
Stockpiles
 
Low-grade ore is stockpiled in the West WRSF and is segregated from the waste rock for potential future processing.  As at end 2021, the stockpile contained 6 Mst of low-grade material and had remaining capacity for an additional 19 Mst.  This capacity is sufficient for the LOM.
 
Material is truck dumped into the stockpile and managed with a track dozer.  Stockpiles are inspected regularly for geotechnical issues by mine operations supervisors and geotechnical engineers.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 15‑1:          POA 11 Authorized Facilities at Rochester
 
 
Note:  RDS = WRSF; HLP = heap leach pad.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

15.3
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
 
Seven WRSFs have been constructed.  These include the North, South, Charlie, East, West, Packard, and the low-grade stockpile.  All current material placement is conducted in accordance with the authorized Waste Rock Management Plan (WRMP) as discussed in Chapter 17.2.
 
Between 1995–2010, seven geochemical characterization studies of the waste rock from the Rochester Pit.  The purpose of these programs, which included standard acid-base accounting (ABA) via the LECO furnace method, net acid generation (NAG) pH testing, meteoric water mobility procedure testing, synthetic precipitation leaching procedure testing, and kinetic testing using humidity cells was to assess the potential for the waste rock placed in the WRSFs and the waste rock grade rock left in the pit walls to degrade Waters of the State.  Characterization studies were conducted to assess the geochemistry of waste rock and pit wall rock associated with the proposed POA 11 Rochester Pit and Packard Pit expansions and to determine if changes to the WRMP were required.
 
The existing South and West WRSFs are proposed to be expanded during POA 11 to accommodate placement of the waste rock associated with the Rochester Pit expansion.  The designed storage capacity of the South WRSF expansion will be approximately 163 Mst, while the West WRSF expansion will accommodate placement of an additional 134 Mst of waste rock, for a total WRSF capacity of approximately 297 Mst. Therefore, the capacity of the proposed WRSF expansions will be sufficient to store the estimated 220 Mst of waste rock generated by the proposed Rochester Pit expansion.
 
The WRSFs are constructed by end dumping in lifts to create slopes that stand at the natural angle of repose.  Approximately 255 Mst of waste rock were placed in the Rochester WRSFs; some portions have been and are planned to be re-mined as ore.  POA 11 includes expansions to existing WRSFs with sufficient capacity to handle all expected waste material over the LOM plan.
 

 15.4
Water Management
 
Rochester is a zero-discharge facility which means that any fluid that enter the process circuit are not discharged to outside sources.  Since there are no discharges, there are no water treatment plants on-site.  Non-contact stormwater is diverted around process components in permitted conveyances.
 
15.5
Water Supply
 
There are currently three production wells that supply water to the process plant and storage tanks for dust abatement and other uses.  There is also a potable water well that supplies potable water to the site.  A potable water treatment plant, which was updated in 2014 and 2019, processes potable water to ensure it is safe for consumption.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

15.6
Power and Electrical
 
Power is supplied by NV Energy via a 60 kV transmission line that runs through Rochester Canyon (ROW N-043389).  Power is distributed throughout the site under NV Energy rights-of way numbers N-065285 and N-058336.
 
Power is initially received at the Sage Hen substation and terminates at a second mine-site substation located in American Canyon.  Electrical power exits at 5 kV substation.  NV Energy is responsible for the maintenance of these Project area transmission lines and substations.  Step-down transformers are located at the crushing facilities, the maintenance shop and warehouse building, the process building, and several locations along the Stage III leach pad overland conveyor.  Motor control centers, which are located adjacent to these transformers, supply all additional electrical requirements.
 
Auxiliary generators are located throughout the area.  Generator fuel is stored on the skids with the generators in secondary containment.
 
Upgrades to the electrical utility system will be required to accommodate the proposed infrastructure associated with POA 11.  NV Energy’s existing 60 kV transmission line will need upgrades to meet the load increase associated with the proposed Limerick Canyon and Packard Flat process plants and associated crushing and conveying systems.  The existing American Canyon and Sage Hen Flat substations do not have the capacity to serve the load increases, and the 4160 V distribution voltage cannot provide rated voltage with the longer feeder lengths.
 
The proposed upgrade will include service from NV Energy’s 120 kV system at the Oreana substation and approximately 10 miles of new transmission line.  The proposed transmission line will follow the existing NV Energy 60 kV line that currently provides service to the mine, or another viable utility or transportation corridor to the Project area.  After the line reaches the Project area, it will be constructed within the proposed POA 11 boundary.
 
A new substation, the Panama substation, will be constructed in Limerick Canyon, on the west side of the proposed Stage VI heap leach pad.  The Panama substation will be located inside the proposed POA 11 boundary while still being outside of the mine fence to allow easy access by NV Energy and contract service workers for maintenance and repair.  The Panama substation will transform the upgraded 120 kV transmission voltage to the new upgraded 24.9 kV distribution voltage.  New power lines will be routed on the north side of the proposed Stage VI heap leach pad at Limerick Canyon.
 
Approximately 9.8 miles of new 24.9 kV power line will need to be constructed with fiber optic cable for communication and controls.  The new 24.9 kV distribution lines will supply power to all the major load locations including to the proposed Packard Flat process facility.  The Packard Flat distribution transformers will require one tap position to increase the output voltage to 2.5%.
 
The existing loads that are distributed from the American Canyon and Sage Hen Flat substations will be fed with 4160 V distribution transformers at the existing substation locations.  Approximately 10 new distribution transformers will be installed, nine with a 4160 V service and one with a 480 V service.
 
As a consequence of the proposed Stage VI heap leach pad construction and West WRSF expansion, 4.2 miles of power line will be removed.  Two 60 kV transformers at American Canyon and Sage Hen Flat substations, and six distribution transformers will also be removed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

15.7
Fuel
 
There are currently two fuel storage facilities.  The first facility includes one 7,050-gallon unleaded gasoline above-ground storage tank.  The second fuel storage facility is located at the ready-line west of the primary crusher and consists of three above-ground diesel fuel storage tanks, two with capacities of 10,000 gallons and one with a capacity of 50,000 gallons.  These tanks are located within a concrete secondary containment unit that is designed to contain at least 110% of the volume of the largest tank.  Two fuel stations (gasoline and dyed diesel) will be added to the Limerick area, and fuel storage facility will be added in the Packard Flat area.
 
Auxiliary generators are located throughout the area.  Generator fuel is stored on the skids with the generators in secondary containment.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
15-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
16.0          MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS


 16.1
Markets
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for the gold concentrate product from the Rochester Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for its key products.  Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
There are no agency relationships relevant to the marketing strategies used.
 
Product valuation is included in the economic analysis in Chapter 19, and is based on a combination of the metallurgical recovery, commodity pricing, and consideration of processing charges.
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty would not impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 

 16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 

 •
Mineral reserves:
 

 o
US$1,400/oz Au;
 

 o
US$20/oz Ag;
 

 •
Mineral resources:
 

 o
US$1,700/oz Au;
 

 o
US$22/oz Ag.
 
The economic analysis in Chapter 19 uses a reverting price curve.  All commodity prices are advised by the Coeur and revised as necessary throughout the budget and forecast process.  This guidance is used to keep all sites using the same basis for revenue.  The sites do not advise prices or deviate from the prices provided.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
16-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

16.3
Contracts
 
The Rochester Operations produce doré containing gold and silver, which is transported from the mine site to the refinery by a secure transportation provider.  Transportation costs, which consist of a fixed charge plus a liability charge based on the declared value of the shipment, equate to approximately $1.15/oz of material shipped.
 
Coeur Rochester has a contract with a U.S.-based refiner that refines the doré into gold and silver bullion to meet certain benchmark standards set by the London Bullion Market Association, which regulates the acceptable requirements for bullion traded in the London precious metals markets.  Coeur Rochester also uses a secondary refiner for the “slag” product, which is a by-product of the melting process that contains silver and gold that cannot be recovered by processes used by the primary refiner.  By agreement, penalties in the metal processing are incurred for quantities of elements above specific levels.  These elements include mercury, arsenic, lead, selenium nickel, zinc, iron and copper.  Quantities of these elements above non-penalty limits are not commonly found in the doré shipped to the refiner. There are no penalties, per se, imposed by the secondary refinery who handles the slag product.  If the material is above agreed limits of mercury it is returned to Coeur Rochester for treatment to reduce the mercury levels. The shipment and return cost is at Coeur Rochester’s expense.
 
Contract terms include: a treatment charge based on the weight of the doré bars received at the refinery; a metal return percentage applied to recoverable gold; a metal return percentage applied to recoverable silver; and, penalties charged for deleterious elements contained in the doré.  The total of these charges can range from $1.00–$1.50/oz of doré based on the silver and gold grades of the doré, as well as the contained amount of deleterious elements.
 
In addition to the contracted terms, there are other uncontracted losses experienced through the refining of the Rochester Operations doré, including the loss of precious metals during the doré melting process as well as differences in assays between Coeur Rochester and the refiner.  For the purposes of the cashflow analysis in Chapter 19, the QP assumed that uncontracted losses averaged $2.00–$4.00/oz doré received by the refiner.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, fuel, and drilling contractors.  Engineering, construction and commissioning of the POA 11 facilities and infrastructure are being completed by specialist contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
16-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
16.4
QP Statement
 
For the purposes of the gold and silver price forecasts used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, the QPs reviewed the corporate pricing provided by Coeur, and accepted these prices as reasonable.  The reviews included checking the pricing used in technical reports recently filed with Canadian regulatory authorities, pricing reported by major mining company peers in recent public filings, the current spot gold and silver pricing, and three-year trailing average pricing.
 
The US$1,400/oz Au and US$20/oz Ag prices are considered to be a reasonable forecast for the nine year mine life envisaged in the mine plan.  The US$1,700/oz Au and US$22/oz Ag mineral resource price is, as noted, selected to ensure that the mineral reserves are a subset of the mineral resources and assume that there is sufficient time in the nine-year mine life forecast for the mineral reserves for the mineral resources to potentially be converted to mineral reserves.
 
Overall, the QPs conclude that there is sufficient time in the nine-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecasts for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, test work and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates or upgrade the confidence categories that are currently assigned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
 
16-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
 

 17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for each mine permit obtained.
 
An initial PoO was approved by the BLM and NDEP in February 1986.  After the approval of the initial PoO, 11 amendments were submitted from 1988–2017, the most recent being POA 11.  POA 11 was considered complete by the BLM in September 2017, which initiated an EIS under NEPA.  A ROD was issued by the BLM on March 30, 2020.  A Reclamation Permit for the POA 11 expansion was issued by NDEP BMRR on November 5, 2020, with the surety bond in place with the BLM on November 25, 2020.
 

 17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
 

 17.2.1
Environmental Protection Measures
 
Design features were developed as a way of minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. These environmental protection measures are part of Coeur Rochester’s commitments for the mine operation.  Environmental protection measures have been implemented for:
 

 •
Cultural resources;
 

 •
Native American religious concerns;
 

 •
Paleontological resources;
 

 •
Survey monuments;
 

 •
Air quality;
 

 •
Drill hole abandonment;
 

 •
Noxious weeds and non-native weed species;
 

 •
Growth media management;
 

 •
Fire protection;
 

 •
Wildlife including Special Status Species and migratory birds;
 

 •
Safety and security;
 

 •
Waste management;
 

 •
Erosion, sedimentation, and surface water quality;
 

 •
Acid rock drainage;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
Spills and releases;
 

 •
Reclamation;
 

 •
Visual resources and lighting.
 
Table 17‑1 summarizes the various monitoring activities performed under the granted permits and plans.
 
The site groundwater and air monitoring are outlined in detail in the Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) #NEV0050037, the Class II Air Quality Operating Permit (AQOP) #AP1044-0063, and Mercury Operating Permit to Construct (MOPTC) #AP1044-2242.
 
Coeur Rochester currently manages waste rock as per the WRMP that was approved by the NDEP–BMRR.  All waste is reviewed and classified in accordance with the plan (Table 17‑2), and any PAG waste is placed as per the plan requirements.
 

 17.2.2
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the United States
 
On October 31, 2011, Coeur submitted a request for a Waters of the United States jurisdictional determination to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The 2011 survey mapped 1.36 acres of ephemeral drainages and 4.23 acres of wetlands as isolated features with no interstate commerce use.  On June 6, 2012, Coeur received concurrence that there are no waters regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the Project area and surrounding site.
 
An expanded survey completed by SRK in 2016 inventoried previously verified aquatic resources and additional aquatic resources not previously inventoried.  The new aquatic resources not previously inventoried include 199,979 linear feet of ephemeral drainages and 2.73 acres of wetlands.  The 2017 survey reaffirmed previous determinations that the Project area does not contain any jurisdictional Waters of the United States.
 
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a determination on October 16, 2018 that there are no Waters of the United States within and surrounding the Project area.  This determination is valid until October 16, 2023.
 
As the mine plans change, permits will be updated as required.  Air permits currently limit production through the crushing circuits to 21.9 Mst/a.  Based on historical experience, the QP considers it a reasonable expectation that this permit can be modified prior to the Limerick crusher becoming operational to meet operational rates.
 

 17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
Financial surety sufficient to reclaim mine and processing facilities is up to date and held by the BLM, the primary federal agency responsible for regulatory oversight.  The Reclamation Plan associated with the financial surety was updated in 2020 and accepted by both the BLM and NDEP–BMRR.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑1:          Monitoring Components, Permit, Plans and Agencies
 
Monitoring Component
Permit/Plan and Agency
Air quality
Throughput, Emissions, Fuel Use, and Stack Testing
NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Solid waste
Landfill Visual Inspections (when in use)
NDEP Solid Waste Branch
Hazardous waste
90-Day Storage Area Weekly Visual Inspections
Satellite Storage Area Weekly Visual Inspections
RCRA Container Storage Area Weekly Visual Inspections
NDEP Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management
Explosives
Weekly Visual Magazine Inspection
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Water
Process Water, Surface Water and Groundwater Quality and Quantity
NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
Inspection of Stormwater BMPs
NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Water Usage
Nevada Division of Water Resources
Noxious weeds
Periodic Noxious Weed Surveys and Weed Management Plan
BLM – under the Plan of Operations
Reclamation
Reclamation Revegetation Success
NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation – under the Reclamation Permit
BLM – under the Plan of Operations
Slope stability
Visual Inspections
BLM and NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
Waste and ore rock chemistry
Waste Rock and Ore Analysis
NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
BLM – under the Plan of Operations
Wildlife
Wildlife Mortality
Wildlife Protection Measures (fencing, bird balls, barriers)
Nevada Department of Wildlife
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑2:          Rochester Pit Waste Rock Management Procedures
 
Classification
Management
PAG
Ex-pit WRSFs – encapsulate with non-PAG
In-pit WRSFs above saturated zone1 – encapsulate with non-PAG
Non-PAG
Ex-pit WRSFs
In-pit PAG encapsulation amended to achieve ANP:AGP > 3
In-pit WRSFs above saturated zone1
Used as construction material
Non-PAG
w/< 0.05 wt% Total Sulfur
Ex-pit WRSFs
In-pit PAG encapsulation without amendment
In-pit WRSFs above saturated zone1
Pit backfill within saturated zone1 amended to achieve ANP:AGP > 3
Used as construction material
 
Note:  1.  Saturated zone within pit is defined as the area below the pre-mining groundwater elevation (6,175 ft amsl).
 
The reclamation cost estimate for Rochester Operations is approximately $163.7 M based on the 2020 Reclamation Cost Estimate.  There is an additional approximate $11.4 M added to account for new disturbances within Nevada Packard.  This would bring the total reclamation cost estimate to approximately $175.1 M using 2021 cost models.
 
Coeur is required to provide an Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) estimate under Internal Financial Reporting Standards, IAS 16.  Reclamation and closure activities are established by mine operation permits and in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.  POA 11 Standardized Reclamation Cost Estimator (SRCE), a regulatory agency-approved model used for calculation of bonding requirements, was used for the 2021 ARO liability statements.
 
The total estimated cost, which is still under review, to reclaim the Rochester Mine in its current configuration is $135.5 M.
 
The facility-wide reclamation plan is a combination of site-specific reclamation plans for each part of the mine facility that are required under the PoO for closure (Knight Piesold, 2013).  Coeur also has an approved Final Plan for Permanent Closure.  The Final Plan for Permanent Closure has the objective for a secure, low-risk closure, that maximizes as much as practical the reliance upon passive management in closure to return the mine to a sustainable, productive post-mining land use.  This encompasses a strategy of source flow minimization for the heap leach pads using two different types of covers to reduce drain down to a quantity that can be managed on-site, in evaporation cells, and with provision of pumping capability under contingency circumstances.  The Final Plan for Permanent Closure will be periodically reviewed, updated, and submitted to NDEP and BLM for approval; during this process the need for various included elements, such as pumping capability, will be revisited and changes made in response to collection and review of new field data.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

17.4
Permitting
 

 17.4.1
Current Permits
 
The Rochester mine has been in operation since 1986 and obtained the required environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies.  Table 17-3 presents a list of the active permits, authorizations and approvals maintained by Coeur for the Project area.
 
Operational standards and best management practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable county, state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 

 17.4.2
POA 11
 
Early works construction began in September 2020 in Limerick Canyon and the construction will be completed in stages.
 

 17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur Rochester has consistently positively impacted the local community and its economy for more than 30 years.  The operations generate nearly 1,000 direct and indirect jobs, making it the largest employer in Pershing, County.
 
In 2021, Coeur developed a Communication, Community & Government Engagement Strategy to develop new relationships with local communities and leverage existing support during permit actions or other activities influenced by public opinion.
 
Coeur Rochester supports future local leaders through multiple partnerships, including Lowry High School, Nevada Mining Association's Educational Committee, and Build NV.  In addition to scholarship funds, Coeur is helping to develop programs that will prepare students for the workforce.
 
The Nevada Mining Association's Educational Committee equips teachers to educate their students about modern mining while meeting educational standards.  Lowry High School efforts include career expositions to job-shadowing opportunities. Additionally, Coeur Rochester awards scholarships to high school students across the region.
 
The company is committed to helping preserve Native American cultural heritage while developing mutually beneficial partnerships. Rochester has also assisted tribes in obtaining vital personal protective equipment to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.
 
Coeur Rochester helped clean up several properties in Lovelock increasing the opportunity for reinvestment.  The company also completed an agreement with the Lovelock Meadows Water District related to the operation’s impact on water users or the environment.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑3:          Active Permits and Approvals
 
Agency
Permit or Approval
Expiration Date
NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Class II Air Permit #AP1044-0063
April 6, 2025
Mercury Control Program #AP1044-2242
Life of Project
Surface Area Disturbance Permit #AP1629-4340
February 11, 2026
NDEP Bureau of Air Quality Planning
Open Burn Variances
Applied for as needed
NDEP Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
Reclamation Permit #0087 (Rochester)
Life of Project
Reclamation Permit #0270 (Wilco Exploration)
Life of Project
Water Pollution Control Permit #NEV0050037
July 1, 2025
NDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
Public Water System #PE-3076-12NTNC
Annual renewal (Oct)
Potable Water Treatment System Permit #PE-3076-TP02-12NTNC
Annual renewal (Oct)
Temporary Potable System for POA 11 Construction #PE-0006603-20A
Annual renewal (Oct)
NDEP Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management
Hazardous Waste ID #NVD-986767572
Life of Project
Solid Waste Class III Landfill Waiver #SWMI-14-30
Life of Project
NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution Control
General Stormwater Permit #NVR300000-MSW166
February 28, 2018 (Administratively continued by NDEP)
General Septic Permit #GNEVOSDS09-L0028
 
May 8, 2014 (Administratively continued by NDEP)
Temporary Septic Holding Tanks Permit POA 11 Project Trailer #GNEVTHT09-0018
February 26, 2022
Temporary Septic Holding Tanks Permit POA 11 Washrooms & Breakrooms #GNEVTHT09-0019
December 14, 2021
Permanent Septic Holding Tank Permit to Construct - Process Facilities #GNEVPHT09-0034
May 14, 2022
Permanent Septic Holding Tank Permit to Construct - Primary Crushing Control Room #GNEVPHT09-0033
May 14, 2022

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Agency
Permit or Approval
Expiration Date
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Industrial Artificial Pond Permit Rochester #40341
June 30, 2025
Industrial Artificial Pond Permit Limerick #40632
April 30, 2026
Nevada Division of Water Resources
Water Right #87503 (Well PW-2B)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2022
Water Right #87509 (Well PW-4A)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2022
Water Right #87504 (Well PW-3A)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2024
Water Right #87505 (C-4 Corridor)
Life of Project – POC & PBU EOT due July 31, 2023
Water Right #87506 (SAC)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2024
Water Right #87507 (CBC)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2024
Water Right #87508 (Well PW-1B)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2022
Water Right #81234 (New Packard)
Life of Project – POC & PBU EOT due Sept. 4, 2023
Water Right #81235 (Packard Well)
Life of Project – PBU EOT filed Sept. 15, 2021
Water Right #87510 (Stage V Underdrain)
Life of Project – POC & PBU EOT due July 31, 2023
Water Right #87511 (Stage IV Underdrain)
Life of Project - PBU EOT due July 31, 2024
Temporary Water Right #91142T
Filed Sept. 17, 2021
Temporary Water Right #91143T
Filed Sept. 17, 2021
Temporary Water Right #91144T
Filed Sept. 17, 2021
Stage III Contingency Pond Dam Safety Permit #J-721
Life of Project
Stage V Contingency Pond Dam Safety Permit to Construct #J-723
February 4, 2022
Stage VI Contingency Pond Dam Safety Permit to Construct #J-771
April 9, 2022
Temporary Discharge Waiver #DW-177
June 25, 2022
Nevada Board for the Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Class 5 License #5-3875-01
Annual renewal (Jan)
Nevada State Fire Marshall
Hazardous Materials Permit #FDID 14000
Annual renewal (Feb)

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Agency
Permit or Approval
Expiration Date
Nevada State Business License
Business License #NV19851018129
Annual renewal (Oct)
Pershing County Business License
Business License #5270
Annual renewal (Jun)
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District Office
Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Casefile #NVN-064629
Life of Project
Reclamation Bond NVN-064629
Life of Project
Lincoln Hill Exploration Plan of Operations Casefile #NVN-100074
Undergoing NEPA
ROW – Microwave Comm Site #NVN-050235
December 31, 2050
ROW – Access Road #NVN-042727
December 31, 2035
Notice – Buena Vista Playa Exploration #NVN-089944
July 24, 2022
Notice – Gold Ridge #NVN-089244
Expired – Not released
Notice – Lincoln Hill Exploration #NVN-098613
September 14, 2023
Programmatic Agreement - Cultural Resources
Life of Project
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jurisdictional Determination #SPK-2000-25123
October 16, 2023
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
User of Explosives Permit #9-NV-027-33-3E-92862
May 1, 2022
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Hazardous Materials Transportation General Permit HM Company ID #051785
June 30, 2024
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Toxic Release Inventory #89419CRRCH180EX - Form R’s
Annual Report (July 1)
Toxic Substances Control Act - Form U’s
September 30, 2026
(Report)
RCRA #NVD-986767572 – EPA Hazardous Waste ID Number
Life of Project
RCRA #NVD-986767572 - Biennial Report
March 1, 2022
Biennial report
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
Radio Station Authorization - Call sign #WNFH594
December 18, 2030
Microwave Authorization - Call sign #WQWW580
December 9, 2025
Microwave Authorization - Call sign #WQWW582
December 9, 2025
Microwave Authorization - Call sign #WQWW583
December 9, 2025
Microwave Authorization - Call sign #WQWW584
December 9, 2025
Radio Service - Call sign #WQGA721
November 29, 2021
Radio Service - Call sign #WQIZ530
August 27, 2026
 

 17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
 
Based on the information provided to the QP by Coeur (see Chapter 25), there are no material issues known to the QP that will require mitigation activities or allocation of remediation costs in respect of environmental, permitting, closure or social license considerations.
 
There are no environmental studies disclosing adverse effects known to the QP that would impact the ability to extract the mineral resources or mineral reserves.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
17-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
 

 18.1
Introduction
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The Rochester Operations have been in production since 1986 using the same mining and processing methods and the site has a history of successful project expansion.
 

 18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
 

 18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
 
The basis of the capital estimates is derived from expected equipment needs and project plans and are determined with the assistance of vendor quotes, previous buying experience and/or experience with construction of similar projects.  The capital cost estimate includes consideration of historical capital cost estimates.
 
Labor assumptions for capital projects are based on third-party contractor costs, internal employee wage rates plus benefits, or a combination of the two.
 
Material costs are based on current prices for consumables with no market or inflation rate assumed.  POA 11 capital was re-baselined in 2021 to adjust for schedule delay and addition of tertiary pre-screening.
 
Major LOM capital costs include, but are not limited to, POA 11 crusher, Merrill-Crowe plant, heap leach pad construction, new crusher, and other infrastructure improvements.
 
The POA 11 mine expansion is expected be completed in 2023.  Development of the Nevada Packard mine is expected to break ground in 2025 with production commencing in 2027.  This mine will also include a new crusher, Merrill-Crowe plant, heap leach facility, mobile equipment and supporting infrastructure.
 
There is additional expansion capital planned for the construction of a new satellite crushing plant, Merrill-Crowe plant, leach pads, and infrastructure for Nevada Packard in 2025-2026, with planned commencement of production in 2027.
 
Sustaining mine capital costs consist of capital expenditures required to overhaul or replace mining equipment, access or preventative access to the mine property.
 
Process sustaining capital costs are solely capital expenditures required to maintain or increase processing plant capacity, crushing plant repairs and replacements, expand leach pads,  and repair or replace leach system components.
 
Infrastructure capital costs are limited to minor new construction or additions to existing facilities, i.e., employee break rooms, warehouse, offices, etc.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
18-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Other sustaining capital costs consist of technology related purchases, light vehicles, and other general or administrative expenditure.
 
Capital needs and timing are subject to change with the needs of the mine plan.
 

 18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
 
Capital expenditure for the LOM is estimated at US$641 M and is shown in Table 18‑1.
 

 18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
 

 18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
 
Operating costs were developed based on historical cost performance and first principal calculations based on current commodity costs, labor rates, and equipment costs.  The costs are provided for each major cost center: mining, processing, selling expense, and G&A.
 
Consolidated mining costs, including Rochester and Nevada Packard, were based on the total costs to mine all ore and waste material as well as the internal stockpile rehandle costs where applicable and includes delivery to the crusher or stockpile destination.  This includes drilling, blasting, loading, haulage, and mobile maintenance.  Unit costs generally decrease over time due to economies of scale associated with higher production rates.  There are fluctuations in costs depending on the ore source and the specific haulage requirement of the time.  Mining costs decrease at the end of mine life due to mining of stockpile only.
 
Process costs include crushing (primary, secondary, and tertiary), conveyors, placement of crushed ore onto leach pads with trucks, and leaching of the ore.  Operating costs decrease once the Limerick Canyon crusher is commissioned, and production rate is scaled to 32.0 Mst/a.
 
G&A costs include overhead costs, purchasing, warehousing, safety, environmental, accounting, IT, and other indirect costs.  G&A costs are generally flat across the mine life, but there is a slight increase during the construction of POA 11.
 
Selling expenses include treatment and refining costs of the doré and product transport.
 

 18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
 
Operating costs are summarized in Table 18‑2.  The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$2,247.3M or US$5.38/t placed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
18-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 18‑1:          Estimated Capital Expenditures by Year ($k)
 
Years
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
POA 11/Development
237,356
151,114
              
Sustaining
27,850
45,449
32,624
55,800
28,679
21,530
4,689
1,680
1,744
Nevada Packard
      
7,305
41,394
359
359
359
359
New Leases
(32,245)
                
Total
232,961
196,563
32,624
63,105
70,073
21,889
5,048
2,039
2,103
Years
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
Total
POA 11/Development
                
388,470
Sustaining
8,695
1,619
1,700
1,500
        
233,559
Nevada Packard
359
359
359
          
51,212
New Leases
                
(32,245)
Total
9,054
1,978
2,059
1,500
        
640,996
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
18-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 18‑2:          Operating Costs by Year
 
Years
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Mining
$US (1,000)
46,021
59,732
68,656
64,648
81,575
71,916
94,129
70,171
97,726
$/st moved
1.90
1.46
1.39
1.41
1.35
1.46
1.38
1.44
1.36
Process
$US (1,000)
60,201
65,016
74,159
71,679
67,936
80,098
80,662
81,666
82,341
$/st placed
3.54
4.29
2.31
2.23
2.07
2.09
2.09
2.14
2.16
G&A
$US (1,000)
21,503
21,654
22,280
22,600
21,944
22,972
22,326
22,314
22,804
$/st placed
1.26
1.43
0.70
0.70
0.67
0.60
0.58
0.59
0.60
Selling Cost
$US (1,000)
1,205
1,422
2,240
2,829
2,834
2,084
2,035
2,367
2,885
Total Operating Costs
$US (1,000)
128931
147,823
167,335
161,819
174,289
177,070
199,152
176,517
205,775
$/st placed
7.58
9.76
5.22
5.03
5.30
4.62
5.15
4.63
5.40
Years
  
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
Total
Mining
$US (1,000)
125,072
71,804
71,649
27,417
        
949,796
$/st moved
1.30
1.31
1.35
1.10
        
1.38
Process
$US (1,000)
81,313
83,235
70,248
53,202
13,947
6,626
2,126
2,133
976,624
$/st placed
2.10
2.17
2.11
2.13
        
2.34
G&A
$US (1,000)
22,038
22,358
21,296
19,293
2,749
915
692
374
290,112
$/st placed
0.57
0.58
0.64
0.77
        
0.69
Selling Cost
$US (1,000)
2,671
2,772
2,093
1,795
1,148
211
17
1
30,027
Total Operating Costs
$US (1,000)
230,551
179,349
165,286
101,706
17,844
7,752
2,872
2,508
2,246,559
$/st placed
5.96
4.67
4.98
4.07
        
5.38

Note:  Numbers have been rounded.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
18-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
18.4
QP Statement
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  The estimate accuracies and ranges comply with the stated accuracy and contingency ranges required to meet a pre-feasibility level of study under SK1300.  The QPs considered the risks associated with the engineering estimation methods used when stating the accuracy and contingency ranges and preparing the cost estimate forecasts.
 
The capital and operating cost estimates are presented for an operating mine, with a 37-year production history.  Analogues to prior similar environments are not relevant to the Rochester Operations given the production history and that the mine was in production as at year-end December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
18-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
 

 19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 

 19.2
Methodology Used
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model, which was built on a zero-based budgeting process that was validated through a historical cost comparison from the previous financial year. All the figures in this section are LOM averages and may vary from year to year depending on capital and production needs.
 

 19.3
Financial Model Parameters
 
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
 
The mineral resources are discussed in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserves in Chapter 12.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of 13 years to 2034.
 
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
 
Forecast metallurgical recoveries are provided in Chapter 10.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
 
Smelting and refining terms for the gold and silver dore are outlined in Chapter 16.
 
19.3.4
Metal Prices
 
Metal price assumptions are provided in Chapter 16.
 
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
 
Capital and operating cost forecasts price assumptions are outlined in Chapter 18.
 
19.3.6
Working Capital
 
Working capital is based upon historical trends for movement in payables and receivables.  This is adjusted year over year for changes in spending levels.  Inventory movement is also adjusted annually for production levels. In future years the working capital is adjusted from recent historical values based upon the timing of the remaining mine life.
 
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
 
Royalties are discussed in Chapter 3.7.  With the use of the reserve metal pricing or with the metal price assumptions used in the evaluation model, the Asarco royalty is not being triggered at this time.
 
Mining companies doing business in Nevada are primarily subject to the Net Proceeds of Minerals Tax, sales and use tax, tax on real property and personal property, and employer unemployment insurance contributions (Table 19‑1).  The state of Nevada has no corporate income tax.  Recently, the State of Nevada has added a revenue-based excise tax on gold and silver.
 
Currently, Coeur pays no federal income tax due to historic net operating losses.
 

 19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
 
The 2021 year-end closure assessment for the actual disturbance for final reclamation at the Rochester Operations, is estimated at US$175.1 M and is discussed in Chapter 17.4.  No salvage value is assumed or included in the economic analysis
 
19.3.9
Financing
 
The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑1:          Tax Rates for Primary Taxes
 
Tax Type
Tax Rate
Net Proceeds of Minerals Tax
5%
Sales & Use Tax
7.1%
Nevada Unemployment Insurance Rate
1.5% for wages up to $26,900
Mining Property Tax
3.0968%
Modified Business Tax
1.17% on total wages more than $62,500
NV Gold and Silver Mining Excise Tax
0.75% of revenue above $20 million upto $150 million
1.1% of revenue above $150 million
 
19.3.10
Inflation
 
The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
19.4
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV5% is $348.1 M.  As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk to December 31, 2021, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
A summary of the financial results is provided in Table 19‑2.  An annualized cashflow statement is provided in Table 19‑3 and Table 19‑4.
 
The active mining operation ceases in 2034; however, closure costs are estimated to 2039.
 

 19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, exchange rate, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 20% above and below the base case values.  The NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 19‑4.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal prices, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs.  Grade sensitivity mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑2:          Cashflow Summary Table ($M)
 
 
LOM Total
Gross Revenue
3,800.2
Operating Costs
Mining
(949.8)
Process
(976.6)
G&A
(290.1)
Selling
(30.0)
Total Operating Costs
(2,246.6)
Other Costs
(1.2)
Operating Cashflow
1,552.5
Capital Expenditures
(641.0)
Reclamation
(175.1)
Cash Flow bef. Taxes
736.4
Tax
(48.9)
Total Free Cash Flow
687.5
NPV (5%)
348.1
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑3:          Annualized Cashflow (2022–2035) ($M)
 
 
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Gross Revenue
146.2
191.9
259.4
330.3
349.1
290.3
260.4
279.5
331.6
247.7
333.3
276.6
297.8
172.6
Operating Costs
                            
Mining
(46.0)
(59.7)
(68.7)
(64.6)
(81.6)
(71.9)
(94.1)
(70.2)
(97.7)
(125.1)
(71.1)
(71.6)
(27.4)
0.0
Process
(60.2)
(65.0)
(74.2)
(71.7)
(67.9)
(80.1)
(80.7)
(81.7)
(82.3)
(81.3)
(83.2)
(70.2)
(53.2)
(13.9)
G&A
(21.5)
(21.7)
(22.3)
(22.6)
(21.9)
(23.0)
(22.3)
(22.3)
(22.8)
(22.0)
(22.4)
(21.3)
(19.3)
(2.7)
Selling
(1.2)
(1.4)
(2.2)
(2.9)
(2.8)
(2.1)
(2.0)
(2.4)
(2.9)
(2.1)
(2.7)
(2.1)
(1.8)
(1.1)
Total Operating Costs
(128.9)
(147.8)
(167.3)
(161.8)
(174.3)
(177.1)
(199.2)
(176.5)
(205.8)
(230.6)
(179.3)
(165.3)
(101.7)
(17.8)
Other Costs
(0.9)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
Operating Cashflow
16.4
44.0
92.1
168.5
174.8
113.2
61.2
103.0
125.8
17.1
153.9
111.3
196.1
154.8
Capital Expenditures
(233.0)
(196.6)
(32.6)
(63.1)
(70.1)
(21.9)
(5.0)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(9.1)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(1.5)
0.0
Reclamation
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(1.5)
(2.1)
(12.0)
(13.3)
(14.1)
(17.7)
(16.8)
(7.8)
(4.8)
(7.4)
Cash Flow bef. Taxes
(216.6)
(152.6)
59.4
105.4
103.2
89.2
44.2
87.6
109.6
(9.6)
135.2
101.4
189.8
147.4
Tax
(11.5)
(7.6)
0.1
(3.1)
(4.6)
(1.6)
(1.2)
(0.5)
(0.2)
(1.3)
0.6
(1.0)
(7.3)
(7.4)
Total Free Cash Flow
(228.1)
(160.2)
59.6
102.3
98.5
87.7
43.0
87.0
109.4
(10.9)
135.8
100.5
182.5
140.0
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑4:          Annualized Cashflow (2036–2040) ($M)
 
 
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
LOM
Gross Revenue
30.9
2.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
3,800.2
Operating Costs
            
Mining
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(949.8)
Process
(6.6)
(2.2)
(2.1)
(0.0)
0.0
(976.6)
G&A
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.4)
0.0
0.0
(290.1)
Selling
(0.2)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
0.0
(30.0)
Total Operating Costs
(7.8)
(2.9)
(2.5)
(0.0)
0.0
(2,246.6)
Other Costs
(0.0)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(1.2)
Operating Cashflow
23.2
(0.4)
(2.4)
0.0
0.0
1,552.5
Capital Expenditures
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(641.0)
Reclamation
(4.9)
(12.0)
(11.9)
(11.3)
(37.5)
(175.1)
Cash Flow bef. Taxes
18.3
(12.4)
(14.2)
(11.3)
(37.5)
736.4
Tax
(2.3)
0.0
(0.0)
(0.1)
0.0
(48.9)
Total Free Cash Flow
15.9
(12.4)
(14.3)
(11.4)
(37.5)
687.5
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑5:          NPV Sensitivity ($M)
 
Parameter
-20%
-10%
-5%
 Base
5%
10%
20%
Metal price
(144.8)
101.8
224.9
348.1
470.0
591.5
833.2
Operating cost
 661.3
 505.2
426.8
348.1
268.7
189.3
30.4
Capital cost
459.6
403.9
376.0
348.1
320.1
292.0
235.9
Grade
(156.5)
96.0
222.0
348.1
 472.9
597.4
844.5
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
19-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
20-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
21-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
 

 22.1
Introduction
 
The QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions within their areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Report.
 

 22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
The operating entity is Coeur Rochester.
 
The entire Project area covers 17,004 net acres, consisting of 761 owned and 13 leased federal unpatented lode claims and six (6) owned federal unpatented placer claims, totalling 11,625 net acres of public land owned and 269 net acres of public land leased, in total 11,894 acres of public land; 21 patented lode claims consisting of 357 acres; and interests owned in 4,793 gross acres of additional real property.
 
The federal mining claims and fee lands provide Coeur with the required surface rights to support the LOM plan.
 
The mineral tenures are subject to a number of royalties; however all but one is outside the LOM plan area.  There is a royalty payable to Asarco that is based on the “adjusted price of silver”.
 
Agreements are in place for road maintenance and there is a current pipeline, electric power line, and telephone line license.  Rights-of way-were conveyed by the BLM to Coeur and have a 30-year term, which is renewable.
 
Coeur holds water rights in the Buena Vista Valley Hydrographic Sub-Basin and the Packard Valley Sub-Basin.  The water right permits held by Coeur are sufficient to operate under the current LOM plan.
 

 22.3
Geology and Mineralization
 
Mineralization in the Rochester district exhibits characteristics of both low-sulfidation and intermediate-sulfidation precious metal systems, complicated by supergene enrichment processes and significant oxidation.
 
The geological understanding of the settings, lithologies, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization is sufficient to support estimation of mineral resources.
 

 22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
 
The exploration programs completed by Coeur to date and predecessor companies are appropriate for the mineralization styles.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
The quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and down-hole survey data collected in the exploration program completed are sufficient to support mineral resource estimation.  No drilling, sampling, or core recovery issues that could materially affect the accuracy or reliability of the core samples have been identified.
 
The collected sample data adequately reflect deposit dimensions, true widths of mineralization, and the deposit style.
 
Sampling is representative of the gold and silver values, reflecting areas of higher and lower grades.
 
The independent analytical laboratories used by Coeur and predecessor companies, where known, are accredited for selected analytical techniques.
 
Sample preparation has used procedures and protocols that are/were standard in the industry and has been adequate throughout the history of the Project.  Sample analysis uses procedures that are standard in the industry.
 
The QA/QC programs adequately address issues of precision, accuracy and contamination, and indicate that the analytical results are adequately accurate, precise, and contamination free to support mineral resource estimation.
 
The sample preparation, analysis, and security procedures are adequate for use in the estimation of mineral resources.
 

 22.5
Data Verification
 
The QP personally undertook selected QA/QC verification and participated in programs to verify selected drill data prior to mineral resource estimation.  The QP also works on site and is familiar with the ongoing operations.
 
The data verification programs concluded that the data collected from the Project adequately support the geological interpretations and constitute a database of sufficient quality to support the use of the data in mineral resource estimation.
 
For a portion of the drilling in the Nevada Packard stockpile area where no physical collar or downhole surveys were conducted, the confidence classification for blocks not supported by other drill holes was restricted to inferred.
 

 22.6
Metallurgical Test Work
 
The Rochester Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays process solutions, crusher and run-of-mine (ROM) ore samples, and refinery samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for column leach test, bottle roll tests, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
Current and ongoing metallurgical test work confirms the material to be mined presents a similar response to the heap leaching process to previously mined ores.  The ultimate metal recovery assumptions are derived from historic and actual performance of the leaching operation, historical and ongoing metallurgical test work, and use of heap leach modeling tools.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Forecast metallurgical recoveries range from 27.1–61.4% Ag and 71.2–95.9% Au, depending on geological characteristics and crush size.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and test work, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 

 22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
 
The mineral resource estimate is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300, and is reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ or in stockpiles.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
The estimate is primarily supported by RC drilling.  The estimate was constrained using reasonable prospects of economic extraction that assumed open pit mining methods.  Stockpiled material also supports estimation.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; additional drilling, which may change confidence category classification in the pit margins from those assumed in the current pit optimization; additional sampling that may redefine the silver and/or gold grade estimates in certain areas of the resource estimation; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for open pit mining or stockpile rehandling constraining the estimates; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate
 

 22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
The mineral reserve estimate is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300.  The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources using a detailed pit design and block model.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume open pit mining, and a conventional truck and loader fleet.  Mining rates are predominantly dictated by the crusher throughput.  Break-even cut-offs are:
 

 •
Rochester:  oxide:  US$2.55/st; sulfide US$2.65/st;
 

 •
Nevada Packard:  oxide:  US$3.70/st.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  predicted commodity prices; metallurgical recovery forecasts; operating cost assumptions; geotechnical and hydrological assumptions; and permitting and social license assumptions.
 

 22.9
Mining Methods
 
The current geotechnical design configurations were based on recommendations from third-party experts.
 
Rochester annual crusher throughputs for 2022 through to Q3 2023 are based on the limitations of existing crushing facilities and are estimated at 13.9 Mst/a.  Crusher throughputs are anticipated to increase to 32.0 Mst/a with the addition of a new crushing system in 2023.
 
Rochester operations are expected to continue through 2034.  Low-grade stockpiles will be processed through the crushing system at the end of mine life in 2033 through 2034.
 
The Nevada Packard production schedule is based on an assumed crusher throughput of 6 Mst/a. The anticipated LOM for the Nevada Packard deposit is 2027 through Q1 2033.  Nevada Packard stockpiles will be processed at the end of mine life in years 2032-2033.
 
Equipment is conventional to open pit operations.
 

 22.10
Recovery Methods
 
Silver and gold recovery at Rochester is via heap leach with a Merrill-Crowe process to recover metal from the leach solutions.  Coeur has operated the Rochester Merrill-Crowe circuit since 1986.
 
The process design was based on a combination of metallurgical test work, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the leach pads were operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 
Active leaching of new ore and metal recovery is currently taking place on the Stage II, III and IV heap leach pads from material produced through crushing and ROM placement.
 
Future processing facilities include the Limerick Merrill-Crowe process plant that is planned to be in operation from 2023 through approximately 2035.  This process plant is being sized for 13,750 gpm to process solution and recover ounces from the Stage VI leach pad facility, which has a design capacity of 300 Mst.
 

 22.11
Infrastructure
 
The majority of the infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  This includes:  two open pits (Rochester and Nevada Packard); crusher and conveyor system; three active heap leach pads (Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV), one reclaimed heap leach pad (Stage I), one heap leach pad under construction (Stage VI), and one permitted heap leach pad (Stage V); seven waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs); powerlines; production and monitoring water wells; contingency ponds; potable water treatment plant; water pipelines; site buildings; access, light vehicle, and haul roads; consumables storage; security and fencing; explosives magazines; upper and lower parking areas; and data and communications infrastructure.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Additional infrastructure that will be required to support the LOM plan as envisaged in the approved POA 11 consists of the following major areas: expansion of the two open pits; expansion of selected WRSFs; construction of the Limerick heap leach pad; Rochester Stage VI and Nevada Packard Merrill- Crowe process facilities; Stage VI crushing and screening facility; installation of a crusher at Nevada Packard; construction of additional water diversion structures, roads, and pipelines; and upgrades to the electrical system.
 
Low-grade ore is stockpiled in the West WRSF and is segregated from the waste rock for potential future processing.
 
Seven WRSFs have been constructed.  POA 11 includes expansions to existing WRSFs with sufficient capacity to handle all expected waste material over the LOM plan.
 
When mining activities necessitate removal of spent ore from existing leach pads, the spent ore is moved to one of the other existing heap leach pad facilities.
 
Non-contact stormwater is diverted around process components in permitted conveyances.
 
Process and potable water is provided by wells.
 
Electrical power is supplied by NV Energy.  Upgrades to the electrical utility system will be required to accommodate the proposed infrastructure associated with POA 11.
 

 22.12
Market Studies
 
Coeur Rochester has contracts in place with several refiners for the silver and gold doredore from the Rochester Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors this market.Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
Coeur uses a combination of historical and current contract pricing, contract negotiations, knowledge of its key markets from a long operations production record, short-term versus long-term price forecasts prepared by the company’s internal marketing group, public documents, and analyst forecasts when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.  Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, fuel, and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for permitting.  Design features were developed as a way of minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. These environmental protection measures are part of the Coeur’s commitments for the mine operation.  As the mine plans change, permits will be updated as required.
 
The reclamation cost estimate for Rochester Operations is approximately $163.7 M based on the 2020 Reclamation Cost Estimate.  There is an additional approximate $11.4 M added to account for new disturbances within Nevada Packard.  This would bring the total reclamation cost estimate to approximately $175.1 M using 2020 cost models.
 
The Rochester mine has been in operation since 1986 and obtained the required environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies.  Operational standards and best management practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable county, state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 
Early works construction for infrastructure included in POA 11 began in September 2020 in Limerick Canyon and the construction will be completed in stages.
 
Coeur Rochester has consistently positively impacted the local community and its economy for more than 30 years.  The Rochester Operations generate nearly 1,000 direct and indirect jobs, making it the largest employer in Pershing County.
 
In 2021, Coeur developed a Communication, Community & Government Engagement Strategy to develop new relationships with local communities and leverage existing support during permit actions or other activities influenced by public opinion.
 
Coeur Rochester supports future local leaders through multiple partnerships, including Lowry High School, Nevada Mining Association's Educational Committee, and Build NV.  In addition to scholarship funds, Coeur is helping to develop programs that will prepare students for the workforce.
 
The company is committed to helping preserve Native American cultural heritage while developing mutually beneficial partnerships. Coeur Rochester has also assisted tribes in obtaining vital personal protective equipment to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.
 

 22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  In later years, capital estimates are based on estimated annual operating requirements and are considered as sustaining capital.
 
The total LOM capital cost estimate is $641.0 M.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$2,247.1 M or US$5.38/t placed.
 

 22.16
Economic Analysis
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of 13 years with mining complete in 2034 and processing and gold–silver production continuing to 2038.
 
The active mining operation ceases in 2034; however, closure costs are estimated to 2039.  For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2040 are included in the cash flow in the same year.
 
The NPV at 5% is US$348.1 M.  As the cashflow is based on existing operations, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, metallurgical recovery, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 20% above and below the base case values.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal prices, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs.  Grade sensitivity mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
 

 22.17
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 11.13 and Chapter 12.11 respectively.
 

 22.17.1
Risks
 
Risks include:
 
•
Changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions could affect revenues and operating costs. These changes could be due to inability to produce a crushed product with the HPGR that meets specification in terms of top-size or particle size distribution, or other material properties of the ore are different than base case assumptions. This could require revisions to cut-off grades and mineral reserve estimates or could require additional capital cost to upgrade the planned ore flow system;
 
•
Coeur’s ability to timely complete POA 11, Nevada Packard or other future mine expansion and mine life extension projects on budget is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are outside of our control, including, among others, availability of funding on acceptable terms, timing of receipt of permits and approvals from regulatory authorities, extreme weather events, obtaining materials and equipment and construction, engineering and other services at favorable prices and terms, and disputes with third-party providers of materials, equipment or services.  The construction services related to POA 11 will be performed by contractors, which creates a risk of delays or additional costs to the project resulting from inability of contractor to complete work;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires and other consumables could negatively impact operating costs and also the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  As the mine gets deeper, any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Changes in climate could result in drought and associated potential water shortages and extreme weather events such as greater-than-100-year storm events as occurred in October 2021 that could impact operating cost and ability to operate.
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Rochester Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 

 22.17.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all of the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all of the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Exploration of the broader district for additional silver and gold targets;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new ore sources that could be processed at the existing Limerick Canyon leach pad.
 

 22.18
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
22-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
 
As the Rochester Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
23-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
24.0
REFERENCES
 

 24.1
Bibliography
 
Anderson, T.L., 2016:  Testing Silver Mobility: An investigation into supergene enrichment at the Rochester Mine in Pershing County, Nevada:  M.Sc. thesis, University of Nevada Reno, 113 p
 
Chadwick, T.H. and Harvey, D., 2001:  Internal report for Coeur Explorations, Inc., Rochester Group.
 
Crosby, B.L., 2012:  Gold and Base Metal Mineralization, Hydrothermal Alteration, and Vein Paragenesis in the Spring Valley Deposit, Pershing County, Nevada:  M.Sc. thesis, University of Nevada Reno, 172 p.
 
Golder Associates, 1990:  Review of Geotechnical Program Coeur Rochester Mine:  report prepared for Coeur Rochester Inc.
 
Golder Associates, 2015:  South Highwall Pit Slope Design Study:  report prepared for Coeur Rochester Inc.
 
KD Engineering Co., Inc., 2004:  Process Audit and Assessment:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp., 64 p.
 
LeLacheur, E., Harris, D., Mosch, D., Edelen, J., and McMillin, S., 2009:  Spring Valley Project, Nevada, NI 43-101 Technical Report:  report prepared by MGC Resources Inc. for Midway Gold Corp.
 
N.L. Tribe and Associates Ltd., 1990:  Update on Feasibility Studies Nevada Packard Silver Project: report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp.
 
Piteau Associates, 2019: POA 11 Water Quantity and Quality Impacts Assessment Report, prepared for Coeur Rochester, Inc., March 2019, Project No: 3767.
 
Scholz Minerals Engineering Inc., 1984:  Mine Design, Nevada Packard Mine; report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp.
 
Silberling, N.J., 1973:  Geologic events during Permian-Triassic time along the Pacific margin of the United States:  in The Permian and Triassic Systems and Their Mutual Boundary, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 2, pp. 345–362.
 
Sillitoe, R.H., 2009:  Supergene Silver Enrichment Reassessed:  Society of Economic Geologists, Special Publication n. 14, p. 15-32.
 
Sillitoe, R.H., and Hedenquist, J.W., 2003:  Linkages Between Volcanotectonic Settings, Ore-Fluid Compositions, and epithermal Precious Metal Deposits:  Society of Economic Geologists, Special Publication 10, 29 p.
 
Steffen Robertson & Kirsten, 2002:  Design of Ultimate Pit Slopes:  report prepared for Coeur Rochester, Inc.
 
Vikre, P.G., 1981:  Silver Mineralization in the Rochester District, Pershing County, Nevada:  Economic Geology, v. 76, pp. 580–609.
 
Wyld, S.J., Rogers, J.W. and Copeland, P., 2003:  Metamorphic Evolution of the Luning–Fencemaker Fold-Thrust Belt, Nevada: Illite crystallinity, Metamorphic Petrology, and 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology:  The Journal of Geology, v. 111, pp. 17–38.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
 
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
'
seconds (geographic)
'
foot/feet
"
minutes (geographic)
"
inches
#
number
%
percent
/
per
<
less than
>
greater than
µm
micrometer (micron)
a
annum/ year
Å
angstroms
asl
above sea level
BQ
1.44 inch core size
c.
circa
d
day
d/wk
days per week
dmt
dry metric tonne
fineness
parts per thousand of gold in an alloy
ft
feet
ft3
cubic foot/cubic feet
ft3/ton
cubic feet per ton
g
gram
Ga
billion years ago
HP
horsepower
HQ
2.5 inch core size
in
inches
km
kilometer
koz
thousand ounces
kV
kilovolt
kVA
kilovolt–ampere
kW
kilowatt
kWh
kilowatt hour
lb
pound
M
million

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
m
meter
Ma
million years ago
mesh
size based on the number of openings in one inch of screen
Mft
million feet
mi
mile/miles
Mlb
million pounds
Moz
million ounces
Mt
million tons
Mt/a
million tons per annum
MW
megawatts
NQ
1.87 inch core size
º
degrees
ºC
degrees Celsius
ºF
degrees Fahrenheit
oz
ounce/ounces (troy ounce)
oz/t
ounces per ton
pH
measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution
pop
population
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
PQ
3.35 inch core size
t
US ton (short ton), 2000 pounds
t/a
tons per annum (tons per year)
t/d
tons per day
t/h
tons per hour
TDS
total dissolved solids
TSS
total suspended solids
wt%
weight percent
®
registered name
AA
atomic absorption spectroscopy
ANC
acid-neutralizing capacity
ANP
acid-neutralizing potential
ARD
acid-rock drainage
AuAA
cyanide-soluble gold
AuEq
gold equivalent
AuFA
fire assay
AuPR
Preg-rob gold
AuSF
screen fire assay
AusIMM
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
BFA
bench face angle
BLM
US Bureau of Land Management
C.P.G.
Certified Professional Geologist
Capex
Capital expenditure
CIL
carbon-in-leach
CIM
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
CNwad
acid-dissociable cyanide
CRM
certified reference material
CST
cleaner scavenger tailings
CTOT
carbon total
Cu Eq
copper equivalent
CuCN
cyanide-soluble copper
E
east
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EOM
end of month
EOY
End-of-year
GPS
global positioning system
GSM
Groupe Spécial Mobile
H
horizontal
HPGR
high pressure grinding rolls
ICP
inductively-couple plasma
ICP-MS
inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry
ICP-OES
inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
ID
inverse distance interpolation; number after indicates the power, eg ID6 indicates inverse distance to the 6th power.
JCR
joint condition rating
JORC
The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia
KV
kriging variance
L–G
Lerchs–Grossman
LOM
life-of-mine
LSK
large-scale kinetic
MAusIMM
Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
MIK
multiple-indicator kriging
MWMS
Mine Water Management System
MWMT
meteoric water mobility testing
N
north
NAG
net acid generation/net acid generating
NAPP
net acid-producing potential

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-4
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
NI 43-101
Canadian National Instrument 43-101 “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Companies”
NN
nearest-neighbor (
NNP
net neutralizing potential
NSR
net smelter return
NW
northwest
OK
ordinary kriging
Opex
Operating expenditure
P.Eng.
Professional Engineer
P.Geol
Professional Geologist
PAG
potentially acid-generating (
PLI
point load index
PoO
Plan of Operations
PSI
yield strength
QA/QC
quality assurance and quality control
QLT
quick leach test
QP
Qualified Person
RAB
rotary air blast
RC
reverse circulation
RMR
rock mass rating
ROM
Run-of-mine
RQD
rock quality designation
S
south
SAG
semi-autogenous grind
SE
southeast
SEIS
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SG
specific gravity
SMU
selective mining unit
SRM
standard reference material
SS
sulfide sulfur
ST
scavenger tailings
STOT
Sulphur total
SX-EW
solvent extraction–electrowin
TF
tonnage factor
Topo
topography
UHF
ultra-high frequency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
V
Vertical
VHF
very high frequency

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-5
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
W
west
XRD
X-ray diffraction
XRF
X-ray fluorescence
 
24.3
Glossary of Terms
 
Term
Definition
acid rock drainage/ acid mine drainage
Characterized by low pH, high sulfate, and high iron and other metal species.
adit
A passageway or opening driven horizontally into the side of a hill generally for the purpose of exploring or otherwise opening a mineral deposit.  An adit is open to the atmosphere at one end, a tunnel at both ends.
adjacent property
A property in which the issuer does not have an interest; has a boundary reasonably proximate to the property being reported on; and has geological characteristics similar to those of the property being reported on
advanced argillic alteration
Consists of kaolinite + quartz + hematite + limonite.  feldspars leached and altered to sericite.  The presence of this assemblage suggests low pH (highly acidic) conditions.  At higher temperatures, the mineral pyrophyllite (white mica) forms in place of kaolinite
advanced property
A means a property that has mineral reserves, or mineral resources the potential economic viability of which is supported by a preliminary economic assessment, a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study.
alluvium
Unconsolidated terrestrial sediment composed of sorted or unsorted sand, gravel, and clay that has been deposited by water.
amphibolite facies
one of the major divisions of the mineral-facies classification of metamorphic rocks, the rocks of which formed under conditions of moderate to high temperatures (500° C, or about 950° F, maximum) and pressures.  Amphibole, diopside, epidote, plagioclase, almandine and grossular garnet, and wollastonite are minerals typically found in rocks of the amphibolite facies
ANFO
A free-running explosive used in mine blasting made of 94% prilled aluminum nitrate and 6% No. 3 fuel oil.
aquifer
A geologic formation capable of transmitting significant quantities of groundwater under normal hydraulic gradients.
argillic alteration
Introduces any one of a wide variety of clay minerals, including kaolinite, smectite and illite.  Argillic alteration is generally a low temperature event, and some may occur in atmospheric conditions
arroyo
A steep-sided and flat-bottomed gulley in an arid region that is occupied by a stream only intermittently, after rains.
autoclave
A special reaction vessel designed for high pressure and temperature hydrometallurgical reactions, for example in the treatment of refractory ores

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-6
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
autogenous grinding
The process of grinding in a rotating mill which uses as a grinding medium large pieces or pebbles of the ore being ground, instead of conventional steel balls or rods.
Avoca
An underground mining method where stopes are advanced according to ground stability conditions, and progressively backfilled in conjunction with the mining.  This avoids separate cycles for mining and backfilling activities in a stope location.
azimuth
The direction of one object from another, usually expressed as an angle in degrees relative to true north.  Azimuths are usually measured in the clockwise direction, thus an azimuth of 90 degrees indicates that the second object is due east of the first.
background concentration
Naturally-occurring concentrations of compounds of environmental concern
ball mill
A piece of milling equipment used to grind ore into small particles.  It is a cylindrical shaped steel container filled with steel balls into which crushed ore is fed.  The ball mill is rotated causing the balls themselves to cascade, which in turn grinds the ore.
beneficiation
Physical treatment of crude ore to improve its quality for some specific purpose. Also called mineral processing.
bio-oxidation
A hydrometallurgical process where bacteria assist in the oxidation of sulphide minerals.
block caving
Large massive ore bodies may be broken up and removed by this method with a minimum of direct handling of the ore required.  Generally, these deposits are of such a size that they would be mined by open-pit methods if the overburden were not so thick.  Application of this method begins with the driving of horizontal crosscuts below the bottom of the ore body, or below that portion which is to be mined at this stage.  From these passages, inclined raises are driven upward to the level of the bottom of the mass which is to be broken.  Subsequently, a layer is mined so as to undercut the ore mass and allow it to settle and break up.  Broken ore descends through the raises and can be dropped into mine cars for transport to the surface.  When waste material appears at the outlet of a raise it signifies exhaustion of the ore in that interval.  If the ore extends to a greater depth, the entire process can be continued by mining out the mass which contained the previous working passage.
Bond work index (BWi)
A measure of the energy required to break an ore to a nominal product size, determined in laboratory testing, and used to calculate the required power in a grinding circuit design.
bullion
Unrefined gold and/or silver mixtures that have been melted and cast into a bar or ingot.
carbon-in-column (CIC)
A method of recovering gold and silver from pregnant solution from the heap leaching process by adsorption of the precious metals onto fine carbon suspended by up-flow of solution through a tank.
carbon-in-leach (CIL)
A method of recovering gold and silver from fine ground ore by simultaneous dissolution and adsorption of the precious metals onto fine carbon in an agitated tank of ore solids/solution slurry. The carbon flows counter currently to the head of the leaching circuit.
carbon-in-pulp (CIP)
A method of recovering gold and silver from fine ground ore by adsorption of the precious metals onto fine carbon in an agitated tank of ore solids/solution slurry. This recovery step in the process follows the leaching process which is done in similarly agitated tanks, but without contained carbon.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-7
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
carbonaceous
Containing graphitic or hydrocarbon species, e.g. in an ore or concentrate; such materials generally present some challenge in processing, e.g. preg-robbing characteristics.
Caro’s acid
A reagent (H2SO5)generated through the combination of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid, used in cyanide destruction and detoxification.
comminution/crushing/grinding
Crushing and/or grinding of ore by impact and abrasion. Usually, the word "crushing" is used for dry methods and "grinding" for wet methods. Also, "crushing" usually denotes reducing the size of coarse rock while "grinding" usually refers to the reduction of the fine sizes.
concentrate
The concentrate is the valuable product from mineral processing, as opposed to the tailing, which contains the waste minerals. The concentrate represents a smaller volume than the original ore
counter-current decantation (CCD)
A process where a slurry is thickened and washed in multiple stages, where clean water is added to the last thickener, and overflows from each thickener are progressively transferred to the previous thickener, countercurrent to the flow of thickened slurry.
critical path
Sequence of activities through a project network from start to finish, the sum of whose durations determines the overall project duration.  Note: there may be more than one such path. (The path through a series of activities, taking into account interdependencies, in which the late completion of activities will have an impact on the project end date or delay a key milestone.)
crosscut
A horizontal opening driven across the course of a vein or structure, or in general across the strike of the rock formation; a connection from a shaft to an ore structure.
crown pillar
An ore pillar at the top of an open stope left for wall support and protection from wall sloughing above
cut and fill stoping
If it is undesirable to leave broken ore in the stope during mining operations (as in shrinkage stoping), the lower portion of the stope can be filled with waste rock and/or mill tailings. In this case, ore is removed as soon as it has been broken from overhead, and the stope filled with waste to within a few feet of the mining surface. This method eliminates or reduces the waste disposal problem associated with mining as well as preventing collapse of the ground at the surface.
cut-off grade
A grade level below which the material is not “ore” and considered to be uneconomical to mine and process. The minimum grade of ore used to establish reserves.
cyanidation
A method of extracting gold or silver by dissolving it in a weak solution of sodium cyanide.
data verification
The process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, has been accurately transcribed from the original source and is suitable to be used for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation
decline
A sloping underground opening for machine access from level to level or from the surface.  Also called a ramp.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-8
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
density
The mass per unit volume of a substance, commonly expressed in grams/ cubic centimeter.
depletion
The decrease in quantity of ore in a deposit or property resulting from extraction or production.
development
Often refers to the construction of a new mine or; Is the underground work carried out for the purpose of reaching and opening up a mineral deposit. It includes shaft sinking, cross-cutting, drifting and raising.
development property
a property that is being prepared for mineral production or a material expansion of current production, and for which economic viability has been demonstrated by a pre-feasibility or feasibility study.
diabase
US terminology for an intrusive rock whose main components are labradorite and pyroxene, and characterized by an ophiolitic texture.  Corresponds to a diorite.
diamictite
A poorly or non-sorted conglomerate or breccia with a wide range of clasts, up to 25% of them gravel sized (greater than 2 mm)
dilution
Waste of low-grade rock which is unavoidably removed along with the ore in the mining process.
disclosure
Any oral statement or written disclosure made by or on behalf of an issuer and intended to be, or reasonably likely to be, made available to the public in a jurisdiction of Canada, whether or not filed under securities legislation, but does not include written disclosure that is made available to the public only by reason of having been filed with a government or agency of government pursuant to a requirement of law other than securities legislation.
discounted cash flow (DCF)
Concept of relating future cash inflows and outflows over the life of a project or operation to a common base value thereby allowing more validity to comparison of projects with different durations and rates of cash flow.
drift
A horizontal mining passage underground.  A drift usually follows the ore vein, as distinguished from a crosscut, which intersects it.
early-stage exploration property
A property for which the technical report being filed has no current mineral resources or mineral reserves defined; and no drilling or trenching proposed
easement
Areas of land owned by the property owner, but in which other parties, such as utility companies, may have limited rights granted for a specific purpose.
effective date
With reference to a technical report, the date of the most recent scientific or technical information included in the technical report.
electrowinning.
The removal of precious metals from solution by the passage of current through an electrowinning cell.  A direct current supply is connected to the anode and cathode.  As current passes through the cell, metal is deposited on the cathode.  When sufficient metal has been deposited on the cathode, it is removed from the cell and the sludge rinsed off the plate and dried for further treatment.
elution
Recovery of the gold from the activated carbon into solution before zinc precipitation or electro-winning.
EM
Geophysical method, electromagnetic system, measures the earth's response to electromagnetic signals transmitted by an induction coil

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-9
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
encumbrance
An interest or partial right in real property which diminished the value of ownership, but does not prevent the transfer of ownership.  Mortgages, taxes and judgements are encumbrances known as liens.  Restrictions, easements, and reservations are also encumbrances, although not liens.
exploration information
Geological, geophysical, geochemical, sampling, drilling, trenching, analytical
testing, assaying, mineralogical, metallurgical, and other similar information concerning a particular property that is
derived from activities undertaken to locate, investigate, define, or delineate a mineral prospect or mineral deposit
feasibility study
A comprehensive study of a mineral deposit in which all geological, engineering, legal, operating, economic, social, environmental, and other relevant factors are considered in sufficient detail that it could reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a financial institution to finance the development of the deposit for mineral production.
flotation
Separation of minerals based on the interfacial chemistry of the mineral particles in solution. Reagents are added to the ore slurry to render the surface of selected minerals hydrophobic. Air bubbles are introduced to which the hydrophobic minerals attach. The selected minerals are levitated to the top of the flotation machine by their attachment to the bubbles and into a froth product, called the "flotation concentrate." If this froth carries more than one mineral as a designated main constituent, it is called a "bulk float". If it is selective to one constituent of the ore, where more than one will be floated, it is a "differential" float.
flowsheet
The sequence of operations, step by step, by which ore is treated in a milling, concentration, or smelting process.
footwall
The wall or rock on the underside of a vein or ore structure.
free milling
Ores of gold or silver from which the precious metals can be recovered by concentrating methods without resort to roasting or chemical treatment.
frother
A type of flotation reagent which, when dissolved in water, imparts to it the ability to form a stable froth
gangue
The fraction of ore rejected as tailing in a separating process.  It is usually the valueless portion, but may have some secondary commercial use
geosyncline
A major downwarp in the Earth's crust, usually more than 1000 kilometers in length, in which sediments accumulate to thicknesses of many kilometers.  The sediments may eventually be deformed and metamorphosed during a mountain-building episode.
gravity separation
Exploitation of differences in the densities of particles to achieve separation. Machines utilizing gravity separation include jigs and shaking tables.
gravity recoverable gold
A term that describes the portion of gold in an ore that is practically recoverable by gravity separation, determined through a standard laboratory test procedure.
greenschist facies
one of the major divisions of the mineral facies classification of metamorphic rocks, the rocks of which formed under the lowest temperature and pressure conditions usually produced by regional metamorphism. Temperatures between 300 and 450 °C (570 and 840 °F) and pressures of 1 to 4 kilobars are typical. The more common minerals found in such rocks include quartz, orthoclase, muscovite, chlorite, serpentine, talc, and epidote

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-10
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
hanging wall
The wall or rock on the upper or top side of a vein or ore deposit.
heap leaching
A process whereby valuable metals, usually gold and silver, are leached from a heap or pad of crushed ore by leaching solutions percolating down through the heap and collected from a sloping, impermeable liner below the pad.
high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR)
A type of crushing machine consisting of two large studded rolls that rotate inwards and apply a high pressure compressive force to break rocks.
historical estimate
An estimate of the quantity, grade, or metal or mineral content of a deposit that an issuer has not verified as a current mineral resource or mineral reserve, and which was prepared before the issuer acquiring, or entering into an agreement to acquire, an interest in the property that contains the deposit
hydrometallurgy
A type of extractive metallurgy utilizing aqueous solutions/solvents to extract the metal value from an ore or concentrate. Leaching is the predominant type of hydrometallurgy.
Indicated Mineral Resource
An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.  The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.
Inferred Mineral Resource
An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity.  The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes.
initial public offering (IPO)
A corporation’s first offering of stock to the public, usually by subscription from a group of investment dealers
internal rate of return (IRR)
The rate of return at which the Net Present Value of a project is zero; the rate at which the present value of cash inflows is equal to the present value of the cash outflows.
IP
Geophysical method, induced polarization; used to directly detect scattered primary sulfide mineralization.  Most metal sulfides produce IP effects, e.g. chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite, pyrite, pyrrhotite
JORC code
The Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Mineral Council of Australia, as amended.  Provides minimum standards for public reporting to ensure that investors and their advisers have all the information they would reasonably require for forming a reliable opinion on the results and estimates being reported.  Adopted by the ASX for reporting ore body size and mineral concentrations.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-11
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
Knelson concentrator
a high-speed centrifuge that combines centrifugally enhanced gravitational force with a patented fluidization process to recover precious metals
leucogabbro
Light-colored gabbro
leucotroctolite
A plutonic rock, equivalent to a gabbro, composed primarily of calcic plagioclase, light-colored
lherzolite
A plutonic rock, in which olivine is dominant over orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene, a two-pyroxene peridotite.
liberation
Freeing, by comminution, of particles of specific mineral from their interlock with other constituents of the ore.
life of mine (LOM)
Number of years that the operation is planning to mine and treat ore, and is taken from the current mine plan based on the current evaluation of ore reserves.
lithogeochemistry
The chemistry of rocks within the lithosphere, such as rock, lake, stream, and soil sediments
lixiviant
A leach liquor used to dissolve a constituent in an ore, for example a cyanide solution used to dissolve gold.
locked cycle flotation test
A standard laboratory flotation test where certain intermediate streams are recycled into previous separation stages and the test is repeated across a number of cycles.  This test provides a more realistic prediction of the overall recovery and concentrate grade that would be achieved in an actual flotation circuit, compared with a more simple batch flotation test.
lopolith
Large, concordant, typically layered igneous intrusion, usually lenticular in shape.
magnetic separation
Use of permanent or electro-magnets to remove relatively strong ferromagnetic particles from para- and dia-magnetic ores.
Measured Mineral Resource
A ‘Measured Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.
melagabbro
A plutonic rock in which the plagioclase content divided by the total plagioclase, olivine and pyroxene content is between 10 and 35.
merger
A voluntary combination of two or more companies whereby both stocks are merged into one.
Merrill-Crowe (M-C) circuit
A process which recovers precious metals from solution by first clarifying the solution, then removing the air contained in the clarified solution, and then precipitating the gold and silver from the solution by injecting zinc dust into the solution. The valuable sludge is collected in a filter press for drying and further treatment

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-12
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
mill
Includes any ore mill, sampling works, concentration, and any crushing, grinding, or screening plant used at, and in connection with, an excavation or mine.
mineral project
Any exploration, development or production activity, including a royalty or similar interest in these activities, in respect of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals
Mineral Reserve
A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study.  This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified.  A Mineral Reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined.
Mineral Resource
A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction.  The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge.
mining claim
A description by boundaries of real property in which metal ore and/or minerals may be located.
Monte Carlo simulation
A technique used to estimate the likely range of outcomes from a complex process by simulating the process under randomly selected conditions a large number of times.
net present value (NPV)
The present value of the difference between the future cash flows associated with a project and the investment required for acquiring the project.  Aggregate of future net cash flows discounted back to a common base date, usually the present.  NPV is an indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to a company.
net smelter return royalty (NSR)
A defined percentage of the gross revenue from a resource extraction operation, less a proportionate share of transportation, insurance, and processing costs.
open pit
A mine that is entirely on the surface. Also referred to as open-cut or open-cast mine.
open stope
In competent rock, it is possible to remove all of a moderate sized ore body, resulting in an opening of considerable size.  Such large, irregularly-shaped openings are called stopes.  The mining of large inclined ore bodies often requires leaving horizontal pillars across the stope at intervals in order to prevent collapse of the walls.
orogeny
A process in which a section of the earth's crust is folded and deformed by lateral compression to form a mountain range
ounce (oz) (troy)
Used in imperial statistics.  A kilogram is equal to 32.1507 ounces.  A troy ounce is equal to 31.1035 grams.
overburden
Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a deposit of ore that is to be mined.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-13
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
pebble crushing
A crushing process on screened larger particles that exit through the grates of a SAG mill.  Such particles (typically approx. 50 mm diameter) are not efficiently broken in the SAG mill and are therefore removed and broken, typically using a cone crusher.  The crushed pebbles are then fed to a grinding mill for further breakage.
penalty elements
Elements that when recovered to a flotation concentrate, attract a penalty payment from the smelting customer.  This is because those elements are deleterious, and cause quality, environmental or cost issues for the smelter.  Includes elements such as As, Hg and Pb.
peridotite
A plutonic rock which has a mafic content equal to or greater than 90, and the olivine content, divided by the total plagioclase, orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene content is greater than 40.
petrography
Branch of geology that deals with the description and classification of rocks.
phyllic alteration
Minerals include quartz-sericite-pyrite
plant
A group of buildings, and especially to their contained equipment, in which a process or function is carried out; on a mine it will include warehouses, hoisting equipment, compressors, repair shops, offices, mill or concentrator.
portal.
The surface entrance to a tunnel or adit
potassic alteration
A relatively high temperature type of alteration which results from potassium enrichment.  Characterized by biotite, K-feldspar, adularia.
poudinge
Local DRC name for conglomerate unit
preg-robbing
A characteristic of certain ores, typically that contain carbonaceous species, where dissolved gold is reabsorbed by these species, leading to an overall reduction in gold recovery.  Such ores require more complex treatment circuits to maximize gold recovery.
preliminary economic assessment
A study, other than a pre-feasibility or feasibility study, that includes an economic analysis of the potential viability of mineral resources
preliminary feasibility study, pre-feasibility study
A comprehensive study of the viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where the mining method, in the case of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, has been established and an effective method of mineral processing has been determined, and includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions of technical, engineering, legal, operating, economic, social, and environmental factors and the evaluation of other relevant factors which are sufficient for a qualified person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the mineral resource may be classified as a mineral reserve
Probable Mineral Reserve
A ‘Probable Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of an Indicated and, in some circumstances, a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study.  This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified.
producing issuer
An issuer with annual audited financial statements that disclose gross revenue, derived from mining operations, of at least $30 million Canadian for the issuer’s most recently completed financial year; and gross revenue, derived from mining operations, of at least $90 million Canadian in the aggregate for the issuer’s three most recently completed financial years

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-14
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
propylitic
Characteristic greenish colour.  Minerals include chlorite, actinolite and epidote.  Typically contains the assemblage quartz-chlorite-carbonate
Proven Mineral Reserve
A ‘Proven Mineral Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study.  This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is justified.
pyrometallurgy
A type of extractive metallurgy where furnace treatments at high temperature are used to separate the metal values from an ore or concentrate.  The waste product is removed as slag and/or gases.  Smelting and refining are common pyrometallurgical processes.
quebrada
Gorge or ravine
raise
A vertical or inclined underground working that has been excavated from the bottom upward
reclamation
The restoration of a site after mining or exploration activity is completed.
refining
A high temperature process in which impure metal is reacted with flux to reduce the impurities.  The metal is collected in a molten layer and the impurities in a slag layer.  Refining results in the production of a marketable material.
refractory
Gold mineralization normally requiring more sophisticated processing technology for extraction, such as roasting or autoclaving under pressure.
Resistivity
Observation of electric fields caused by current introduced into the ground as a means of studying earth resistivity in geophysical exploration. Resistivity is the property of a material that resists the flow of electrical current
right-of-way
A parcel of land granted by deed or easement for construction and maintenance according to a designated use.  This may include highways, streets, canals, ditches, or other uses
roasting
A high temperature oxidation process for refractory ores or concentrates.  The material is reacted with air (possibly enriched with oxygen) to convert sulfur in sulfides to sulfur dioxide.  Other constituents in ore (e.g. C, Fe) are also oxidized.  The resulting calcine can then be leached with cyanide, resulting in economic gold recoveries.
rock quality designation (RQD)
A measure of the competency of a rock, determined by the number of fractures in a given length of drill core.  For example, a friable ore will have many fractures and a low RQD.
rod mill
A rotating cylindrical mill which employs steel rods as a grinding medium.
room and pillar
This method is suitable for level deposits that are fairly uniform in thickness.  It consists of excavating drifts (horizontal passages) in a rectilinear pattern so that evenly spaced pillars are left to support the overlying material.  A fairly large portion of the ore (40–50%) must be left in place.  Sometimes the remaining ore is recovered by removing or shaving the pillars as the mine is vacated, allowing the overhead to collapse or making future collapse more likely

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-15
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
royalty
An amount of money paid at regular intervals by the lessee or operator of an exploration or mining property to the owner of the ground. Generally based on a specific amount per tonne or a percentage of the total production or profits. Also, the fee paid for the right to use a patented process.
run-of-mine
A term used to describe ore of average grade for the deposit.
semi-autogenous grinding (SAG)
A method of grinding rock into fine powder whereby the grinding media consists of larger chunks of rocks and steel balls.
shaft
A vertical or inclined excavation for the purpose of opening and servicing a mine. It is usually equipped with a hoist at the top, which lowers and raises a conveyance for handling men and material
shrinkage stoping
In this method, mining is carried out from the bottom of an inclined or vertical ore body upwards, as in open stoping.  However, most of the broken ore is allowed to remain in the stope in order both to support the stope walls and to provide a working platform for the overhead mining operations.  Ore is withdrawn from chutes in the bottom of the stope in order to maintain the correct amount of open space for working.  When mining is completed in a particular stope, the remaining ore is withdrawn, and the walls are allowed to collapse.
solvent extraction-electrowinning (SX-EW)
A metallurgical technique primarily applied to copper ores, in which metal is dissolved from the rock by organic solvents and recovered from solution by electrolysis.
specific gravity
The weight of a substance compared with the weight of an equal volume of pure water at 4°C.
Squid TEM
Geophysical method.  High temperature superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometers have been developed in a collaborative project between BHP and CSIRO specifically for application in airborne time domain electromagnetic (TEM) surveying to improve the performance of the system in detection of conductors with longer decay time constants, particularly in the presence of a conductive overburden
stope
An excavation in a mine, other than development workings, made for the purpose of extracting ore.
strike length
The horizontal distance along the long axis of a structural surface, rock unit, mineral deposit or geochemical anomaly.
strip ratio
The ratio of waste tons to ore tons mined calculated as total tonnes mined less ore tonnes mined divided by ore tonnes mined.
stripping ratio
The ratio of tonnes removed as waste, to the number of tonnes of ore removed from an open pit mine.
sublevel caving
In this method, relatively small blocks of ore within a vertical or steeply sloping vein are undercut within a stope and allowed to settle and break up. The broken ore is then scraped into raises and dropped into mine cars.
supergene
Mineral enrichment produced by the chemical remobilization of metals in an oxidised or transitional environment.
t10
A parameter determined in a standard breakage test (the Drop Weight test) used to predict the size of a SAG mill.
tailings
Material rejected from a mill after the recoverable valuable minerals have been extracted.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-16
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
taxitic
Volcanic rock texture that appears to be of clastic derivation because of the mixture of materials of varying texture and structure from the same flow.
tillite
Sedimentary rock that consists of consolidated masses of unweathered blocks (large, angular, detached rock bodies) and glacial till.
total free cashflow
Revenue less operating costs, selling expences, capital, reclamation and taxes.
tunnel
A horizontal underground passage that is open at both ends; the term is loosely applied in many cases to an adit, which is open at only one end
uniaxial compressive strength
A measure of the strength of a rock, which can be determined through laboratory testing, and used both for predicting ground stability underground, and the relative difficulty of crushing.
VTEM
Geophysical method, versatile time-domain electromagnetic system, used to detect conductive substances at shallow depths in the Earth's crust
wacke
A sandstone that consists of a mixed variety of angular and unsorted (or poorly sorted) mineral and rock fragments within an abundant matrix of clay and fine silt.
World Geodetic Reference System of 1984 (WGS-84)-
The United States Defense Mapping Agency's Datum. This datum is a global datum based on electronic technology which is still to some degree classified. Data on the relationship of as many as 65 different datums to WGS-84 is available to the public. As a result, WGS-84 is becoming the base datum for the processing and conversion of data from one datum to any other datum. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is based on this datum.
written disclosure
Any writing, picture, map, or other printed representation whether produced, stored or disseminated on paper or electronically, including websites.
XYZ coordinates
A grouping of three numbers which designate the position of a point in relation to a common reference frame. In common usage, the X and Y coordinate fix the horizontal position of the point, and Z refers to the elevation.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
24-17
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
 
25.1
Introduction
 
The QPs fully relied on the registrant for the guidance in the areas noted in the following sub-sections.  As the operations have been in production for more than 35 years under Coeur management, the registrant has considerable experience in this area.
 
The QPs took undertook checks that the information provided by the registrant was suitable to be used in the Report.
 
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
 

 •
Information relating to inflation, interest rates, discount rates, taxes.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.3
Markets
 

 •
Information relating to market studies/markets for product, market entry strategies, marketing and sales contracts, product valuation, product specifications, refining and treatment charges, transportation costs, agency relationships, material contracts (e.g. mining, concentrating, smelting, refining, transportation, handling, hedging arrangements, and forward sales contracts), and contract status (in place, renewals).
 
This information is used when discussing the market, commodity price and contract information in Chapter 16, and in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.4
Legal Matters
 

 •
Information relating to the corporate ownership interest, the mineral tenure (concessions, payments to retain, obligation to meet expenditure/reporting of work conducted), surface rights, water rights (water take allowances), royalties, encumbrances, easements and rights-of-way, violations and fines, permitting requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits
 
This information is used in support of the property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.5
Environmental Matters
 

 •
Information relating to baseline and supporting studies for environmental permitting, environmental permitting and monitoring requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits, emissions controls, closure planning, closure and reclamation bonding and bonding requirements, sustainability accommodations, and monitoring for and compliance with requirements relating to protected areas and protected species.
 
This information is used when discussing property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
25-1
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
 

 •
Information relating to social and stakeholder baseline and supporting studies, hiring and training policies for workforce from local communities, partnerships with stakeholders (including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and, state and federal governments), and the community relations plan.
 
This information is used in the social and community discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.7
Governmental Factors
 
Information relating to taxation and royalty considerations at the Project level, monitoring requirements and monitoring frequency, and bonding requirements.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.8
Internal Controls
 

 25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
 
Internal controls are discussed where required in the relevant chapters of the technical report summary.  The following sub-sections summarize the types of procedures, protocols, guidance and controls that Coeur has in place for its exploration and mineral resource and reserve estimation efforts, and the type of risk assessments that are undertaken.
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for exploration data:
 

 •
Written procedures and guidelines to support preferred sampling methods and approaches; periodic compliance reviews of adherence to such written procedures and guidelines;
 

 •
Maintenance of a complete chain-of-custody, ensuring the traceability and integrity of the samples at all handling stages from collection, transportation, sample preparation and analysis to long-term sample storage;
 

 •
Geological logs are checked and verified, and there is a physical sign-off to attest to the validation protocol required;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
25-2
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

•
Quality control checks on collar and downhole survey data for errors or significant deviations;
 

 •
Appropriate types of quality control samples are inserted into the sample stream at appropriate frequencies to assess analytical data quality;
 

 •
Third-party fully certified labs are used for assays used in public disclosure or resource models
 

 •
Regular inspection of analytical and sample preparation facilities by appropriately experienced Coeur personnel;
 

 •
QA/QC data are regularly verified to ensure that outliers sample mix-ups, contamination, or laboratory biases during the sample preparation and analysis steps are correctly identified, mitigated or remediated.  Changes to database entries are required be documented;
 

 •
Database upload and verification procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data being entered into the Project database(s).  These are typically performed using software data-checking routines.  Changes to database entries are required to be documented.  Data are subject to regular backups.
 
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation:
 

 •
Prior to use in mineral resource or mineral reserve estimation, the selected data to support estimation are downloaded from the database into a project file and reviewed for improbable entries and high values;
 

 •
Written procedures and guidelines are used to support estimation methods and approaches;
 

 •
Completion of annual technical statements on each mineral resource and mineral reserve estimate by qualified persons.  These technical statements include evaluation of modifying and technical factors, incorporate available reconciliation data, and are based on a cashflow analysis;
 

 •
Internal reviews of block models, mineral resources and mineral reserves using a “layered responsibility” approach with Qualified Person involvement at the site and corporate levels;
 
25.8.3
Risk Assessments
 
Coeur has established mine risk registers that are regularly reviewed and maintained.  The registers record the risk type, the nature of the impact if the risk occurred, the frequency or probability of the risk occurrence, planned mitigation measures, and record of progress of the mitigation undertaken.  Risks are removed from the registers if mitigation measures are successful or added to the registers as a new risk is recognized.
Other risk controls include aspects such as:
 

 •
Active monitoring programs such as mill performance, geotechnical networks, water sampling, waste management;
 

 •
Regular review of markets, commodity and price forecasts by internal specialists; reviews of competitor activities;
 

 •
Regular reviews of stakeholder concerns, accommodations to stakeholder concerns and ongoing community consultation;
 

 •
Monitoring of key permits and obligations such as tenures, surface rights, mine environmental and operating permits, agreements and regulatory changes to ensure all reporting and payment obligations have been met to keep those items in good standing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
25-3
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
APPENDIX A:  MINERAL TENURE
Rochester Claims

Serial Number
Lead File Number
Legacy Serial Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment Due Date
Date Of Location
Meridian Township Range Section
Quadrant
NV101452332
NV101452332
NMC39595
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
CROWN HILLS NO. 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/22/1972
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101493000
NV101493000
NMC39574
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
CROWN HILLS NO. 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/22/1972
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101498910
NV101498910
NMC39594
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
CROWN HILLS NO. 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/22/1972
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101542019
NV101542019
NMC39593
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
CROWN HILLS NO. 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/22/1972
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101459582
NV101459582
NMC140863
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
12/5/1979
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101478182
NV101478182
NMC140862
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
12/5/1979
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101480081
NV101480081
NMC140864
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
12/5/1979
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101345410
NV101345410
NMC140941
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 84
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/24/1980
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
NV101499467
NV101499467
NMC140942
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
HMS 85
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/24/1980
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
NV101454239
NV101454239
NMC140944
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 87
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/25/1980
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101547449
NV101547449
NMC140943
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 86
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/25/1980
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101304801
NV101304801
NMC349508
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101348715
NV101348715
NMC349510
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101479231
NV101479231
NMC349511
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101755547
NV101755547
NMC349509
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101303111
NV101303111
NMC349512
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/6/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101478101
NV101478101
NMC349513
3% NSR (Solidus)
SDB-6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/6/1985
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101301769
NV101301769
NMC364282
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101302768
NV101302768
NMC364286
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
NV101305162
NV101305162
NMC364284
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101349904
NV101349904
NMC364288
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
NV101405719
NV101405719
NMC364290
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
NW
NV101406736
NV101406736
NMC364292
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
SW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NW
NV101520828
NV101520828
NMC364295
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
NW
SW
NV101602899
NV101602899
NMC364293
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SW
NV101609073
NV101609073
NMC364291
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
SW
NV101731204
NV101731204
NMC364289
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101731513
NV101731513
NMC364283
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101756716
NV101756716
NMC364285
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101758195
NV101758195
NMC364287
3% NSR (Solidus)
IDA #17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/11/1986
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
NV101401214
NV101401214
NMC364392
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/18/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
SW
NV101479506
NV101479506
NMC364365
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/18/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
NV101607345
NV101607345
NMC364364
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/18/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101301257
NV101301257
NMC364386
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101302915
NV101302915
NMC364384
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101304393
NV101304393
NMC364390
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101305061
NV101305061
NMC364388
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101460198
NV101460198
NMC364363
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
SW
NV101608367
NV101608367
NMC364394
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/19/1986
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
NV101453173
NV101453173
NMC364370
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
NV101453344
NV101453344
NMC364371
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101458053
NV101458053
NMC364372
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
NV101495583
NV101495583
NMC364368
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101601776
NV101601776
NMC364367
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
NV101604000
NV101604000
NMC364366
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
SW
NV101752967
NV101752967
NMC364369
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO #9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
NV101340729
NV101340729
NMC371073
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
NE
NV101345612
NV101345612
NMC371079
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
NV101348210
NV101348210
NMC371082
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
SW
NV101400907
NV101400907
NMC371076
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
SW
NV101403311
NV101403311
NMC371072
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
NE
NW
NV101403911
NV101403911
NMC371078
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
SW
NV101405483
NV101405483
NMC371074
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NE
NW
NV101459683
NV101459683
NMC371075
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101496977
NV101496977
NMC371077
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
NV101508064
NV101508064
NMC371081
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
NV101600985
NV101600985
NMC371080
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPINE # 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/20/1986
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
SW
NV102524546
NV102524546
NMC925039
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 146
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/11/2006
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
NV101318354
NV101318354
NMC925200
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 327
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/15/2006
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
SW
NV101318355
NV101318355
NMC925201
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 328
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NW
NV101318356
NV101318356
NMC925202
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 329
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
NV101318357
NV101318357
NMC925203
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 330
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101318358
NV101318358
NMC925204
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 331
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
NV101318359
NV101318359
NMC925205
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 332
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101318360
NV101318360
NMC925206
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 333
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
NV101318361
NV101318361
NMC925207
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 334
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101318362
NV101318362
NMC925208
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 335
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
NV101319584
NV101319584
NMC925209
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 336
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
21 0280N 0340E 005
SE
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101319589
NV101319589
NMC925214
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 341
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NW
NV101319590
NV101319590
NMC925215
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 342
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NW
SW
NV101319591
NV101319591
NMC925216
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 343
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101319592
NV101319592
NMC925217
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 344
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101319593
NV101319593
NMC925218
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 345
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101319594
NV101319594
NMC925219
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 346
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
NV101319595
NV101319595
NMC925220
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 347
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101319596
NV101319596
NMC925221
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 348
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
NV101319597
NV101319597
NMC925222
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 349
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101319598
NV101319598
NMC925223
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 350
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
NV101319599
NV101319599
NMC925224
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 351
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NV101319600
NV101319600
NMC925225
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 352
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
NV101319601
NV101319601
NMC925226
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 353
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101319602
NV101319602
NMC925227
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 354
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101313556
NV101313556
NMC925109
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 216
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/17/2006
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
NV101313557
NV101313557
NMC925110
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 217
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
NV101313558
NV101313558
NMC925111
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 218
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NE
NV101313559
NV101313559
NMC925112
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 219
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 001
SW
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
NV101313560
NV101313560
NMC925113
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 220
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 001
SW
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NE
21 0280N 0340E 012
NW
NV101319603
NV101319603
NMC925228
3% NSR (Solidus)
SV 355
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
4/13/2006
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101651280
NV101651280
NMC1034799
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO 5A
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/1/2010
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
21 0280N 0340E 003
NW
NV101651281
NV101651281
NMC1034800
3% NSR (Solidus)
HMS 4A
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101651279
NV101651279
NMC1034798
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO 4A
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/8/2010
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101502550
NV101502550
NMC1062742
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/18/2011
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NW
NV101502551
NV101502551
NMC1062743
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
NV101508610
NV101508610
NMC1061421
  
N 433
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
12/13/2011
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101508611
NV101508611
NMC1061424
  
N 436
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
NV101757864
NV101757864
NMC1066726
  
X 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/9/2012
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101757865
NV101757865
NMC1066727
  
X 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101759022
NV101759022
NMC1066728
  
X 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
1/9/2012
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101759023
NV101759023
NMC1066729
  
X 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101759024
NV101759024
NMC1066730
  
X 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NW
NV101759025
NV101759025
NMC1066731
  
X 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101759026
NV101759026
NMC1066732
  
X 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759027
NV101759027
NMC1066733
  
X 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759028
NV101759028
NMC1066734
  
X 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759029
NV101759029
NMC1066735
  
X 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759030
NV101759030
NMC1066736
  
X 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759031
NV101759031
NMC1066737
  
X 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759032
NV101759032
NMC1066738
  
X 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759033
NV101759033
NMC1066739
  
X 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101759034
NV101759034
NMC1066740
  
X 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101759035
NV101759035
NMC1066741
  
X 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101759036
NV101759036
NMC1066742
  
X 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
SW
NV101759037
NV101759037
NMC1066743
  
X 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NW
21 0280N 0340E 033
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SW
NV101759038
NV101759038
NMC1066744
  
X 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
SW
NV101759039
NV101759039
NMC1066745
  
X 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SW
NV101759040
NV101759040
NMC1066746
  
X 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101759041
NV101759041
NMC1066747
  
X 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 003
NW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SW
NV101759042
NV101759042
NMC1066748
  
X 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
SW
NV101759043
NV101759043
NMC1066749
  
X 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
NW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SW
NV101780422
NV101780422
NMC1066750
  
X 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101780423
NV101780423
NMC1066751
  
X 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
SW
NV101780424
NV101780424
NMC1066752
  
X 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
SE
NV101780425
NV101780425
NMC1066753
  
X 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
NV101780426
NV101780426
NMC1066754
  
X 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
SE
NV101780427
NV101780427
NMC1066755
  
X 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
NV101780428
NV101780428
NMC1066756
  
X 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
SE
NV101780429
NV101780429
NMC1066757
  
X 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
NV101780430
NV101780430
NMC1066758
  
X 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
SE
NV101780431
NV101780431
NMC1066759
  
X 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
NV101780432
NV101780432
NMC1066760
  
X 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101780433
NV101780433
NMC1066761
  
X 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW
NV101865210
NV101865210
NMC1096902
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
NV101865450
NV101865450
NMC1096912
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/28/2013
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
NV101865451
NV101865451
NMC1096913
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
SW
NV101865208
NV101865208
NMC1096900
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/29/2013
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101865209
NV101865209
NMC1096901
3% NSR (Solidus)
SVB 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101354525
NV101354525
NMC1094138
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NV101354526
NV101354526
NMC1094139
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101354527
NV101354527
NMC1094140
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101354528
NV101354528
NMC1094141
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101354529
NV101354529
NMC1094142
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101354530
NV101354530
NMC1094143
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NW
NV101354531
NV101354531
NMC1094144
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101354532
NV101354532
NMC1094145
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101354533
NV101354533
NMC1094146
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101354534
NV101354534
NMC1094147
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101354535
NV101354535
NMC1094148
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101354536
NV101354536
NMC1094149
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
SW
NV101355357
NV101355357
NMC1094150
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
SW
NV101355358
NV101355358
NMC1094151
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
SW
NV101355359
NV101355359
NMC1094152
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
SW
NV101355360
NV101355360
NMC1094153
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101355361
NV101355361
NMC1094154
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101355362
NV101355362
NMC1094155
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101355363
NV101355363
NMC1094156
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101355364
NV101355364
NMC1094157
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101355365
NV101355365
NMC1094158
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101355366
NV101355366
NMC1094159
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
NV101355367
NV101355367
NMC1094160
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
NV101355368
NV101355368
NMC1094161
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
NV101355369
NV101355369
NMC1094162
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
NV101355370
NV101355370
NMC1094163
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101355371
NV101355371
NMC1094164
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101355372
NV101355372
NMC1094165
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101355373
NV101355373
NMC1094166
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101355374
NV101355374
NMC1094167
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
NV101355375
NV101355375
NMC1094168
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101355376
NV101355376
NMC1094169
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101355377
NV101355377
NMC1094170
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101356351
NV101356351
NMC1094171
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101356352
NV101356352
NMC1094172
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NW
NV101356353
NV101356353
NMC1094173
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101356354
NV101356354
NMC1094174
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101356355
NV101356355
NMC1094175
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101356356
NV101356356
NMC1094176
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DREADNOUGHT 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101356362
NV101356362
NMC1094182
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NV101356363
NV101356363
NMC1094183
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NV101356364
NV101356364
NMC1094184
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NV101356365
NV101356365
NMC1094185
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101357342
NV101357342
NMC1094192
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
SE
NV101357343
NV101357343
NMC1094193
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
SE
NV101357344
NV101357344
NMC1094194
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
SE
NV101357345
NV101357345
NMC1094195
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
SE
NV101357351
NV101357351
NMC1094201
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101357352
NV101357352
NMC1094202
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101357353
NV101357353
NMC1094203
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101357354
NV101357354
NMC1094204
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101357355
NV101357355
NMC1094205
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
NV101357361
NV101357361
NMC1094211
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101357362
NV101357362
NMC1094212
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101358339
NV101358339
NMC1094213
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101485532
NV101485532
NMC1094291
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NW
NV101485533
NV101485533
NMC1094292
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101485534
NV101485534
NMC1094293
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101485535
NV101485535
NMC1094294
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101485536
NV101485536
NMC1094295
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101485537
NV101485537
NMC1094296
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101486522
NV101486522
NMC1094297
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101486523
NV101486523
NMC1094298
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101486524
NV101486524
NMC1094299
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101486525
NV101486525
NMC1094300
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NV101486526
NV101486526
NMC1094301
  
SABRE 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101486527
NV101486527
NMC1094302
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101486528
NV101486528
NMC1094303
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101486529
NV101486529
NMC1094304
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101486530
NV101486530
NMC1094305
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101486531
NV101486531
NMC1094306
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
SE
NV101486532
NV101486532
NMC1094307
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
SE
NV101486533
NV101486533
NMC1094308
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
SE
NV101486534
NV101486534
NMC1094309
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
SE
NV101486535
NV101486535
NMC1094310
  
SABRE 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
NV101486536
NV101486536
NMC1094311
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
NV101486537
NV101486537
NMC1094312
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
NV101486538
NV101486538
NMC1094313
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101486539
NV101486539
NMC1094314
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
SW
NV101486540
NV101486540
NMC1094315
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
NV101486541
NV101486541
NMC1094316
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
NV101486542
NV101486542
NMC1094317
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
NV101487529
NV101487529
NMC1094318
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
SABRE 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/7/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
NV101354556
NV101354556
NMC1094484
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/8/2013
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101354557
NV101354557
NMC1094485
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101355378
NV101355378
NMC1094486
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/8/2013
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101355379
NV101355379
NMC1094487
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101355380
NV101355380
NMC1094488
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NW
NV101355381
NV101355381
NMC1094489
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101355382
NV101355382
NMC1094490
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101355383
NV101355383
NMC1094491
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NV101355384
NV101355384
NMC1094492
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
21 0280N 0340E 023
NW
NV101355385
NV101355385
NMC1094493
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
SW
NV101355386
NV101355386
NMC1094494
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
SW
NV101355387
NV101355387
NMC1094495
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
SW
NV101355388
NV101355388
NMC1094496
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
SW
NV101355389
NV101355389
NMC1094497
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
NW
SE
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101355390
NV101355390
NMC1094498
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
SE
NV101355391
NV101355391
NMC1094499
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
SE
NV101355392
NV101355392
NMC1094500
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
SE
NV101355393
NV101355393
NMC1094501
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
NW
SW
NV101355394
NV101355394
NMC1094502
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
NV101355395
NV101355395
NMC1094503
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
NV101356376
NV101356376
NMC1094511
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/8/2013
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101356377
NV101356377
NMC1094512
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101487530
NV101487530
NMC1094319
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/8/2013
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487531
NV101487531
NMC1094320
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487532
NV101487532
NMC1094321
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487533
NV101487533
NMC1094322
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487534
NV101487534
NMC1094323
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SW
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487535
NV101487535
NMC1094324
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NW
NV101487536
NV101487536
NMC1094325
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101487537
NV101487537
NMC1094326
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NV101487538
NV101487538
NMC1094327
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NV101487539
NV101487539
NMC1094328
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SW
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101487540
NV101487540
NMC1094329
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487541
NV101487541
NMC1094330
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487542
NV101487542
NMC1094331
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487543
NV101487543
NMC1094332
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487544
NV101487544
NMC1094333
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
NV101487545
NV101487545
NMC1094334
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NW
NV101487546
NV101487546
NMC1094335
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NV101487547
NV101487547
NMC1094336
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NV101487548
NV101487548
NMC1094337
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NV101487549
NV101487549
NMC1094338
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
NV101488537
NV101488537
NMC1094339
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/8/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
SW
NV101488538
NV101488538
NMC1094340
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
SW
NV101488539
NV101488539
NMC1094341
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101488540
NV101488540
NMC1094342
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
SW
NV101488541
NV101488541
NMC1094343
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NW
SW
NV101488542
NV101488542
NMC1094344
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101488543
NV101488543
NMC1094345
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
SE
NV101488544
NV101488544
NMC1094346
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
SE
NV101488545
NV101488545
NMC1094347
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
SE
NV101488546
NV101488546
NMC1094348
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NW
SW
NV101488547
NV101488547
NMC1094349
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
NV101488548
NV101488548
NMC1094350
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101488549
NV101488549
NMC1094351
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101488550
NV101488550
NMC1094352
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101488551
NV101488551
NMC1094353
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NW
NV101488552
NV101488552
NMC1094354
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NW
NV101488553
NV101488553
NMC1094355
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SE
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101488554
NV101488554
NMC1094356
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SE
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101488555
NV101488555
NMC1094357
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 010
SE
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101488556
NV101488556
NMC1094358
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
LEONIDAS 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 010
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
SW
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
NV101351587
NV101351587
NMC1094422
  
RAMPART 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 018
SE
NV101352558
NV101352558
NMC1094423
  
RAMPART 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
NV101352559
NV101352559
NMC1094424
  
RAMPART 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
NV101352560
NV101352560
NMC1094425
  
RAMPART 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
NV101352561
NV101352561
NMC1094426
  
RAMPART 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
NV101352562
NV101352562
NMC1094427
  
RAMPART 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
SW
NV101352563
NV101352563
NMC1094428
  
RAMPART 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
NV101352564
NV101352564
NMC1094429
  
RAMPART 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
NV101352565
NV101352565
NMC1094430
  
RAMPART 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
NV101352566
NV101352566
NMC1094431
  
RAMPART 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
NV101352567
NV101352567
NMC1094432
  
RAMPART 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 018
SE
21 0280N 0340E 019
NE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101352568
NV101352568
NMC1094433
  
RAMPART 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101352569
NV101352569
NMC1094434
  
RAMPART 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101352570
NV101352570
NMC1094435
  
RAMPART 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101352571
NV101352571
NMC1094436
  
RAMPART 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 017
SW
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101352572
NV101352572
NMC1094437
  
RAMPART 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101352573
NV101352573
NMC1094438
  
RAMPART 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101352574
NV101352574
NMC1094439
  
RAMPART 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101352575
NV101352575
NMC1094440
  
RAMPART 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101352576
NV101352576
NMC1094441
  
RAMPART 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 017
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101355396
NV101355396
NMC1094504
  
KING SOLOMON 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
NV101355397
NV101355397
NMC1094505
  
KING SOLOMON 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
NV101355398
NV101355398
NMC1094506
  
KING SOLOMON 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
SW
NV101356357
NV101356357
NMC1094177
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356358
NV101356358
NMC1094178
  
DAUNTLESS 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356359
NV101356359
NMC1094179
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356360
NV101356360
NMC1094180
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356361
NV101356361
NMC1094181
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 009
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NW
NV101356366
NV101356366
NMC1094186
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101356367
NV101356367
NMC1094187
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
SW
NV101356368
NV101356368
NMC1094188
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
SW
NV101356369
NV101356369
NMC1094189
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356370
NV101356370
NMC1094190
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
NV101356371
NV101356371
NMC1094191
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NW
NV101356372
NV101356372
NMC1094507
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
NV101356373
NV101356373
NMC1094508
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
NV101356374
NV101356374
NMC1094509
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
NV101356375
NV101356375
NMC1094510
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
NV101356378
NV101356378
NMC1094513
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101356379
NV101356379
NMC1094514
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101356380
NV101356380
NMC1094515
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NW
NV101356381
NV101356381
NMC1094516
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101356382
NV101356382
NMC1094517
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101356383
NV101356383
NMC1094518
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101356384
NV101356384
NMC1094519
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
KING SOLOMON 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101357346
NV101357346
NMC1094196
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
NV101357347
NV101357347
NMC1094197
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
NV101357348
NV101357348
NMC1094198
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
NV101357349
NV101357349
NMC1094199
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
NV101357350
NV101357350
NMC1094200
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
SW
NV101357356
NV101357356
NMC1094206
  
DAUNTLESS 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101357357
NV101357357
NMC1094207
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101357358
NV101357358
NMC1094208
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101357359
NV101357359
NMC1094209
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SW
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101357360
NV101357360
NMC1094210
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
DAUNTLESS 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NW
NV101358340
NV101358340
NMC1094214
  
DAUNTLESS X
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/9/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101358341
NV101358341
NMC1094215
  
DAUNTLESS Y
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
SW
NV101350559
NV101350559
NMC1094381
  
INDOMITABLE 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 028
SW
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350560
NV101350560
NMC1094382
  
INDOMITABLE 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NW
NV101350561
NV101350561
NMC1094383
  
INDOMITABLE 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NV101350562
NV101350562
NMC1094384
  
INDOMITABLE 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101350563
NV101350563
NMC1094385
  
INDOMITABLE 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NV101350564
NV101350564
NMC1094386
  
INDOMITABLE 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NV101350565
NV101350565
NMC1094387
  
INDOMITABLE 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350566
NV101350566
NMC1094388
  
INDOMITABLE 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350567
NV101350567
NMC1094389
  
INDOMITABLE 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350568
NV101350568
NMC1094390
  
INDOMITABLE 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350569
NV101350569
NMC1094391
  
INDOMITABLE 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NW
NV101350570
NV101350570
NMC1094392
  
INDOMITABLE 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NV101350571
NV101350571
NMC1094393
  
INDOMITABLE 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
NV101350572
NV101350572
NMC1094394
  
INDOMITABLE 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
SW
NV101350573
NV101350573
NMC1094395
  
INDOMITABLE 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
SW
NV101350574
NV101350574
NMC1094396
  
INDOMITABLE 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
SW
NV101356385
NV101356385
NMC1094520
  
SIR WINSTON 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101356386
NV101356386
NMC1094521
  
SIR WINSTON 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
NV101356387
NV101356387
NMC1094522
  
SIR WINSTON 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
NV101356388
NV101356388
NMC1094523
  
SIR WINSTON 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101356389
NV101356389
NMC1094524
  
SIR WINSTON 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101356390
NV101356390
NMC1094525
  
SIR WINSTON 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
NV101356391
NV101356391
NMC1094526
  
SIR WINSTON 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
NV101356392
NV101356392
NMC1094527
  
SIR WINSTON 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
NV101357363
NV101357363
NMC1094528
  
SIR WINSTON 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NW
NV101357364
NV101357364
NMC1094529
  
SIR WINSTON 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101357365
NV101357365
NMC1094530
  
SIR WINSTON 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101357366
NV101357366
NMC1094531
  
SIR WINSTON 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101357367
NV101357367
NMC1094532
  
SIR WINSTON 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101357368
NV101357368
NMC1094533
  
SIR WINSTON 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
SW
NV101357369
NV101357369
NMC1094534
  
SIR WINSTON 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
SW
NV101357370
NV101357370
NMC1094535
  
SIR WINSTON 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101357371
NV101357371
NMC1094536
  
SIR WINSTON 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
SE
NV101357372
NV101357372
NMC1094537
  
SIR WINSTON 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
SE
NV101357373
NV101357373
NMC1094538
  
SIR WINSTON 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
SE
NV101357374
NV101357374
NMC1094539
  
SIR WINSTON 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
SE
NV101357375
NV101357375
NMC1094540
  
SIR WINSTON 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
SE
NV101357376
NV101357376
NMC1094541
  
SIR WINSTON 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101357377
NV101357377
NMC1094542
  
SIR WINSTON 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
NV101357378
NV101357378
NMC1094543
  
SIR WINSTON 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
SW
NV101357379
NV101357379
NMC1094544
  
SIR WINSTON 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
NV101357380
NV101357380
NMC1094545
  
SIR WINSTON 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
NV101357381
NV101357381
NMC1094546
  
SIR WINSTON 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
NV101357382
NV101357382
NMC1094547
  
SIR WINSTON 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101358342
NV101358342
NMC1094216
  
MINUTEMEN 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0330E 024
SE
21 0280N 0330E 025
NE
21 0280N 0340E 019
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358343
NV101358343
NMC1094217
  
MINUTEMEN 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358344
NV101358344
NMC1094218
  
MINUTEMEN 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358345
NV101358345
NMC1094219
  
MINUTEMEN 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358346
NV101358346
NMC1094220
  
MINUTEMEN 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358347
NV101358347
NMC1094221
  
MINUTEMEN 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NW
NV101358348
NV101358348
NMC1094222
  
MINUTEMEN 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101358349
NV101358349
NMC1094223
  
MINUTEMEN 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101358350
NV101358350
NMC1094224
  
MINUTEMEN 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101358351
NV101358351
NMC1094225
  
MINUTEMEN 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101358352
NV101358352
NMC1094226
  
MINUTEMEN 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0330E 025
NE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358353
NV101358353
NMC1094227
  
MINUTEMEN 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358354
NV101358354
NMC1094228
  
MINUTEMEN 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358355
NV101358355
NMC1094229
  
MINUTEMEN 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358356
NV101358356
NMC1094230
  
MINUTEMEN 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
NV101358357
NV101358357
NMC1094231
  
MINUTEMEN 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NW
NV101358358
NV101358358
NMC1094232
  
MINUTEMEN 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101358359
NV101358359
NMC1094233
  
MINUTEMEN 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101359369
NV101359369
NMC1094234
  
MINUTEMEN 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101359370
NV101359370
NMC1094235
  
MINUTEMEN 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NV101359371
NV101359371
NMC1094236
  
MINUTEMEN 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
SW
NV101359372
NV101359372
NMC1094237
  
MINUTEMEN 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
SW
NV101359373
NV101359373
NMC1094238
  
MINUTEMEN 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
SW
NV101359374
NV101359374
NMC1094239
  
MINUTEMEN 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NW
SW
NV101359375
NV101359375
NMC1094240
  
MINUTEMEN 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101359376
NV101359376
NMC1094241
  
MINUTEMEN 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101359377
NV101359377
NMC1094242
  
MINUTEMEN 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
SE
NV101359378
NV101359378
NMC1094243
  
MINUTEMEN 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
SE
NV101359379
NV101359379
NMC1094244
  
MINUTEMEN 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
SE
NV101359380
NV101359380
NMC1094245
  
MINUTEMEN 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
NE
SE
NV101359381
NV101359381
NMC1094246
  
MINUTEMEN 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
21 0280N 0340E 030
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
NV101359382
NV101359382
NMC1094247
  
MINUTEMEN 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
NV101359383
NV101359383
NMC1094248
  
MINUTEMEN 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
NV101359384
NV101359384
NMC1094249
  
MINUTEMEN 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
NV101359385
NV101359385
NMC1094250
  
MINUTEMEN 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
NW
NV101359386
NV101359386
NMC1094251
  
MINUTEMEN 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
NV101359387
NV101359387
NMC1094252
  
MINUTEMEN 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
NV101359388
NV101359388
NMC1094253
  
MINUTEMEN 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
NV101359389
NV101359389
NMC1094254
  
MINUTEMEN 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
NV101360393
NV101360393
NMC1094255
  
MINUTEMEN 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 030
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101488557
NV101488557
NMC1094359
  
INDOMITABLE 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101489537
NV101489537
NMC1094360
  
INDOMITABLE 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/10/2013
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101489538
NV101489538
NMC1094361
  
INDOMITABLE 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101489539
NV101489539
NMC1094362
  
INDOMITABLE 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101489540
NV101489540
NMC1094363
  
INDOMITABLE 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NW
NV101489541
NV101489541
NMC1094364
  
INDOMITABLE 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101489542
NV101489542
NMC1094365
  
INDOMITABLE 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101489543
NV101489543
NMC1094366
  
INDOMITABLE 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101489544
NV101489544
NMC1094367
  
INDOMITABLE 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101489545
NV101489545
NMC1094368
  
INDOMITABLE 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101489546
NV101489546
NMC1094369
  
INDOMITABLE 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
SW
NV101489547
NV101489547
NMC1094370
  
INDOMITABLE 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
SW
NV101489548
NV101489548
NMC1094371
  
INDOMITABLE 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
SW
NV101489549
NV101489549
NMC1094372
  
INDOMITABLE 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
SW
NV101489550
NV101489550
NMC1094373
  
INDOMITABLE 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101489551
NV101489551
NMC1094374
  
INDOMITABLE 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
SE
NV101489552
NV101489552
NMC1094375
  
INDOMITABLE 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
SE
NV101489553
NV101489553
NMC1094376
  
INDOMITABLE 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101489554
NV101489554
NMC1094377
  
INDOMITABLE 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
SE
NV101489555
NV101489555
NMC1094378
  
INDOMITABLE 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SW
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101489556
NV101489556
NMC1094379
  
INDOMITABLE 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SW
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101489557
NV101489557
NMC1094380
  
INDOMITABLE 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 028
SW
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
NV101350575
NV101350575
NMC1094397
  
TOMAHAWK 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/11/2013
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101350576
NV101350576
NMC1094398
  
TOMAHAWK 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101350577
NV101350577
NMC1094399
  
TOMAHAWK 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101350578
NV101350578
NMC1094400
  
TOMAHAWK 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
NV101350579
NV101350579
NMC1094401
  
TOMAHAWK 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NW
NV101351567
NV101351567
NMC1094402
  
TOMAHAWK 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/11/2013
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101351568
NV101351568
NMC1094403
  
TOMAHAWK 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101351569
NV101351569
NMC1094404
  
TOMAHAWK 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101351570
NV101351570
NMC1094405
  
TOMAHAWK 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
SE
NV101351571
NV101351571
NMC1094406
  
TOMAHAWK 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
SW
NV101351572
NV101351572
NMC1094407
  
TOMAHAWK 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
SW
NV101351573
NV101351573
NMC1094408
  
TOMAHAWK 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
SW
NV101351574
NV101351574
NMC1094409
  
TOMAHAWK 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101351575
NV101351575
NMC1094410
  
TOMAHAWK 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101351576
NV101351576
NMC1094411
  
TOMAHAWK 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
SE
NV101351577
NV101351577
NMC1094412
  
TOMAHAWK 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
SE
NV101351578
NV101351578
NMC1094413
  
TOMAHAWK 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101351579
NV101351579
NMC1094414
  
TOMAHAWK 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101351580
NV101351580
NMC1094415
  
TOMAHAWK 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101351581
NV101351581
NMC1094416
  
TOMAHAWK 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101351582
NV101351582
NMC1094417
  
TOMAHAWK 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101351583
NV101351583
NMC1094418
  
TOMAHAWK 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NW
NV101351584
NV101351584
NMC1094419
  
TOMAHAWK 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101351585
NV101351585
NMC1094420
  
TOMAHAWK 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101351586
NV101351586
NMC1094421
  
TOMAHAWK 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
NV101358360
NV101358360
NMC1094548
  
ARCHON 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/11/2013
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358361
NV101358361
NMC1094549
  
ARCHON 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358362
NV101358362
NMC1094550
  
ARCHON 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101358363
NV101358363
NMC1094551
  
ARCHON 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358364
NV101358364
NMC1094552
  
ARCHON 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358365
NV101358365
NMC1094553
  
ARCHON 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358366
NV101358366
NMC1094554
  
ARCHON 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NW
NV101358367
NV101358367
NMC1094555
  
ARCHON 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358368
NV101358368
NMC1094556
  
ARCHON 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358369
NV101358369
NMC1094557
  
ARCHON 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 029
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358370
NV101358370
NMC1094558
  
ARCHON 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358371
NV101358371
NMC1094559
  
ARCHON 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358372
NV101358372
NMC1094560
  
ARCHON 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358373
NV101358373
NMC1094561
  
ARCHON 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358374
NV101358374
NMC1094562
  
ARCHON 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
NV101358375
NV101358375
NMC1094563
  
ARCHON 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NW
NV101358376
NV101358376
NMC1094564
  
ARCHON 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358377
NV101358377
NMC1094565
  
ARCHON 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358378
NV101358378
NMC1094566
  
ARCHON 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NV101358379
NV101358379
NMC1094567
  
ARCHON 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101359390
NV101359390
NMC1094568
  
ARCHON 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/11/2013
21 0280N 0340E 031
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
SW
NV101359391
NV101359391
NMC1094569
  
ARCHON 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
SW
NV101359392
NV101359392
NMC1094570
  
ARCHON 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
SW
NV101359393
NV101359393
NMC1094571
  
ARCHON 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
SW
NV101359394
NV101359394
NMC1094572
  
ARCHON 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NW
SW
NV101359395
NV101359395
NMC1094573
  
ARCHON 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101359396
NV101359396
NMC1094574
  
ARCHON 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
SE
NV101359397
NV101359397
NMC1094575
  
ARCHON 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
SE
NV101359398
NV101359398
NMC1094576
  
ARCHON 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
SE
NV101359399
NV101359399
NMC1094577
  
ARCHON 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
SE
NV101359400
NV101359400
NMC1094578
  
ARCHON 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NW
SW
NV101359549
NV101359549
NMC1094579
  
ARCHON 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 031
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101359550
NV101359550
NMC1094580
  
ARCHON 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101359551
NV101359551
NMC1094581
  
ARCHON 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101359552
NV101359552
NMC1094582
  
ARCHON 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101359553
NV101359553
NMC1094583
  
ARCHON 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101359554
NV101359554
NMC1094584
  
ARCHON 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
SW
NV101359555
NV101359555
NMC1094585
  
ARCHON 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101359556
NV101359556
NMC1094586
  
ARCHON 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101359557
NV101359557
NMC1094587
  
ARCHON 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101359558
NV101359558
NMC1094588
  
ARCHON 41
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101450538
NV101450538
NMC1094589
  
ARCHON 42
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/11/2013
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
SW
NV101450539
NV101450539
NMC1094590
  
ARCHON 43
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NW
21 0280N 0340E 031
SE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101450540
NV101450540
NMC1094591
  
ARCHON 44
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NW
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101450541
NV101450541
NMC1094592
  
ARCHON 45
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NW
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101450542
NV101450542
NMC1094593
  
ARCHON 46
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NW
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101450543
NV101450543
NMC1094594
  
ARCHON 47
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
NW
21 0280N 0340E 032
SW
NV101450544
NV101450544
NMC1094595
  
ARCHON 48
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
SW
NV101450545
NV101450545
NMC1094596
  
ARCHON 49
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101450546
NV101450546
NMC1094597
  
ARCHON 50
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101450547
NV101450547
NMC1094598
  
ARCHON 51
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
NV101450548
NV101450548
NMC1094599
  
ARCHON 52
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 004
NW
21 0270N 0340E 005
NE
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101450549
NV101450549
NMC1094600
  
ARCHON 53
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 004
NW
21 0280N 0340E 032
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
SW
NV101352577
NV101352577
NMC1094442
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101352578
NV101352578
NMC1094443
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 015
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101353537
NV101353537
NMC1094444
  
WAR EMBLEM 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101353538
NV101353538
NMC1094445
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101353539
NV101353539
NMC1094446
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101353540
NV101353540
NMC1094447
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101353541
NV101353541
NMC1094448
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NW
NV101353542
NV101353542
NMC1094449
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101353543
NV101353543
NMC1094450
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101353544
NV101353544
NMC1094451
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101353545
NV101353545
NMC1094452
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NV101353546
NV101353546
NMC1094453
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
NV101353547
NV101353547
NMC1094454
  
WAR EMBLEM 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
SW
NV101353548
NV101353548
NMC1094455
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
SW
NV101353549
NV101353549
NMC1094456
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
SW
NV101353550
NV101353550
NMC1094457
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101353551
NV101353551
NMC1094458
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101353552
NV101353552
NMC1094459
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
SE
NV101353553
NV101353553
NMC1094460
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
SE
NV101353554
NV101353554
NMC1094461
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
SE
NV101353555
NV101353555
NMC1094462
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
SE
NV101353556
NV101353556
NMC1094463
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
NW
SW
NV101353557
NV101353557
NMC1094464
  
WAR EMBLEM 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
NV101354537
NV101354537
NMC1094465
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
NV101354538
NV101354538
NMC1094466
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
NV101354539
NV101354539
NMC1094467
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
NV101354540
NV101354540
NMC1094468
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
SW
NV101354541
NV101354541
NMC1094469
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
NV101354542
NV101354542
NMC1094470
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
NV101354543
NV101354543
NMC1094471
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
WAR EMBLEM 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
NV101354544
NV101354544
NMC1094472
  
WAR EMBLEM 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
NV101354545
NV101354545
NMC1094473
  
WAR EMBLEM 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
NV101354546
NV101354546
NMC1094474
  
WAR EMBLEM 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101354547
NV101354547
NMC1094475
  
WAR EMBLEM 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101354548
NV101354548
NMC1094476
  
WAR EMBLEM 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101354549
NV101354549
NMC1094477
  
WAR EMBLEM 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
NV101354550
NV101354550
NMC1094478
  
WAR EMBLEM 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NW
NV101354551
NV101354551
NMC1094479
  
WAR EMBLEM 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101354552
NV101354552
NMC1094480
  
WAR EMBLEM 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101354553
NV101354553
NMC1094481
  
WAR EMBLEM 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101354554
NV101354554
NMC1094482
  
WAR EMBLEM 41
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101354555
NV101354555
NMC1094483
  
WAR EMBLEM 42
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 021
SE
21 0280N 0340E 022
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NE
NV101360394
NV101360394
NMC1094256
  
PHALANX 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 019
NE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101360395
NV101360395
NMC1094257
  
PHALANX 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101360396
NV101360396
NMC1094258
  
PHALANX 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101360397
NV101360397
NMC1094259
  
PHALANX 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101360398
NV101360398
NMC1094260
  
PHALANX 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
NV101360399
NV101360399
NMC1094261
  
PHALANX 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101360400
NV101360400
NMC1094262
  
PHALANX 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101450525
NV101450525
NMC1094263
  
PHALANX 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101450526
NV101450526
NMC1094264
  
PHALANX 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NV101450527
NV101450527
NMC1094265
  
PHALANX 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
NV101450528
NV101450528
NMC1094266
  
PHALANX 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
SW
NV101450529
NV101450529
NMC1094267
  
PHALANX 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
SW
NV101450530
NV101450530
NMC1094268
  
PHALANX 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
SW
NV101450531
NV101450531
NMC1094269
  
PHALANX 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
SW
NV101450532
NV101450532
NMC1094270
  
PHALANX 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NW
SW
NV101450533
NV101450533
NMC1094271
  
PHALANX 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101450534
NV101450534
NMC1094272
  
PHALANX 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
SE
NV101450535
NV101450535
NMC1094273
  
PHALANX 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
SE
NV101450536
NV101450536
NMC1094274
  
PHALANX 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
SE
NV101450537
NV101450537
NMC1094275
  
PHALANX 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
NW
SW
NV101485517
NV101485517
NMC1094276
  
PHALANX 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/14/2013
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
NV101485518
NV101485518
NMC1094277
  
PHALANX 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
NV101485519
NV101485519
NMC1094278
  
PHALANX 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101485520
NV101485520
NMC1094279
  
PHALANX 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
NV101485521
NV101485521
NMC1094280
  
PHALANX 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SW
NV101485522
NV101485522
NMC1094281
  
PHALANX 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
SW
NV101485523
NV101485523
NMC1094282
  
PHALANX 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
NV101485524
NV101485524
NMC1094283
  
PHALANX 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
NV101485525
NV101485525
NMC1094284
  
PHALANX 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
NV101485526
NV101485526
NMC1094285
  
PHALANX 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
NV101485527
NV101485527
NMC1094286
  
PHALANX 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NW
NV101485528
NV101485528
NMC1094287
  
PHALANX 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101485529
NV101485529
NMC1094288
  
PHALANX 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101485530
NV101485530
NMC1094289
  
PHALANX 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101485531
NV101485531
NMC1094290
  
PHALANX 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 020
SE
21 0280N 0340E 021
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
NW
21 0280N 0340E 029
NE
NV101358798
NV101358798
NMC1095352
  
TOLSTOY 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/31/2013
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
NV101358799
NV101358799
NMC1095353
  
TOLSTOY 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
NV101358800
NV101358800
NMC1095354
  
TOLSTOY 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 019
SE
NV101359780
NV101359780
NMC1095355
  
TOLSTOY 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/31/2013
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101359791
NV101359791
NMC1095366
  
TOLSTOY 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/31/2013
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101359792
NV101359792
NMC1095367
  
TOLSTOY 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101359793
NV101359793
NMC1095368
  
TOLSTOY 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101359794
NV101359794
NMC1095369
  
TOLSTOY 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101359795
NV101359795
NMC1095370
  
TOLSTOY 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101359781
NV101359781
NMC1095356
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/1/2013
21 0280N 0340E 011
SW
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
NV101359782
NV101359782
NMC1095357
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 011
SW
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
NV101359783
NV101359783
NMC1095358
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 011
SW
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
NV101359784
NV101359784
NMC1095359
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
NV101359785
NV101359785
NMC1095360
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
NV101359786
NV101359786
NMC1095361
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
NV101359787
NV101359787
NMC1095362
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101359788
NV101359788
NMC1095363
  
TOLSTOY 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101359789
NV101359789
NMC1095364
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101359790
NV101359790
NMC1095365
(ASARCO) Sliding Scale NSR 1% - 5%
TOLSTOY 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101864048
NV101864048
NMC1096127
  
EMISSARY 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/19/2013
21 0280N 0330E 025
SW
21 0280N 0330E 026
SE
21 0280N 0330E 035
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864049
NV101864049
NMC1096128
  
EMISSARY 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SW
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864050
NV101864050
NMC1096129
  
EMISSARY 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SW
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101864051
NV101864051
NMC1096130
  
EMISSARY 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0330E 025
SW
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864052
NV101864052
NMC1096131
  
EMISSARY 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SW
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864053
NV101864053
NMC1096132
  
EMISSARY 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
SW
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NW
NV101864054
NV101864054
NMC1096133
  
EMISSARY 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NV101864055
NV101864055
NMC1096134
  
EMISSARY 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NV101864056
NV101864056
NMC1096135
  
EMISSARY 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NV101864057
NV101864057
NMC1096136
  
EMISSARY 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NV101864058
NV101864058
NMC1096137
  
EMISSARY 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 025
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
21 0280N 0340E 030
SW
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
NV101864059
NV101864059
NMC1096138
  
EMISSARY 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 035
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864060
NV101864060
NMC1096139
  
EMISSARY 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864061
NV101864061
NMC1096140
  
EMISSARY 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864062
NV101864062
NMC1096141
  
EMISSARY 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864443
NV101864443
NMC1096142
  
EMISSARY 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/19/2013
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
NV101864444
NV101864444
NMC1096143
  
EMISSARY 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
NW
SE
NV101864445
NV101864445
NMC1096144
  
EMISSARY 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
SE
NV101864446
NV101864446
NMC1096145
  
EMISSARY 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101864447
NV101864447
NMC1096146
  
EMISSARY 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
SE
NV101864448
NV101864448
NMC1096147
  
EMISSARY 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
SE
NV101864449
NV101864449
NMC1096148
  
EMISSARY 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
NW
SW
NV101864450
NV101864450
NMC1096149
  
EMISSARY 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 035
NE
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
SW
NV101864451
NV101864451
NMC1096150
  
EMISSARY 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
SW
NV101864452
NV101864452
NMC1096151
  
EMISSARY 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
SW
NV101864453
NV101864453
NMC1096152
  
EMISSARY 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
SW
NV101864454
NV101864454
NMC1096153
  
EMISSARY 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
NW
SW
NV101864455
NV101864455
NMC1096154
  
EMISSARY 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
SW
NV101864456
NV101864456
NMC1096155
  
EMISSARY 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864457
NV101864457
NMC1096156
  
EMISSARY 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864458
NV101864458
NMC1096157
  
EMISSARY 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864459
NV101864459
NMC1096158
  
EMISSARY 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864460
NV101864460
NMC1096159
  
EMISSARY 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
SW
NV101864461
NV101864461
NMC1096160
  
EMISSARY 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NW
21 0280N 0330E 035
SE
21 0280N 0330E 036
SW
NV101864462
NV101864462
NMC1096161
  
EMISSARY 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101864463
NV101864463
NMC1096162
  
EMISSARY 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0330E 001
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SW
NV101864822
NV101864822
NMC1096163
  
EMISSARY 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/19/2013
21 0270N 0330E 001
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SW
NV101864823
NV101864823
NMC1096164
  
EMISSARY 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SW
NV101864824
NV101864824
NMC1096165
  
EMISSARY 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
SW
NV101864825
NV101864825
NMC1096166
  
EMISSARY 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864826
NV101864826
NMC1096167
  
EMISSARY 41
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864827
NV101864827
NMC1096168
  
EMISSARY 42
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864828
NV101864828
NMC1096169
  
EMISSARY 43
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0330E 001
NE
21 0270N 0340E 006
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
NV101864829
NV101864829
NMC1096170
  
EMISSARY 44
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 006
NW
21 0280N 0330E 036
SE
21 0280N 0340E 031
SW
NV101865384
NV101865384
NMC1100571
  
TOLSTOY 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/7/2014
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 023
NE
NW
NV101865385
NV101865385
NMC1100572
  
TOLSTOY 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
NE
NV101865386
NV101865386
NMC1100573
  
TOLSTOY 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 013
SW
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
NE
21 0280N 0340E 024
NW
NV101864737
NV101864737
NMC1101232
  
TOLSTOY 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
4/3/2014
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 011
NE
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101864738
NV101864738
NMC1101233
  
TOLSTOY 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NE
NV101864739
NV101864739
NMC1101234
  
TOLSTOY 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 002
SE
21 0280N 0340E 011
NE
NV101355815
NV101355815
NMC1102375
  
CENTURION 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
4/29/2014
21 0280N 0340E 022
SE
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101355816
NV101355816
NMC1102376
  
CENTURION 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101355817
NV101355817
NMC1102377
  
CENTURION 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101355818
NV101355818
NMC1102378
  
CENTURION 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101355819
NV101355819
NMC1102379
  
CENTURION 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101355820
NV101355820
NMC1102380
  
CENTURION 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NW
NV101355821
NV101355821
NMC1102381
  
CENTURION 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SE
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101355822
NV101355822
NMC1102382
  
CENTURION 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SE
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101355823
NV101355823
NMC1102383
  
CENTURION 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SE
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101355824
NV101355824
NMC1102384
  
CENTURION 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 023
SE
21 0280N 0340E 024
SW
21 0280N 0340E 025
NW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101355825
NV101355825
NMC1102385
  
CENTURION 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
NV101355826
NV101355826
NMC1102386
  
CENTURION 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101356777
NV101356777
NMC1102387
  
CENTURION 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
4/29/2014
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101356778
NV101356778
NMC1102388
  
CENTURION 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101356779
NV101356779
NMC1102389
  
CENTURION 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
NV101356801
NV101356801
NMC1102390
  
CENTURION 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NW
NV101356802
NV101356802
NMC1102391
  
CENTURION 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101356803
NV101356803
NMC1102392
  
CENTURION 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101356804
NV101356804
NMC1102393
  
CENTURION 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101356805
NV101356805
NMC1102394
  
CENTURION 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 025
NW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NV101356806
NV101356806
NMC1102395
  
CENTURION 21
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
NE
SE
NV101356807
NV101356807
NMC1102396
  
CENTURION 22
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
SW
NV101356808
NV101356808
NMC1102397
  
CENTURION 23
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
SW
NV101356809
NV101356809
NMC1102398
  
CENTURION 24
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
SW
NV101356810
NV101356810
NMC1102399
  
CENTURION 25
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NW
SW
NV101356811
NV101356811
NMC1102400
  
CENTURION 26
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101356812
NV101356812
NMC1102401
  
CENTURION 27
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
SE
NV101356813
NV101356813
NMC1102402
  
CENTURION 28
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
SE
NV101356814
NV101356814
NMC1102403
  
CENTURION 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101356815
NV101356815
NMC1102404
  
CENTURION 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0280N 0340E 025
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
NE
SE
NV101356816
NV101356816
NMC1102405
  
CENTURION 31
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 027
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101356817
NV101356817
NMC1102406
  
CENTURION 32
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101356818
NV101356818
NMC1102407
  
CENTURION 33
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101357773
NV101357773
NMC1102408
  
CENTURION 34
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
4/29/2014
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101357774
NV101357774
NMC1102409
  
CENTURION 35
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
NW
NV101357775
NV101357775
NMC1102410
  
CENTURION 36
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
NE
NW
NV101357776
NV101357776
NMC1102411
  
CENTURION 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NE
NV101357777
NV101357777
NMC1102412
  
CENTURION 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NE
NV101357778
NV101357778
NMC1102413
  
CENTURION 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 026
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NE
NV101357779
NV101357779
NMC1102414
  
CENTURION 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 025
SW
21 0280N 0340E 026
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
NE
21 0280N 0340E 036
NW
NV101351053
NV101351053
NMC1102873
  
MAVERICK 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/5/2014
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
NV101351054
NV101351054
NMC1102874
  
MAVERICK 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101351055
NV101351055
NMC1102875
  
MAVERICK 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
NV101351056
NV101351056
NMC1102876
  
MAVERICK 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
SW
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NW
NV101351057
NV101351057
NMC1102877
  
MAVERICK 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NV101351058
NV101351058
NMC1102878
  
MAVERICK 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NV101351059
NV101351059
NMC1102879
  
MAVERICK 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NV101351060
NV101351060
NMC1102880
  
MAVERICK 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NV101351061
NV101351061
NMC1102881
  
MAVERICK 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 001
SW
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
21 0270N 0340E 012
NW
NV101351062
NV101351062
NMC1102882
  
MAVERICK 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 010
NE
SE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
SW
NV101351063
NV101351063
NMC1102883
  
MAVERICK 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
SW
NV101351064
NV101351064
NMC1102884
  
MAVERICK 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
SW
NV101351065
NV101351065
NMC1102885
  
MAVERICK 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW
SW
NV101351066
NV101351066
NMC1102886
  
MAVERICK 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
NW
SE
SW
NV101351067
NV101351067
NMC1102887
  
MAVERICK 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
SE
NV101351068
NV101351068
NMC1102888
  
MAVERICK 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
SE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101351069
NV101351069
NMC1102889
  
MAVERICK 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
SE
NV101351070
NV101351070
NMC1102890
  
MAVERICK 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
SE
NV101351071
NV101351071
NMC1102891
  
MAVERICK 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 011
NE
SE
21 0270N 0340E 012
NW
SW
NV101490022
NV101490022
NMC1102852
  
BLOCKADE 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
6/5/2014
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
SW
21 0270N 0340E 003
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
NV101490023
NV101490023
NMC1102853
  
BLOCKADE 2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW
NV101490024
NV101490024
NMC1102854
  
BLOCKADE 3
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW
NV101490025
NV101490025
NMC1102855
  
BLOCKADE 4
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW
NV101490026
NV101490026
NMC1102856
  
BLOCKADE 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NW
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW
NV101490027
NV101490027
NMC1102857
  
BLOCKADE 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NE
NW
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 035
SW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101490028
NV101490028
NMC1102858
  
BLOCKADE 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
  
21 0270N 0340E 002
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SE
SW
NV101490029
NV101490029
NMC1102859
  
BLOCKADE 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SE
NV101490030
NV101490030
NMC1102860
  
BLOCKADE 9
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SE
NV101490031
NV101490031
NMC1102861
  
BLOCKADE 10
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 001
NW
SW
21 0270N 0340E 002
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 035
SE
NV101490032
NV101490032
NMC1102862
  
BLOCKADE 11
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
21 0270N 0340E 003
SE
NV101490033
NV101490033
NMC1102863
  
BLOCKADE 12
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
NV101490034
NV101490034
NMC1102864
  
BLOCKADE 13
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
NV101490035
NV101490035
NMC1102865
  
BLOCKADE 14
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
NV101490036
NV101490036
NMC1102866
  
BLOCKADE 15
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
SW
NV101490037
NV101490037
NMC1102867
  
BLOCKADE 16
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
NV101490038
NV101490038
NMC1102868
  
BLOCKADE 17
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
NV101490039
NV101490039
NMC1102869
  
BLOCKADE 18
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
NV101490040
NV101490040
NMC1102870
  
BLOCKADE 19
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
NV101490041
NV101490041
NMC1102871
  
BLOCKADE 20
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 001
SW
21 0270N 0340E 002
SE
NV101490042
NV101490042
NMC1102872
  
MAVERICK 1
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0270N 0340E 002
SW
21 0270N 0340E 003
SE
21 0270N 0340E 010
NE
21 0270N 0340E 011
NW

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Serial
Number
Lead File
 Number
Legacy Serial
Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case
Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment
Due Date
Date Of
Location
Meridian Township
Range Section
Quadrant
NV101450895
NV101450895
NMC1103419
  
DREADNOUGHT 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
7/17/2014
21 0280N 0340E 015
NE
SE
NV101487294
NV101487294
NMC1105695
  
X 37
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/20/2014
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 028
SE
21 0280N 0340E 033
NE
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101488307
NV101488307
NMC1105696
  
X 38
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
8/20/2014
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101488308
NV101488308
NMC1105697
  
X 39
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101488309
NV101488309
NMC1105698
  
X 40
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 027
SW
21 0280N 0340E 034
NW
NV101488310
NV101488310
NMC1105699
  
LYN 84 R
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/8/2014
21 0280N 0330E 002
NE
NV101352180
NV101352180
NMC1104442
  
TOLSTOY 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/25/2014
21 0280N 0340E 014
NW
SW
NV101352181
NV101352181
NMC1104443
  
TOLSTOY 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SW
NV101330776
NV101330776
NMC1119848
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO 66
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/10/2016
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
SW
NV101883155
NV101883155
NMC1169409
  
ELLISON #1
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/27/2018
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101883158
NV101883158
NMC1169412
  
ELLISON #4
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/27/2018
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101883156
NV101883156
NMC1169410
  
ELLISON #2
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/28/2018
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101883157
NV101883157
NMC1169411
  
ELLISON #3
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101883159
NV101883159
NMC1169413
  
ELLISON #5
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
3/28/2018
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101883928
NV101883928
NMC1169414
  
ELLISON #6
PERSHING
FILED
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101471339
NV101471339
NMC1154550
3% NSR (Solidus)
SHO 61B
PERSHING
FILED
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/13/2017
21 0280N 0340E 003
SE
SW
NV101471340
NV101471340
NMC1154551
3% NSR (Solidus)
PORCUPIINE 28A
PERSHING
FILED
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
21 0280N 0340E 014
SE
NV101508612
NV101508612
NMC1061499
  
LH 29
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/27/2011
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
SW
NV101508613
NV101508613
NMC1061500
  
LH 30
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
10/27/2011
21 0280N 0340E 008
SE
21 0280N 0340E 009
SW
21 0280N 0340E 016
NW
21 0280N 0340E 017
NE

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Rochester Leased Claims
 
Serial Number
Claimant
Legacy Serial Number
Royalty
Claim Name
County
Case Disposition
Claim Type
Next Payment Due Date
Date Of Location
Meridian Township Range Section
Quadrant
NV101319569
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925188
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 315
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/17/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101319570
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925189
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 316
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/17/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101319571
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925190
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 317
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/17/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
NV101319572
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925191
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 318
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/17/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NE
NW
NV101319585
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925210
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 337
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/15/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101319586
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925211
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 338
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/15/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101319587
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925212
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 339
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/15/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101319588
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC925213
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
SV 340
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
2/15/2006
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
21 0280N 0340E 009
NW
NV101361491
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC965332
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
DUFFY 5
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/2007
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101361492
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC965333
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
DUFFY 6
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/2007
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
NV101361493
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC965334
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
DUFFY 7
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/2007
21 0280N 0340E 004
SW
NV101361494
Genevieve Duffy Pierce
NMC965335
3% NSR
(Outside of Mine Plan)
DUFFY 8
PERSHING
ACTIVE
LODE CLAIM
9/1/2022
9/5/2007
21 0280N 0340E 004
SE
SW
NV101605673
Dale and Diana Chabino
NMC780754
3% NSR (Outside of Mine Plan)
FREEDOM #2
PERSHING
ACTIVE
PLACER CLAIM
9/1/2022
11/3/1997
21 0280N 0340E 008
NE
NW
 
Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Federal Patented Claims
 
Claim Name
Federal Patent №
Assessor’s Parcel №
Akron Quartz Mine
959332
15-020-37
Baltimore
886486
15-020-36
Canyon
469396
  
Canyon No. 1
469396
15-020-30
Crown Hills
537044
15-020-35
Crown Point No. 1
537044
15-020-35
Crown Wedge Fraction
537044
15-020-35
Dorothea
959332
15-020-37
Iditarod
959332
15-020-37
Joplin No. 1
886486
15-020-36
Joplin No. 2
886486
15-020-36
Joplin No. 3
886486
15-020-36
Joplin No. 4
886486
15-020-36
Joplin No. 5
886486
15-020-36
Joplin No. 6
886486
15-020-36
Joplin Fraction
886486
15-020-36
Packard No. 1
959332
15-020-37
Packard No. 2
959332
15-020-37
Packard No. 3
959332
15-020-37
Packard Fraction959332
15-020-37
Packard Fraction959332
West Slope
1112519
15-020-35
 
Real Property Owned
 
The Surface Estate, together with rock, sand, clay, gravel, and placer minerals only, in and to the following parcels of land: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 015-460-01, 015-460-02, 015-460-04, 015-050-32.
 
The Surface Estate and Mineral Estate in the following parcels of land: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 015-020-24, 015-020-13, 015-430-01, 015-430-02, 015-430-03, 015-430-04, 015-430-05, 015-430-06, 015-430-07, 015-430-08, 015-020-18, 015-020-28, 015-020-39, 015-020-38, 015-020-16, 015-020-17, 015-020-21, 015-020-20, 015-020-19, 015-020-23, 015-020-22, 015-020-12.
 
Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
Maps

 
Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
 
Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Rochester Operations
Nevada
Technical Report Summary
   
 

Date:  February 2022
Appendix A
Exhibit 96.3

 
 
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
 
 
Prepared for:
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Prepared by:
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
Ms. Rae Keim, P. Geo
Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME
 
Report current as at:
 December 31, 2021

Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Date and Signature Page
 
The following Qualified Persons, who are employees of Coeur Mining, Inc or its subsidiaries,  prepared this technical report summary, entitled “Kensington Gold Operations, Alaska, Technical Report Summary” and confirm that the information in the technical report summary is current as at  December 31, 2021 and filed on February 16, 2022.
 
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
 
/s/ Rae Keim
Rae Keim, P. Geo
 
/s/ Peter Haarala
Peter Haarala, RM SME

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page a
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
CONTENTS

1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Terms of Reference
1-1
1.3
Property Setting
1-1
1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
1-2
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
1-3
1.6
History and Exploration
1-4
1.7
Drilling and Sampling
1-4
1.8
Data Verification
1-5
1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
1-6
1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
1-7
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
1-7
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
1-8
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
1-8
1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
1-9
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
1-9
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
1-10
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
1-11
1.12
Mining Methods
1-12
1.13
Recovery Methods
1-13
1.14
Infrastructure
1-14
1.15
Markets and Contracts
1-15
1.15.1
Market Studies
1-15
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
1-15
1.15.3
Contracts
1-15
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
1-16
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
1-16
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
1-16
1.16.3
Permitting
1-16
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
1-16
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
1-16
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
1-17
1.19
Economic Analysis
1-17
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
1-17
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
1-19
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
1-19
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
1-20
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
1-20
1.20.1
Risks
1-20
1.20.2
Opportunities
1-21
1.21
Conclusions
1-21
1.22
Recommendations
1-21
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1
Registrant
2-1
2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.2.1
Report Purpose
2-1
2.2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page i
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
2.3
Qualified Persons
2-4
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
2-4
2.5
Report Date
2-4
2.6
Information Sources and References
2-4
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
2-4
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3-1
3.1
Introduction
3-1
3.2
Ownership
3-1
3.3
Mineral Title
3-1
3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
3-1
3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
3-1
3.4
Surface Rights
3-5
3.5
Water Rights
3-5
3.6
Agreements and Royalties
3-5
3.6.1
Hyak Agreement
3-5
3.6.2
Hyak Working Agreement
3-7
3.6.3
Hyak Upland Mining Lease
3-7
3.6.4
Stoll/Mydske Lease
3-7
3.6.5
Slate Creek Cove Tideland Lease
3-8
3.6.6
Yankee Cove Lease
3-9
3.6.7
Comet Beach Right-of-Way
3-9
3.6.8
Jualin Mine Road Right-of-Way
3-9
3.6.9
Echo Bay
3-9
3.7
Encumbrances
3-10
3.7.1
Permitting Requirements
3-10
3.7.2
Permitting Timelines
3-10
3.7.3
Violations and Fines
3-10
3.8
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
3-11
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
4-1
4.1
Physiography
4-1
4.2
Accessibility
4-1
4.3
Climate
4-1
4.4
Infrastructure
4-1
5.0
HISTORY
5-1
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
6-1
6.1
Deposit Type
6-1
6.2
Regional Geology
6-1
6.3
Local Geology
6-1
6.3.1
Lithologies
6-3
6.3.2
Structure
6-3
6.3.3
Alteration
6-4
6.3.4
Mineralization
6-4
6.3.4.1
Discrete Veins
6-4
6.3.4.2
Extension Veins
6-5
6.3.4.3
Horizontal Veins
6-5
6.3.4.4
Mineralization
6-6
6.4
Property Geology
6-6
6.4.1
Kensington
6-6
6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-6
6.4.1.2
Lithologies
6-6

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page ii
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4.1.3
Structure
6-6
6.4.1.4
Alteration
6-6
6.4.1.5
Mineralization
6-7
6.4.2
Eureka
6-7
6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-7
6.4.2.2
Lithologies
6-8
6.4.2.3
Structure
6-8
6.4.2.4
Alteration
6-8
6.4.2.5
Mineralization
6-8
6.4.3
Raven
6-8
6.4.3.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-8
6.4.3.2
Lithologies
6-9
6.4.3.3
Structure
6-9
6.4.3.4
Alteration
6-9
6.4.3.5
Mineralization
6-9
6.4.4
Jualin
6-9
6.4.4.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-9
6.4.4.2
Lithologies
6-9
6.4.4.3
Structure
6-11
6.4.4.4
Alteration
6-11
6.4.4.5
Mineralization
6-11
6.4.5
Elmira
6-11
6.4.5.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-11
6.4.5.2
Lithologies
6-11
6.4.5.3
Structure
6-11
6.4.5.4
Alteration
6-12
6.4.5.5
Mineralization
6-12
7.0
EXPLORATION
7-1
7.1
Exploration
7-1
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
7-1
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
7-1
7.1.3
Geochemistry
7-1
7.1.4
Geophysics
7-1
7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
7-2
7.1.6
Exploration Potential
7-2
7.2
Drilling
7-4
7.2.1
Overview
7-4
7.2.2
Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes
7-4
7.2.3
Drilling Completed Since Database Close-out Date
7-4
7.2.4
Drill Methods
7-4
7.2.5
Logging
7-15
7.2.6
Recovery
7-16
7.2.7
Collar Surveys
7-16
7.2.8
Down Hole Surveys
7-16
7.2.9
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
7-16
7.3
Hydrogeology
7-17
7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-17
7.3.2
Comment on Results
7-17
7.4
Geotechnical
7-17
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-17
7.4.2
Comment on Results
7-17

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iii
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
8-1
8.1
Sampling Methods
8-1
8.1.1
Muck
8-1
8.1.2
Channel
8-1
8.1.3
Core
8-1
8.2
Sample Security Methods
8-2
8.3
Density Determinations
8-2
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
8-2
8.5
Sample Preparation
8-4
8.6
Analysis
8-4
8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
8-5
8.8
Database
8-6
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
8-6
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
9-1
9.1
Internal Data Verification
9-1
9.2
External Data Verification
9-1
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
9-2
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
9-2
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
10-1
10.1
Test Laboratories
10-1
10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
10-1
10.2.1
Historical Testwork
10-1
10.2.2
Jualin Testwork
10-1
10.3
Recovery Estimates
10-2
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
10-3
10.5
Deleterious Elements
10-3
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
10-3
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
11-1
11.1
Introduction
11-1
11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
11-1
11.3
Geological Models
11-1
11.4
Density Assignment
11-8
11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
11-8
11.6
Composites
11-8
11.7
Variography
11-9
11.8
Estimation/Interpolation Methods
11-9
11.9
Validation
11-10
11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
11-11
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
11-11
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
11-12
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
11-12
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
11-12
11.11.2
Commodity Price
11-12
11.11.3
Cut-off
11-12
11.11.4
QP Statement
11-13
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
11-13
11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
11-16
12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
12-1
12.1
Introduction
12-1
12.2
Development of Mining Case
12-1
12.3
Designs
12-1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iv
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
12.4
Input Assumptions
12-2
12.5
Ore Loss and Dilution
12-2
12.6
Cut-off Grades
12-2
12.7
Commodity Price
12-4
12.8
Mineral Reserve Statement
12-4
12.9
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
12-4
13.0
MINING METHODS
13-1
13.1
Introduction
13-1
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
13-1
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
13-1
13.4
Mine Access
13-2
13.5
Mining Method Selection
13-2
13.5.1
Kensington
13-2
13.5.2
Raven
13-3
13.5.3
Jualin
13-3
13.5.4
Elmira
13-6
13.6
Blasting and Explosives
13-7
13.7
Underground Sampling and Production Monitoring
13-7
13.8
Production Schedule
13-8
13.9
Backfill
13-8
13.10
Ventilation
13-8
13.11
Underground Infrastructure Facilities
13-10
13.12
Equipment
13-10
13.13
Personnel
13-10
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
14-1
14.1
Process Method Selection
14-1
14.2
Flowsheet
14-1
14.3
Plant Design
14-1
14.3.1
Ore Sorting
14-2
14.3.2
Crushing
14-3
14.3.3
Grinding
14-3
14.3.4
Flotation
14-3
14.3.5
Dewatering
14-3
14.3.6
Tailings
14-4
14.4
Equipment
14-4
14.5
Power and Consumables
14-4
14.5.1
Power
14-4
14.5.2
Water
14-4
14.5.3
Consumables
14-5
14.6
Personnel
14-5
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
15-6
15.1
Introduction
15-6
15.2
Dumps and Leach Pads
15-6
15.2.1
Existing Waste Rock Stockpiles
15-6
15.2.2
Additional Waste Rock Stockpiles
15-8
15.2.3
Waste Rock Barged Offsite
15-8
15.3
Tailings Treatment Facility
15-8
15.4
Water Management
15-9
15.4.1
Domestic Water/Wastewater Plants Overview
15-9
15.4.2
Comet Water Treatment Facility and Process Background
15-10
15.5
Camps and Accommodation
15-10

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page v
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
15.6
Power and Electrical
15-10
15.7
Fuel
15-10
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
16-1
16.1
Markets
16-1
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
16-1
16.3
Contracts
16-1
16.4
QP Statement
16-2
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
17-1
17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
17-1
17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
17-1
17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
17-1
17.4
Permitting
17-2
17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
17-2
17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
17-4
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
18-1
18.1
Introduction
18-1
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
18-1
18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
18-1
18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
18-2
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
18-2
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
18-2
18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
18-2
18.4
QP Statement
18-2
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
19-1
19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
19-1
19.2
Methodology Used
19-1
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
19-1
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
19-1
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
19-1
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
19-2
19.3.4
Metal Prices
19-2
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
19-2
19.3.6
Taxes and Royalties
19-2
19.3.7
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
19-3
19.3.8
Financing
19-3
19.3.9
Inflation
19-3
19.4
Economic Analysis
19-3
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
19-3
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
20-1
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
21-1
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
22-1
22.1
Introduction
22-1
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
22-1
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
22-1
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
22-1
22.5
Data Verification
22-2
22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
22-2
22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
22-3
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
22-3
22.9
Mining Methods
22-3

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vi
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
22.10
Recovery Methods
22-4
22.11
Infrastructure
22-4
22.12
Market Studies
22-5
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
22-5
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
22-6
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
22-6
22.16
Economic Analysis
22-6
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
22-6
22.17.1
Risks
22-6
22.17.2
Opportunities
22-7
22.18
Conclusions
22-7
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
23-1
24.0
REFERENCES
24-1
24.1
Bibliography
24-1
24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
24-2
24.3
Glossary of Terms
24-4
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
25-1
25.1
Introduction
25-1
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
25-1
25.3
Markets
25-1
25.4
Legal Matters
25-1
25.5
Environmental Matters
25-1
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
25-2
25.7
Governmental Factors
25-2
25.8
Internal Controls
25-2
25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
25-2
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
25-3
25.8.3
Risk Assessments
25-3

TABLES

Table 1‑1:
Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
1-9
Table 1‑2:
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
1-9
Table 1‑3:
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
1-12
Table 1‑4:
LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$ M)
1-19
Table 1‑5:
LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ M)
1-19
Table 1‑6:
Annualized Cashflow Statement
1-20
Table 1‑7:
NPV Sensitivity
1-21
Table 2‑1:
QP Chapter Responsibilities
2-5
Table 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Summary Table
3-2
Table 3‑2:
Water Rights
3-6
Table 5‑1:
Exploration and Development History Summary Table
5-2
Table 6‑1:
Stratigraphic Column
6-3
Table 7‑1:
Project Drill Summary Table, Pre-Coeur Drilling
7-5
Table 7‑2:
Project Drill Summary Table, Coeur Drilling
7-6
Table 7‑3:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Kensington
7-7
Table 7‑4:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Eureka
7-8

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vii
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑5:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Raven
7-8
Table 7‑6:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Jualin
7-9
Table 7‑7:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Elmira
7-10
Table 8‑1:
Analytical and Sample Preparation Laboratories
8-3
Table 10‑1:
Historical Metallurgical Testwork
10-2
Table 11‑1:
Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Resources
11-13
Table 11‑2:
Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
11-14
Table 11‑3:
Gold Inferred Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
11-15
Table 12‑1:
Dilution Rate and Dilution Grade
12-3
Table 12‑2:
Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Reserves
12-3
Table 12‑3:
Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
12-6
Table 13‑1:
LOM Production Schedule
13-9
Table 13‑2:
Equipment List
13-11
Table 14‑1:
Process Equipment List
14-5
Table 17‑1:
Key Permits and Approvals
17-3
Table 18‑1:
LOM Capital Projects
18-2
Table 18‑2:
LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$ M)
18-3
Table 18‑3:
LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ M)
18-3
Table 19‑2:
Annualized Cashflow Statement
19-4
Table 19‑3:
NPV Sensitivity
19-4

FIGURES

Figure 2‑1:
Project Location Plan
2-2
Figure 2‑2:
Mining Operations Layout Map
2-3
Figure 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Overview Location Map
3-3
Figure 3‑2:
Mineral Tenure Location Map
3-4
Figure 6‑1:
Regional Geology Map
6-2
Figure 6‑2:
Schematic Showing Development of Discrete and Extensional Vein Arrays
6-5
Figure 6‑3:
Mineralization Cross-Section, Kensington, Eureka, Raven, and Elmira
6-7
Figure 6‑4:
Mineralization Cross-Section, Jualin Deposit
6-10
Figure 7‑1:
Exploration Areas
7-3
Figure 7‑2:
Project Drill Collar Location Plan
7-11
Figure 7‑3:
Drill Section, Section, Kensington
7-12
Figure 7‑4:
Drill Collar Location Section, Raven
7-13
Figure 7‑5:
Drill Collar Location Section, Jualin
7-14
Figure 7‑6:
Drill Collar Location Plan, Elmira
7-15
Figure 11‑1:
Kensington and Raven Model Areas
11-2
Figure 11‑2:
Kensington Model
11-3
Figure 11‑3:
Eureka Model
11-4
Figure 11‑4:
Raven Model
11-5
Figure 11‑5:
#4 Vein Model, Jualin
11-6
Figure 11‑6:
Elmira Model
11-7
Figure 13‑1:
Cross-Section, Kensington
13-4
Figure 13‑2:
Cross-Section, Raven
13-5
Figure 13‑3:
Cross-Section, Jualin
13-6
Figure 13‑4:
Cross-Section, Elmira
13-7
Figure 14‑1:
Process Flowsheet
14-2
Figure 15‑1:
Infrastructure Layout Plan
15-7

APPENDICES
 
Appendix A:  Detailed Mineral Tenure Tables and Figures
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page viii
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

 1.1
Introduction
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Ms. Rae Keim, P.Geo., and Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Kensington Gold Operations (the Kensington Operations or the Project), located in Alaska, USA.
 
Coeur’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), is the operating entity.
 

 1.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Kensington Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources are reported for Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira Zones.  Mineral reserves are reported for Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira Zones. Mineral reserves are also estimated for material in stockpiles.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.  Unless otherwise indicated, the US Customary unit system is used in this Report.  Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.  The Report uses US English.
 

 1.3
Property Setting
 
The Kensington Operations are located within the Berners Bay Mining District, approximately 48 miles northwest of the capital city of Juneau, Alaska.
 
Access to the Kensington Operations is by aircraft (helicopter or float plane) or boat from Juneau.  The mine, mill, and camp complex at Jualin is accessed by boat from Auke Bay, Yankee Cove, or Echo Cove to the Slate Creek Cove dock facility (north side of Berners Bay), then five miles by an all-weather gravel road.  Kensington is reached via Lynn Canal to the support facilities near the 850 Portal on the eastern shore of Lynn Canal or by transit through the mine.  Access to existing mine workings (850 Level Portal) is by three miles of all-weather gravel road from Comet Beach or from the Jualin side of the property.  Heavy equipment and supplies can be brought to both sides of the Project directly from Juneau by barge.
 
The climate in the Project vicinity is maritime with a mean annual precipitation of about 85 inches at the lower mine elevations.  Annual snowfall varies from a few feet at sea level to greater than 10 feet at the 2050 Level Portal.  Mining operations are conducted year-round.  Snow removal equipment is required to keep site roads open during winter months.
 
Topographic relief ranges from moderate, near sea level, to rugged at the base of Lions Head Mountain.
 
Vegetation ranges from dense coniferous forest at sea level to dense brush and bare rock.  The tree line is between 3,000–3,500 ft in elevation, depending on slope aspect.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
Coeur Alaska controls two contiguous claims groups: the Kensington group and Jualin group.  The area covered under the Kensington group claims is 3,969 net acres, and under the Jualin group is 8,366 net acres.  Fourteen of the 23 patented lode claims in the Jualin group cover private surface estate only.  The mineral estate to these 14 patented lode claims located within the U.S. Mineral Surveys is owned by the State of Alaska, the mineral rights to which are secured by a State of Alaska upland mining lease.  Coeur Alaska also controls the properties comprising the Jualin group, under a lease agreement with Hyak Mining Company.
 
The federal unpatented lode claims are maintained by the timely annual payment of claim maintenance fees, which are $165.00 per claim, payable to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management on or before September 1.  State of Alaska mining claims and upland mining leases are maintained with fees and filings to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water and the Juneau Recorder’s Office. These fees range from $35–$680 per claim, depending on the size and age of the claim. Annual labor in the amount of $100 or $400 per State mining claim, depending on the size of the claim, must be performed or a cash payment in-lieu of the performance of that labor must be paid to the State each year.  The patented lode claims are private land and therefore not subject to federal claim maintenance requirements.  However, as private land, they are subject to property taxes assessed by the Borough and City of Juneau, Alaska, which are due annually on or before September 30 each year.
 
The Kensington Operations hold all necessary surface and water rights to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan.
 
Coeur Alaska has an agreement with the Hyak Mining Company (Hyak), as amended August 5, 2005, and further amended July 1, 2009, and October 24, 2013 over the Jualin group claims area (the Hyak Lease).  The current Hyak Lease period, which is the second term of the lease, commenced on August 5, 2020 and ends on August 5, 2035.  If production occurs from the leased premises, a 5% net returns royalty on production as defined by the Hyak Lease, is due, unless the amount of the net returns royalty is less than the adjusted advance minimum royalty.  If the net returns royalty is less, then the advance minimum royalty is paid instead of the net returns royalty.  The Hyak Lease will continue after 2035, provided mining and production are actively occurring within and from the leased premises.
 
Hyak entered into a working agreement, with an option to purchase, dated July 14, 1982, with Benjamin D. Fremming, Douglas L. Gregg, Thomas E. Schultz, William A. Wondriska, and Mr. and Mrs. Merrill J. Zay over certain patented lode mining claims, Federal unpatented lode and mill site claims and State of Alaska mining claims.  The Hyak Lease incorporates the Hyak working agreement, and the rights awarded under the working agreement apply to the Hyak Lease.  Coeur Alaska has an agreement with Hyak covering a State of Alaska Upland Mining Lease and separate agreements with individuals over a portion of the Falls and Diana patented lode claims within the Jualin group.
 
Rights for ancillary infrastructure at Slate Creek Cove are secured through a 25-year State of Alaska Tideland Lease, granted in 2011.  Coeur Alaska controls a 7.2-acre parcel of land, consisting of a lodge and marine moorage facilities, under a lease agreement, as amended, with Yankee Cove Development, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The State of Alaska granted a right-of-way permit to the Comet Beach facility on April 15, 1995; this was amended on August 15, 1995.  The permit had a 30-year term on grant, expiring 2025, and is subject to an annual payment that is due on or before April 15.
 
Coeur Alaska holds a 10-year public, non-exclusive easement and right-of-way, granted in 2016, from the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Department of Natural Resources authorizing construction and operation of the Jualin Mine Road from Slate Creek Cove to the Jualin Mine site for purposes of limiting public access and improving access to the Kensington operations.
 
Coeur Alaska acquired 100% ownership of the Kensington Group on July 7, 1995 from Echo Bay Mines Ltd. and Echo Bay Alaska (collectively Echo Bay).  Under the acquisition agreement, Coeur Alaska is obligated to pay Echo Bay or its successors a scaled net smelter return royalty on 1 M troy ounces of gold production, after Coeur Alaska recoups the $32.5 million purchase price, plus (i) its construction and development expenditures incurred after July 7, 1995 in connection with placing the property into commercial production, and (ii) certain operating exploration and development costs thereafter.  The royalty ranges from 1% at $400/oz gold prices to a maximum of 2½% at gold prices above $475/oz.
 
A credit agreement between Coeur, certain subsidiaries of Coeur (including Coeur Alaska), and Bank of America, N.A., was entered into on September 29, 2017, as amended (the “Credit Agreement”), under which a security interest in the Kensington property was granted securing a loan of up to $300M.
 

 1.5
Geology and Mineralization
 
The deposits that comprise the Kensington Operations are considered to be examples of mesothermal vein-style, or orogenic-style gold deposits.
 
The Berners Bay mining district forms the northern end of the approximately 200-km-long Juneau gold belt and is situated along the western margin of the Coast Mountains. The district is underlain by Triassic mafic metavolcanic rocks of the Wrangellia Terrane. A Cretaceous stock, the Jualin diorite, intrudes the western margin of the Wrangellia Terrane. Both the Triassic metavolcanic rocks and the Jualin diorite are overlain by Cretaceous-aged metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the Treadwell Formation of the Gravina Belt to the southwest.  The unconformity between the Jualin diorite and the Gravina Belt metasedimentary rocks is marked by a Cretaceous conglomerate.
 
All significant gold vein deposits are hosted in the Jualin diorite between the northwest-trending, first-order Coastal Shear Zone, a broad chlorite-bearing ductile, and syn-metamorphic shear zone that passes through tonalite of the Coast Plutonic complex approximately 1.2 miles east of the diorite, and the Gastineau Shear Zone, which is the largest of a set of ductile shear zones that pass through the Gravina belt to the southwest. A zone of second- and third-order shears, termed the Kensington Megashear zone, appears to be the most significant influence on mineralized vein systems in the district. Brittle faults and third-order shear zones host discrete extensional quartz–carbonate veins and gold mineralization.
 
Discrete vein systems are defined by one or more through-going, fault-filling quartz veins.   Discrete veins typically host the highest-grade gold mineralization, dip moderately to steeply east, and typically range between a few inches to several feet in width.  Extensional veins consist of zones of numerous veins that mostly dip steeply to moderately west, but are contained within an overall east-dipping system, and occur adjacent to, or at, terminations of fault-fill veins.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Vein mineralization is characterized by gold and gold–silver telluride minerals with minor associated native gold. Most of the gold is contained in calaverite (AuTe2), which occurs in association with native gold as inclusions in and interstitial to pyrite grains and in microfractures in pyrite.
 

 1.6
History and Exploration
 
Prior to Coeur’s acquisition of a 100% interest in the Project, the following companies were active in the area between 1978–1993:  Hyak, Homestake Mining Co.; Placid Oil Company (Placid Oil); Bear Creek Mining Company (Bear Creek); International Curator Resources (Curator); Granges Exploration Inc.; Kensington Joint Venture (Coeur Alaska and Echo Bay); and Placer Dome U.S. Inc. (Placer).  Work conducted included claim staking, geologic mapping and sampling, core drilling, construction of an access road, and completion of a feasibility study.
 
Coeur acquired its 100% interest in 1995.  Work completed since the acquisition includes surveying and aerial photography, airborne magnetic geophysical survey, helicopter magnetic survey feasibility studies, studies in aid of permitting, mine and facility construction, and mine operations.
 
The Project area is a target-rich environment given that it is an orogenic gold system and the volcanic feeder at the bottom of the system has not been discovered.  This means that veins likely continue deeper than is currently drilled.  Using this interpretation, it becomes necessary to test offsetting relationships whenever it appears that a vein is closed down dip.  Currently there are plans to continue resource infill and expansion drilling on all the current mining prospects.  Two prospects are waiting on the most recent drilling results and subsequent interpretation but will likely require additional testwork.
 

 1.7
Drilling and Sampling
 
The drill database for the Project area contains 7,182 core drill holes (2,386,698 ft).  Drilling that supports the mineral resource estimates consists of 4,600 core holes (2,119,138 ft).
 
Drilling that is excluded from estimation support includes production stope and utility holes, drill holes that have known spatial issues due to missing survey data, and drill holes that did not reach final depth.
 
Core loggers visually collect lithological intercepts, alteration type and intensity, mineralization type and concentration, vein composition, style, density, and structural type and intensity.  Maximum and minimum intercept angles are collected for all planar features.  During core logging core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) measurements are collected.  Core is photographed before sampling but after logging.
 
Surface collar surveys are taken using an RTK global positioning system (GPS) SPS 985 instrument.  Underground surveys are recorded using a Trimble SPS 930.  Before the widespread adoption of GPS for collar surveying, some collar shots were taken by triangulating off the AK NAD 27 SP Z21 grid topographic map.  Downhole surveys were performed with Sperry Sun-type, Fotobor, Reflex Maxibor, Reflex Gyro, Axis Champ, and most recently IDS Gyromaster tools.
 
Drilling is oriented as practicable to intersect the vein systems, given the underground development available to act as drill stations.  Typically, the drilled intercept width is longer than the true width.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Channel sampling has been conducted since 2014, taking one or two 1 ft horizontal samples from rib-to-rib.  Core sample intervals are based on the distribution of vein density, vein type, mineralization, and any other geological feature needing assay definition. The geologist marks sample intervals, ranging from 1–5 ft in length.  Whole core samples are taken from production drill holes (infill and stope holes).  Half-core samples are taken from all exploration drill holes, where geologically warranted.
 
Density data determinations were collected using both water submersion (2010 drilling program) and more recent gas pycnometer (2020–present).
 
Independent primary and umpire laboratories used include Barringer, Bondar-Clegg, Cone Geochemical, ALS Chemex, American Assay Laboratories, Inspectorate America Corporation, Pinnacle Analytical Laboratories, Acme Laboratories, McClelland Laboratories and Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada, Ltd.  Laboratories used early in Project exploration and development programs were not accredited; later laboratories had ISO9001 or ISO17025 accreditations.  The non-independent Kensington mine assay laboratory was also used.
 
Sample preparation for channel and stope definition drill samples consisted of crushing to 80% passing a 12-mesh screen and pulverizing to 90% passing a 140-mesh screen.  Core samples were initially crushed to 80% passing 10 mesh (2 mm), later to 70% passing 10 mesh (2 mm), and pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh.
 
Gold analyses included 30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish or 30 g fire assay with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish.  Over-limit assays (>0.292 oz/st Au) were by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.  Over-limit assays >1 oz/st were run by metallic screening until August 2018 when this practice was discontinued.  Multi-element analyses included: four-acid digestion with inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish, 33-element suite; and four-acid digestion with ICP-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) finish, 48-element suite, and multi-acid digest with ICP-MS/emission spectroscopy finish, 45 element suite.
 
Historically, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures consisted of routine check assays of original pulps, check assays of duplicate pulps from coarse rejects and use of geochemical blanks to determine contamination during sample preparation. Metallic-screen analysis was performed prior to August 2018 to check for coarse gold.  Current procedures include insertion of custom certified reference materials (CRMs), blanks, and duplicates (field, crush, pulp, and analytical).  Field duplicates are taken only for exploration core.  Insertion rates are as follows: insertion rates of 5% for standards, 5% for blanks, and 2.5% for duplicates.  Check assays were selected at 5–10% of sample assays received monthly and were sent to an independent ISO certified secondary analytical laboratory for analysis.  The QA/QC data are acceptable to support mineral resource estimation.
 
Data collected are stored in an acQuire Geologic Information Management System.  The system stored traditional drill hole data (collar location, orientation, downhole survey, assay, and documentation), but was also used to store mine development sampling, surface exploration sampling, and channel sampling.  Data are subject to regular backup.
 

 1.8
Data Verification
 
Data verification included internal and external database audits.  Drill collar surveys and downhole surveys are viewed in plan and section and checked against development workings.  Contractor shift reports are compared to actual total drill hole footages.  Core logging data and core photos are checked for completeness.  Assay data and QA/QC data are reviewed.  Data that have not been reviewed and passed QA/QC analysis do not pass the verification process.  Once all data are complete and have been reviewed by the responsible persons, they are reviewed by a senior geologist and signed off on by the Chief Geologist or their designate and locked to further editing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The QP personally undertook QA/QC verification, participated in programs to verify drill data prior to mineral resource estimation, checked selected gold assay data, conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports, and signed off on 2015–present definition drill holes and the 2021 drilling.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 

 1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
 
Independent metallurgical testwork facilities used over the Project life, where recorded, included Pittsburgh Minerals and Environmental Technology, Inc., Cannon Microprobe, SGS Vancouver, Colorado Minerals and Research Institute, Maxim Technologies, Inc., Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc., Knelson Research & Technology Center, Hazen Research, Inc., and G & T Metallurgical Services Ltd.  The Kensington Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
Gold in the Kensington deposit is present as calaverite (AuTe2), and in the form of free gold or microscopic, “invisible” gold.  The relationship of calaverite to pyrite is either as a rind, an inclusion, or a separate, discrete particle.  Particles range from 3–20 µm in size.  Prior to mill construction at Kensington, six different companies conducted extensive metallurgical testing, including comminution gravity separation, flotation (flash flotation, locked-cycle testing, and various reagent additions) and cyanidation of concentrates.  Test results were used as a guideline for plant design.  Metallurgical test results were consistent in the recommended methods of process design, extraction and recovery estimates.
 
Gold in the Jualin deposit is in the form of native gold and highly liberated gold minerals, and exhibits high gold–sulfide associations.  Tests included flotation using similar operating conditions to those in use in the Kensington plant flotation circuit, and gravity testwork.  Flotation recovery results that averaged 95.8% recovery indicated that the existing circuit could recover the Jualin material with minimal gold losses.  However, it was decided to refurbish the existing Knelson concentrator in the plant in case material from Jualin did not mirror the results obtained from the Jualin Vein #4 mineralization.
 
Recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data.  Recovery factors are appropriate to the mineralization types and the selected process route.  The LOM gold recovery forecast is 95.3%.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
 

 1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
 
All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis, which could include histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.
 
The Kensington resource model currently contains a total of 36 estimation domains that were based on combination of lithology and mineralization.  The Eureka resource model has two estimation domains.  The Raven resource model has five estimation domains.  The Jualin resource model has four estimation domains.  The Elmira resource model has three estimation domains.  Each estimation domain is based on lithology and mineralization.
 
The estimation domains that inform the Elmira, Raven, and Jualin resource estimates are generated by selecting quartz vein intercepts regardless of the grade.  Each lithological intercept is visually checked by reviewing photos of the drill core.  Boundaries of each domain are snapped as close to the lithological breaks as possible.  Each domain and the diorite host rock have a respective density factor.  If the block is outside of a mineral estimation domain, the block is given the density determined for the diorite host rock.  If inside the domain, it is given the determined density for that estimation domain.
 
Grade caps were determined by a study of the exploratory data analysis, general statistics, histograms, log normal probability plots, and reconciliation data.  Depending on the domain, caps could range from 0.3–6 oz/st.  For the Kensington and Eureka resource models, drill data were composited at 5 ft down-the-hole intervals by estimation domain using the run-length method.  When compositing for Elmira, Raven, and Jualin, full vein width composites were created using the run-length method to accurately represent the full vein grade.
 
For the Kensington deposit, variograms were calculated for separate groupings of domains or zones because individual domains had insufficient number of samples to construct a valid variogram model.  The resulting variogram for each zone was applied during estimation for all domains within each zone.  Downhole variograms for the narrow vein deposits at Elmira, Jualin, and Raven were not possible due to the use of single, vein-width composites.
 
The Kensington model was sub-blocked.  Gold grades were estimated into parent blocks using ordinary kriging (OK).  Blocks within each domain were estimated using only composites from within that domain. Eureka was estimated using inverse distance weighting to the second power (ID2).  Elmira, Jualin, and Raven, being narrow vein deposits using single vein-width composites, required a seam model (2D) to better represent each of the estimation domains.  These deposits were estimated using ID2.
 
The block models were validated using some or all of the following methods:  visually by stepping through sections and comparing the raw drill data and composite data with the block values; comparison of model statistics to drill data; swath plots; and mill to model reconciliation.
 
For all deposits other than the #4 Vein at Jualin, the classification of blocks as measured, indicated and inferred was based on drill hole spacing, and set numbers of informing drill holes and samples.  All of the #4 Vein was classified as indicated because of the consistent geology of the discrete vein and the available production and reconciliation data.
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was completed that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting, and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods; proposed waste disposal; and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.  Mineral resources are confined within conceptual underground mineable shapes.  The estimate assumed that the preferred mining method will be longhole stoping, and that the minimum mining width was 5 ft.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The gold price used in resource estimation is based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts, supplemented with research by Coeur’s internal specialists.  The estimated timeframe used is the three-year LOM that supports the mineral reserve estimates. The forecast is US$1,700/oz for the mineral resource estimate.  The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
 
The mineral resources are reported using variable gold cut-off grades that range from 0.120–0.175 oz/st Au.
 

 1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.  All models were depleted through 2021, planned mining shapes were used for the month of December as depletion was run on December 7, 2021.
 
Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 1‑1 and inferred mineral resources in Table 1‑2.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Ms. Rae Keim, P.Geo., a Coeur Alaska employee.
 

 1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include: metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for underground mining constraining the estimates; assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑1:          Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x
1,000)
Gold
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Measured
2,860
0.23
660
0.120–0.175
95
Indicated
1,263
0.26
323
0.120–0.175
95
Total measured and indicated
4,124
0.24
983
0.120–0.175
95
 
Table 1‑2:          Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x
1,000)
Gold
Grade
(oz/st)
Contained
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Inferred
1,915
0.24
455
0.120–0.175
95
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Ms. Rae Keim, P.Geo., a Coeur Alaska employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional longhole underground mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz; reported above a variable gold cut-off grade that ranges from 0.120–0.175 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 95%; gold payability of 97.5%, variable mining costs that range from US$90.91–150.73/st mined, process costs of US$46.93/t processed, general and administrative costs of US$38.83/t processed, and concentrate refining and shipping costs of US$60.00/oz sold.
 
5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 

 1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
 

 1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping, trackless equipment and combination of cemented rock fill (CRF), waste, and paste backfill.  Target mining rates are capped at approximately 2,000 tons per day, which is the permitted capacity limit.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Estimates of development rate are based on measured advance rates in Kensington, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira and any expected variation from manpower or equipment considerations.  Stope production rates are based on measured values of production since the start of operations.
 
Transverse stoping is the main extraction method used in the Main Kensington center area.  Stope outlines are created on 40 ft centers using the standard level spacing (75 ft in Kensington, 35–50 ft in Raven, 35 ft in Jualin, and 60 ft in Elmira) and the reserve model.  Longitudinal stope designs exist in the fringe regions of Zone 10, much of Zones 12, 30, 35, and 50, much of Elmira, and all of Raven area and represent a majority of the tons in the LOM plan.  These areas of longitudinal stoping are too narrow (>30 ft) to convert to transverse stoping, based on the requisite infrastructure required.  Together with the conventional transverse and longitudinal stopes, there are also some blind back stopes, depending on the reserve model and stoping horizon.
 
For Kensington and Elmira, a dilution factor of 15% was used by for mine planning purposes.  For Jualin and Raven, a dilution factor of 15% for development and 20% for mining was used in the mine plans to account for expected narrow vein longitudinal stoping.  Unintentional mining of paste backfill or CRF has not been excessive to date, though instances of sloughing of material during and post blast have been observed in secondary stopes, adding 1–3% additional waste dilution in a few select stopes.  A dilution grade of 0.063 oz/st Au was calculated and has subsequently been used for external dilution applications for the Kensington and Elmira stopes.  A dilution grade of 0.0 oz/st was used for stopes at Raven and Jualin due to minimal or no mineralization extending past the vein itself.
 
Cut-off grades are determined through historical costing for Kensington, Raven, and Jualin.  Mineral reserve cut-off grades range from 0.142–0.201 oz/st Au.  Some blocks are classed as incremental material, which does not include the G&A or mining costs, as those costs are incurred regardless of what the resource classification may be.  As such, this material must be removed from the mine and the consideration is whether it goes to the waste pile or to a low-grade stockpile that only carries the mining and refining costs.  The intent of this material handling designation is for the material to only be processed when mill tonnage needs to be sustained, but where it does not offset other above cut-off grade material.
 
The gold price used in mineral reserve estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks of what other peer companies used for pricing over the past year.  The price used is US$1,400/oz for gold for the mineral reserve estimate.  The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
 

 1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves have been classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 1‑3 that are current as at December 31, 2021.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include variations to the following assumptions: the commodity price; metallurgical recoveries; operating cost estimates; geotechnical conditions; hydrogeological conditions; geological and structural interpretations; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the mineable shapes constraining the estimates; changes to dilution assumptions that can impact grade and operating costs; the inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑3:          Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Proven
656
0.19
125
0.142–0.201
95
Probable
690
0.20
136
0.142–0.201
95
Total proven and probable
1,346
0.19
261
0.142–0.201
95
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve tables:
 
1.
The Mineral reserve estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of deliver to the process plant.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional underground mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.142-0.201 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 95%; gold payability of 97.5%, variable mining costs that range from US$90.91–150.73/st mined, process costs of US$46.93/st processed, general and administrative costs of US$38.83/st processed, and concentrate refining and shipping costs of US$60.00/oz sold.
 
4.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 

 1.12
Mining Methods
 
The Kensington Operations use conventional underground equipment and mining methods.  The mine has been operating since July 2010.  The remaining mine life is three years, to 2024.
 
Geotechnical conditions underground at Kensington are excellent.  The interaction of the mining sequence on the overall stability of the hanging wall has been investigated by an outside geotechnical expert.  Minor non-reportable occurrences have taken place within open stopes where personnel are not exposed.  Regular additional evaluations by an outside geotechnical expert are ongoing.
 
Raven workings have been extended, using guidance from an outside geotechnical expert, with excellent results to date.  The existing ground support guidelines were confirmed to be appropriate for use in the Jualin deposit.
 
There are few hydrogeological aspects to be considered beyond natural inflow of water to the workings within the Kensington and Raven orebodies.  This inflow is monitored, and the water is captured within the workings to be either treated, or discharged, as per Coeur’s permit requirements.  The Jualin deposit is near surface, with several faults and mineralized veins having surface expression.  These structures collect runoff water and, together with the historic Jualin mine workings acting as a reservoir, channel water to the areas under mining development.
 
The primary access to the Kensington and Raven underground mine areas is via the Kensington Portal at the 964 elevation.  This portal is the primary ingress/egress point for all equipment and personnel to access the Kensington and Raven workings.  There is a secondary portal at 792-elevation on what is known as the Comet Beach side, geographically located on the Lynn Canal side of the mountain.  The Jualin deposit is currently accessed by a decline collared from surface at the 926 elevation.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-12
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Stoping and paste backfill mining methods were selected and implemented based on the orebody location, ground conditions, and geological settings.  Mining design assumptions for each mining region are typically standardized for each area and mining method assumed.  Offsets from the ore, required infrastructure, and support are based on industry standards and best practices, modified by specific location required needs, and operational requirements to safely advance development and production in each area with a minimum of wasted development to maximize efficiency.
 
The mine production schedule is based on a maximum mill throughput rate of 2,000 st per day. Coeur typically processes between 1,750–1,950 st/day with a waste stream of about 10% rejected as a coarse pebble reject, which is then passed through a sorter to further extract ore grade material for re-feed back into the mill.
 
Primary ventilation in the Kensington and Raven mine areas is controlled by two fans located in the Comet drift, which pull air from the Kensington/process plant side, near the mill bench, straight through the mountain and exhaust out the Comet side.  Ventilation raises throughout the mine assist in distributing airflow.  Primary ventilation of the Jualin mine area is accomplished with a duct-mounted fan located at the Jualin portal and an in-line booster at the J0625 level, which direct air through to the working areas.  The air exhausts out though the workings back to the portal via the ramp and up through a series of vent/escape raises exhausting through a 10 ft diameter bored raise to surface.
 
Backfill is a combination of cemented paste fill, CRF, and straight waste fill.
 
The Kensington underground infrastructure consists of the main underground shop, the paste plant, and electrical infrastructure. The Raven and Elmira deposits share underground infrastructure and portal access with Kensington. Jualin shares surface infrastructure with Kensington. However, Jualin is accessed from its own portal.
 
Major mining equipment includes the following equipment types:  loaders, haul trucks, jumbo drills, longhole drills, and bolters.  Ancillary support equipment consists of Getman and MacClean flatbeds, explosives loading vehicles, zoom boom forklifts, Kubota RTV’s and tractors, pickups, compressors, and other standard support equipment.
 
The mining/maintenance personnel requirement for the remaining LOM averages 169 persons.
 

 1.13
Recovery Methods
 
The process plant design was based on a combination of metallurgical testwork, study designs, and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the mill was operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 
The Kensington Operations use a flotation mill to recover gold from sulfide-bearing rock.  Crushing and milling facilities are located directly south of the Jualin Portal.  On the portal bench, ore is segregated by grade and blended before being fed to the two-stage, closed-circuit crushing plant.  Once crushed, ore is fed to a ball mill and then to a flotation circuit consisting of two rougher cells and four scavenger cells.  Final cleaner concentrate reports to a concentrate thickener; flotation concentrates are thickened and filtered to approximately 10% moisture.  The final product is a gold concentrate.  The mill throughput was increased from a previous maximum of 69 st/hr in 2012 to 84 st/hr.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-13
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The mill requires approximately 1.5 to 2.0 MW of power to operate at full capacity.  Currently, there is no expectation for this power demand to increase.  Recycled water for use in the process plant is sent from the paste plant, the concentrate and tailings thickeners, and water reclaimed from the tailings treatment facility (TTF).  Johnson Creek is a back-up fresh water source for the mine site, but extraction is subject to permit conditions.  Consumables used in processing include potassium amyl xanthate; methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC); AERO 3894 (promoter); MaxGold 900 (promoter); steel (grinding media); and Z-Flocc 2525.
 

 1.14
Infrastructure
 
The Slate Creek Cove Marine Terminal Facility and a 5.7-mile all-weather access road from the terminal to the mine provides all personnel and materials access to the mine.  The Slate Creek Cove Marine Terminal Facility includes docking capabilities for main line ocean-going barges, personnel ferries, float planes, ramp barges, and landing craft.
 
Site infrastructure is located at both the Kensington and Jualin deposit areas:
 
•
Surface facilities at Kensington include 2.3 miles of all-weather access road from Comet Beach to the Comet Portal (850 Level), the mine water treatment facility with two settling ponds, and a development rock storage facility.  Underground infrastructure includes a paste backfill plant, maintenance shop, warehouse, explosive storage, dewatering, and ventilation.
 
•
Surface facilities at Jualin include a 375-person accommodation camp, dining facility, administration building with medical clinic, warehouse, run-of-mine ore stockpile, crusher and flotation mill, and the TTF at Lower Slate Lake.  The Kensington Tunnel, completed in July 2007, connects the Jualin mill facilities to the orebody.  The tunnel is the primary artery for ore haulage, materials transport, and personnel access.  The tunnel includes 9,660 ft of development from the Kensington Portal to the Kensington ramp system.
 
Kensington has several existing waste rock stockpiles onsite including at Comet, Pit 1, Pit 4, Pit 7, and the Portal Pad.  With the approval of Coeur Alaska’s Plan of Operations Amendment 1 (POA-1), expected in early 2022, Coeur will be allowed to expand the existing Comet, Portal, and Pit 4 stockpiles and create one new stockpile.
 
The existing TTF is currently operating at Stage 3.  Coeur has initiated engineering work for a possible Stage 4 dam raise if additional reserves are added.  The current Stage 3 TTF has capacity to accommodate the remaining LOM storage requirements. Tailings will continue to be backfilled underground as paste to reduce the need for additional storage capacity at the TTF
 
Groundwater captured in the underground mine workings is conveyed to the Comet mine water treatment plant and treated and discharged to Sherman Creek.  Surface water runoff and mill process waters that enter the tailings treatment facility are treated and discharged to the east fork of Slate Creek.  The Comet water treatment facility consists of two water plants and a tertiary plant that supports the primary plants during high treatment demand periods.
 
Electrical power at Kensington is generated by four diesel engines located inside the powerhouse building on the north end of the mill bench.  Power use continues to increase with current peak winter loads at 90–92% of three-generator capacity.  Power capacity is sufficient for the LOM.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-14
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

1.15
Markets and Contracts
 

 1.15.1
Market Studies
 
The Kensington Operations produce flotation concentrate containing both gold and silver.  The concentrate is highly desirable due to its elevated gold content and lack of deleterious elements.  Concentrate is exported out of Seattle, Washington and delivered to smelters in Europe and Asia where it is consumed, processed, and the valuable metals extracted.
 
Concentrate is sold directly to international commodity traders, who then sell onto smelters in Europe and Asia.  Subject to the gold and silver content, gold is typically payable around 98%, and silver payable around 80%.  There are typically no penalties for deleterious elements.  Treatment charges, refining charges, and all other terms and conditions are typical and consistent with standard industry practice for such gold concentrates.
 

 1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year when considering long-term commodity price forecasts. 
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves:
 

 o
US$1,400/oz Au;
 
•
Mineral resources: 
 

 o
US$1,700/oz Au;
 
The economic evaluation uses gold price forecasts of US$1,750/oz for 2022 and 2023, and US$1,700/oz in 2024.
 
The QP considers the price forecasts to be reasonable.
 

 1.15.3
Contracts
 
Concentrate is barged in bags in containers from Slate Creek Cove in Berners Bay, Alaska to Seattle, Washington.  The bags are then transloaded from barge containers into international containers for export out of Seattle to Europe and Asia.  The typical cost to transport concentrate from Slate Creek Cove to Europe and Asia is around US$220 per wet metric tonne, subject to the destination and international ocean freight market conditions.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, contract mining, ground support suppliers, and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-15
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 

 1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
 
Numerous baseline studies were performed in support of Project permitting.  These included air, water, aquatic resources, geology, wildlife, soil, vegetation, wetlands, and cultural resources.  Four environmental impact statement (EIS) documents were prepared, the most recent being a supplemental EIS in 2021.
 
Environmental monitoring at the site includes water quality, aquatic resource, tailings and waste rock geochemistry, wildlife, and stormwater.
 

 1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
A reclamation and closure plan has been prepared and approved by the governing agencies for the Project.  The current plan was updated in 2021 and reflects current mining, mitigation, and site facilities.
 
Coeur conducts an annual review of its potential reclamation responsibilities company-wide.  The total LOM cost for physical reclamation and long-term monitoring of the Kensington Operations is currently estimated to be US$23.7 M.  Reclamation is anticipated to be completed three years following cessation of mining.  Closure-related activities will continue until about 2055.
 

 1.16.3
Permitting
 
All required local, state, and federal permits for operation have been issued.  Plan of Operations Amendment 1 (POA-1) was submitted to the Forest Service in 2018 and is currently under review by the local, state, and federal agencies.  POA-1 will provide 5 Mst of additional waste rock storage and 4 Mst of additional tailings storage at site.  A Final Supplemental Impact Statement was completed in July 2021 and the Final Record of Decision (ROD) is expected in early 2022.
 

 1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur has had a long and positive relationship with the community of Juneau and southeast Alaska.  Coeur partners with many stakeholders, including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; fishing organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and state and federal governments.
 

 1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The cost estimates are based on a combination of first principal estimates, historic performance, and quotations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-16
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
All major capital construction projects needed to maintain consistent production and extraction of mineral reserves at the Kensington Operations were completed in 2013.  Additional capital projects have been completed since 2013 to improve mill throughput, enhance power generation, and increase tailings capacity.
 
Capital development is a concurrent allocation of costs that are derived by taking the number of capital feet driven times the recorded weighted costs to drive those feet in the period they were driven.  Both types of capital expenditures are sustaining and or improvement capital projects.  Each project is selected for the current year of operation, based on the annual allocation of corporate capital funds, the effect the project has on production and or the internal rate of return.
 
Exploration capital is the cost associated with activities involving resource infill drilling and the conversion of those mineral resources to mineral reserves.
 
Capital projects envisaged in the LOM include:  Elmira paste booster station engineering; heat recovery detailed design; TTF stage 4 engineering; POA1 construction of WRSFs; and water treatment plant sulfate removal
 
The total LOM capital cost estimate is US$47.6 M (Table 1‑4).
 

 1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Operating costs are based on actual costs seen during operations and are projected through the LOM plan.  Historical costs are used as the basis for operating cost forecasts for supplies and services unless there are new contract terms for these items.  Labor and energy costs are based on budgeted rates applied to headcounts and energy consumption estimates.
 
The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$274.4 M (Table 1‑5).
 

 1.19
Economic Analysis
 

 1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and limitations on insurance coverage. 
 
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes, and other risks of the mining industry; and delays in obtaining governmental approvals. 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-17
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑4:          LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$ M)
 
Cost
2022
2023
2024
LOM
Capital mine development
14.8
15.6
0
30.4
Capital equipment (fixed and mobile)
6.5
0.9
0
7.4
Capital projects
3.7
6.2
0
9.8
Total Capital Expenditures
25.0
22.6
0
47.6
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 1‑5:          LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ M)
 
Cost
2022
2023
2024
2025–2055
LOM
Mining
59.1
41.0
35.4
0
135.5
Processing
28.7
20.7
13.6
0
62.9
G&A
23.7
17.1
11.4
0
52.3
Reclamation and closure
7.4
6.4
3.6
6.2
23.7
Total Operating Expenditures
118.8
85.2
64.1
6.2
274.4
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 

 1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model.  The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.  The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of three years to 2024.
 

 1.19.3
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV at a discount rate of 5% is $83.7 M.  As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
An annualized cashflow statement is provided in Table 1‑6.  The active mining operation ceases in 2024.  Closure costs are estimated to 2055; however, for presentation purposes, closure costs are shown in Table 1‑6 as occurring within 2025.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-18
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑6:            Annualized Cashflow Statement
 
Summary
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025–2055
LOM Total
Gold price
US$/oz
1,750
1,750
1,700
0.0
1,738
Net revenue
US$ M
183.2
128.6
94.9
0.0
406.7
Total operating cost
US$ M
118.8
85.2
64.1
6.2
274.4
Operating cashflow
US$ M
64.3
43.4
30.8
(6.2)
135.1
Total capital expense
US$ M
25.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
47.6
Net cashflow
US$ M
39.3
20.8
30.8
(6.2)
87.5
Net present value
US$ M
83.7
        
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 

 1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, operating cost, capital cost, and grade assumptions was tested.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal price and grade, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs (Table 1‑7).
 

 1.20
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 1.10 and Chapter 1.11.3 respectively and discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 

 1.20.1
Risks
 
Risks include:
 
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires and consumables would negatively impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
The mineral resource estimates are sensitive to metal prices.  Lower metal prices require revisions to the mineral resource estimates;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Kensington Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-19
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑7:            NPV Sensitivity
 
Parameter
-30%
-20%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Metal price
0
2.6
43.2
63.4
83.7
104.0
124.3
164.9
205.4
Operating cost
162.2
136.0
109.9
96.8
83.7
70.7
57.6
31.4
5.3
Capital cost
97.7
93.2
88.4
86.1
83.7
81.4
79.1
74.4
69.8
Grade
0
5.4
44.6
64.1
83.7
103.3
122.9
162.1
201.2
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 

 1.20.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all of the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all of the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
•
Ability to define additional mineralization around known veins through exploration;
 
•
Discovery and development of new exploration targets across the district;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new mineralization sources that could be processed at the existing Kensington process facilities.
 

 1.21
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 

 1.22
Recommendations
 
As the Kensington Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-20
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
2.0
INTRODUCTION
 

 2.1
Registrant
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Ms. Rae Keim, P.Geo., and Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, prepared a technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Kensington Gold Operations (the Kensington Operations or the Project), located in Alaska, as shown in Figure 2‑1.
 
Coeur‘s wholly-owned subsidiary, Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), is the operating entity.
 

 2.2
Terms of Reference
 

 2.2.1
Report Purpose
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Kensington Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources are reported for Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira.
 
Mineral reserves are reported for Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira.  Mineral reserves are also estimated for material in stockpiles.
 

 2.2.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Kensington Operations consist of underground operations at the Kensington Mine, including the Kensington, Raven, and Elmira zones; and the Jualin Mine.
 
Underground mining commenced in 2010 from the Kensington portal.  Figure 2‑2 shows the location of the current operations.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, the US Customary unit system is used in this Report.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.
 
The Report uses US English.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 2‑1:          Project Location Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2018.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 2‑2:          Mining Operations Layout Map
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2018.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

2.3
Qualified Persons
 
The following Coeur employees serve as the Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Report:
 
•
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Senior Director, Technical Services, Coeur;
 
•
Ms. Rae Keim, P. Geo, Geology Superintendent, Coeur Alaska;
 
•
Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, Senior Manager, Mine Planning, Coeur;
 
The QPs are responsible for, or co-responsible for, the Report Chapters set out in Table 2‑1.
 

 2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
 
Mr. Pascoe’s most recent site visit was July 12, 2021.  He had previously visited the site on a number of occasions from 2015 to 2021.  During the site visits he reviewed resource estimates, mine planning and the overall operations.
 
Ms. Keim has been employed at the Kensington Operations since June 2014, and this onsite experience serves as her scope of personal inspection.  In her current role she is responsible for overseeing mineral resource estimation and production geology work.
 
Mr. Haarala’s most recent site visit was July 20, 2021.  He has been employed at Coeur since May 2021.  In his current role he is responsible for overseeing mine planning and designs for Coeur operations.  During his site visit he reviewed mine operations, mine planning and design, and the overall Project area.
 

 2.5
Report Date
 
Information in the Report is current as at December 31, 2021.
 

 2.6
Information Sources and References
 
The reports and documents listed in Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 of this Report were used to support Report preparation.
 

 2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
 
Coeur has not previously filed a technical report summary on the Project.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 2‑1:            QP Chapter Responsibilities
 
QP Name
Chapter Responsibility
Mr. Chris Pascoe
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22; 2; 3; 4; 10; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22.1, 22.2, 22.6, 22.10, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18; 23; 24; 25.
Ms. Rae Keim
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 5; 6; 7.1, 7.2; 8; 9; 11; 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Mr. Peter Haarala
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22; 4; 7.3, 7.4; 12; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18; 22.1, 22.22.8, 22.9, 22.11, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
 

 3.1
Introduction
 
The Kensington Operations are located within the Berners Bay Mining District, approximately 48 miles northwest of the capital city of Juneau, Alaska.
 
The centroid for the Project is 0494796E, 6523068N in NAD 1983 UTM Zone 8V.
 
The Kensington Portal, which accesses the Kensington deposit, is located at 0496957 E, 6523068N.  The Raven deposit is located at 0490156E, 6530584N and the Jualin deposit at 0497189E, 6522549N.
 

 3.2
Ownership
 
The Project is operated by Coeur Alaska, a wholly-owned Coeur subsidiary.
 

 3.3
Mineral Title
 

 3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
 
Coeur Alaska controls two contiguous claims groups: the Kensington group and Jualin group.  Claim types are summarized in Table 3‑1.  An overall claim location map is provided in Figure 3‑1.  Detailed claim tables and claim location maps are provided in Appendix A.
 
The Kensington and Jualin claims groups are in all or part of the following sections, which are located within the Juneau Recording District and Copper River Meridian, Alaska:
 
•
Township 34 South, Range 62 East, Sections 27 through 35;
 
•
Township 35 South, Range 62 East, Sections 01 through 16, 22 through 27, 35, 36;
 
•
Township 36 South, Range 62 East, Sections 01 and 02.
 
Fourteen of the 23 patented lode claims in the Jualin group cover private surface estate only.  The mineral estate to these 14 patented lode claims located within the U.S. Mineral Surveys is owned by the State of Alaska, the mineral rights to which are secured by a State of Alaska upland mining lease.  Coeur also controls the properties comprising the Jualin group, under a lease agreement with Hyak Mining Company (see Chapter 3.6).
 

 3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
 
The federal unpatented lode claims are maintained by the timely annual payment of claim maintenance fees, which are $165.00 per claim, payable to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management on or before September 1.  Should the annual claim maintenance fee not be paid by then, the unpatented lode claims are, by operation of law, rendered forfeit.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑1:            Mineral Tenure Summary Table
 
Claims Group
Claim Type
Number of Claims
Area
(net acres)
Kensington
Patented lode and
44
731
Patented mill site
7
35
Federal unpatented lode
291
3,111
State of Alaska mining claim
13
95
Subtotal
355
3,972
Jualin
Patented lode and
23
388
Patented mill site
1
5
Federal unpatented mill site
75
366
Federal unpatented lode
444
7,448
State of Alaska upland lease
1
682
State of Alaska mining claim
1
3
State-selected mining claim
4
60
Subtotal
549
8,952
Total
904
12,924
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑1:          Mineral Tenure Overview Location Map
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑2:          Mineral Tenure Location Map
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
State of Alaska mining claims and upland mining leases are maintained with fees and filings to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water and the Juneau Recorder’s Office.  These fees range from $35–$680 per claim, depending on the size and age of the claim.  Annual labor in the amount of $100 or $400 per State mining claim, depending on the size of the claim, must be performed or a cash payment in-lieu of the performance of that labor must be paid to the State each year.
 
The patented lode claims are private land and therefore not subject to federal claim maintenance requirements.  However, as private land, they are subject to property taxes assessed by the Borough and City of Juneau, Alaska, which are due annually on or before September 30 each year.
 
All payments have been timely made and the claims are in good standing.
 

 3.4
Surface Rights
 
The Kensington Operations hold all necessary surface rights to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan.
 

 3.5
Water Rights
 
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has granted the water use permits listed in Table 3‑2.  Permits can be renewed on application.  No additional water rights are required to support the LOM plan.
 

 3.6
Agreements and Royalties
 
Of the royalties discussed in the following sub-sections, only the Hyak Mining Company (Hyak) royalty affects the mineral reserve estimates and is included in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  The royalty is only payable on production from the Jualin deposit.
 

 3.6.1
Hyak Agreement
 
Coeur Alaska has an agreement with the Hyak Mining Company (Hyak), as amended August 5, 2005, and further amended July 1, 2009, and October 24, 2013 over the Jualin group claims area (the Hyak Lease).  The current Hyak Lease period, which is the second term of the lease, commenced on August 5, 2020 and ends on August 5, 2035.
 
Under the terms of the Hyak Lease, Coeur Alaska must pay Hyak annually, during the initial term, by or before May 1, an advance minimum royalty of $231,000, which is adjusted every three years in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce for all Urban Consumers, City of Anchorage, Alaska.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑2:            Water Rights
 
Agency
Permit/License
Number
Description
Date Issued
Term/Expiration
ADNR
LAS 11711, amended
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 11711) Camp Creek, amended
5/5/05
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
LAS 13147
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 13147) Mine groundwater permit
5/5/05
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
LAS 13148
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 13148) Ophir Creek & Ivanhoe Creek permit
5/5/05
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
LAS 13149
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 13149) Upper Sherman Creek permit
5/5/05
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
LAS 24432
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 24432) Johnson Creek, amended
10/17/06
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
LAS 24486
Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 24486) East Slate Creek/Lower Slate Lake
5/5/05
05/04/15; Permit application submitted 4/9/15; Administratively extended
ADNR
TWUA F2017-021
Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUA F2017-021)
2/21/17
2/20/22
ADNR
TWUA F2018-116
Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUA F2018-116)
8/28/18
8/27/23
 
If production occurs from the leased premises, a 5% net returns royalty on production as defined by the Hyak Lease, is due, unless the amount of the net returns royalty is less than the adjusted advance minimum royalty.  If the net returns royalty is less, then the advance minimum royalty is paid instead of the net returns royalty.  The leased premises under the Hyak lease is currently in production.
 
The Hyak Lease will continue after 2035, provided mining and production are actively occurring within and from the leased premises.  The advance minimum royalties and prepaid consideration for the second lease term are recoupable by Coeur Alaska by the company crediting and recovering these payments against future net returns and royalties on production due to Hyak. The recoupment cannot in any given year cause the net returns royalties to be reduced to less than the advance minimum royalty amount, as adjusted.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

3.6.2
Hyak Working Agreement
 
Hyak entered into a working agreement, with an option to purchase, dated July 14, 1982, with Benjamin D. Fremming, Douglas L. Gregg, Thomas E. Schultz, William A. Wondriska, and Mr. and Mrs. Merrill J. Zay.  This agreement was amended on February 12, 1988 and February 10, 2010.
 
This agreement covers the patented lode mining claims included in Mineral Surveys 676 and 1496, all of Hyak’s Federal unpatented lode and mill site claims, as well as 15 State of Alaska mining claims (ADL Numbers 309740–309742, 323364–323368, 349102, 503245–503248, 509891, and 509892).
 
The Hyak Lease incorporates the Hyak working agreement, and the rights awarded under the working agreement apply to the Hyak Lease.
 

 3.6.3
Hyak Upland Mining Lease
 
Coeur Alaska holds an assignment from Hyak to a State of Alaska Upland Mining Lease (ADL# 720953) granted on lands generally located within the following protracted sections of the following unsurveyed township:
 
•
Copper River Meridian, Township 35 South, Range 62 East, Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15.
 
This Upland Mining Lease converted claims ADL numbers 309740 through 309742, 323364 through 323368, 503245 through 503248, 509891 through 509892, and 719182 through 719190 to lease ADL number 720953, containing approximately 682 acres.  The lease has a 20-year term from December 1, 2016.
 
Annual rental payments are determined according to AS 38.05.211 and 11 AAC 86.313.  The rent is to be paid each year in advance and is subject to adjustment under AS 38.05.211 (d).  All payments must be made payable to the Alaska Department of Revenue, unless otherwise specified.  Annual labor is required to be performed at an annual rate of $100 for each partial or whole 40 acres of each mining lease.
 
The 2021 rental was paid timely in the amount of $3,519.12, and the Upland Mining Lease is paid up through September 1, 2022.
 

 3.6.4
Stoll/Mydske Lease
 
A lease agreement was concluded between Coeur Alaska and Maureen R. Stoll and Shari Mydske on September 29, 2005 (the Stoll/Mydske Lease), under which Coeur Alaska secured an undivided 25/36th interest in and to the Falls and Diana patented lode claims, (USMS 880), comprising approximately 37.896 net acres.  These patented lode claims are part of the Jualin claims group.
 
The primary term of the Stoll/Mydske Lease was 10 years from execution, and included the right to renew and extend the Stoll/Mydske Lease for either:
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
•
One additional term of five years; or
 
•
Five additional successive terms of one year each.
 
•
In 2020, this lease agreement was extended through September 4, 2035.
 
The annual payment due to the Lessors under the Stoll/Mydske Lease is $90,000. Stoll and Mydske were also due a net smelter return royalty on production, if any, for and in accordance with, the following:
 
•
For gold, if the fair market value is:
 

 o
≤ $375.00/oz:  3%;
 

 o
≥$375.00 but ≤$450.00/oz:  4%;
 

 o
≥$450.00/oz:  5%;
 
•
For silver, if the fair market value is:
 

 o
≤$6.00/oz:  3%;
 

 o
≥$6.50 but l≤$8.00/oz:  4%;
 

 o
≥$8.00/oz:  5%;
 
•
For all other minerals:
 

 o
5% of the net smelter return;
 
•
For timber:
 

 o
fair market value;
 
•
For gravel:
 

 o
fair market value.
 
The property area subject to this lease is not currently in production status but is being maintained through annual anniversary payments and other terms as set out in the agreement.
 

 3.6.5
Slate Creek Cove Tideland Lease
 
Rights for ancillary infrastructure at Slate Creek Cove are secured through a State of Alaska Tideland Lease (ADL No. 107154; referred to as the Tideland Lease).  The Tideland Lease was granted with a term of 25 years from October 16, 2011 and is subject to annual lease compensation payments that are due each October 16.  Under the terms of the Tideland Lease, the lease compensation is subject to adjustment by the State of Alaska as lessor, upon the commencement of the sixth year of the term and every fifth year thereafter.
 
The lands controlled by and through the Tideland Lease are defined by the Alaska Tideland Survey 1655, located within Section 01, Township 36 South, Range 62 East, Copper River Meridian.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

3.6.6
Yankee Cove Lease
 
Coeur Alaska controls a 7.2-acre parcel of land, consisting of a lodge and marine moorage facilities, under a lease agreement, as amended, with Yankee Cove Development, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company.  The lease covers Lot P-1B and Accretion Land, U.S. Survey 571 according to Plat 2006-19 of the Juneau Recording District, situated within the following sections of the Copper River Meridian:
 
•
Township 38 South, Range 64 East: Section 07.
 
The Yankee Cove lease is subject to a $16,012.39 per month payment.  The original lease agreement was effective as of June 1, 2007 and as amended and extended, this lease has been extended through December 31, 2030.
 
Coeur Alaska must pay property taxes to the City and Borough of Juneau under the Yankee Cove Lease.  These were up to date at the Report date.
 

 3.6.7
Comet Beach Right-of-Way
 
The State of Alaska granted a right-of-way permit to the Comet Beach facility on April 15, 1995; this was amended on August 15, 1995.  The permit had a 30-year term on grant, expiring 2025, and is subject to an annual payment that is due on or before April 15, which is subject to adjustment by the State of Alaska as grantor, upon the commencement of the sixth year of the term and every fifth year thereafter.
 
The right-of-way covers Tracts A and B of Alaska Tidelands Survey 1481, located within Section 06, Township 35 South, Range 62 East, Copper River Meridian.
 

 3.6.8
Jualin Mine Road Right-of-Way
 
Coeur Alaska holds a public, non-exclusive easement and right-of-way (JNU-16-05) from the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of authorizing construction and operation of the Jualin Mine Road (RST 4) from Slate Creek Cove to the Jualin Mine site for purposes of limiting public access and improving access to the Kensington operations.  The easement has a 10-year duration from May 6, 2016, unless terminated by the State.
 
Under JNU-16-005, Coeur Alaska is permitted to use the following described lands, subject to the stipulations described in the permit:
 
•
Copper River Meridian, Township 35 South, Range 62 East: Sections 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 36; and Township 36 South, Range 62 East: Section 01.
 

 3.6.9
Echo Bay
 
Coeur Alaska acquired 100% ownership of the Kensington Group on July 7, 1995 from Echo Bay Mines Ltd. and Echo Bay Alaska (collectively, Echo Bay).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Pursuant to the acquisition agreement, Coeur Alaska is obligated to pay Echo Bay or its successors a scaled net smelter return royalty on 1 M troy ounces of gold production, after Coeur Alaska recoups the $32.5 million purchase price, plus (i) its construction and development expenditures incurred after July 7, 1995 in connection with placing the property into commercial production and (ii) certain operating, exploration, and development costs thereafter.
 
The royalty ranges from 1% at $400/oz gold prices to a maximum of 2½% at gold prices above $475/oz.  The patented lode and patented mill site claims, the unpatented lode claims, and the State of Alaska mining claim, are situated, either wholly or partially, within the following sections of the Copper River Meridian, inside the Juneau Recording District:
 
•
Township 34 South, Range 62 East, Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34;
 
•
Township 35 South, Range 62 East, Sections 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 15, and 16.
 

 3.7
Encumbrances
 
A credit agreement between Coeur, certain subsidiaries of Coeur (and Coeur Alaska), and Bank of America, N.A., was entered into on September 29, 2017, as amended (the “Credit Agreement”), under which a security interest in the Kensington property was granted.
 
Fee and Leasehold Deed of Trust with Power of Sale, Assignment of Production, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, Financing Statement, and Fixture Filing (the Instrument), executed by Coeur Alaska, Inc. as trustor and PRLAP, Inc., as trustee, and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent.  Under the terms of the Instrument, a lien was placed upon the legal and beneficial title in and to the lands comprising the Kensington property, securing a loan under the Credit Agreement, in an aggregate principal amount of up to $300 M.  The Instrument matures in March 2025, subject to the terms and/or the conditions of the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents, as defined in the Credit Agreement.
 

 3.7.1
Permitting Requirements
 
The Kensington Operations are fully permitted (see also discussion in Chapter 17.4).
 

 3.7.2
Permitting Timelines
 
There are no relevant permitting timelines that apply to the Kensington Operations; the operations as envisaged in the LOM plan are fully permitted.
 

 3.7.3
Violations and Fines
 
There are no major violations or fines as understood in the United States mining regulatory context that have been reported for the Kensington Operations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

3.8
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
 
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Kensington Operations that are not discussed in this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
 

 4.1
Physiography
 
The Project area lies at the southern terminus of the Kakuhan Range, where it merges with the Coast Range Mountains.  Terrain is generally rugged within the Project Area, extending from sea level to over 4,700 feet in elevation.  Topographic relief ranges from moderate, near sea level, to rugged at the base of Lions Head Mountain.  Four portals give access to the underground workings; the Kensington Portal at 964 ft. elevation, the Comet Portal at 792 ft. elevation, the 2050 Portal at 2,025 ft elevation, and the Jualin Portal at 926 ft. elevation.
 
Vegetation ranges from dense coniferous forest at sea level to dense brush and bare rock.  The tree line is between 3,000–3,500 ft in elevation, depending on slope aspect.
 

 4.2
Accessibility
 
The Kensington Gold Mine is approximately 48 miles northwest of the capital city of Juneau, Alaska, and access to the Kensington and Jualin properties is by aircraft (helicopter or float plane) or boat from Juneau.  The mine, mill, and camp complex at Jualin is accessed by boat from Auke Bay, Yankee Cove, or Echo Cove to the Slate Creek Cove dock facility (north side of Berners Bay), then five miles by an all-weather gravel road.
 
Kensington can be reached via Lynn Canal to the support facilities near the 850 Portal on the eastern shore of Lynn Canal or by transit through the mine.  Access to existing mine workings (850 Level Portal) is by three miles of all-weather gravel road from Comet Beach or from the Jualin side of the property.
 
Heavy equipment and supplies can be brought to both sides of the Project directly from Juneau by barge.
 

 4.3
Climate
 
Southeastern Alaska’s climate is the warmest and wettest in Alaska with over 50 inches of annual rainfall in the Juneau area.  The climate in the Project vicinity is maritime with a mean annual precipitation of about 85 inches at the lower mine elevations.  Annual snowfall varies from a few feet at sea level to greater than 10 feet at the 2050 Level Portal.
 
Mining operations are conducted year-round.  Snow removal equipment is required to keep site roads open during winter month.
 

 4.4
Infrastructure
 
Juneau provides most of the services required to support the Kensington Operations, with other nearby communities including Haines and Skagway adding to the potential employment base.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The area has a long mining history and there are active mines in the area from which Coeur can realize vendor synergies and have access to local skilled miners and technical personnel.  The Alaska Marine Highway is the primary form of transportation between Juneau, Haines, and Skagway.  A dedicated crew ferry and buses transport mine employees to and from Kensington on a regular basis from Juneau.
 
Electrical power is supplied by diesel generators.
 
Water is sourced for process operations from recycled water from the paste plant, the concentrate and tailings thickeners, and water reclaimed from the tailings treatment facility (TTF), and supplemented when needed from a permitted allowance for freshwater extraction from Johnson Creek.
 
The Kensington Operations currently have all infrastructure in place to support mining and processing activities (see also discussions in Chapter 13, Chapter 14, and Chapter 15 of this Report).  These Report chapters also discuss water sources, electricity, personnel, and supplies.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
5.0
HISTORY
 
Mining activity in the Berners Bay district began in the late 1890s, primarily exploiting gold deposits hosted in the Jualin diorite.  The larger of the underground operations were focused on the Kensington, Comet, and Jualin deposits.  Mining activity had largely ceased by the end of the first world war.
 
A summary of the recent exploration and development history of the Kensington Operations is provided in Table 5‑1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 5‑1:            Exploration and Development History Summary Table
 
Year
Company
Note
1960s
Alan Wright
Acquired claims in Kensington area; no work reported
1978
Hyak
Located claims along the core of the Jualin vein system
1980
Homestake Mining Co.
Optioned Kensington property from Alan Wright; no work reported
1980–1985
Placid Oil Company (Placid Oil)
Completed 10 core holes (3,731) on exploration targets and 45 core holes (18,366 ft) at Kensington. Identified gold mineralization in the upper levels of the Kensington deposit (Kensington Zone 30).
1983–1984
Bear Creek Mining Company (Bear Creek)
Explored Jualin property under option agreement with Hyak.  Completed extensive surface geologic mapping and sampling and drilled five core holes totaling 2,438 ft.  Terminated option at end of 1984.
1987
International Curator Resources (Curator)
Optioned Jualin property from Hyak.  Staked additional claims and drilled an additional 24 core holes (13,434 ft).  Commenced construction of an access road from Slate Creek Cove to the historic Jualin Mine portal
1987–1994
Kensington Joint Venture
Coeur Alaska acquired Kensington property from Placid Oil, formed Kensington Joint Venture (JV) with Echo Bay Mines (Echo Bay).  Echo Bay was JV operator.
Completed a feasibility study in 1993.
1988
Curator
Joint ventured Jualin property with Granges Exploration Inc. (Granges).  Completed Slate Creek Cove to Jualin Mine Road.  Completed 27 core-drill holes (12,591 ft).
1989–1991
Placer Dome U.S. Inc. (Placer)
Joined Curator/Granges JV.  Completed 16 core holes (17,232 ft) in 1989 and 39 core holes (29,727 ft) in 1990.  Dropped option in 1991.
1993
Coeur Alaska
Joint ventured Jualin property with Curator.  Infill geochemical sampling, re-logging of selected core-hole intervals, and district-scale aerial photography.
1994
Surveying and aerial photography.  Completed new topographic map of the area between Slate Creek Cove and Independence Lake (north of Kensington).  Limited exploration targeting the northwest extension of the Jualin #4 vein.  Acquired a 100% interest in the Jualin property from Curator
1995
Purchased 100% interest in Kensington property by buying out the 50% Echo Bay interest.
1997
Redefined the Kensington project, completed feasibility study, revised engineering studies and cost estimates and completed permitting
1998
Completed an extensive exploration program in the Kensington area to identify additional mineralization
2004–2005
Airborne magnetic geophysical survey in Kensington district compiled by Wave Geophysics.
2005
Completed 34,035 ft of drilling at Kensington during the second half of 2005
2006
Completed 32,249 ft of drilling at Kensington
2007
13,420 ft of underground lateral development, including completion of the Jualin (now Kensington) Tunnel.  Construction of the Slate Creek Cove marine terminal, site access roads, bridges, a temporary personnel camp, crusher, crushed ore bin, mill facilities, flotation circuit, concentrate handling, and the diesel power generators.
2009
Construction of TTF recommenced after permit refused during initial construction in 2007.
2010
Mining operations commenced.
2012
High-sensitivity helicopter magnetic survey of 713 line-miles conducted by New-Sense Geophysics over the Kensington property.
Mining and processing operations commence
2012–2017
Surface reconnaissance programs reviewing prospects in Berners Bay area.
2019
Millionth ounce produced from Kensington/Raven/Jualin
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
 

 6.1
Deposit Type
 
The deposits that comprise the Kensington Operations are considered to be examples of orogenic gold deposits.  Such deposits have many synonyms including mesothermal vein-style, mesozonal and hypozonal deposits, lode gold, shear zone-related quartz–carbonate deposits, or gold-only deposits.
 
Orogenic gold deposits occur in variably deformed metamorphic terranes formed during Middle Archean to younger Precambrian, and continuously throughout the Phanerozoic.  The host geological environments are typically volcano–plutonic or clastic sedimentary terranes, but gold deposits can be hosted by any rock type.  There is a consistent spatial and temporal association with granitoids of a variety of compositions.
 
Gold deposition occurs adjacent to first-order, deep-crustal fault zones.  Economic mineralization typically formed as vein fill of second- and third-order shears and faults, particularly at jogs or changes in strike along the crustal fault zones.  Mineralization styles vary from stockworks and breccias in shallow, brittle regimes, through laminated crack-seal veins and sigmoidal vein arrays in brittle-ductile crustal regions, to replacement- and disseminated-type orebodies in deeper, ductile environments.
 
Quartz is the primary constituent of veins, with lesser carbonate and sulfide minerals.  Sulfide minerals can include pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, galena, sphalerite, and arsenopyrite.  Gold is usually associated with sulfide minerals, but native gold can occur.
 

 6.2
Regional Geology
 
The Berners Bay mining district forms the northern end of the approximately 200-km-long Juneau gold belt and is situated along the western margin of the Coast Mountains.
 
The district is underlain by Triassic mafic metavolcanic rocks of the Wrangellia Terrane.  The Cretaceous Jualin Diorite stock intrudes the western margin of the Wrangellia Terrane.  Both the Triassic metavolcanic rocks and the Jualin Diorite are overlain by Cretaceous-aged metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of the Treadwell Formation of the Gravina Belt.  The unconformity between the Jualin Diorite and the Gravina Belt metasedimentary rocks is marked by a Cretaceous conglomerate.
 

 6.3
Local Geology
 
A local geology plan is provided in Figure 6‑1, and a summary stratigraphic column in Table 6‑1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑1:          Regional Geology Map
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2018.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 6‑1:            Stratigraphic Column
 
Unit
Age
Comment
Wrangellia Terrain
Triassic
Mafic metavolcanic rocks northeast of the Jualin Diorite
Jualin Diorite
Cretaceous (106 Ma)
Hosts mineralization; intrudes the Wrangellia Terrane
Gravina Belt
Cretaceous
Metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks; unconformably overlies Jualin Diorite
 

 6.3.1
Lithologies
 
The mafic metavolcanic rocks of the Wrangellia Terrane in the Berners Bay area are composed of a series of massive pyroxene and feldspar porphyritic flows that locally contain pillows and are weakly foliated near the contact with the Jualin Diorite (Miller et al., 1995).  Contact metamorphism of the basalt is readily visible within about 100 m of the Jualin Diorite (Knopf, 1911).
 
The Jualin Diorite is a 12 km2 elongate, northwest-trending body.  Modal analyses (Miller et al., 1995) indicate it to be largely a quartz monzonite to quartz monzodiorite.  Quartz monzodiorite is the primary mineralization host.  It is medium-grained, granular hornblende–quartz monzodiorite with minor biotite ± magnetite and sphene.  Where cross-cut by shear zones, chlorite is common.  The Jualin Diorite is typically massive, jointed and blocky.  Joints commonly strike north to northwest and dip steeply to the east, or strike northwest to north–northeast and dip shallowly to the east (Miller et al., 1995).
 
The Treadwell Formation in the Berners Bay area consists of a folded sequence of maroon, green, and black metasedimentary rocks with local volcaniclastic layers.  The contact between the Wrangellia Terrane metabasalts and the Treadwell Formation is not exposed in the Berners Bay area.  Redman (1984) described an unconformity and depositional contact between Treadwell Formation rocks and the Jualin Diorite.  Because the Jualin diorite intrudes into the metabasalt, Treadwell Formation rocks are assumed to unconformably overlie the Wrangellia Terrane metabasalt (Miller et al., 1995).
 

 6.3.2
Structure
 
All significant gold vein deposits are hosted in the Jualin diorite between the northwest-trending, first-order Coastal Shear Zone, a broad chlorite-bearing ductile, and syn-metamorphic shear zone that passes through tonalite of the Coast Plutonic complex approximately 1.2 miles east of the diorite, and the Gastineau Shear Zone, which is the largest of a set of ductile shear zones that pass through the Gravina belt to the southwest (Miller, 1995).
 
A zone of second- and third-order shears, termed the Kensington Megashear zone, appears to be the most significant influence on mineralized vein systems in the district (refer to Figure 6‑1).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Brittle faults and third-order shear zones host discrete and extensional quartz–carbonate veins and gold mineralization.
 
Discrete vein systems are defined by one or more through-going fault-fill quartz veins that typically host the highest-grade gold mineralization, dip moderately to steeply east, and typically range between a few inches to several feet in width.  Extensional veins consist of zones of numerous veins that mostly dip steeply to moderately west but are contained within an overall east-dipping system, and occur adjacent to, or at, terminations of fault-fill veins.
 
Figure 6‑2 illustrates stages in the development of a sigmoidal extension vein array and discrete shear vein system.
 

 6.3.3
Alteration
 
In the Berners Bay area, mineral assemblages of chlorite–biotite + quartz in metabasalts and diorite indicate that metamorphism in this part of the Gravina belt and Wrangellia Terrane did not exceed greenschist facies (Miller et al., 1995).
 
Within the Jualin Diorite, the earliest alteration event is a late magmatic alkali metasomatism defined by sericitization and albitization of calcic plagioclase phenocrysts, and subsequent K feldspar flooding, much in the form of pegmatitic dikes.  Chlorite, magnetite, chalcopyrite, and bornite are accessory minerals associated with the early metasomatism.  A later, widespread propylitic event is dominated by calcite, epidote, and less commonly, sphene.
 

 6.3.4
Mineralization
 
Mineralization of economic importance is restricted to veins within the Jualin Diorite.  Minor gold-anomalous quartz veins have been reported in Wrangellia Terrane metabasalt and in the metasedimentary rocks of the Treadwell Formation.
 

 6.3.4.1
Discrete Veins
 
Discrete veins are hosted in shear zones that typically trend to the north or northwest, and are steeply easterly or northeasterly dipping.  East dipping fault-fill veins are the dominant structures in the Kensington deposit.
 
The quartz–pyrite–carbonate–sericite ± chlorite veins were developed along the plane of the shear zones, but also underwent continued deformation after emplacement.
 
Gold hosting shear zones have a northeast side up (reverse)–right lateral shear sense, typical of other shear zones in the deposit area.  If this shear sense is coeval with vein formation, it may provide predictable potential ore shoot control.  Evidence from previously-mined (e.g., Raven) and drill-tested veins suggests that shallow to moderate south–southwest plunging ore shoots occur at jogs and steps in the shear vein system, which is compatible with a dominantly reverse sense.
 
Discrete-style veins are observed in the Raven, Kensington Zone 41, Elmira, Eureka, Comet, and Jualin deposit areas.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑2:          Schematic Showing Development of Discrete and Extensional Vein Arrays
 
 
Note:  Figure from Rhys, (2010).  Extension vein arrays typically evolve from an en-echelon array of early extension veins (A), through gradual deformation into sigmoidal shapes (B) with shear movement along the core of the array. Eventually, the original extension veins may become partially (C) or fully (D) transposed into the shear zone, and a continuous shear vein may propagate along the shear zone. Later phases of extension veining may be superimposed onto the forming shear vein system (D).
 

 6.3.4.2
Extension Veins
 
Mineralized zones of this style are defined by increases in concentration and abundance of quartz-carbonate-chlorite veins, and later quartz–iron-carbonate veining.
 
Extensional-style veins are recognized in the main Kensington deposit, the Eureka area and in the Elmira zone to the east.  Most of the veins in the Kensington system are the extensional veins, which occur approximately orthogonal to the discrete fault-fill veins. These extensional veins are higher density and lower grade, and mostly occur between stacked fault-fill veins.
 

 6.3.4.3
Horizontal Veins
 
Horizontal to sub-horizontal thin (<1 ft) vein occurrences are found throughout the Kensington system.  These veins or ‘flats’ are locally continuous for the entire width of the economic zone, are often very high-grade and locally host lenses composed of almost 100% pyrite.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

6.3.4.4
Mineralization
 
Vein mineralization is characterized by gold and gold-silver telluride minerals with minor associated native gold.  Most of the gold is contained in calaverite (AuTe2), which occurs in association with native gold as inclusions in and interstitial to pyrite grains and in microfractures in pyrite.  Trace amounts of petzite (Ag3AuTe2), coloradoite (HgTe) and altaite (PbTe) have also been noted.  Minor amounts of chalcopyrite are also present along with trace amounts of bornite, molybdenite, sphalerite, galena, and pyrrhotite.  The auriferous pyrite typically occurs in small to large blebs or clots within the quartz and quartz–carbonate veins (Miller, 1995).
 

 6.4
Property Geology
 
Deposit descriptions are provided for the deposits with mineral resource estimates, namely the Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin and Elmira deposits.
 

 6.4.1
Kensington
 

 6.4.1.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Kensington deposit consists of both discrete shear veins and a network of extensional veins.  It is about 3,500 ft long, 2,100 ft wide, ranges in thickness from 1–100ft, and is drill tested to about -600 ft depth.
 
A cross section showing the deposit location is provided in Figure 6‑3.
 

 6.4.1.2
Lithologies
 
The deposit is hosted in the Jualin Diorite.
 

 6.4.1.3
Structure
 
The Kensington vein system is a north-trending, steeply east-dipping network of quartz extension veins and shear veins. The overall veining style is semi-brittle, defined by both vein development (an overall brittle structural style), and the development of sigmoidal folds to vein sets and foliation (ductile style), which accommodate ductile displacement and shortening across the zone.
 

 6.4.1.4
Alteration
 
Tan-colored sericite-carbonate-pyrite alteration is locally developed immediately adjacent to shear veins and vein arrays, but quickly gives way to surrounding chlorite-dominant, propylitic, alteration, which affects mafic minerals in the diorite (Rhys, 2008).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑3:          Mineralization Cross-Section, Kensington, Eureka, Raven, and Elmira
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 

 6.4.1.5
Mineralization
 
Mineralization occurs primarily as disseminated pyrite or pyrite seams and blebs, that range from 1–6 inches in thickness, and are contained within discrete shear veins or stacked networks of sheeted extensional veins. Minor amounts of chalcopyrite occur within the deposit as well.
 

 6.4.2
Eureka
 

 6.4.2.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Eureka deposit consists of both discrete shear veins and a network of extensional veins.  It is about 950 ft long, 900 ft wide, ranges in thickness from 1–30ft, and is drill tested to about -1,350 ft depth.  The Eureka deposit sits immediately in the footwall of the Kensington deposit and has many similar characteristics to the Kensington deposit.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The deposit was included in the cross-section provided as Figure 6‑3.
 

 6.4.2.2
Lithologies
 
The deposit is hosted in the Jualin Diorite.
 

 6.4.2.3
Structure
 
The Eureka vein system is a north-trending, steeply east-dipping network of quartz extension veins and shear veins.  The overall veining style is semi-brittle, defined by both vein development (an overall brittle structural style), and the development of sigmoidal folds to vein sets and foliation (ductile style), which accommodate ductile displacement and shortening across the zone.  The parallel, hosting, structure of the Eureka deposit commonly contains gouge, <1 inch thick, on both the footwall and hanging wall.
 

 6.4.2.4
Alteration
 
Tan-colored sericite–carbonate–pyrite alteration is locally developed immediately adjacent to shear veins and vein arrays, but quickly gives way to the surrounding chlorite-dominant, propylitic, alteration, which affects mafic minerals in the Jualin Diorite (Rhys, 2008).  The Eureka system as a whole also shows moderate amounts of oxide staining along the control structure.
 

 6.4.2.5
Mineralization
 
Mineralization occurs primarily as disseminated pyrite or pyrite seams and blebs, 1–6 inches thick, which are contained within discrete shear veins or stacked networks of sheeted extensional veins. Minor amounts of chalcopyrite occur within the deposit.
 

 6.4.3
Raven
 
The Raven vein is located about 2,000 ft west of the main Kensington deposit.
 

 6.4.3.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Raven deposit is about 2,200 ft long, 1,500 ft wide, ranges in thickness from 1–20 ft, and is drill tested to about -250 ft depth.  It consists of one main, economic vein with associated splays that vary in grade.
 
A cross section showing the deposit location was provided in Figure 6‑3.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

6.4.3.2
Lithologies
 
The deposit is hosted in the Jualin Diorite.
 

 6.4.3.3
Structure
 
The Raven vein is a north-trending, moderately east-dipping shear vein hosted within a sub-parallel, tightly foliated, ductile, shear zone.  Vein thickness and orientation is controlled by the prevalent C–S fabric (metamorphic fabric formed by the intersection of shear surfaces within rocks affected by dynamic metamorphism) of the shear with blow-outs occurring along jogs in the system.
 

 6.4.3.4
Alteration
 
Alteration is minimal in the Raven and is dominated by pervasive, weak to moderate, propylitic alteration of the surrounding Jualin Diorite.
 

 6.4.3.5
Mineralization
 
The shear vein contains pods, lenses, and shear bands of pyrite, petzite, calaverite, hessite, chalcopyrite, galena and native gold.  Mineralization occurs primarily as disseminated pyrite or pyrite seams and blebs, 1–6 inches thick, contained within the hosting discrete shear vein.
 

 6.4.4
Jualin
 

 6.4.4.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Jualin deposit is about 675 ft long, 1,025 ft wide, ranges in thickness from 1–15 ft, and has been drill tested to about -322 ft depth.  It consists of numerous stacked quartz veins but only Vein 2 and Vein 4 are currently considered economic.
 
A cross-section through the Jualin deposit is included as Figure 6‑4.
 

 6.4.4.2
Lithologies
 
The deposit consists of stacked, discrete, quartz-veins hosted in the Jualin Diorite.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑4:          Mineralization Cross-Section, Jualin Deposit
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

6.4.4.3
Structure
 
The Jualin deposit consists of north-trending, steeply east-dipping shear veins hosted within a sub-parallel, tightly foliated, shear zone.  The vein thickness and orientation are controlled by the prevalent C–S fabric of the shear with blow outs occurring along jogs in the system.  Occasional west-dipping, gouge-filled faults offset the vein as much as 40 ft in a reverse left-lateral sense similar to the overall structure fabric of the region.
 

 6.4.4.4
Alteration
 
Alteration is minimal in the Jualin and is dominated by pervasive, weak to moderate, propylitic alteration of the surrounding diorite with local zones of sericitic alteration and silica flooding.
 

 6.4.4.5
Mineralization
 
The large veins (2 and 4) within the system tend to be high grade.  The veins dominantly contain pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, sphalerite, and native gold.  Mineralization occurs as seams, blebs, and disseminated grains throughout the veins that rarely continues into the host diorite, and associated extensional veins are only weakly mineralized.
 

 6.4.5
Elmira
 
The Elmira deposit is located about 2,500 ft east of the main Kensington deposit and consists of one main quartz vein with associated splays.
 

 6.4.5.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Elmira deposit is about 2,200 ft long, 1,400 ft wide, ranges in thickness from 1–20 ft, and is drill tested to about -50 ft elevation.  A cross-section through the Elmira deposit was included in Figure 6‑3.
 

 6.4.5.2
Lithologies
 
The deposit consists of stacked, discrete, quartz veins hosted in the Jualin Diorite.
 

 6.4.5.3
Structure
 
While the veins are hosted within sub-parallel shear or fault fill structures, there does not appear to be interaction with other structures that control extents of veining and mineralization.  That is, the current interpretation does not identify significant faults or fractures oblique or orthogonal to the mineralized body that control vein width, extent, or mineralization.  Rather, vein width and extent appear to be purely a function of the dilatational extents within the C–S fabric of the hosting shear.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

6.4.5.4
Alteration
 
Alteration is dominantly weak propylitic alteration of the surrounding diorite with the exception of the immediate hanging wall to the main vein which shows strong alteration of plagioclase to muscovite with an associated decrease in competency.
 

 6.4.5.5
Mineralization
 
Mineralization within the veins ranges from widely-disseminated pyrite to stringers, blebs, and pyrite breccias.  The mineralization does not seem to favor either the footwall or hanging wall, though it tends to be more abundant near margins or smaller internal structures within the veins.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-12
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
7.0
EXPLORATION
 

 7.1
Exploration
 

 7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
 
Coeur has used the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system using the North America datum of 1983 (NAD83) and 1927 (NAD27) for all exploratory surface mapping and geochemical since 2012.  The UTM Zone is Zone 8 North.
 
Coeur uses a local NAD 1927 State Plane Alaska ZONE 1 FIPSZONE:5001 coordinate grid for locating surface and underground drill holes.  All data collected in UTM NAD83 and UTM NAD27 are converted into NAD27 Alaska State Plane using a coordinate transformation before being imported into the Project acQuire database.
 

 7.1.2
Geological Mapping
 
Surface reconnaissance geological mapping was completed by Coeur personnel at scales ranging from regional scale 1:2,400 to 1:240 scales used in some detailed outcrop maps.
 
Underground mapping is completed at either 1:240 or 1:120 scales depending on the complexity of geology in the area.
 

 7.1.3
Geochemistry
 
Soil geochemical sampling was conducted with shovels and hand augers to collect 8–12 oz ounces of C horizon soils.  Sample points were spaced in 25 northerly rows with 100 ft spacings and 15 easterly columns with 50 ft spacings.
 
Analysis used an unidentified multi-element analytical procedure.  A total of 330 samples were collected in the period May–June, 2021. Sample results indicate that the material sampled does not accurately reflect mapping due to the C soil horizon being dominated by glacial till.  Areas near Johnson Creek support bedrock mapping.  Two areas of interest were identified as potential clusters to use for target generation; however, they are derived from the till samples and due to the proximity to the Fremming shaft are likely contaminated with mined material.
 

 7.1.4
Geophysics
 
Two airborne geophysical surveys were completed:
 
•
2004–2005:  Wave Geophysics of Boulder Colorado; airborne magnetic survey;
 
•
2012:  New-Sense Geophysics; high-sensitivity helicopter magnetic survey; 713 line-miles of total field magnetic data.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The 2012 data are better resolution than the 2004–2005 survey information.  Geophysical data were used for anomaly delineation, structural evaluation, and identification of lithologic trends.
 

 7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
 
The Kensington area has been extensively explored for more than 100 years and a considerable database has developed as a result of both exploration and mining activities.  By volume the database is primarily built from core logging data.  Codes are used for alteration and structural intensity and continuous numerical variables returned from assays.  Information is synthesized from this data using statistical modelling with geological inferences.  Statistical models are sometimes tested with simulations and/or additional sampling.
 

 7.1.6
Exploration Potential
 
Kensington is a target-rich environment given that it is an orogenic gold system that can reasonably be expected to have an overall vertical and lateral extent of several thousand feet.  Using this interpretation, it is necessary to test offsetting relationships whenever it appears that a vein is closed, down dip.
 
Exploration at Kensington is broken into four tiers:
 

 •
Tier one:  consists of targets in currently-mined areas, and includes Kensington, Jualin, Raven, and Eureka targeting extension in both down-dip, laterally primarily to south, and up-dip to the limit of mining defined by the crown pillar;
 

 •
Tier two:  consists of prospects with advanced exploration.  Currently this encompasses the Elmira and Johnson vein systems, and the hanging wall Jennifer target associated with Raven;
 

 •
Tier three:  ready-to-drill targets.  Targets include Comet/Seward, Valentine/Fremming, Big Lake, and Gold King targets.  These require additional drilling and interpretation work to be advanced;
 

 •
Tier four:  the lowest tier are prospects that require additional field work to generate a drill ready target.  Field work will typically consist of ground truthing and soil sampling on prospects in dilation zones identified by interpretation of geophysical surveys.  Depending on results of work conducted in each tier a decision is made to either drop or advance the prospect to a higher or lower tier or remove it completely from the prospect hierarchy.
 
Figure 7‑1 shows the locations of the main exploration areas.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑1:          Exploration Areas
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

7.2
Drilling
 

 7.2.1
Overview
 
The drill database for the Project area contains 7,182 core drill holes (2,386,698 ft).  Drilling is summarized in Table 7‑1.
 
Core drilling supports mineral resource estimation. Drilling that supports each mineral resource estimate is summarized in Table 7‑2 to Table 7‑5.
 

 7.2.2
Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes
 
Drill holes assayed at the onsite laboratory, which include most production stope holes and utility holes are not included in the resource estimation.  Any drill holes that have known spatial issues due to missing survey data are not included in the database.  Drill holes may have some incomplete survey data and still be included if they do not cause any spatial issues with the resource domains and are validated by surrounding drill holes.  Incomplete drill holes that did not reach final depth for any variety of reasons are also not included in the estimate.
 

 7.2.3
Drilling Completed Since Database Close-out Date
 
Drill holes that were completed in 2021 that were not used to support mineral resource estimates were not included because they did not have assay data returned before the database close out dates.  A total of 19 exploration holes from Raven, nine exploration holes from Elmira and 15 exploration holes from Kensington were not included in the mineral resource estimation support
 
The QP reviewed the available information on the omitted drilling to determine what impact there could be to the block model and geological and grade interpretations.
 
Drilling at Kensington and Elmira was conducted to potentially support confidence category upgrades from inferred to indicated.  All drill holes appear to have intersected the mineralized zone, and should provide support for confidence category upgrades within the drilled area.
 
Drilling at Raven was designed to extend the known mineralization in the upper Raven area and test the Jennifer target.  The drilling in the upper Raven area appears to have mixed success, with some drill holes not intercepting mineralization or veins.  In the Jennifer area, drill results were encouraging and will be used to support an initial mineral resource estimate during 2022.
 

 7.2.4
Drill Methods
 
Much of the drilling prior to 2013 was performed by Connors Drilling of Montrose, Colorado.  Timberline Drilling Inc. of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho is the current drilling contractor and responsible for the majority of the holes drilled from 2013 to date.  Swick Drilling completed some of the drilling from January 2017 to July 2017.  Where known, drill rigs used by Timberline included  Atlas Copco U8 class drills for underground and Boart Longyear LF70 or Sandvik DE140 class for surface drilling. Equipment used by prior contractors is not recorded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑1:          Project Drill Summary Table, Pre-Coeur Drilling
 
Year
Company
Exploration
Jualin
Kensington
Raven
Total
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Early 1980s
Placid Oil
 7

1,489 38
16472

45
18,624
Late 1980s to early 1990s
Echo Bay Kensington Venture
 19

3 949 406
222,250
  
19
  
9,919
444
249,221
1983
Bear Creek

2 13,434




3
1,489
1984
Bear Creek
     24 12,591        
2
949
1987
Curator
     27 17,232        
24
13,434
1988
Curator
     16 25,147        
27
12,591
1989
Placer Dome
     33 4580        
16
17,232
1990
Placer Dome
     6
       
33
25,147
1991
Placer Dome
    

        6
4,580
Total
    26  19,20 111 75,422
  444  238,722  19  9,919 600 331,346

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑2:          Project Drill Summary Table, Coeur Drilling
 
Year
Exploration Drilling
Definition Drilling
Stope Drilling
Total
Surface
Underground
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
Holes
Feet
1993
3
2,414
            
3
2,414
1998
    
76
57,094
        
76
57,094
2005
3
5,171
    
74
34,118
    
77
39,289
2006
15
13,455
    
34
32,099
    
49
45,554
2007
3
2,181
    
122
12,458
    
125
14,639
2009
    
14
4,086
71
5,215
    
85
9,301
2010
    
47
21,534
173
36,236
158
18,546
378
76,316
2011
    
37
20,105
391
53,829
99
7,636
527
81,569
2012
13
7,641
56
54,192
239
73,513
151
9,839
459
145,185
2013
29
29,361
109
61,857
118
36,611
319
19,838
575
147,666
2014
47
57,731
76
43,006
150
56,227
385
24,413
659
181,376
2015
8
8,361
74
28,920
134
43,997
366
21,397
582
102,675
2016
10
11,285
154
80,551
112
37,500
150
10,873
426
140,208
2017
44
62,867
115
74,327
169
56,165
155
13,923
483
206,603
2018
11
7,183
115
86,493
191
39,924
240
21,372
557
154,969
2019
8
6,366
141
121,431
 167
63,745
84
7169
424
204,699
2020
47
44,511
129
112,162
 96
35,050
77
4,868
352
196,589
2021
15
18,464
158
 140,932
 84
27,205
 15
1,395
 272
 187,996
Total
256
276,991
1,301
906,690
2,325
643,892
2,199
161,296
6,109
1,806,146
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑3:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Kensington
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Placid Oil
Exploration
1981
Core
5
1,616
Placid Oil
Exploration
1982
Core
9
4.325
Placid Oil
Exploration
1983
Core
14
5,664
Placid Oil
Exploration
1984
Core
1
564
Placid Oil
Exploration
1985
Core
8
4,193
Echo Bay
Exploration
1988
Core
4
1,251
Echo Bay
Exploration
1989
Core
91
46,902
Echo Bay
Exploration
1990
Core
202
111,292
Echo Bay
Exploration
1991
Core
32
25,587
Echo Bay
Exploration
1992
Core
76
58,488
Coeur
Exploration
1998
Core
22
8,200
Coeur
Exploration
2005
Core
45
33,356
Coeur
Exploration
2006
Core
28
25,885
Coeur
Definition
2007
Core
100
10,167
Coeur
Definition
2009
Core
71
5,215
Coeur
Definition
2010
Core
334
55,574
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
2
4,873
Coeur
Definition
2011
Core
387
55,531
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
4
11,606
Coeur
Definition
2012
Core
245
77,103
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
77
47,056
Coeur
Definition
2013
Core
118
36,611
Coeur
Exploration
2014
Core
61
39,534
Coeur
Definition
2014
Core
108
48,513
Coeur
Exploration
2015
Core
74
28,920
Coeur
Definition
2015
Core
121
40,623
Coeur
Stope
2015
Core
111
7,803
Coeur
Exploration
2016
Core
83
41,843
Coeur
Definition
2016
Core
78
28,005
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
36
20,687
Coeur
Definition
2017
Core
136
43,730
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
55
39,794
Coeur
Definition
2018
Core
178
36,868

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Coeur
Stope
2018
Core
89
9,148
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
9
8,462
Coeur
Definition
2019
Core
151
55,119
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
6
7,582
Coeur
Definition
2020
Core
89
33,850
Coeur
Exploration
2021
Core
6
6,305
Coeur
Definition
2021
Core
13
6,103
Total
      
3,279
1,129,627
 
Table 7‑4:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Eureka
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Placid Oil
Exploration
1981
Core
3
1,057
Placid Oil
Exploration
1982
Core
2
605
Echo Bay
Exploration
1989
Core
2
1,250
Coeur
Exploration
1998
Core
25
11,257
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
48
25,662
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
31
10,814
Coeur
Definition
2021
Core
36
9,259
Total
      
147
59,904
 
Table 7‑5:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Raven
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Echo Bay
Exploration
1989
Core
13
7,167
Echo Bay
Exploration
1990
Core
6
2,752
Echo Bay
Exploration
1992
Core
56
32,025
Coeur
Exploration
2010
Core
43
20,120
Coeur
Exploration
2011
Core
20
7,864
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
22
12,289
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
26
12,008
Coeur
Exploration
2014
Core
56
11,160

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Coeur
Definition
2015
Core
13
3,374
Coeur
Exploration
2016
Core
18
9,475
Coeur
Definition
2016
Core
33
10,539
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
11
4,685
Coeur
Definition
2017
Core
27
11,496
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
33
17,682
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
33
21,713
Coeur
Definition
2019
Core
16
8,626
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
18
18,008
Total
      
448
219,008
 
Table 7‑6:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Jualin
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Bear Creek
Exploration
1983
Core
3
1,489
Bear Creek
Exploration
1984
Core
2
949
Curator
Exploration
1987
Core
24
13,434
Curator
Exploration
1988
Core
27
12,591
Placer Dome
Exploration
1989
Core
16
17,232
Placer Dome
Exploration
1990
Core
30
23,649
Placer Dome
Exploration
1991
Core
4
3,699
Kensington Venture
Exploration
1993
Core
3
2,414
Coeur
Exploration
2005
Core
3
5,171
Coeur
Exploration
2006
Core
15
13,455
Coeur
Exploration
2007
Core
3
2,181
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
8
6,145
Coeur
Exploration
2013
Core
21
26,076
Coeur
Exploration
2014
Core
49
60,679
Coeur
Exploration
2015
Core
8
8,361
Coeur
Exploration
2016
Core
45
28,840
Coeur
Exploration
2017
Core
116
112,656
Coeur
Definition
2017
Core
12
3,502

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
3
4,838
Coeur
Definition
2018
Core
8
2,261
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
7
6,309
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
26
23,982
Coeur
Exploration
2021
Core
2
2,097
Coeur
Definition
2021
Core
36
12,116
Total
      
471
394,122
 
Table 7‑7:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates, Elmira
 
Company
Purpose
Year
Type
No.
Drill Holes
Feet
Placid Oil
Exploration
1984
Core
1
387
Echo Bay
Exploration
1991
Core
3
5,545
Echo Bay
Exploration
1992
Core
4
8,342
Coeur
Exploration
1998
Core
28
37,291
Coeur
Exploration
2012
Core
14
21,975
Coeur
Exploration
2018
Core
15
21,503
Coeur
Exploration
2019
Core
41
56,630
Coeur
Exploration
2020
Core
72
77,623
Coeur
Exploration
2021
Core
77
87,182
Total
      
255
316,477
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑2:          Project Drill Collar Location Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑3:          Drill Section, Section, Kensington
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-12
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑4:          Drill Collar Location Section, Raven
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-13
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑5:          Drill Collar Location Section, Jualin
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-14
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑6:          Drill Collar Location Plan, Elmira
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Core sizes included BQ (1.44 inch (36.5 mm) core diameter), NQ (1.875 inch (47.6 mm)), and HQ (2.5 inch (63.5 mm)).
 

 7.2.5
Logging
 
Core logging is conducted by contract geologist through Geotemps working year-round two weeks on two weeks off rotations.  No core is oriented.
 
Core loggers visually identify lithological intercepts, alteration type and intensity, mineralization type and concentration, vein composition, style, density, and structural type and intensity.  Maximum and minimum intercept angles are collected for all planar features.  Geotechnical data collection is discussed in Chapter 7.4.
 
Core is photographed before sampling but after logging.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-15
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Sampling is required for all projected intercepts and is broken out by mineralized zone lithology.  Samples are collected from the wall rock on either side of the intercept to capture the alteration halo.
 

 7.2.6
Recovery
 
Core recovery is generally high because of the competent nature of the Jualin Diorite.  Approximately 95% of drilled intervals have core recovery >95%.  Poor recovery (<50%) occurs in approximately 1% of intervals and is generally localized to shear zones.
 

 7.2.7
Collar Surveys
 
Surface collar surveys are taken using an RTK global positioning system (GPS) SPS 985 instrument.  Underground surveys are recorded using a Trimble SPS 930.  Before the widespread adoption of GPS for collar surveying, some collar shots were taken by triangulating off the AK NAD 27 SP Z21 grid topographical map.
 

 7.2.8
Down Hole Surveys
 
Downhole surveying prior to 1989 was conducted using Sperry Sun-type downhole survey instruments.  Drill holes from 1989 to 2010 were surveyed with Fotobor or Reflex Maxibor downhole survey instruments.  Between 2010 and 2018, downhole surveys were collected using Reflex Gyro or Reflex Maxibor downhole survey instruments.  From 2018 to 2021, downhole surveys were collected using Reflex Gyro, Axis Champ, and most recently IDS Gyromaster downhole survey instruments, and results were quality checked by Coeur geologists.
 

 7.2.9
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
 
Drilling from underground drill stations is oriented to intersect the vein systems at as steep an angle as possible (refer to drill sections in this Chapter).  Typically, drilled intercepts are longer than the true width.
 
Drilling and surveying were conducted in accordance with industry standard practices at the time and provide suitable coverage of the mineralization.  The collar and downhole survey methods used provide reliable sample locations.  Logging procedures provide consistency in descriptions.
 
In the opinion of the QP, the quantity and quality of existing drilling data are sufficient for resource estimation at Kensington.
 
Factors that may impact the accuracy and reliability of drill results, such as sample location and sample recovery, have been adequately addressed through the use of appropriate surveying methodologies and careful drilling practices to ensure maximum recoveries.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-16
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

7.3
Hydrogeology
 

 7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
In 2017 a hydrogeological field investigation was completed for the Jualin deposit by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder).  Golder is independent of Coeur.  The work involved in situ well response testing and installation of vibrating wire piezometers on nine core holes as well as long-term discharge tests and groundwater quality sample collection.  This work helped Coeur understand expected water flow rates in the Jualin area as mining progressed.
 
Two holes were drilled in the Elmira area and packer instruments installed to collect hydrological data.  Flow testing and shut-in testing were completed.  Holes were grouted once testing was completed.  Two additional holes farther to the north will also be drilled and tested using the same procedures.
 
There are no active efforts to dewater the workings.  A dewatering well was attempted in Jualin with the goal of getting below the lowest planned development; however, a known major fault was encountered at 400 ft and the hole was lost.  A pump was installed but by then the workings were below the pump and the effect was minimal.  The well has since been abandoned.
 

 7.3.2
Comment on Results
 
The water capture and treatment requirements are well understood, and water is monitored and treated to support permit requirements.  Current water data are sufficient to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan.  Additional information on water as it relates to the mining method is provided in Chapter 13.2.
 

 7.4
Geotechnical
 
Core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) measurements are collected when the core is logged.  Core recovery is the percentage of recovered core in a core run (core block to core block) and is measured for every core run.  RQDs are taken by measuring and summing all core pieces greater than 0.33 ft (two times core diameter) in a run to calculate percent RQD.
 

 7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Mine Fill Services, Inc. issued a report in early 2008 that outlined the suitability of the Kensington tailings for paste fill.  Particle size distribution, paste rheology, and unconfined compressive strength of cured paste were determined.  All tests showed that Kensington tailings were favorable for paste production.
 
There are currently no active geotechnical monitoring sites in place.  The Raven hanging wall was monitored with extensometers while the shrinkage stopes were being mined.  Monitoring was stopped after the stopes were backfilled with paste.  No ground falls have occurred since production began and as such there is no register for rock events in place at this time.
 

 7.4.2
Comment on Results
 
A combination of historical and current geotechnical data, together with mining experience, is used in the operations.  The data are suitable for use in mine planning.  Additional information is provided in Chapter 13.1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-17
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
 

 8.1
Sampling Methods
 

 8.1.1
Muck
 
Where necessary, muck samples are taken to guide mining activity and route muck haulage to appropriate stockpiles.  These samples are taken after the muck piles are washed down.  Three imaginary lines are drawn over the muck pile; one sample is gathered from each line. An ore control geologist walks each line while grabbing fist-sized pieces of muck representative of the portions of ore to waste in the pile. The pieces are put in a medium canvas bag until the geologist collects approximately 22 lb of material. The process is repeated on the remaining two lines for a total of three samples.
 

 8.1.2
Channel
 
Channel sampling has been conducted since 2014.  Depending on location in the mine, one to three horizontal rows of 1-ft tall boxes are painted on the face from rib to rib.  Each box is drawn to respect geologic boundaries and variations in mineralization, and each box marks the boundaries of a separate channel sample.  Samples are taken by the mine geologist across the width of each box.  Each sample is placed in a canvas bag with a unique sample number correlated to the box number.  Box numbers are painted in each box before a face photo is taken.  After the sample is assayed and passed internal quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols, grades are recorded on the face photos.
 

 8.1.3
Core
 
The basic procedure and protocol for taking surface and underground drill core samples has remained consistent throughout the Coeur and pre-Coeur drill programs. In 2012, core logging changed from manual data recording on paper to recording data directly into a digital database.
 
Sample intervals are 1–5 ft long and based on the distribution of vein density, vein type, mineralization, and any other geological feature needing assay definition.
 
Whole core samples are taken from production drill holes (infill and stope holes).  Stope definition holes are sampled top to bottom unless otherwise directed by mine geology.  Kensington and Raven infill definition holes are only sampled where geologically warranted.
 
Since June 2013, all exploration drill core has been cut with a saw, retaining half for reference.  Half-core samples are taken from all exploration drill holes, where geologically warranted.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

8.2
Sample Security Methods
 
Coeur technicians handled the transfer of samples to the Kensington laboratory and external laboratories by following chain-of-custody procedures.  Exploration and definition drill samples were shipped off-site in shipping containers in canvas bags shrink-wrapped to pallets.  Once the container was full, it was closed with a chain-of-custody seal and released with shipping paperwork to the Kensington warehouse to load on the barge to Juneau.
 
Shipments consisted of two to three pallets of canvas bags placed into polyester super-sacks with zip-tie chain-of-custody seals securing the sacks closed.  A shipping notification was submitted to the Kensington warehouse crew to facilitate the transfer of the container to Juneau via the barge.  Once at the yard in Juneau, the pallets were transported by Lynden Trucking to the Acme Juneau laboratory where they were received by Acme personnel.  Acme’s chain-of-custody is initiated once the laboratory receives the samples.
 
Standard reference materials (standards), coarse rejects, and returned pulps are kept in locations with restricted access.
 
Half-core samples are stored within their original boxes at a designated area on the mine site. Sampled core is released to the geotechnician assistants for cutting at the core cutting shed.
 
Authorized Coeur personnel have access to the preparation and analytical laboratory job status websites to track jobs and samples as they move to, within, and from a given laboratory.
 

 8.3
Density Determinations
 
The independent Inspectorate laboratory located in Reno, NV completed density measurements for the 2010 drilling program, which provided 1,600 analyses from the Kensington deposit. This data was used in the current resource model.
 
Prior to 2020, density was applied using the data collected in 2010.  From 2020 onward samples of the mineralized domains that were flagged for density analysis were analyzed at the independent laboratory Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada Ltd. (Bureau Veritas) by gas pycnometer analysis.  Prior to starting this program in 2020, a sensitivity study was completed comparing results from the classic submersion method and gas pycnometer which showed that the gas pycnometer analysis returned results within acceptable limits given the competent nature of the rock.  As of December 1, 2021, the density database includes the following sample counts: 1,371 from the Elmira complex, 393 from Eureka, 220 from Jualin, 2,243 from Kensington (includes 2010 samples), and 196 from Raven.
 

 8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
 
Laboratories used that support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimations or operations are summarized in Table 8‑1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 8‑1:          Analytical and Sample Preparation Laboratories
 
Laboratory
Period
Used
Independent
Accreditation
Comment
Barringer
1980–2004
Yes
Unknown
  
Bondar-Clegg
1980–2004
Yes
Unknown
  
Cone Geochemical
1980–2004
Yes
Unknown
  
ALS Chemex
2005–2009
Yes
ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 17025:1999
Sample preparation in Fairbanks, Alaska and Reno, Nevada.
Analysis in Vancouver, Canada
American Assay Laboratories (AAL)
2005–2009
Yes
  
Sparks, Nevada
Inspectorate America Corporation (Inspectorate)
2010–March 2012
Yes
ISO 9001:2008
Sparks, Nevada
Pinnacle Analytical Laboratories
March–May 2012
Yes
ISO 17025:2005
Lovelock, Nevada
ALS Chemex
May 2012–January 2017
Yes
  
Reno, Nevada
Analysis of exploration and definition drill holes to 2015; thereafter analysis of exploration drill holes
AAL
late 2013 to mid-2015
Yes
ISO/IEC 17025:2005
Check/umpire laboratory
Acme
2013
Yes
  
Juneau, Alaska
Sample preparation for exploration and definition drill holes, prior to shipment to ALS Chemex for analysis
Bureau Veritas Commodities Canada, Ltd. (formerly Acme)
Late 2015
Yes
ISO 9001: ISO/IEC 17025:2005
Vancouver, British Columbia
Analysis of definition drill holes
Bureau Veritas
January 2017 onward
Yes
ISO 9001: ISO/IEC 17025:2005
Juneau, Alaska (preparation laboratory) and Vancouver, British Columbia
Primary laboratory for all exploration and definition drill hole samples

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Laboratory
Period
Used
Independent
Accreditation
Comment
ALS Chemex
January to Q2 2017
Yes
  
Secondary laboratory
McClelland Laboratories (McClelland)
Q2 2017 onwards
Yes
ISO 17025
Replaced ALS Chemex as secondary laboratory
Kensington site laboratory
2006–date
No
Not accredited
Analyses mine development heading samples and stope definition drill hole samples
 

 8.5
Sample Preparation
 
Sample preparation methods included:
 
•
Muck and channel samples; stope definition drill samples:  crush to 80% passing 12 mesh; pulverize to 90% passing 140 mesh;
 
•
Core:
 

 o
1987–2005:  no information recorded in the database for sample preparation;
 

 o
2005–2010:  crush to >70% passing 10 mesh (2 mm); pulverize to >85% passing 200 mesh;
 

 o
2010–2013:  crush to 80% passing 10 mesh (2 mm); pulverize to 90% passing 140 mesh, 85% passing 200 mesh, or 90% passing 150 mesh (depending on laboratory);
 

 o
2013 onward:  crush to ≥70% passing 2 mm; pulverize to 85% passing 200 mesh.
 
Samples submitted to McClelland, the secondary laboratory, were already pulverized.
 

 8.6
Analysis
 
Gold was assayed using the following methods:
 
•
30 g fire assay with gravimetric finish;
 
•
30 g fire assay with atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish;
 
Over-limit assays (>0.292 oz/st Au) were by fire assay with a gravimetric finish (FA530).  Over-limit assays >1 oz/st were metallic screen determinations (method code FS632) until August 2018 when the practice was discontinued after evaluating the difference in accuracy between metallic screen data against traditional fire assay.  Metallic screen assays require a separate sample processed from reject material before assaying.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Multi-element analyses included:
 
•
2013 to mid-2014:  four-acid digestion with inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish (ALS method ME-ICP61), 33-element suite;
 
•
Mid 2014 to 2017:  four-acid digestion with ICP-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) finish (ALS method ME-MS61), 48-element suite;
 
•
2017 to present:  four-acid ICP-ES/MS (Bureau Veritas MA200), 45 element suite.
 
McClelland (secondary laboratory) used the same analytical methods as Bureau Veritas (primary laboratory), with the same over-limit triggers applied.
 

 8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
 
Historically, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures consisted of routine check assays of original pulps, check assays of duplicate pulps from coarse rejects and use of geochemical blanks to determine contamination during sample preparation. Metallic-screen analysis was performed prior to August 2018 to check for coarse gold.
 
Current procedures include insertion of custom certified reference materials (CRMs), blanks, and duplicates (field, crush, pulp, and analytical).  Field duplicates are taken only for exploration core.  Insertion rates are as follows:
 
Insertion rates of 5% for standards, 5% for blanks and 2.5% for duplicates.
 
From 2010–2021 standards were sourced from Rocklabs, Inc., Barry Smee, Canadian Resource Laboratories, Ltd., and Ore Research & Exploration (OREAS).  Custom CRMs produced by ORE Research & Exploration were implemented in May 2020.  Standards assaying within ±3 standard deviations of the mean were considered to be acceptable.  Standard results outside of these limits were considered to be failures and were re-assayed according to company protocols and procedures.  The mean and standard deviations as provided in the certificate for each standard were used to determine acceptability criteria until December 2020.  In 2021 the primary and secondary laboratories’ internal results for each standard were used to set the mean and standard deviation for the performance gates.  The certified round robin values were used to determine performance in relation to the analytical laboratory’s level of bias.
 
Some blank material was collected from barren core from the district and some blanks were sourced from Rocklabs during early QA/QC programs.  In late 2019 blank material was sourced by an aggregate/gravel supplier AGGPro (Juneau, AK) from Washington state.  Blank samples assaying within ±5 standard deviations of the mean were considered to be acceptable.  When a blank sample failed, it was either re-assayed, or it was accepted with a comment in the database documenting the reason for its acceptance.
 
Assay duplicate results from January 2019 to June 2021 as found in the quality control audit performed by Qualitica Consulting Inc. are as follows:
 
•
Analytical duplicates: 94% report within ±25%;
 
•
Pulp duplicates: 88% report within ±25%;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Crush Duplicates: 82% report within ±25%;
 
•
Field Duplicates: 30% report within ±25%.  The low reproducibility is expected given the nature of the deposit.
 
Check assays were selected at 5–10% of sample assays received monthly and were sent to an independent ISO certified secondary analytical laboratory for analysis.  From January 2019 to June 2021, check assay analysis included a total of 2,231 sample pulps.  In September 2021, a quality control audit performed by third-party consultants Qualitica Consulting Inc. showed a strong comparison with 80% of duplicate pairs falling within ±25%.
 

 8.8
Database
 
Data collected are stored in an acQuire Geologic Information Management System.  The system stored drill hole data (collar location, orientation, downhole survey, assay, and documentation) mine development sample results, surface exploration results, and channel sample results.
 
Aside from geological data, the database includes information about contractor daily activities, daily drilling footages, and core logging rates.
 
Automatic checks built into acQuire flag possible errors and deny permission for the questionable data to be added to the database without authorization from the database manager.  Once data were successfully imported, all necessary QA/QC functions were performed.  After passing QA/QC checks, geologists verified data by cross-referencing drillhole/face photos and updated existing models for geologic continuity.
 
All business-critical systems are backed up once per day by a backup software specifically designed for virtual environments.  Backups are sent to a primary target that then synchronizes to a secondary target in a different building.  All data files were stored on the company's server in addition to the acQuire database.  Once drill hole data were received and QA/QC checks passed, the drill hole was locked by the designated person.  Once locked, no adjustments could be made to the drill hole data in acQuire unless permitted by the designated person by unlocking the hole.  Hard copies of drill hole logging data, assay certificates, and QA/QC checks are kept on site in filing cabinets or in boxes at the town warehouse.
 

 8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
 
In the opinion of the QPs, the sample preparation, analyses, and security for samples used in mineral resource estimation are acceptable, meet industry-standard practice, and are acceptable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation and mine planning purposes.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
 

 9.1
Internal Data Verification
 
The Coeur drill hole database includes data from 1981 to the Report date.  The database was audited internally and externally a number of times in support of mineral resource estimates and in support of technical report filings.
 
In 2013, a detailed and systematic internal audit was initiated, with the goal of checking and verifying all data from original records.  Most of the data were successfully verified.  Some inconsistencies and errors were identified and corrected.  Unverifiable data were removed.
 
Data evaluation and verification are performed in multiple steps throughout the life of a drill hole until it is “locked down” in the database.  Drill collar surveys and downhole surveys are viewed in plan and section and checked against development workings.  Contractor shift reports are compared to actual total drill hole footages.  Core logging data and core photos are checked for completeness.  Assay data and QA/QC data are reviewed.  Data that have not been reviewed and passed QA/QC analysis do not pass the verification process.  The system is configured so when assay data are imported, the data remain with a pending status until a geologist accepts the data, preventing the usage of data that have not undergone QA/QC review.
 
Once all data are complete and have been reviewed by the responsible persons, they are reviewed by a senior geologist and signed off on by the Chief Geologist or their designate and locked to further editing.  A Drill Hole Amendment Form is required to document and approve any changes after the lockdown of the drill hole. This process ensures the security of all aspects of the drill hole database.
 
The confidence in the current drill hole database is therefore considered by the QP to be high, and the QP considers the data in the database to be adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates.
 

 9.2
External Data Verification
 
The Kensington drill hole database, including survey data, logging information, assays, and QA/QC results, has been audited by external consultants such as SRK (1997), Lynn Canal Geological Services (1999; specific to downhole survey data), Dr. Jeffrey Jaacks (2008), KPMG (2013), Dave Heberlin (2016 & 2018), and Qualitica Consulting (2021).
 
The most recent audit, completed on data collected since 2019, found no concerns with the data or QA/QC policies.  A review of the database that included reviewing lockdown comments on historic holes that are included in the resource estimation and careful review of recent drill programs focusing on survey data, appropriate lithological logging, and accurate sampling methods.  The review supported the use of the data for Mineral Resource Estimation given that:
 
•
No significant sample biases were identified from the QA/QC programs;
 
•
Sample data collected adequately reflect deposit dimensions, true widths of mineralization, and the style of the deposit;
 
•
External reviews of the database were completed in support of acquisitions, feasibility-level studies, and of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates, producing independent assessments of the database quality. No significant problems with the database, sampling protocols, flow sheets, check analysis program, or data storage were noted.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
 
Data verification performed by the QP included:
 
•
Reviewed the results of imported data and conducted QA/QC in acQuire on all assay data from 2007–present;
 
•
Reviewed the quarterly QA/QC reports of gold assay data from 2018–present;
 
•
Reviewed all geologic data logged and entered into acQuire from 2007 to present;
 
•
Participated in the 2018 project to review all Jualin drilling to validate inclusion in resource estimation;
 
•
Participated in the 2019 project to review all Elmira drilling to validate inclusion in resource estimation;
 
•
Reviewed the results of a 5–10% check of gold assays performed by an independent laboratory from 2013 to present;
 
•
Conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports;
 
•
Signed off as the geologist for the 2015–present definition drill holes; signed off on all drill holes for 2021 drilling;
 
•
Worked at the Kensington Operations from 2014–present.
 

 9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
The process of data verification for the Project was performed by external consulting firms from 2007 to present, and by Coeur personnel including the QP.  The QP reviewed the appropriate reports.  The QP considers the level of verification to be reasonable and is of the opinion that no material issues would have been left unidentified from the programs undertaken.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
 

 10.1
Test Laboratories
 
Independent metallurgical testwork facilities used over the Project life included Pittsburgh Minerals and Environmental Technology, Inc., Cannon Microprobe, SGS Vancouver, Colorado Minerals and Research Institute, Maxim Technologies, Inc., Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc., Knelson Research & Technology Center, Hazen Research, Inc., and G & T Metallurgical Services Ltd.
 
The Kensington Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
There is no international standard of accreditation provided for metallurgical testing laboratories or metallurgical testing procedures.
 

 10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
 

 10.2.1
Historical Testwork
 
Prior to mill construction at Kensington, six different companies conducted extensive metallurgical testing, including comminution gravity separation, flotation (flash flotation, locked-cycle testing, and various reagent additions), and cyanidation of concentrates (Table 10‑1).
 
Gold in the Kensington deposit was present as calaverite (AuTe2), and in the form of free gold or microscopic, “invisible” gold.  The relationship of calaverite to pyrite was either as a rind, an inclusion, or a separate, discrete particle.  Particles ranged from 3–20 µm in size.
 
Test results were used as a guideline for plant design.  Metallurgical testing results were consistent in the recommended methods of process design, extraction, and recovery estimates.
 

 10.2.2
Jualin Testwork
 
Gold in the Jualin deposit was in the form of native gold and highly liberated gold minerals, and exhibited high gold–sulfide associations.
 
In April 2017, two sets of test holes were drilled to provide composites of Jualin Vein #4 mineralization for flotation testwork using similar operating conditions to those in use in the Kensington plant flotation circuit, and gravity testwork.  Flotation results achieved good recoveries for all tests performed (>96%). Initial mass pulls were high, then tapered down to match the Kensington mill performance.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑1:          Historical Metallurgical Testwork
 
Title/Year
Facility
Description
Mineralogical Analyses of a Gold Ore Sample from the Kensington Mine, June 1998
Colorado Minerals and Research Institute
Overall mineralogy, liberation/locking characteristics, particle size analyses.
Metallurgical Analyses of a Gold Ore Sample from the Kensington Mine, October 1998
Colorado Minerals and Research Institute
Gold recovery through flotation, gravity and cyanide leaching, cyanide leaching of concentrate, flocculants testing, reagent addition, pilot plant trial, dewatering.
Reagent Analyses Report, 2000
Maxim Technologies, Inc.
Investigation of flotation reagent performance and optimization and reagent degradation study.
Laboratory Metallurgical Testing, 2004
Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc.
Centrifugal concentrator, reagent addition and dosage optimization, flash flotation, 2nd stage grinding, locked cycle.
Gravity Recoverable Gold, 2005
Knelson Research & Technology Center
Determine the gravity recoverable gold content and distribution through particle size distribution.
Kensington Flotation Tails Project, 2008
Hazen Research, Inc.
Evaluation of alternative tailings disposal methods through pilot plant simulations.
Kensington Flotation Pilot Plant for Kensington Mill, 2009
Hazen Research, Inc.
Evaluation of proposed process designs performance using pilot plant.
Evaluations of Gold Recoveries from Gravity and Flotation Concentrates, 2009
Hazen Research, Inc.
Chemical analyses, mineralogy, intensive cyanidation of gravity concentrate, oxidation roasting, pressure oxidation of flotation concentrates and CIL cyanidation.
Production of Concentrates from a Bulk Sample of Kensington Ore, 2010
G & T Metallurgical Services Ltd.
Pilot plant simulation of proposed process design. Evaluating metallurgical response of ore sample to previously developed process conditions.
 
In November 2017, a bulk sample of Jualin ore was run through the mill to determine actual mill performance.  Flotation recovery results that averaged 95.8% recovery indicated that the existing circuit could recover the Jualin material with minimal gold losses.
 
It was decided to refurbish the existing Knelson concentrator in the plant in case material from Jualin did not mirror the results obtained from the Jualin Vein #4 mineralization.
 

 10.3
Recovery Estimates
 
Recovery estimates based on multiple metallurgical test programs using ore samples representative of the Kensington and Jualin ore bodies have correlated very well with results obtained in the flotation circuit since shortly after mill start up.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data.  Recovery factors are appropriate to the mineralization types and the selected process route.
 
The LOM recovery forecast is 95.3%.
 

 10.4
Metallurgical Variability
 
Metallurgical test results obtained from several testwork programs conducted during the past 20 years show low variability between several different locations with respect to gold recovery.  This low variability has been verified through the actual mill performance.
 
Tests were performed on samples that are representative of the deposit and its mineralogy.
 

 10.5
Deleterious Elements
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known deleterious elements that could have a significant adverse effect on the mine economics.
 

 10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
Industry-standard studies were performed as part of process development and initial plant designs.  Subsequent production experience and focused investigations, as well as marketing requirements, have guided mill process improvements and changes.
 
Testwork programs, both internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements.
 
The QP reviewed the information compiled by Coeur, as summarized in this Chapter, and reviewed reconciliation data available to verify the information used in the LOM plan.
 
Based on these checks, in the opinion of the QP, the metallurgical testwork results and production data support the estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves and can be used in the economic analysis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
 

 11.1
Introduction
 
Mineral resources were estimated for the Kensington, Eureka, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira deposits/veins.  Database closeout dates for the estimates are:
 
•
Kensington: November 1, 2021;
 
•
Eureka: October 12, 2021;
 
•
Raven: October 16, 2021;
 
•
Jualin: October 17, 2021;
 
•
Elmira: December 1, 2021.
 
Examples of the models for each area are provided in Figure 11‑1 to Figure 11‑6.  While the Eureka deposit is estimated separately from the Kensington deposit due to its small size and close proximity to Kensington, it is reported with the Kensington estimate.
 

 11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
 
All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis methods, which could include histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.
 
Statistics were compiled and compared for raw drill hole data, length weighted drill holes, composites, declustered composites, and capped declustered composites to ensure that the grade distribution and true mean of the system were conserved through the estimation process.  The coefficient of variation was analyzed to determine if the domaining produced sufficient stationarity for the estimate.
 

 11.3
Geological Models
 
Mineralization is primarily hosted in north-trending and east-dipping structures and is hosted by mesothermal quartz veins and vein arrays.  The Kensington mineralization is primarily hosted by vein arrays with some discontinuous discrete quartz veins.  Jualin, Elmira, and Raven are narrow vein deposits hosted by large discrete quartz veins.
 
The Kensington resource model currently contains a total of 36 estimation domains.  The Eureka resource model has two estimation domains.  The Raven resource model has five estimation domains.  The Jualin resource model has four estimation domains.  The Elmira resource model has three estimation domains.  Each estimation domain is based on lithology and mineralization. 
 
Three-dimensional (3D) models of each estimation domain were created using Leapfrog Geo geological modeling software which uses implicit modeling to define geological shapes.  This method requires significant diligence in geologic investigation before the procedure can be completed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑1:          Kensington and Raven Model Areas
 
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑2:          Kensington Model
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Gray lines are drill traces.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑3:          Eureka Model
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Gray lines are drill traces.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑4:          Raven Model
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Gray lines are drill traces.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑5:          #4 Vein Model, Jualin
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Gray lines are drill traces.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑6:          Elmira Model
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Gray lines are drill traces.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Estimation domains that inform Elmira, Raven, and Jualin resource estimates are generated by selecting quartz vein intercepts regardless of the grade.  Each lithological intercept is visually checked by reviewing photos of the drill core.  Boundaries of each domain are snapped as close to the lithological breaks as possible.
 

 11.4
Density Assignment
 
Density determinations discussed in Chapter 8.3 were used in interpolation.  Each domain and the diorite host rock have a density factor.  Densities are then applied in the model using a script during the post-processing phase.  The script assigns each block the density of the estimation domain the block is in.  If the block is outside of an estimation domain, the block is assigned the density determined for the diorite host rock.
 

 11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
 
Due to variability of grade and outliers in the composite samples, grade capping is implemented. Grade capping reduces grade smearing and prevents the resource model from locally overestimating due to high-grade samples.  Caps were determined by a study of the exploratory data analysis, general statistics, histograms, log normal probability plots and reconciliation data:
 
•
Kensington:  composites samples were capped at values ranging from 1.5–6.0 oz/st Au, depending on the statistics of the zone groups.  Eureka was capped at 0.7–1.2 oz/st Au, depending on statistic of each domain.
 
•
Raven:  composite samples were capped at values ranging from 0.3–3.0 oz/st Au, depending on the statistics of each estimation domain.
 
•
Jualin:  composite samples were capped at values ranging from 1.0–3.5 oz/st Au, depending on the statistics of each estimation domain.
 
•
Elmira:  composite samples were capped ats ranging from 0.5–1.0 oz/st Au, depending on the statistics of each estimation domain.
 

 11.6
Composites
 
For the Kensington and Eureka resource models, drill data were composited at 5 ft down-the-hole intervals by estimation domain using the run-length method.  The 5 ft interval was selected because it was the largest sample length allowed.  This helps prevent sample splitting during compositing.
 
When compositing for Elmira, Raven, and Jualin, full vein width composites were created using the run-length method to accurately represent the full vein grade.  All samples that fall within the boundaries of a specified domain will be broken on the domain contact and composited into a single sample as specified by the boundaries of the estimation domain.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

11.7
Variography
 
Due to the highly variable nature of the deposits, variograms were produced using normal scores transform then back-transformed to produce the final variogram.
 
For the Kensington and Eureka deposits, variograms were calculated for separate groupings of domains or zones where individual domains had insufficient number of samples to construct a valid variogram model.  The resulting variogram for each zone was applied during estimation for all domains within each zone.
 
Downhole variograms for the narrow vein deposits at Elmira, Jualin, and Raven were not possible due to the use of single, vein-width composites.  The nugget of these deposits was set using the major, semi-major variograms and knowledge of the deposit.
 

 11.8
Estimation/Interpolation Methods
 
The Kensington parent block size was 10 x 10 x 10 ft and was sub-blocked down to 1 x 5 x 5 ft at domain boundaries, as needed.  Estimation was done in the parent blocks, therefore the sub-blocks, which lay within the same parent block, had the same grade.  The sub-block size was chosen to provide resolution along domain boundaries, as many of the domains have high angle dips.  Gold grades were estimated into blocks using ordinary kriging (OK) on the 5 ft composite grades.  Blocks within each domain were estimated using only composites from within that domain.  The primary search ellipse was a product of variography and reconciliation.  Each zone group had different dimensions based on results from the respective variogram models.  The major axis was oriented roughly north–south, congruent with the average vein strike orientation.  The semi-major axis dipped at -55º.  Strike and dip were varied for each zone group depending on domain and vein orientations.  The minimum and maximum samples were set to six and 12, respectively.  The maximum number of samples per drill hole is set to 2 thus requiring a minimum of two drill holes to complete the estimation.
 
Eureka is estimated using inverse distance weighting to the second power (ID2).  This was done due to the lack of sample data to support a robust variogram.  In addition, during sensitivity studies, it was found that OK created an overly smooth estimate that did not respect the composite grades.  A parent block size of 25 x 25 x 25 ft was sub-blocked to 5 x 5 x 0.1 ft at domain boundaries, as needed.  A search ellipse of 300 x 200 x 100 ft was used to include sufficient samples for the estimation and to control local high-grade samples.  The search ellipse used an anisotropic bearing and dip to better represent undulations in the estimation domains.  The plunge of the ellipse was set at 36º to represent the visual trends in composite grades of the estimation domains.  The minimum and maximum number of samples were set to three and nine respectively.  The maximum number of samples per drill hole was set to two, thus requiring a minimum of two drill holes to complete the estimation.
 
Elmira, Jualin, and Raven, being narrow vein deposits using single vein-width composites, required a seam model (2D) to better represent each of the estimation domains.  The seam model was rotated to the same strike and dip of the deposit and used a single block to fill the width of each domain.  These deposits were estimated using ID2.  The method does not have the tendency to smooth grade across blocks, but rather respects grade variability constrained within parent blocks which prevents the erroneous spreading of metal content.  Blocks within each domain were estimated using only composites from within that domain.  Each of these deposits also used an over-exaggerated minor axis for the search ellipse.  Its purpose was to reduce artifacts in an estimation domain that has undulatory characteristics.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The Elmira estimate used a parent block size of 25 x 25 x 25 ft to help constrain the grade from erroneously spreading grades, while also giving a greater resolution.  Parent blocks were sub-blocked to 5 x 5 x 0.5 ft where needed.  A search ellipse of 600 x 300 x 1000 ft was used.  The search ellipse used an anisotropic bearing and dip to better represent undulations in the estimation domains.  The plunge of the ellipse was set at 10º to represent the visual trends in composite grade of the estimation domains and supported by the variogram.  The minimum and maximum samples were set to three and nine.
 
Estimation for the Jualin zone used a parent block size of parent block size of 25 x 25 x 25 ft for Vein 4 to help constrain the grade from erroneously spreading grades, while also giving a greater resolution.  The other domains in the deposit used parent blocks of 50 x 50 ft.  Parent blocks were sub-blocked to 5 x 5 x 0.1 ft where needed.  A search ellipse of 300 x 150 x 1000 ft was used.  The search ellipse for Vein 4 had a bearing of 340º, a plunge of -20º and a dip of -50º.  The search ellipse for Vein 2 had a bearing of 320º, a plunge of -15º and a dip of -55º.  The minimum and maximum samples were set to three and nine.
 
The Raven estimate used a parent block size of parent block size of 25 x 25 x 25 ft to help constrain estimates from erroneously spreading metal content while also giving a greater resolution.  The parent blocks were sub-blocked to 5 x 5 x 0.1 ft where needed.  A search ellipse of 300 x 150 x 1,000 ft was used.  The search ellipse used an anisotropic bearing and dip to better represent undulations in the estimation domains.  The plunge of the ellipse was set at 60º to represent the visual trends in composite grade of the estimation domains.  The minimum and maximum samples were set to three and 12.
 

 11.9
Validation
 
The block models were validated using some or all of the following methods:
 
•
Visually by stepping through sections and comparing the raw drill data and composite data with the block values;
 
•
Comparison of model statistics to drill data;
 
•
Swath plots;
 
•
Mill to model reconciliation.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
 

 11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
 
Mineral resources at Kensington and Eureka are classified as follows:
 
•
Measured:  average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is <50 ft, and the block estimation uses two or more drill holes and six or more samples;
 
•
Indicated:  average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is <75 ft, and the block estimation uses two or more drill holes and three or more samples;
 
•
Inferred:  average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤150 ft, the block estimation uses two or more drill holes and two or more samples;
 
•
Unclassified: all other blocks.
 
Mineral resources at Raven are classified as follows:
 
•
Measured:  average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤50 ft, the block estimation uses two or more drill holes and uses six or more samples;
 
•
Indicated:  average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤75 ft, and the block estimation uses one or more drill holes and two or more samples;
 
•
Inferred: average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤150 ft and uses one or more drill holes;
 
•
Unclassified: all other blocks.
 
The estimation domain Vein 2 at Jualin is classified as:
 
•
Indicated: average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤100 ft and the block estimation uses two or more samples;
 
•
Inferred: average distance from an estimated block to the composites used is ≤150 ft and the block estimation uses two or more samples;
 
•
Unclassified: all other blocks.
 
For the estimation domain Vein 4 at Jualin, the entire domain is considered to be indicated.  This is because of the consistent geology of the discrete vein.  In addition, a large amount of production and reconciliation data have been collected giving a high confidence in this domain.
 
Mineral resources at Elmira are classified as follows:
 
•
Measured: average distance from an estimated block to composited used is ≤ 50 ft and uses six or more samples;
 
•
Indicated: average distance from an estimated block to composites used is ≤ 100 ft and uses four or more samples;
 
•
Inferred: average distance from an estimated block to composites used is ≤ 200 ft and uses two or more samples;
 
•
Unclassified: all other blocks.
 
For all deposits, any block that falls within the crown pillar or within 200 ft of surface topography, are unclassified as “these blocks will not be mined”.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
 
Following the drill spacing analysis that classified the mineral resource estimates into the measured, indicated and inferred confidence categories, uncertainties regarding sampling and drilling methods, data processing and handling, geological modelling, and estimation were incorporated into the classifications assigned.  The areas with the most uncertainty were assigned to the inferred category, and the areas with fewest uncertainties were classified as measured.
 

 11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
 

 11.11.1
Input Assumptions
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was completed that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
 
Mineral resources were confined within conceptual mineable shapes that used the assumptions in Table 11‑1.  The estimate assumed that the preferred mining method will be longhole stoping, and that the minimum mining width was 5 ft.
 

 11.11.2
Commodity Price
 
Commodity prices used in resource estimation are based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts, supplemented with research by Coeur’s internal specialists.  An explanation of the derivation of the commodity prices is provided in Chapter 16.  The estimated timeframe used for the price forecasts is the three-year LOM that supports the mineral reserve estimates.
 

 11.11.3
Cut-off
 
The mineral resources are reported using variable gold cut-off grades that range from 0.116–0.164 oz/t Au.  The cut-off grades for Kensington, Eureka, Raven, and Elmira were calculated as follows:
 
 
The individual values and associated units for the above equation were reported in Table 11‑1.
 
The Jualin cut-off grade was calculated as above but with a 5% deduction taken per the royalty agreement with Hyak Mining.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-12
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑1:          Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Resources
 
Parameter
Units
Value
Gold price
$/ozAu
1,700
Concentrate refining
$/oz Au
32.00
Gold recovery
%
95.00
Gold payable
%
97.50
Mining cost
$/st mined
90.91–150.73
Mineralization costs:  crushing & process
$/st processed
46.93
Shipping
$/oz sold
28.00
G&A
$/st processed
38.83
Au cut-off grade
oz/st
0.120–0.175
 

 11.11.4
QP Statement
 
The QP is of the opinion that any issues that arise in relation to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.  The mineral resource estimates are performed for deposits that are in a well-documented geological setting.  Coeur is very familiar with the economic parameters required for successful operations in the Kensington area; and Coeur has a history of being able to obtain and maintain permits, social license, and meet environmental standards.  There is sufficient time in the three-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecast for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, testwork, and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates.
 

 11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300, and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.
 
All models were depleted through 2021.  Planned mining shapes were used for the month of December as the depletion was estimated on December 7, 2021.
 
Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 11‑2 and inferred mineral resources in Table 11‑3.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Ms. Rae Keim, P.Geo., a Coeur Alaska employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-13
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑2:          Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral Resource Classification
Tons
(kst)
Au Grade
(oz/st)
Au
Contained
Ounces
(koz)
Cut-off Grade
(Au oz/st)
Metallurgical Recovery
(%)
Kensington
Measured
2,809
0.23
639
0.125
95
Indicated
1,056
0.23
242
0.125
95
Subtotal measured & indicated
3,865
0.23
880
0.125
95
Raven
Measured
29
0.52
15
0.125
95
Indicated
31
0.29
9
0.125
95
Subtotal measured & indicated
61
0.40
24
0.125
95
Jualin
Measured
0
0.00
0
0.175
95
Indicated
59
0.59
35
0.175
95
Subtotal measured & indicated
59
0.59
35
0.175
95
Elmira
Measured
0
0.00
0
0.120
95
Indicated
84
0.31
26
0.120
95
Subtotal measured & indicated
84
0.31
26
0.120
95
Eureka
Measured
22
0.29
6
0.125
95
Indicated
34
0.31
11
0.125
95
Subtotal measured & indicated
56
0.30
17
0.125
95
Total measured and indicated mineral resources
Total measured
2,860
0.23
660
0.120–0.175
95
Total indicated
1,263
0.26
323
0.120–0.175
95
Total measured & indicated
4,124
0.24
983
0.120–0.175
95
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-14
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑3:          Gold Inferred Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral Resource Classification
Tons
(kst)
Au Grade
(oz/st)
Au
Contained
Ounces
(koz)
Cut-off Grade
(Au oz/st)
Metallurgical Recovery
(%)
Kensington
Inferred
1,043
0.22
229
0.125
95
Raven
Inferred
66
0.20
13
0.125
95
Jualin
Inferred
32
0.65
21
0.175
95
Elmira
Inferred
667
0.25
166
0.120
95
Eureka
Inferred
106
0.24
25
0.125
95
Total inferred mineral resource
Total
1,915
0.24
455
0.120–0.175
95
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as at December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Ms. Rae Keim, P. Geo., a Coeur Alaska employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional longhole underground mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz; reported above a variable gold cut-off grade that ranges from 0.120–0.175 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 95%; gold payability of 97.5%, variable mining costs that range from US$90.91–150.73/st mined, process costs of US$46.93/t processed, general and administrative costs of US$38.83/t processed, and concentrate refining and shipping costs of US$60.00/oz sold
 
5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-15
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:
 
•
Metal price and exchange rate assumptions;
 
•
Changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade;
 
•
Changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones;
 
•
Changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions;
 
•
Density and domain assignments;
 
•
Changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions;
 
•
Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to underground mine designs constraining the estimates;
 
•
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-16
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
 

 12.1
Introduction
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.
 
The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping, trackless equipment and combination of cemented rock fill (CRF), waste, and paste backfill.  Target mining rates are capped at approximately 2,000 tons per day, which is the permitted capacity limit.
 

 12.2
Development of Mining Case
 
The mineral reserve estimate is based on the following inputs and considerations:
 
•
Mineral resource block model estimating tonnage and gold grade;
 
•
Cut-off grade calculations;
 
•
Stope and development designs;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrogeological information;
 
•
Depletion from previous mining;
 
•
Consideration of other modifying factors.
 
Maptek Vulcan mine planning software was used to for the creation of the mining shapes and Deswik mine planning software was used for the interrogation of the mining shapes against the block model.
 
The surveyed “as-built” mining excavations were depleted from the designed solids and the resource block model.
 
Mining, geotechnical, and hydrological factors were considered in the estimation of the mineral reserves.
 

 12.3
Designs
 
Mining excavations (stopes and ore development) were designed to include mineralization above the cut-off grade.  These excavations were then assessed for economic viability.  In addition to the mining cut-off grade, an incremental cut-off grade (excluding the mining cost) was calculated to classify mineralization mined as a result of essential development to access higher-grade mining areas.  Mineralization above this cut-off grade will add value, and is therefore, included as process plant feed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

12.4
Input Assumptions
 
Estimates of development rate are based on measured advance rates in Kensington, Raven, Jualin, and Elmira and any expected variation from manpower or equipment considerations.  Stope production rates are based on measured values of production since the start of operations.
 
Transverse stoping is the main extraction method used in the Main Kensington center area.  Stope outlines are created on 40 ft centers using the standard level spacing (75 ft in Kensington, 35–50 ft in Raven, 35 ft in Jualin, and 60 ft in Elmira) and the reserve model.  Longitudinal stope designs were used in the fringe regions of Zone 10, much of Zones 12, 30, 35, and 50, much of Elmira, and all of Raven area and represent a majority of the tons in the LOM plan.  These areas of longitudinal stoping are too narrow (>30 ft) to convert to transverse stoping, based on the requisite infrastructure required.  Together with the conventional transverse and longitudinal stopes, there are also some blind back stopes, depending on the reserve model and stoping horizon.
 

 12.5
Ore Loss and Dilution
 
Recovery and dilution percentages along with dilution grade were derived from stope reconciliation data from 2012–2020 for Kensington, Raven, and Jualin.  Kensington mining performance has been applied to Elmira for planning and reserve purposes and will be updated as Elmira moves through production.  Reserve estimates and mine plans include dilution and recovery as shown in Table 12‑1.
 
Unintentional mining of paste backfill, or CRF has not been excessive to date, though instances of sloughing of material during, and post, blast have been observed in secondary stopes, adding 1–3% additional waste dilution in a few select stopes.
 
Beginning in 2020 dilution grades were calculated using reconciliation data instead of relying on the original dilution grade of 0.063 oz/st that was calculated by a third-party consultant at the beginning of the Project.  Also beginning in 2020, a dilution grade was applied to stopes in the Raven and Jualin using reconciliation data instead of assuming 0.0 oz/st due to minimal or no mineralization extending past the vein.
 

 12.6
Cut-off Grades
 
Cut-off grades are determined through historical costing for Kensington, Raven and Jualin.  Cut-offs range from 0.142–0.201 oz/st.  The cut-off includes consideration of concentrate and shipping costs, mining costs, crushing and process costs, general and administrative (G&A) costs, gold recovery and gold payability (Table 12‑2).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑1:          Dilution Rate and Dilution Grade
 
Zone
Development/
Stope
Recovery (%)
Dilution
(%)
Grade
(oz/st)
Kensington
Development
  
15
0
Stope
85
20
0.087
Raven
Development
  
15
0
Stope
85
20
.06
Elmira
Development
  
15
0
Stope
85
20
.087
Jualin
Development
  
15
0
Stope
85
20
.06
 
Table 12‑2:          Input Parameters to Cut-off Grade Determination, Mineral Reserves
 
Parameter
Units
Value
Gold price
$/oz
1,400
Concentrate refining
$/oz Au
32.00
Gold recovery
%
95
Gold payable
%
97.5
Mining cost
$/ore ton mined
90.91–150.73
Processing
$/ore ton mined
46.93
G&A
$/ ore ton mined
38.83
Shipping
$/oz sold
28.00
Au cut-off grade
oz/t
0.142–0.201
Marginal AuEq cut-off grade
oz/t
0.037-0.040
Gold price
$/oz
1,400
 
Some blocks are classed as incremental material, which does not include the G&A or mining costs, as those costs are incurred regardless of what the resource classification may be.  This material must be removed from the mine and its destination,  the waste pile or low-grade stockpile, is determined by the requirement that it carries only the mining and refining costs.  This material is only processed when mill tonnage needs to be sustained, but where it does not offset other above cut-off grade material.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

12.7
Commodity Price
 
The gold price used in mineral reserve estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The estimated timeframe used is the three-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,400/oz. The QP reviewed the forecast as outlined in Chapter 16.
 

 12.8
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves were classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the process plant.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 12‑3.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 

 12.9
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
•
Operating costs:  higher or lower operating costs than those assumed could also affect the mineral reserve estimates.  While the trend over 2014–2020 showed operating cost reductions at the Kensington Operations, this trend could reverse and costs could increase over the life of the Project, due to factors outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Dilution:  additional dilution has the effect of increasing the overall volume of material mined, hauled and processed.  This results in an increase in operating costs and could result in mineral reserve losses if broken stocks are diluted to the point where it is uneconomic to muck, haul, and process the material and the broken stocks are abandoned.  The operations have developed a number of methods to control dilution, including the installation of stope support, a flexible mine plan with the ability to limit stope wall spans, and good development practices that avoid undercutting the stope hanging wall.  To assist in these efforts, site geotechnical reviews are carried out regularly by external consultants;
 
•
Geotechnical: geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the ore body, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  In addition to the controls discussed in the dilution section there are significant management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks;
 
•
Hydrogeological:  unexpected hydrogeological conditions could cause issues with access and extraction of areas of the mineral reserve due to higher than anticipated rates of water ingress;
 
•
Geological and structural interpretations:  changes in the underlying geology model including changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones, changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions, and density and domain assignments could result in changes to the geology model upon which mineral reserve estimate is based;
 
•
Permitting and social license:  inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain social license to operate could result in the inability to extract some or all of the mineral reserve.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑3:          Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve Statement at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
 
Zone/Deposit
Mineral Reserve Classification
Tons
(kst)
Au Grade
(oz/st)
Au
Contained
Ounces
(koz)
Cut-off Grade
(Au oz/st)
Metallurgical Recovery
(%)
Kensington
Proven
595
0.18
109
0.143
95
Probable
337
0.17
56
0.143
95
Subtotal proven & probable
932
0.18
 165
0.143
95
Raven
Proven
9
0.46
4
0.143
95
Probable
1
0.33
0
0.143
95
Subtotal proven & probable
10
0.44
5
0.143
95
Jualin
Proven
0
0.00
0
0.201
95
Probable
48
0.33
16
0.201
95
Subtotal proven & probable
48
0.33
16
0.201
95
Elmira
Proven
0
0.00
0
0.142
95
Probable
273
0.21
58
0.142
95
Subtotal proven & probable
273
0.21
58
0.142
95
Eureka
Proven
52
0.22
12
0.143
95
Probable
31
0.21
6
0.143
95
Subtotal proven & probable
83
0.22
18
0.143
95
Total proven and probable mineral reserve
Total proven
656
0.19
125
0.142–0.201
95
Total probable
690
0.20
136
0.142–0.201
95
Total proven & probable
1,346
0.19
261
0.142–0.201
95
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve tables:
 
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as at December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of deliver to the process plant.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Peter Haarala, RM SME, a Coeur employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional underground mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.142-0.201 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 95%; gold payability of 97.5%, variable mining costs that range from US$90.91–150.73/st mined, process costs of US$46.93/st processed, general and administrative costs of US$38.83/st processed, and concentrate refining and shipping costs of US$60.00/oz sold.
 
4.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
13.0
MINING METHODS
 

 13.1
Introduction
 
The Kensington Operations use conventional underground equipment and mining methods.  The mine has been operating since July 2012.
 

 13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
 
Geotechnical conditions underground at Kensington are excellent.  No Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reportable ground falls have occurred at Kensington during the current phase of operation that began in 2009.  This is attributable to a stable, competent rock mass, appropriate ground support standards, and proper installation of ground support.
 
The interaction of the mining sequence on the overall stability of the hanging wall has been investigated by an outside geotechnical expert.  Minor non-reportable occurrences have taken place within open stopes where personnel are not exposed.  Regular additional evaluations by an outside geotechnical expert will be ongoing to assess any additional changes that may be necessary.
 
Raven workings have been extended, using guidance from an outside geotechnical expert, with excellent results to date.  No MSHA-reportable ground falls have been identified in Raven, and more visits by an outside geotechnical expert will allow changes as necessary while Coeur proceeds with operations in this region of the mine.
 
The existing ground support guidelines were confirmed to be appropriate for use in the Jualin deposit.  Pillars were recommended in the stoping regions to reduce potential hanging wall dilution and have been shown to be effective.  The ground support guidelines document will continue to be updated as new information and understanding of the geotechnical properties is gained.
 

 13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
 
There are few hydrogeological aspects to be considered beyond natural inflow of water to the workings within the Kensington and Raven orebodies.  This inflow is monitored, and the water is captured within the workings to be either treated, or discharged, as per Coeur’s permit requirements.  Water quality, including suspended solids and mining-introduced contaminants is measured, and the water is treated accordingly, to meet discharge limits.
 
Some water ingress is associated with regional fracture systems.  There is a measurable variance in flow within the mine which corresponds with seasonal precipitation events.  Water influx decreases with depth as fractures become tighter and fewer, and less weathering of the fractures has occurred over time.  As the up-ramp is extended, inflows of 200–300 gpm are expected while mining above the K2050 Level.
 
The Jualin deposit is near surface, with several faults and mineralized veins having surface expression.  These structures collect runoff water and, together with the historic Jualin mine workings acting as a reservoir, channel water to the areas under mining development.  An upgraded dewatering system was installed in 2020 and is expected to meet or exceed water handling requirements through the Jualin LOM.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Water in flow from future Elmira production is expected to be minimal in the bottom two thirds of the deposit.  No major water courses were encountered during extensive diamond drilling activities.  Diamond drill holes collared in the historic 2050 level show water inflows from the upper reaches of the Elmira deposit.
 
As mining advances and more open ground is created, mine in flows have increased.  During the freshet there may be more water in flow than currently permitted for discharge.  In this case water is impounded in mined out voids in the Raven and lower Kensington and discharged as in flows decrease and capacity is available in the water treatment plant.
 
A permit from the State of Alaska is expected in May 2022 to increase the discharge limit from 3,000 gpm to 4,500 gpm. Upgrades to the Comet Water Treatment Plant were performed in 2020 and 2021 in anticipation of the limit increase.
 

 13.4
Mine Access
 
The primary access for all equipment and personnel to the Kensington, Raven, and Elmira underground mine areas is via the Kensington Portal at 964 ft. elevation, located on an upper bench adjacent to the main mill site at the base of Lion’s Head Mt.
 
There is a secondary portal at 792 ft. elevation on the east side of Lynn Canal (Comet Beach) side of the mountain, south of Haines.
 
The Jualin deposit is accessed by a -15% grade, nominal 15 x 17 ft decline collared from surface at 926 ft. elevation on an intermediate bench behind the main mill site.
 

 13.5
Mining Method Selection
 
Stoping and paste backfill mining methods were selected and implemented based on the orebody location, ground conditions, and geological settings.  Mining design assumptions for each mining region are typically standardized for each area and mining method assumed.  Offsets from the ore, required infrastructure, and support are based on industry standards and best practices, modified by specific location required needs and operational requirements to safely advance development and production in each area while minimizing waste development to maximize efficiency.
 

 13.5.1
Kensington
 
The Kensington deposit is mined using longitudinal longhole stoping or transverse longhole stoping.  Key metrics include:
 
•
Longitudinal stopes:  25 ft maximum width, strike length of <100 ft, with 80 ft as the optimum length open;
 
•
Transverse stopes:  40 ft width, nominal height of 75 ft, and variable lengths, from 25–150 ft along strike.
 
Both stope types are backfilled with paste.
 
When developing a level for longitudinal stoping, the drift is placed within the orebody, and follows the primary structures as much as possible to minimize waste development and allow a retreat mining approach from the farthest extent of the orebody back to the central access corridor.  Ore is extracted by driving along the orebody on two levels, drilling and blasting with 60–90 ft rings of blast holes drilled down dip, creating an open stope parallel to the strike and dip of the ore.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
In areas exploited using transverse stoping, access ramps (16 x 16 ft) and level development (15 x 15 ft) are driven in the footwall (above 910 level) or hanging wall (below 850 Level) of the orebody.  Development is placed such that the ramps are 200–250 ft from the orebody.  Footwall drifts, when developing for transverse stopes, are placed 100 ft from the orebody, whenever possible, with some consideration given to optimal equipment access.  When both mining methods are present on a level, then transverse stoping designs take precedence, and longitudinal work is placed, as possible, where it follows the traditional longitudinal approach.
 
Equipment used includes twin boom jumbos, load–haul–dump (LHD) vehicles, and low-profile mine haul trucks.
 
Infrastructure such as vent raises, sumps, utilities, and paste line corridors are placed, whenever possible, between the ramp and footwall and the services are then distributed throughout the level as operations progresses.
 
A cross-section showing the stope layout is provided in Figure 13‑1.
 

 13.5.2
Raven
 
Upper Raven is accessed by two Alimak raises.  The primary raise (10 x 10 feet) is in the south–central portion of the orebody, and is equipped with a manway and equipment slide, and flanked by 4 x 4 ft muck passes to the north and south.  The 7 x 7 ft secondary raise, located on the north end of the orebody, is used as an escapeway.  Upper Raven is completely mined out and shrinkage stopes are backfilled with paste.  Access is still retained via the raises.
 
Lower Raven is accessed by a 12 x 12 ft nominal ramp driven from the Comet main, and currently has ventilation and escapeways from the access level at the 820 elevation down to the lower levels.  The orebody in Lower Raven is intersected approximately every 30–50 ft vertically by 12 x 12 ft mechanically-driven development drifts that are excavated off varying points on the main ramp, and by internal ramps connecting the orebody levels.  Mining equipment includes single boom jumbos, jacklegs, and LHDs.  Longitudinal stopes are blasted between levels, mucked along strike, and paste backfilled.
 
A cross-section showing the stope layout is provided in Figure 13‑2.
 

 13.5.3
Jualin
 
Jualin is a high-grade, narrow, discrete vein orebody.  The main mining method is longitudinal stoping similar to lower Raven.
 
Due to a higher density of geologic structures in Jualin the stope length and therefore the hanging wall exposure is limited to 60 ft.  All stopes in Jualin are designed with a minimum 4 ft width.  One third of the designed stopes have an ore width of <4 ft. and rely on the high-grade of the narrow vein to carry the additional dilution.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑1:          Cross-Section, Kensington
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021. .
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑2:          Cross-Section, Raven
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Jualin is mined with conventional single and double boom jumbos, jackleg and mechanized bolting, and LHD/trucks.  Drifts dimensions are 15 x 17 ft in the ramps and level access stubs, 12 x 12 ft in the level access/infrastructure, and 10 x 10 ft in the longitudinal stope development drifts.
 
Levels are spaced every 35 ft vertically due to variable dip and are connected by a spiral ramp.  The ramp is placed between Vein 4 and Vein 2 to allow access to both veins from a single ramp.
 
Cemented rock fill (CRF) and waste are used to backfill stopes in Jualin.  At the bottom of every stoping horizon a sill prep of cable bolts and CRF is placed to allow backstopes from below without undue dilution from backfill.
 
A cross-section showing the stope layout is provided in Figure 13‑3.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑3:          Cross-Section, Jualin
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Looking from east to west.
 

 13.5.4
Elmira
 
Elmira is a narrow, disseminated, vein orebody.  The main mining method will be longitudinal stoping, similar that used at upper Kensington.  A figure eight up-ramp has been started on the hanging wall side of the ore body from 900 ft. elevation with level accesses every 60 vertical ft. leading to longitudinal ore drifts.  Ore and waste passes will be available on all levels with the muck sent to the 900 level for load out to the surface by haul truck.  All levels are configured to utilize automated mining processes such as mucking and drilling.
 
All stopes are designed with a minimum width of 5 ft.  Elmira will be mined with conventional double boom jumbos, mechanized bolting, and LHD/trucks.  All stopes will be filled with paste backfill supplied from the existing Kensington paste plant.
 
A cross-section showing the stope layout is provided in Figure 13‑4.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 13‑4:          Cross-Section, Elmira
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 

 13.6
Blasting and Explosives
 
Blasting underground is controlled from surface, using Dyno-Nobel blasting products. Most blasting is done with either packaged or bulk ANFO emulsion.  Trim and perimeter explosives are nitro based.  Kensington, Raven, and Elmira utilize a carrier mounted bulk emulsion delivery system for both development and stoping.  Jualin uses hand loaded stick emulsion for development and stopes due to narrow drifts limiting powder truck access.  All stoping utilizes electronic detonators, development rounds use non-electric detonators for timing and are initiated with electronic detonators.
 

 13.7
Underground Sampling and Production Monitoring
 
Every ore development round is visited after blasting and the material routed as ore or waste by the Mine Geologist.  During this inspection the face advance distance is recorded, and a description of the ore body made.  Transverse headings are not sampled after blast as they receive vertical stope drill holes for modeling purposes.  Longitudinal headings are sampled after every face advance as described in Chapter 8.1.2.  Muck samples are taken on an as needed basis to help understand grade as described in Chapter 8.1.1.  All production headings are mapped every 100-200 ft of advance.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

13.8
Production Schedule
 
The mine production schedule is based on a maximum mill throughput rate of 2,000 st per day. Coeur Alaska typically processes between 1,750–1,950 st/day with a waste stream of about 10% rejected as a coarse pebble reject, which is then passed through an optical sorter to extract additional ore-grade material for re-feed back into the mill.  Deswik planning software is used for the detailed scheduling.  Rolling three-month plans are completed every month and updated forecasts for end of year are completed every quarter.  The LOM planned development and production schedule is provided in Table 13‑1.
 

 13.9
Backfill
 
Backfill is a combination of cemented paste fill, CRF, and straight waste fill.  For cemented paste fill, as much as 100% of the tailings from the mill are sent back underground via pipe to the paste plant located at the 910 elevation, where the tailings are mixed with a 1–6% slag/cement binder mix and pumped to open stopes.  Binder percentages vary depending on if mine personnel will need to work adjacent to filled stopes. Kensington, Raven, and Elmira use paste backfill and Jualin uses a combination of CRF and waste.
 

 13.10
Ventilation
 
Primary ventilation in the Kensington and Raven mine areas is controlled by two 500 HP fans located in the Comet drift, which pull air from the Kensington Portal straight through the mountain and exhaust out the Comet side.  Two 200 HP booster fans pull a portion of this fresh air up and down the ramps that then supply air to the remainder of the existing workings.  Various 150, 125, 75, and 30 HP fans then direct air flow into each individual level, and active mining headings on those levels through hard ventilation ducting and flexible vent bag ducting.  The main and booster fans are powered by variable frequency drives (VFD) which allow the air volumes to be finely adjusted.
 
In 2021 one of the two main fans was switched out with a newly-built exact replacement unit as a result of approaching the recommended service life.  The second main fan will be switched out in Q1 2022 with a newly rebuilt exact replacement that is currently on site awaiting installation.
 
Elmira shares the backbone of the Kensington ventilation system.  Two 20 HP high volume low pressure fans draw a split of air from the Kensington down-ramp and ventilate 2,000 ft of lateral development exhausting back into the Kensington airflow at the main underground shop.  As mining progresses and ventilation needs increase, the smaller fans will be replaced by a 200 HP booster fan.
 
Primary ventilation of the Jualin mine area is accomplished with a single 200 HP bulkhead mounted fan located in the J0625 level which pulls air in from the Jualin Portal, down to the bottom of the decline and up a series of vent/escape raises, exhausting to surface through a 10 ft. diameter bored raise.  Various 150, 125, 75, and 30 HP fans then direct air flow into each individual level, and active mining headings on those levels through hard ventilation ducting and flexible vent bag ducting.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑1:          LOM Production Schedule
 
Area
Unit
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
LOM Total
Kensington Mine Development
Total capital development
equiv. feet
4,963
4,208
—
—
—
9,171
Total expensed development
equiv. feet
6,580
3,256
293
—
—
10,129
Total development (cap + exp)
equiv. feet
11,543
7,464
293
—
—
19,300
Drift advance per day
ft/day
31.63
20.45
0.8
—
—
5.87
Raven Mine Development
Total capital development
equiv. feet
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total expensed development
equiv. feet
97
—
—
—
—
97
Total development (cap + exp)
equiv. feet
97
—
—
—
—
97
Drift advance per day
ft/day
0.27
—
—
—
—
0.03
Jualin Mine Development
Total capital development
equiv. feet
373
—
—
—
—
373
Total expensed development
equiv. feet
983
—
—
—
—
983
Total development (cap + exp)
equiv. feet
1,355
—
—
—
—
1,355
Drift advance per day
ft/day
3.71
—
—
—
—
0.41
Elmira Mine Development
Total capital development
equiv. feet
4,540
6,189
5,651
—
—
16,379
Total expensed development
equiv. feet
1,331
1,542
3,249
—
—
6,122
Total development (cap + exp)
equiv. feet
5,870
7,731
8,900
—
—
22,501
Drift advance per day
ft/day
16.08
21.18
24.32
—
—
6.84
Total Mine Development
Total capital development
equiv. feet
9,876
10,397
5,651
—
—
25,923
Total expensed development
equiv. feet
8,991
4,798
3,542
—
—
17,331
Total development (cap + exp)
equiv. feet
18,866
15,195
9,193
—
—
43,254
Drift advance per day
ft/day
51.69
41.63
25.12
—
—
13.15
Kensington Mine Production
Total ore production
tons
508,821
386,110
119,952
    
1,014,883
Total ore grade
oz/ton
0.18
0.18
0.18
—
—
0.18
Total contained ounces
oz
90,268
71,011
21,065
    
182,344
Ore tons mined per day
tons/day
1,394
1,058
328
—
—
309
Raven Mine Production
Total ore production
tons
10,494
—
      
10,494
Total ore grade
oz/ton
0.44
—
—
—
—
0.44
Total contained ounces
oz
4,668
—
      
4,668
Ore tons mined per day
tons/day
29
—
—
—
—
3

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Area
Unit
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
LOM Total
Jualin Mine Production
Total ore production
tons
47,499
—
      
47,499
Total ore grade
oz/ton
0.33
—
—
—
—
0.33
Total contained ounces
oz
15,808
—
      
15,808
Ore tons mined per day
tons/day
130
—
—
—
—
14
Elmira Mine Production
Total ore production
tons
43,943
59,440
174,801
    
278,184
Total ore grade
oz/ton
0.14
0.18
0.24
—
—
0.21
Total contained ounces
oz
6,259
10,904
41,191
    
58,354
Ore tons mined per day
tons/day
120
163
478
—
—
85
Total Mine Production
Total ore production
tons
610,757
445,549
294,753
—
—
1,351,059
Total ore grade
oz/ton
0.19
0.18
0.21
—
—
0.19
Total contained ounces
oz
117,003
81,915
62,256
—
—
261,174
Ore tons mined per day
tons/day
1,673
1,221
805
—
—
411
 

 13.11
Underground Infrastructure Facilities
 
The Kensington and Raven underground infrastructure consists of the main underground shop, the paste plant, clean and discharge water handling systems, and the electrical distribution system.  Ventilation raises throughout the mine assist in distributing airflow.  Ore and waste passes in the upper region of the mine deliver Kensington ore and waste to the 910 elevation for haulage out either the Comet or Kensington side of the mine, depending on material type and desired dumping location.  Below the 910 elevation, all ore and the waste not being used as backfill is moved to surface by haul truck.
 
Jualin underground infrastructure consists of clean and discharge water handling systems and the electrical distribution system.  The Jualin maintenance shop is located on the surface adjacent to the portal.
 
There is currently no dedicated Elmira infrastructure.
 

 13.12
Equipment
 
Major mining equipment is shown in Table 13‑2.  Ancillary support equipment consists of Getman and MacClean flatbeds, explosives loading vehicles, zoom boom forklifts, Kubota RTV’s and tractors, pickups, compressors, and other standard support equipment.
 

 13.13
Personnel
 
Total Coeur Alaska mining/mining maintenance personnel requirements for the LOM average 169 persons.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑2:          Equipment List
 
Type
Make/Model
Peak Requirements
Loader
CAT R1300G
1
Sandvik LH204
2
Sandvik LH410
4
Sandvik LH514
2
Sandvik LH307
2
Haul truck
CAT AD45B
1
Wagner MT2000
2
CAT AD30
2
Sandvik TH320
1
Sandvik TH430
6
Jumbo drill
Atlas Copco M2C SP
2
Sandvik DD422i
2
Sandvik DD210
2
Longhole drill
Cubex Aries
1
Atlas Copco Simba M7C
1
Atlas Copco Simba ME7C
1
Boart Stopemate
2
Sandvik DU311
1
Bolter
Atlas Copco Boltec MC
3
Sandvik DS311D-EC
3
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-11
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
 

 14.1
Process Method Selection
 
The process plant design was based on a combination of metallurgical testwork, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the mill was operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 

 14.2
Flowsheet
 
A summary process flowsheet is included as Figure 14‑1.
 

 14.3
Plant Design
 
The Kensington Operations use a flotation mill to recover gold from sulfide-bearing rock.  Crushing and milling facilities are located directly south of the Jualin Portal.  On the portal bench, ore is segregated by grade and blended before being fed to the two stage, closed-circuit crushing plant.  Once crushed, ore is fed to a ball mill and then to a flotation circuit.  The initial design for the recovery process was a standard rougher/scavenger, cleaner re-cleaner configuration.  However, the flotation circuit was modified in 2012 to maximize recovery.
 
Prior to 2012, a flash flotation cell and regrind mill were in use.  Due to the high density coming from the primary ball mill, the flash flotation cell did not perform well and experienced excessive wear.  It was taken offline and rougher cell 1 was utilized as a flash flotation cell.  Reagents that were originally fed into the conditioning tank were added further down the flotation train to accommodate this change.  The regrind mill was taken down due to a hole in the outer shell.  While it was down, an increase in overall recovery occurred.  Based on this observation, the decision was made to keep the ball mill down indefinitely. The final product is a gold concentrate.
 
Mill throughput was increased from a previous maximum of 69 st/hr in 2012 to 84 st/hr.  This was achieved by splitting flows between paste plant and tailings pond, also by continuous removal of less enriched, harder, granitic rock pebbles that used to be recycled back to the ball mill feed.  This system allows the mill to run at peak capacity of 160% above design, averaging 149% (original design capacity of 1,250 st/d, or 52 st/hr).  Granitic rock pebbles are rejected using an X-ray transmission (XRT) ore-sorting technology, with the positively-sorted material fed back into the mill and processed as ore.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14‑1:          Process Flowsheet
 
 
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 

 14.3.1
Ore Sorting
 
In late September 2015, Coeur Alaska commissioned a TOMRA COM Tertiary XRT 1200 ore sorter.  This device uses XRT technology that identifies pockets of high-density minerals (pyrite in this case) on, or in the bulk of, the lower-density quartz and diorite being fed to it across the sorter conveyor belt.  The software identifies, targets, and tracks the rocks containing the selected mineral, then uses one or more jets of air to alter an individual rock’s trajectory at the discharge of the sorter’s conveyor belt.  Waste goes onto a conveyor belt to be stockpiled separately and the ore onto another conveyor belt to be recycled back to the process.  Ore pebbles are fed back through the milling process at an average grade of 0.247 oz/st Au (24% higher than LOM feed grade).  During normal operation, the average processing rate is 52 st/hr.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Through 2021, 240,485 tons of pebbles were sorted, yielding 18,492 tons of ore containing 4,216 ounces of gold.
 
Test work is in progress to determine the feasibility of sorting development grade ore (~0.5 oz/st Au) and waste rock.  Waste rejected from the sorter is shipped offsite for use as fill material for Tideline.
 

 14.3.2
Crushing
 
After blending based on grade, ore is fed to the crushing plant using a vibratory feeder.  First stage crushing is achieved by using a jaw crusher to reduce the ore size to minus 4 inches.  The primary crusher product is fed to a vibrating double deck screen.  The lower screen deck separates material at a mixture of 1 inch and 1.5-inch openings.  This allows higher throughput by reducing circulating load in the crushing circuit.  The oversize screen product is conveyed to a cone crusher, set at 0.75 inch.  The secondary crusher product returns to the screen deck.  The undersize screen product is fed to the mill.  Mill feed is stored in a 1,100 st-capacity fine ore bin.
 

 14.3.3
Grinding
 
Ore from the fine ore bin is fed to the primary ball mill by a conveyor belt.  Grinding is accomplished using a 19.8 x 11.1 ft ball mill equipped with a 1,250 HP motor.  Ball mill discharge is fed to one of two 20-inch cyclones.  Cyclone overflow, at P80 of 210 µm, is fed to the flotation circuit, while the underflow is returned to the ball mill.
 

 14.3.4
Flotation
 
Primary flotation is conducted in a circuit comprised of two rougher cells and four scavenger cells. Rougher–flotation product is either sent directly to the concentrate thickener or to the cleaner circuit.  Scavenger product is sent directly to the cleaner circuit, which consists of four primary cleaner cells and two secondary re-cleaner cells.
 
Reagent addition points were designed to give the telluride mineral (calaverite) priority in rougher flotation, then allow for flotation of the bulk sulfides, i.e., a selective flotation strategy.  The discrete calaverite particles can be floated first, followed by those existing as rinds and inclusions with pyrite.  Flotation recovery is about 96% with an overall recovery of 95%.
 

 14.3.5
Dewatering
 
Final cleaner concentrate reports to a concentrate thickener, the underflow of which supplies a filter feed tank. The thickener overflow returns to the process water system.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Flotation concentrates are thickened and filtered to approximately 10% moisture.  The filter feed tank contents are pumped to a Larox filter press for further dewatering.  Dried filter cake from the Larox is weighed into 2 st flexible intermediate bulk containers (FIBCs); 12 FIBCs are loaded into each 20 ft sea container.  Storage space at the mill is limited, so tractor trailer trucks are used to haul sea containers of concentrate product to a staging area at the Kensington port.  The containers are staged until the desired lot size is achieved, at which time, a barge takes the lot to Seattle, and a container ship delivers the product to the overseas smelter.
 

 14.3.6
Tailings
 
Tailings from the scavenger cells are mixed with flocculent and sent to a 29.5 ft diameter high-rate thickener.  The underflow is then pumped 3.5 miles either the TTF, or pumped underground to the paste plant to create backfill.  The overflow returns to the process water system.
 
The paste plant uses a disc filter to decrease the moisture to 20% before the filter cake is mixed with binder and the resulting slurry is pumped to the appropriate stope.  Water removed by the disc filter is sent back to the mill as recycled water.
 
Supernatant water at the TTF is sent to a tailings treatment facility for processing where suspended solids and deleterious elements are removed.  The plant discharges clean water into Slate Creek via pipeline.
 

 14.4
Equipment
 
Table 14‑1 is a list of equipment in the process plant.
 

 14.5
Power and Consumables
 

 14.5.1
Power
 
The mill requires approximately 1.5–2.0 MW of power to operate at full capacity.  Currently, there is no expectation for this power demand to increase.  The power source is discussed in Chapter 15.10.
 

 14.5.2
Water
 
The Kensington Operations are allowed by permit to withdraw water from Johnson Creek only when creek levels are higher than a permitted level.  This provides a back-up source of fresh water to the entire site, including the mill and potable water system, with up to 520 gpm of fresh water being available for mill use.  However, the mill requires approximately 1,600 gpm of total water to operate.  The difference between the recycled water and total water required for the mill is made up using fresh water.  Recycled water is sent from the paste plant, the concentrate and tailings thickeners, and water reclaimed from the TTF.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑1:          Process Equipment List
 
Type
Make
Model
Number
Jaw crusher
Metso Outotec
C100
1
Cone crusher
Metso Outotec
HP200
1
Ore silo
N/A
1,200 ton cap.
1
Ball mill
FLSmidth
3.4m x 6m
1
Hydrocyclone
Weir
500CVX1
2
Knelson concentrator
FLSmidth
CD-20
1
Deister table
Deister
Deister #14 Table
1
Rougher/scavenger flotation cell
Metso Outotec
TC30
6
Cleaner flotation cell
Metso Outotec
TC5
6
Column cell
Eriez
4' x 22'
1
Concentrate thickener
Metso Outotec
SF6HRT
1
Tailings thickener
Metso Outotec
SF9HRT
1
Larox filter press
Metso Outotec
PF16/25
1
 

 14.5.3
Consumables
 
The key reagents and consumables used are:
 
•
Potassium amyl xanthate;
 
•
Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC);
 
•
AERO 3894 (promoter);
 
•
MaxGold 900 (promoter);
 
•
Steel (grinding media);
 
•
Z-Flocc 2525.
 

 14.6
Personnel
 
The personnel requirements in the process plant for the LOM total mill operations is 84 and mill maintenance is 35.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
 

 15.1
Introduction
 
The Slate Creek Cove Marine Terminal Facility and a 5.7-mile all-weather access road from the terminal to the mine provides all personnel and materials access to the mine.  The Slate Creek Cove Marine Terminal Facility includes docking capabilities for main line ocean-going barges, personnel ferries, float planes, ramp barges, and landing craft.
 
Site infrastructure is located at both the Kensington and Jualin deposit areas:
 
•
Surface facilities at Kensington include 2.3 miles of all-weather access road from Comet Beach to the Comet Portal (850 Level), the mine water treatment facility with two settling ponds, and a development rock storage facility.  Underground infrastructure includes a paste backfill plant, maintenance shop, warehouse, explosive storage, dewatering, and ventilation;
 
•
Surface facilities at Jualin include a 375-person camp, dining facility, administration building with medical clinic, warehouse, run-of-mine ore stockpile, crusher and flotation mill, and the TTF at Lower Slate Lake.  The Kensington Tunnel, completed in July 2007, connects the Jualin mill facilities to the orebody.  The tunnel is the primary artery for ore haulage, materials transport, and personnel access.  The tunnel includes 9,660 ft of development from the Kensington Portal to the Kensington ramp system.
 
An infrastructure location plan is provided in Figure 15‑1.
 

 15.2
Dumps and Leach Pads
 

 15.2.1
Existing Waste Rock Stockpiles
 
Kensington has several existing waste rock stockpiles onsite including at Comet, Pit 1, Pit 4, Pit 7, and the Portal Pad.
 
The Comet waste stockpile is located just outside the Comet portal.  The toe of the stockpile sits just above the Comet water treatment plant.  This stockpile is currently full and not able to receive additional waste rock.
 
Pit 1 is a temporary waste rock stockpile that is used to stage material that will be barged offsite.  Pit 1 can hold approximately 15,000 st and is currently full.
 
The Pit 4 waste stockpile is located in Pit 4 approximately 1 mile south of camp on the main site access road.  Pit 4 is currently permitted to hold 323,040 st, although there is no additional space available until other structures are moved.  Pit 4 contains the pug mill, original mobile maintenance shop, graphitic phyllite rock stockpiles, and surface operations containers and equipment.  The original carpenter shop was relocated from Pit 4 to lower camp for use as an emergency response building.  All but the pug mill is planned to be removed by end of summer, 2022.  This will provide additional waste rock storage space on the north end of Pit 4.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 15‑1:          Infrastructure Layout Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Pit 7 is located on Pipeline Road approximately 2.4 miles from camp and can hold approximately 125,000 st.  Pit 7 is not permitted as a permanent waste rock stockpile.  Between 2015 and 2018 Pit 7 was used to stockpile waste rock for the Stage 3 tailings dam raise and also crushing equipment.  Pit 7 was completely empty at the end of 2018.  In early 2021 due to Pit 4 being full, approximately 11,000 st of waste rock was hauled to Pit 7.  Additional rock is scheduled to be hauled to Pit 7 during the summer and fall of 2021.
 
The Kensington Portal stockpile can hold approximately 90,000 st of waste rock and continually receives waste from Kensington and Jualin.  This waste rock is moved twice each year to Pit 4 to allow the mine continuous stockpile space.
 

 15.2.2
Additional Waste Rock Stockpiles
 
With the approval of an amended plan of operations (POA-1) by the US Forest Service, which is expected in early 2022, Coeur Alaska will be allowed to expand existing stockpiles and create one new stockpile.  Stockpile capacities will be:
 
•
Kensington Portal Stockpile Expansion:  73,000 st;
 
•
Pit 4 Waste Stockpile Expansion:  1,600,000 st;
 
•
Comet Waste Stockpile Expansion:  1,000,000 st;
 
•
Pipeline Road New Waste Stockpile:  2,300,000 st.
 

 15.2.3
Waste Rock Barged Offsite
 
For the past several years Coeur Alaska has had a contractor crush waste rock and barge it offsite. Approximately 45,000 st was sent offsite in 2020 and 6,340 st in 2021
 

 15.3
Tailings Treatment Facility
 
The existing TTF is currently operating at Stage 3 which was constructed 2018–2019 with a crest elevation of 740 ft amsl.  Stage 4 is currently undergoing engineering design that would raise the dam crest to 760 ft amsl and also include a back dam that would separate Upper and Lower Slate Lake.  The back dam would have a crest height of 749 ft amsl.  Both dams are being engineered with the potential for a Stage 5 dam that would increase the main dam crest to 776 ft amsl and the back dam to 765 ft amsl.
 
Stage 3 accommodates the remaining LOM storage requirements.  The following operational measures and/or features will continue to be used:
 
•
Conventional slurry tailings are generated at the mill, and pumped to the TTF through the existing pipeline;
 
•
Tailings are deposited into the TTF via a subaqueous pipeline whose location is adjusted based on the shape of the tailings deposition that forms and the depth of the water cover that is being maintained within the facility;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Reclaim water is pumped from the TTF to the mill for use as process water using the reclaim pump station;
 
•
Some water from the TTF is pumped to the TTF water treatment plant, treated by flocculation and filtration, and discharged at Outfall 002 as currently permitted (Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Discharge Permit AK005057-1) on East Slate Creek;
 
•
The existing discharge bypass pipelines between Upper Slate Lake and East Slate Creek below the TTF will be maintained;
 
•
A minimum water cover of 9 ft will be present during operation of the TTF;
 
•
A minimum water cover of 28 ft will be present following closure of the TTF to support benthic and fish populations;
 
•
Following closure, fish passage from Upper Slate Lake to the TTF (Lower Slate Lake) and to East Slate Creek below the TTF will be provided.
 
Tailings will continue to be backfilled underground as paste.  To support the LOM plan, this amount will be increased to reduce, to the extent reasonably practicable, the need for expansion of the surface disturbance of the TTF.  Growth media salvaged from the proposed TTF expansion will be stockpiled below the TTF dam and within the proposed water treatment plant relocation area.
 

 15.4
Water Management
 
Groundwater captured in the underground mine workings is conveyed to the Comet mine water treatment plant and treated and discharged to Sherman Creek.  The discharge is permitted as outfall 001 in the APDES permit.
 
Surface water runoff and mill process waters that enter the tailings treatment facility are treated and discharged to the east fork of Slate Creek.  The discharge is permitted as outfall 002 in the APDES permit.
 
Runoff from the roads and site facilities is managed using best management practices, as described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.  All storm water discharges are covered under EPA Multi-Sector General Permit AKR-06-0000.
 

 15.4.1
Domestic Water/Wastewater Plants Overview
 
Potable water is supplied from Johnson Creek and Bay 19 in the mine to a potable water treatment skid located on the mill bench.  Kensington camp is served by a 22 gpm potable water plant.  This plant uses prefiltration, chlorination, media filtration and UV disinfection to meet state compliance.  Treated water is distributed by pipelines to the mill and camp.
 
The Kensington camp is served by two MBR (membrane bioreactor) sewage plants. Capacity is permitted to 10,000 gallons per day. These plants use pre-screening, aeration, anoxic denitrification and activated sludge to reduce solids and remove ammonia and nitrates.  Generated sludge waste is shipped offsite for final treatment.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

15.4.2
Comet Water Treatment Facility and Process Background
 
The Comet water treatment facility consists of two water plants and a tertiary plant that supports the primary plants during high treatment demand periods.  All three plants use classical clarification and media filtration.
 
The treatment facility is permitted for 3,000 gpm discharge of treated effluent to the 002 outfall.
 
•
Comet plant 1:  1,600 gpm nominal;
 
•
Comet plant 2:  1,500 gpm nominal;
 
•
Comet plant 2.5:   500 gpm nominal.
 
The raw water supply comes from the Comet Portal through an 18” diameter discharge pipe that is reduced down to 14” diameter pipe which discharges into two supply ponds. This water is classified as industrial wastewater.
 
The water treatment plants operate together as one larger conventional water treatment plant.  Processes included are coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration.
 

 15.5
Camps and Accommodation
 
Camp accommodations have a 375-person capacity, a kitchen dining recreation (KDR) facility, gym, and administration building.
 

 15.6
Power and Electrical
 
Electrical power at Kensington is generated by four diesel engines located inside the powerhouse building on the north end of the mill bench.  The powerhouse was completed in early 2019.  Three generators running simultaneously can produce a maximum of 10.7 MW.  Power is sent to transformers located on the mill bench and form there distributed across the site.
 
Power use continues to increase with current peak winter loads at 90–92% of three-generator capacity.  There is sufficient power for the planned LOM.
 

 15.7
Fuel
 
Annual fuel consumption at the mine includes 100,000 gal of propane for mine heat, 3.6 Mgal of diesel for power generation, and 0.9 Mgal of diesel for rolling stock.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
 

 16.1
Markets
 
The Kensington Operations produce flotation concentrate containing both gold and silver.  The concentrate is highly marketable due to its elevated gold content and lack of deleterious elements.
 
Concentrate is exported out of Seattle, Washington and is delivered to smelters in Europe and Asia where it is consumed, processed, and the valuable metals extracted.
 
Product from the Kensington Operations is sold by in-house marketing experts.
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for concentrate products and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for its concentrate.  There is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, the flotation concentrate will be saleable.
 
There are no agency relationships relevant to the marketing strategies used.
 

 16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves:
 

 o
US$1,400/oz Au;
 
•
Mineral resources:
 

 o
US$1,700/oz Au.
 
The economic evaluation uses gold price forecasts that of US$1,750/oz for 2022 and 2023, and US$1700/oz in 2024.
 
All commodity prices are advised by Coeur across its operations and revised as necessary throughout the budget and forecast process.  The sites do not advise on commodity prices or deviate from the prices provided.
 

 16.3
Contracts
 
Concentrate is sold directly to international commodity traders, who then sell onto smelters in Europe and Asia.  Subject to the gold and silver content, gold is typically payable around 98%, and silver payable around 80%.  There are typically no penalties for deleterious elements.  Treatment charges, refining charges, and all other terms and conditions are typical of, and consistent with, standard industry practice for such gold concentrates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Concentrate is barged in bags in containers from Slate Creek Cove in Berners Bay, Alaska to Seattle in Washington State.  The bags are then transloaded from barge containers into international containers for export from Seattle to Europe and Asia.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, contract mining, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.
 
The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Coeur’s overall hedging strategy remains focused on supporting cash flow generation during expansion projects, specifically in Nevada.  Coeur proactively monitors market conditions to layer in zero cost collars on as much as 50% of expected gold production in 2022.  Coeur’s silver price exposure remains unhedged.  Currently, 132,000 gold ounces have been hedged by Coeur for 2022 with an average ceiling of $2,038/oz and average floor of $1,630/oz.
 

 16.4
QP Statement
 
For the purposes of the gold price forecasts used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, the QPs reviewed the corporate pricing provided by Coeur, and accepted these prices as reasonable.  The reviews included checking the pricing used in technical reports recently filed with Canadian regulatory authorities, pricing reported by major mining company peers in recent public filings, the current spot gold pricing, and three-year trailing average pricing.
 
The US$1,400/oz Au price is considered to be a reasonable forecast for the three-year mine life envisaged in the mine plan.  The US$1,700/oz Au mineral resource price is, as noted, selected to ensure that the mineral reserves are a subset of the mineral resources and assume that there is sufficient time in the three-year mine life forecast for the mineral reserves for the mineral resources to potentially be converted to mineral reserves.
 
Overall, the QPs conclude that there is sufficient time in the three-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecasts for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, testwork and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates or upgrade the confidence categories that are currently assigned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
 

 17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
 
Numerous baseline studies were performed in support of Project permitting.  These included air, water, aquatic resources, geology, wildlife, soil, vegetation, wetlands, and cultural resources.
 
Four environmental impact statement (EIS) documents were prepared:
 
•
1992 Final EIS;
 
•
1997 Supplemental EIS;
 
•
2004 Supplemental EIS;
 
•
2021 Supplemental EIS.
 

 17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
 
Environmental monitoring at the site includes water quality, aquatic resource, tailings and waste rock geochemistry, wildlife, and stormwater.
 
Water quality and aquatic resource monitoring is conducted in accordance with the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES Permit).  Discharges from the water treatment plants along with receiving waters are included in this monitoring program.  Aquatic resource monitoring is conducted at the three receiving waters adjacent to the mine operations.
 
Tailings and waste rock geochemistry is conducted on a quarterly basis and include meteoric water mobility procedure (MWMP) and acid base accounting.
 
Wildlife monitoring occurs at the TTF during the summer months on a weekly basis.  This monitoring is conducted according to the Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Plan.
 
Stormwater monitoring at the site is conducted according to the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
 

 17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
Coeur Alaska conducts an annual review of its potential reclamation responsibilities company- wide.  The total LOM cost for physical reclamation and long-term monitoring of the Kensington Operations is currently estimated to be US$23.7 M.  For this Report, Coeur used the 2021 internal update costs for the total Project, which presents the best information currently available on-site conditions and probable reclamation costs.  The estimates are based on unit costs developed using third-party costs, where applicable, and reflect current pricing conditions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
At the time of release of the TTF from reclamation liability, long-term monitoring and maintenance would be implemented based on the schedule developed in the final reclamation plan.
 
Coeur intends to fund the long-term monitoring component through establishment of a trust agreement with the state and/or federal agencies. In anticipation of this requirement, the company has pre-funded the long-term monitoring and maintenance account with an insurance carrier.
 
A reclamation and closure plan has been prepared and approved by the governing agencies for the Project.  The current plan was updated in 2021 and reflects current mining, mitigation, and site facilities.  The facility-wide reclamation plan is a combination of site-specific reclamation plans for each part of the mine facility that are required under the Plan of Operations for closure.
 
The plan reflects the alternative chosen in the Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision and includes comprehensive cost estimates to be used for bonding purposes.  The plan incorporates key reclamation, closure, and monitoring requirements described in the Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision, and individual, applicable permits for the Project.
 
The closure cost estimate used in the economic model in Chapter 19 is $23.7 M.  Reclamation is anticipated to be completed three years following cessation of mining.  Closure-related activities will continue until about 2055.
 

 17.4
Permitting
 
All required local, state, and federal permits for operation have been issued.  The key approvals and permits are summarized in Table 17‑1.
 
POA-1 was submitted to the Forest Service in 2018 and is currently under review by the local, state, and federal agencies.  POA-1 will provide 5 Mst of additional waste rock storage and 4 Mst of additional tailings storage at site.  A Final Supplemental Impact Statement was completed in July 2021 and the Final Record of Decision (ROD) is expected in early 2022.
 

 17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur Alaska has had a long and positive relationship with the community of Juneau and southeast Alaska.  The operations are well established as an employer providing high-paying jobs.  In addition to direct payroll, Coeur Alaska purchases local goods and services, and is a local taxpayer.  Coeur Alaska employees also volunteer hundreds of hours each year in schools and for local organizations.
 
Coeur Alaska partners with many stakeholders, including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; fishing organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and, state and federal governments.
 
Coeur Alaska has a partnership with the Berners Bay Consortium, which includes three Alaska Native corporations.  Since 1996, this partnership has provided these corporations with business opportunities and shareholder employment.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑1:          Key Permits and Approvals
 
 
Agency
Permit/License
Number
Description
Date Issued
Term/Expiration
Federal
ACOE
POA-1990-592-M8
Lower Slate Lake
11/24/2020
Construction Completion: 11/30/2025
USFS
Env. Assessment
USFS – FONSI – 5 yr. Exploration Project
04/06/18
4/06/2023
State
ADEC
AK0050571
Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Effective: 8/1/17
5/31/22
ADEC
2013DB0002
Waste Management Permit
9/20/13; Administratively extension issued on 11/30/18.
5 years from issuance date
ADEC
2007DB0021-Modified
Jualin WWTF Wastewater Disposal Permit
12/02/10
06/02/13; Renewal application submitted on 4/20/13, Administratively Extended
ADEC
113010820
Food Permit
01/01/21
12/31/21
ADNR
APMA #4243
Surface exploration drilling approval (2007-2021)
2007
12/2021
ADOT
JNU-16-005
Public Non-exclusive Easement JNU-16-005; Jualin Mine Road
5/06/16
5/05/2026
ADNR
AK00308
Certificate of Approval to Operate a Dam - TTF
2/9/21
2/9/2023
ADNR
AK00308
Certificate of Approval to Modify a Dam – Spillway ARD mitigation
7/1/21
6/2/23
ADNR
AK00407
Certificate of Approval to Operate a Dam – Avalanche Ponds Dam System
5/25/21
9/21/2024
ADNR
AK00406
Certificate of Approval to Operate a Dam – Camp Ponds Dam System
3/30/21
9/21/2024
ADNR
AK00405
Certificate of Approval to Operate a Dam – Mud Dump Ponds Dam System
3/30/21
9/21/2024

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
 
Agency
Permit/License
Number
Description
Date Issued
Term/Expiration
 
ADNR
ADL 107154, Final Finding and Decision
Tideland Lease, Slate Creek Cove
10/16/11
10/15/36
ADNR
TWUA F2017-021
Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUA F2017-021)
02/21/17
02/20/22
ADNR
TWUA F2018-116
Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUA F2018-116)
08/28/18
08/27/23
 
Note:  ACOE = Army Corps of Engineers; USFS = United States Forestry Service; ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; ADNR = Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
 
Coeur Alaska focuses on hiring its workforce from local communities and providing those employees with training that will afford them sustained success into the future.  Coeur has formed industry and educational partnerships for job training, recruitment, and hiring with the Alaska Department of Labor and the University of Alaska Southeast.
 
Coeur Alaska developed a community relations plan to identify and ensure an understanding of the needs of the surrounding communities and to determine appropriate programs for filling those needs. The company monitors socio-economic trends, community perceptions and mining impacts.
 

 17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
 
Based on the information provided to the QP by Coeur and Coeur Alaska, there are no material issues known to the QP that will require additional mitigation activities or allocation of remediation costs in respect of environmental, permitting, closure, or social license considerations beyond what is included in the existing plans.  Currently, the Kensington Operations are a mature mining operation that have demonstrated the ability to maintain environmental compliance and attain permits in a timely manner.  Coeur Alaska has a strong social license to operate within its local communities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
 

 18.1
Introduction
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 

 18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
 
All major capital construction projects needed to maintain consistent production and extraction of mineral reserves at the Kensington Operations were completed in 2013.  Since 2013, additional capital projects were completed to improve mill throughput, enhance power generation, and increase tailings storage capacity.
 
Capital development is a concurrent allocation of costs derived by taking the number of capital feet driven times the recorded weighted costs to drive those feet in the period they were driven.  Both types of capital expenditures are sustaining and or improvement capital projects.  Each project is selected for the current year of operation, based on the annual allocation of corporate capital funds, the effect the project has on production and or the internal rate of return.
 
Exploration capital is the cost associated with activities involving infill drilling and the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves.
 
Capital projects contemplated in the LOM plan are summarized in Table 18‑1.
 

 18.2.1
Basis of Estimate
 
The Kensington Operations are scheduled to run 24 hours per day, 365 days a year, at or near designed capacity.  Financial estimations are based on a zero-base budget approach to building cost estimates for LOM modeling.  All applied consumption rates and cost factors are relative to the sites historical financial data and adjusted for anticipated future inflationary increases.
 
Mine and mill manpower requirements are determined by the respective production rates necessary to meet economic based production requirements.  Coeur Alaska uses four rotating shifts to cover two, 12-hour shifts per day.  The primary shift rotation is two weeks on and two weeks off.  Other shift schedules are used on a limited basis to meet varying business needs.
 
G&A manpower requirements are based on supporting production activities, management of employees and departments, and meeting external reporting/data requirements.  The primary shift rotation is four days on and three days off per working week.
 
Most of the material costs are based on the applied engineering designs to excavate and maintain safe underground tunneling for the access to and extraction of ore and maintain the equipment necessary to perform these duties. Among the top material costs is diesel, which is estimated on the utilization rates of seven generators needed to provide the electricity needs primarily to the mine and mill and for running the operation/support equipment needed to perform mining activities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 18‑1:          LOM Capital Projects
 
LOM Capital Expenditures
Total Cost
(US$ M)
Capital development
30.4
Capital equipment (fixed and mobile)
7.4
Capital projects
9.8
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 

 18.2.2
Capital Cost Summary
 
The LOM capital cost estimate is summarized in Table 18‑2, and totals US$47.6 M over the LOM.
 

 18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
 

 18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
 
Operating costs are based on actual costs seen during operations and are projected through the LOM plan.  Historical costs are used as the basis for operating cost forecasts for supplies and services unless there are new contract terms for these items.  Labor and energy costs are based on budgeted rates applied to headcounts and energy consumption estimates.
 

 18.3.2
Operating Cost Summary
 
The LOM operating cost estimate is summarized in Table 18‑3, and totals US$274.4 M over the LOM.
 

 18.4
QP Statement
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  The estimate accuracies and ranges comply with the stated accuracy and contingency ranges required to meet a pre-feasibility level of study under SK1300.  The QPs considered the risks associated with the engineering estimation methods used when stating the accuracy and contingency ranges and preparing the cost estimate forecasts.
 
The capital and operating cost estimates are presented for an operating mine, with an 11-year production history.  Analogues to prior similar environments are not relevant to the Kensington Operations given the production history and that the mine was in production as at December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 18‑2:          LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$ M)
 
Cost
2022
2023
2024
LOM
Capital mine development
14.8
15.6
0
30.4
Capital equipment (fixed and mobile)
6.5
0.9
0
7.4
Capital projects
3.7
6.2
0
9.8
Total Capital Expenditures
25.0
22.6
0
47.6
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 18‑3:          LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ M)
 
Cost
2022
2023
2024
2025–2055
LOM
Mining
59.1
41.0
35.4
0
135.5
Processing
28.7
20.7
13.6
0
62.9
G&A
23.7
17.1
11.4
0
52.3
Reclamation and closure
7.4
6.4
3.6
6.2
23.7
Total Operating Expenditures
118.8
85.2
64.1
6.2
274.4
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
 

 19.1
Forward-looking Information Caution
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 

 19.2
Methodology Used
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model.  The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.  The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 

 19.3
Financial Model Parameters
 

 19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
 
The mineral resources are discussed in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserves in Chapter 12.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of three years to 2024.
 

 19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
 
Forecast metallurgical recoveries are provided in Chapter 10.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
 
Smelting and refining terms for the gold concentrates are outlined in Chapter 16.
 

 19.3.4
Metal Prices
 
Metal price assumptions are provided in Chapter 16.
 

 19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
 
Capital and operating cost forecasts price assumptions are outlined in Chapter 18.
 

 19.3.6
Taxes and Royalties
 
Royalties are discussed in Chapter 3.6. For the purposes of the economic analysis, the Alaska State Royalty at 7% and a corporate tax rate of 15% were applied to the 2021 LOM budget calculated net income.
 
Currently, Coeur pays no federal income tax due to historic Net Operating Losses.
 
Coeur Alaska is obligated to pay Echo Bay or its successors a scaled net smelter return royalty on 1 M troy ounces of gold production, after Coeur Alaska recoups the $32.5 million purchase price, plus (i) its construction and development expenditures incurred after July 7, 1995 in connection with placing the property into commercial production and (ii) certain operating, exploration and development costs thereafter.  Due to the amount of capital to be recovered, no royalty payments are anticipated to be triggered within the LOM plan.
 
Coeur Alaska has an agreement with the Hyak Mining Company (Hyak), as amended August 5, 2005, and further amended July 1, 2009, and October 24, 2013 over the Jualin group claims area (the Hyak Lease).  The current Hyak Lease period, which is the second term of the lease, commenced on August 5, 2020 and ends on August 5, 2035.
 
Under the terms of the Hyak Lease, Coeur Alaska must pay Hyak annually, during the initial term, by or before May 1, an advance minimum royalty of $231,000, which is adjusted every three years in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce for all Urban Consumers, City of Anchorage, Alaska.
 
If production occurs from the leased premises, a 5% net returns royalty on production as defined by the Hyak Lease, is due, unless the amount of the net returns royalty is less than the adjusted advance minimum royalty.  If the net returns royalty is less, then the advance minimum royalty is paid instead of the net returns royalty.
 
The Hyak Lease will continue after 2035, provided mining and production are actively occurring within and from the leased premises.  The advance minimum royalties and prepaid consideration for the second lease term are recoupable by Coeur Alaska by the company crediting and recovering these payments against future net returns and royalties on production due to Hyak. The recoupment cannot in any given year cause the net returns royalties to be reduced to less than the advance minimum royalty amount, as adjusted.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

19.3.7
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
 
The closure cost estimate used in the economic model in Chapter 19 is $23.7 M.  Reclamation is anticipated to be completed three years following cessation of mining.  Closure-related activities are expected to continue until about 2055.
 

 19.3.8
Financing
 
The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.
 

 19.3.9
Inflation
 
The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 

 19.4
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV at a discount rate of 5% is $83.7 M.
 
As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
An annualized cashflow statement is provided in Table 19‑2.
 
The analysis assumes active mining operations cease in 2024.  Closure costs are estimated to 2055; however, for presentation purposes, closure costs are shown in Table 19‑2 as occurring within 2025.
 

 19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, operating cost, capital cost and grade assumptions was tested.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal price and grade, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs (Table 19‑3).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 19‑2:          Annualized Cashflow Statement
 
Summary
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025–2055
LOM Total
Gold price
US$/oz
1,750
1,750
1,700
0.0
1,738
Net revenue
US$ M
183.2
128.6
94.9
0.0
406.7
Total operating cost
US$ M
118.8
85.2
64.1
6.2
274.4
Operating cashflow
US$ M
64.3
43.4
30.8
(6.2)
135.1
Total capital expense
US$ M
25.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
47.6
Net cashflow
US$ M
39.3
20.8
30.8
(6.2)
87.5
Net present value
US$ M
83.7
        
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 19‑3:          NPV Sensitivity
 
Parameter
-30%
-20%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Metal price
0
2.6
43.2
63.4
83.7
104.0
124.3
164.9
205.4
Operating cost
162.2
136.0
109.9
96.8
83.7
70.7
57.6
31.4
5.3
Capital cost
97.7
93.2
88.4
86.1
83.7
81.4
79.1
74.4
69.8
Grade
0
5.4
44.6
64.1
83.7
103.3
122.9
162.1
201.2
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 20-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 21-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
 

 22.1
Introduction
 
The QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions within their areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Report.
 

 22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
Coeur Alaska is the operating entity.
 
Coeur Alaska controls two contiguous claims groups: the Kensington group and Jualin group.  The area covered under the Kensington group claims is 3,969 net acres, and under the Jualin group is 8,366 net acres.  Fourteen of the 23 patented lode claims in the Jualin group cover private surface estate only.  The mineral estate to these 14 patented lode claims located within the U.S. Mineral Surveys is owned by the State of Alaska, the mineral rights to which are secured by a State of Alaska upland mining lease.  Coeur Alaska also controls the properties comprising the Jualin group, under a lease agreement with Hyak.
 
The Kensington Operations hold all necessary surface and water rights to support the LOM plan.
 
Rights for ancillary infrastructure at Slate Creek Cove are secured through a 25-year State of Alaska Tideland Lease, granted in 2011.
 
The State of Alaska granted a right-of-way permit to the Comet Beach facility.
 
Coeur Alaska holds a 10-year public, non-exclusive easement and right-of-way for the Jualin mine road.
 
A scaled net smelter return royalty on 1 M troy ounces of gold production is payable to Echo Bay after certain conditions are met.
 
The property is secured in favor of Coeur’s lender under its revolving credit facility.
 

 22.3
Geology and Mineralization
 
The deposits that comprise the Kensington Operations are considered to be examples of orogenic gold deposits.
 
The geological understanding of the settings, lithologies, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization is sufficient to support estimation of mineral resources.
 

 22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
 
The exploration programs completed by Coeur Alaska to date and predecessor companies are appropriate for the mineralization styles.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
The quantity and quality of the lithological, collar, and down hole survey data collected in the exploration program completed are sufficient to support mineral resource estimation.  No drilling, sampling, or core recovery issues that could materially affect the accuracy or reliability of the core samples have been identified.
 
The collected sample data adequately reflect deposit dimensions, true widths of mineralization, and the deposit style.
 
Sampling is representative of the gold values, reflecting areas of higher and lower grades.
 
The independent analytical laboratories used by Coeur Alaska and predecessor companies, where known, are accredited for selected analytical techniques.
 
Sample preparation procedures and protocols are/were standard in the industry and have been adequate throughout the history of the Project.  Sample analysis uses procedures that are standard in the industry.
 
The QA/QC programs adequately address issues of precision, accuracy, and contamination, and indicate that the analytical results are adequately accurate, precise, and contamination free to support mineral resource estimation.
 
The sample preparation, analysis, and security procedures are adequate for use in the estimation of mineral resources.
 

 22.5
Data Verification
 
The QP undertook QA/QC verification, participated in programs to verify drill data prior to mineral resource estimation, checked selected gold assay data, conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports, and signed off on 2015–present definition drill holes and the 2021 drilling.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 

 22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
 
Metallurgical testwork was conducted by reputable laboratories and is supported by nearly a decade of production data.  Test results were used as a guideline for plant design.  Metallurgical testing results were consistent in the recommended methods of process design, extraction and recovery estimates.
 
Recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data.  Recovery factors are appropriate to the mineralization types and the selected process route.  The LOM recovery forecast is 95.3%.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
 
The mineral resource estimate conforms to industry best practices and is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves. The reference point for the estimate is in situ.  The estimate is primarily supported by core drilling.  The estimate was constrained using reasonable prospects of economic extraction that assumed longhole stoping underground mining methods.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include: metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining, and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for underground mining constraining the estimates; assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 

 22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
The mineral reserve estimate conforms to industry best practices and is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300.  The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities.
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources.  Inferred mineral resources were set to waste.  The mine plans assume underground mining using longhole open stoping, trackless equipment and combination of CRF, waste, and paste backfill.  Target mining rates are capped at approximately 2,000 tons per day, which is the permitted capacity limit.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include variations to the following assumptions:  the commodity price; metallurgical recoveries; operating cost estimates; geotechnical conditions; hydrogeological conditions; geological and structural interpretations; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the mineable shapes constraining the estimates; changes to dilution assumptions that can impact grade and operating costs; the inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain the social license to operate.
 

 22.9
Mining Methods
 
The Kensington Operations use conventional underground equipment and mining methods.  The mine has been operating since July 2012.
 
Geotechnical conditions are reasonably understood, and geotechnical assumptions are supported by third-party expert reviews.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
There are few hydrogeological aspects to be considered beyond natural inflow of water to the workings within the Kensington and Raven orebodies.
 
Stoping and paste backfill mining methods were selected and implemented based on the orebody location, ground conditions and geological settings.  Mining design assumptions for each mining region are typically standardized for each area and mining method assumed.
 
The Kensington Operations typically process between 1,750–1,950 st/day with a waste stream of about 10% rejected as a coarse pebble reject, which is then passed through a sorter to further extract ore grade material for re-feed back into the mill.
 
Ventilation is provided by fans and ventilation raises.
 
Backfill is a combination of cemented paste fill, CRF, and straight waste fill.
 
The production plan assumes a three-year mine life to 2024.
 

 22.10
Recovery Methods
 
The process plant design was based on a combination of metallurgical testwork, study designs and industry standard practices, together with debottlenecking and optimization activities once the mill was operational.  The design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.
 

 22.11
Infrastructure
 
All infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  On-site infrastructure includes the Slate Creek Cove Marine Terminal Facility, access roads, accommodations camp, mine water treatment facility with two settling ponds, a development rock storage facility, paste backfill plant, maintenance shop, warehouse, explosive storage, dewatering and ventilation infrastructure, administration buildings, medical clinic, warehouse, run-of-mine ore stockpile, crusher and flotation mill, and the TTF.
 
The Kensington Operations have several existing waste rock stockpiles onsite.  With the approval of POA-1, Coeur Alaska will be allowed to expand existing stockpiles and create one new stockpile.
 
The existing TTF is currently operating at Stage 3, which was constructed 2018–2019.  Stage 3 will accommodate the remaining LOM storage requirements.  Stage 4 is currently undergoing engineering design that would raise the dam crest to 760 ft amsl and also include a back dam that would separate Upper and Lower Slate Lake.  Both dams are being engineered with the potential for a Stage 5 dam.
 
Groundwater, surface water runoff and mill process waters that enter the tailings treatment facility are sent to a water treatment plant. The Comet water treatment facility consists of two water plants and a tertiary plant that supports the primary plants during high treatment demand periods.
 
Electrical power is supplied by diesel generators.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Water is sourced for process operations from recycled water from the paste plant, the concentrate and tailings thickeners, and water reclaimed from the TSF, and supplemented when needed from a permitted allowance for freshwater extraction from Johnson Creek.
 

 22.12
Market Studies
 
The Kensington Operations produce flotation concentrate containing both gold and silver.  The concentrate is highly desirable due to its elevated gold content and lack of deleterious elements.  Concentrate is sold directly to international commodity traders, who then sell onto smelters in Europe and Asia.  Subject to the gold and silver content, gold is typically payable around 98%, and silver payable around 80%.
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.  Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
Concentrate is sold directly to international commodity traders, who then sell onto smelters in Europe and Asia.  Subject to the gold and silver content, gold is typically payable around 98%, and silver payable around 80%.  There are typically no penalties for deleterious elements.  Treatment charges, refining charges, and all other terms and conditions are typical of, and consistent with, standard industry practice for such gold concentrates.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, contract mining, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 

 22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required in support of Project permitting.
 
The closure cost estimate used in the economic model in Chapter 19 is $23.7 M.  Reclamation is anticipated to be completed three years following cessation of mining.  Closure-related activities will continue until about 2055.
 
All required local, state, and federal permits for operation have been issued. POA-1 was submitted to the Forest Service in 2018 and is currently under review by the local, state, and federal agencies.

Coeur Alaska developed a community relations plan to identify and ensure an understanding of the needs of the surrounding communities and to determine appropriate programs for filling those needs. The company appropriately monitors socio-economic trends, community perceptions and mining impacts.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The total LOM capital cost estimate is US$47.6 M.
 

 22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$274.4 M.
 

 22.16
Economic Analysis
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of three-years to 2024.  Closure costs are estimated to 2055.
 
The NPV at a discount rate of 5% is $83.7 M.  As the cashflows are based on existing operations where all costs are considered sunk, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, exchange rate, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a ±30% range.
 
The Project is most sensitive to metal price and grade, less sensitive to operating costs, and least sensitive to capital costs
 

 22.17
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 

 22.17.1
Risks
 
Risks include:
 
•
Commodity price increases for key consumables such diesel, electricity, tires and consumables would negatively impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources;
 
•
Labor cost increases or productivity decreases could also impact the stated mineral reserves and mineral resources, or impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserves;
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
•
The mineral resource estimates are sensitive to metal prices.  Lower metal prices require revisions to the mineral resource estimates;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Kensington Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates;
 
•
Political risk from challenges to:
 

 o
Mining licenses;
 

 o
Environmental permits;
 

 o
Coeur Alaska’s right to operate;
 
•
Changes to assumptions as to governmental tax or royalty rates, such as taxation rate increases or new taxation or royalty imposts.
 

 22.17.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all of the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all of the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Higher metal prices than forecast could present upside sales opportunities and potentially an increase in predicted Project economics;
 
•
Ability to define additional mineralization around known veins through exploration;
 
•
Discovery and development of new exploration targets across the district;
 
•
Potential to find or gain access to new mineralization sources that could be processed at the existing Kensington process facilities.
 

 22.18
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
 
As the Kensington Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 23-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
24.0
REFERENCES
 

 24.1
Bibliography
 
Barry, J., and Sims, J., 2010:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date January 1, 2010.
 
Barry, J., 2012:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Year End 2012, Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date January 1, 2013.

Beebe, K., Oduro, I., and Mondragon, R., 2014:  Technical Report for the Kensington Gold Mine, Juneau, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. NI 43-101 Technical Report: report prepared for Coeur Mining Corporation, effective date December 31, 2014
 
Beebe, K., Oduro, I., and Mondragon, R., 2017:  Technical Report for the Kensington Gold Mine, Juneau, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. NI 43-101 Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur Mining Corporation, effective date December 31, 2017.
 
Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc., 2012:  Review of Kensington Mineral Resource Modeling Procedures:  report prepared for Coeur Alaska, Inc., , October 19, 2012, 6 p.
 
Birak, D., 2004:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report: report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date July 15, 2004.
 
Birak, D., 2006:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date February 22, 2007.
 
Birak, D., 2007:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date January 1, 2008.
 
Birak, D., Sims, J., and Blaylock, G., 2008:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date January 1, 2009.
 
Caddey, S.W., Harvey, D., Buxton, C., and Cato, K., 1994:  Structural Analysis of the Kensington Gold Deposit: Deformation History, Deposit Formation, Ore Controls, and Exploration Guides, Juneau, Southeast Alaska: report prepared for Coeur Alaska, Inc., 18 p.
 
Goodwin, R. and Ross A., 2004:  Reserve Evaluation and Mine Planning for the 2004 Kensington Gold Project Feasibility Study:  report prepared for Coeur Alaska, Inc., by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, 102 p.
 
Kingsley, T., 2007:  Kinematic Analysis and Age Constraints of Gold Mineralization at the Kensington Gold Deposit, Southeast Alaska:  M.Sc. Thesis, University of Idaho, 54 p.
 
Leveille, R.A., 1991:  Geology and Gold Deposits of the Jualin Mine Area, Berners Bay district, Southeastern Alaska:  M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska, 215 p.
 
Miller, L., Goldfarb, R., Snee, L.W., Gent, C. and Kirkham, R.A., 1995:  Structural Geology, Age and Mechanisms of Gold Vein Formation at the Kensington and Jualin Deposits, Berners Bay District, Southeast Alaska:  Economic  Geology, v. 90, pp. 342–368.
 
Naugle, C. T., 2010:  H204 Production Reconciliation: report prepared by Coeur Alaska, Inc., October 19, 2010, internal R 69 p.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
O’Leary, B., and Sims, J., 2009:  Kensington Gold Mine, Southeast Alaska, U.S.A. Technical Report:  report prepared for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, effective date January 1, 2010.
 
Petsel, S, 1992:  Report on the Horrible Vein Deposit, Kensington Venture Juneau, Alaska, Year-End 1992:  report for Echo Bay Alaska, Inc. 195 p.
 
Rhys, D.A., 2008:  Structural Observations from a June 2008 Reconnaissance Visit to the Kensington Deposit, Southeast Alaska:  report prepared by Panterra Geoservices, Inc. for Coeur Alaska, Inc., July 9, 2008, 36 p.
 
Rhys, D.A., 2010:  Structural Geology Study of Vein Patterns in the Kensington Gold Deposit, with Mining and Exploration Implications:  report prepared by Panterra Geoservices, Inc. for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation, 51 p.
 
Schaff, J., 1993:  Report on the Comet Vein Exploration Program, 1992: Echo Bay Alaska:  report prepared by Echo Bay Alaska, 16 p.
 
Sibson, R.H., Robert, F., Poulsen, H., 1988:  High-angle Reverse Faults, Fluid-Pressure Cycling, and Mesothermal Gold-Quartz Deposits:  Geology, v.16, pp. 551–555.
 
Sibson, R.H., Scott, J., 1998:  Stress/Fault Controls on the Containment and Release of Overpressured Fluids: Examples from Gold-Quartz Vein Systems in Juneau, Alaska; Victoria, Australia and Otago, New Zealand:  Ore Geology Reviews, v. 13, pp. 293–306.
 
Trigg, C.M., Woollett, G.N., 1990:  Jualin Project, Berners Bay Mining District, Alaska: report prepared by Trigg, Woollett, Olson Consulting Ltd. for International Curator Resources Ltd., 30 p.
 
Trueman, A. and Sims, J., 2006:  Resource Review and Parallel Estimation:  report prepared for Coeur Alaska, Inc., by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, 36 p.
 

 24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
 
Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
#
number
%
percent
/
per
<
less than
>
greater than
µm
micrometer (micron)
BQ
1.44 inch core size
ft
feet
g
gram
HP
horsepower

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
HQ
2.5 inch core size
km
kilometer
km2
square kilometers
lb
pound
m
meter
Ma
million years ago
mesh
size based on the number of openings in one inch of screen
Moz
million ounces
°MW
megawatts
NQ
1.87 inch core size
º
degrees
oz
ounce/ounces (troy ounce)
oz/t
ounces per ton
st
US ton (short ton), 2000 pounds
st/d
short tons per day
st/h
short tons per hour
AAS
atomic absorption spectroscopy
ARD
acid-rock drainage
AuEq
gold equivalent
CPG
Certified Professional Geologist
CPG AIPG
Certified Professional Geologist of the American Institute of Professional Geologists
CRM
certified reference material
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
GAAP
generally-accepted accounting principles
GPS
global positioning system
ICP
inductively-couple plasma
ICP ES
inductively-coupled plasma emission spectroscopy
ICP-MS
inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry
ICP-OES
inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Abbreviation/Symbol
Term
ID
inverse distance interpolation; number after indicates the power, eg ID6 indicates inverse distance to the 6th power.
ID2
inverse distance interpolation; number after indicates the power, eg ID2 indicates inverse distance to the 2nd power.
LOM
life-of-mine
NI 43-101
Canadian National Instrument 43-101 “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Companies”
OK
ordinary kriging
P.Geo.
Professional Geologist
QA/QC
quality assurance and quality control
QP
Qualified Person
RM SME
Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
RQD
rock quality designation
SAG
semi-autogenous grind
SG
specific gravity
SME
Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
St
Short ton
 

 24.3
Glossary of Terms
 
Term
Definition
ANFO
A free-running explosive used in mine blasting made of 94% prilled aluminum nitrate and 6% No. 3 fuel oil.
aquifer
A geologic formation capable of transmitting significant quantities of groundwater under normal hydraulic gradients.
ball mill
A piece of milling equipment used to grind ore into small particles.  It is a cylindrical shaped steel container filled with steel balls into which crushed ore is fed.  The ball mill is rotated causing the balls themselves to cascade, which in turn grinds the ore.
comminution/crushing/grinding
Crushing and/or grinding of ore by impact and abrasion. Usually, the word "crushing" is used for dry methods and "grinding" for wet methods. Also, "crushing" usually denotes reducing the size of coarse rock while "grinding" usually refers to the reduction of the fine sizes.
concentrate
The concentrate is the valuable product from mineral processing, as opposed to the tailing, which contains the waste minerals. The concentrate represents a smaller volume than the original ore

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
cut-off grade
The grade (i.e., the concentration of metal or mineral in rock) that determines the destination of the material during mining. For purposes of establishing “prospects of economic extraction,” the cut-off grade is the grade that distinguishes material deemed to have no economic value (it will not be mined in underground mining or if mined in surface mining, its destination will be the waste dump) from material deemed to have economic value (its ultimate destination during mining will be a processing facility). Other terms used in similar fashion as cut-off grade include net smelter return, pay limit, and break-even stripping ratio.
cyanidation
A method of extracting gold or silver by dissolving it in a weak solution of sodium cyanide.
data verification
The process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, has been accurately transcribed from the original source and is suitable to be used for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation
decline
A sloping underground opening for machine access from level to level or from the surface.  Also called a ramp.
density
The mass per unit volume of a substance, commonly expressed in grams/ cubic centimeter.
depletion
The decrease in quantity of ore in a deposit or property resulting from extraction or production.
development
Often refers to the construction of a new mine or; Is the underground work carried out for the purpose of reaching and opening up a mineral deposit. It includes shaft sinking, cross-cutting, drifting and raising.
dilution
Waste of low-grade rock which is unavoidably removed along with the ore in the mining process.
drift
A horizontal mining passage underground.  A drift usually follows the ore vein, as distinguished from a crosscut, which intersects it.
easement
Areas of land owned by the property owner, but in which other parties, such as utility companies, may have limited rights granted for a specific purpose.
encumbrance
An interest or partial right in real property which diminished the value of ownership, but does not prevent the transfer of ownership.  Mortgages, taxes and judgements are encumbrances known as liens.  Restrictions, easements, and reservations are also encumbrances, although not liens.
exploration information
Geological, geophysical, geochemical, sampling, drilling, trenching, analytical testing, assaying, mineralogical, metallurgical, and other similar information concerning a particular property that is derived from activities undertaken to locate, investigate, define, or delineate a mineral prospect or mineral deposit
feasibility study
A feasibility study is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project, which includes detailed assessments of all applicable modifying factors, as defined by this section, together with any other relevant operational factors, and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable. The results of the study may serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project.
A feasibility study is more comprehensive, and with a higher degree of accuracy, than a pre-feasibility study. It must contain mining, infrastructure, and process designs completed with sufficient rigor to serve as the basis for an investment decision or to support project financing.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-5
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
flotation
Separation of minerals based on the interfacial chemistry of the mineral particles in solution. Reagents are added to the ore slurry to render the surface of selected minerals hydrophobic. Air bubbles are introduced to which the hydrophobic minerals attach. The selected minerals are levitated to the top of the flotation machine by their attachment to the bubbles and into a froth product, called the "flotation concentrate." If this froth carries more than one mineral as a designated main constituent, it is called a "bulk float". If it is selective to one constituent of the ore, where more than one will be floated, it is a "differential" float.
flowsheet
The sequence of operations, step by step, by which ore is treated in a milling, concentration, or smelting process.
footwall
The wall or rock on the underside of a vein or ore structure.
Gravity concentrate
  
gravity separation
Exploitation of differences in the densities of particles to achieve separation. Machines utilizing gravity separation include jigs and shaking tables.
gravity recoverable gold
A term that describes the portion of gold in an ore that is practically recoverable by gravity separation, determined through a standard laboratory test procedure.
greenschist facies
one of the major divisions of the mineral facies classification of metamorphic rocks, the rocks of which formed under the lowest temperature and pressure conditions usually produced by regional metamorphism. Temperatures between 300 and 450 °C (570 and 840 °F) and pressures of 1 to 4 kilobars are typical. The more common minerals found in such rocks include quartz, orthoclase, muscovite, chlorite, serpentine, talc, and epidote
hanging wall
The wall or rock on the upper or top side of a vein or ore deposit.
indicated mineral resource
An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling.  The term adequate geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to establish geological and grade or quality continuity with reasonable certainty. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
inferred mineral resource
An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling.  The term limited geological evidence means evidence that is only sufficient to establish that geological and grade or quality continuity is more likely than not. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability.
A qualified person must have a reasonable expectation that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with continued exploration; and should be able to defend the basis of this expectation before his or her peers.
initial assessment
An initial assessment is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of all or parts of mineralization to support the disclosure of mineral resources. The initial assessment must be prepared by a qualified person and must include appropriate assessments of reasonably assumed technical and economic factors, together with any other relevant operational factors, that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.  An initial assessment is required for disclosure of mineral resources but cannot be used as the basis for disclosure of mineral reserves

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-6
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
internal rate of return (IRR)
The rate of return at which the Net Present Value of a project is zero; the rate at which the present value of cash inflows is equal to the present value of the cash outflows.
Knelson concentrator
a high-speed centrifuge that combines centrifugally enhanced gravitational force with a patented fluidization process to recover precious metals
life of mine (LOM)
Number of years that the operation is planning to mine and treat ore, and is taken from the current mine plan based on the current evaluation of ore reserves.
locked cycle
A repetitive batch flotation test
locked cycle flotation test
A standard laboratory flotation test where certain intermediate streams are recycled into previous separation stages and the test is repeated across a number of cycles.  This test provides a more realistic prediction of the overall recovery and concentrate grade that would be achieved in an actual flotation circuit, compared with a simpler batch flotation test.
longitudinal longhole stoping
A form of sublevel stoping where the long axis of the stope is along (or parallel) to the strike of the orebody.
measured mineral resource
A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling.  The the term conclusive geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to test and confirm geological and grade or quality continuity. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
mill
Includes any ore mill, sampling works, concentration, and any crushing, grinding, or screening plant used at, and in connection with, an excavation or mine.
mineral project
Any exploration, development or production activity, including a royalty or similar interest in these activities, in respect of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals
mineral reserve
A mineral reserve is an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.
The determination that part of a measured or indicated mineral resource is economically mineable must be based on a preliminary feasibility (pre-feasibility) or feasibility study, as defined by this section, conducted by a qualified person applying the modifying factors to indicated or measured mineral resources. Such study must demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The study must establish a life of mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, which will be the basis of determining the mineral reserve.
The term economically viable means that the qualified person has determined, using a discounted cash flow analysis, or has otherwise analytically determined, that extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions.
The term investment and market assumptions includes all assumptions made about the prices, exchange rates, interest and discount rates, sales volumes, and costs that are necessary to determine the economic viability of the mineral reserves. The qualified person must use a price for each commodity that provides a reasonable basis for establishing that the project is economically viable.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-7
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
mineral resource
A mineral resource is a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
The term material of economic interest includes mineralization, including dumps and tailings, mineral brines, and other resources extracted on or within the earth’s crust. It does not include oil and gas resources as defined in Regulation S-X (§210.4-10(a)(16)(D) of this chapter), gases (e.g., helium and carbon dioxide), geothermal fields, and water.
When determining the existence of a mineral resource, a qualified person, as defined by this section, must be able to estimate or interpret the location, quantity, grade or quality continuity, and other geological characteristics of the mineral resource from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling; and conclude that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resource based on an initial assessment, as defined in this section, that he or she conducts by qualitatively applying relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction.
mining claim
A description by boundaries of real property in which metal ore and/or minerals may be located.
modifying factors
The factors that a qualified person must apply to indicated and measured mineral resources and then evaluate in order to establish the economic viability of mineral reserves. A qualified person must apply and evaluate modifying factors to convert measured and indicated mineral resources to proven and probable mineral reserves. These factors include, but are not restricted to: mining; processing; metallurgical; infrastructure; economic; marketing; legal; environmental compliance; plans, negotiations, or agreements with local individuals or groups; and governmental factors. The number, type and specific characteristics of the modifying factors applied will necessarily be a function of and depend upon the mineral, mine, property, or project.
net present value (NPV)
The present value of the difference between the future cash flows associated with a project and the investment required for acquiring the project.  Aggregate of future net cash flows discounted back to a common base date, usually the present.  NPV is an indicator of how much value an investment or project adds to a company.
net smelter return royalty (NSR)
A defined percentage of the gross revenue from a resource extraction operation, less a proportionate share of transportation, insurance, and processing costs.
open stope
In competent rock, it is possible to remove all of a moderate sized ore body, resulting in an opening of considerable size.  Such large, irregularly-shaped openings are called stopes.  The mining of large inclined ore bodies often requires leaving horizontal pillars across the stope at intervals in order to prevent collapse of the walls.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-8
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
ounce (oz) (troy)
Used in imperial statistics.  A kilogram is equal to 32.1507 ounces.  A troy ounce is equal to 31.1035 grams.
plant
A group of buildings, and especially to their contained equipment, in which a process or function is carried out; on a mine it will include warehouses, hoisting equipment, compressors, repair shops, offices, mill or concentrator.
portal
The surface entrance to a tunnel or adit
preliminary feasibility study, pre-feasibility study
A preliminary feasibility study (prefeasibility study) is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a qualified person has determined (in the case of underground mining) a preferred mining method, or (in the case of surface mining) a pit configuration, and in all cases has determined an effective method of mineral processing and an effective plan to sell the product.
A pre-feasibility study includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions, based on appropriate testing, about the modifying factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors that are sufficient for a qualified person to determine if all or part of the indicated and measured mineral resources may be converted to mineral reserves at the time of reporting. The financial analysis must have the level of detail necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable
probable mineral reserve
A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.   For a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve.  A qualified person must classify a measured mineral resource as a probable mineral reserve when his or her confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors to the measured mineral resource is lower than what is sufficient for a proven mineral reserve.
propylitic
Characteristic greenish colour.  Minerals include chlorite, actinolite and epidote.  Typically contains the assemblage quartz-chlorite-carbonate
proven mineral reserve
A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource.  For a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person has a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality.  A proven mineral reserve can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-9
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Term
Definition
qualified person
A qualified person is an individual who is a mineral industry professional with at least five years of relevant experience in the type of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and in the specific type of activity that person is undertaking on behalf of the registrant; and an eligible member or licensee in good standing of a recognized professional organization at the time the technical report is prepared.
For an organization to be a recognized professional organization, it must:
(A)          Be either:
(1)          An organization recognized within the mining industry as a reputable professional association, or
(2)          A board authorized by U.S. federal, state or foreign statute to regulate professionals in the mining, geoscience or related field;
(B)          Admit eligible members primarily on the basis of their academic qualifications and experience;
(C)          Establish and require compliance with professional standards of competence and ethics;
(D)          Require or encourage continuing professional development;
(E)          Have and apply disciplinary powers, including the power to suspend or expel a member regardless of where the member practices or resides; and;
(F)          Provide a public list of members in good standing.
raise
A vertical or inclined underground working that has been excavated from the bottom upward
reclamation
The restoration of a site after mining or exploration activity is completed.
refining
A high temperature process in which impure metal is reacted with flux to reduce the impurities.  The metal is collected in a molten layer and the impurities in a slag layer.  Refining results in the production of a marketable material.
right-of-way
A parcel of land granted by deed or easement for construction and maintenance according to a designated use.  This may include highways, streets, canals, ditches, or other uses
rock quality designation (RQD)
A measure of the competency of a rock, determined by the number of fractures in a given length of drill core.  For example, a friable ore will have many fractures and a low RQD.
royalty
An amount of money paid at regular intervals by the lessee or operator of an exploration or mining property to the owner of the ground. Generally based on a specific amount per tonne or a percentage of the total production or profits. Also, the fee paid for the right to use a patented process.
semi-autogenous grinding (SAG)
A method of grinding rock into fine powder whereby the grinding media consists of larger chunks of rocks and steel balls.
specific gravity
The weight of a substance compared with the weight of an equal volume of pure water at 4°C.
stope
An excavation in a mine, other than development workings, made for the purpose of extracting ore.
strike length
The horizontal distance along the long axis of a structural surface, rock unit, mineral deposit or geochemical anomaly.
tailings
Material rejected from a mill after the recoverable valuable minerals have been extracted.
transverse stoping
A type of sublevel stoping where the long axis of the stope is perpendicular to the strike of the orebody
tunnel
A horizontal underground passage that is open at both ends; the term is loosely applied in many cases to an adit, which is open at only one end
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-10
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
 

 25.1
Introduction
 
The QPs fully relied on the registrant for the guidance in the areas noted in the following sub-sections.  As the operations have been in production for over 11 years, the registrant has considerable experience in this area.
 
The QPs took undertook checks that the information provided by the registrant was suitable to be used in the Report.
 

 25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
 
Information relating to inflation, interest rates, discount rates, taxes.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 

 25.3
Markets
 
Information relating to market studies/markets for product, market entry strategies, marketing and sales contracts, product valuation, product specifications, refining and treatment charges, transportation costs, agency relationships, material contracts (e.g. mining, concentrating, smelting, refining, transportation, handling, hedging arrangements, and forward sales contracts), and contract status (in place, renewals).
 
This information is used when discussing the market, commodity price and contract information in Chapter 16, and in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 

 25.4
Legal Matters
 
Information relating to the corporate ownership interest, the mineral tenure (concessions, payments to retain, obligation to meet expenditure/reporting of work conducted), surface rights, water rights (water take allowances), royalties, encumbrances, easements and rights-of-way, violations and fines, permitting requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits
 
This information is used in support of the property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-1
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   

25.5
Environmental Matters
 
Information relating to baseline and supporting studies for environmental permitting, environmental permitting and monitoring requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits, emissions controls, closure planning, closure and reclamation bonding and bonding requirements, sustainability accommodations, and monitoring for and compliance with requirements relating to protected areas and protected species.
 
This information is used when discussing property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 

 25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
 
Information relating to social and stakeholder baseline and supporting studies, the partnership with the Berners Bay Consortium, hiring and training policies for workforce from local communities, partnerships with stakeholders (including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; fishing organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and, state and federal governments), and the community relations plan.
 
This information is used in the social and community discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 

 25.7
Governmental Factors
 
Information relating to taxation and royalty considerations at the Project level, monitoring requirements and monitoring frequency, and bonding requirements.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 

 25.8
Internal Controls
 

 25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
 
Internal controls are discussed where required in the relevant chapters of the technical report summary.  The following sub-sections summarize the types of procedures, protocols, guidance and controls that Coeur has in place for its exploration and mineral resource and reserve estimation efforts, and the type of risk assessments that are undertaken.
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for exploration data:
 
•
Written procedures and guidelines to support preferred sampling methods and approaches; periodic compliance reviews of adherence to such written procedures and guidelines;
•
Maintenance of a complete chain-of-custody, ensuring the traceability and integrity of the samples at all handling stages from collection, transportation, sample preparation and analysis to long-term sample storage;
•
Geological logs are checked and verified, and there is a physical sign-off to attest to the validation protocol required;
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-2
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Quality control checks on collar and downhole survey data for errors or significant deviations;
•
Appropriate types of quality control samples are inserted into the sample stream at appropriate frequencies to assess analytical data quality;
•
Third-party fully certified labs are used for assays used in public disclosure or resource models
•
Regular inspection of analytical and sample preparation facilities by appropriately experienced Coeur personnel;
•
QA/QC data are regularly verified to ensure that outliers sample mix-ups, contamination, or laboratory biases during the sample preparation and analysis steps are correctly identified, mitigated or remediated.  Changes to database entries are required be documented;
•
Database upload and verification procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data being entered into the Project database(s).  These are typically performed using software data-checking routines.  Changes to database entries are required to be documented.  Data are subject to regular backups.
 

 25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation:
 
•
Prior to use in mineral resource or mineral reserve estimation, the selected data to support estimation are downloaded from the database into a project file and reviewed for improbable entries and high values;
•
Written procedures and guidelines are used to support estimation methods and approaches;
•
Completion of annual technical statements on each mineral resource and mineral reserve estimate by qualified persons.  These technical statements include evaluation of modifying and technical factors, incorporate available reconciliation data, and are based on a cashflow analysis;
•
Internal reviews of block models, mineral resources and mineral reserves using a “layered responsibility” approach with Qualified Person involvement at the site and corporate levels;
 

 25.8.3
Risk Assessments
 
Coeur has established mine risk registers that are regularly reviewed and maintained.  The registers record the risk type, the nature of the impact if the risk occurred, the frequency or probability of the risk occurrence, planned mitigation measures, and record of progress of the mitigation undertaken.  Risks are removed from the registers if mitigation measures are successful or added to the registers as a new risk is recognized.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-3
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary
   
Other risk controls include aspects such as:
 
•
Active monitoring programs such as mill performance, geotechnical networks, water sampling, waste management;
•
Regular review of markets, commodity and price forecasts by internal specialists; reviews of competitor activities;
•
Regular reviews of stakeholder concerns, accommodations to stakeholder concerns and ongoing community consultation;
•
Monitoring of key permits and obligations such as tenures, surface rights, mine environmental and operating permits, agreements and regulatory changes to ensure all reporting and payment obligations have been met to keep those items in good standing.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-4
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary


APPENDIX A: MINERAL TENURE
 
UNPATENTED
 
 
Code
  
Name
  
Owner/Parties
  
Type
  
Group
 
AA 042185
  
KNS # 19 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042186
  
KNS # 20 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042187
  
KNS # 21 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042188
  
KNS # 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042189
  
KNS # 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042190
  
KNS # 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042191
  
KNS # 25 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042192
  
KNS # 26 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042193
  
KNS # 27 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042194
  
KNS # 28 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042195
  
KNS # 29 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042196
  
KNS # 30 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042197
  
KNS # 31 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042198
  
KNS # 32 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042199
  
KNS # 33 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042200
  
KNS # 34 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042201
  
KNS # 35 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042202
  
KNS # 36 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042203
  
KNS # 37 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042204
  
KNS # 38 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042205
  
KNS # 39 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042206
  
KNS # 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042207
  
KNS # 41 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042208
  
KNS # 42 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042209
  
KNS # 43 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042210
  
KNS # 44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042211
  
KNS # 45 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042212
  
KNS # 46 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042213
  
KNS # 47 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042214
  
KNS # 48 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042215
  
KNS # 49 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042216
  
KNS # 50 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042217
  
KNS # 51 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042218
  
KNS # 52 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042219
  
KNS # 53 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042220
  
KNS # 54 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042221
  
KNS # 55
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042222
  
KNS # 56
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042223
  
KNS # 57
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042224
  
KNS # 58
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042225
  
KNS # 59
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042226
  
KNS # 60
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 042227
  
KNS # 61
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042228
  
KNS # 62
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042230
  
KNS # 64
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042231
  
KNS # 65 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042232
  
KNS # 66
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042233
  
KNS # 67
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042234
  
KNS # 68
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044071
  
KNS 63 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044072
  
KNS 64 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044948
  
KNS No. 71
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044949
  
KNS No. 72
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044950
  
KNS No. 73
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044951
  
KNS FRACTION No. 74
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044956
  
KNS No. 79
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044957
  
KNS No. 80
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044958
  
BIG SEVEN FRACTION 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044959
  
BIG SEVEN FRACTION 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044960
  
BIG SEVEN FRACTION 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044961
  
BIG SEVEN NUMBER 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 044962
  
BIG SEVEN No. 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 046193
  
BIG SEVEN No. 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 046194
  
BIG SEVEN No 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 046195
  
BIG SEVEN No. 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 046196
  
BIG SEVEN No 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 046197
  
BIG SEVEN No. 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 050980
  
BIG SEVEN No 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 050981
  
BIG SEVEN No 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 050987
  
BIG SEVEN No 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 050988
  
BIG SEVEN No 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 050994
  
BIG SEVEN No 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 051000
  
BIG SEVEN No 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 051009
  
KNS No 81 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061054
  
POX 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061055
  
POX 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061056
  
POX 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061057
  
POX 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061058
  
POX - 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061059
  
POX 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061060
  
POX - 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061061
  
POX - 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061062
  
POX - 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061063
  
POX - 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061064
  
POX - 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061065
  
POX - 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061066
  
POX - 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061067
  
POX - 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061068
  
POX 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061069
  
POX 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061070
  
POX 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061071
  
POX 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061072
  
POX 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061073
  
POX 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061074
  
POX 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061075
  
POX - 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061076
  
POX - 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061077
  
POX 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061078
  
POX 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061079
  
POX 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061080
  
POX 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061081
  
POX 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061082
  
POX 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061083
  
POX 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061084
  
POX 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061085
  
POX 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061086
  
POX 33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061087
  
POX 34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061088
  
POX 35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061089
  
POX 36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061090
  
POX 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061091
  
POX 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061092
  
POX 39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061093
  
POX 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061094
  
POX 41
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061095
  
POX - 42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061096
  
POX 43
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061097
  
POX 44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061098
  
POX 45
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061099
  
POX 46
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061393
  
COMET #1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061394
  
COMET #2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061395
  
COMET #3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061396
  
COMET #4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061397
  
COMET #5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061398
  
COMET #6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061404
  
COMET #12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061405
  
COMET #13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061411
  
COMET #19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061412
  
COMET #20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061418
  
COMET #26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061419
  
COMET #27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061425
  
COMET #33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061426
  
COMET #34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061427
  
COMET #35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061428
  
COMET #36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061429
  
COMET #37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061430
  
COMET #38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061431
  
COMET #39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061432
  
COMET #40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061433
  
COMET #41
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061434
  
COMET #42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061435
  
COMET #43
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061436
  
COMET #44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061437
  
COMET #45
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061438
  
COMET #46
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061439
  
COMET #47
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061440
  
COMET #48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061441
  
COMET #49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061442
  
COMET #50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061443
  
COMET #51
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061444
  
COMET #52
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061445
  
COMET #53
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061446
  
COMET #54
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061447
  
COMET #55
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061448
  
COMET #56
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061449
  
COMET #57
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061450
  
COMET #58
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061451
  
COMET #59
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061452
  
COMET #60
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061453
  
COMET #61
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061454
  
COMET #62
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061455
  
COMET #63
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061456
  
COMET #64
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061457
  
COMET #65
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061458
  
COMET #66
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061459
  
COMET #67
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061460
  
COMET #68
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061461
  
COMET #69
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061462
  
COMET #70
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061463
  
COMET #71
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061464
  
COMET #72
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061465
  
COMET #73
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061466
  
COMET #74
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061467
  
COMET #75
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061468
  
COMET #76
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061469
  
COMET #77
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061470
  
COMET #78
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061471
  
COMET #79
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061472
  
COMET #80
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061473
  
COMET #81
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061474
  
COMET #82
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061475
  
COMET #83
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061476
  
COMET #84
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061477
  
COMET #85
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061478
  
COMET #86
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061479
  
COMET #87
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061480
  
COMET #88
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061481
  
COMET #89
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061482
  
COMET #90
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061483
  
COMET #91
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061484
  
COMET #92
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061485
  
COMET #93
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061486
  
COMET #94
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061487
  
COMET #95
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061488
  
COMET #96
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061489
  
COMET #97
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061490
  
COMET #98
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061491
  
COMET #99
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061492
  
COMET #100
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061493
  
COMET #101
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061494
  
COMET #102
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061495
  
COMET #103
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061496
  
COMET #104
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061497
  
COMET #105
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061498
  
COMET #106
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061499
  
COMET #107
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061500
  
COMET #108
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061501
  
COMET #109
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061502
  
COMET #110
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061503
  
COMET #111
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061504
  
COMET #112
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061505
  
COMET #113
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061506
  
COMET #114
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061507
  
COMET #115
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061508
  
COMET #116
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061509
  
COMET #117
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061510
  
COMET #118
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061511
  
COMET #119
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061671
  
POX 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061672
  
POX 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061673
  
POX 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061674
  
POX 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061675
  
POX 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061676
  
POX 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061677
  
POX 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061678
  
POX 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061679
  
POX 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061680
  
POX 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061681
  
POX 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061682
  
POX 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 061683
  
POX 42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 062965
  
KNS 100 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064393
  
COMET 211
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064394
  
COMET 212
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064395
  
COMET 213
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064396
  
COMET 214
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064397
  
COMET 215
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064398
  
COMET 216
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064399
  
COMET 217
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064400
  
COMET 218
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064401
  
COMET 219
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064402
  
COMET 220
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064403
  
COMET 221
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064404
  
COMET 222
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 064405
  
COMET 223
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 065035
  
BIG Seven Number 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 069981
  
Cover Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093665
  
Beachhead 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093666
  
Beachhead 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093667
  
Beachhead 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093668
  
Beachhead 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093669
  
Beachhead 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093670
  
Beachhead 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093671
  
Beachhead 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093681
  
Sentinel 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093682
  
Sentinel 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093683
  
Sentinel 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093684
  
Sentinel 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093685
  
Sentinel 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093686
  
Sentinel 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093687
  
Sentinel 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093688
  
Sentinel 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093689
  
Sentinel 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093690
  
Sentinel 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093691
  
Sentinel 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093692
  
Sentinel 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093693
  
Sentinel 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093694
  
Sentinel 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093695
  
Sentinel 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093696
  
Sentinel 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093697
  
Sentinel 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 093698
  
Sentinel 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093703
  
Sentinel 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093704
  
Sentinel 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093710
  
Sentinel 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093722
  
Vigilant 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093723
  
Vigilant 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093724
  
Vigilant 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093725
  
Vigilant 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093726
  
Vigilant 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093899
  
Avalanche 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093900
  
Avalanche 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 093901
  
Avalanche 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 042180
  
KNS # 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 042181
  
KNS # 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 042182
  
KNS # 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 042183
  
KNS # 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 042184
  
KNS # 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060988
  
GREEK BOY #1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060989
  
GREEK BOY #2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060990
  
Greek Boy #3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060991
  
Greek Boy #4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060992
  
GREEK BOY #5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060993
  
GREEK BOY #6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060994
  
GREEK BOY #7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 060995
  
GREEK BOY #8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061583
  
MM # 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061584
  
MM # 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061585
  
MM # 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061586
  
MM # 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061587
  
MM # 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061588
  
MM # 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061589
  
MM # 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061590
  
MM # 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061591
  
MM # 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061592
  
MM # 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061593
  
MM # 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061594
  
MM # 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061595
  
MM # 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061596
  
MM # 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061597
  
MM # 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061598
  
MM # 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061599
  
MM # 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061600
  
MM # 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061601
  
MM # 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061602
  
MM # 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061603
  
MM # 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061604
  
MM # 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061605
  
MM # 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061606
  
MM # 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061607
  
MM # 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061608
  
MM # 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061609
  
MM # 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061610
  
MM # 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061611
  
MM # 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061612
  
MM # 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061613
  
MM # 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061614
  
MM # 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061615
  
MM # 33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061616
  
MM # 34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061617
  
MM # 35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061618
  
MM # 36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061619
  
MM # 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061620
  
MM # 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061621
  
MM # 39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061622
  
MM # 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061623
  
MM # 41
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061624
  
MM # 42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061625
  
MM # 43
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061626
  
MM # 44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061627
  
MM # 45
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061628
  
MM # 46
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061629
  
MM # 47
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061630
  
MM # 48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061631
  
MM # 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061632
  
MM # 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061633
  
MM # 51
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061634
  
MM # 52
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061635
  
MM # 53
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061636
  
MM # 54
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061637
  
MM # 55
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061638
  
MM # 56
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061639
  
MM # 57
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061640
  
MM # 58
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061644
  
MM # 62
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061645
  
MM # 63
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061646
  
MM # 64
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061652
  
MM # 70
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061653
  
MM # 71
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061654
  
MM # 72
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061655
  
MM # 73
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061656
  
MM # 74
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061657
  
MM # 75
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061658
  
MM # 76
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061659
  
MM # 77
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061660
  
MM # 78
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061661
  
MM # 79
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061801
  
SLATE CREEK 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061802
  
SLATE CREEK 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061809
  
SLATE CREEK 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061810
  
SLATE CREEK 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061811
  
SLATE CREEK 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061812
  
SLATE CREEK 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061813
  
SLATE CREEK 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061814
  
SLATE CREEK 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061815
  
SLATE CREEK 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061816
  
SLATE CREEK 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061817
  
SLATE CREEK 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061818
  
SLATE CREEK 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061819
  
SLATE CREEK 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061826
  
SLATE CREEK 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061827
  
SLATE CREEK 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061828
  
SLATE CREEK 33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061829
  
SLATE CREEK 34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061830
  
SLATE CREEK 35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061831
  
SLATE CREEK 36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061832
  
SLATE CREEK 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061833
  
SLATE CREEK 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061837
  
SLATE CREEK 42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061838
  
SLATE CREEK 43
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061839
  
SLATE CREEK 44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061840
  
SLATE CREEK 45
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061841
  
SLATE CREEK 46
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061842
  
SLATE CREEK 47
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061843
  
SLATE CREEK 48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061844
  
SLATE CREEK 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061845
  
SLATE CREEK 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061846
  
SLATE CREEK 51
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061849
  
SLATE CREEK 63
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061850
  
SLATE CREEK 64
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061851
  
SLATE CREEK 65
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061854
  
SLATE CREEK 68
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061855
  
SLATE CREEK 69
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061856
  
SLATE CREEK 70
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061859
  
SLATE CREEK 82
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061860
  
SLATE CREEK 83
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061861
  
SLATE CREEK 84
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061862
  
SLATE CREEK 85
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061863
  
SLATE CREEK 86
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 061864
  
SLATE CREEK 87
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061865
  
SLATE CREEK 88
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061866
  
SLATE CREEK 89
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061867
  
SLATE CREEK 90
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061869
  
SLATE CREEK 94
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061870
  
SLATE CREEK 95
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061871
  
SLATE CREEK 96
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061872
  
SLATE CREEK 97
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061899
  
E.J # 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061900
  
E.J # 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061901
  
E.J. # 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061902
  
E.J # 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061903
  
E.J # 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061904
  
EJ # 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061905
  
EJ # 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061906
  
EJ # 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061907
  
EJ # 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061908
  
EJ # 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061910
  
EJ # 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061911
  
EJ # 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061912
  
EJ # 20S
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061913
  
EJ # 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061920
  
MM FRACTION # 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061921
  
MM FRACTION # 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061922
  
MM FRACTION # 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 061924
  
INDOMITABLE FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 062971
  
BLOC # 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 062983
  
BLOC # 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 062984
  
BLOC # 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 062995
  
BLOC # 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 062996
  
BLOC # 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063007
  
BLOC # 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063008
  
BLOC # 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063019
  
BLOC # 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063020
  
BLOC # 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063031
  
BLOC # 61
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063032
  
BLOC # 62
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063648
  
KY # 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063649
  
KY # 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063650
  
KY # 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063651
  
KY # 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063655
  
KY # 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063656
  
KY # 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063657
  
KY # 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063658
  
KY # 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063664
  
KY # 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 063665
  
KY # 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063666
  
KY # 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063667
  
KY # 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063668
  
KY # 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063669
  
KY # 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063674
  
KY # 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063675
  
KY # 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063676
  
KY # 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063677
  
KY # 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063684
  
KY # 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063685
  
KY # 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063686
  
KY # 39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063687
  
KY # 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063694
  
KY # 47
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063695
  
KY # 48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063696
  
KY # 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 063697
  
KY # 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071931
  
MANE # 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071932
  
MANE # 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071933
  
MANE # 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071934
  
MANE # 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071935
  
MANE # 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071943
  
MANE # 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071944
  
MANE # 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071945
  
MANE # 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071946
  
MANE # 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071947
  
MANE # 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071960
  
MANE # 48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071961
  
MANE # 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071962
  
MANE # 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071963
  
MANE # 51
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071964
  
MANE # 52
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071978
  
MANE # 68
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071979
  
MANE # 69
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071980
  
MANE # 70
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071981
  
MANE # 71
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 071982
  
MANE # 72
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072002
  
MANE # 98
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072003
  
MANE # 99
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072004
  
MANE # 100
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072005
  
MANE # 101
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072006
  
MANE # 102
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072007
  
Mane # 103
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072008
  
MANE # 104
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072009
  
MANE # 105
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072010
  
MANE # 106
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 072011
  
MANE # 107
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072012
  
MANE # 108
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072026
  
MANE # 128
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072027
  
MANE # 129
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072028
  
MANE # 130
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072029
  
Mane # 131
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072030
  
Mane # 132
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072031
  
Mane # 133
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072032
  
MANE # 134
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072033
  
MANE # 135
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072034
  
MANE # 136
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072035
  
MANE # 137
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072036
  
Mane # 138
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072037
  
MANE # 139
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072038
  
MANE # 140
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072039
  
MANE # 141
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072040
  
MANE # 142
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072041
  
MANE # 143
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072042
  
MANE # 144
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072050
  
MANE # 158
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072051
  
MANE # 159
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072052
  
MANE # 160
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072053
  
MANE # 161
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072054
  
Mane # 162
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072055
  
MANE # 163
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072056
  
MANE # 164
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072057
  
MANE # 165
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072058
  
MANE # 166
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072059
  
MANE # 167
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072060
  
MANE # 168
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072061
  
MANE # 169
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072062
  
MANE # 170
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072063
  
MANE # 171
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072064
  
MANE # 172
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072065
  
MANE # 173
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 072066
  
MANE # 174
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077798
  
ZACh 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077799
  
ZACh 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077800
  
ZACh 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077801
  
ZACh 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077802
  
ZACh 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077803
  
ZACh 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077804
  
ZACh 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077805
  
ZACh 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077806
  
ZACh 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077807
  
ZACh 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 077808
  
ZACh 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077809
  
ZACh 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077810
  
ZACh 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 077811
  
ZACh 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078936
  
CONVEN No. 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078937
  
CONVEN No. 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078938
  
CONVEN No. 3 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078939
  
CONVEN No. 4 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078941
  
SLATE No. 1 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 078942
  
SLATE No. 2 FRACTION
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093672
  
King Midas 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093673
  
King Midas 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093674
  
King Midas 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093675
  
King Midas 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093676
  
King Midas 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093677
  
King Midas 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093678
  
King Midas 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093679
  
King Midas 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093680
  
King Midas 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093699
  
Sentinel 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093700
  
Sentinel 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093701
  
Sentinel 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093702
  
Sentinel 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093705
  
Sentinel 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093706
  
Sentinel 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093707
  
Sentinel 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093708
  
Sentinel 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093709
  
Sentinel 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093711
  
Sentinel 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093712
  
Sentinel 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093713
  
Sentinel 33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093714
  
Sentinel 34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093715
  
Sentinel 35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093716
  
Sentinel 36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093717
  
Sentinel 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093718
  
Sentinel 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093719
  
Sentinel 39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093720
  
Sentinel 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093721
  
Vigilant 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093727
  
Vigilant 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093728
  
Vigilant 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093729
  
Vigilant 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093730
  
Vigilant 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093731
  
Vigilant 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093732
  
Vigilant 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093733
  
Vigilant 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 093734
  
Vigilant 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093735
  
Vigilant 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093736
  
Vigilant 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093737
  
Vigilant 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095793
  
Mill Site 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095794
  
Mill Site 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095795
  
Mill Site 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095796
  
Mill Site 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095797
  
Mill Site 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095798
  
Mill Site 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095799
  
Mill Site 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095800
  
Mill Site 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095801
  
Mill Site 9
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095802
  
Mill Site 10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095803
  
Mill Site 11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095804
  
Mill Site 12
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095805
  
Mill Site 13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095806
  
Mill Site 14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095807
  
Mill Site 15
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095808
  
Mill Site 16
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095809
  
Mill Site 17
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095810
  
Mill Site 18
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095811
  
Mill Site 19
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095812
  
Mill Site 20
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095813
  
Mill Site 21
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095814
  
Mill Site 22
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095815
  
Mill Site 23
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095816
  
Mill Site 24
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095817
  
Mill Site 25
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095818
  
Mill Site 26
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095819
  
Mill Site 27
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095820
  
Mill Site 28
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095821
  
Mill Site 29
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095822
  
Mill Site 30
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095823
  
Mill Site 31
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095824
  
Mill Site 32
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095825
  
Mill Site 33
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095826
  
Mill Site 34
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095827
  
Mill Site 35
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095828
  
Mill Site 36
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095829
  
Mill Site 37
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095830
  
Mill Site 38
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095831
  
Mill Site 39
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095832
  
Mill Site 40
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095833
  
Mill Site 41
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095834
  
Mill Site 42
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 095835
  
Mill Site 43
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095836
  
Mill Site 44
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095837
  
Mill Site 45
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095838
  
Mill Site 46
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095839
  
Mill Site 47
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095840
  
Mill Site 48
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095841
  
Mill Site 49
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095842
  
Mill Site 50
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095843
  
Mill Site 51
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095844
  
Mill Site 52
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095845
  
Mill Site 53
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095846
  
Mill Site 54
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095847
  
Mill Site 55
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095848
  
Mill Site 56
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095849
  
Mill Site 57
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095850
  
Mill Site 58
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095851
  
Mill Site 59
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095852
  
Mill Site 60
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095853
  
Mill Site 61
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095854
  
Mill Site 62
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095855
  
Mill Site 63
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095856
  
Mill Site 64
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095857
  
Mill Site 65
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095858
  
Mill Site 66
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095859
  
Mill Site 67
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095860
  
Mill Site 68
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095861
  
Mill Site 69
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095862
  
Mill Site 70
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095863
  
Mill Site 71
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095864
  
Mill Site 72
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095865
  
Mill Site 73
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095866
  
Mill Site 74
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Millsite Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 095786
  
LODE 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095787
  
LODE 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095788
  
LODE 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095789
  
LODE 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095790
  
LODE 6
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095791
  
LODE 7
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 095792
  
LODE 8
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
AA 043684
  
MARIA A LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043685
  
MARIA B LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043686
  
MARIA C LODE (AMMENDED)
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043687
  
THOMAS FRACTION No 6 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043688
  
MARIA J LODE (AMMENDED)
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043689
  
MARIA K LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043690
  
MARIA L LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 043691
  
MARIA Y LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043692
  
MARIA Z LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043693
  
CONTACT No 1
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043694
  
CONTACT No. 2 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043695
  
CONTACT No 3 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043696
  
CONTACT No 4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043697
  
CONTACT No. 5 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043698
  
THOMAS No 8 - AMMENDED
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043887
  
THOMAS No 1 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043888
  
THOMAS No 2 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043889
  
THOMAS No 3 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043890
  
Thomas No 4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043891
  
THOMAS # 5
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043892
  
THOMAS No 6 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043893
  
THOMAS No 7 LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043894
  
THOMAS FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043896
  
MARIA D LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043897
  
MARIA E LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043898
  
MARIA F LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043899
  
MARIA G LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043900
  
MARIA H LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043901
  
MARIA I LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043902
  
MARIA F EXTENSION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043903
  
MARTHA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043904
  
PONCIN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045000
  
SUE DEAN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045002
  
COONJOHN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045003
  
SALLY
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045004
  
CHRISTINA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045005
  
STACEY FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045006
  
MARGEN FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045007
  
KIRSTEN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045009
  
ROBERT 3
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045010
  
ROBERT FRACTION No. 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045011
  
ROBERT 4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045014
  
LEO STEWART FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045015
  
CINQ
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045016
  
DEUZE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045017
  
NEUF
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045018
  
DUEX
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045019
  
UNE FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045020
  
UNE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045021
  
CONTACT No 8
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045022
  
CONTACT No 7
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045023
  
CONTACT No 6
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045024
  
CONTACT No 11
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 045025
  
CONTACT 111
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045026
  
CONTACT 1111
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045027
  
CONTACT 1113
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045028
  
CONTACT 1112
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045029
  
CONTACT 113
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045030
  
CONTACT 112
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045031
  
CONTACT No 18
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045032
  
CONTACT 17
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045033
  
CONTACT No 16
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045034
  
CONTACT No 15
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045035
  
CONTACT No 14
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045036
  
CONTACT No 13
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045037
  
CONTACT No 12
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045668
  
MARTHA EXTENSION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045669
  
BROWNIE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045670
  
SEWANEE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045671
  
DRAKE ESQUIRE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045672
  
MARIA G EXTENSION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045673
  
MR. CHENEY
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045674
  
Pretty Patti Fraction
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045675
  
MR. FROST FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045676
  
CONTACT 118 FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045677
  
CONTACT 1114
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045678
  
CONTACT 114
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045679
  
CONTACT 115
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045680
  
CONTACT 1115
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045681
  
CONTACT 1116
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045682
  
CONTACT 116
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045683
  
CONTACT 117
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045684
  
CONTACT 1117
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045685
  
CONTACT 1118 FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045686
  
JANA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045687
  
DENISE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045688
  
MONICA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045689
  
CAROLYN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045690
  
SHANNON
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045692
  
LISA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045693
  
ROBINSON
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045694
  
DRAKE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045695
  
FROST
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045696
  
Wiley Fraction
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045697
  
ANNIE FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045698
  
SARA
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045699
  
KATHRYN
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045700
  
ANNIE FRACTION 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045701
  
SANDY ANNE FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
AA 045702
  
SARA FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 045703
  
KATHRYN FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 050215
  
ROBERT 1
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 050216
  
ROBERT 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 050217
  
ROBERT FRACTION
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054403
  
DZ-1
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054404
  
DZ-2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054405
  
DZ-3
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054406
  
DZ-4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054407
  
DZ 5
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054408
  
DZ 6
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054409
  
DZ 7
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054410
  
DZ 8
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054411
  
DZ-9
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054412
  
DZ 10
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054413
  
DZ-11
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054414
  
DZ-12
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054415
  
DZ-13
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054416
  
DZ-14
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054417
  
DZ-15
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054418
  
DZ 16
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054419
  
DZ-17
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054420
  
DZ 18
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054421
  
DZ-19
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054422
  
DZ-20
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054423
  
DZ-21
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054424
  
DZ-22
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054425
  
DZ-23
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 054426
  
DZ-24
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093738
  
RBT 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 093739
  
RBT 4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
AA 043895
  
Thomas Millsite
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Federal Mill site Claim
  
Jualin
 
ADL 309740
  
HYAK No 1 (AMMENDED
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 309741
  
HYAK No 2 (AMMENDED
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 309742
  
HYAK No 3 (AMENDED)
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 323364
  
HYAK No 4 (AMENDED)
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 323365
  
HYAK No 5 (AMENDED)
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 323366
  
HYAK No 6
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 323367
  
HYAK No 7
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 323368
  
HYAK No 8
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 349102
  
LUCKY CHANCE LODE
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 503245
  
HYAK No 9
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 503246
  
HYAK No 10
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 503247
  
HYAK No 10A
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 503248
  
HYAK No 11
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 509891
  
HYAK No 1A
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Code
Name
Owner/Parties
Type
Group
 
ADL 509892
  
HYAK No 1B
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 651759
  
UNDINE MILLSITE
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719182
  
Lucky Chance Lode 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 563238
  
Casey #11
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
State-Select Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 563239
  
Casey #10
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
State-Select Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 563241
  
Casey #13
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
State-Select Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 563242
  
Casey #14
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
State-Select Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719183
  
Lockie 1
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-160 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719184
  
Lockie 2
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-160 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719185
  
Lockie 3
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-160 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719186
  
Lockie 4
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-40 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719187
  
Lockie 5
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-40 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719188
  
Lockie 6
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-40 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719189
  
Lockie 7
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-40 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 719190
  
Lockie 8
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
State MTRSC-40 Mining Claim (AK)
  
Jualin
 
ADL 337383
  
KNS 65 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 337384
  
KNS 66 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 337385
  
KNS 67 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 337386
  
KNS 68 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 337387
  
KNS 69 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 337388
  
KNS 70 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 514549
  
Ellen
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 651758
  
KNS 71 Fraction
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 719191
  
Ivanhoe 1
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 719192
  
Ivanhoe 2
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 719193
  
Ivanhoe 3
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 719194
  
Ivanhoe 4
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
ADL 719195
  
Ivanhoe 5
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Traditional State Mining Claim (AK)
  
Kensington
 
PATENTED
 
 
Code
  
Name
  
Owner/Parties
  
Type
  
Group
 
MS 37A: Ophir Lode
  
Ophir Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 37B: Ophir Mill Site
  
Ophir Mill Site
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 38A: Bear Lode
  
Bear Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 38B: Bear No. 2 Mill Site
  
Bear No. 2 Mill Site
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 39: Savage Lode
  
Savage Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 40A: Seward Lode
  
Seward Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 40B: Seward Millsite
  
Seward Millsite
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 41: Seward No. 2 Lode
  
Seward No. 2 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 42: Elmira Lode
  
Elmira Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 43: Northern Belle Lode
  
Northern Belle Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 44: Yellow Jacket Lode
  
Yellow Jacket Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary


 
MS 45: Kensington Lode
  
Kensington Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 46: Eureka Lode
  
Eureka Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 47A: Esmeralda Lode
  
Esmeralda Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 47B: Esmeralda Millsite
  
Esmeralda Millsite
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 48: Excelsior Lode
  
Excelsior Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 49: North West Lode
  
North West Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 50A: Cumberland Lode
  
Cumberland Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 50B: Cumberland Millsite
  
Cumberland Millsite
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 51: Comet Lode
  
Comet Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 52A: Thomas Lode
  
Thomas Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 52B: Thomas Millsite
  
Thomas Millsite
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 53: Poor Richard Lode
  
Poor Richard Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 54A: Comet Extension Lode
  
Comet Extension Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 54B: Comet Extension Millsite
  
Comet Extension Millsite
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 55: Snowflake Lode
  
Snowflake Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 56: Last Chance Lode
  
Last Chance Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 57: Banner Lode
  
Banner Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 58: Eclipse Lode
  
Eclipse Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 59: Hartford Lode
  
Hartford Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 60: Horrible Lode
  
Horrible Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 61: Mexican Lode
  
Mexican Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 380: Northern Light Ex. No. 1 Emma Lode
  
Northern Light Ex. No. 1 Emma Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 380: Northern Light Ex. No. 2 Lode
  
Northern Light Ex. No. 2 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 380: Northern Light Lode
  
Northern Light Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Bat Lode
  
Bat Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Bee Lode
  
Bee Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Paw Lode
  
Lions Paw Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Paw No. 1 Lode
  
Lions Paw No. 1 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Paw No. 2 Lode
  
Lions Paw No. 2 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Paw No. 3 Lode
  
Lions Paw No. 3 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Paw No. 4 Lode
  
Lions Paw No. 4 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Lions Tail Lode
  
Lions Tail Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Olga No. 1 Lode
  
Olga No. 1 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Olga No. 2 Lode
  
Olga No. 2 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Olga No. 3 Lode
  
Olga No. 3 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Olga No. 4 Lode
  
Olga No. 4 Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2015: Stanley Lode
  
Stanley Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2018: Arnold Lode
  
Arnold Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2018: Lucky Boy Fraction Lode
  
Lucky Boy Fraction Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 2018: Plucky Girl Fraction Lode
  
Plucky Girl Fraction Lode
  
Coeur Alaska, Inc.
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Kensington
 
MS 261: Banshee Lode
  
Banshee Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 264: Undine Lode
  
Undine Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 265: Cover Lode
  
Cover Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 266: Minerva Lode
  
Minerva Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary


 
MS 578: Hard Scrabble Lode
  
Hard Scrabble Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Independence Lode
  
Independence Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Jean Burke Lode
  
Jean Burke Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Last Chance Lode
  
Last Chance Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Lucky Chance Lode
  
Lucky Chance Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Ophir Lode
  
Ophir Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Rose Lode
  
Rose Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Rover Lode
  
Rover Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Trixie Lode
  
Trixie Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 578: Wonder Lode
  
Wonder Lode
  
Hyak Mining Company
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Grace R Lode
  
Grace R Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Humming Bird Lode
  
Humming Bird Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Indomitable Lode
  
Indomitable Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Mystery Lode
  
Mystery Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Perhaps Lode
  
Perhaps Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 676: Victor Lode
  
Victor Lode
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 880: Diana Lode
  
Diana Lode
  
Hyak, Stoll, Stevens
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 880: Falls Lode
  
Falls Lode
  
Hyak, Stoll, Stevens
  
Patented Lode Claim
  
Jualin
 
MS 1496: Mystery Lode Millsite
  
Mystery Lode Millsite
  
Fremming Group Royalty Trust
  
Patented Mill site Claim
  
Jualin
 
TENURE LOCATION PLANS

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary



Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Kensington Gold Operations
Alaska
Technical Report Summary


 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
Appendix A
Exhibit 96.4

 
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
 
 
Prepared for:
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Prepared by:
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME
Ms. Lindsay Chasten, RM SME
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME
Mr. John Key, RM SME
Report current as at:
December 31, 2021

Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Date and Signature Page
 
The following Qualified Persons, who are employees of Coeur Mining, Inc. or its subsidiaries, prepared this technical report summary, entitled “Wharf Operations, South Dakota, Technical Report Summary” and confirm that the information in the technical report summary is current as at December 31, 2021 and filed on February 16, 2022.
 
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME

 /s/ Tony Auld
Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME

/s/ Lindsay Chasten
Ms. Lindsay Chasten, RM SME

/s/ Kenan Sarratt
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME

/s/ John Key
Mr. John Key, RM SME

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page a
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
CONTENTS
   
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-1
1.1
Introduction
1-1
1.2
Terms of Reference
1-1
1.3
Property Setting
1-1
1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
1-2
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
1-2
1.6
History and Exploration
1-3
1.7
Drilling and Sampling
1-3
1.8
Data Verification
1-5
1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
1-5
1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
1-6
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
1-6
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
1-7
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
1-7
1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
1-8
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
1-8
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
1-9
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
1-9
1.12
Mining Methods
1-10
1.13
Recovery Methods
1-11
1.14
Infrastructure
1-12
1.15
Markets and Contracts
1-12
1.15.1
Market Studies
1-12
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
1-12
1.15.3
Contracts
1-13
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
1-13
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
1-13
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
1-13
1.16.3
Permitting
1-14
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
1-14
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
1-14
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
1-14
1.19
Economic Analysis
1-15
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information
1-15
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
1-16
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
1-16
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
1-16
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
1-18
1.20.1
Risks
1-18
1.20.2
Opportunities
1-19
1.21
Conclusions
1-19
1.22
Recommendations
1-19
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1
Registrant
2-1
2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.2.1
Report Purpose
2-1
2.2.2
Terms of Reference
2-1
2.3
Qualified Persons
2-3

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page i
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
2-4
2.5
Report Date
2-4
2.6
Information Sources and References
2-5
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
2-5
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
3-1
3.1
Property Location
3-1
3.2
Ownership
3-1
3.3
Mineral Title
3-1
3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
3-1
3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
3-1
3.4
Property Agreements
3-4
3.4.1
Black Hills Chair Lift Company 2010 Agreement
3-4
3.4.2
Black Hills Chair Lift Company 2011 Agreement
3-6
3.4.3
Black Hills Chair Lift Company Stock Purchase Agreement and Option
3-6
3.4.4
Timber Cutting Agreements
3-7
3.5
Surface Rights
3-7
3.6
Water Rights
3-7
3.7
Royalties
3-7
3.7.1
Dykes, Jumper and Handley Mineral Lease and Royalty
3-7
3.7.2
Carlson Royalty
3-9
3.7.3
Homestake Mining Company of California Royalty
3-9
3.7.4
Krejci and Kane Royalty
3-9
3.7.5
Kunz Royalty
3-10
3.7.6
Mountain View Heights, Inc. Royalty
3-10
3.7.7
Royal Gold, Inc. Royalty
3-10
3.7.8
Thompson Revocable Trust Royalty
3-10
3.7.9
Valentine Royalty
3-13
3.7.10
White House Congress, Inc. Royalty
3-13
3.8
Encumbrances
3-13
3.8.1
Credit Agreement
3-13
3.8.2
Permitting Requirements
3-13
3.8.3
Permitting Timelines
3-13
3.8.4
Violations and Fines
3-15
3.9
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
3-15
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
4-1
4.1
Physiography
4-1
4.2
Accessibility
4-1
4.3
Climate
4-1
4.4
Infrastructure
4-1
5.0
HISTORY
5-1
5.1
Wharf
5-1
5.2
Golden Reward
5-3
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
6-1
6.1
Deposit Type
6-1
6.2
Regional Geology
6-1
6.3
Local Geology
6-3
6.3.1
Lithologies
6-3
6.3.2
Structure
6-3
6.3.3
Alteration
6-3
6.3.4
Mineralization
6-8

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page ii
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4
Property Geology
6-10
6.4.1
Deposit Dimensions
6-10
6.4.2
Lithologies
6-10
6.4.3
Structure
6-12
6.4.4
Alteration
6-12
6.4.5
Mineralization
6-13
7.0
EXPLORATION
7-1
7.1
Exploration
7-1
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
7-1
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
7-1
7.1.3
Geochemistry
7-1
7.1.4
Geophysics
7-1
7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
7-1
7.1.6
Exploration Potential
7-2
7.2
Drilling
7-2
7.2.1
Overview
7-2
7.2.2
Drill Methods
7-2
7.2.3
Logging
7-2
7.2.4
Recovery
7-4
7.2.5
Collar Surveys
7-4
7.2.6
Down Hole Surveys
7-5
7.2.7
Drilling Since Wharf Database Close-out Date
7-5
7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
7-5
7.3
Hydrogeology
7-5
7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-5
7.3.2
Comment on Results
7-6
7.3.3
Surface Water
7-6
7.3.4
Groundwater
7-6
7.4
Geotechnical
7-7
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
7-7
7.4.2
Comment on Results
7-7
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
8-1
8.1
Sampling Methods
8-1
8.1.1
Reverse Circulation
8-1
8.1.2
Core
8-1
8.1.3
Grade Control
8-1
8.2
Sample Security Methods
8-2
8.3
Density Determinations
8-2
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
8-3
8.5
Sample Preparation
8-3
8.6
Analysis
8-4
8.6.1
Mine Assay Laboratory
8-4
8.6.2
ALS Reno
8-4
8.6.3
Bureau Veritas
8-4
8.6.4
Inspectorate
8-5
8.6.5
McClelland
8-5
8.6.6
Energy Laboratories
8-5
8.6.7
Intermountain Laboratories
8-5
8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
8-5
8.7.1
Pre-Coeur
8-5
8.7.2
Coeur
8-6

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iii
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
8.8
Database
8-7
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
8-7
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
9-1
9.1
Internal Data Verification
9-1
9.2
External Data Verification
9-1
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
9-1
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
9-2
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
10-1
10.1
Test Laboratories
10-1
10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
10-1
10.3
Recovery Estimates
10-2
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
10-2
10.5
Deleterious Elements
10-2
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
10-2
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
11-1
11.1
Introduction
11-1
11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
11-1
11.3
Geological Models
11-1
11.4
Density Assignment
11-1
11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
11-1
11.6
Composites
11-2
11.7
Variography
11-3
11.8
Estimation/interpolation Methods
11-3
11.9
Validation
11-3
11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
11-3
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
11-4
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
11-4
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
11-4
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
11-4
11.11.2
Commodity Price
11-5
11.11.3
Cut-off
11-5
11.11.4
QP Statement
11-6
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
11-6
11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
11-6
12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
12-1
12.1
Introduction
12-1
12.2
Development of Mining Case
12-1
12.3
Designs
12-1
12.4
Input Assumptions
12-2
12.5
Surface Topography
12-1
12.6
Density and Moisture
12-1
12.7
Ore Loss and Dilution
12-2
12.8
Commodity Price
12-2
12.9
Mineral Reserve Statement
12-2
12.10
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
12-3
13.0
MINING METHODS
13-1
13.1
Introduction
13-1
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
13-1
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
13-1
13.4
Operations
13-1
13.5
Blasting and Explosives
13-2

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page iv
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
13.6
Grade Control and Production Monitoring
13-2
13.7
Production Schedule
13-2
13.8
Equipment
13-2
13.9
Personnel
13-2
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
14-1
14.1
Process Method Selection
14-1
14.2
Flowsheet
14-1
14.3
Plant Design
14-1
14.3.1
Overview
14-1
14.3.2
Crushing
14-1
14.3.3
Heap Leach
14-5
14.3.4
Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery Process Facility
14-6
14.4
Process Facility Performance
14-7
14.5
Equipment Sizing
14-7
14.6
Power and Consumables
14-7
14.6.1.1
Power
14-7
14.6.1.2
Water
14-7
14.6.1.3
Consumables
14-10
14.6.2
Personnel
14-10
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
15-1
15.1
Introduction
15-1
15.2
Roads and Logistics
15-1
15.3
Stockpiles
15-5
15.4
Leach Pads
15-5
15.5
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
15-6
15.6
Spent Ore Facilities
15-6
15.7
Water Management
15-7
15.8
Water Supply
15-7
15.9
Camps and Accommodation
15-7
15.10
Power and Electrical
15-7
15.11
Fuel
15-8
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
16-1
16.1
Markets
16-1
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
16-1
16.3
Contracts
16-2
16.4
QP Statement
16-3
17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
17-1
17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
17-1
17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
17-1
17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
17-1
17.4
Permitting
17-2
17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
17-2
17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
17-2
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
18-1
18.1
Introduction
18-1
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
18-1
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
18-2
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
18-2
18.3.2
Mine Operating Costs
18-2
18.3.3
Process Operating Costs
18-3

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page v
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
18.3.4
Infrastructure Operating Costs
18-3
18.3.5
General and Administrative Operating Costs
18-5
18.3.6
Owner (Corporate) Operating Costs
18-6
18.3.7
Operating Cost Summary
18-6
18.4
QP Statement
18-6
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
19-1
19.1
Forward-looking Information
19-1
19.2
Methodology Used
19-1
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
19-2
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
19-2
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
19-2
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
19-2
19.3.4
Metal Prices
19-2
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
19-2
19.3.6
Working Capital
19-2
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
19-3
19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
19-3
19.3.9
Financing
19-3
19.3.10
Inflation
19-3
19.4
Economic Analysis
19-3
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
19-6
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
20-1
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
21-1
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
22-1
22.1
Introduction
22-1
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
22-1
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
22-1
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
22-2
22.5
Data Verification
22-2
22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
22-2
22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates
22-3
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates
22-3
22.9
Mining Methods
22-4
22.10
Recovery Methods
22-4
22.11
Infrastructure
22-5
22.12
Market Studies
22-5
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
22-6
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
22-6
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
22-7
22.16
Economic Analysis
22-7
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
22-7
22.17.1
Risks
22-7
22.17.2
Opportunities
22-8
22.18
Conclusions
22-8
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
23-1
24.0
REFERENCES
24-1
24.1
Bibliography
24-1
24.2
Abbreviations and Units of Measure
24-4
24.3
Glossary of Terms
24-5
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
25-1
25.1
Introduction
25-1

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vi
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
25-1
25.3
Markets
25-1
25.4
Legal Matters
25-1
25.5
Environmental Matters
25-1
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
25-2
25.7
Governmental Factors
25-2
25.8
Internal Controls
25-2
222.17.1
Exploration and Drilling
25-2
22.17.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
25-2
22.17.2
Risk Assessments
25-3
 
TABLES

Table 1‑1:
Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
1-8
Table 1‑2:
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
1-8
Table 1‑3:
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
1-10
Table 1‑4:
LOM Sustaining Capital Cost Estimate
1-15
Table 1‑5:
LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate
1-15
Table 1‑6:
Cashflow Summary Table
1-17
Table 1‑7:
Sensitivity Table (US$ x 1,000)
1-18
Table 2‑1:
QP Chapter Responsibilities
2-4
Table 3‑1:
Title Summary Table, Wharf Group
3-2
Table 3‑2:
Title Summary Table, Golden Reward Group
3-2
Table 3‑3:
Homestake Royalty
3-10
Table 3‑4:
Royal Gold Royalty
3-12
Table 5‑1:
Exploration and Development History Summary Table
5-4
Table 6‑1:
Stratigraphic Table, Sedimentary Lithologies
6-5
Table 6‑2:
Intrusive Lithologies
6-6
Table 7‑1:
Property Drill Summary Table
7-3
Table 7‑2:
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates
7-3
Table 10‑1:
Forecast Metallurgical Recovery Estimates
10-3
Table 10‑2:
Expected versus Actual Recovery
10-3
Table 11‑1:
Constraining Pit Shell Assumptions
11-5
Table 11‑2:
Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
11-7
Table 11‑3:
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
11-7
Table 12‑1:
Pit Shell Input Parameters
12-2
Table 12‑2:
Leach Pad Optimization Input Parameters
12-2
Table 12‑3:
Mineral Reserves Pit Shell Input Parameters
12-2
Table 12‑4:
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
12-3
Table 13‑1:
Forecast LOM Production Schedule
13-3
Table 13‑2:
Peak Required Equipment List
13-3
Table 14‑1:
Process Equipment List Summary (Crusher, Cones, Screens)
14-9
Table 14‑2:
Process Equipment List Summary (Plant)
14-10
Table 16‑1:
Commodity Price Forecast Used in Cashflow Analysis
16-2

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page vii
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑1:
Key Permits and Approvals
17-3
Table 18‑1:
LOM Sustaining Capital Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
18-2
Table 18‑2:
Mining Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
18-4
Table 18‑3:
Process Plant Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
18-4
Table 18‑4:
Other Process Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
18-4
Table 18‑5:
General and Administrative Operating Costs (US$ x 1,000)
18-7
Table 18‑6:
LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
18-7
Table 18‑7:
LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate
18-7
Table 19‑1:
Cashflow Summary Table
19-4
Table 19‑2:
Cashflow Forecast on Annualized Basis (US$ x 1,000)
19-5
Table 19‑3:
Sensitivity Table (US$ x 1,000)
19-8

FIGURES
 
Figure 2‑1:
Project Location Plan
2-3
Figure 3‑1:
Mineral Tenure Location Plan
3-3
Figure 3‑2:
Property Agreements Location Plan
3-5
Figure 3‑3:
Claims Subject To Royalties
3-8
Figure 3‑4:
Claims Subject to Royal Gold Royalty
3-13
Figure 3‑5:
Claims Subject to Valentine Royalty
3-15
Figure 5‑1:
Location Plan, Historical Open Pits
5-2
Figure 6‑1:
Regional Geology Map
6-2
Figure 6‑2:
Project Geology Plan
6-4
Figure 6‑3:
Stratigraphic Column
6-7
Figure 6‑4:
Wharf Geology Cross-Section
6-11
Figure 6‑5:
Wharf Geological and Mineralization Cross-Section
6-14
Figure 7‑1:
Property Drill Collar Location Plan
7-4
Figure 11‑1:
Map Showing Wharf Pit Model Extent
11-5
Figure 12‑1:
Life-of-Mine Outline Plan
12-1
Figure 12‑2:
Mine Progression Layout Plan
12-2
Figure 14‑1:
Crusher Flow Diagram
14-2
Figure 14‑2:
Leach Pad Flowsheet
14-3
Figure 14‑3:
Neutralization and Denitrification Flow Diagram
14-4
Figure 15‑1:
Infrastructure Layout Plan
15-2
Figure 15‑2:
Facilities Layout Plan
15-3
Figure 15‑3:
Waste Rock and Spent Ore Facility Layout Plan
15-4
 
APPENDICES
 
Appendix A:  Detailed Mineral Tenure Tables and Figures
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page viii
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
1.1
Introduction
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Ms. Lindsay Chasten, RM SME, Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, and Mr. John Key, RM SME, prepared this technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Wharf Gold Operations (the Wharf Operations or the Project), located in South Dakota.
 
Coeur acquired the Wharf Operations in February 2015 from Goldcorp Inc. (Goldcorp).  The Wharf Operations are conducted by Coeur’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Wharf Resources (USA) Ltd. (Wharf Resources) and Golden Reward Mining Limited Partnership (Golden Reward LP).  For the purposes of this Report, Coeur is used interchangeably to refer to the parent and subsidiary companies.
 
1.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, for the Wharf Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported for the Portland Ridge open pit, which is exploiting the Wharf deposit.  Mining commenced in 1982, and mining operations were conducted at the American Eagle, Green Mountain, Golden Reward, and Portland Ridgeline pits.  Currently, only the Portland Ridge open pit is active and is operated as a conventional truck and loader operation.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) dollars (US$).  Unless otherwise indicated, the US customary unit system is used in this Report.  The Report uses US English.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.
 
1.3
Property Setting
 
The Wharf Operations are in the northern Black Hills of western South Dakota, approximately nine miles south of Interstate 90 near Spearfish, South Dakota and approximately 3.5 miles south and west of the city of Lead, South Dakota.
 
Access to the Project from Lead is by Nevada Gulch Road, a paved road, which is followed for 4.6 miles to the Wharf Mine Road, an all-weather gravel road, which is followed for 2.1 miles to the mine office.
 
The climate in the Wharf Operations area is classified as cold and semi-arid.  Mining operations are conducted year-round.
 
Elevations in the Project area range from approximately 5,800–6,700 ft above sea level.  South of, and adjacent to, the mine is Terry Peak at 7,064 ft.  A ski area on Terry Peak is operated during winters.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The area is primarily forested with ponderosa pine, and to a lesser extent, Black Hills spruce.
 
1.4
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
The Wharf Operations consist of two contiguous property groups:
 
•
Wharf group:  northern and western sectors of the Project area; 362 patented lode claims, 35 government lots, 133 subdivided lots, and 59 federal unpatented lode claims; and
 
•
Golden Reward group:  southern and eastern sectors of the Project area; 196 patented lode claims, 14 government lots, 19 subdivided lots, and 34 federal unpatented lode claims.
 
The patented lands are private land and not subject to federal claim maintenance requirements.  However, as private land, they are subject to ad valorem property taxes assessed by Lawrence County, South Dakota.  The federal unpatented lode claims are maintained by the timely annual payment of claim maintenance fees, which are presently $165 per claim, payable to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management on or before September 1 each year.  As at the Report date, all required payments had been made.
 
Surface rights are a combination of patented lode claims, federal unpatented lode claims, government lots and fee property.  No additional rights are needed to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan presented in this Report.
 
Coeur has agreements with the Black Hills Chair Lift Company.  These agreements, as amended, generally provide that the Black Hills Chair Lift Company will support and assist Coeur in obtaining permits and authorizations for the expanded mine operations and will provide consent and access on lands it owns for Coeur’s mining activities in exchange for financial support, conveyance of specified parcels, water use, and other considerations.  A timber cutting agreement is in place with Neiman Timber Co., L.C.
 
Potable water is supplied to the Wharf Operations by wells.  Coeur owns multiple groundwater and surface water rights sufficient to support ongoing operations.  No additional water rights are anticipated to be required for LOM operations.
 
The mineral tenures are subject to several royalties, which range from sliding scale royalty payments on production to fixed production royalties to net smelter return royalties.  The largest royalty is payable to Royal Gold, Inc. (Royal Gold).
 
The Wharf Property is secured pursuant Coeur’s revolving credit facility.
 
1.5
Geology and Mineralization
 
The genesis of the Wharf deposit is considered controversial, and has been described as a hydrothermal replacement deposit, a Carlin-type deposit, and more recently as a low- to intermediate-sulfidation epithermal deposit.  The gold mineralization is disseminated and structurally controlled.
 
The Black Hills of South Dakota are located at the junction of several major terranes that have been the locus of repeated rifting and collisional events.  A complex deformational history is preserved in the Laramide age Black Hills uplift which exposes Archean through Oligocene rocks.  Regional uplift, doming, and subsequent erosion have exposed older, underlying Precambrian rocks in “windows” through the younger, overlying Phanerozoic rocks.  Contemporaneous Tertiary alkalic magmatic intrusive centers occur along a west–northwest-trending belt across the northern Black Hills.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The Lead–Deadwood dome, a northwest-oriented structure about 5.5 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, exposes a Precambrian core of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, flanked by numerous Tertiary porphyritic intrusions and intrusive breccias.  The core is ringed outwards by sedimentary rocks including the Cambrian–Ordovician Deadwood Formation and Mississippian Pahasapa Limestone, which have both been mineralized at different locations.  Intrusive rocks, primarily sills, inflate the sedimentary section, and dikes and stocks intrude the Precambrian rocks.
 
The Wharf deposit dimensions range from 8,000–9,000 ft long in the east–northeast direction, 2,100–5,000 ft wide, 150 ft thick in historically mined areas to 500 ft in active pits.  Mineralization has been drill tested to varying depths to the Precambrian surface, which ranges from 5,400–6,200 ft in elevation across the deposit.
 
A trachyte sill is a main host for mineralization, with low-grade disseminated mineralization throughout the body.  Igneous bodies within the Wharf deposit are predominantly sills.  Dikes are less volumetrically important but occur in most mined areas.  The best mineralized intrusion, the lower trachyte sill, is present within several of the open pits that are mining or have mined the Wharf deposit.  This trachyte sill was intruded both beneath and above the lower contact Deadwood Formation.
 
Silicification in the area of the mine plan is common, can as zones or along horizons in the same lithology, and can occur in any lithology with any degree of gold mineralization.  Carbonate replacement and veinlets can be present due to remobilization from the mineralized zone.  Argillization is also present in porphyritic intrusive rocks.
 
Gold mineralization occurs as gold substitution in sulfides and as native gold with silver in the main stage of mineralization.
 
1.6
History and Exploration
 
Gold was first discovered in the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1874.  Initial underground mining activity around the current Wharf Operations was conducted from 1901–1959.
 
The Wharf Operations area has been the subject of modern exploration and development activities since the mid-1970s, and a considerable database developed because of both exploration and mining activities.  Prior to Coeur’s acquisition of the Project, work was conducted by several companies, including Homestake Mining Company, Taiga Gold Inc., Goldex Holdings, Inc., Wharf Resources, Dickenson Mines Limited (Dickenson), and Goldcorp Inc. (Goldcorp).  Work completed included claims consolidation; geological mapping; total magnetics, apparent resistivity, and radiometric geophysical survey; reverse circulation (RC) and limited core drilling; mining studies; metallurgical testwork; environmental, social, and permitting activities; and active mining operations.  Mining at the current location commenced in 1983.
 
Since Project acquisition in 2015, Coeur has completed drilling, mining studies; metallurgical testwork; environmental, social, and permitting activities; and active mining operations.
 
1.7
Drilling and Sampling
 
A total of 11,140 drill holes (2,700,999 ft) have been completed in the Project area, the majority of which were RC drill holes.  RC and core drilling supports mineral resource estimation.  Drilling that supports the resource estimate consists of 7,666 drill holes (1,854,130 ft).  Drill holes in the drill database that are flagged as being completed by a production rig, are considered to have generated unreliable samples, and are flagged such that they are not be exported from the acQuire database for resource modelling purposes.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
RC chips were logged for lithology, alteration, and mineralization.  Core holes were logged for lithology, rock type, mineralization, alteration, recovery, and rock quality designation (RQD).
 
Historically, the collar coordinates were written on paper logs and entered manually as actuals into a GEMS database.  Currently a Trimble differential global positioning system (GPS) instrument is used to determine drill hole collar locations.  Downhole surveys were not performed on RC drill holes prior to 2014.  After 2015 downhole surveys were completed on all RC drilling regardless of depth.  Drill holes are designed to intersect mineralization as perpendicular as possible. Mineralized zones in the Wharf Operations are generally horizontal to sub-horizontal and can be adequately drilled with vertical drill holes.  A sufficient number of angled drill holes were completed at Wharf to test for vertical controls on the mineralization.
 
RC sampling was performed by drill contractors at the drill rig.  Sampling practice from 2007–2021 was to sample 10 ft. intervals.  Pre-2007 RC drilling at the Wharf Operations was sampled on 10-ft intervals and drilling at the Golden Reward area that is now part of the Wharf Operations was at 5-ft intervals.  The entire drill hole was sampled.  Sample runs of core holes averaged 4.5 ft at the Wharf Operation.  Grade control samples are collected during blast hole drilling.
 
Historically, density was determined from laboratory testing.  Documentation was not preserved.  Verification of trachyte porphyry values was conducted by FMG Engineering, Inc., with four samples in 2010, 15 in 2013, and 40 in 2021, and of phonolite porphyry with 10 samples in 2013 and 30 in 2021.  Density used in estimation is derived from density testing and ranges from 0.0714–0.0790 st/ft3 depending on lithology.
 
Independent primary and check laboratories used include Inspectorate America Corporation (Inspectorate, now Bureau Veritas) in Sparks, Nevada, ALS U.S.A. Inc. Minerals Division in Reno, Nevada (ALS Reno), and McClelland Laboratories, Inc, located in Sparks, Nevada (McClelland).  These laboratories were ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited.
 
The mine assay laboratory, located on site in Lead, was the primary analytical facility from mine inception to 2015.  The laboratory was not independent and was not accredited.
 
RC samples were dried, crushed to 80% passing ½ inch, and pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh.  At ALS Reno and Inspectorate/Bureau Veritas, samples were dried, crushed to >70% passing 2 mm, and pulverized to >85% passing 75 µm.
 
Gold analyses at the mine laboratory were completed with a cold cyanide shake with an atomic absorption (AA) finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed on gold and silver by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.  At ALS Reno, primary analyses for gold were completed by fire assay with AA finish, and for silver by four-acid digestion with AA finish.  For check analyses, gold analyses were completed by fire assay with an AA finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.  At Inspectorate, for checks of 2014 pulps, gold analyses were completed by cold cyanide shake with an AA finish.  Gold fire analyses with an AA finish were completed and triggered by cold cyanide analyses ≥0.008 oz/st Au to match the original procedure used at the Wharf Operations.  Gold analyses were completed at Bureau Veritas, with a fire assay with an AA finish, and results higher than the lower detection limit (>0.0001 oz/st) Au triggered a cold cyanide shake with AA finish.  Silver was analyzed as part of a 30-element suite by aqua regia with an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) finish and results higher than the lower detection limit triggered a silver cold cyanide shake with AA finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed by fire assay with gravimetric finish when the initial fire assay results were >0.29 oz/st Au.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Prior to Coeur’s Project acquisition, sample quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) consisted of check analyses completed at a commercial laboratory as verification of the mine assay laboratory.  There is no record of certified reference materials, standards, or blanks being inserted into the analytical batches.  Quantile–quantile plots of the entire assay population for check assays completed at ALS Reno from 2009–2014 indicated no bias and good correlation between the two datasets.  The resulting overall correlation and lack of bias in the population supported the data quality produced by the mine assay laboratory.
 
During Coeur’s ownership, certified reference standards and certified blank samples were inserted at regular intervals to maintain a 5% insertion rate of primary samples.  Sample-stage duplicates were collected at the drill rig to maintain a 2.5% insertion rate.  Crush stage and pulp-stage duplicate samples were generated by the sample preparation laboratory at a 2.5% insertion rate.  Additionally, 5–10% of primary sample pulps were sent to a secondary commercial laboratory for check analysis.  Results were reviewed quarterly, and elements of the QA/QC program were adjusted as necessary.  The reviews of the 2015–mid-year 2021 QA/QC data indicated no significant biases or contamination in the reviewed data.
 
Since 2015, assay data have been imported directly into the acQuire database and must pass internal database checks for referential integrity.  Assays were reviewed for QA/QC of certified reference materials and duplicates.  Assays were accepted or rejected in the database by the database manager based on QA/QC results.  All assay data is retained, and assays passing QA/QC are available for export in acQuire to other software systems.
 
From 2015–2021, collar surveys, downhole surveys, geology logs, and QA/QC-passing assay data were exported from acQuire as csv files and imported into a GEMS database for each yearly and midyear model update.  In 2021, the acQuire database was migrated to a Maptek Vulcan ISIS database.
 
1.8
Data Verification
 
Data verification included an RC-paired sampling study, review of data in the database for internal consistency corresponding to database rules such as no overlapping intervals and unique IDs and combining split intervals by reimporting the validated historic data into acQuire.  Drill hole lockdown signoff reports were completed by the geologist and database manager.  All were stored as digital copies on a network drive with restricted access and as paper copies.
 
The QP personally verified, amongst other checks, QA/QC of assay data from 2015–2021, logged all geologic data from 2015, 2017, and 2018, and conducted a 10–20% check of geologic logs from 2016 and 2021.  The QP worked at the Wharf Operations from 2009–2021.  The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
1.9
Metallurgical Testwork
 
The process plant was built in 1983.  Historical testwork on which the plant designs were based isn’t available to Coeur.  Changes made to the process plant were based on actual plant performance trends and testwork performed on-site and at independent facilities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Independent metallurgical testwork facilities used over the Project life included Amtel and McClelland Laboratories.  Testwork conducted included column leach test, bottle roll tests, and gold deportment studies.
 
The Wharf Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
There is no international standard of accreditation provided for metallurgical testing laboratories or metallurgical testing techniques.
 
Metallurgical performance using laboratory testing suggests that recovery of gold varies by lithology and sizing of placed material.  Life-of-mine (LOM) forecast recoveries include:
 
•
Intermediate:  80.0%;
 
•
Lower Contact:  71.0%;
 
•
Porphyry:  80.5%.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
1.10
Mineral Resource Estimation
 
1.10.1
Estimation Methodology
 
The database closeout date for the estimate was July 23, 2021.  All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis methods, which could include histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.
 
Domains were created based on lithology and changing trends in strike and dip of the major mineralized structures and underground workings that cross cut lithological units.  A total of three main structural domains were modeled resulting in 16 separate estimation domains.  Density values were assigned to each block based on the major rock type within the block.  Underground workings were assigned an adjusted density values determined by the percentage of the block intersected by workings.  Capping was applied to raw assays prior to compositing, with values to be capped assessed from probability plots.  Grade caps ranged from 0.08–0.6 oz/st Au, with 147 samples capped.  Compositing was done on 10 ft intervals to ensure sufficient samples were available in the vertical direction for estimation and to avoid over-smoothing prior to variography.  Back-transformed, normal scores (gaussian) variography was completed on all 16 domains.  For eight of the domains, an indicator estimation technique was used.  For these domains, variograms were created for the high-grade portion of the data and for the low-grade portion.
 
Ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation was chosen to estimate all lithology units.  Iterations were performed with a single pass OK estimate, adjusting the search parameters, minimum and maximum samples, and maximum number of drill holes.  The resulting basic statistics were then compared to those of the composites, nearest neighbor (NN) estimate, and an inverse distance squared (ID2) estimate.
 
The block models were validated using some or all of the following methods:  visually by stepping through sections and comparing the raw drill data and composite data with the block values; comparison of model statistics to drill data; swath plots; mill to model reconciliation; and general visual inspection of shape and spread of the estimate with regards to production experience.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The confidence classifications on average used:
 
•
Measured:  30–55 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of six composites, maximum of three composites from a single drill hole;
 
•
Indicated:  80–140 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of four composites, maximum of two composites from a single drill hole;
 
•
Inferred:  155–410 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of two composites, maximum of two composites from a single drill hole.
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was undertaken that evaluated likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting, and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal, and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.  Mineral resources are confined within conceptual pit shells.
 
The gold price used in resource estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,700/oz.  The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
 
A breakeven cut-off grade of 0.12 oz/st Au was used for conceptual pit designs. Within that design, an incremental cut-off grade of 0.10 oz/st Au was used as the determination of whether material is sent to the leach pad or to the WRSF.  The mineral resources are reported using a cut-off of 0.010 oz/st Au.
 
1.10.2
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Estimates are current as at December 31, 2021.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.
 
Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 1‑1 and inferred mineral resources in Table 1‑2 and are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
1.10.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the conceptual pit shell constraining the estimates; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑1:          Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold
'Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Measured
13,947
0.02
273
0.010
80
Indicated
6,379
0.022
140
0.010
80
Total Measured and Indicated
20,326
0.020
413
0.010
80
 
Table 1‑2:          Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Inferred
3,724
0.024
89,704
0.010
80
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as at December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional open pit mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.010 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 78.7%; royalty burden of US$68/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 34–50º; mining costs of $2.15/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.65/st rehandled, process costs of US$10.34/st processed (includes general and administrative costs).
 
5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
1.11
Mineral Reserve Estimation
 
1.11.1
Estimation Methodology
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources using a detailed pit design and block model from a physical survey of the topography as of December 31, 2021.  The mine plan assumes open pit mining, and a conventional truck and loader fleet.  Mining rates are primarily dictated by the crusher throughput.  Average annual throughput of 4.6 Mst from the crusher is expected.  Throughput rates were established and proven over the more than 30 years of operational history at the site.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-8
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The mining area consists of the Portland Ridgeline pit.  Different nomenclatures used for mining areas refer to the same deposit but represent distinct mining phases.
 
The site was evaluated using economic pit shells generated using Whittle software.  Appropriate cost and mining schedules were applied using cost estimates forecast for the LOM.  A gold price of $1,400 was used for the economic shells.
 
Pit optimizations were completed using the Lerchs–Grossmann algorithm using Whittle software.  Individual pits were phased by the Wharf Operations engineering staff using a design cut-off grade of 0.012 oz/st and consideration was given to mining the highest-grade areas first, while maintaining adequate space for waste advancement in the mined-out portions of the pit.  Pits were designed from bottom up in 20 ft increments, designing in the toe, crest, catch benches at specified intervals for the appropriate rock types.
 
The gold price used in reserve estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks of what other peer companies used for pricing over the past year.  The price used is US$1,400/oz for gold for the mineral reserve estimate.  The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
 
An operational cut-off grade of 0.10 oz/st Au was used to determine the material that is economically viable to mine.  Economic and sustaining capital considerations were factors in using an operational cut-off grade above the break-even cut-off.
 
The topography used for reserve estimation was an updated 2021 August month-end surface.  Mineral reserve estimates assume 100% mining recovery and no dilution was applied.
 
1.11.2
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves were classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facility.  Mineral reserves are current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral reserves are reported in Table 1‑3.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership bases.
 
1.11.3
Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include variations to the following assumptions:  the commodity price; metallurgical recoveries; operating cost estimates, including assumptions as to equipment leasing agreements; geotechnical conditions; hydrogeological conditions; geological and structural interpretations; and the inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain the social license to operate.  A portion of the estimated mineral reserves are not currently permitted.  The application process for acquiring new permits and permit amendments has been initiated with both the State and Lawrence County.  If the permits are not granted, a portion of the estimated mineral reserves will not be available to mine.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-9
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑3:          Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Proven
27,976
0.022
620
0.010
80
Probable
8,306
0.028
231
0.010
80
Total proven and probable
36,282
0.023
851
0.010
80
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve table:
 
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as at December 31, 2021, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is delivery to the heap leach facility.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional open pit mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.010 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 78.7% across all rock types; royalty burden of US$56/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 34–50º; mining costs of $2.15/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.65/st rehandled, process costs of US$10.34/st processed (includes general and administrative costs).
 
4.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
1.12
Mining Methods
 
The last geotechnical study was completed in 2021 by personnel from third-party consultants, Respec.  The current pit slope design configurations were concluded to be appropriate, but there was an opportunity to design the ultimate pit with steeper slopes.
 
Water infiltration near the 5,960 ft elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging.  Previous mining advanced benches to the 5,920 ft bench.  Current mineral reserve estimates include material down to the 5,900 ft elevation.
 
In-situ ore and waste must be blasted prior to removal.  Several historic pits that were partially backfilled are being mined again and the backfilled material is considered re-handle and does not require blasting.  Waste material removed for access to the ore is taken to one of the waste rock storage facilities (WRSF) sites.  The WRSF sites are all designed to fill existing pits and are reclaimed as soon as possible after placement.  Mined ore is either placed in a stockpile or placed directly into the primary crusher ore hopper. Crushed ore is then conveyed to a final product stockpile.  Crushed ore is picked up by loaders and placed in trucks to be dumped in 20 ft lifts on one of the five heap leach pads.
 
Once ore is leached and neutralized, it is considered spent ore and upon approval from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR), can be unloaded from the pad, and the pad can be reused for fresh ore loading.  The spent ore is used to backfill pits within defined perimeter of pollution zones.  These are zones in which the DANR allows a variance to groundwater standards.  Within each perimeter of pollution zone, nitrates in the spent ore in specific quantities can be placed.  The current active perimeters of pollution zones have physical capacities to contain the estimated mineral reserves.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-10
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The production plan assumes an eight-year mine life to 2029.
 
Equipment is leased, and conventional to open pit operations.  The fleet includes drills, dozers, wheel and motor loaders, haul trucks, back- and track-hoes, water, oil, sand trucks and snowplows.
 
The mine operations personnel requirement for the remaining LOM averages 255.
 
1.13
Recovery Methods
 
The process plant design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.  Debottlenecking and optimization activities since Coeur acquired the operations have increased capacities and efficiencies.
 
Ore is trucked to the crusher located at the east end of the plant/pad area to be crushed to a nominal size of 83% minus ½ inch. The crushing plant can process between 4.2–4.6 Mst/a of ore, depending on ore hardness. Lime is added to the crushed ore.  Once crushed, the ore is trucked to leach pads to be stacked in 20 ft high lifts to a maximum height of 150 ft above liner.
 
Stacked ore is then leached with dilute sodium cyanide solution.  Gold and silver in the pregnant (metal-bearing) leach solution are recovered by adsorption on activated carbon and the barren (non-metal bearing) leach solution is recycled to the heap leach pad.  Spent ore is rinsed, neutralized, and denitrified and then removed from the leach pad to be placed on a designated spent ore storage area.
 
Gold and silver are recovered from loaded carbon using a modified pressure Zadra method.  The rich electrolyte from elution is processed by electrowinning, depositing the metals into an electrolytic sludge composed of 90–98% gold and silver.
 
Precious metals in the electrolytic sludge are purified by smelting at a commercial refinery.
 
Silver to gold ratios in the process feed have historically varied from near 1:1 to >40:1. These variations in the ore delivered to the pad have resulted in wide swings in the product composition produced by the plant.  Plant gold efficiency during the low silver periods reaches the industry norm of +95% for this type of plant.  During periods when the silver concentration begins to climb, silver preferentially loading on the carbon reduces both the plant gold and silver efficiencies.  Changes in the plant stripping circuit have improved the ability for the plant to compensate for the additional silver content.
 
The plant has sufficient electrowinning capacity and can adjust strip cycles to increase the carbon volume processed.  During periods of extremely high silver grades, the retort is used at maximum capacity.  Consumption of reagents also increases with additional silver content.  Greater amounts of cyanide are consumed by increased silver in leach solutions.  Changes in the plant stripping schedule also affect sodium hydroxide and carbon consumption rates.
 
Processing power requirements are approximately 13,700 MWh per year, and this power requirement is consistent through the LOM plan.  Water, where needed, is from well sources.  Consumables used in processing include activated carbon, cyanide, nitric acid, caustic, anti-scalant, hydrogen peroxide, and lime.
 
The personnel requirements in the heap leach and process area for the LOM total 67.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-11
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
1.14
Infrastructure
 
All infrastructure required to support operations is constructed and operational.  On-site infrastructure includes production and monitoring water wells, offices, maintenance, warehouse and various ancillary facilities, open-pit mining areas, WRSFs, crushing and conveying facilities, five lined heap leach pads, two water treatment plants and a process facility.  There is an onsite assay laboratory as well as a metallurgical laboratory.  There is no onsite accommodation.  Employees reside in adjacent communities.
 
There are currently five on/off heap leach pads used for the leaching cycle.  Each pad is loaded in 20 ft lifts to a maximum of 150 ft above the liner.  Each lift is wetted with a dilute sodium cyanide solution.  In the final stages of precious metal recovery from the heap leach, sodium cyanide addition ceases for the rinsing stage.  The rinsing stage of leaching recovers the final gold and silver ounces prior to spent ore treatment.  Once all expected gold is recovered, the pad enters the neutralization/denitrification stage.  Denitrification continues until the spent ore meets the criteria for off-loading.  When the spent ore is approved for removal from the pad, the spent ore is trucked to a spent ore storage area.
 
Spent ore backfill on unlined facilities is permitted by way of a groundwater discharge permit.  Currently Coeur has both un-lined and lined spent ore facilities.  DANR has approved a Perimeter of Operational Pollution zone for each permit and allows for a variance to select groundwater standards within the Perimeter of Operational Pollution zones.
 
Waste rock is disposed of in designated waste rock storage facility (WRSF) areas, and is currently typically used to backfill existing pits.  All WRSFs are located within the permitted disturbance boundary.  There is sufficient space in the WRSFs for the LOM plan waste storage requirements.
 
The water management system consists of five major sections:  five leach pad cells, five process ponds (pregnant, barren, overflow, contingency, and neutralization), three water treatment plants, treated water discharge/spray system, and a lead detection/recapture system.
 
Electrical power is supplied by Black Hills Power via a 12.47kV transmission line that runs up Nevada Gulch.  This transmission line is shared by Terry Peak Ski Area, Spearfish Canyon, and residential customers.  There are two onsite generators to support operations in case of a power failure.
 
1.15
Markets and Contracts
 
1.15.1
Market Studies
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for the gold concentrate product from the Wharf Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for all of Coeur’s key products.  Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that Coeur’s key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
1.15.2
Commodity Pricing
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts. 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-12
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves:
 

 o
US$1,400/oz Au;
 
•
Mineral resources: 
 

 o
US$1,700/oz Au.
 
The economic analysis uses a reverting price curve, which results in a forecast range of US$1,750 for 2022 to US$1,600 for the last year of operations in 2029, and for the closure costs consolidated into 2030.
 
The QP considers the price forecasts to be reasonable.
 
1.15.3
Contracts
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise boring, ground support suppliers, and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
1.16
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
1.16.1
Environmental Studies and Monitoring
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for permitting.  Hydrogeological fate and transport modeling and baseline monitoring were also required for each groundwater discharge plan.  Statement of basis analyses were also required during each renewal of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface water discharge permits.
 
The Wharf Operations are materially in compliance with all current permit conditions and requirements and there are no outstanding material environmental issues.
 
1.16.2
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
Financial surety sufficient to reclaim the Wharf Operations mine and processing facilities is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The closure bond plan associated with reclamation and post closure surety was updated in 2020. The estimated asset retirement obligation for the project is approximately $47.6 M.
 
Financial surety for the Golden Reward area, sufficient to conduct monitoring and maintenance during a 30-year post closure period, is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The estimated asset retirement obligation for the project is approximately $0.61 M.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-13
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
1.16.3
Permitting
 
The Wharf Operations commenced in 1983 and have obtained all necessary environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies for the open pit mines, heap leach pads, and all necessary support facilities.  Operational standards and management best practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 
1.16.4
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur currently enjoys a positive relationship with local communities.  The entire workforce is local to the area and mining is a historically important activity in Lawrence County.  The Wharf Operations continue to support local businesses and Coeur considers it reasonable to expect local community support during permit actions or other activities involving the public.
 
1.17
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital project cost estimates in the budget year are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Costs remaining for the LOM are sustaining capital costs, and include technology-related purchases, support equipment, light vehicles, other general or administrative expenditure, and mine plan required short-range infill drilling.
 
Sustaining capital costs total approximately US$16.4 M, capitalized drilling costs are US$5.3 M, for an overall capital cost estimate for the LOM of approximately US$21.7 M (Table 1‑4).
 
1.18
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
Operating costs include allocations for:
 

 •
Mine:  material movement, property access, hauling, loading, dozing, drilling, blasting, roads and yards, and general operating costs (maintenance group and operations salary supervision staff);
 

 •
Process:  pad load, pad unload, crushing, leaching, process operating, denitrification, water treatment, neutralization and metallurgical administration;
 

 •
General and administrative:  laboratory, exploration, warehouse, safety, engineering, environmental, human resources, information technology, land, senior management overhead costs, salaries, travel, training, insurance, production tax and general costs.
 
The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$664 M (Table 1‑5).  The LOM mining cost is forecast at US$2.23/st mined, the process cost estimate is US$7.39/st crushed and the general and administrative (G&A) cost estimate is US$2.89/st crushed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-14
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑4:          LOM Sustaining Capital Cost Estimate
 
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Sustaining capital
1,392
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
—
—
16,392
Capitalized drilling
1,610
2,103
1,550
—
—
—
—
—
5,263
Total Capital
3,002
5,103
4,550
3,000
3,000
3,000
—
—
21,655
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 1‑5:          LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate
 
 
LOM Totals
(US$ x 1,000)
US$/st
Units
Mining
293,752
2.23
US $/st mined
Pad loading
34,426
0.96
US $/st crushed
Pad unloading
48,477
1.35
US $/st crushed
Crushing
83,849
2.33
US $/st crushed
Plant
99,538
2.76
US $/st crushed
Services 
104,164
2.89
US $/st crushed
LOM Total
664,207
    
Mining cost
  
2.23
US $/st mined
Process cost
  
10.29
US $/st crushed
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
1.19
Economic Analysis
 
1.19.1
Forward-Looking Information
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-15
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
1.19.2
Methodology and Assumptions
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model.  The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.  The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of eight years, with mining complete in 2029 and processing and gold production continuing to 2030.  Smelting and refining costs are defined by contract with Coeur’s primary refiner and customer.  Royalties included in the cashflow analysis are based on gold ounces mined or produced depending upon the agreement.  Net profits severance tax rates are 10%, royalty tax rates are 8%, and production taxes are US$8/oz Au sold.  Closure costs are estimated at US$47.6 M (Wharf Operations) and US$0.61 M (Golden Reward).  While the active mining operation ceases in 2029, closure costs are estimated to 2083.  For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2030 are included in the cash flow as occurring in 2030.
 
1.19.3
Economic Analysis
 
The Project’s NPV at 5% is US$274.2 M.  As the cashflow is based on existing operations, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.  A summary of the financial results is provided in Table 1‑6.
 
1.19.4
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, grade, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 30% above and below the base case values.  The NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 1‑7, with the base case bolded.  Recovery is not shown as the sensitivity to recovery mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
 
The Project is most sensitive to gold price, less sensitive to operating cost increases, and least sensitive to capital expenditure changes.  The primary sensitivity is to macroeconomic and other factors impacting gold pricing.  Coeur typically ensures that production from the Wharf Operations is sold in the year that the doré is produced.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-16
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑6:          Cashflow Summary Table
 
Item
Units
Value
Revenue
kUS$
1,145,120
Production costs
kUS$
738,310
Write downs
kUS$
3,471
Total costs and expenses
kUS$
741,782
EBITDA
kUS$
403,339
Amortization
kUS$
(60,130)
Accretion of liability
kUS$
(10,962)
Interest income
kUS$
(0)
Interest expense
kUS$
(1,031)
Income before taxes
kUS$
331,216
Income tax expense (benefit)
kUS$
36,827
Net income
kUS$
294,389
Add back amortization
kUS$
60,130
Add back accretion
kUS$
10,962
Operating cash flow before working capital changes
kUS$
365,481
Receivables trade
kUS$
(2)
Inventory variation
kUS$
19,961
Inventory - other
kUS$
(2,232)
Other current assets
kUS$
2,763
Tax payable
kUS$
163
Other liability items
kUS$
(13,548)
Operating cash flow
kUS$
372,587
Payments on capital leases
kUS$
(1,089)
AFE capital
kUS$
(18,947)
Total cash flow
kUS$
352,552
NPV @ 5%
kUS$
274,222
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-17
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 1‑7:          Sensitivity Table (US$ x 1,000)
 
Parameters
-30%
-20%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Metal price
(2,155)
89,971
182,097
228,159
274,222
320,285
366,348
458,473
550,599
Operating
costs
454,282
394,262
334,242
304,232
274,222
244,212
214,202
154,182
94,163
Capital
costs
278,963
277,383
275,802
275,012
274,222
273,432
272,642
271,061
269,482
Grade
(2,155)
89,971
182,097
228,159
274,222
320,285
366,348
458,473
550,599
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
1.20
Risks and Opportunities
 
1.20.1
Risks
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates are identified in Chapter 1.10 and Chapter 1.11.3 respectively and discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12.
 
Other risks noted include:
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 

 o
Unforeseen geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the ore body, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  There are sufficient management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks.  Designed pit slopes have been evaluated for stability in several geotechnical studies and are regularly evaluated by the engineering group at the mine.  The QP considers that sufficient controls are in place at the Wharf Operations to effectively manage geotechnical risk, and the risk of significant impact on the mineral reserve estimate is low;
 

 o
Water infiltration near the 5,960 ft elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging, and may affect the portion of the mine plan that is expected to reach the 5,900 ft elevation;
 
•
Coeur leases the majority of the earth-moving equipment used at the mine.  Relationships with local dealers average 15 years.  Current truck and loader fleet lease rates are under contract through 2024 with an option for a two-year extension.  A major change in pricing would affect operating cost and have an impact on the mineral reserve estimates and the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-18
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
•
The mineral reserve estimates are most sensitive to metal prices.  Coeur’s current strategy is to sell most of the metal production at spot prices, exposing the company to both positive and negative changes in the market, both of which are outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Wharf Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates.
 
1.20.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
•
Evaluation by third-party consultants suggested that the pit walls in the last stage of the pit could be steepened, potentially resulting in minor operating cost estimate savings.
 
1.21
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
1.22
Recommendations
 
As the Wharf Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 1-19
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
2.0
INTRODUCTION
 
2.1
Registrant
 
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Ms. Lindsay Chasten, RM SME, Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, and Mr. John Key, RM SME, prepared this technical report summary (the Report) for Coeur Mining, Inc. (Coeur), on the Wharf Gold Operations (the Wharf Operations or the Project), located in South Dakota, as shown in Figure 2‑1.
 
Coeur acquired the Wharf Operations in February 2015 from Goldcorp Inc. (Goldcorp).  The Wharf Operations are conducted by Coeur’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Wharf Resources (USA) Ltd. (Wharf Resources) and Golden Reward Mining Limited Partnership (Golden Reward LP).
 
2.2
Terms of Reference
 
2.2.1
Report Purpose
 
The Report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource estimates, for the Wharf Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported for the Portland Ridge open pit, which is exploiting the Wharf deposit.
 
2.2.2
Terms of Reference
 
The Wharf Operations consist of two contiguous property groups:
 
•
Wharf group:  northern and western sectors of the Project area;
 
•
Golden Reward group:  southern and eastern sectors of the Project area.
 
Mining commenced in 1982, and mining operations were conducted at the American Eagle, Green Mountain, Golden Reward, and Portland Ridgeline pits.  Currently, only the Portland Ridge open pit is active and is operated as a conventional truck and loader operation.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States (US) currency (US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.
 
Unless otherwise indicated, the US customary unit system is used in this report for mineral resources and mineral reserves and associated financials.
 
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Illustrations, where specified in SK1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested.
 
The Report uses US English.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 2‑1:        Project Location Plan
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2018.
 
2.3
Qualified Persons
 
The following Coeur or Wharf Resources employees serve as the Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Report:
 

 •
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Senior Director, Technical Services; Coeur
 

 •
Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Operations Manager; Wharf Resources
 

 •
Ms. Lindsay Chasten, RM SME, Senior Geologist; Wharf Resources
 

 •
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, Chief Geologist; Wharf Resources
 

 •
Mr. John Key, RM SME, Process Operations Manager; Wharf Resources
 
The QPs are responsible for, or co-responsible for, the Report Chapters set out in Table 2‑1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 2‑1:          QP Chapter Responsibilities
 
QP Name
Chapter Responsibility
Mr. Chris Pascoe
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22; 2; 3; 4; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22.1, 22.2, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18; 23; 24; 25.
Mr. Tony Auld
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22; 4; 7.3, 7.4; 12; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18; 22.1, 22.22.8, 22.9, 22.11, 22.12, 22.13, 22.14, 22.15, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Ms. Lindsay Chasten
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 5; 6; 7.1, 7.2; 8; 9; 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Mr. Kenan Sarratt
1.1, 1.2, 1.10, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 11; 22.1, 22.7, 22.17; 23; 24; 25
Mr. John Key
1.1, 1.2, 1.9, 1.13, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 10; 14; 18.1, 18.2, 18.3.3, 18.3.7; 22.1, 22.6, 22.10, 22.14, 22.15, 22.17; 23, 24, 25
 
2.4
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
 
Mr. Pascoe’s most recent site visit was December 6, 2021.  He had previously visited the site on several occasions from 2015 to 2021.  During the site visits he reviewed mine planning and the overall operations.
 
Mr. Auld has been employed at the Wharf Operations since 2001, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  During his time at Wharf, Tony has been involved in operations in the capacities of short/long-range planner, Chief Engineer, and Mine Manager.  In his current role he is responsible for the operations department and technical services.
 
Ms. Chasten has been employed at the Wharf Operations since 2010, and this onsite experience serves as her scope of personal inspection.  Lindsay is responsible for and familiar with, the reverse circulation (RC) drilling and sampling that supports the resource estimate, database management and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), site geology, and construction of the deposit geologic model.
 
Mr. Sarratt has been employed at the Wharf Operations since 2006, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  Kenan is familiar with and has inspected site geology, exploration activities, drilling activities, and supervised the geological model and resource estimate.
 
Mr. Key has been employed at the Wharf Operations since 2015, and this onsite experience serves as his scope of personal inspection.  During his time at Wharf, John has been involved in operations in his role as Process Operations Manager.  In this role he is responsible for assay laboratory, metallurgical laboratory, crushing, leaching and adsorption, desorption and recovery (ADR) plant operations, as well as metals accounting and reporting.
 
2.5
Report Date
 
Information in the Report is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
2.6
Information Sources and References
 
The reports and documents listed in Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 of this Report were used to support Report preparation.
 
2.7
Previous Technical Report Summaries
 
Coeur has not previously filed a technical report summary on the Project.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 2-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.0
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
 
3.1
Property Location
 
The Wharf Operations are in the northern Black Hills of western South Dakota, approximately 9 miles south of Interstate 90 near Spearfish, South Dakota and approximately 3.5 miles south and west of the city of Lead, South Dakota.
 
The centroid for the Project is 44°20’03”N Latitude, 103°50’06”W Longitude.
 
The Wharf property group centroid is 44°20’39”N Latitude, 103°51’02”W Longitude.
 
The Golden Reward property group centroid is 44°19’51”N Latitude, 103°48’46”W Longitude.
 
3.2
Ownership
 
Coeur wholly owns the Wharf Operations.
 
3.3
Mineral Title
 
3.3.1
Tenure Holdings
 
The Wharf Operations are situated within the following sections of land, located within the Black Hills Meridian, Lawrence County, South Dakota:
 
•
Township 04 North, Range 02 East: Sections 01, 02, 03, 04, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24;
 
•
Township 04 North, Range 03 East: Sections 06, 07, 08, 17, 18, 19, and 20;
 
•
Township 05 North, Range 02 East: Sections 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36;
 
•
Township 05 North, Range 03 East: 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 32.
 
The Wharf property group consists of 362 patented lode claims, 35 government lots, 133 subdivided lots, and 59 federal unpatented lode claims (Table 3‑1).  The Golden Reward property group encompasses 196 patented lode claims, 14 government lots, 19 subdivided lots, and 34 federal unpatented lode claims (Table 3‑2).  An overall tenure location plan is included as Figure 3‑1.
 
Claim details are provided in Appendix A.
 
3.3.2
Tenure Maintenance Requirements
 
The patented lands are private land and not subject to federal claim maintenance requirements.  However, as private land, they are subject to ad valorem property taxes assessed by Lawrence County, South Dakota, which may be paid semi-annually by April 30 and October 3 each year.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑1:          Title Summary Table, Wharf Group
 
Title
Title Type
Area and Comment
Patented lands
Surface estate
Approximately 3,599 net acres
Mineral estate *
Approximately 652 net mineral acres
Non-Precambrian mineral estate #
Approximately 3,243 net mineral acres
Precambrian mineral estate
Approximately 1,603 net mineral acres
Federal unpatented lands
Federal unpatented lode claims
Approximately 287 net acres of federal public land appropriated
 
Notes:  * Includes only lands where both the Precambrian and younger formations are owned or controlled. # Less and except all the Precambrian formation.  The Precambrian mineral estate is defined in Chapter 3.7.2.
 
Table 3‑2:          Title Summary Table, Golden Reward Group
 
Title
Title Type
Area and Comment
Patented lands
Surface estate
Approximately 1,355 net acres
Mineral estate *
Approximately 2,987 net mineral acres
Non-Precambrian mineral estate #
Approximately 357 net mineral acres
Precambrian mineral estate
Approximately 153 net mineral acres
Federal unpatented lands
Federal unpatented lode claims
Appropriating approximately 25 net acres of federal public land
 
Notes:  * Includes only lands where both the Precambrian and younger formations are owned or controlled. # Less and except all the Precambrian formation.  The Precambrian mineral estate is defined in Chapter 3.7.2.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑1:        Mineral Tenure Location Plan
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Ad valorem taxes are paid in arrears in South Dakota.  As at the Report date, all required payments had been made.
 
The federal unpatented lode claims are maintained by the timely annual payment of claim maintenance fees, which are presently $165 per claim, payable to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management on or before September 1 each year.  Should the annual claim maintenance fee not be paid by or before then, the unpatented lode claim(s) are, by operation of law, rendered forfeited.  As at the Report date, all required payments had been made.
 
3.4
Property Agreements
 
3.4.1
Black Hills Chair Lift Company 2010 Agreement
 
The locations of the properties subject to agreements with Black Hills Chair Lift Company are shown in Figure 3‑2.
 
Effective December 1, 2010, Wharf Resources entered into an agreement with Black Hills Chair Lift Company, as amended, concerning mutual obligations to benefit expansion of the Wharf and Golden Reward mine operations into a new permit area and operation of the Terry Peak Ski Area (2010 Agreement).
 
Under the terms of the 2010 Agreement, Wharf Resources agreed to cooperate “to minimize interference with the Terry Peak Ski Area ski season by only conducting mining activities between April 15 and Thanksgiving of each calendar year, unless other dates are agreed upon by the parties.”
 
The 2010 Agreement generally provides that the Black Hills Chair Lift Company will support and assist Wharf Resources in obtaining permits and authorizations for the expanded mine operations and will provide consent and access on lands it owns for Wharf Operations mining activities in exchange for financial support, conveyance of specified parcels, water use, and other consideration, which are set forth under five distinct phases.  Two are complete, and the three that are not complete are described below.
 
The 2010 Agreement Phase 1 envisaged that mining at Golden Reward would be completed and the site reclaimed between 2017 and 2019.  Reclamation has since been completed at Golden Reward.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑2:        Property Agreements Location Plan
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The remaining 2010 Agreement phases include:
 
•
2010 Agreement Phase 4:  After the completion of mining and reclamation in the Golden Reward Mine expansion area, Wharf Resources is required to pay the Black Hills Chair Lift Company a total of $2,250,000, which will cover a chair lift run extension, conveyance of a parking lot, gravelling a new carpark, and conveyance of 100 acres for new ski trails, extended ski runs, and a new lift area.  This obligation is not expected to be incurred until reclamation at the Golden Reward mining area is completed, which is currently projected at 2024.
 
•
2010 Agreement Phase 5:  Wharf Resources is to pay the Black Hills Chair Lift Company $1,000,000 after completion of mining in the "new permit area," which may only be applied towards construction costs of a new ski lodge, provided that Wharf Resources is not required to make this payment "if mining ceases in the new permit area due to lack of profitability, resulting in the execution of less than 90% of the original mine plan in the new permit area. This lack of profitability could be caused by low gold prices, high operating costs, incorrect geological models, or any combination of all three factors."  The Phase 5 obligation is not expected to be fulfilled until 2024, and upon the condition that 90% of the mineral reserves have been mined.
 
3.4.2
Black Hills Chair Lift Company 2011 Agreement
 
Under the 2010 Agreement, Wharf Resources and the Black Hills Chair Lift Company entered into a Lease Agreement dated effective November 1, 2011, concerning Lots 6, 7, and 8 in Block 2, Lost Camp Tract B (the Lease), replacing a prior ground lease between Golden Reward, as landlord, and Terry Peak Snowmaking Co. LLC, as tenant.
 
There is no rent due to Wharf Resources under the terms of the Lease.  The Lease commenced on November 1, 2011 with a termination date set for April 15, 2012; however, the Lease further provides that it “shall automatically renew for the same term on November 1 of each year, unless either gives to the other party thirty 30 days’ written notice of non-renewal.”
 
The Black Hills Chair Lift Company is required to indemnify and hold Wharf Resources harmless from all penalties, claims, demands, liabilities, expenses, and losses of whatever nature, arising from the Black Hills Chair Lift Company’s use of the properties, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Wharf Resources for any litigation, or threatened litigation, which arises out of the Black Hills Chair Lift Company’s use of the properties.
 
3.4.3
Black Hills Chair Lift Company Stock Purchase Agreement and Option
 
On September 9, 1987, Golden Reward purchased 800 shares of common stock in the Black Hills Chair Lift Company.
 
Section 4.7 grants Black Hills Chairlift Company the option to purchase lands within a 500-yard radius of the lower terminus of the Red Chair Lift when mining and reclamation of the lands have been completed.  This includes 12 patented lode claims and one government lot.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.4.4
Timber Cutting Agreements
 
In November 2013, both Wharf Resources and Golden Reward entered into Timber Cutting Agreements with Neiman Timber Co., L.C. encumbering many patented claims and subdivided lots located outside of the mine corridor.
 
The Timber Cutting Agreements provide a revenue source, reduce the real property taxes, and ensure sustainable timber management.  The term of both Timber Cutting Agreements was 10 years to 2023.  The agreements are renewable by mutual agreement of the parties.
 
3.5
Surface Rights
 
Surface rights are a combination of patented lode claims, federal unpatented lode claims, government lots and fee property.
 
No additional rights are needed to support the life-of-mine (LOM) plan presented in this Report.
 
3.6
Water Rights
 
Potable water is supplied to the Wharf Operations by wells.  Coeur owns multiple groundwater and surface water rights sufficient to support ongoing operations.
 
No additional water rights are anticipated to be required for LOM operations.
 
3.7
Royalties
 
A location map showing the locations of claims subject to royalties is provided in Figure 3‑3.
 
3.7.1
Dykes, Jumper and Handley Mineral Lease and Royalty
 
A Mineral Lease, as amended, covering the mineral estate of 34 patented lode claims, comprising approximately 291.1 acres, is leased from John R. Dykes, Arlen Jumper, and the estate of Thomas Handley (SunTrust Bank, Trustee).  The location of the properties under this agreement are shown in Figure 3‑2.
 
The corresponding surface estate of these patented lode claims is owned by Wharf Resources.
 
The term of the Mineral Lease was 10 years from July 18, 1979, but the term was automatically continued for so long thereafter as the Wharf Resources was actively engaged in exploring, developing or mining the leased premises or was in the actual process of developing a producing mine.
 
During the term of the Mineral Lease, the lessors were also entitled to a royalty on production, if any, of 3% of the net smelter returns (NSR) of all silver and gold ores, together with other ores and minerals.  In addition, there is an advance minimum royalty due the lessors of $5,000 per year unless and until Wharf Resources identifies and publishes a reserve encompassing the leased premises, at which point the advance minimum royalty increases to $25,000 per year.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑3:        Claims Subject To Royalties
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-8
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.7.2
Carlson Royalty
 
Under a June 8, 1999 Minerals Royalty Deed, Wharf Resources conveyed to Alvin R. Carlson a non-participating production royalty of 2% on gold produced from ores mined and delivered to the heap leach pads, from an undivided ⅛ interest in the minerals, including the Precambrian Mineral Estate (see below for definition), within and beneath the following parcels:  Lots 1, 2 and 4, Block 5 of Plat #2 Bald Mountain Mining Company, Town of Trojan, forming portions of USMS #1226 and USMS #2027, and comprising 2.4 acres.
 
The Precambrian Mineral Estate includes the area beneath the “Precambrian Surface” which is defined as the Precambrian Surface at any point in the Properties means: (i) where the Cambrian formations overlie the Precambrian formations, that the point of separation marked by the erosional disconformity between early Proterozoic metasediments and the younger overlying sedimentary rocks of Cambrian or younger age and (ii) where Cambrian or younger formations do not overlie Precambrian formations, the surface of the ground."
 
3.7.3
Homestake Mining Company of California Royalty
 
Under an April 18, 1986 Quitclaim Deed from Wharf Resources to Homestake Mining Company of California (Homestake), Wharf Resources granted Homestake a sliding scale production royalty (Table 3‑3) on the gross value of all gold in saleable form on the mineral estate, including the Precambrian Mineral Estate, of those certain lands owned by Dykes, Jumper and Handley, and leased to Wharf Resources, together with 11 unpatented lode claims.
 
The severance tax paid to the State of South Dakota on the gross value of production is the only allowable deduction to this royalty.
 
Under a March 15, 1988 Deed, as amended, from Homestake to Golden Reward, Homestake reserved a 5% NSR royalty on production from materials younger than the Precambrian age within the Bonanza (USMS #516), Plutus (USMS #517A), Buxton (USMS #518), Cheetor (USMS #519), Clarinda (USMS #520), and Clarinda Extension (USMS #1097) patented lode claims, which comprise 50.3 acres, and are located within the Golden Reward Group.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-9
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑3:          Homestake Royalty
 
Percentage of
Gross Value
(%)
Monthly Average London PM
Gold Fix
($ per ounce)
0
<350
0.5
350–399
1.0
400–499
2.0
>500
 
3.7.4
Krejci and Kane Royalty
 
Under a February 18, 1986 Offer and Agreement to Purchase, Wharf Resources, as buyer, agreed to pay Frank Krejci, Rosina G. Krejci, and Rita J. Kane, as sellers, a contractual, non-participating production royalty of 4%, on any and all minerals, including those from the Precambrian Mineral Estate, from the following undivided interests, in the following four patented lode claims:  100% for the Paddy Ford (USMS #1581), 50% for the Hidden Ore (USMS #1229), and 16.67% for the Saxon and Delancy (USMS #1229).  These patented lode claims comprise 33.29 acres.  Under the terms of the Offer and Agreement to Purchase, this non-participating production royalty is capped at, and therefore limited to, $100,000.
 
3.7.5
Kunz Royalty
 
Under a December 31, 1990 Contract for Deed, James A. Kunz and Marjorie L. Kunz reserved a 5% production royalty on all gold recovered from two patented lode claims, the Wm. B. Allison and Summit Flat (USMS #1516), which encompass 28.07 acres.  This production royalty also encumbers the Precambrian Mineral Estate.
 
3.7.6
Mountain View Heights, Inc. Royalty
 
Under a January 19, 2011 Warranty Deed, Mountain View Heights, Inc. retained a production royalty of 1.5% on gold produced from the 5.46-acre Dark Horse (USMS #866) patented lode claim.  This production royalty also encumbers the Precambrian Mineral Estate.
 
3.7.7
Royal Gold, Inc. Royalty
 
Under five December 21, 1988 Quitclaim Deeds, one February 1, 1989 Quitclaim Deed, and two agreements dated November 1, 1994 and September 1, 1996, Royal Gold, Inc., the successor in interest to Homestake, holds a sliding scale production royalty on the gross value of all gold in saleable form (Table 3‑4).  This royalty encumbers most of the lands comprising the Wharf Group, together with a small portion of the lands encompassing the Golden Reward Group, and wholly excludes the Precambrian Mineral Estate (Figure 3‑4).
 
The severance tax paid to the State of South Dakota on the gross value of production is the only allowable deduction to this royalty.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-10
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 3‑4:          Royal Gold Royalty
 
Percentage of
Gross Value
(%)
Monthly Average London PM
Gold Fix
($ per ounce)
0
<350
0.5
350–399
1.0
400–499
2.0
>500
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-11
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑4:        Claims Subject to Royal Gold Royalty
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-12
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.7.8
Thompson Revocable Trust Royalty
 
Under a February 9, 1982 Deed, the predecessors in interests to the Thomas F. Thompson and Charlotte J. Thompson Revocable Trust, dated September 18, 2001 reserved a perpetual, non-participating 3% NSR royalty from all ores and minerals produce, sold, and saved from the 6.1 acre Clinton (USMS #956) patented lode claim.
 
3.7.9
Valentine Royalty
 
Under two September 27, 1974 Minerals Royalty Deeds, as amended, Wharf Resources’ predecessor in interest, Bald Mountain Mining Company, conveyed to Donald D. Valentine, et al. a 3% nonparticipating royalty on gold that is produced from ores mined and delivered to heap leach pads or recovered from tailings.  This royalty encumbers the mineral estate, including the Precambrian Mineral Estate, of much of the lands comprising the Wharf Group (Figure 3‑5).
 
Wharf Resources holds a right of first refusal to purchase this royalty, a portion of which was repurchased in 2020.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-13
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 3‑5:        Claims Subject to Valentine Royalty
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-14
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.7.10
White House Congress, Inc. Royalty
 
Under two June 1, 1976 conveyances from White House Congress, Inc. (White House) to Wharf Resources’ predecessor in interest, Homestake Mining Company, White House reserved a 5% gross production royalty of the recovered value of any metals or minerals produced from the ores extracted from 27 patented lode mining claims, which comprise 318.3 acres.  Proceeds from this gross production royalty, pursuant to the conveyances’ reservations, are capped at $200.00 per acre.
 
3.8
Encumbrances
 
3.8.1
Credit Agreement
 
Under a September 29, 2017 Credit Agreement by and between Coeur Mining, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Coeur Mining, Inc. (including Wharf Resources), and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent (as amended, the Credit Agreement), a Mortgage, Assignment of Production, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, Financing Statement, and Fixture Filing (the Instrument), was executed by Wharf Resources, Wharf Rewards Mines Inc., Wharf Gold Mines Inc., Golden Reward, and Wharf Resources Management Inc., as mortgagors and Bank of America, N.A., as beneficiary and mortgagee.  Under the terms of the Instrument, a lien was placed upon the legal and beneficial title in and to the lands comprising the Wharf Property, securing a loan under the Credit Agreement, in an aggregate principal amount of up to $300,000,000.  The Credit Agreement matures in March 2025.
 
3.8.2
Permitting Requirements
 
The Wharf Operations are fully permitted (see also discussion in Chapter 17.4).
 
3.8.3
Permitting Timelines
 
There are no relevant permitting timelines that apply to the Wharf Operations; the operations as envisaged in the LOM plan are fully permitted.
 
3.8.4
Violations and Fines
 
There are no major violations or fines as understood in the United States mining regulatory context that have been reported for the Wharf Operations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-15
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
3.9
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
 
To the extent known to the QP, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Wharf Operations that are not discussed in this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 3-16
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
4.0
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
 
4.1
Physiography
 
The Wharf Operations are in the Black Hills, a small mountain range that is predominantly located in western South Dakota and extends westward into Wyoming.  The Black Hills uplift is the easternmost part of the Rocky Mountains, and as an isolated range, is surrounded by the northern Great Plains.  Elevations above sea level range from approximately 3,500–7,242 ft, with the highest elevation at Black Elk Peak.  South of, and adjacent to, the mine is Terry Peak at 7,064 ft.  The Terry Peak Ski Area is on Terry Peak and used during winters.
 
Within the existing mine permit boundary, the highest elevation is 6,630 ft at Foley Ridge; the lowest is 5,630 ft in the northernmost drainage.  The Wharf Operations lie in an area of moderately steep terrain.
 
The area is primarily forested with ponderosa pine, and to a lesser extent, Black Hills spruce.
 
The general area is cut by two principal drainages, Cleopatra Creek, which drains to the north, and Annie Creek, which drains to the southwest.  However, there are no live streams in any of the permit areas.
 
4.2
Accessibility
 
The town of Lead, South Dakota, is approximately 61 miles from Rapid City, South Dakota, the second-largest city in the state.  Access between Rapid city and Lead is by way of a major Interstate highway (I-90) and local rural highways.  Rapid City is serviced by an all-weather airport.
 
Access to the operations from Lead is by Nevada Gulch Road, a paved road, which is followed for 4.6 miles to the Wharf Mine Road, an all-weather gravel road, which is followed for 2.1 miles to the mine office.
 
4.3
Climate
 
The climate in the Wharf Operations area is classified as cold and semi-arid.
 
Average annual precipitation at the Wharf Operations is 30.5 inches, and the average annual snowfall is 199 inches.  Between 1990–2014, annual precipitation at the mine ranged from 14.64–41.29 inches.
 
Average temperatures range from a high of 71°F to a low of 16°F.
 
Mining operations are conducted year-round.
 
4.4
Infrastructure
 
The town of Lead provides most of the services required to support the Wharf Operations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The Wharf Operations have a well-developed mine infrastructure and a local workforce with extensive experience in mining operations.
 
Electrical power is supplied by Black Hills Power via a 12.47kV transmission line that runs on rights-of-way granted to Black Hills Power.  Three diesel generators provide backup power sufficient to supply all plant, process, and administrative operations in the event of a grid power failure.  Montana Dakota Utilities provides natural gas to the site via buried pipelines.
 
Water is sourced from four small production wells located onsite; however, much of the makeup water required for processing and plant operations is garnered from meteoric water captured within the lined pad/pond system.
 
The Wharf Operations currently have all infrastructure in place to support mining and processing activities (see also discussions in Chapter 13, Chapter 14, and Chapter 15 of this Report).  These Report Chapters also discuss water sources, electricity, personnel, and supplies.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 4-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
5.0
HISTORY
 
5.1
Wharf
 
Gold was discovered in the Black Hills during the 1874 reconnaissance by the Custer expedition.  The first lode claims, on what became the Homestake property, were located in 1875, and fossil placer deposits in basal conglomerate of the Deadwood Formation were found at about the same time (Luoma and Lowe, 2010).  The original discovery at Bald Mountain was by A.J. Smith in 1877.  In 1877, following discoveries of alluvial gold in the Black Hills, the first claims were staked over the Wharf Mine.  Underground production was recorded along high-angle structures between 1901 and 1959.
 
Between 1911 and 1928, claims were consolidated under the Bald Mountain Mining Company and the Golden Reward Consolidated Mining and Milling Company.
 
From April 1974 onward, exploration companies began to consolidate the Annie Creek district.  On October 31, 1974, the Bald Mountain 50/50 Partnership was formed between Homestake Mining Company (Homestake as manager) and Taiga Gold Inc. (Taiga Gold).
 
Wharf Ltd. drilled 91 holes in 1979 and 1980; permitted the Annie Creek mine for production in 1982; and began construction with first production in 1983, when another 32 holes were drilled.  Full-scale production was achieved by May 1984 at Annie Creek.  The Wharf Resources Partnership was formed in 1984 through the merger of Wharf Ltd and Wharf USA Inc.
 
Mining at the current location commenced in 1983 and surface mine operations included (Figure 5‑1):
 
•
Twelve open pits:  Annie Creek, Juno, Foley, Portland, West Portland, Deep Portland, Trojan, Green Mountain, Bald Mountain, Flossie and American Eagle;
 
•
An ore processing area:  a crusher, five heap leach pads, a leachate processing plant, three water treatment facilities, seven lined process ponds and associated piping, and lined ditches;
 
•
Three spent ore depositories:  Ross Valley, American Eagle, and Juno/Foley, which includes the lined 33-Vertical, North Foley, and Polo depositories;
 
•
Three waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs):  Reliance, Trojan, and Cleopatra Creek;
 
•
Access and haul roads;
 
•
Historical (relic) mine tailings.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 5‑1:        Location Plan, Historical Open Pits
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
5.2
Golden Reward
 
The Golden Reward Mining and Milling Company was formed in 1897 by the consolidation of the Golden Reward Gold Mining Company and the Deadwood and Delaware Smelting Company. Operation of the mine and mill ceased in 1918 with little exploration activity (Naething 1938).
 
The Anaconda Company purchased the holdings of the Golden Reward Mining and Milling Company in 1940 and held them until 1985.  After many mergers, MinVen purchased a 100% interest and promptly sold a 60% interest to Wharf Resources.  The Golden Reward Mining Limited Partnership was formed in 1992, consisting of subsidiaries of both MinVen and Wharf Resources. Wharf Resources assumed management responsibility of the limited partnership in 1992.
 
The Golden Reward mining area was closed in 2009 and placed into Post Closure Status with the state of South Dakota Closure monitoring and maintenance are conducted in accordance with the Golden Reward Post Closure Plan and Financial Assurance document.  A portion of the West side of Golden Reward was re-opened in 2012 with State Permit #476.  Coeur subsequently mined the Golden Reward area from July 2014 through October 2017.  Zones exploited included the Harmony and Liberty orebodies.
 
A summary of the recent exploration and development activities for Wharf and Golden Reward is provided in Table 5‑1.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 5‑1:          Exploration and Development History Summary Table
 
Year
Operator
Comment
1974
Taiga Gold
Property acquisition
Taiga Gold and
Homestake
Joint venture formed
Taiga Gold
Granted options to purchase Homestake's 50% interest in its remaining Bald Mountain properties.  Taiga Gold purchased Homestake’s interest in the joint venture to add the Foley Ridge and adjacent deposits
1977
Goldex Holdings, Inc.
Company formed, subsequently renamed to Wharf Resources
1982
Wharf Resources
Acquired Taiga Gold
Awarded mining permit for Annie Creek open pit
1985
Foley Ridge and Annie Arm mining permits were approved, which extended the original Annie Creek pit
1987
Dickenson Mines Limited (Dickenson)
Acquired the majority shareholding in Wharf Resources
1994
Goldcorp Inc. (Goldcorp)
Became the continuing corporation following the amalgamation of Goldcorp, Dickenson Goldquest Exploration Inc. and CSA Management Limited.
Geophysical survey was flown covering both the Wharf and Golden Reward properties.
1996
Announced a takeover bid for the 49.7% stake in Wharf Resources that it did not already own; Wharf Resources becomes a Goldcorp subsidiary
1998
Clinton mining permit was approved
2012
Mining permit approved to expand mining into Green Mountain
2015
Coeur Mining, Inc.
Acquires Wharf Resources from Goldcorp.
2015–2021
Annual expansion and infill drilling.  Updated Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 5-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
6.0
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
 
6.1
Deposit Type
 
The deposits in the Wharf Operations area are considered to be examples of structurally controlled and disseminated gold mineralization.  The Wharf deposit has been described as a hydrothermal replacement deposit, (Lessard and Loomis, 1990) a Carlin-type deposit (Paterson, 1990), and more recently as a low- to intermediate-sulfidation epithermal deposit. (Pedraza Rojas, 2017).
 
Host rocks to epithermal deposits are dominantly silty carbonates, but mineralization can also be present in siliceous and silicified rocks as well as intrusive rocks.  Low- to intermediate-sulfidation epithermal deposits commonly exhibit significant structural (faults) and stratigraphic (composition/permeability) controls.  Mineralization often consists of extremely fine-grained disseminated gold, hosted primarily by arsenian pyrite.
 
Wharf differs from this standard model in that host rocks are dominantly sandstone with varying carbonate content and trachytic porphyry, and mineralization consists of native gold and electrum and remobilized gold in addition to early-stage gold-bearing sulfides.
 
6.2
Regional Geology
 
The Black Hills are located at the junction of several major terranes that have been the locus of repeated rifting and collisional events (Redden et al., 1990; Dahl et al., 2005; Dahl et al., 2006).  The Black Hills are in the Wyoming boundary zone, on the eastern edge of the Wyoming craton (McCormick, 2008).  A complex deformational history is preserved in the Laramide age Black Hills uplift which exposes Archean through Oligocene rocks (Figure 6‑1).
 
Laramide-age uplift of the Black Hills was accommodated along north and northwest-trending monoclines over deeper thrust faults (Lisenbee and DeWitt, 1993), forming an asymmetrical dome that is exposed over an area 120 miles in length and 60 miles in width.  Regional uplift, doming, and subsequent erosion exposed older, underlying Precambrian rocks in “windows” through the younger, overlying Phanerozoic rocks.
 
Contemporaneous Tertiary alkalic magmatic intrusive centers occur along a west–northwest-trending belt across the northern Black Hills (Harris and Paterson, 1996), possibly controlled by a deep crustal structure.  The extension of this trend to the west–northwest also parallels several major faults and lineaments (Duke, 2005).
 
Igneous intrusions are exposed from Devil’s Tower and the Missouri Buttes in Wyoming, through the Wharf mine area to Bear Butte near Sturgis, South Dakota, almost 70 miles along strike.  Intrusive rocks in the belt are primarily alkalic in composition.  Magmatic centers include a cluster around the Lead–Deadwood dome and the Cutting Stock (Lisenbee, 1981); this cluster has also been described as one major center and the entire intrusive dome as an associated zone of Tertiary-age mineralization (Shapiro and Gries, 1970).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑1:        Regional Geology Map
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Compositions of igneous bodies in the dome area include rhyolite, alkali rhyolite, trachyte, quartz trachyte, and phonolite, as well as intrusive breccias.
 
6.3
Local Geology
 
6.3.1
Lithologies
 
The Lead–Deadwood dome, a northwest-oriented structure about 5.5 miles long and 3.5 miles wide, exposes a Precambrian core of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, flanked by numerous Tertiary porphyritic intrusions and intrusive breccias.  The core is ringed outwards by sedimentary rocks including the Cambrian–Ordovician Deadwood Formation and Mississippian Pahasapa Limestone, which have both been mineralized at different locations.  Intrusive rocks, primarily sills, inflate the sedimentary section, and dikes and stocks intrude the Precambrian rocks.
 
A Project geology map is provided in Figure 6‑2.  Table 6‑1 is a summary of the sedimentary geology in the Project area and Figure 6‑3 is a stratigraphic column showing the sedimentary succession.  Table 6‑2 summarizes the intrusive lithologies.
 
6.3.2
Structure
 
The Precambrian basement fabric is oriented dominantly north–south in the local area, with the orientation shifting to the north–northwest to the east of the mine area.  Multiple Paleoproterozoic deformation and metamorphic events from the complex tectonic history of the Black Hills are recorded in the tightly to isoclinally folded and sheared Precambrian rocks.
 
The dominant forms of igneous intrusion are sills and laccoliths that commonly intrude at the level of the Deadwood Formation (Lisenbee, 1981).  The Cutting Stock, consisting of intrusions with various compositions, is exposed near the center of the Lead-Deadwood dome.  The Cutting Stock displays an uneven contact, due to numerous dikes intruding along north to northwest-striking foliation planes in the Precambrian rock (Lisenbee et al., 1981).  Intrusions can locally change geometry, an example being a dike swarm within the nearby Homestake open pit, where dikes intruded between Precambrian foliation planes form sills within the lower Deadwood Formation.
 
6.3.3
Alteration
 
The local area exhibits widespread regional potassic alteration.  Altered and mineralized rocks at Foley were relatively enriched in silica and potassium and contained lower sodium than their unaltered quartz alkali trachyte counterparts, and some phenocrysts were altered to sericite and clay (Harris and Paterson, 1996).
 
Argillization and subsequent brecciation along strongly mineralized fractures were observed (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  Within intrusive rocks, alkali rhyolite alteration with clay or zeolite replacement of alkali feldspars were observed (Harris and Paterson, 1996), following oxidation of disseminated pyrite within porphyry (Emanuel and Walsh, 1987).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑2:        Project Geology Plan
 
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 6‑1:          Stratigraphic Table, Sedimentary Lithologies
 
Age
Unit
Comment
Mississippian
Pahasapa Limestone
Limestone and dolostone
Devonian
Englewood Formation
Argillaceous limestone
Ordovician
Whitewood Formation
Dolomite and sandy dolomite
Winnipeg Formation
Icebox Shale, a gray to green or red shale
Cambrian–Ordovician
Deadwood Formation
Near-shore sequence of sandstones, siltstones, intraformational conglomerate, and shales with varying carbonate content. Shale units within the Deadwood Formation are mostly unmineralized, with sandier units acting as the main mineralization host.
Upper unit: sandstone, glauconitic sandstone, interbedded sandstone/siltstone/shale/limestone
Calcareous gray shale, interbedded sandstone/siltstone/shale/limestone
Sandstone, interbedded sandstone/siltstone/shale/limestone
Precambrian
Flag Rock and Ellison Formations
Quartzite, biotite/muscovite phyllite and schist, graphitic phyllite, iron formation, meta-tuffs, and other metavolcanic rocks
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 6‑2:          Intrusive Lithologies
 
Intrusive Type
Description
Observation
Phonolite
Green-gray porphyritic rock with few phenocrysts of sanidine and pyroxene
Post-mineralization. Forms a sill on top of Green Mountain, and forms multiple narrow, clay-altered dikes in the Wharf pits
Alkali rhyolite
Typically altered and partially mineralized granular potassium feldspar and quartz with trace aegirine needles
Occurs as a sill in the former Foley pit, as dikes and thin sills in the overlying Winnipeg Formation, more volumetrically significant south of the mine
Quartz alkali trachyte
Phenocrysts are sanidine and albite, with rare pyroxene, and some replacement of phenocrysts by Fe oxides or carbonate; quartz is present as a minor phenocryst phase
Most common rock type at Annie Creek
Trachyte
Potassium feldspar is typically the only phenocryst visible in hand samples of the currently mined sills. Trachyte at Annie Creek contains anorthoclase, aegirine/augite, hauyne, plagioclase, apatite, titanite, and calcite.
Biotite phenocrysts are observed in rock chips in small (10–20 ft) intervals of trachyte in drill holes at Wharf.
Most mineralized and volumetrically significant igneous rock type in the present Wharf Operation
Breccia
Heterolithic clast-supported to crackle breccia, intrusive igneous breccia to hydrothermal breccia, matrix composed of variable proportions of silica, rock flour, iron oxides, and fluorite.
Mineralized to unmineralized
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑3:        Stratigraphic Column
 

Note: Figure prepared by Coeur (2015) and modified after Loomis and Alexander (1990).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
At the Annie Creek portion of the mine, weak propylitic alteration was suggested by the presence of secondary chlorite (Giebink and Paterson, 1986b).  Chlorite and epidote were observed as veins in trachyte, and sericite and chlorite formed replacements in rhyolite (Emanuel et al. 1990).  Limited early propylitic alteration was interpreted from epidote and chlorite replacement of feldspar within porphyry, and replacement of carbonate within calcareous sedimentary rocks (Emanuel et al., 1987).  Propylitic alteration predated silicification and was cross-cut by pyrite and fluorite veinlets.
 
A study of the eastern side of the deposit in the Bald Mountain and Golden Reward areas (Pedraza Rojas, 2017) identified stages of mineralization and alteration:
 
•
Fenitization of intrusion;
 
•
Hydrothermal replacement of orthoclase with albite, adularia, and quartz, and calcite precipitation along fractures and minor sulfide mineralization with some possible tellurides and electrum, coincident with shallower phyllic alteration;
 
•
Argillic alteration, acid leaching, and breccia formation;
 
•
Carbonate alteration, fluorite, pyrite, and base metal sulfide mineralization, and ore deposits of Au, tellurides, and electrum;
 
•
Supergene alteration with some gold remobilization.
 
6.3.4
Mineralization
 
Mineralization was strongly structurally controlled, and high-angle structures fed mineralized zones. Mineralization at the Foley Ridge portion of the mine occurred in zones up to 100 ft from structures, or in manto-like deposits where structures were pervasive (Paterson and Giebink, 1989; Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  Manto-like replacement mineralization was noted in some of the sandstone units of the Deadwood Formation intersected by multiple silicified structures (Emanuel and Walsh, 1987).  Mineralization within the trachyte sill at Foley Ridge occurred in areas of fracturing, and was especially strong where fracturing was intense, particularly around structural highs and dikes (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).
 
The main host rock for high-grade mineralization is the sandstone and dolomitic zones of the lower member of the Deadwood Formation.  High-grade mineralization and extensive manto-like mineralization formed in this horizon where the Deadwood Formation was highly permeable, had a high carbonate component or cement, or was nearest to the fractures carrying mineralizing fluids from the less-permeable Precambrian units (Paterson and Giebink, 1989).
 
In the upper Deadwood Formation, rocks with original high carbonate and low quartz content are better mineralized (Giebink and Paterson, 1986a).  Although impermeable horizons such as thick sills and Deadwood Formation shales typically formed barriers to fluid and thus are generally not mineralized, in some areas they were exposed to early silicification and subsequent fracturing. With sufficient ground preparation, sills and shales were mineralized (Emanuel and Walsh, 1987).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-8
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Igneous bodies make up the bulk of the mineralized material at Wharf.  Historically mined sills of quartz alkali trachyte were well mineralized at Foley (e.g., Harris, 1991; Harris and Paterson, 1996).  Zones of pervasive mineralization occur in trachytic porphyry present in active pits.
 
Smaller intrusive bodies of different compositions are locally mineralized.  Mineralization occurs near dikes, sills, and in fracture and breccia zones (Emanuel and Walsh, 1987).  Narrow biotite-bearing porphyritic dikes and sills are also mineralized.  However, the late phonolite Is not known to be mineralized.
 
Gangue minerals associated with mineralization included quartz, fluorite, sericite, calcite/dolomite, barite, and clays (Emanuel and Walsh, 1987; Emanuel et al., 1990). Hydrothermal quartz found with mineralization at Foley Ridge formed small veinlets to large, up to 1 ft wide, drusy quartz-lined open fractures (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).
 
Fluorite was frequently noted in mineralized zones, occurring as massive pods, crystalline veins or in cavities, as well as replacing phenocrysts in porphyry and as matrix in breccias.  Fluorite is found in both mineralized and unmineralized rock and multiple phases of fluorite mineralization used the same conduits as the mineralization event(s).  Fluorite is considered a late-stage mineral (Paterson et al., 1989).
 
High-grade mineralization at Annie Creek is associated with clustered, euhedral marcasite with quartz (Giebink and Paterson, 1986a), which, along with quartz, was likely a replacement of dolomite (Paterson and Giebink, 1989).  Quartz and marcasite were later rimmed by arsenopyrite and replaced by arsenian pyrite (Giebink and Paterson, 1986a, Paterson and Giebink, 1989).  Later generations of slightly larger, disseminated, euhedral pyrite, followed by coarser void fillings of pyrite have been identified (Giebink and Paterson, 1986a).
 
Gold mineralization occurred as gold substitution within sulfides (e.g., Giebink and Paterson, 1986a), similar to occurrences of gold-bearing sulfides in Carlin-type systems, and as native gold with silver in the main stage of mineralization (Pedraza Rojas, 2017).  Historic mining at Two Johns and Golden Reward focused at times on the “blue ores,” which are silicified, unoxidized lower Deadwood Formation sandstone.  These “blue ores” were milled and roasted to recover gold (Miller, 1962). The benefits of roasting indicate at least a portion of the gold is within sulfides.  Thin sections of high-grade samples from the Annie Creek mine analyzed by Schurer and Fuchs (1991) show native gold associated with hematite, goethite, and jarosite, which forms from oxidation of iron sulfides, and arseniosiderite which forms from oxidation of arsenopyrite.  Quartz is also associated with gold.  A thin section from the lowest-grade sample in that study showed no native gold, but abundant sulfides, which was assumed to indicate lattice or sub-micrometer gold.
 
Silver to gold ratios vary throughout the district; at Golden Reward they range from 1:1 to 14:1 (Emanuel et al., 1990) averaging 4:1 during historic mining according to Emanuel and Walsh (1987).  At Annie Creek the average ratio was 2.5:1 (Lessard and Loomis, 1990), and the ratio was approximately 2:1 at Foley Ridge (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-9
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4
Property Geology
 
6.4.1
Deposit Dimensions
 
The Wharf deposit dimensions range from 8,000–9,000 ft long in the east–northeast direction, 2,100–5,000 ft wide, 150 ft thick in historically mined areas to 500 ft in active pits.  Mineralization has been drill tested to varying depths to the Precambrian surface, which ranges from 5,400–6,200 ft in elevation across the deposit.
 
6.4.2
Lithologies
 
Trachytic sills are the bulk of the mineralized lithology within the mine plan.  Composition varies and includes trachytic, quartz trachytic, and quartz alkali feldspar trachytic (Pedraza, 2017). Phonolite is present as a large capping sill and as dikes and smaller sills and is post-mineral.
 
The entire Deadwood sequence is present in the current mine area, as well as some overlying Icebox Shale.  Manto-like mineralization occurs in the sandstone and dolomitic zones of the lower member of the Deadwood Formation, and narrower, higher-grade zones occur in the upper sandstone and glauconitic sandstone units.
 
Precambrian metamorphic rocks including phyllites and quartzites underlie the property and but not intercepted by any of the pits.
 
A trachyte sill is a main host for mineralization, with low-grade disseminated mineralization throughout the body.  Igneous bodies at Wharf are predominantly sills.  Dikes are less volumetrically important but occur in most mined areas.
 
The best mineralized intrusion, the lower trachyte sill, occurs in several pits at Wharf.  This trachyte sill was intruded both above and below the base of the Deadwood Formation.
 
A geological cross-section is included as Figure 6‑4.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-10
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑4:        Wharf Geology Cross-Section
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Pedraza (2018) and modified by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-11
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4.3
Structure
 
Sills geometries in the pits vary.  Sill thickness is highly varied; almost the entire depth of the Foley and American Eagle pits were porphyry sills, but other pits intersected the sills where they were 20–30 ft thick.  Sills can be discordant across thick sequences of stratigraphy, moving up-section gradually, possibly along pre-existing structures.
 
A weakly mineralized dike up to 100 ft wide was present in the easternmost Bald Mountain area.  Narrow, late phonolite dikes cross-cut trachyte sills in several places in the pits.
 
A fault zone exposes Precambrian rocks at Bald Mountain, east of the haul road tunnels connecting Wharf to Golden Reward.  Zones of intense silicification, clay alteration, and brecciation parallel the fault.  This fault continues south to Golden Reward, and parallels north-trending Precambrian structures and is probably a reactivated older structure.  Other faults with minor offset are present throughout the site and have been viewed in-pit.
 
The main trends of mineralization at Wharf parallel the strike of major joint sets measured in upper and lower Deadwood Formation outcrops (Shapiro and Gries, 1970).
 
6.4.4
Alteration
 
Silicic alteration within the Golden Reward portion of the property was common in mineralized areas and was expressed as quartz veins, stockworks, and as disseminated quartz with sulfides (Emanuel et al., 1990).  Silicification in the Annie Creek portion of the property was typically focused around fractures (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  Silicification included destruction of glauconite in sandstone and porphyritic texture in the intrusions, replacement of dolomite crystals, and preservation of primary sedimentary structures (Paterson and Giebink, 1989; Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  In the Foley sill at Wharf, zones of silicification were observed to be enclosed by decalcified zones, with metal grade decreasing from the zone interior outward (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  Silicification also occurred along structures, such as the Bald Mountain fault zone, at contacts with the igneous intrusions, and along bedding planes and lithologic contacts.
 
Outside of these silicified zones, carbonate replacement and veinlets formed by remobilization of carbonate from the mineralized zone (Loomis and Alexander, 1990).  Locally, rather than decalcification, original calcareous horizons were replaced with dolomite (Shapiro and Gries, 1970).  In the mine area, phenocrysts in trachytic porphyry sills are partially replaced by carbonate, and carbonate veinlets occur within the sills.
 
Argillization occurs in porphyritic intrusive rocks.  Prominent clay-altered structures were visible in the pits, but these structures were barren and typically contained an extremely altered phonolite dike core.  A late-stage barren phonolite cap at Green Mountain and along Foley Ridge had similar strong argillic alteration along fractures.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-12
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
6.4.5
Mineralization
 
Most of the mineralized intrusive rocks at Wharf are trachytic in composition.  Trachyte porphyry forms sills that exhibit fracture-controlled mineralization.  Locally, gold is disseminated strongly fractured zones contain higher grades and more continuous mineralization.
 
Quartz trachytic and quartz alkali feldspar trachytic rocks are varyingly mineralized, with a barren sill in the western portion of the mine area, and a more mineralized sill has been mined in the eastern portion of the pit.  A thin biotite-rich sill similar in texture and composition to the barren cap phonolite is also mineralized.
 
The upper and lower Deadwood Formation are host to higher-grade mineralization.  The upper unit has narrower, higher-grade, more structurally controlled mineralization, with the lower Deadwood exhibiting more pervasive mineralization.  More impermeable units such as the interbedded shale units of the Deadwood Formation are less mineralized, but in places host structurally controlled mineralization.
 
Drilling intercepts showing mineralization with general geology for a cross-section central to the future pit area is shown in Figure 6‑5.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-13
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 6‑5:          Wharf Geological and Mineralization Cross-Section
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 6-14
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
7.0
EXPLORATION
 
7.1
Exploration
 
7.1.1
Grids and Surveys
 
All broad-scale topography was generated from aerial photogrammetry, with the most recent survey completed in 2016.  Local surveys are generated with RTK global positioning system (GPS) high-precision rover survey systems and aerial drones.
 
The Wharf Operations’ local grid system is based on the WGS 1984 coordinate system with a transverse Mercator projection.  Northings and eastings were truncated to reduce the size of coordinates.
 
7.1.2
Geological Mapping
 
Geological maps from Redden and DeWitt (2008) are used at the regional (1:100,000) and local (1:24,000) scale.  Small-scale mapping was performed on a limited basis.
 
No pit highwall or blasthole mapping is done.  On a blast pattern basis, general rock type is recorded by engineering personnel as broadly porphyry, lower Deadwood Formation, or general Deadwood lithology.
 
7.1.3
Geochemistry
 
A limited number of drill samples were analyzed to provide geochemical data for permit requirements.  Humidity cells, meteoric water mobility tests, and acid base accounting (ABA) samples were collected and analyzed for permit requirements. ABA sampling is done on an ongoing basis for waste rock characterization.
 
7.1.4
Geophysics
 
A geophysical survey was flown covering both the Wharf and Golden Reward properties in October 1994.  Geophysical measurements consisted of total magnetic fields, apparent resistivity (at 865, 4175, and 33000 Hz), and radiometric measurements (potassium, thorium, and uranium). Resultant maps exist but digital data were not retained.
 
7.1.5
Qualified Person’s Interpretation of the Exploration Information
 
The Wharf Operations area has been the subject of exploration and development activities since the mid 1970s, and a considerable information database developed because of both exploration and mining activities.  Procedures are consistent with industry-standard practices at the time the work was performed.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
7.1.6
Exploration Potential
 
Within the current Wharf permit boundary, all past production areas are of interest for future exploration potential. Condemnation drilling previously conducted is not sufficient for depth or extents.  Drilling is currently being conducted near the Juno pit testing at depth and perpendicular to strike.
 
The Portland Ridge south of the current permit boundary is under evaluation for expansion towards our surface ownership extent.
 
Near-mine locations near mine have been evaluated with regards to metals pricing, production limitations, and socioeconomic factors.  Near-mine areas include Two Johns to the north, eastern Bald Mountain (Alpha underground workings), deeper open pits at Golden Reward, and the Hannibal and Astoria workings in southern Golden Reward.
 
7.2
Drilling
 
7.2.1
Overview
 
A total of 11,140 drill holes (2,700,999 ft) have been completed in the Project area, the majority of which were RC drill holes. A summary of this drilling is included as Table 7‑1.  RC and core drilling supports mineral resource estimation.  Drilling that supports the mineral resource estimate is summarized in Table 7‑2.
 
A drill collar location map for the Project area is included in Figure 7‑1.  All of the drill holes shown on Figure 7‑1 were used in the variography and exploratory data analysis for the resource model, even though they are outside the current model boundaries.
 
Drill holes in the drill database that are flagged as being completed by a production rig, are considered to have generated unreliable samples, and are flagged such that they are not be exported from the acQuire database for resource modelling purposes.
 
7.2.2
Drill Methods
 
The majority of the drilling is reverse circulation.  From 2007–2013, drilling was contracted to North River Drilling; in 2014, Major Drilling; and from 2015–2017, Boart Longyear; 2018, HD Drilling; and Boart Longyear in 2021.
 
RC holes were typically 5.5” in diameter.
 
Core drilling was completed by Boyles Brothers Drilling or Longyear Drilling.  The only core size used was HQ (63.5 mm diameter).  No core drilling and sampling has been completed since 2007.
 
7.2.3
Logging
 
RC chips were logged for lithology, alteration, and mineralization.  Core holes were logged for lithology, rock type, mineralization, alteration, recovery, and rock quality designation (RQD).
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 7‑1:          Property Drill Summary Table
 
Year
Number of RC Holes
RC Footage
(ft)
Number of Core Holes
Core Footage
(ft)
1979–2006
9,459
1,988,188
11
19,040
2007
169
43,110
—
—
2008
125
57,310
—
—
2009
63
19,455
—
—
2010
379
157,155
—
—
2011
284
97,181
—
—
2012
119
49,010
—
—
2013
94
21,340
—
—
2014
61
32,260
—
—
2015
56
35,180
—
—
2016
51
30,530
—
—
2017
87
56,190
—
—
2018
51
—
—
—
2019
—
—
—
—
2020
—
—
—
—
2021
131
95,050
—
—
Total
11,129
2,681,959
11
19,040
 
Table 7‑2:          Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates
 
Number of RC Holes
RC Footage
(ft)
Number of Core Holes
Core Footage
(ft)
7,655
1,835,090
11
19,040
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 7‑1:        Property Drill Collar Location Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.  Drill holes can plot outside current boundaries as permit areas have changed over time.
 
7.2.4
Recovery
 
Recovery is not recorded for RC or core drilling.
 
7.2.5
Collar Surveys
 
Designed drill holes are marked with a Trimble GPS instrument, using coordinates in the local Wharf Operations grid.  The drill setup is confirmed by the exploration team (dip, azimuth, collar location).  After completion of the hole, the collar is re-surveyed using a Trimble differential GPS.  Surveyed drill holes are reviewed in GEMS against the designed coordinates and the current topography.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Historically, the collar coordinates were written on paper logs and input manually as actuals into a GEMS database.
 
7.2.6
Down Hole Surveys
 
Downhole surveys were not performed on RC drill holes prior to 2014.  After 2015 downhole surveys were completed on all RC drilling regardless of depth.  A small subset of surveys was conducted on drilling performed in 2015.
 
Fourteen core holes, completed prior to 2007, with average depths of ~1,600 ft have downhole surveys using an unknown method.  The results are stored in an acQuire database.
 
7.2.7
Drilling Since Wharf Database Close-out Date
 
A total of 47 drill holes (27,320 ft) were drilled at Wharf since July 27, 2021.  All footage was RC, and the drill holes have valid assay data.  Although a few of the newer drill holes may change the grades locally, the drill holes that are within the existing model should, in the QP’s view, have no material effect on the overall tonnages and average grade of the current mineral resource estimate.
 
7.2.8
Comment on Material Results and Interpretation
 
Drill holes are designed to intersect mineralization as perpendicular as possible.  Mineralized zones in the Wharf Operations are generally horizontal to sub-horizontal and can be adequately drilled with vertical drill holes.  A sufficient number of angled drill holes have been completed at Wharf to test for vertical controls on the mineralization.
 
Drilling and surveying were conducted in accordance with industry standard practices at the time and provide suitable coverage of the mineralization.  The collar and downhole survey methods used provide reliable sample locations.  Logging procedures provide consistency in descriptions.
 
These data are suitable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation.  There are no drilling factors known to the QP that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results.
 
7.3
Hydrogeology
 
7.3.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Third-party party consultants Respec were responsible for creating the groundwater model of the Wharf site.  Monitor well data were used to create an average potentiometric surface as a base for any flow and transport modelling.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
7.3.2
Comment on Results
 
No definitive aquifers have been encountered in exploration drilling at Wharf.  All workings encountered in production are dry outside of meteoric events.
 
Pit water management is seasonal and situational, depending on the orientation of the current pit floor compared to backfilled pits and WRSFs.
 
Meteoric water infiltrates the WRSFs and hits the relatively impermeable Precambrian basement.  The Precambrian dips gently to the southwest, which is the same direction of pit progression. Given this scenario, snow melt along with spring rains has the pit bottoms filling.  The water is pumped out when needed to facilitate production on the final benches.
 
7.3.3
Surface Water
 
The east–west-trending Foley Ridge is a major surface water divide at the mine site.  Surface water flow north of the ridge drains to Cleopatra Creek and False Bottom Creek, and east to Deadwood Creek.  Surface water flow south of the ridge drains to Ross Creek, Annie Creek and Nevada Gulch.  Cleopatra Creek and Annie Creek subsequently flow generally west into Spearfish Creek.
 
Cleopatra Creek is fed by a spring at the headwaters of the stream.  The spring discharges from the toe of the backfill in the Cleopatra Creek WRSF, approximately 100 feet upstream of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance Point 004.  Barren rock was deposited in the Cleopatra Creek WRSF from 1987 to 1990 by Wharf Resources.  The headwater spring discharges groundwater from a perched zone above the Tertiary intrusive units that underlie the Juno Pit and upper Cleopatra Creek valley.  Cleopatra Creek flows northward into Spearfish Creek, 4.5 miles northwest of the mine.
 
False Bottom Creek originates north of Bald Mountain and runs northward through Lawrence and Butte Counties.  False Bottom Creek flows into the Redwater River south of Belle Fourche.  Deadwood Creek originates east of the Trojan Pit and flows eastward into Whitewood Creek west of Lead.  Surface water flow in the creeks is mainly from direct runoff of precipitation and snowmelt, with the remainder base flow from springs and seeps.  High flows in the spring typically occur during periods when the surface water drainages receive a combination of snowmelt and precipitation during major storm events.
 
7.3.4
Groundwater
 
The primary bedrock aquifer underlying the western portion process area of the mine site is the Madison Formation. Madison Formation is not present under locations where active mining occurs.  The Madison Formation consists of limestone, sandy limestone, and dolomite.  Secondary aquifers include the limestones and dolomites of the Englewood and Whitewood Formations.  These aquifers are underlain by the relatively low permeability sandstones, siltstones and shales of the Winnipeg and Deadwood Formations. Groundwater flow in the Madison Formation is unconfined and occurs mainly in fractures and small dissolution cavities in the upper part of the formation.  Horizontal groundwater flow within the Madison Formation is generally to the west, and vertical flow is predominantly downward.  However, the fractures and solution cavities are not uniformly distributed in the aquifer, and they form preferential flow paths that locally control the direction of groundwater flow.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Groundwater recharge occurs primarily through the infiltration of precipitation and surface runoff.  Average recharge rate in this area of the Black Hills is estimated to be about 6.8 inches per year.
 
Hydraulic conductivities of the aquifers vary significantly and are dependent on the degree of fracturing and dissolution.  The primary aquifer, the Madison Formation, has low to moderate hydraulic conductivities, ranging from 1.3 x 10-4 to 7.7 x 10-2 cm/sec.  Well yields range from 10–75 gpm.  Measured hydraulic conductivities of the underlying Winnipeg and Deadwood Formations are somewhat lower, ranging from 3.7 x 10-6 to 1.6 x 10-4 cm/sec.  Measured hydraulic conductivities of the Tertiary intrusive units are very low, ranging from 1.6 x 10-7 to 5.8 x 10-5 cm/sec.
 
7.4
Geotechnical
 
7.4.1
Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations
 
Due to the difficulty of gathering structural and rock strength information from RC chips, no specific geotechnical information is recorded.  Interpretation on where fracture zones are and the presence of underground workings have been recorded through logging.
 
An initial evaluation was conducted on the current pit slope angles and benches in 2021.  Respec gathered past evaluations and current physical measurements of fracturing and rock properties to conduct an analysis.  The results of the analysis state Coeur’s current practices are within an appropriate factor of safety, and additional sampling and studies should be performed before adjusting the slope angles.
 
7.4.2
Comment on Results
 
A combination of historical and current geotechnical data, together with mining experience, is used in the operations.
 
The Wharf Operations conduct twice-yearly highwall and pit rim inspections with associated maps as well as twice daily work area (pit) inspections performed by the operations team.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 7-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
8.0
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
 
8.1
Sampling Methods
 
8.1.1
Reverse Circulation
 
RC sampling was performed by drill contractors at the drill rig.  Sampling practice from 2007–2021 was to sample 10 ft. intervals.  Pre-2007 RC drilling at the Wharf Operations was sampled on 10-ft intervals and drilling at the Golden Reward area that is now part of the Wharf Operations was at 5-ft intervals.  Approximately 2 in3 of chips per sample interval was retained for geological logging.
 
Cuttings from the center-return RC drill were directed to a cyclone and collected as underflow from the cyclone in five-gallon buckets.  These samples were split into two samples, the size of which depended on drilling return, which in turn was affected by factors such as rock type and presence of underground voids.  The average weight of dried cuttings collected from 2015–2021 was 14.8 lbs, with 90% of samples weighing between 5.4–28.1 lbs, and with <1% of samples being under 2 lbs.
 
Sampling was conducted on primarily dry drilling through 2014, with wet drilling encountered depending on conditions, and wet-drilled samples from 2015–2021.  Pre-2015, when drilling in dry conditions, the entire sample was retained for analysis; however, in wet drilling conditions, the suspended fines were washed off the sample to reduce water volume.
 
Groundwater was rarely encountered in RC drilling; depth and flow rates were not recorded.  Typically, water was used in drilling to improve drilling performance and sample recovery.
 
Prior to 2015, samples were collected into large, numbered, impervious plastic sample bags, with a numbered ID tag attached.  From 2015–2021, samples were collected in cloth sample bags for drainage while retaining fines.  One sample was delivered to the assay laboratory, and another was saved for geochemical testing.  Only one sample was collected in areas of sufficient density of testing.  Excess pulps were stored on-site for at least two years in case additional analyses were required.
 
8.1.2
Core
 
The entire length of the drill hole was sampled.  Sample runs of holes recorded as core averaged 4.5 ft at the Wharf Operation.
 
One half of the core was delivered to the Wharf laboratory for sample preparation and analysis for gold and silver. All remaining core samples were eventually discarded.
 
8.1.3
Grade Control
 
Grade control samples are collected while drilling blast patterns.  Coeur uses DM-45 hammer drills to drill patterns on approximately 15 x 15 ft spacing.  The production drills currently have a GPS instrument for guidance on hole location and sampling identification.  Cuttings are collected in a rectangular pan placed near the collar of the drill hole.  Rock fragments are flushed from the hammer via injected air/water out to the surface where the fragments either deflect off the apron or land directly in the pan.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The drill operator collects the pan at 10 ft intervals down the hole and empties the pan into a plastic bag with the associated hole-ID tag.  The individual hole-IDs are assigned before drilling and match a barcode that is used in the laboratory information management system (LIMS) at the Wharf Operations on-site assay laboratory (mine assay laboratory).  The sample bags are stapled shut and delivered to the mine assay laboratory at the end of shift.
 
8.2
Sample Security Methods
 
RC cuttings were collected in sample bags by the drill crew at the active drill site.  Prior to 2014 samples were transported from the site to the mine assay laboratory by exploration or laboratory personnel.  In 2014 contract drilling company personnel transported the samples to the mine assay laboratory.
 
All samples remained at the mine assay laboratory through the entire sample preparation and assay process.  All pre-2014 sample material was discarded.
 
From 2015–2018 all samples were transported to the Wharf Operations exploration building by drill contract personnel.  From 2019–2021 samples were transported by exploration personnel. Samples were staged and prepared for shipment to a commercial analytical laboratory.  Shipping was conducted via overland transport, with samples secured in palletized super sacks from 2018–2020.  Starting in 2021 samples were shipped in bulk container plastic totes.  Chain-of-custody documentation was maintained throughout the shipping and receiving process. Following analytical testwork, samples were stored at the commercial laboratory during the quality control (QC) review process and then returned to Wharf for storage.  Pulps are stored for two years before discarding.
 
From 2015–2020, certified reference material (standards) and blanks purchased from CDN Laboratories were inserted into the sample stream during staging.  Certified reference materials acquired from OREAS starting in 2020 were provided in sealed plastic packages.
 
8.3
Density Determinations
 
Historically, density was determined through laboratory testing.  Documentation was not preserved.  Density values corresponded to the general rock types used in grade control, and  are:
 
•
0.0714 st/ft3 for Deadwood Formation;
 
•
0.0769 st/ft3 for trachyte porphyry;
 
•
0.079 st/ft3 for phonolite porphyry;
 
•
0.0588 st/ft3 for backfill.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
In addition to production records and scale tests, verification of trachyte porphyry density values was conducted with four samples in 2010, 15 in 2013, and 40 in 2021, and of phonolite porphyry with 10 samples in 2013 and 30 in 2021.  The analysis by was performed by an external laboratory, FMG Engineering, Inc., using ASTM C 127, the standard test method for specific gravity of coarse aggregate, in 2010.  In 2013 and 2021,  FMG Engineering, Inc. used ASTM D 6473-10 in 2013 and 2021, the standard test method for specific gravity of rock for erosion control.  Past production and supplemental density testing show density values in use are reasonable, and ongoing testwork will be used to refine values for sub-types to these categories.
 
8.4
Analytical and Test Laboratories
 
The mine assay laboratory, located on site, was the primary analytical facility from mine inception to 2015.  The laboratory was not independent and was not accredited.
 
Check analyses for gold fire assays were completed from 2009–2010 and from 2012–2014 at ALS U.S.A. Inc. Minerals Division in Reno, Nevada (ALS Reno).  ALS Reno is independent and at the time used, held ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques.
 
Check assays were also completed at Inspectorate America Corporation (Inspectorate, now Bureau Veritas) in Sparks, Nevada, on a large portion of pulp samples from the 2014 drill campaign.  Bureau Veritas was a check analysis laboratory in 2015 and 2016.  Bureau Veritas was the primary laboratory from 2017–2021.  Inspectorate was an independent laboratory, and at the time used, held ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques. Bureau Veritas is independent and holds SO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditations for selected analytical techniques.
 
McClelland Laboratories Inc., located in Sparks, Nevada (McClelland) was used as a check laboratory from 2017 onward.  The laboratory is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for selected analytical techniques and is independent of Coeur.
 
8.5
Sample Preparation
 
Prior to 2015, all exploration and near mine development sample preparation was completed by the mine assay laboratory.  RC samples were dried, crushed to 80% passing ½ inch, and pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh.
 
At ALS Reno, samples were dried, crushed to >70% passing 2 mm, and pulverized to >85% passing 75 µm.
 
Bureau Veritas dries the samples, crushes to >70% passing 2 mm, and pulverizes to >85% passing 75 µm.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
8.6
Analysis
 
8.6.1
Mine Assay Laboratory
 
All primary exploration and development gold analyses for samples collected by Coeur, following the commencement of mine operations in 1983 through 2014 were analyzed at the mine assay laboratory.
 
Gold analyses were completed with a cold cyanide shake with an atomic absorption (AA) finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed on gold and silver by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.  The over-limit analyses were completed based on a trigger value from the cold shake cyanide analyses.  The trigger varied by year, based on variables such as the mine cut-off grade.  In 2014, the over-limit was set at 0.012 oz/st Au.  From 2007–2014, the over limit trigger was 0.008 oz/st Au.
 
8.6.2
ALS Reno
 
Primary analyses for gold were completed by fire assay with AA finish, and for silver by four-acid digestion with AA finish.  Cyanide leach with AA finish for Au and Ag was completed for all samples with gold fire assays above lower detection (0.0001 oz/st) in 2015, and for all samples with gold fire assays above 0.006 oz/st in 2016.  Over-limit gold fire analyses were completed with gravimetric finish above a trigger of 0.292 oz/st Au.
 
For check analyses, gold analyses were completed by fire assay with an AA finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed by fire assay with a gravimetric finish.  The trigger for the over-limit was 0.292 oz/st Au.
 
Trace multi-element aqua regia digestion with ICP finish was completed for 51 elements in 2010, 2011, and 2015 on samples selected for testwork to support permitting requirements.
 
Humidity cell analyses of approximately two-month duration were completed for 32 elements, conductivity, pH, and sulfate on samples selected for permitting requirements in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
 
8.6.3
Bureau Veritas
 
From 2017 to present all primary exploration and development analyses of samples for inclusion in resource estimation were analyzed at Bureau Veritas.  Prior to this it was used as a check assay laboratory for 2016 drilling.
 
Gold analyses were completed with a fire assay with an AA finish, and results registering above lower detection (>0.0001 oz/st) Au triggered a cold cyanide shake with an AA finish.  Silver was analyzed as part of a 30-element suite by aqua regia with an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) finish and results greater than the lower detection limit triggered a silver cold cyanide shake with an AA finish.  Over-limit analyses were completed by fire assay with gravimetric finish when the initial fire assay results were >0.29 oz/st Au.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Bureau Veritas conducted 2016 check assays, which were fire assay gold analyses with an AA finish.
 
Bureau Veritas in Vancouver conducted modified acid-base accounting (ABA) with paste pH, total sulfur, and sulfate sulfur of every fourth primary sample in 2021 after preparation and splitting in Sparks, NV.
 
8.6.4
Inspectorate
 
For check assays of 2014 pulps, gold analyses were completed by cold cyanide shake with an AA finish.  Gold fire analyses with an AA finish were completed and triggered by cold cyanide analyses ≥0.008 oz/st Au to match the original procedure used at the Wharf Operations.
 
An additional higher-accuracy fire assay with gravimetric finish was triggered on one sample, at >0.292 oz/st gold.  For 2015 check assays, gold analyses consisted of fire assay with an AA finish.
 
8.6.5
McClelland
 
McClelland Laboratories, Inc., performed check assays on pulps from 2018–2020.  Gold analyses were completed by fire assay with an AA finish.  No check samples are currently available, as the 2021 umpires are pending sample return from the primary laboratory.
 
8.6.6
Energy Laboratories
 
Energy Laboratories performed ABA analysis with sulfur speciation on primary samples and pulps from 2010–2013 and 2018.  Analyses were conducted at regular intervals that varied from every tenth to every sample in a drill hole.  Nitrate analysis on samples selected for permitting requirements was also completed in 2010 and 2012.
 
8.6.7
Intermountain Laboratories
 
Intermountain Laboratories completed meteoric water mobility procedures (MWMP) that included pH, total dissolved solids, anions, cations, and dissolved metals in 2011 on samples selected for permitting requirements.
 
8.7
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
 
8.7.1
Pre-Coeur
 
Prior to Coeur’s Project acquisition, sample quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) consisted of check assays completed at a commercial laboratory as a check on the mine assay laboratory.  There is no record of certified reference materials, standards, or blanks being inserted into the analytical batches.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
For the cold cyanide shake method, for each batch of 48 samples, one internally made gold standard of known value was inserted.  The control failed if it was outside of a ± 0.003 oz/st Au tolerance limit.  The instrument was recalibrated, and then all previous samples following the previous successful QC check were re-run.  This process was continued until the control sample passed the check.  For each batch of 48 samples, every 10th sample analyzed by the cold cyanide method was weighed and digested in duplicate.  If the duplicate and parent values were not within the ± 0.003 oz/st Au tolerance limit of the instrumentation, the batch was considered a failure. If a failure occurred, the entire batch was re-processed and re-run.  This process was continued until the duplicate in the batch passed the check.
 
For fire assay, for each batch of 24 samples, a QC sample of internally made composited reference material was inserted and used as a standard.
 
Fire assays values were also checked against AA values, with acceptable differences based on grade.  Differences greater than this resulted in rerun of first AA, then fire assay if AA values were within ± 0.003 oz/st Au.
 
Quantile–quantile plots of the entire assay population for check assays completed at ALS Reno from 2009–2014 indicated no bias and good correlation between the two datasets.  The resulting overall correlation and lack of bias in the population supported the data quality produced by the mine assay laboratory.
 
8.7.2
Coeur
 
Certified reference standards and certified blank samples were inserted at regular intervals to maintain a 5% insertion rate of primary samples.  Sample-stage duplicates were collected at the drill rig to maintain a 2.5% insertion rate.  Crush stage and pulp-stage duplicates were generated by the commercial laboratory at a 2.5% insertion rate.  Additionally, 5–10% of primary sample pulps were sent to a secondary commercial laboratory for check analysis.
 
A standard failed when the value exceeded or fell short of ± 3 standard deviations of the certified value.  A blank failed when the value exceeded five times the lower detection limit of the assay method.  Failure of a standard or blank sample required re-submission of the pulps within the same laboratory job on either side of the failure from the previous to the next passing standard or blank, respectively.  Failure of a crush duplicate occurred when values exceeded 15% mean paired relative difference, and a pulp duplicate when exceeding 10%.  Passing re-runs were given precedence over the original results when used in resource estimation, unless repeated analyses of the batch resulted in failures.  Secondary re-runs were then processed at the check laboratory, subject to the same QA/QC protocol.  Low-level failures, such as those acceptable within rounding, when there was insufficient pulp for additional re-runs, may have been accepted at staff discretion.
 
Results were reviewed quarterly, and elements of the QA/QC program were adjusted as necessary.
 
The reviews of the 2015–midyear 2021 QA/QC data indicated no significant biases or contamination in the reviewed data.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
8.8
Database
 
Collar surveys of drillholes are taken with a Trimble or Topcon GPS instrument, and data are exported from the device to a csv file.  Prior to 2015, locations were imported into the GEMS drill hole database in use at the time, as surveys were completed.  Since 2015, files have been imported into a controlled acQuire database.
 
Since 2016, downhole surveys were completed on all holes by a third-party contractor, IDS.  Files received from IDS were uploaded into the acQuire database.  Prior to 2015, no downhole surveys were completed except for core holes.  In 2015, no downhole surveys passing QA/QC were completed.
 
Prior to 2015, geologic logging was completed on paper logs and manually entered the GEMS drill hole database.  Since 2015, geologic logging data are directly entered into the acQuire database.
 
Prior to 2015, the mine assay laboratory data were entered into Microsoft Excel files, which were imported into the GEMS drill hole database.  All historic data were migrated to acQuire in 2015, after validation and modeling in Hexagon Mining MineSight by an external consultant, Moose Mountain Technical Services, in 2015.
 
Since 2015, assay data have been imported directly into the acQuire database and must pass internal database checks for referential integrity.  Assays were reviewed for QA/QC of certified reference materials and duplicates.  Assays were accepted or rejected in the database by the database manager based on QA/QC results.  All assay data are retained, and assays passing QA/QC are available for export in acQuire to other software systems.
 
From 2015–2021, collar surveys, downhole surveys, geology logs, and QA/QC-passing assay data have been exported from acQuire as csv files for upload into a GEMS drill hole database for each yearly and mid-year model update.  In 2021, the acQuire database was transferred to a Maptek Vulcan ISIS database.
 
Drill hole locations and downhole surveys are visually compared against hole designs in GEMS for verification.
 
8.9
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures
 
In the opinion of the QP, the sample preparation procedures, analytical methods, QA/QC protocols, and sample security for the samples used in mineral resource estimation are acceptable, meet industry-standard practice, and are acceptable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation and mine planning purposes.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 8-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
9.0
DATA VERIFICATION
 
9.1
Internal Data Verification
 
In 2015, a paired sampling study was completed on three drill holes to evaluate the potential for systematic bias in RC sampling regarding the pre-Coeur method where fines and water were removed, and the Coeur method of larger bagged samples.  A total of 155 samples were analyzed and compared. The grade of the collective population was biased to the Coeur-preferred sampling method, but overall was equivocal with respect to potential sources of variance.  Additional work was not warranted because the results showed there were unlikely to be material impacts.
 
In 2015, prior to import of the legacy GEMS database to an acQuire database, data were reviewed for internal consistency corresponding to database rules such as no overlapping intervals and unique IDs.  Corrections were made based on data in paper logs and digital files.
 
In 2018, a project to recombine previously split assay intervals caused by lithology breaks on assays during transfer from the 2015 MineSight model to the acQuire implementation was completed.  Extra breaks had been created in assay intervals in the migration to new software based on geochemical sampling intervals that did not correspond to gold assay intervals.  Combining split intervals by reimporting the validated historic data into acQuire was conducted by CT Geoservices.
 
The Wharf Operations laboratory, which produced exploration results prior to 2015, participated in a Society of Mineral Analysts round-robin program of fire assay gold in 2017–2018.  Results indicated good repeatability between duplicates of each sample, and good correlation with peer laboratories, with 16 of 18 samples reporting within the 95% confidence limits, including one outlier.
 
Drill hole lockdown of holes drilled from 2015–2018 was completed, where the acQuire database was locked for the given holes by the database manager, and data could not be changed except by the database manager unlocking them.  Prior to locking, assay certificates, downhole survey certificates, geology logs, and chip photos were reviewed and filed, and QA/QC reports were generated, reviewed, and filed.  Drill hole lockdown signoff reports were completed by the geologist and database manager.  All were stored as digital copies on a network drive with restricted access and as paper copies.
 
9.2
External Data Verification
 
The Wharf blasthole dataset was reviewed by AMC Consultants (UK) Limited during 2017, as part of a larger study of the regression-based data transformation used to correct atomic absorption cyanide shake results to fire assay values. The dataset was used in the analysis of the 2017 resource estimate for verification purposes.
 
9.3
Data Verification by Qualified Person
 
Data verification performed included:
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Imported and conducted QA/QC on all assay data from 2015–2021;
 
•
Quarterly QA/QC reports of gold assay data from 2015–2021;
 
•
Logged all geologic data from 2015, 2017, and 2018;
 
•
Conducted a 10–20% check of geologic logs from 2016 and 2021;
 
•
Participated in the 2018 project to recombine split historic assay intervals;
 
•
Conducted drill hole lockdown, including checks of assay certificates, collar and downhole surveys, geology, and QA/QC reports;
 
•
Signed off as the geologist for the 2015–2018 drill holes;
 
•
Working at the Wharf Operations from 2009–2021.
 
9.4
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
The process of data verification for the Project was performed by third parties and Coeur personnel, including the QP.  The QP reviewed the appropriate reports.  The QP considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed, and that no material issues would have been left unidentified from the programs completed.
 
The QP is of the opinion that the data verification programs for Project data adequately support the geological interpretations, the analytical and database quality, and therefore support the use of the data in mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and in mine planning.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 9-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
10.0
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
 
10.1
Test Laboratories
 
The process plant was built in 1983.  Historical testwork on which the plant designs were based is not available to Coeur.  Changes made to the process plant have been based on actual plant performance trends and testwork performed on-site and at independent facilities.
 
Independent metallurgical testwork facilities used over the Project life included Amtel and McClelland Laboratories.  Testwork conducted included column leach test, bottle roll tests, and gold deportment studies.
 
The Wharf Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
There is no international standard of accreditation provided for metallurgical testing laboratories or metallurgical testing techniques.
 
10.2
Metallurgical Testwork
 
The Wharf Operations maintain a continuous testing program on the ore being sent to the heap leach.  Composite samples are collected from the crusher product using a cross-belt sampling system.  Samples are taken at 50 st intervals from the combined product conveyor belt.  These samples are analyzed for moisture, size distribution, and gold and silver using AA and fire assay.
 
Metallurgical testing is undertaken at the mine site internal laboratory and periodically through contracting external laboratories.  Testing at external laboratories includes, but is not limited to, column leach tests, bottle rolls, carbon activity testing, and deportation studies.
 
Regular testing at the mine site internal laboratory includes head analysis for gold and silver using AA and fire assays and column leach testing on an as-needed basis.  The head assays, final tails assays and the information from the daily solution samples are used to determine the overall percent recovery rate and recovery by size fraction for the material.  Sodium cyanide and lime consumption rates are estimated for process.  The data from the column testing are used either to predict leach pad performance or reconcile actual leach pad performance.
 
Exploration duplicates are created by taking a split of drill cuttings from the exploration drill sites.  The samples are retained for two years and available in case analysis is required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
10.3
Recovery Estimates
 
Metallurgical performance using laboratory testing suggests that recovery of gold varies by lithology and sizing of placed material.  Lithological recoveries used to estimate overall heap expected recovery for planning purposes are shown in Table 10‑1.
 
Actual performance compared to ore-weighted expected recoveries for pads processed during the period 2019–2020 are provided in Table 10‑2.
 
Table 10‑2 includes pads from a period in time which ROM was used to overcome temporary operational challenges.  ROM is not part of the current life-of-mine (LOM) plan or the cashflow analysis.
 
10.4
Metallurgical Variability
 
Metallurgical test results obtained from several testwork programs conducted during the past five years show low variability between several different locations with respect to gold recovery.  This low variability has been verified through the actual leach performance.
 
Tests were performed on samples that are representative for the deposit and its mineralogy.
 
10.5
Deleterious Elements
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
Analysis of net acid generating (NAG) potential has identified isolated pockets within the ore body of potential acid generating material.  This material is handled by existing, State approved protocols to blend NAG material with non-NAG ore to reduce the impact on pad pH. Lime is added to the crushed ore that is placed on the leach pad to control pH.  The amount of lime added is based on daily composite bottle rolls and the lime required to control the bottle roll to the target pH.  The pH of the process solutions and pad effluents is monitored each day.
 
None of the deposits contain sufficient quantities of sulfide minerals, organic carbons or silica encapsulation to be categorized as refractory ore.
 
10.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy
 
Production experience and focused investigations, as well as marketing requirements, have guided leach pad process improvements and changes since Coeur’s acquisition of the Wharf Operations.
 
Testwork programs, both internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 10‑1:        Forecast Metallurgical Recovery Estimates
 
Ore Type
% Gold
Recovery
Intermediate
80.0
Lower Contact
71.0
Porphyry
80.5
 
Table 10‑2:        Expected versus Actual Recovery
 
Pad Loading
(pad cycle)
Est. Geological
Gold Recovery
(%)
Actual
Gold
Recovery
(%)
Delta
(%)
4.14
70.7
69.6
(1.2)
5.04
73.4
70.8
(2.6)
3.15
74.5
75.1
0.6
2.15
77.9
75.3
(2.7)
Pad Average
74.2
72.7
(1.5)
 
Note:  ROM ore was used in various amounts for the four pads.  Additionally, for the pads listed, sizing from the crusher exceeded historical norms, negatively impacting recovery.
 
Current metallurgical testwork confirms the material to be mined as having similar response to the heap leaching process as previously mined ores.  Metal recovery assumptions are derived from past performance of the leaching operation.
 
The QP reviewed the information compiled by Coeur, as summarized in this Report Chapter, and performed a review of the reconciliation data available to verify the information used in the LOM plan.
 
Based on these checks, in the opinion of the QP, the metallurgical testwork results and production data support the estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves and can be used in the economic analysis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 10-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
11.0
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
 
11.1
Introduction
 
Mineral resources are estimated for the Wharf deposit (Figure 11‑1).
 
The database closeout date for the estimate was July 27, 2021.  Drilling used in estimation was summarized in Table 7‑2.
 
11.2
Exploratory Data Analysis
 
All deposits were subject to exploratory data analysis methods, which could include histograms, cumulative probability plots, box and whisker plots, and contact analysis.
 
Statistics were compiled and compared for raw drill hole data, length weighted drill holes, composites, declustered composites, and capped declustered composites to ensure that the grade distribution and true mean of the system were conserved through the estimation process.
 
11.3
Geological Models
 
Domains were created based on lithology and changing trends in strike and dip of the major mineralized structures and underground workings that cross cut lithological units.  Adjustments to the existing geologic model were made where new drill data were added.  Lithologic domains were assessed for changes in the strike and dip of near vertical structures.  A total of three main structural domains were modeled resulting in 16 separate estimation domains.
 
11.4
Density Assignment
 
Density values were assigned to each block based on the major rock type within the block.  Underground workings were assigned an adjusted density values determined by the percentage of the block intersected by workings.
 
11.5
Grade Capping/Outlier Restrictions
 
Capping was applied to raw assays prior to compositing, with values to be capped assessed from probability plots.  Grade caps ranged from 0.08–0.6 oz/st Au, with 147 samples capped.
 
To reduce smearing of structurally controlled high-grade mineralization, an indicator was applied during estimation.  Indicator variograms were run on the low-grade portion of the distribution and on the high-grade.  Final search ellipsoids for low-grade were approximately equal to the range at 95% of the sill and for the high-grade the range at 100% of the sill. High-grade samples were used to estimate a high-grade gold variable in every block where the sample selection criteria was met using the high-grade search ellipsoid.  A similar estimation was done for the low-grade into a low-grade gold variable using the estimation parameters.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 11‑1:      Map Showing Wharf Pit Model Extent
 

To determine the proportion of high-grade and low-grade to combine into the final gold grade, an indicator estimate was made so that each block has a percent variable of the amount (number of close by samples) of high-grade.  The final estimate is created by combining the proportion of high-grade multiplied by the high-grade estimate (if one exists) with the remaining proportion and grade of the low-grade.
 
11.6
Composites
 
The majority of assay data used in the model were sampled on 10 ft sample lengths (94%).
 
Compositing was done on 10 ft intervals to ensure enough samples were available in the vertical direction for estimation and to avoid over-smoothing prior to variography.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
11.7
Variography
 
Back-transformed, normal scores (gaussian) variography was completed using Snowden Supervisor software for each of the 16 domains.  Usually, the down-hole variogram was used to determine the nugget, but in several cases the downhole variogram was of poor quality and the minor direction variogram was used.
 
For eight of the domains, an indicator estimation technique was used.  For these domains, variograms were created for the high-grade portion of the data and for the low-grade portion.  Those domains will have two variograms for each of the three domains:  a high-grade, low-grade, and indicator variogram.  To generate the indicator percent of high and low grade, the low-grade variogram was used.
 
11.8
Estimation/interpolation Methods
 
Ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation was chosen to estimate all lithology units.  Iterations were performed with a single pass OK estimate, adjusting the search parameters, minimum and maximum samples and maximum number of drill holes.  The resulting basic statistics were then compared to those of the composites, nearest neighbor (NN) estimate, and an inverse distance squared (ID2) estimate.
 
The high-grade indicator runs use a range of 2–7 composites, the low-grade indicator 2–14 composites, with the rest OK estimates using 4–12 composites.  All domains are limited to two composites from any one drill hole.
 
11.9
Validation
 
The block models were validated using some or all of the following methods:
 
•
Visually by stepping through sections and comparing the raw drill data and composite data with the block values;
 
•
Comparison of model statistics to drill data;
 
•
Swath plots;
 
•
Mill to model reconciliation;
 
•
General visual inspection of shape and spread of the estimate with regards to production experience.
 
11.10
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
11.10.1
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
 
Variograms for each domain using exploration data were generated and plotted.  The search ranges for each domain at 70% of the sill, 80%, 90%, and 95% were compiled.  As a starting point, Measured used a range at 70% of the sill, Indicated used a range at 80% of the sill, and Inferred used a range at 95% of the sill.  With several iterations and analysis, these ranges were adjusted as needed.  Each block was then queried for distance to the closest composite, number of composites used in the estimate, and number of drill holes used in the estimate, and a confidence classification was assigned.  Variograms for blastholes were also generated and plotted as a way of confirming the exploration data. In general, the maximum range of the blastholes were reasonably close to the ranges from exploration variograms, but the range from blastholes at 70% and 80% of the sill were shorter. When selecting the classification range, this information was considered.
 
The confidence classifications on average used:
 
•
Measured:  30–55 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of six composites, maximum of three composites from a single drill hole;
 
•
Indicated:  80–140 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of four composites, maximum of two composites from a single drill hole;
 
•
Inferred:  155–410 ft from nearest drill hole; maximum of two composites, maximum of two composites from a single drill hole.
 
11.10.2
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
 
Following the drill spacing analysis that classified the mineral resource estimates into the measured, indicated, and inferred confidence categories, uncertainties regarding sampling and drilling methods, data processing and handling, geological modelling, and estimation were incorporated into the classifications assigned.  The areas with the most uncertainty were assigned to the inferred category, and the areas with fewest uncertainties were classified as measured.
 
11.11
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
 
11.11.1
Input Assumptions
 
For each resource estimate, an initial assessment was undertaken that assessed likely infrastructure, mining, and process plant requirements; mining methods; process recoveries and throughputs; environmental, permitting, and social considerations relating to the proposed mining and processing methods, and proposed waste disposal; and technical and economic considerations in support of an assessment of reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
 
Mineral resources are confined within conceptual pit shells that use the assumptions in Table 11‑1.
 
Pit optimizations were completed using the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm in Whittle software.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑1:        Constraining Pit Shell Assumptions
 
Mining Cost
Process Cost
Drilling
US$0.20/st mined
    
Blasting
US$0.26/st mined
Crushing
US$2.31/st processed
Dozing
US$0.26/st mined
Pad load
US$0.80/st processed
*Hauling(waste)
US$0.75/st mined
Unload
US$1.22/st processed
Loading
US$0.16/st mined
Process
US$2.46/st processed
Roads & yards
US$0.16/st mined
G&A
$US3.55/st processed
General mining
US$0.35/st mined
    
Total Mining
US$2.15/st mined
Wharf Total Process
US$10.34/st processed
Rehandle cost
US$1.62/t rehandled
Metallurgical recovery
78.7%
Cut-off grade (oz/ton Au)
0.010
    
Selling price (Au/oz)
US$1,700
    
Burden
      
Royalty (Au/oz)
US$68.00
    
Pit slopes by rock type
      
Deadwood Formation
45°
    
Porphyry
50°
    
Fill
34°
    
 
11.11.2
Commodity Price
 
The gold price used in resource estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The estimated timeframe used is the eight-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates.  The gold price forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$1,700/oz.  The QP reviewed the forecasts as outlined in Chapter 16.
 
11.11.3
Cut-off
 
The mineral resources are reported using a cut-off of 0.010 oz/st Au.  The cut-off is based on the operational history of the deposit.  The cut-off selected is higher than the break-even grade to keep the cut-off within the range of known outcomes.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
11.11.4
QP Statement
 
The QP is of the opinion that any issues that arise in relation to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.  The mineral resource estimates are performed for deposits that are in a well-documented geological setting.  Coeur is very familiar with the economic parameters required for successful operations in the Wharf area; and Coeur has a history of being able to obtain and maintain permits, social license and meet environmental standards.  There is sufficient time in the seven-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecast for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, testwork and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates.
 
11.12
Mineral Resource Statement
 
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in SK1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The mineral resources are current as at December 31, 2021.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.
 
Measured and indicated mineral resources are summarized in Table 11‑2 and inferred mineral resources in Table 11‑3.  Estimates are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
 
The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
11.13
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:
 
•
Metal price and exchange rate assumptions;
 
•
Changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade;
 
•
Changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones;
 
•
Changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions;
 
•
Density and domain assignments;
 
•
Changes to geotechnical, mining, and metallurgical recovery assumptions;
 
•
Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the conceptual pit shell constraining the estimates;
 
•
Assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 11‑2:        Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Measured
13,947
0.02
273
0.010
80
Indicated
6,379
0.022
140
0.010
80
Total Measured and Indicated
20,326
0.020
413
0.010
80
 
Table 11‑3:        Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,700/oz gold price)
 
Confidence
Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off
Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Inferred
3,724
0.024
89,704
0.010
80
 
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
 
1.
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
3.
Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
4.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional open pit mining; gold price of US$1,700/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.010 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 78.7%; royalty burden of US$68/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 34–50º; mining costs of $2.15/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.65/st rehandled, and process costs of US$10.34/st processed (includes general and administrative costs).
 
5.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 11-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
12.0
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
 
12.1
Introduction
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources using a detailed pit design and block model from a physical survey of the topography as of December 31, 2021.  The mine plans assume open pit mining, and a conventional truck and loader fleet.
 
Mining rates are predominantly dictated by the crusher throughput.  Average annual throughput of 4.6 Mst from the crusher is expected.  Throughput rates were established and proven over the more than 30 years of operational history at the site.
 
The Wharf mining area contains the remaining Portland Ridgeline pit.  Different nomenclature used for mining areas are all part of the same deposit but represent distinct mining phases.
 
12.2
Development of Mining Case
 
The site was evaluated using economic pit shells generated using Whittle software.  Appropriate cost and mining schedules were applied using cost estimates forecast for the life of mine (LOM).  A gold price of $1,400 was used for the economic shells.
 
12.3
Designs
 
Pit optimizations were done using the Lerchs–Grossmann algorithm using Whittle software.  Whittle software uses the operating and processing costs in conjunction with a range of selling costs for the metal to produce a set of nested pits.  Nested pits begin at the lowest metal price and get successively larger as the metal price is increased.  If the pits are mined in order, they will generate the maximum value.
 
The nested pits generated from the Whittle software are brought into GEMS mine planning software and used as a template to design pits and laybacks.  The individual pits are phased by the Wharf Operations engineering staff and consideration is given to mining the highest-grade areas first, while maintaining adequate space for waste advancement in the mined-out portions of the pit.  Pits are designed from bottom up in 20 ft increments, designing in the toe, crest, catch benches at specified intervals for the appropriate rock types.
 
Design input parameters used in the pit optimizations are summarized in Table 12‑1, and the design assumptions for the leach pads are provided in Table 12‑2.
 
Phased laybacks are designed from the nested Whittle pit shells for the Wharf mining area.  Using appropriate determinations for the annual mining limits based on the estimated crusher production, specific shells are selected as potential laybacks.  The Whittle operational scenario and schedule graph allows for ore and total material limits to be input, and if the mining limits imposed can be honored, the output will be a series of annual pit shells.  After numerous Whittle iterations the resulting outputs become the basis of the phase selection used to optimize mining.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑1:        Pit Shell Input Parameters
 
Parameter
Deadwood
Porphyry
Fill
Bench height (ft.)
20
20
20
Bench toe offset (ft.)
10
7.5
20
Batter angle (degrees)
63
69
45
Catch bench (ft.)
20
20
10
Slope (degrees)
45
50
34
Minimum mining width (ft.)
80
Road design width (ft.)
80
Haul road grade (typical; %)
10
Haul road grade (maximum; %)
12
 
Table 12‑2:        Leach Pad Optimization Input Parameters
 
Parameter
Value
Unit
Lift height (ft.)
20
  
Overall slope
2:1
H:V
Catch bench (ft.)
10
per lift
Maximum design height (ft.)
150
above liner
Cushion layer (working area) (ft.)
10
above liner
 
The outline of the final pit is shown in Figure 12‑1, and the remaining pit mine plan by year is provided in Figure 12‑2.
 
The resulting mine plan was analyzed in a financial model and is economically viable.
 
12.4
Input Assumptions
 
Input parameters used in the pit designs were summarized in Table 12‑1.
 
Geotechnical assumptions are discussed in Chapter 13.2.  Hydrological assumptions are included in Chapter 13.3.
 
A design cut-off grade of 0.12 oz/st Au was used to determine the material that is economically viable to mine.  The ultimate pit design was generated using this design cut-off grade of 0.012 oz/st Au.  Economic considerations are factors in selecting a design cut-off grade slightly above the calculated break-even cut-off.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 12‑1:      Life-of-Mine Outline Plan
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 12‑2:      Mine Progression Layout Plan
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The calculated design cut-off is based on the following equation:
 

 •
(Cost/ton Total Mining + Cost/ton Total Process) ÷ (Gold Price ($/oz) x Gold Recovery (%))
 
Since all material contained in the ultimate pit design will be mined and moved to the crusher or waste rock storage facility (WRSF), the mining cost is removed from the above equation to calculate the operational cut-off grade of 0.010 oz/st Au.  The material above 0.010 oz/st Au is sent to the leach pad for processing.  The material below 0.010 oz/st Au is sent to the WRSF.  The mining cost is the same for ore and waste.  Gold recovered from processing the material between 0.010 and 0.012 oz/st Au offsets the mining and processing costs so that it is more economic to process it than sending it to the WRSF.  This also helps improve the net present value (NPV) of the operation.  The reserves are reported above the operational cut-off of 0.010 oz/st Au.
 
Economic parameters used for the cut-off grade were those provided in Table 12‑3.  The costs are based on the LOM mine plans and the costs associated with executing the plan.  The costs selected for use are shown as reasonable by examining the full LOM costs.  A discussion of the operating costs is provided in Chapter 18.3.
 
12.5
Surface Topography
 
The topography used for reserve estimation was a December 2021 actual month-end surface.  A survey of all active mining areas and WRSFs is completed at the end of each month, which was used to update the topography in active mining areas.  Topography outside the active surveyed areas was obtained from orthophotos and photogrammetry.
 
12.6
Density and Moisture
 
The densities used for the mineral reserve estimate are:
 

 •
In-situ (open pit):
 

 o
Phonolite:  0.0790 ton/ft3;
 

 o
Porphyry:  0.0769 ton/ft3;
 

 o
Deadwood Formation:  0.0714 ton/ft3;
 

 •
Stockpile:  0.0591 ton/ft3.
 
In situ moisture averages 5% and stockpile material averages 5%.
 
Mineral reserve tonnages are reported as dry bank tons.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑3:        Mineral Reserves Pit Shell Input Parameters
 
Mining Cost
Process Cost
Drilling
US$0.20/st mined
     
Blasting
US$0.26/st mined
Crushing
US$2.31/st processed
Dozing
US$0.26/st mined
Pad load
US$0.80/st processed
*Hauling(waste)
US$0.75/st mined
Unload
US$1.22/st processed
Loading
US$0.16/st mined
Process
US$2.46/st processed
Roads & yards
US$0.16/st mined
G&A
$US3.55/st processed
General mining
US$0.35/st mined
     
Total Mining
US$2.15/st mined
Wharf Total Process
US$10.34/st processed
Rehandle cost
US$1.62/t rehandled
     
Cut-off grade (oz/ton Au)
0.010
     
Selling price (Au/oz)
US$1,400
     
Burden
        
Royalty (Au/oz)
US$56.00
     
Pit slopes by rock type
        
Deadwood Formation
45°
     
Porphyry
50°
     
Fill
34°
     
 
12.7
Ore Loss and Dilution
 
Estimates assume 100% mining recovery and no dilution was applied.
 
12.8
Commodity Price
 
The gold price used in mineral reserve estimation is based on analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year.  The estimated timeframe used is the eight-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates.  The gold price forecast for the mineral reserve estimate is US$1,400/oz. The QP reviewed the forecast as outlined in Chapter 16.
 
12.9
Mineral Reserve Statement
 
Mineral reserves have been classified using the mineral reserve definitions set out in SK1300.  The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facility.  Mineral reserves are reported in Table 12‑4 and are current as at December 31, 2021.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 12‑4:        Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2021 (based on US$1,400/oz gold price)
 
Confidence Category
Tons
(st x 1,000)
Gold Grade
(oz/st)
Contained Gold Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
Gold Cut-off Grades
(oz/st)
Metallurgical Recovery
(%)
Proven
27,976
0.022
620
0.010
80
Probable
8,306
0.028
231
0.010
80
Total proven and probable
36,282
0.023
851
0.010
80
 
Notes to accompany mineral reserve table:
 
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as of December 31, 2021 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (SK1300).
 
2.
The reference point for the mineral reserve estimate is delivery to the heap leach facility.  The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
 
3.
The estimate uses the following key input parameters:  assumption of conventional open pit mining; gold price of US$1,400/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of 0.010 oz/st Au; metallurgical recovery assumption of 78.7% across all rock types; royalty burden of US$56/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 34–50º; mining costs of $2.15/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.65/st rehandled, process costs of US$10.34/st processed (includes general and administrative costs).
 
4.
Rounding of short tons, grades, and troy ounces, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent differences between tons, grades, and contained metal contents.
 
12.10
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include:
 
•
Commodity prices:  the mineral reserve estimates are most sensitive to metal prices.  Coeur’s current strategy is to sell most of the metal production at spot prices, exposing the company to both positive and negative changes in the market, both of which are outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Metallurgical recovery:  changes in metallurgical recovery could also have an impact on the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
Operating costs:  higher or lower operating costs than those assumed could also affect the mineral reserve estimates.  Operating costs could increase over the life of the Project, due to factors outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Geotechnical:  unforeseen geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the orebody, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  There are sufficient management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks.  Designed pit slopes have been evaluated for stability in several geotechnical studies and are regularly evaluated by the engineering group at the mine.  The QP considers that sufficient controls are in place at the Wharf mine to effectively manage geotechnical risk, and the risk of significant impact on the mineral reserve estimate is low;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
•
Hydrogeological:  unexpected hydrogeological conditions could cause issues with access and extraction of areas of the mineral reserve due to higher than anticipated rates of water ingress.  The QP considers the risk of encountering hydrogeological conditions which would significantly affect the mineral reserve estimate is low;
 
•
Equipment leases:  equipment leases have been maintained over the last 25 years.  Current truck and loader fleet lease rates are under contract through 2024 with an option for a two-year extension beyond.  A major change in pricing would affect operating cost and have an impact on the mineral reserve estimate;
 
•
Geological and structural interpretations:  changes in the underlying geology model including changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones, changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions, and density and domain assignments could result in changes to the geology model upon which mineral reserve estimate is based;
 
•
Treatment of nitrates:  the ability to treat the spent ore for nitrates to below 10 ppm has been demonstrated through years of operational history.  If an unexpected interruption to the treatment process occurred, it could affect the ability to offload and reuse the leach pad, which could impact the mineral reserve estimate due to increased costs;
 
•
Permitting:  a portion of the estimated mineral reserves are not currently permitted.  The application process for acquiring new permits and permit amendments has been initiated with both the State and Lawrence County.  If the permits are not granted, a portion of the estimated mineral reserves will not be available to mine;
 
•
Permitting and social license:  inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain social license to operate could result in the inability to extract some or all of the mineral reserve.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 12-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
13.0
MINING METHODS
 
13.1
Introduction
 
The Wharf Operations use conventional truck and loader mining methods to feed a heap leach pad.  The mine has been in continuous operation since 1983.
 
13.2
Geotechnical Considerations
 
The last geotechnical study was completed in 2021 by personnel from third-party consultants, Respec.  This study was to assess the potential for highwall instabilities at the mine site.  Respec concluded that the current design configurations are appropriate, but there is an opportunity to design the ultimate pit with steeper slopes.
 
13.3
Hydrogeological Considerations
 
Water infiltration near the 5,960 ft elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging.  Previous mining has advanced benches to the 5,920 ft bench.  The current mineral reserve estimate includes material down to the 5,900 ft elevation.
 
13.4
Operations
 
The Wharf Operations are currently a conventional truck and loader heap leach gold mine.  The operation consists of five heap leach pads, which are all load/offload pads.  The majority of the planned mining disturbance falls within the current permitted area and an expansion to the mine permit is expected in 2022 that will cover the remaining mineral reserve estimate.
 
Coeur leases nearly all the earth-moving equipment used at the mine.  Relationships with local dealers span over 15 years, and the earthmoving equipment is under contract through 2024.
 
In-situ ore and waste must be blasted prior to removal.  Several historic pits that were partially backfilled are being mined again and the backfilled material is considered re-handle and does not require blasting.  Waste material removed for access to the ore is taken to one of the WRSF sites.  The WRSF sites are all designed to fill existing pits and are reclaimed as soon as possible after placement.
 
Mined ore is either placed in a stockpile or placed directly into the primary crusher ore hopper. Crushed ore is then conveyed to a final product stockpile.  Crushed ore is picked up by loaders and placed in trucks to be dumped in 20 ft lifts on one of the five heap leach pads.
 
Ore is leached for a specified time and then neutralized and de-nitrified. Once the ore has been leached and neutralized, it is considered spent ore and upon approval from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR), can be unloaded and the pad reused for fresh ore loading.  The spent ore is used to backfill pits within defined perimeter of pollution zones.  Within each perimeter of pollution zone, nitrates in the spent ore in specific quantities can be placed.  The current active perimeter of pollution zones have physical capacity to contain the estimated mineral reserves.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
13.5
Blasting and Explosives
 
Coeur uses Epiroc DM-45 hammer drills to drill patterns.  Patterns consist of approximately 250 holes.  The drill pattern spacings vary based on the rock type:
 

 •
Porphyry:  15 x 15 ft;
 

 •
Deadwood Formation:  16 x 16 ft;
 

 •
Phonolite:  17 x 17 ft.
 
Coeur contracts out the loading and blasting of the drill holes.  The contractor uses ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) in dry holes and uses emulsion in wet holes.  Drill patterns are shot five days a week.
 
13.6
Grade Control and Production Monitoring
 
Grade control samples are collected while drilling out the blast pattern.  The drills have a GPS instrument for guidance on hole location and sampling identification.  Cuttings are collected in a pan placed near the collar of the drill hole.  The drill operator collects the pan at 10 ft intervals down the hole and empties the pan into a plastic bag with the associated hole-ID tag.  Sample bags are delivered to the assay laboratory at the end of each shift.
 
Assay data are delivered to the Wharf engineering department as csv files and subsequently imported into Geovia GEMS mining software.  The ore control engineer uses the data to design ore and waste polygons that are then staked out in the pit for mining.  Ore polygons are a minimum of 20 ft wide due to the size of the mining equipment employed.
 
13.7
Production Schedule
 
The forecast annual production schedule is provided in Table 13‑1.  An outline of the final pit was provided in Figure 12‑1, and the planned mine progression in Figure 12‑2.
 
13.8
Equipment
 
A list of key primary and support equipment required for mining is provided in Table 13‑2.
 
13.9
Personnel
 
The mine operations personnel requirement for the remaining LOM averages 255.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 13‑1:        Forecast LOM Production Schedule
 
 
Units
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Total
Mine
Tons ore
kst
5,030
4,594
4,124
4,561
4,600
4,600
4,600
3,670
Gold grade
oz/st
0.021
0.025
0.025
0.023
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.023
Mined gold
koz
106
116
102
106
110
110
110
83
Tons waste
kst
12,989
10,671
11,852
11,065
10,170
10,414
8,840
1,674
Tons rehandle
kst
4,342
5,509
2,029
1,167
1,795
1,8,38
1,560
26
Total material mined
kst
22,361
20,774
18,005
16,793
16,565
16,852
15,000
5,370
Strip ratio
waste:ore
3.45:1
3.52:1
3.37:1
2.68:1
2.60:1
2.66:1
2.26:1
0.46:1
Placed Ore
Tons ore
kst
4,600
4,600
4,600
4,600
4,600
4,600
4,600
3,579
Gold grade
oz/st
0.022
0.025
0.023
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.023
Placed gold
koz
101
116
106
110
111
110
111
82
 
Table 13‑2:        Peak Required Equipment List
 
Equipment
Units
Production bench drill
3
Dozer
8
Wheel loader
5
Haul truck
17
Backhoe
3
Track hoe
2
Motor grader
2
Water truck
2
Oil/fuel truck
1
Sand truck
1
Snowplow
2
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 13-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
14.0
RECOVERY METHODS
 
14.1
Process Method Selection
 
The process plant design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.  Debottlenecking and optimization activities that have occurred since Coeur acquired the operations have assisted in increasing capacities and efficiencies.
 
14.2
Flowsheet
 
A flow diagram for the crusher is provided in Figure 14‑1.  The leach pad flowsheet is included as Figure 14‑2.  A simplified diagram showing the neutralization and denitrification process is shown in Figure 14‑3.
 
14.3
Plant Design
 
14.3.1
Overview
 
Ore is trucked to the crusher located at the east end of the plant/pad area to be crushed to a nominal size of 83% minus 1/2-inch. The crushing plant can process between 4.2 and 4.6 Mst/a of ore, depending on ore hardness. Lime is added to the crushed ore.  Once crushed, the ore is trucked to leach pads to be stacked in 20 ft high lifts up to a maximum height of 150 ft above liner.
 
Stacked ore is then leached with dilute sodium cyanide solution.  Gold and silver in the pregnant (metal-bearing) leach solution are recovered by adsorption on activated carbon and the barren (non-metal bearing) leach solution is recycled to the heap leach pad.  Spent ore is rinsed, neutralized, and denitrified and then removed from the leach pad to be placed on a designated spent ore storage area.
 
Gold and silver are recovered from loaded carbon using a modified pressure Zadra method.  The rich electrolyte from elution is processed by electrowinning, depositing the metals into an electrolytic sludge comprised of 90–98% gold and silver.
 
Precious metals in the electrolytic sludge are further purified by smelting at a commercial refinery.
 
14.3.2
Crushing
 
A single crushing circuit is used to process ore before being transferred to the leach pads.  This crushing circuit has undergone numerous modifications over its history to accommodate operational conditions and optimize performance.
 
Ore is hauled from the pit with CAT 777 and 785 haul trucks that dump directly into a hopper or onto a stockpile adjacent to the hopper.  Stockpiled ore is fed into the hopper by a loader at times when a direct ore haul is not available.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14‑1:      Crusher Flow Diagram
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14‑2:      Leach Pad Flowsheet
 
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 14‑3:      Neutralization and Denitrification Flow Diagram
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Ore is transferred by an apron chain feeder to a vibrating grizzly where oversize rock is diverted into a Metso C140 jaw crusher.  The jaw crusher reduces the rock down to a 6 inch nominal size before dropping onto a conveyor belt along with the fines from the grizzly.
 
Before being fed into the secondary crusher, the ore passes over a screen deck to remove final product sized material.  These fines are conveyed to the final product pile and oversize rock drops into a Metso-Nordberg HP 500 cone crusher where it is reduced to 2½ inch nominal size.  Crushed ore may be conveyed to an adjacent screen plant to remove product size material before being conveyed to the tertiary crushing stage.  Product size rock from the screen plant is conveyed to the final product pile.  The system can be set for the ore to bypass the screen plant and be fed directly to the tertiary crushers in the event of a failure or planned maintenance at the screen plant.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
The tertiary stage of the crushing system consists of four Metso-Nordberg Omnicone 1560 cone crushers.  Ore enters the tertiary stage through a diverter that distributes the rock to the four cone crushers.  Each cone has its own screen deck to remove product size material before dropping into the crusher.  This product size material is conveyed to the final product pile.  Rock that is larger than product size falls in the tertiary cones and is crushed down to ¾-inch nominal size.  The total crushing system throughput of 750–1,000 st/hr can be achieved with only three of the tertiary cones operating.  A fourth cone can be left in standby in the event of a failure or planned maintenance on one of the other cones.
 
After leaving the tertiary crushers the ore is conveyed back to the screen plant and any material not meeting the final product size is recirculated back into the tertiary cones until it meets specifications.  The final product size target is 95% passing ¾-inch and 83% passing ½-inch.  Powdered lime is added to the final crushed product.  The lime application rate is adjusted as needed to control solution pH during leaching.
 
The maximum system throughput is generally considered to be 1,000 st/hr; however, rock type, moisture content, and weather conditions have a significant impact on actual throughput.  Average throughput is approximately 730 st/hr.  The crushing system is operated on 12-hour shifts for 680 shifts per year.  Non-operating shifts are used for planned maintenance.
 
14.3.3
Heap Leach
 
The heap leach process began in 1983 using reusable heap leach pads (load/offload).  There are currently five on/off heap leach pads used for the leaching cycle; the newest pad (Pad #5) was constructed in 2008.
 
In 2013, Wharf received certification by the International Cyanide Management Institute in recognition of being compliant with the International Cyanide Management Institute cyanide code for adhering to the best industry practices for storage, handling, and use of cyanide.  International Cyanide Management Institute cyanide code re-certification was attained in 2019.  Re-certification is in process.
 
Each pad is loaded in 20-ft lifts to a maximum of 150 ft above the liner.  Each lift is wetted with a dilute sodium cyanide solution that is distributed through a series of drip emitters, wobblers, or Rain Bird-style impact sprays.  Drippers are the primary solution distribution method and involve drip lines being placed underneath the pads active ore placement surface to mitigate potential freezing, reduce evaporation, and minimize the opportunity for ponding.  In the final stages of precious metal recovery from the heap leach, sodium cyanide addition ceases for the rinsing stage.  The rinsing stage of leaching recovers the final gold and silver ounces prior to spent ore treatment.
 
Once the contained gold’s full economic recovery from the ore has been achieved, the pad enters the neutralization/denitrification stage.  The pad neutralization circuit uses hydrogen peroxide to destroy the sodium cyanide contained in the pad effluent.  Once the WAD cyanide levels have been reduced to target levels, the solution is routed to the denitrification system.  The denitrification system consists of two biological denitrification plants and a heated pond which acts as a biological reaction cell.  The biological denitrification process uses bacteria to remove the oxygen from the nitrates and nitrites, chemically reducing them to inert nitrogen gas.  Upon completion of nitrate destruction in the solution stream, solution is routed back to the pad through the same piping network, drippers, and wobblers that applied the original leach solution.  The five-pad system allows for a minimum of one pad to be available for each phase of the processing cycle at any given time.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Denitrification continues until the spent ore meets the criteria for off-loading.  Both DANR representatives and Coeur sample the solutions for testing to verify the pad effluent meets off-load criteria through third-party analysis.  When the spent ore is approved for removal from the pad, the spent ore is trucked to a spent ore disposal area.
 
14.3.4
Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery Process Facility
 
In the gold leaching process, barren (non-metal bearing) process solution is pumped to the active leach pads and applied at a target rate of 0.0045 gpm/ft2.  The barren leach solution trickles through the heap leach, chemically extracting precious metals through cyanidation.  The pad pregnant liquor solution sodium cyanide target concentrations are 25 to 35 ppm weakly acid-dissociable cyanide (maximum weakly acid-dissociable cyanide value of 50 ppm for cyanide code compliance).
 
The pregnant leach solution is collected on high density polyethylene liner and routed through a collection of drainpipes under the pad.  The pregnant leach solution is directed to the collection dam of the respective pad and through a series of pipes into the pregnant sump.  From the sump, the pregnant solution is pumped to the first tank of a series of carbon-in-column tanks.  There are four carbon-in-column circuits to process precious metal solutions. Activated coconut shell carbon is used to collect metals from solution.  Once the precious metals have been adsorbed on carbon to sufficient concentration, the loaded carbon is transferred to the elution circuit.  The barren solution has additional sodium cyanide added to it and is pumped back to the pads.  A safety screen is used to prevent carbon fines loss. If the pregnant leach solution from the pad is too low in grade due to late stage leaching or rinsing, the pregnant leach solution is routed to the enrichment sump and returned to another pad.
 
In the elution circuit, carbon is prepared by acid washing with 3–4% nitric acid, rinsed with soft water, and then pH adjusted using liquid caustic.  Gold and silver are stripped from the loaded carbon using a modified Zadra process.  Coeur incorporates a heated sodium hydroxide solution under sufficient pressures to keep solution from flashing.  This process forces the precious metals back into solution at concentrations up to 40 times what is seen in the pregnant leach solution plant feed.  The rich electrolyte solution is then passed through a series of electrowinning cells where the precious metals are precipitated producing 90–98% precious metal electrolytic sludge.  The electrolytic sludge is harvested, dewatered, retorted, sampled, packaged, and shipped to a commercial refinery for further processing.  Alternatively, the refinery has the capability to smelt the sludge using a furnace to make doré.  Liquid mercury is collected from the retort process and stored.  Stripped carbon is reactivated and returned to the carbon-in-column circuit.
 
Carbon fines are collected and shipped off site for precious metals removal.  Spent environmental carbon for either cyanide or mercury collection is sent off site for disposal.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
14.4
Process Facility Performance
 
Silver to gold ratios in the process feed have historically varied from near 1:1 to >40:1. These variations in the ore delivered to the pad have resulted in wide swings in the bullion composition produced by the plant.  A Merrill-Crowe circuit would provide better plant performance in high silver situations, but during the early years the gold to silver ratio did not warrant use of the technique. By the time the silver ratios began increasing, the plant was firmly established as an activated carbon adsorption–desorption–recovery plant.
 
Plant gold efficiency during the low silver periods reaches the industry norm of +95% for this type of plant.  During periods when the silver concentration begins to climb, silver preferentially loading on the carbon reduces both the plant gold and silver efficiencies.  Changes in the plant stripping circuit have improved the ability for the plant to compensate for the additional silver content.
 
The plant has sufficient electrowinning capacity and can adjust strip cycles to increase the carbon volume processed.  During periods of extremely high silver grades, the retort is used at maximum capacity.  Consumption of reagents also increases with additional silver content.  Greater amounts of cyanide are consumed by increased silver in leach solutions.  Changes in the plant stripping schedule also affect sodium hydroxide and carbon consumption rates.
 
14.5
Equipment Sizing
 
The major equipment used in the process is summarized in Table 14‑1 and Table 14‑2.
 
14.6
Power and Consumables
 
14.6.1.1
Power
 
Processing power requirements are approximately 13,700 MWh per year.  This power requirement is consistent through the LOM plan.  Incoming power to the site was designed with redundancies.  Black Hills Energy provides power to the site from two different directions allowing a swap in direction in the event of an outage.  In addition, generators are installed on site with sufficient capacity to critical facilities, with exception of the crusher, during an outage.
 
14.6.1.2
Water
 
The pregnant, barren, overflow, and contingency process ponds are used to collect either the excess or drain down solution in the event of a water balance upset or power supply interruptions.  Surplus water in the processing circuit can be routed through the contingency pond and sent to the Reliance and Ross Valley holding ponds.
 
During times of water surplus, water is processed out of the system from the Ross Valley holding pond through water treatment plants.  Each water treatment facility is operated similar to a municipal water treatment plant.  Bacteria are used to reduce nitrates and nitrites to permitted levels.  The effluents of both treatment plants are routed to the Ross Valley holding pond where heated raw water is mixed in with nutrients.  In cases where metals species or pH are not within the acceptable parameters, consumables are utilized to precipitate the metals species or adjust the pH prior to discharge in the permitted mining area.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
During times of drought, make up water can be added to the system from PW3.  This process well has sufficient capacity to supply necessary water to maintain operations during dry conditions.
 
Treated water is discharged to surface or groundwater, depending on permit and operational requirements.  The water treatment facilities consist of Pond 4, the South Dakota carbon-in-columns, Pond 5, Reliance holding pond, Ross Valley heat plant, Ross Valley holding pond, the Egg Pond, the Clean Water treatment plant, and the Ross Valley treatment plant.  These facilities are used to treat nitrates and nitrites in pad effluents for offload, in excess process fluids due to meteoric events, and in historic mining fluids from prior operations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-8
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑1:        Process Equipment List Summary (Crusher, Cones, Screens)
 
Crusher and Cones
Equipment
Model
Liner Manufacturer
Liner Model #
Jaw crusher
Metso c-140 jaw crusher
ESCO
PN JLKC140M26-14R, PN JLKC140S21-14R
Secondary crusher
Metso-Nordberg HP-500
ESCO
PN GMTH500LO914R,PN GMTH500M26-14R
Tertiary cones
Metso-Nordberg Omnicone 1560
ESCO
PN GNB1560L08-14R,PN GNB1560M14-14R
Screens
Equipment
Model
Screen Manufacturer
Screen Model #
Grizzly
Tabor 5*10
-
-
Secondary screen
Tabor 8*20 (or 8*24)
ESCO
PN 920FE35CA, Polydeck, Deister top deck
PN 920SE35CA, Polydeck, panel with skid bars, 12 x 24 in
PN 1374FC3JEA, Polydeck, secondary lower deck / upper half screen panel, 19 x 60-BK40F-MX-SWF-8P, B3H2#1186-PD60, NR80, 1 x 2
PN 1373FC3CWA, Polydeck, panel, 12.5 x 65 mm slotted opening, black, 40 mm thick, flat, maxi high open area style, slotted with flow, 8 pin fastening, Rubberdex 40 flexi rubber, DMAX, 12 X 24 in
1, 2, and 4 decks
Tabor 7*16
ESCO
PN 767FC3JEA, Polydeck, panel, 25 x 75 mm (1 x 3 in equivalent) slotted opening, black, 40 mm thick, flat, maxi high open area style, slot with flow, 8 pin fastening, Rubberdex 60 flexi rubber, 12 x 24 in,
PN 1373FC3CWA, Polydeck, panel, 12.5 x 65 mm slotted opening, black, 40 mm thick, flat, maxi high open area style, slotted with flow, 8 pin fastening, Rubberdex 40 flexi rubber, DMAX, 12 x 24 in
3 deck
Tabor 6*16 (swapped to Tabor 7*16 on OCT2021)
ESCO
PN SFMOT-1.000-243-S00002, major wire, tert 3 deck, 1 in
PN SFMOT-0.500-148-S00005, major wire, tert 3 deck, 1/2 in
5 and 6 decks
KCI-JCI
ESCO
PN SFMOT-1.250-243-S00007, major wire, top deck, 1-1/4 in
PN SFMOT-0.500-148-S00006, major wire, bottom deck, 1/2 in

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-9
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 14‑2:        Process Equipment List Summary (Plant)
 
Equipment
Manufacturer
Model
Preg solution pumps (3)
Summit pump
2196XLO
Barren/enrichment pumps
Summit
Cornell
2196XLO
81024MX-12DB
Reactivation kiln
FLSmidth
2MT2422
EW cells (3)
Summit Valley Equipment
75EC18
Retort
Summit Valley Equipment
n/a
Refining furnace
MIFCO
T-200-MT
Strip vessels
Gladwin Tank MFG
n/a
Boilers (3)
Superior Boiler
 Superior Boiler
Triad GMS-2000-HP-HEP Mohawk 4-5-304
New columns (6)
n/a
n/a
Old columns (5)
n/a
n/a
South Dakota columns (4)
n/a
n/a
Nevada columns (4)
n/a
n/a
Mercury scrubber (2)
FLSmidth
n/a
Generators (3)
Euclid
Caterpillar
Caterpillar
573RSL2049A
SR4
SR4B
 
14.6.1.3
Consumables
 
Consumables used in processing include activated carbon, cyanide, nitric acid, caustic, anti-scalant, hydrogen peroxide, and lime.
 
14.6.2
Personnel
 
The personnel requirements in the heap leach and process area for the LOM average 52 hourly and 15 salary positions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 14-10
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
15.0
INFRASTRUCTURE
 
15.1
Introduction
 
All infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  The operation consists of mining one open pit that comprises several historic open pits and underground mines.  During the life of the operation, once a portion of the ultimate pit is finished it is backfilled and reclaimed as soon as possible.
 
Active mining and processing areas at Wharf are fenced to maintain perimeter safety and security. Gates with locks are used on all tertiary roads that have access on and off the site.  The mine is fully supported with electricity, natural gas, telephone, and radio communications.  On-site infrastructure includes production and monitoring water wells, offices, maintenance, warehouse and various ancillary facilities, open-pit mining areas, WRSF areas, crushing and conveying facilities, five lined heap leach pads, two water treatment plants and a process facility.  There is an onsite assay laboratory as well as a metallurgical laboratory.
 
A site utility layout plan is presented in Figure 15‑1.  A site facilities layout plan is presented in Figure 15‑2. The WRSFs and spent ore facilities are shown on Figure 15‑3.
 
The Golden Reward area is undergoing closure and rehabilitation.  On-site infrastructure at Golden Reward includes a production well used to supply the Terry Peak Ski Area with snow-making water, several monitoring wells, a lined pond used for snow making by the Terry Peak Ski Area, a maintenance shop building used by the Terry Peak Ski Area, and an administration building used by Coeur for cold storage.
 
15.2
Roads and Logistics
 
The Wharf Operations are located four miles west of Lead in Lawrence County.  The site is accessed by traveling south of Lead on Highway 85/14A for one mile, then traveling west on Highway 473 to the Stewart Slope Road and turning left onto the Wharf access road. The paved portion of the Stewart Slope Road terminates at the Wharf access road.  The Wharf access road and the Stewart Slope Road are maintained by Coeur to provide continuous access from Highway 473 to the Wharf security gate in all weather conditions.
 
Various unpaved roads exist on and around the Wharf Operations area and are maintained by Coeur to facilitate light vehicle and heavy mobile equipment traffic movements.
 
The Golden Reward area is situated two miles southwest of the town of Lead and is accessed by traveling south of Lead on Highway 85/14A one mile and then traveling west on Highway 473 for a quarter of a mile to Fantail Gulch Road. Fantail Gulch Road leads to the main gate at Golden Reward.  Very little maintenance is done to the few existing roads on site because of the inactive status of the area.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 15‑1:      Infrastructure Layout Plan
 
 
Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 15‑2:      Facilities Layout Plan
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Figure 15‑3:      Waste Rock and Spent Ore Facility Layout Plan
 

Note:  Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-4
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
15.3
Stockpiles
 
Topsoil stockpiles are utilized at strategic locations throughout the mine site.  These locations are generally close to stripping areas as well as future reclamation sites to minimize haulage.  An interim reclamation seed mix approved by the State is applied to topsoil stockpiles to minimize erosion potential and limit weed growth.
 
15.4
Leach Pads
 
There are currently five on/off heap leach pads used for the leaching cycle; the newest pad (Pad #5) was constructed in 2008.  In 2013, Wharf received certification by the International Cyanide Management Institute (ICMI) in recognition of being compliant with the ICMI cyanide code for adhering to the best industry practices for storage, handling, and use of cyanide.  ICMI cyanide code re-certification was attained in early 2016.
 
Each pad is loaded in 20 ft lifts to a maximum of 150 ft above the liner.  Each lift is wetted with a dilute sodium cyanide solution that is distributed through a series of drip emitters, wobblers, or Rain Bird-style impact sprays.  Drippers are the primary solution distribution method and involve drip lines being placed underneath the pads active ore placement surface to mitigate potential freezing, reduce evaporation and minimize the opportunity for ponding.  In the final stages of precious metal recovery from the heap leach, sodium cyanide addition ceases for the rinsing stage.  The rinsing stage of leaching recovers the final gold and silver ounces prior to spent ore treatment.
 
Once the contained gold’s full economic recovery from the ore has been achieved, the pad enters the neutralization/denitrification stage.  The pad neutralization circuit uses hydrogen peroxide to destroy the sodium cyanide in pad effluent to the target levels required for denitrification plant influent.  The pad effluent is then processed using CIC for metals removal to meet surface water discharge quality.  From the CIC, the solution is then routed to the denitrification circuit for nitrate destruction.  Neutralization continues until cyanide, pH and metals contents are within required target ranges.
 
The denitrification system consists of two biological denitrification plants and a heated pond which acts as a biological reaction cell.  The biological denitrification process utilizes bacteria to remove the oxygen from the nitrates and nitrites, chemically reducing them to inert nitrogen gas.  Upon completion of nitrate destruction in the solution stream, solution is routed back to the pad through the same piping network, drippers and wobblers that applied the original leach solution.  The five-pad system allows for a minimum of one pad to be available for each phase of the processing cycle at any given time.
 
Denitrification continues until the spent ore meets the criteria for off-loading.  When the spent ore is approved for removal from the pad, the spent ore is trucked to a spent ore storage area.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-5
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
15.5
Waste Rock Storage Facilities
 
Waste rock is disposed of in designated waste rock storage facility (WRSF) areas, typically used to backfill existing pits (refer to Figure 15‑3).
 
A small amount of material has elevated sulfides and has sporadically been encountered during mining.  This material is handled according to the acid rock drainage mitigation plan approved by DANR.  All WRSFs are located within the permitted disturbance boundary.  Waste facilities are re-contoured to an approximate 3:1 slope, covered with topsoil, and revegetated as soon as possible upon completion.
 
For the remaining mine life, Wharf will mine approximately 92 Mst of waste.  There is sufficient space in the WRSFs for the estimate waste quantity.
 
15.6
Spent Ore Facilities
 
Once the ore has been leached, neutralized, and denitrified, it is considered “spent ore”.  Spent ore backfill on unlined facilities are permitted by way of a groundwater discharge permit.  Currently Coeur has both un-lined and lined spent ore facilities.  Facility locations were shown on Figure 15‑3.
 
DANR has approved a Perimeter of Operational Pollution zone for each groundwater discharge permit and allows for a variance to select groundwater standards within the Perimeter of Operational Pollution zones.
 
The limiting factor that controls the amount of spent ore that can be placed unlined in each facility under the groundwater discharge plan is nitrate loading.  By maintaining the loading limit for nitrate, regional groundwater quality will be protected.  DANR has assigned a loading limit for each groundwater discharge permit based on hydrogeological fate and transport models submitted during the permit application process.
 
Coeur is required to monitor the pore water of every neutralized heap prior to off-loading to calculate the nitrate loading within each permit.  Coeur is also required to monitor compliance wells located at the edges of the Perimeter of Operational Pollution zones and implement a mitigation plan if the nitrate concentration exceeds half of the groundwater standard.  When the nitrate loading within each facility approaches the assigned limit, Coeur has the option of placing spent ore on lined facilities or implementing in-situ denitrification.  DANR may grant a credit to the loading limit if Coeur can demonstrate successful in-situ denitrification.
 
Coeur is required to perform an update to the site fate and transport model at least once every three years to verify model accuracy and update input parameters and sampling data.  The most recent model update was performed in December 2019, which demonstrated adequate capacity for LOM projected spent ore and waste rock within currently designed facilities.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-6
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
15.7
Water Management
 
The annual water accumulation within lined pads, ponds, and ditches due to precipitation averages approximately 100-Mgal.
 
The focus of the water balance program is monitoring and proactive control of the process to maintain solutions at appropriate levels for any given situation.  The method is a combination of constant monitoring and a set of “go” or “no go” parameters that, when the conditions are met, trigger a set of actions.  The program is a holistic, comprehensive approach in that it examines daily precipitation, accounts for varying amounts of water inventory and the current routing of flows to various locations.
 
The water management system consists of five major sections:  five leach pad cells, five process ponds (pregnant, barren, overflow, contingency, and neutralization), three water treatment plants, treated water discharge/spray system, and a lead detection/recapture system.
 
DANR requires that Coeur manage for a total pond freeboard to hold a 19.6-inch storm event (probable maximum precipitation) between all the ponds on site.
 
The water balance is maintained by monitoring daily precipitation and using a spreadsheet model and decision tree to determine how water is transferred between the five sections of the water system.  In the event of excess water being stored within the ponds, treated water is discharged to specifically permitted surface and groundwater discharge areas.
 
15.8
Water Supply
 
Potable water is supplied to the Wharf Operations by well PW-2 that taps the Madison limestone aquifer.  Well PW-2 can supply approximately 80–100 gpm of quality drinking water.
 
After chlorination treatment, the water enters two 5,000-gal concrete storage reservoirs prior to distribution to the various mine facilities, which include the warehouse, administration, shop building, crusher, Ross Valley treatment plant, and the process plant.
 
Potable water is also supplied to a fill station used to fill portable tanks used for in-pit drilling.
 
Freshwater wells PW-1, PW-3, and HDH-8A provide supplemental water for water treatment and process use as needed.
 
15.9
Camps and Accommodation
 
There is no onsite accommodation.  Employees reside in adjacent communities.
 
15.10
Power and Electrical
 
Electrical power is principally supplied by Black Hills Power via a 12.47kV transmission line that runs up Nevada Gulch.  This transmission line is shared by Terry Peak Ski Area, Spearfish Canyon, and residential customers.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-7
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Main power service enters the mine site near the warehouse and administration buildings and is primary metered at the service point.  Several small services are fed ahead of the main service and are individually metered (i.e., Candy Cane Gates, Polo Pump Shed, Two Johns well, and the original viewing platform area lighting).
 
Once past the service metering point, the lines divide with one circuit feeding the Crusher and one feeding the rest of the mine site.  The crusher circuit uses pad mount step-down transformers 12.47 kV x 4160 volt and 12.47 kV x 480 to feed various motor control centers and various distribution panels.  The other circuit feeding the balance of the mine site, uses various pad mount and various pole mount 12.47 kV x 480-volt transformers to serve the loads as required.  The loads vary between motor control centers and distribution panels.
 
Maintenance of the transformers and 12.47 kV lines is contracted to Black Hills Power, as needed.  The secondary circuit is maintained by the on-site electrical department.
 
One auxiliary generator is located at the process plant and services the plant exclusively.  A second generator is located at the neutralization building and back feeds the transformer to the rest of the mine site 12.47 kV line, excluding the crusher.
 
15.11
Fuel
 
The Wharf Operations maintain three 14,500-gallon tanks for storage of #2 dyed diesel:  two are located at the Trojan Fueling Station, and one is in the Maintenance Shop Yard.  Two companies are available that can deliver, as needed.  The average number of fuel deliveries is seven per week at 8,000 gallons each.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 15-8
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
16.0
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
 
16.1
Markets
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for the gold concentrate product (doré) from the Wharf Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for its key products.  Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
There are no agency relationships relevant to the marketing strategies used.
 
Product valuation is included in the economic analysis in Chapter 19 and is based on a combination of the metallurgical recovery, commodity pricing, and consideration of processing charges.
 
Coeur sells its payable silver and gold production on behalf of its subsidiaries on a spot or forward basis, primarily to multi-national banks and bullion trading houses.  Markets for both silver and gold bullion are highly liquid, and the loss of a single trading counterparty is not expected to impact Coeur’s ability to sell its bullion.
 
16.2
Commodity Price Forecasts
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.
 
Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.
 
The long-term gold price forecasts are:
 
•
Mineral reserves:
 

 o
US$1,400/oz Au;
 
•
Mineral resources:
 

 o
US$1,700/oz Au;
 
The economic analysis in Chapter 19 uses a reverting price curve (Table 16‑1).  All commodity prices are advised by the corporate investment committee and revised as necessary throughout the budget and forecast process.  This guidance is used to keep all sites using the same basis for revenue.  The sites do not advise prices or deviate from the prices provided.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
16.3
Contracts
 
The Wharf Operations produce precious metal concentrates in the form of doré containing gold and silver, which is transported from the mine site to the refinery by a secure transportation provider.  Transportation costs, which consist of a fixed charge plus a liability charge based on the declared value of the shipment, equate to approximately $1.15/oz of material shipped.
 
Wharf Resources has a contract with a U.S.-based refiner that refines the doré into gold and silver bullion to meet certain benchmark standards set by the London Bullion Market Association, which regulates the acceptable requirements for bullion traded in the London precious metals markets.
 
Wharf Resources also uses a secondary refiner for the “sludge” product, which is the remainder containing gold that cannot be recovered by processes used by the primary refiner.  By agreement penalties in the metal processing are incurred for quantities of elements above specific levels.  These elements include mercury, arsenic, lead, selenium nickel, zinc, iron and copper.  Quantities of these elements above non-penalty limits are not commonly found in the ore shipped to the refiner.  In regard to the secondary refinery who handles the sludge product there are no penalties per se.  If the material is above agreed limits of mercury, it is returned to Wharf Resources for treatment to reduce the mercury levels.  The shipment and return cost are at Wharf Resources’s expense.
 
Contract terms include: a treatment charge based on the weight of the doré received at the refinery; a metal return percentage applied to recoverable gold; a metal return percentage applied to recoverable silver; and, penalties charged for deleterious elements contained in the doré. The total of these charges can range from $1.00–$1.50/oz of doré based on the silver and gold grades of the doré, as well as the contained amounts of deleterious elements.
 
In addition to the contracted terms, there are other uncontracted losses experienced through the refining of the Wharf Operations doré, including the loss of precious metals during the doré melting process as well as differences in assays between Wharf Resources and the refiner.  For the purposes of the cashflow analysis in Chapter 19, the QP assumed that uncontracted losses averaged $2.00–$4.00/oz doré received by the refiner.
 
Table 16‑1:        Commodity Price Forecast Used in Cashflow Analysis
 
 
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Gold $/oz
1,750
1,750
1,700
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
Silver $/oz
24
23
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers and drilling contractors.  The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
16.4
QP Statement
 
For the purposes of the gold price forecasts used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, the QPs reviewed the corporate pricing provided by Coeur, and accepted these prices as reasonable. The reviews included checking the pricing used in technical reports recently filed with Canadian regulatory authorities, pricing reported by major mining company peers in recent public filings, the current spot gold pricing, and three-year trailing average pricing.
 
The US$1,400/oz Au price is a reasonable forecast for the eight-year mine life envisaged in the mine plan.  The US$1,700/oz Au mineral resource price is, as noted, selected to ensure that the mineral reserves are a subset of the mineral resources and assume that there is sufficient time in the eight-year mine life forecast for the mineral reserves for the mineral resources to potentially be converted to mineral reserves.
 
Overall, the QPs conclude that there is sufficient time in the eight-year timeframe considered for the commodity price forecasts for Coeur to address any issues that may arise, or perform appropriate additional drilling, test work and engineering studies to mitigate identified issues with the estimates or upgrade the confidence categories that are currently assigned.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 16-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

17.0
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
 
17.1
Baseline and Supporting Studies
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for permitting.  Hydrogeological fate and transport modeling and baseline monitoring were also required for each groundwater discharge plan.  Statement of basis analyses were also required during each renewal of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface water discharge permits.
 
17.2
Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs
 
The Wharf Operations comply with all current permit conditions and requirements and there are no outstanding environmental issues.
 
Environmental monitoring for air quality (monthly and quarterly), surface water quality (biweekly, quarterly, and annually), groundwater quality (quarterly and annually), leak detection of lined facilities (daily), and rock geochemistry (quarterly) are completed regularly and reported per permit conditions.
 
17.3
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
 
The Golden Reward mining area was closed in 2009 and placed into Post Closure Status with the state of South Dakota (a portion of the West side of Golden Reward was re-opened in 2012 with State Permit #476).  Closure monitoring and maintenance are conducted in accordance with the Golden Reward Post Closure Plan and Financial Assurance document.  Costs associated with closure of the Golden Reward mining area are typically updated every year and included in the Golden Reward ARO estimate and technical review document.
 
Costs associated with closure and post closure of the Wharf Operations are typically updated every year and included in the annual Wharf Operations asset retirement obligation estimate and technical review document.
 
Financial surety sufficient to reclaim the Wharf Operations mine and processing facilities is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The closure bond plan associated with reclamation and post closure surety was updated in 2020. The estimated asset retirement obligation for the Project is approximately $47.6 M.
 
Financial surety for the Golden Reward area, sufficient to conduct monitoring and maintenance during a 30-year post closure period is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The estimated asset retirement obligation for the project is approximately $0.61 M.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-1
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
17.4
Permitting
 
The Wharf Operations commenced in 1983 and have obtained all necessary environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies for the open pit mines, heap leach pads, and all necessary support facilities.  The key approvals and permits are summarized in Table 17‑1.
 
Operational standards and Best Management Practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 
17.5
Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements
 
Coeur currently enjoys a positive relationship with local communities.  The entire workforce is local to the area and mining is a historically and economically important activity in Lawrence County.
 
The Wharf Operations continue to support local businesses and expects local community support during permit actions or other activities involving the public.
 
17.6
Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues
 
Based on the information provided to the QP by Coeur, there are no material issues known to the QP that will require mitigation activities or allocation of remediation costs in respect of environmental, permitting, closure or social license considerations.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Table 17‑1:        Key Permits and Approvals
 
Agency
Permit or Approval
DANR Air Quality Program
Title V Air Quality Permit # 28.1155-09 (under renewal process)
South Dakota DANR Surface Water Program
Surface Water Discharge Permit # SD-0025852
Surface Water Discharge Permit # SDG-070867
South Dakota DANR Groundwater Program
Ross Valley Groundwater Discharge Plan (Permit and Variance) # GWD 1-88
Reliance Groundwater Discharge Plan (Permit and Variance) # GWD 1-94
Juno/Foley Groundwater Discharge Plan (Permit and Variance) # GWS 1-98
American Eagle Groundwater Discharge Plan (Permit and Variance) # GWD 1-11
South Dakota DANR Drinking Water Program
Public Water System EPA ID # 0933
South Dakota DANR Minerals and Mining Program
Large Scale Surface Mine Permit # 356
Large Scale Surface Mine Permit # 434
Large Scale Surface Mine Permit # 435
Large Scale Surface Mine Permit # 464
Large Scale Surface Mine Permit # 476
Aggregate Mine License # 90-400
South Dakota DANR Waste Management Program
Construction Demolition Debris Permit # 97-22- 054
South Dakota DANR Water Rights Program
Water Right Permit # 1173-1
Water Right Permit # 1346-1
Water Right Permit # 1365-1
Water Right Permit # 1406-1
Water Right Permit # 1437-1
Water Right Permit # 1493-1
Water Right Permit # 1667-1
Water Right Permit # 1761-1
Lawrence County, South Dakota
Conditional Use Permit # 224
Conditional Use Permit # 398
Sewage Disposal System Permit # 168
Sewage Disposal System Permit # 457
Sewage Disposal System Permit # 497
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Army Nationwide 404 Permit # 14
U.S. Federal Communication Commission
FCC Radio Station Authorization # WPRM414
FCC Radio Station Authorization # WQAH357
South Dakota Secretary of State
Corporate Business License # FB015535
Corporate Business License # FB015535
U.S. Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Transportation General Permit Reg. #062112 600 032UW; Company ID
#051785
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 17-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
18.0
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
 
18.1
Introduction
 
Capital and operating cost estimates in the current budget cycle are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  In later years, capital estimates are based on estimated annual operating requirements and are considered as sustaining capital.
 
18.2
Capital Cost Estimates
 
All major capital construction projects needed to maintain consistent production and extraction of mineral reserves at the Wharf Operations have been completed over the last 30 years.
 
The future capital estimates are derived from expected equipment needs and project plans and are determined with the assistance of vendor quotes, previous buying experience and/or experience with construction of similar projects.  The capital cost estimate includes consideration of historical capital cost estimates.
 
Labor assumptions for capital projects are based on third-party contractor costs, internal employee wage rates plus benefits, or a combination of the two.
 
Material costs are based on current prices for consumables with no market or inflation rate assumed.
 
A 10–15% contingency has been added to select capital projects.  This contingency is used where project elements have not been fully defined.
 
Other sustaining capital costs consist of technology related purchases, light vehicles, and other general or administrative expenditure.  Exploration drilling capital is estimated for infill drilling costs required to improve estimates for short-range planning purposes.  Drilling is based on a quoted cost per foot drilled; the expenditure also includes Wharf Operations salary personnel dedicated to the exploration program, in addition to assaying, supplies and consumables necessary to complete the work.
 
Mine capital costs comprise typical sustaining capital items for a mature open pit mine the cost of which reduces as the mine approaches the end of its life.  Most the Wharf Operations’ capital needs are sustaining in nature, required for the ongoing mining operations, and low in dollar amounts.  Capital needs are subject to change with the needs of the mine plan.  Since most of the capital projects do not have a direct impact to production in the given year, there is flexibility to postpone or remove projects to adhere to the approved budget.
 
The LOM sustaining capital cost estimate is provided in Table 18‑1.  Sustaining capital costs total approximately US$16.4 M, capitalized drilling costs are US$5.3 M, for an overall capital cost estimate for the LOM of approximately US$21.7 M.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-1
Table 18‑1:          LOM Sustaining Capital Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
 
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Sustaining capital
1,392
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
—
—
16,392
Capitalized drilling
1,610
2,103
1,550
—
—
—
—
—
5,263
Total Capital
3,002
5,103
4,550
3,000
3,000
3,000
—
—
21,655
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
18.3
Operating Cost Estimates
 
18.3.1
Basis of Estimate
 
The operating costs are well understood and based on a 30-year operational history.  The basis used for costs can be derived from a variety of factors including but not limited to contract price, historical market/actual price, market price plus appropriate rate increase, current wages, cost per unit mined, crushed, produced, hour, and utilized.

18.3.2
Mine Operating Costs
 
Mine operating costs include the costs required to move all the material needed to maintain a constant supply or ore to the crusher, maintain access to the property and provide access to all areas of the mine.
 
Mine operating costs incorporate all the costs for operating and maintaining the production earthmoving equipment.  The mine operating costs are broken into seven cost centers based on the equipment used.  The cost centers are hauling, loading, dozing, drilling, blasting, roads and dumps, and general operating.  Mine operating costs are reported as a cost per ton mined.
 
Each cost center incorporates all the costs needed to operate and maintain the corresponding equipment and include all labor, rental, tires, tracks, fuel and wear parts needed to operate:
 
•
Hauling includes all the costs associated with the 777 and 785 truck fleets;
 
•
Loading includes all the costs associated with the 993 and 994 loaders;
 
•
Dozing includes all the costs associated with the D-9 and D-10 dozers;
 
•
Drilling includes the costs for the DM45 downhole blast hole drills.
 
•
Blasting includes all the costs for the explosives and contract blasting group;
 
•
Roads and yards include all costs associated with maintaining the roads and the mine travel infrastructure and includes costs for sand trucks, water trucks and motor graders ;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-2
•
General operating includes the cost for the maintenance group and the operations salary supervision staff.  This cost center also includes the costs for the building maintenance and much of the small equipment and light vehicles needed to maintain daily operations.
 
The mining cost/ton figure used in the mineral reserve estimate and cut-off calculations is applied to all ore and waste tons.  A summary of the forecast mining costs for the remaining LOM is provided in Table 18‑2.
 
18.3.3
Process Operating Costs
 
The process operating costs include all the costs incurred once an ore ton is delivered to the crusher.  Each ore ton must be crushed, placed on a leach pad, leached, neutralized, de-nitrified and offloaded and placed back in the pit.  Process operating costs are where these costs are accounted for.  Process operating costs are broken down into nine cost centers:  pad load, pad unload, crushing, leaching, process operating, denitrification, water treatment, neutralization, and metallurgical administration.  Processing unit costs are reported as a cost per ton crushed.
 
The pad load and pad unload cost centers contain costs allocated from loading, hauling, and dozing cost centers.  Both the pad load and pad unload cost centers are based upon the number of hours each equipment type spends doing the task.  On a monthly basis, each group from loading, hauling, and dozing has a cost per hour calculated based on the total spend and number of hours used.  This cost is applied to the pad load and pad unload cost centers according to the number of hours spent multiplied by the cost per hour.  These are considered process costs because they only apply to the ore tons moved.
 
Crusher costs incorporates all the costs to reduce the ore size from 2 ft down to 80% passing ½ inch.  The costs include all labor, maintenance, lime, belts, wear metal and replacement parts needed to maintain operation above 80% availability.
 
The process cost/ton figure used in the mineral reserve estimate and cut-off calculations is applied to crusher tons only.  Forecast process operating costs are provided in Table 18‑3 and Table 18‑4.
 
18.3.4
Infrastructure Operating Costs
 
All infrastructure is in place.  The cost of upkeep is included within each department’s individual operating costs on an annual basis.  Maintenance and upkeep for the administration building, warehouse and shop are included in the general mining cost center.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-3
Table 18‑2:          Mining Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Drilling
4,132
4,132
4,455
3,121
3,663
3,686
3,231
1,889
28,309
Blasting
4,165
4,165
4,490
3,146
3,692
3,715
3,256
1,904
28,533
Dozing
3,143
3,002
3,058
2,082
2,544
2,573
2,286
1,145
19,833
Hauling
18,369
18,258
16,697
11,590
13,811
14,337
12,599
7,077
112,738
Loading
6,455
6,221
5,960
3,751
4,819
4,795
4,215
1,656
37,872
Roads & yards
2,923
2,755
2,793
2,175
2,510
2,371
2,310
1,347
19,184
General mining
7,218
7,221
6,514
6,517
6,165
6,110
5,017
2,524
47,286
Total
46,405
45,753
43,965
32,383
37,203
37,588
32,914
17,542
293,753
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 18‑3:          Process Plant Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Leaching
6,113
6,113
6,113
6,113
6,113
6,113
6,113
4,340
1,302
48,433
Process operating
3,256
3,278
3,299
3,321
3,343
2,911
2,777
2,328
698
25,211
Denitrification
580
598
616
634
653
475
293
61
18
3,928
Water treatment
546
569
591
613
637
364
158
(51)
(15)
3,412
Neutralization
187
192
196
201
205
111
85
40
12
1,229
Met administration
2,187
2,187
2,187
2,187
2,187
2,187
2,187
1,553
466
17,328
Totals
12,869
12,936
13,001
13,069
13,138
12,161
11,612
8,271
2,481
99,538
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 18‑4:          Other Process Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Crusher
10,854
10,797
10,818
10,840
10,863
10,422
10,289
8,966
83,849
Pad load
4,212
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
3,894
34,428
Pad unload
4,090
5,713
7,743
6,928
8,005
5,480
7,199
3,318
48,476
Total
19,156
20,897
22,948
22,155
23,255
20,289
21,875
16,178
166,753
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-4
18.3.5
General and Administrative Operating Costs
 
The general and administrative costs include overhead departments to support the mining and processing operations.  This includes costs received from support by the corporate office as well as the refining and processing costs required to create a saleable product.  Costs are based upon historical spending and updated for market trends such as cost of living increases for the salaried and hourly work force.  The reporting measurement is on a ton per crushed basis to determine the reasonableness for prior and future years.
 
The general and administrative cost includes senior management overhead costs, salaries, travel, training, insurance, production tax and general costs covering all areas as approved by the General Manager.
 
Laboratory costs support mining and processing operations by providing assay results for the various drilling programs to provide guidance on ore extraction and ore blending for the leach pads.  This is critical in order to optimize gold ore leaching and recovery.
 
Exploration covers costs related to property review where the results are preliminary and not likely to lead to extension of current mining operations.  This is expensed cost, whereas costs to expand current operations would be capitalized in order to match the expenditure with future extraction of ore.
 
Warehouse costs are minimal as the majority of the costs are budgeted in general administration.
 
Safety costs cover the mine site and benefit all operations.  This entails review of processed, defining safety procedures, creating administrative and engineering controls and review that all work is being completed in a safe manner.
 
Engineering works with mining and process to plan operational goals which meet both short, and long term, needs for staying on the life of mine plan.  This includes geophysical review of ore types, blending and strategies for efficient use of equipment and manpower.
 
The Environmental team is responsible for the operations staying within the guidelines set by regulatory agencies for staying within proper limits of environmental standards.  This includes updating and necessary permits and being a liaison with external entities.
 
The Human Resources operations handles the functions necessary for hiring and retention of personnel.  Dealing with daily employee issues and aligning benefits for specific and overall needs. The team works closely with all operational departments to ensure that the correct number of employees are available to meet the needs to achieve the workload.
 
Information Technologies is responsible for computer infrastructure needs.  Much of the cost is passed down from the corporate office to cover the Wharf Operations’ share of the company computer systems.  In addition, the mine has site-specific computer and software needs to assist the Engineering team and other functions complete their tasks.
 
Land costs cover expenses for re-seeding, fencing, soil testing which are not part of the reclamation and closure cost functions.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-5
The administrative cost/ton figure used in the mineral reserve estimate and cut-off calculations is applied to crusher tons only.  The LOM forecast general and administrative costs are summarized in Table 18‑5.
 
18.3.6
Owner (Corporate) Operating Costs
 
The Wharf Operations pay corporate costs monthly.  These are typically in the form of management fees and insurance premiums which are split between the mines.  These costs are reported under the general administration cost center and is accounted for in general and administrative operating costs.  Annually, these costs plus costs for information technology are included in the budget and forecasts.
 
18.3.7
Operating Cost Summary
 
The operating cost estimate for the remaining LOM is provided on an annualized basis in Table 18‑6 and on a dollar per ton basis in Table 18‑7.  The LOM operating cost is US$664 M, which equates to US$2.23/t mined and US$10.29/t processed.
 
18.4
QP Statement
 
Capital and operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  The estimate accuracies and ranges comply with the stated accuracy and contingency ranges required to meet a pre-feasibility level of study under SK1300.  The QPs considered the risks associated with the engineering estimation methods used when stating the accuracy and contingency ranges and preparing the cost estimate forecasts.
 
The capital and operating cost estimates are presented for an operating mine, with a 30+-year production history.  Analogues to prior similar environments are not relevant to the Wharf Operations given the production history and that the mine was in production as at December 31, 2021.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-6
Table 18‑5:          General and Administrative Operating Costs (US$ x 1,000)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
General Admin
6,164
6,394
6,445
6,534
6,671
5,374
5,364
3,459
709
47,114
Laboratory
1,322
1,322
1,322
1,322
1,322
1,058
1,058
635
127
9,488
Safety
881
881
881
881
881
705
705
423
85
6,323
Engineering/
Ops Support
1,324
1,321
1,321
1,321
1,321
1,056
1,056
634
127
9,481
Environmental
Services
1,485
1,485
1,485
1,485
1,485
1,188
1,188
713
143
10,657
Human
Resources
2,173
2,173
2,173
2,173
2,173
1,738
1,738
1,043
209
15,593
Information Technology
687
687
687
687
687
549
549
330
66
4,929
Land
81
81
81
81
81
65
65
39
8
582
Totals
14,117
14,343
14,395
14,484
14,621
11,734
11,724
7,275
1,472
104,165
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Table 18‑6:          LOM Operating Cost Estimate (US$ x 1,000)
 
Area
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Total
Mining
46,405
45,753
43,965
32,383
37,203
37,588
32,914
17,542
—
293,753
Pad loading
4,212
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
4,387
3,894
—
34,428
Pad unloading
4,090
5,713
7,743
6,928
8,005
5,480
7,199
3,318
—
48,476
Crushing
10,854
10,797
10,818
10,840
10,863
10,422
10,289
8,966
—
83,849
Plant
12,869
12,936
13,001
13,069
13,138
12,161
11,612
8,271
2,481
97,057
Services
14,117
14,343
14,395
14,484
14,621
11,734
11,724
7,275
1,472
102,693
Total
92,547
93,930
94,309
82,090
88,216
81,770
78,124
49,266
3,953
660,252
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-7
Table 18‑7:          LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate
 
 
LOM Totals
(US$ x 1,000)
$/st
Units
Mining
293,752
2.23
US $/st mined
Pad loading
34,426
0.96
US $/st crushed
Pad unloading
48,477
1.35
US $/st crushed
Crushing
83,849
2.33
US $/st crushed
Plant
99,538
2.76
US $/st crushed
Services
104,164
2.89
US $/st crushed
LOM Total
664,207
    
Mining cost
  
2.23
US $/st mined
Process cost
  
10.29
US $/st crushed
 
Note:  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 18-8
19.0
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
 
19.1
Forward-looking Information
 
Results of the economic analysis represent forward- looking information that is subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented here.
 
Other forward-looking statements in this Report include, but are not limited to: statements with respect to future metal prices and concentrate sales contracts; the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources; the realization of mineral reserve estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production; costs of production; capital expenditures; costs and timing of the development of new ore zones; permitting time lines; requirements for additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental risks; unanticipated reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; and, limitations on insurance coverage.
 
Factors that may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements include: actual results of current reclamation activities; results of economic evaluations; changes in Project parameters as mine and process plans continue to be refined, possible variations in mineral reserves, grade or recovery rates; geotechnical considerations during mining; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; shipping delays and regulations; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and, delays in obtaining governmental approvals.
 
19.2
Methodology Used
 
Coeur records its financial costs on an accrual basis and adheres to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
 
The financial costs used for this analysis are based on the 2022 LOM budget model, which was built on a zero-based budgeting process that was validated through a historical cost comparison from the previous financial year.  Production figures in this Chapter are based on predicted equipment hours and manpower requirements needed to execute the mine plan using actual unit costs, labor rates and may vary from year to year depending on capital and production needs.
 
Consumables are based upon market projections and contract pricing.  Experts and bids are used for capital purchases to ensure that all costs are included in the project to avoid and unbudgeted expenditures.
 
All financial results are communicated to the site management team.  This process results in refinements and agreements as to the validity of the cost, capital and cash flow results.  This is an on-going process through-out the budget and provides consistency of the results and acceptance of both short- and long-term goals.
 
Capitalized exploration is determined annually through the corporate office, is discretionary, and therefore not included in the economic analysis.  Management fees assessed through the corporate office are not included in the economic analysis.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-1
19.3
Financial Model Parameters
 
19.3.1
Mineral Resource, Mineral Reserve, and Mine Life
 
The mineral resources are discussed in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserves are discussed in Chapter 12.
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of eight years with mining complete in late 2029 and processing and gold production continuing to December 2030.
 
19.3.2
Metallurgical Recoveries
 
Forecast metallurgical recoveries are provided in Chapter 10.
 
19.3.3
Smelting and Refining Terms
 
Smelting and refining terms for the doré are outlined in Chapter 16.  Smelting and refining costs are defined by contract with Wharf Operation’s primary refiner and customer.  Wharf Operations also use a secondary refiner for the “sludge” product, which is the remainder containing gold that cannot be recovered by processes used by the primary refiner.
 
19.3.4
Metal Prices
 
Metal price assumptions are provided in Chapter 16.
 
19.3.5
Capital and Operating Costs
 
Capital and operating cost forecasts price assumptions are outlined in Chapter 18.
 
Capitalized exploration is determined annually through corporate office and is discretionary and therefore not included in the economic analysis. Management fees assessed through the corporate office are excluded in the economic analysis.
 
19.3.6
Working Capital
 
Working capital based for the analysis in the 2022 LOM, is based upon historical trends for movement in payables and receivables.  This is adjusted year over year for changes in spending levels. Historically the spending levels remain constant on a cost per ton basis.  Tax payments are adjusted annually for production and sales of gold and silver.  Inventory movement is also adjusted annually for production levels. In future years the working capital is adjusted from recent historical values based upon the timing of the remaining mine life.  The timing and annual spending at the Wharf Operations is very consistent on a per ton basis, and this analysis is used to support the cash flow movements that create the working capital.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-2
19.3.7
Taxes and Royalties
 
Royalties are discussed in Chapter 3.7.  Royalties included in the cashflow analysis are based upon gold ounces mined or produced depending upon the agreement.
 
Net profits severance tax rates are 10%, royalty tax rates are 8% and production taxes are US$8/oz Au sold.
 
The tax rates used are set by governmental agencies and the Wharf Operations remain in compliance.  Severance taxes are the largest tax component.
 
Currently, Coeur pays no federal income tax due to historic net operating losses.
 
19.3.8
Closure Costs and Salvage Value
 
Closure costs are summarized in Chapter 17.3.
 
Closure costs are based upon economic review by the Environmental team.  The models used are reviewed internally and validated by external auditors.  The closure costs are included in the annual budget LOM.  This is reviewed by corporate investment teams.
 
19.3.9
Financing
 
The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing and is reported on a 100% project ownership basis.
 
19.3.10
Inflation
 
The economic analysis assumes constant prices with no inflationary adjustments.
 
19.4
Economic Analysis
 
The NPV at 5% is $274.2 M.  As the cashflow is based on existing operations, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
A summary of the financial results is provided in Table 19‑1.  An annualized cashflow statement is provided in Table 19‑2.
 
The active mining operation ceases in 2029; however, closure costs are estimated to be paid out through 2083.  For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2030 are included in the cash flow in the year 2030.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-3
Table 19‑1:          Cashflow Summary Table
 
Item
Units
Value
Revenue
kUS$
1,145,120
Production costs
kUS$
738,310
Write downs
kUS$
3,471
Total costs and expenses
kUS$
741,782
EBITDA
kUS$
403,339
Amortization
kUS$
(60,130)
Accretion of liability
kUS$
(10,962)
Interest income
kUS$
(0)
Interest expense
kUS$
(1,031)
Income before taxes
kUS$
331,216
Income tax expense (benefit)
kUS$
36,827
Net income
kUS$
294,389
Add back amortization
kUS$
60,130
Add back accretion
kUS$
10,962
Operating cash flow before working capital changes
kUS$
365,481
Receivables trade
kUS$
(2)
Inventory variation
kUS$
19,961
Inventory - other
kUS$
(2,232)
Other current assets
kUS$
2,763
Tax payable
kUS$
163
Other liability items
kUS$
(13,548)
Operating cash flow
kUS$
372,587
Payments on capital leases
kUS$
(1,089)
AFE capital
kUS$
(18,947)
Total cash flow
kUS$
352,552
NPV @ 5%
kUS$
274,222
 
Note:  AFE = authorization for expenditure ; EBITDA = earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-4
Table 19‑2:          Cashflow Forecast on Annualized Basis (US$ x 1,000)
 
Item
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Revenue
131,706
152,332
141,978
135,309
144,618
135,508
138,837
134,540
30,293
Production costs
95,824
100,063
95,501
96,729
99,114
87,891
83,300
67,060
12,830
Write downs
484
484
484
484
484
387
387
232
46
Total costs and expenses
96,308
100,546
95,984
97,213
99,597
88,278
83,687
67,292
12,877
Earnings before depreciation interest and taxes (EBITDA)
35,398
51,786
45,994
38,096
45,020
47,230
55,150
67,248
17,416
Amortization
(8,317)
(6,758)
(6,723)
(7,103)
(7,026)
(6,882)
(7,743)
(7,639)
(1,939)
Accretion of liability
(1,034)
(828)
(925)
(961)
(1,084)
(1,225)
(1,198)
(2,004)
(1,703)
Interest expense
(140)
(131)
(130)
(132)
(140)
(132)
(135)
(74)
(17)
Income before taxes
25,907
44,069
38,216
29,901
36,770
38,991
46,075
57,531
13,757
Income tax expense (benefit)
2,404
4,147
3,433
4,053
4,302
3,949
4,270
7,673
2,597
Net income
23,503
39,922
34,783
25,848
32,468
35,043
41,804
49,858
11,160
Add back amortization
8,317
6,758
6,723
7,103
7,026
6,882
7,743
7,639
1,939
Add back accretion
1,034
828
925
961
1,084
1,225
1,198
2,004
1,703
Operating cash flow before working capital changes
32,855
47,508
42,431
33,912
40,579
43,150
50,745
59,501
14,803
Receivables trade
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
—
—
Inventory variation
(3,404)
(1,461)
(6,047)
8,640
4,043
(549)
(1,456)
11,971
8,225
Inventory - other
(376)
(376)
(376)
(376)
(376)
(188)
(94)
(60)
(10)
Other current assets
471
471
471
471
471
236
118
50
5
Tax payable
(833)
996
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other liability items
(1,517)
(1,616)
(1,382)
(1,370)
(1,544)
(1,462)
(2,531)
(2,414)
288
Operating cash flow
27,195
45,522
35,096
41,276
43,173
41,186
46,781
69,048
23,311
Payments on capital leases
(497)
(545)
(47)
—
—
—
—
—
—
AFE capital
(1,447)
(4,500)
(3,000)
(3,000)
(3,000)
(3,000)
(500)
(500)
—
Total cash flow
25,251
40,477
32,049
38,276
40,173
38,186
46,281
68,548
23,311
 
Note:  AFE = authorization for expenditure.  Numbers have been rounded.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-5
19.5
Sensitivity Analysis
 
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, grade, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range of 30% above and below the base case values.  The NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 19‑3, with the base case bolded.  Recovery is not shown as the sensitivity to recovery mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
 
The Project is most sensitive to gold price, less sensitive to operating cost increases, and least sensitive to capital expenditure changes.
 
The Wharf Operations are not subject to exchange rates as the operation and customers are both residents of the United States.
 
The primary sensitivity is to the impact of macroeconomic conditions and other factors upon gold pricing.  Coeur typically ensures that production from the Wharf Operations is sold in the year that the doré is produced.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-6
Table 19‑3:          Sensitivity Table (US$ x 1,000)
 
Parameters
-30%
-20%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Metal price
(2,155)
89,971
182,097
228,159
274,222
320,285
366,348
458,473
550,599
Operating
costs
454,282
394,262
334,242
304,232
274,222
244,212
214,202
154,182
94,163
Capital
costs
278,963
277,383
275,802
275,012
274,222
273,432
272,642
271,061
269,482
Grade
(2,155)
89,971
182,097
228,159
274,222
320,285
366,348
458,473
550,599
 
               Note:  Numbers have been rounded.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 19-7
20.0
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 20-1
21.0
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
 
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 21-1
22.0
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
22.1
Introduction
 
The QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions within their areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Report.
 
22.2
Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements
 
The Wharf Operations are wholly owned by Coeur and operated through Coeur’s subsidiaries Wharf Resources and Golden Reward LP.
 
The Project consists of two contiguous property groups:
 
•
Wharf group:  northern and western sectors of the Project area; 362 patented lode claims, 35 government lots, 133 subdivided lots, and 59 federal unpatented lode claims;
 
•
Golden Reward group:  southern and eastern sectors of the Project area; 196 patented lode claims, 14 government lots, 19 subdivided lots, and 34 federal unpatented lode claims.
 
The mineral tenures are subject to several royalties, which range from sliding scale royalty payments on production to fixed production royalties to net smelter return royalties.  The largest royalty is payable to Royal Gold.
 
Agreements are in place with local ski areas to allow mining access.
 
Surface rights are a combination of patented lode claims, federal unpatented lode claims, government lots and fee property.  No additional rights are needed to support the LOM plan presented in this Report.
 
Potable water is supplied to the Wharf Operations by wells.  Coeur owns multiple groundwater and surface water rights sufficient to support ongoing operations.  No additional water rights are anticipated to be required for LOM operations.
 
22.3
Geology and Mineralization
 
The genesis of the Wharf deposit is considered controversial; most recently the deposit has been interpreted as epithermal in style.  The gold mineralization is disseminated and structurally controlled.
 
The geological understanding of the settings, lithologies, and structural and alteration controls on mineralization is sufficient to support estimation of mineral resources.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-1
22.4
Exploration, Drilling, and Sampling
 
The exploration programs completed by Coeur to date and predecessor companies are appropriate for the mineralization styles.
 
The quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and down-hole survey data collected in the exploration program completed are sufficient to support mineral resource estimation.  No drilling, sampling, or core recovery issues that could materially affect the accuracy or reliability of the core samples have been identified.
 
The collected sample data adequately reflect deposit dimensions, true widths of mineralization, and the deposit style.
 
Sampling is representative of the gold and silver values, reflecting areas of higher and lower grades.
 
The independent analytical laboratories used by Coeur and predecessor companies, where known, are accredited for selected analytical techniques.
 
Sample preparation has used procedures and protocols that are/were standard in the industry and has been adequate throughout the history of the Project.  Sample analysis uses procedures that are standard in the industry.
 
The QA/QC programs adequately address issues of precision, accuracy, and contamination, and indicate that the analytical results are adequately accurate, precise, and contamination free to support mineral resource estimation.
 
The sample preparation, analysis, and security procedures are adequate for use in the estimation of mineral resources.
 
22.5
Data Verification
 
The QP personally verified, amongst other checks, QA/QC of assay data from 2015–2021, logged all geologic data from 2015, 2017, and 2018, and conducted a 10–20% check of geologic logs from 2016 and 2021.  The QP worked at the Wharf Operations from 2009–2021.
 
The data verification programs concluded that the data collected from the Project adequately support the geological interpretations and constitute a database of sufficient quality to support the use of the data in mineral resource estimation.
 
22.6
Metallurgical Testwork
 
The Wharf Operations have an on-site analytical laboratory that assays concentrates, in-process samples, and geological samples.  The on-site metallurgical laboratory is used for testing flotation reagents, grind analysis, and characterizing the behavior of new ores.  The laboratory is not independent.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-2
Metallurgical performance using laboratory testing suggests that recovery of gold varies by lithology and sizing of placed material.  Forecast recoveries range from 76–80.5%, depending on lithology.
 
Based on extensive operating experience and testwork, there are no known processing factors of deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on the economic extraction of the mineral reserve estimates.
 
22.7
Mineral Resource Estimates

The mineral resource estimate is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300 and is reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves.  The reference point for the estimate is in situ.  The estimate is primarily supported by RC drilling.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.  The estimate was constrained using reasonable prospects of economic extraction that assumed open pit mining methods.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include:  metal price and exchange rate assumptions; changes to the assumptions used to generate the gold equivalent grade cut-off grade; changes in local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones; changes to geological and mineralization shape and geological and grade continuity assumptions; density and domain assignments; changes to geotechnical, mining and metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the conceptual pit shell constraining the estimates; and assumptions as to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits, and maintain the social license to operate.
 
22.8
Mineral Reserve Estimates

The mineral reserve estimate is reported using the definitions set out in SK-1300.  The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the heap leach facilities.  The estimate is current as at December 31, 2021.
 
Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources using a detailed pit design and block model from a physical survey of the topography as of December 31, 2021.  The mine plans assume open pit mining, and a conventional truck and loader fleet.  Mining rates are predominantly dictated by the crusher throughput.  Average annual throughput of 4.6 Mst from the crusher is expected.  Throughput rates were established and proven over the more than 30 years of operational history at the site.
 
An operational cut-off grade of US$0.10 oz/st Au was used to determine the material that is economically viable to mine.  Economic and sustaining capital considerations were factors in using an operational cut-off grade above the break-even cut-off.
 
Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimates include variations to the following assumptions:  the commodity price; metallurgical recoveries; operating cost estimates, including assumptions as to equipment leasing agreements; geotechnical conditions; hydrogeological conditions; geological and structural interpretations; and the inability to maintain, renew, or obtain environmental and other regulatory permits, to retain mineral and surface right titles, to maintain site access, and to maintain social license to operate.  A portion of the reserves are not currently permitted.  The application process for acquiring new permits and permit amendments has been initiated with both the State and Lawrence County.  If the permits are not granted, a portion of the estimated mineral reserves will not be available to mine.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-3
22.9
Mining Methods
 
The current geotechnical design configurations were concluded to be appropriate following examination by a third-party consultant.  The consultant noted that there was an opportunity to design the ultimate pit with steeper slopes.
 
Water infiltration near the 5,960 ft elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging.  Current mineral reserve estimate includes material down to the 5,900 ft elevation.
 
Several historic pits that were partially backfilled are being mined again and the backfilled material is considered re-handle and does not require blasting.  Waste material removed for access to the ore is taken to one of the WRSF sites.  The WRSFs are all designed to fill existing pits and are reclaimed as soon as possible after placement.
 
Mined ore is either placed in a stockpile or placed directly into the primary crusher ore hopper.
 
Spent ore is used to backfill pits within defined perimeter of pollution zones.  The current active perimeter of pollution zones has physical capacity to contain the estimated mineral reserves.
 
The production plan assumes an eight-year mine life to 2029.
 
Equipment is leased, and conventional to open pit operations.
 
22.10
Recovery Methods
 
The process plant was built in 1983.  Historical testwork on which the plant designs were based is not available to Coeur.  Changes made to the process plant have been based on actual plant performance trends and testwork performed on-site and at independent facilities.
 
The process plant design is conventional to the gold industry and has no novel parameters.  Debottlenecking and optimization activities that have occurred since Coeur acquired the operations have assisted in increasing capacities and efficiencies.
 
Silver to gold ratios in the process feed have historically varied from near 1:1 to >40:1. These variations in the ore delivered to the pad have resulted in wide swings in the bullion composition produced by the plant.  Plant gold efficiency during the low silver periods reaches the industry norm of +95% for this type of plant.  During periods when the silver concentration begins to climb, silver preferentially loading on the carbon reduces both the plant gold and silver efficiencies.  Changes in the plant stripping circuit have improved the ability for the plant to compensate for the additional silver content.
 
The plant has sufficient electrowinning capacity and can adjust strip cycles to increase the carbon volume processed.  During periods of extremely high silver grades, the retort is used at maximum capacity.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-4
22.11
Infrastructure
 
All infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational.  On-site infrastructure includes a production and monitoring water wells, offices, maintenance, warehouse and various ancillary facilities, open-pit mining areas, rock disposal areas, crushing and conveying facilities, five lined heap leach pads, two water treatment plants and a process facility.  There is an onsite assay laboratory as well as a metallurgical laboratory.  There is no onsite accommodation.  Employees reside in adjacent communities.
 
There are currently five on/off heap leach pads used for the leaching cycle.
 
Spent ore backfill on unlined facilities is permitted by way of a groundwater discharge permit.  Currently Coeur has both un-lined and lined spent ore facilities.  DANR has approved a Perimeter of Operational Pollution zone for each permit and allows for a variance to select groundwater standards within the Perimeter of Operational Pollution zones.
 
The water management system consists of five major sections:  five leach pad cells, five process ponds (pregnant, barren, overflow, contingency, and neutralization), three water treatment plants, treated water discharge/spray system, and a lead detection/recapture system.
 
In the event of excess water being stored within the ponds, treated water is discharged to specifically permitted surface and groundwater discharge areas.
 
Electrical power is principally supplied by Black Hills Power.
 
22.12
Market Studies
 
Coeur has established contracts and buyers for the gold concentrate product from the Wharf Operations and has an internal marketing group that monitors markets for its key products.  Together with public documents and analyst forecasts, these data support that there is a reasonable basis to assume that for the LOM plan, that the key products will be saleable at the assumed commodity pricing.
 
Coeur uses a combination of analysis of three-year rolling averages, long-term consensus pricing, and benchmarks to pricing used by industry peers over the past year, when considering long-term commodity price forecasts.  Higher metal prices are used for the mineral resource estimates to ensure the mineral reserves are a sub-set of, and not constrained by, the mineral resources, in accordance with industry-accepted practice.  The economic analysis uses a reverting price curve.
 
Wharf Resources has a contract with a U.S.-based refiner that refines the doré into gold and silver bullion.
 
Wharf Resources also uses a secondary refiner for the “sludge” product, which is the remainder containing gold that cannot be recovered by processes used by the primary refiner.
 
There are numerous contracts in place at the Project to support mine development or processing. Currently there are contracts in place to provide supply for all major commodities used in mining and processing, such as equipment vendors, power, explosives, cyanide, tire suppliers, raise boring, ground support suppliers and drilling contractors.
 
The terms and rates for these contracts are within industry norms.  The contracts are periodically put up for bid or re-negotiated as required.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-5
22.13
Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations
 
Baseline studies and monitoring were required for permitting.  Hydrogeological fate and transport modeling and baseline monitoring were also required for each groundwater discharge plan.  Statement of basis analyses were also required during each renewal of NPDES surface water discharge permits.  The Wharf Operations comply with all current permit conditions and requirements and there are no outstanding environmental issues.
 
Financial surety sufficient to reclaim the Wharf Operations mine and processing facilities is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The closure bond plan associated with reclamation and post closure surety was updated in 2020. The estimated asset retirement obligation for the Project is approximately US$47.6 M.
 
Financial surety for the Golden Reward area, sufficient to conduct monitoring and maintenance during a 30-year post closure period is up to date and held by the state of South Dakota.  The estimated asset retirement obligation for the project is approximately US$0.61 M.
 
The Wharf Operations commenced in 1983 and have obtained all necessary environmental permits and licenses from the appropriate county, state and federal agencies for the open pit mines, heap leach pads, and all necessary support facilities.  Operational standards and Best Management Practices were established to maintain compliance with applicable state and federal regulatory standards and permits.
 
Coeur currently enjoys a positive relationship with local communities.
 
22.14
Capital Cost Estimates
 
Capital cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.  In later years, capital estimates are based on estimated annual operating requirements and are considered as sustaining capital.
 
All major capital construction projects needed to maintain consistent production and extraction of mineral reserves at the Wharf Operations have been completed over the last 30 years.
 
Costs remaining for the LOM are considered sustaining capital costs. The total LOM capital cost estimate is $24.2 M, which consists of $18.9 M for sustaining capital purchases and $5.3 M for infill drilling programs.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-6
22.15
Operating Cost Estimates
 
Operating cost estimates are at a minimum at a pre-feasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of ±25% and a contingency range not exceeding 15%.
 
The total LOM operating cost estimate is US$664 M.
 
22.16
Economic Analysis
 
The mineral reserves support a mine life of eight years with mining complete in 2029 and processing and gold production continuing in 2030.  Smelting and refining costs are defined by contract with Asahi, which is Coeur’s primary refiner and customer.  Royalties included in the cashflow analysis are based upon gold ounces mined or produced depending upon the agreement.  Net profits severance tax rates are 10%, royalty tax rates are 8% and production taxes are US$8/oz Au sold.  The active mining operation ceases in 2029; however, closure costs are estimated to 2083.  For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2030 are included in the cash flow in 2030.
 
The NPV at 5% is US$274 M.  As the cashflow is based on existing operations, considerations of payback and internal rate of return are not relevant.
 
The Project is most sensitive to gold price, less sensitive to operating cost increases, and least sensitive to capital expenditures.  The primary sensitivity is to the world economy and the effect this has upon gold pricing.  Coeur typically ensures that production from the Wharf Operations is sold in the year that the doré is produced.
 
22.17
Risks and Opportunities
 
Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Chapter 11.13 and Chapter 12.9 respectively.
 
22.17.1
Risks
 
Other risks noted include:
 
•
Geotechnical and hydrological assumptions used in mine planning are based on historical performance, and to date historical performance has been a reasonable predictor of current conditions.  Any changes to the geotechnical and hydrological assumptions could affect mine planning, affect capital cost estimates if any major rehabilitation is required due to a geotechnical or hydrological event, affect operating costs due to mitigation measures that may need to be imposed, and impact the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
  o
Unforeseen geotechnical issues could lead to additional dilution, difficulty accessing portions of the ore body, or sterilization of broken or in situ ore.  There are sufficient management controls in place to effectively mitigate geotechnical risks.  Designed pit slopes have been evaluated for stability in several geotechnical studies and are regularly evaluated by the engineering group at the mine.  The QP considers that sufficient controls are in place at the Wharf mine to effectively manage geotechnical risk, and the risk of significant impact on the mineral reserve estimate is low;
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-7

o
Water infiltration near the 5,960-foot elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging, and may affect the portion of the mine plan that is expected to reach the 5,900 ft elevation;
 
•
Coeur leases nearly all the earth moving equipment used at the mine.  Relationships with local dealers span over 15 years.  Current truck and loader fleet lease rates are under contract through 2024 with an option for a two-year extension beyond.  A major change in pricing would affect operating cost and have an impact on the mineral reserve estimates and the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates;
 
•
The mineral reserve estimates are most sensitive to metal prices.  Coeur’s current strategy is to sell most of the metal production at spot prices, exposing the company to both positive and negative changes in the market, both of which are outside of the company’s control;
 
•
Assumptions that the long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Wharf Operations can be appropriately managed within the estimated closure timeframes and closure cost estimates.
 
22.17.2
Opportunities
 
Opportunities include:
 
•
Conversion of some or all of the measured and indicated mineral resources currently reported exclusive of mineral reserves to mineral reserves, with appropriate supporting studies;
 
•
Upgrade of some or all of the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, such that such better-confidence material could be used in mineral reserve estimation;
 
 
•
Evaluation by third-party consultants suggested that the pit walls in the last stage of the pit could be steepened, potentially resulting in minor operating cost estimate savings.
 
22.18
Conclusions
 
Under the assumptions in this Report, the operations evaluated show a positive cash flow over the remaining LOM.  The mine plan is achievable under the set of assumptions and parameters used.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 22-8
23.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
 
As the Wharf Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 23-1
24.0
REFERENCES
 
24.1
Bibliography
 
Caddey, S.W., Bachman, R.L., Campbell, T.J., Reid, R.R., and Otto, R.P., 1991:  The Homestake Gold Mine, An Early Proterozoic Iron-Formation-Hosted Gold Deposit, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1857, 67 p.
 
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2019:  CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines:  75 p.
 
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2014:  CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves:  9 p.
 
Dahl, P.S., Terry, M.P., Jercinovic, M.J., Williams, M.L., Hamilton, M.A., Foland, K.A., Clement, S.A., and Friberg, L.M., 2005:  Electron Probe (Ultrachron) Microchronometry of Metamorphic Monazite: Unraveling the Timing of Polyphase Thermotectonism in the Easternmost Wyoming Craton (Black Hills, South Dakota):  American Mineralogist, v. 90, pp. 1712–1728.
 
Dahl, P.S., Hamilton, M.A., Wooden, J.L., Foland, K.A., Frei, R., McCombs, J.A., and Holm, D.K., 2006:  2480 Ma Mafic Magmatism in the Northern Black Hills, South Dakota: a New Link Connecting the Wyoming and Superior Cratons:  Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 43, pp. 1579–1600.
 
DeWitt, E., Redden, J. A., Wilson, A. B., and Buscher, D., 1986:  Mineral Resource Potential and Geology of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming:  U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1580, 135 p.
 
Duke, Genet I., 2005:  Geochemistry and geochronology of Paleocene-Eocene Alkalic Intrusive Rocks, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming:  Ph.D. dissertation, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 291 p.
 
Emanuel, K. M., Wagner, J.J., and Uzunlar, N., 1990:  The Relationship of Gold and Silver Mineralization to Alkalic Porphyry and Breccias, Golden Reward Mine, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  in Thompson, T., ed., SEG Guidebook Series v. 7, Metallogeny of Gold in the Black Hills, South Dakota.
 
Emanuel, K.M., and Walsh, J.F., 1987:  Alkalic Intrusive Rocks and Gold Mineralization at the Golden Reward, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  in Han, K., and Kliche, C., eds., Proceedings from the Third AIME Western Regional Conference on Precious Metals, Coal, Environment. Rapid City, South Dakota, Sep. 23–26, 1987, pp. 73–81.
 
Giebink, B.G., and Paterson, C.J., 1986a:  Stratigraphic Controls on Sediment-Hosted Epithermal Au-Ag Mineralization, Annie Creek Mine, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota (Transcript):  Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, p. 613.
 
Giebink, B.G., and Paterson, C.J., 1986b:  Geology and Geochemistry of the Tertiary Gold Mineralization, Annie Creek, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota:  South Dakota Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute, Final Report, pp. 67–73.
 
Harris, K., 1991:  Petrology, Geochemistry, and Petrogenesis of the Tertiary Igneous Intrusions in the Annie Creek and Foley Ridge Mines, Black Hills, South Dakota, and Their Relationship to the Gold-Silver Mineralization:  M.Sc. thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 112 p.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-1
Harris, K., and Paterson, C.J., 1996:  Petrology of the Tertiary Igneous Rocks, Annie Creek/Foley Ridge Mine, Black Hills, South Dakota:  in Paterson, C.J., and Kirchner, J.G., Guidebook to the Geology of the Black Hills, South Dakota. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Bulletin No. 19, pp. 150–160.
 
Hummel, C.L., 1952:  The Structure and Mineralization of a Portion of the Bald Mountain Mining District, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  M.Sc. thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 93 p.
 
Kirchner, J.G., 1979:  Petrographic Significance of a Carbonate-Rich Lamprophyre from Squaw Creek, northern Black Hills, South Dakota: American Mineralogist, v. 64, p. 986-992.
 
Larsen, R.K., 1977, Geology, alteration, and mineralization of the northern Cutting Stock, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  M.Sc. thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 147 p.
 
Lessard, J.F., and Loomis, T.A., 1990:  Geology of the Annie Creek Sediment- and Porphyry-Hosted Gold Deposit:  in Paterson, C.J., and Lisenbee, A.L., eds., Metallogeny of gold in the Black Hills, South Dakota: Guidebook prepared for the Society of Economic Geologists Field Conference, SEG Guidebook Series, v. 7, pp. 151–156.
 
Lisenbee, A.L., 1981:  Studies of the Tertiary Intrusions of the Northern Black Hills uplift, South Dakota and Wyoming: A Historical Review:  in Rich, F.J., ed., Geology of the Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming: American Geological Institute Field Trip Guidebook for the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Section of the Geological Society of America, Rapid City, South Dakota, pp. 106–125.
 
Lisenbee, A.L., and DeWitt, E., 1993:  Laramide Evolution of the Black Hills Uplift:  in Snoke, A.W., Steidtmann, J.R., and Roberts, S.M., eds., Geology of Wyoming: Geological Survey of Wyoming Memoir 5, p. 374–412.
 
Lisenbee, A., Karner, F., Fashbaugh, E., Halvorson, D., O’Toole, F., White, S., Wilkinson, M., and Kirchner, J., 1981:  Field trip #2: Geology of the Tertiary Intrusive Province of the Northern Black Hills, South Dakota And Wyoming:  in Rich, F.J., ed., Geology of the Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, American Geological Institute Field Trip Guidebook for the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Section of the Geological Society of America, Rapid City, SD, pp. 33–105.
 
Loomis, T.A., and Alexander, D.L., 1990:  The Geology of the Foley Ridge Gold Mine:  in Fourth Western Regional Conference on Precious Metals and the Environment, Lead, South Dakota, Sep. 19–22, 1990, Proceedings: AIME, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Black Hills Section, pp. 77–87.
 
Luoma, G. and J. A. Lowe, 2010:  A Level III Cultural Resource Inventory for Wharf Resources (USA) Inc., Wharf Golden Reward Project, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation, Laramie, WY, for Wharf Resources (USA) Inc., Lead, SD.
 
Miller, P.A., 1962:  A Study of the Bald Mountain Mining Area, Lawrence County, South Dakota:  mining engineering thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 124 p.
 
McCormick, K., 2008:  New Compilation of the Precambrian Basement of South Dakota:  American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #H53A-1001.
 
McDowell, F.W., 1971:  K-Ar ages of Igneous Rocks From the Western United States:  Isochron/West, v. 2, pp. 1–16.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-2
Naething, F.S., 1938:  Golden Reward:  unpublished due diligence report for Mammoth- St. Anthony Management Corp., Tucson, Arizona, 51 p.
 
Noble, J.A., 1952:  Evaluation of Criteria for the Forcible Intrusion of Magma:  Journal of Geology, vol. 59, pp. 927–940.
 
Norton, J.J., 1983:  Bald Mountain Gold Mining Region, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota:  U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-791, 18 p.
 
Norton, J.J., 1989:  Gold-Bearing Polymetallic Veins and Replacement Deposits – Part I– Bald Mountain Gold Mining Region, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota:  U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1857-C, pp. C1–C13.
 
Paterson, C.J., 1990, Magmatic-hydrothermal model for epithermal-mesothermal Au- Ag deposits in the northern Black Hills, Proceedings, Fourth Western Regional Conference on Precious Metals and the Environment, Black Hills section, SME, Sep. 19-23, Lead, South Dakota, p. 89-102.
 
Paterson, C.J., and Giebink, B.G., 1989:  Controls on Epithermal Sediment-Hosted (Carlin-type) Au-Ag Mineralization, Annie Creek Mine, Northern Black Hills, South Dakota:  internal company report, Wharf Resources, 23 p.
 
Paterson, C.J., Uzunlar, N., and Longstaffe, F.J., 1987:  Epithermal Au-Ag Deposits in the Northern Black Hills: A Variety of Ore-Forming Fluids:  in Han, K., and Kliche, C., eds., Proceedings from the Third AIME Western Regional Conference on Precious Metals, Coal, Environment, Rapid City, South Dakota, pp. 83–89.
 
Paterson, C.J., Lisenbee, A.L., and Redden, J.A., 1988:  Gold Deposits in the Black Hills, South Dakota:  in Diedrich, R.P., Dyka, M.A.K., and Miller, W.R., eds., Wyoming Geological Association 39th Field Conference Guidebook, Eastern Powder River Basin-Black Hills, pp. 295–304.
 
Paterson, C.J., Uzunlar, N., Groff, J., and Longstaffe, F.J., 1989:  A View Through an Epithermal-Mesothermal Precious Metal System in the Northern Black Hills:  in Keays, R.R., Ramsay, W.R.H., and Groves, D.I., eds., The Geology of Gold Deposits: The Perspective in 1988, Economic Geology Monograph 6, pp. 564–570.
 
Pedraza Rojas, J.M., 2017:  Geologic Controls on Alteration and Mineralization at the Wharf Mine, South Dakota:  M.Sc. Thesis, Colorado School of Mines South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 110 p.
 
Redden, J.A., 1987:  Early Proterozoic and Precambrian-Cambrian Unconformities of the Nemo Area, Black Hills, South Dakota:  in Bues, S.S., ed., Centennial field volume: Geological Society of American, Rocky Mountain Section, v. 2, p. 219–225.
 
Redden, J.A., and DeWitt, E., 2008:  Maps Showing Geology, Structure, and Geophysics of the Central Black Hills, South Dakota:  U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2777, 44 p. pamphlet, 2 sheets.
 
Redden, J.A., Peterman, Z.E., Zartman, R.E., and DeWitt, E., 1990:  U-Th-Pb Geochronology and Preliminary Interpretation of Precambrian Tectonic Events in the Black Hills, South Dakota:  in Lewry, J. F., and Stauffer, M. R., eds., The Trans-Hudson Orogen: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 37, pp. 229–251.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-3
Schurer and Fuchs Petrography, 1991:  Ore Mineralogy of Three High-Grade Gold Samples from the Annie Creek Mine, South Dakota:  internal report to Wharf Resources.
 
Shapiro, L.H., and Gries, J.P., 1970:  Ore Deposits in Rocks of Paleozoic and Tertiary Age of the Northern Black Hills, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 70-300, 235 p.
 
U.S. Geological Survey:  Lead Topographic Quadrangle, South Dakota, 1961, photo revised 1971, scale 1:24,000.
 
Uzunlar, N., 1993:  Genesis of Tertiary Epithermal-Mesothermal gold-Silver Deposits in the Lead-Deadwood Dome, northern Black Hills, South Dakota:  Ph.D. thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 261 p.
 
24.2          Abbreviations and Units of Measure
 
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
'
minutes (geographic)
"
seconds (geographic)
#
number
%
percent
<
less than
>
greater than
µm
micrometer (micron)
ft
feet
ft3
cubic foot/cubic feet
HP
horsepower
HQ
2.5-inch core size
kV
kilovolt
lb
pound
Lbs
pounds
mesh
size based on the number of openings in one inch of screen
Mst/a
million tons per year
MWh
megawatt
º
degrees
oz
ounce/ounces (troy ounce)
pH
measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution
ppm
parts per million
oz/st
ounces per ton
st
ton, meaning US ton (short ton), 2,000 pounds
st/h
tons per hour

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-4
Abbreviation/Symbol
Definition
AA
atomic absorption spectroscopy
Cu Eq
copper equivalent
GPS
global positioning system
ICP
inductively-couple plasma
ID2
inverse distance interpolation; number after indicates the power, e.g.. ID2 indicates inverse distance to the second power.
LOM
life-of-mine
NN
nearest-neighbor (
NSR
net smelter return
OK
ordinary kriging
QA/QC
quality assurance and quality control
QP
Qualified Person
RC
reverse circulation
ROM
run-of-mine
RQD
rock quality designation
st/ft3
tons per cubic foot
 
24.3
Glossary of Terms
 
Term
Definition
acid rock drainage/ acid mine drainage
Characterized by low pH, high sulfate, and high iron and other metal species.
ANFO
A free-running explosive used in mine blasting made of 94% prilled aluminum nitrate and 6% No. 3 fuel oil.
aquifer
A geologic formation capable of transmitting significant quantities of groundwater under normal hydraulic gradients.
argillic alteration
Introduces any one of a wide variety of clay minerals, including kaolinite, smectite and illite.  Argillic alteration is generally a low temperature event, and some may occur in atmospheric conditions
azimuth
The direction of one object from another, usually expressed as an angle in degrees relative to true north.  Azimuths are usually measured in the clockwise direction, thus an azimuth of 90 degrees indicates that the second object is due east of the first.
bullion
Unrefined gold and/or silver mixtures that have been melted and cast into a bar or ingot.
carbon-in-column (CIC)
A method of recovering gold and silver from pregnant solution from the heap leaching process by adsorption of the precious metals onto fine carbon suspended by up-flow of solution through a tank.
comminution/crushing/grinding
Crushing and/or grinding of ore by impact and abrasion. Usually, the word "crushing" is used for dry methods and "grinding" for wet methods. Also, "crushing" usually denotes reducing the size of coarse rock while "grinding" usually refers to the reduction of the fine sizes.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-5

Term
Definition
cut-off grade
A grade level below which the material is not “ore” and considered to be uneconomical to mine and process. The minimum grade of ore used to establish reserves.
cyanidation
A method of extracting gold or silver by dissolving it in a weak solution of sodium cyanide.
data verification
The process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, has been accurately transcribed from the original source and is suitable to be used for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation
density
The mass per unit volume of a substance, commonly expressed in grams/ cubic centimeter.
dilution
Waste of low-grade rock which is unavoidably removed along with the ore in the mining process.
doré
A bar composed of a mixture of precious metals, typically gold and silver
easement
Areas of land owned by the property owner, but in which other parties, such as utility companies, may have limited rights granted for a specific purpose.
elution
Recovery of the gold from the activated carbon into solution before zinc precipitation or electro-winning.
encumbrance
An interest or partial right in real property which diminished the value of ownership but does not prevent the transfer of ownership.  Mortgages, taxes and judgements are encumbrances known as liens.  Restrictions, easements, and reservations are also encumbrances, although not liens.
feasibility study
A feasibility study is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project, which includes detailed assessments of all applicable modifying factors, as defined by this section, together with any other relevant operational factors, and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable. The results of the study may serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project.
A feasibility study is more comprehensive, and with a higher degree of accuracy, than a pre-feasibility study. It must contain mining, infrastructure, and process designs completed with sufficient rigor to serve as the basis for an investment decision or to support project financing.
flowsheet
The sequence of operations, step by step, by which ore is treated in a milling, concentration, or smelting process.
gangue
The fraction of ore rejected as tailing in a separating process.  It is usually the valueless portion, but may have some secondary commercial use
heap leaching
A process whereby valuable metals, usually gold and silver, are leached from a heap or pad of crushed ore by leaching solutions percolating down through the heap and collected from a sloping, impermeable liner below the pad.
indicated mineral resource
An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling.  The term adequate geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to establish geological and grade or quality continuity with reasonable certainty. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-6
Term
Definition
inferred mineral resource
An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on limited geological evidence and sampling.  The term limited geological evidence means evidence that is only sufficient to establish that geological and grade or quality continuity is more likely than not. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability.
A qualified person must have a reasonable expectation that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with continued exploration; and should be able to defend the basis of this expectation before his or her peers.
internal rate of return (IRR)
The rate of return at which the Net Present Value of a project is zero; the rate at which the present value of cash inflows is equal to the present value of the cash outflows.
initial assessment
An initial assessment is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of all or parts of mineralization to support the disclosure of mineral resources. The initial assessment must be prepared by a qualified person and must include appropriate assessments of reasonably assumed technical and economic factors, together with any other relevant operational factors, that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.  An initial assessment is required for disclosure of mineral resources but cannot be used as the basis for disclosure of mineral reserves
Lerchs–Grossmann
An algorithm used to select the optimum design for an open pit mine.
life of mine (LOM)
Number of years that the operation is planning to mine and treat ore and is taken from the current mine plan based on the current evaluation of ore reserves.
measured mineral resource
A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on conclusive geological evidence and sampling.  The term conclusive geological evidence means evidence that is sufficient to test and confirm geological and grade or quality continuity. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.
merger
A voluntary combination of two or more companies whereby both stocks are merged into one.
Merrill-Crowe (M-C) circuit
A process which recovers precious metals from solution by first clarifying the solution, then removing the air contained in the clarified solution, and then precipitating the gold and silver from the solution by injecting zinc dust into the solution. The valuable sludge is collected in a filter press for drying and further treatment
mineral reserve
A mineral reserve is an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.
The determination that part of a measured or indicated mineral resource is economically mineable must be based on a preliminary feasibility (pre-feasibility) or feasibility study, as defined by this section, conducted by a qualified person applying the modifying factors to indicated or measured mineral resources. Such study must demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The study must establish a life of mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, which will be the basis of determining the mineral reserve.
The term economically viable means that the qualified person has determined, using a discounted cash flow analysis, or has otherwise analytically determined, that extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions.
The term investment and market assumptions includes all assumptions made about the prices, exchange rates, interest and discount rates, sales volumes, and costs that are necessary to determine the economic viability of the mineral reserves. The qualified person must use a price for each commodity that provides a reasonable basis for establishing that the project is economically viable.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-7
Term
 Definition
mineral resource
A mineral resource is a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
The term material of economic interest includes mineralization, including dumps and tailings, mineral brines, and other resources extracted on or within the earth’s crust. It does not include oil and gas resources as defined in Regulation S-X (§210.4-10(a)(16)(D) of this chapter), gases (e.g., helium and carbon dioxide), geothermal fields, and water.
When determining the existence of a mineral resource, a qualified person, as defined by this section, must be able to estimate or interpret the location, quantity, grade or quality continuity, and other geological characteristics of the mineral resource from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling; and conclude that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resource based on an initial assessment, as defined in this section, that he or she conducts by qualitatively applying relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction.
mining claim
A description by boundaries of real property in which metal ore and/or minerals may be located.
modifying factors
The factors that a qualified person must apply to indicated and measured mineral resources and then evaluate to establish the economic viability of mineral reserves. A qualified person must apply and evaluate modifying factors to convert measured and indicated mineral resources to proven and probable mineral reserves. These factors include but are not restricted to: mining; processing; metallurgical; infrastructure; economic; marketing; legal; environmental compliance; plans, negotiations, or agreements with local individuals or groups; and governmental factors. The number, type and specific characteristics of the modifying factors applied will necessarily be a function of and depend upon the mineral, mine, property, or project.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-8
Term
Definition
net smelter return royalty (NSR)
A defined percentage of the gross revenue from a resource extraction operation, less a proportionate share of transportation, insurance, and processing costs.
open pit
A mine that is entirely on the surface. Also referred to as open-cut or open-cast mine.
ounce (oz) (troy)
Used in imperial statistics.  A kilogram is equal to 32.1507 ounces.  A troy ounce is equal to 31.1035 grams.
plant
A group of buildings, and especially to their contained equipment, in which a process or function is carried out; on a mine it will include warehouses, hoisting equipment, compressors, repair shops, offices, mill or concentrator.
potassic alteration
A relatively high temperature type of alteration which results from potassium enrichment.  Characterized by biotite, K-feldspar, adularia.
preliminary feasibility study, pre-feasibility study
A preliminary feasibility study (prefeasibility study) is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a qualified person has determined (in the case of underground mining) a preferred mining method, or (in the case of surface mining) a pit configuration, and in all cases has determined an effective method of mineral processing and an effective plan to sell the product.
A pre-feasibility study includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions, based on appropriate testing, about the modifying factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors that are sufficient for a qualified person to determine if all or part of the indicated and measured mineral resources may be converted to mineral reserves at the time of reporting. The financial analysis must have the level of detail necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is economically viable
probable mineral reserve
A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.  For a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve.  A qualified person must classify a measured mineral resource as a probable mineral reserve when his or her confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors to the measured mineral resource is lower than what is sufficient for a proven mineral reserve.
propylitic
Characteristic greenish color.  Minerals include chlorite, actinolite and epidote.  Typically contains the assemblage quartz-chlorite-carbonate
proven mineral reserve
A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource.  For a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person has a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality.  A proven mineral reserve can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-9
Term
 Definition
qualified person
A qualified person is an individual who is a mineral industry professional with at least five years of relevant experience in the type of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and in the specific type of activity that person is undertaking on behalf of the registrant; and an eligible member or licensee in good standing of a recognized professional organization at the time the technical report is prepared.
For an organization to be a recognized professional organization, it must:
(A)          Be either:
(1)           An organization recognized within the mining industry as a reputable professional association, or
(2)           A board authorized by U.S. federal, state, or foreign statute to regulate professionals in the mining, geoscience or related field;
(B)           Admit eligible members primarily based on their academic qualifications and experience;
(C)           Establish and require compliance with professional standards of competence and ethics;
(D)           Require or encourage continuing professional development;
(E)           Have and apply disciplinary powers, including the power to suspend or expel a member regardless of where the member practices or resides; and;
(F)           Provide a public list of members in good standing.
reclamation
The restoration of a site after mining or exploration activity is completed.
refining
A high temperature process in which impure metal is reacted with flux to reduce the impurities.  The metal is collected in a molten layer and the impurities in a slag layer.  Refining results in the production of a marketable material.
refractory
Gold mineralization normally requiring more sophisticated processing technology for extraction, such as roasting or autoclaving under pressure.
rock quality designation (RQD)
A measure of the competency of a rock, determined by the number of fractures in a given length of drill core.  For example, a friable ore will have many fractures and a low RQD.
royalty
An amount of money paid at regular intervals by the lessee or operator of an exploration or mining property to the owner of the ground. Generally based on a specific amount per ton or a percentage of the total production or profits. Also, the fee paid for the right to use a patented process.
run-of-mine (ROM)
Rehandle where the raw mine ore material is fed into the processing plant’s system, usually the crusher. This is where material that is not direct feed from the mine is stockpiled for later feeding. Run-of-mine relates to the rehandle being for any mine material, regardless of source, before entry into the processing plant’s system.
strip ratio
The ratio of waste tons to ore tons mined calculated as total tons mined less ore tons mined divided by ore tons mined.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 24-10
25.0
RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT
 
25.1
Introduction
 
The QPs fully relied on the registrant for the guidance in the areas noted in the following sub-sections.  As the operations have been in production for 30+ years, the last seven of which were under Coeur’s management, the registrant has considerable experience in this area.
 
The QPs took undertook checks that the information provided by the registrant was suitable to be used in the Report.
 
25.2
Macroeconomic Trends
 
Information relating to inflation, interest rates, discount rates, taxes.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.3
Markets
 
Information relating to market studies/markets for product, market entry strategies, marketing and sales contracts, product valuation, product specifications, refining and treatment charges, transportation costs, agency relationships, material contracts (e.g. mining, concentrating, smelting, refining, transportation, handling, hedging arrangements, and forward sales contracts), and contract status (in place, renewals).
 
This information is used when discussing the market, commodity price and contract information in Chapter 16, and in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.4
Legal Matters
 
Information relating to the corporate ownership interest, the mineral tenure (concessions, payments to retain, obligation to meet expenditure/reporting of work conducted), surface rights, water rights (water take allowances), royalties, encumbrances, easements and rights-of-way, violations and fines, permitting requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits
 
This information is used in support of the property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.5
Environmental Matters
 
Information relating to baseline and supporting studies for environmental permitting, environmental permitting and monitoring requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits, emissions controls, closure planning, closure and reclamation bonding and bonding requirements, sustainability accommodations, and monitoring for and compliance with requirements relating to protected areas and protected species.
 
This information is used when discussing property ownership information in Chapter 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-1
25.6
Stakeholder Accommodations
 
Information relating to social and stakeholder baseline and supporting studies, relationships with the local ski areas, hiring and training policies for workforce from local communities, partnerships with stakeholders (including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; fishing organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; non-government organizations; and, state and federal governments), and the community relations plan.
 
This information is used in the social and community discussions in Chapter 17, and the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.7
Governmental Factors
 
Information relating to taxation and royalty considerations at the Project level, monitoring requirements and monitoring frequency, and bonding requirements.
 
This information is used in the economic analysis in Chapter 19.  It supports the mineral resource estimate in Chapter 11, and the mineral reserve estimate in Chapter 12.
 
25.8
Internal Controls
 
Internal controls are discussed where required in the relevant chapters of the technical report summary.  The following sub-sections summarize the types of procedures, protocols, guidance and controls that Coeur has in place for its exploration and mineral resource and reserve estimation efforts, and the type of risk assessments that are undertaken.
 
25.8.1
Exploration and Drilling
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for exploration data:


 •
Written procedures and guidelines to support preferred sampling methods and approaches; periodic compliance reviews of adherence to such written procedures and guidelines;

•
Maintenance of a complete chain-of-custody, ensuring the traceability and integrity of the samples at all handling stages from collection, transportation, sample preparation and analysis to long-term sample storage;

•
Geological logs are checked and verified, and there is a physical sign-off to attest to the validation protocol required;

•
Quality control checks on collar and downhole survey data for errors or significant deviations;

•
Appropriate types of quality control samples are inserted into the sample stream at appropriate frequencies to assess analytical data quality;

•
Regular inspection of analytical and sample preparation facilities by appropriately experienced Coeur personnel;

•
QA/QC data are regularly verified to ensure that outliers sample mix-ups, contamination, or laboratory biases during the sample preparation and analysis steps are correctly identified, mitigated, or remediated. Changes to database entries are required to be documented;

•
Database upload and verification procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data entered into the Project database(s). These are typically performed using software data-checking routines. Changes to database entries are required to be documented. Data are subject to regular backups.

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-2
25.8.2
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
 
Coeur has the following internal controls protocols in place for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation:

 •
Prior to use in mineral resource or mineral reserve estimation, the selected data to support estimation are downloaded from the database into a project file and reviewed for improbable entries and high values;

•
Written procedures and guidelines are used to support estimation methods and approaches;

•
Completion of annual technical statements on each mineral resource and mineral reserve estimate by qualified persons. These technical statements include evaluation of modifying and technical factors, incorporate available reconciliation data, and are based on a cashflow analysis;

•
Internal reviews of block models, mineral resources and mineral reserves using a “layered responsibility” approach with Qualified Person involvement at the site and corporate levels;

25.8.3
Risk Assessments
 
Coeur has established mine risk registers that are regularly reviewed and maintained.  The registers record the risk type, the nature of the impact if the risk occurred, the frequency or probability of the risk occurrence, planned mitigation measures, and record of progress of the mitigation undertaken.  Risks are removed from the registers if mitigation measures are successful or added to the registers as a new risk is recognized.
Other risk controls include aspects such as:


 •
Active monitoring programs such as mill performance, geotechnical networks, water sampling, waste management;

•
Regular review of markets, commodity, and price forecasts by internal specialists; reviews of competitor activities;

•
Regular reviews of stakeholder concerns, accommodations to stakeholder concerns and ongoing community consultation;

•
Monitoring of key permits and obligations such as tenures, surface rights, mine environmental and operating permits, agreements, and regulatory changes to ensure all reporting and payment obligations have been met to keep those items in good standing

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Page 25-3
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
APPENDIX A

Claims
 











Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder (2)
12000-00402-030-00
Lot 1
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.29
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-030-05_1
Lot 2
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.36
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-030-05_2
Lot 3
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-030-05_3
Lot 4
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-030-05_4
Lot 5
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-040-06
Lot 6
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-360-00_1
Lot 10
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-360-00_2
Lot 22
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-360-00_3
Lot 23
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00402-040-00
Tract 4 of MS 1704
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
1.6125%
Valentine, et al
1.0000%
Metalla Royalty
26280-00561-000-00
War Eagle
561
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00562-000-00
Yukon
562
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26280-00564-000-00
Gold Eagle
564
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26280-00675-000-00
General Grant
675
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00945-000-90
House only on Monday Lode MS 945
945
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01095-000-10_1
Tigress
1095
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01095-000-10_2
Euphrat
1095
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.88
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01095-000-10_3
Allowez
1095
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.24
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01095-000-20_1
Gentle Annie
1095
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.63
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01095-000-20_2
Squaw Creek
1095
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.93
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-40
Ground Hog, Foley, Buffaloe (part)
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-50
Lot A of Foley
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-70
Forest Queen
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.48
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01141-000-20_1
Saganaw (part outside CUP)
1141
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01141-000-20_2
Camden
1141
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26420-01141-000-20_3
Georgie
1141
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26420-01141-000-20_4
Ford
1141
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26460-01205-000-10
Lot 1-A of MS 1341 & 1205
1205
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
7.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01205-000-20
Lot 2-A of MS 1341 & 1205
1205
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01213-000-10_1
Thora
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26500-01213-000-10_2
Comstock
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.89
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-10_3
Red Headed Woman
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-10_4
Red Headed Boy
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-10_5
Red Headed Girl
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.34
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_1
Lawrence
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.75
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_2
Red Headed Man
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_3
Lost Man
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.72
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_4
Gold King
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_5
Silver King
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_6
Mill Site
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_7
Pluto Fraction
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.04
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_8
Odin
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.86
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_9
Lucky Man
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_10
Found Fraction
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_11
Liewellen Fraction
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.91
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26500-01213-000-20_12
Connecting Link Fraction
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01213-000-20_13
Golden Wedge
1213
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_1
Hidden Ore
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.15
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
4.00%
Krejci Kane et al
2.000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_2
Saxon
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
4.0000%
2.0000%
Krejci Kane
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_3
Delancy
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
4.0000%
2.0000%
Krejci Kane
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_4
Coxey Fraction
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.90
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_5
Hamden
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-10_6
Walton
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-30
Harvey Fraction
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26540-01283-000-30_1
Buffalo
1283
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26540-01283-000-30_2
Link Fraction
1283
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.62
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26540-01286-000-10
Revenue Fraction No. 2
1286
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26540-01286-000-20
Revenue Fraction No. 1
1286
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01288-000-20
Cardinal
1288
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26580-01310-000-00_1
Desire No. 1 (part)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.93
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_2
Desire No. 2 (part)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_3
Hattie, Lost Camp and Minnesota Maid exc lots
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.89
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-15
Gertrude Fraction
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.61
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01340-000-00
Ontario
1340
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01341-000-10_1
Apex
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_2
Argentine
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_3
Golden (part)
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_4
Star (part)
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-30
50'X500' Parcel, MS 1341 & 1205
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01378-000-00_1
Tibo
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_2
Alleta
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.89
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_3
Berta
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.73
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_4
Golconda
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_5
Yantic
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26580-01378-000-00_6
Eclipse
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_7
Bancroft
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_8
Little Chief
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_9
McKenzie
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_10
Summit
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_11
Summit Fraction
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_12
Little Eagle
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_13
Perry
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.38
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_14
Long Valley No. 1
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_15
Long Valley No. 3
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_16
Galena Fraction
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.21
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_17
Galena
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_18
Porcupine
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.58
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01378-000-00_19
Blue Jay
1378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01384-000-20_1
Bath
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.27
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S. Number
Patent #
BLM S/N
State S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26580-01384-000-20_2
St. Croix
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.59
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_3
Havana
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.42
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_4
Cawnpore
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_5
Osaka
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_6
Ghent
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_7
Owls Roost
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_8
Boulders
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_9
Al Borak
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.83
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_10
Sometimes
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.34
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_11
Sardona
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_12
Blue Crow
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_13
Moscow
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_14
On Guard
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.15
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26580-01384-000-20_15
Old Iron Sides
1384
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01413-000-40_1
Spotted Pike
1413
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S. Number
Patent #
BLM S/N
State S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26620-01413-000-40_2
Fair Day
1413
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01413-000-40_3
Ohio
1413
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01413-000-40_4
Coolgarde
1413
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01419-000-10
Burlap
1419
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01419-000-20
Paystreak No. 3 exc Lot 2
1419
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01419-000-30
Lot 2 of Paystreak No. 3
1419
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.80
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01419-000-40
Paystreak No. 2
1419
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01419-000-50
Paystreak
1419
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01427-000-00_1
Gault No. 1
1427
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26620-01427-000-00_2
Gault No. 4
1427
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26620-01427-000-00_3
Gault No. 5
1427
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.19
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26620-01427-000-00_4
Gault No. 6
1427
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26620-01431-000-00_1
Aztec No. 1
1431
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01431-000-00_2
Aztec No. 2
1431
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01431-000-00_3
Aztec No. 3
1431
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S. Number
Patent #
BLM S/N
State S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26620-01438-000-00
McCullum Millsite
1438
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01451-000-10
Blanch E
1451
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01451-000-20_1
May E
1451
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01451-000-20_2
Nellie M
1451
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.83
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01451-000-20_3
Ruth
1451
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01451-000-20_4
Nettie C
1451
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01453-000-00
Dolphin
1453
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01475-000-00_1
Little Allen
1475
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01475-000-00_2
Baby
1475
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01475-000-00_3
Little Robbie
1475
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01475-000-00_4
Little Darling
1475
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.42
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01515-000-00
Wandering Jew
1515
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01536-000-20_1
Francis (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01536-000-20_2
Rambler (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01536-000-20_3
Madeline (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S. Number
Patent #
BLM S/N
State S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26680-01567-000-10
Daisy Fraction
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.59
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01581-000-10_1
Modoc (part outside CUP boundary)
1581
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.21
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Royal Gold
    
26680-01581-000-10_2
Paddy Ford Fraction
1581
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
4.00%
Krejci, Kane, et al
2.00%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-10
Lot 2 of Lomie
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-20
Lot 3 of Lomie
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-40_1
Lot 1 of Lomie
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.40
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-40_2
Lot 4 of Lomie
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-40_3
Lot 5 of Lomie
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-50
Thusnelda
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.78
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-70_1
Phonolite
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01616-000-70_2
Trenton
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01659-000-10
Bad Tale Fraction
1657
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01670-000-10
Camp Bird
1670
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.41
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01670-000-20_1
Log Cabin
1670
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01670-000-20_2
Denver
1670
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.72
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S. Number
Patent #
BLM S/N
State S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty
(1)
Royalty
Holder
(1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26680-01670-000-20_3
Grainger
1670
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.90
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01670-000-20_4
Allentown
1670
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01684-000-00
Plum Fraction
1684
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26720-01760-000-00
Dump
1760
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01782-000-00_1
Marco Polo
1782
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.22
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01782-000-00_2
Bald Hill
1782
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01782-000-00_3
Saturday
1782
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01782-000-00_4
April
1782
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.14
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01786-000-10
Acme
1786
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01790-000-00_1
Remo
1790
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01790-000-00_2
Hoctor
1790
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.24
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01790-000-00_3
Russell
1790
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01790-000-00_4
Laborn No. 1
1790
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.75
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01790-000-00_5
Calumet
1790
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01795-000-10_1
Victor
1795
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26760-01795-000-10_2
Point
1795
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01803-000-00_1
Bayou
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01803-000-00_2
Eagle Fraction
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01803-000-00_3
Eagle
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01803-000-00_4
Texana
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01803-000-00_5
Meteor
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.36
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01803-000-00_6
Rocket
1803
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01844-000-00
Rochester
1844
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01848-000-00
Myrtle
1848
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.29
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26760-01875-000-10_1
Norwich
1875
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.54
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01875-000-10_2
Gossan Fraction
1875
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.88
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01875-000-10_3
Gossan (part)
1875
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.75
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01939-000-00_1
Caeser
1939
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01939-000-00_2
Plunger
1939
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01939-000-00_3
Non Plus Ultra
1939
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26840-01942-000-30_1
Busby exc Tract C
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_2
Washington exc Tract C
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_3
Heritage exc Tracts G & F
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_4
Belle Plane
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01946-000-00_1
Freshett
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_2
No Bagatelle
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.04
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_3
Slip Fraction No. 1
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_4
Meerschtendals
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.21
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_5
Goldsmith Maid
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.38
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_6
Montesuma
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_7
Frankfurt
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01946-000-00_8
Bavaria
1946
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26840-01955-000-36
Arizona including Lots A-1 & A-2
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.95
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-54_1
Wall
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.84
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-54_2
Harrison
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26840-01955-000-54_3
Morton
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01960-000-00
Robert Emmett
1960
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
5.0000%
2.0000%
WH Con.
Royal Gold
26840-01962-000-00
Silver King
1962
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01970-000-60
November
1970
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.93
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01970-000-70_1
July
1970
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01970-000-70_2
August
1970
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01970-000-70_3
Mollie Dare
1970
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.21
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01979-000-10_1
Imperial
1979
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01979-000-10_2
Queen
1979
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01979-000-10_3
Princess
1979
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.22
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01979-000-10_4
Crown
1979
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02006-000-00
Margurite No. 2
2006
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.27
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-10
Lot A of Clarence exc Lot 1 Rev
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-15_1
Mother (part)
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-15_2
Little Barefoot (part)
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.58
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26880-02021-000-35_1
Belle Fraction
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.73
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-35_2
Rope Fraction
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02044-000-20
Tessa (part)
2044
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02050-000-00_1
Comet (part)
2050
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02050-000-00_2
Comet No. 1 (part)
2050
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.24
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02060-000-00
Pewabic
2060
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.56
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02066-000-10
Milton Fraction (part)
2066
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02074-000-10
Lillie M.
2074
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02074-000-30
Lillie M. No. 1
2074
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26920-00001-004-31
Lot 31 Block 4
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26920-00001-005-01
Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Pt 9, 16 of Block 5
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
5.04
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26920-00001-008-29
Lots 29, 20, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of Block 9
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.61
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26920-00001-009-01
Lots 1 thru 13, Lots 16 thru 29 of Block 9
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
12.14
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26920-00001-010-01
Lots 1 thru 25 of Block 10
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
10.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26920-00001-011-01
Lots 1 thru 12 of Block 11
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
5.23
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26920-00001-012-04
Lots 4, 8, 9 of Block 12
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26930-00201-010-00
Lots 1 thru 6 of Block 1
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.72
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26930-00202-060-00
Lots 6, 7, 8 of Block 2
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
6.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26940-00003-001-02
Lots 1, 2 of Block 1
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26940-00003-001-03
Lot 3 of Block 1
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.39
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26940-00003-002-68
Lots 68, 69 of Block 2
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26940-00005-000-50
Tract F
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26940-00005-000-60
Tract G
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
6.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
31425-00700-002-00
LOT 2 BLK 7 HEARST SUB.
        
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
  
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-010-00_1
Lot 7
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
3.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-010-00_2
Lot 25
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-00
Lot 1
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_1
Lot 2
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.47
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_2
Lot 3
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
2.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_3
Lot 4
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
12000-00402-020-10_4
Lot 5
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
1.38
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_5
Lot 7
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_6
Lot 8
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
1.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-020-10_7
Lot 10
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_1
Lot 8
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_2
Lot 9
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_3
Lot 10
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_4
Lot 11
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
1.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_5
Lot 12
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_6
Lot 13
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_7
Lot 14
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_8
Lot 15
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-340-00_9
Lot 16
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-00_1
Lot 1
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-00_2
Lot 5
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
16000-00502-350-00_3
Lot 6
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-00_4
Lot 8
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
1.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-00_5
Lot 9
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-00_6
Lot 10
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
16000-00502-350-07
Lot 7
502
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
1.86
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00195-000-00
Decorah
195
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.21
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00330-000-00
Portland
330
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00331-000-00
Gustavus
331
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00332-000-00
Paragon
332
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00351-000-00_1
Silver Plume exc pt in Tract 11
351
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00356-000-00
Folger
356
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00357-000-00
Empire State
357
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00358-000-00
Perserverance
358
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.50
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00359-000-00
Indispensible
359
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.86
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00360-000-00
Olive
360
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26280-00361-000-20
Trojan
361
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00378-000-10
Mark Twain exc Lot U
378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00397-000-00
Alameda
397
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.23
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00398-000-00
Alameda Extension
398
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.36
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00402-000-00_1
Sante Fe exc pt in Tracts 5 and 11
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00472-000-20
Mound
472
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00558-000-00
India
558
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00559-000-00
Japan
559
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00560-000-00
Pappoose
560
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00563-000-00
Goodenough
563
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00565-000-00
Marco Polo
565
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
2.00%
Royal Gold
26280-00566-000-00
Algoma
566
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
2.00%
Royal Gold
26340-00793-000-00_1
Little Snowdrop
793
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00793-000-00_2
Dividend
793
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00793-000-00_3
Hector
793
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00866-000-00
Dark Horse
866
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
1.50%
Mountain View Heights
    
26340-00898-000-00
Hardscrabble and Vulgar exc pt in Tract B
898
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.61
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-25_1
Red Flag
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.19
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-25_2
Horseshoe
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-25_3
Horseshoe Fraction
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00914-000-10
North
914
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.91
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00915-000-00
Bristol Fraction
915
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00915-000-10_1
Ashland
915
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00915-000-10_2
Norman
915
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00915-000-10_3
Boston
915
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00915-000-10_4
Providence
915
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00916-000-10_1
Jessie Lee
916
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00916-000-10_2
Leopard
916
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00944-000-00
Baltimore
944
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.15
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00945-000-10_1
Reindeer
945
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00945-000-10_2
Ofer Fraction
945
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.27
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00945-000-10_3
Monday
945
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.41
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00978-000-00
Beaver Fraction
978
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00979-000-00
Burlington
979
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00996-000-00_1
Apex
996
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00996-000-00_2
Northerly Segregated Burlington
996
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.90
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-01013-000-00_1
Missouri
1013
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-01013-000-00_2
Gold Hill Fraction
1013
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.48
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-01013-000-00_3
Middle Fraction
1013
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-01016-000-00_1
Annie
1016
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26340-01016-000-00_2
Annie Fraction
1016
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.47
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26340-01016-000-00_3
Josie
1016
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26340-01016-000-00_4
Josie Fraction
1016
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.89
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26340-01016-000-00_5
Katy
1016
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26380-01041-000-00
Last Fraction
1041
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01079-000-10_1
Keed
1079
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.48
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26380-01079-000-10_2
Mary
1079
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01104-000-10
Yukon
1104
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.57
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01104-000-20
Ajax
1104
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01104-000-30_1
Ajax No. 2
1104
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01104-000-30_2
Orinoco Fraction
1104
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.57
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01104-000-30_3
Atlas
1104
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.24
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01107-000-00_1
Elk Mountain Group No. 1
1107
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01107-000-00_2
Elk Mountain Group No. 2
1107
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01107-000-00_3
Elk Mountain Group No. 3
1107
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01107-000-10
Elk Mountain Group No. 3 (part)
1107
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01117-000-00_1
Keystone
1117
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26380-01117-000-00_2
Bunker Hill
1117
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.56
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26380-01117-000-00_3
Bunker Hill Fraction
1117
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26420-01141-000-10
Saganaw (part in CUP)
1141
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
5.00%
White House Congress

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01172-000-00
Katie Putnam exc Tracts 8 & 10
1172
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01173-000-00_1
North Side exc Tracts 8 & 10
1173
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01175-000-10
Ingham
1175
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01175-000-10_1
Winnesheik
1175
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.94
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01175-000-20_2
File Closer Fraction
1175
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.54
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01189-000-10_1
Rudolph
1189
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.78
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01189-000-10_2
Costello
1189
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.88
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01189-000-10_3
Dolphin
1189
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26500-01214-000-00
Peggie
1214
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-10
Red Wing exc Lots 1-2-4 and M&B
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.93
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.00%
Carlson
26540-01226-000-20
Huxley, exc Lots 1-2-4, Block 5 (M&B)
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
5.03
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-25
Wenona
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-32_1
Lasalle exc Lots 1-2-4 and M&B
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-32_2
Lasalle Fraction
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-40
M&B of Huxley, Lasalle, Redwing
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.75
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26540-01226-000-45_1
Austin
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-45_2
Tacqua
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.72
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-45_5
Austin Fraction
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.94
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-50_1
Rutland
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
7.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-50_2
Halford
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
7.80
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01226-000-60
Lots 1-2-4 of Block 5 MS 1226 and 2027
1226
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01229-000-25_1
High Tarriff exc Lot A
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-25_2
Maud
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01229-000-25_3
Eagle Chief
1229
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01233-000-10_1
General Jackson
1233
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01233-000-10_2
Diamond Fraction
1233
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01233-000-20
Callebogie Fraction
1233
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01233-000-30
Callebogie
1233
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.34
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01272-000-00_1
Sunset
1272
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26540-01272-000-00_2
Rainy Day
1272
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26540-01283-000-10
May
1283
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26540-01283-000-20
Deadwood
1283
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26540-01292-000-10
Senator
1292
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.89
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01292-000-20
Gold Bug Fraction
1292
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01349-000-00
James G. Blain
1349
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.15
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26620-01404-000-10_1
Gunnison
1404
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01404-000-10_2
Vulcan exc Lot 1
1404
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01404-000-20
Lot 1 of Vulcan
1404
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
8.83
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01428-000-10_1
Wedge
1428
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01428-000-10_2
Jim
1428
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01428-000-10_3
Joseph
1428
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01428-000-10_4
Yellow Boy Fraction
1428
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01428-000-10_5
Little Rock
1428
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01429-000-20_1
Mono
1429
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.22
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01429-000-20_2
Tiger
1429
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.84
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26620-01429-000-20_3
Rehl
1429
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.90
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01429-000-20_4
Lucy
1429
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01468-000-00
Loyd
1468
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01472-000-00
Ruby Evans
1472
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26620-01493-000-00_1
Star (exc Tract 11)
1493
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.57
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01516-000-00_1
Summit Flat
1516
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.08
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
Kunz, et al
    
26620-01516-000-00_2
Wm. B. Allison
1516
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
Kunz, et al
    
26620-01551-000-10
Comerse
1551
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01551-000-20
Porcupine
1551
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-10
Daisie Fraction
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_1
Daisy No. 1
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.81
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_2
Daisy No. 2
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_3
Giddings
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_4
Funston
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_5
Fargo
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26680-01567-000-15_6
Fargo Fraction
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_7
McLaughlin
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.48
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_8
Little Eva
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-15_9
Frost
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.62
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01567-000-20
Hogarth
1567
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.72
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01580-000-00
Juno
1580
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.34
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01581-000-20
Modoc (part inside CUP boundary)
1581
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Royal Gold
    
26680-01616-000-60_1
Grenada
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.58
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01616-000-60_2
Genesee
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.47
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01616-000-60_3
Peerless
1616
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01643-000-00_1
Snorter
1643
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.91
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26680-01643-000-00_2
Snorter Fraction
1643
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.23
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26680-01649-000-10
Orinoco
1649
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01653-000-00
Golden Flag Fraction
1653
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.37
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01659-000-20_1
Telegram
1659
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26680-01659-000-20_2
Maid of Erin
1659
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.40
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26680-01659-000-20_3
Gannon
1659
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26680-01659-000-20_4
B & M Fraction
1659
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
5.00%
White House Congress
    
26680-01667-000-00_1
Stanley
1667
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01667-000-00_2
June
1667
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01667-000-00_3
Keystone Fraction
1667
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01668-000-10_1
Copperhead (pt inside CUP boundary)
1668
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01668-000-10_2
Copperhead Fraction
1668
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.91
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01668-000-15
Copperhead (pt outside CUP boundary)
1668
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
12.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26680-01668-000-20
Flossie
1668
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01740-000-10
Deadwood
1740
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01740-000-20
General Terry
1740
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26720-01756-000-00
Alaska Fraction
1756
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26760-01768-000-00
Foran
1768
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01937-000-00
Maria
1937
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26840-01955-000-37_1
Akka
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-37_2
Cornucopia
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-37_3
Prolific
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
16.54
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-38_1
Water
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-40
Elizabeth including Lot E1-A
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
12.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-57
Granet Fraction
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
19.00
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01955-000-59
Confidence
1955
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01960-000-10
Sarchfield
1960
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
14.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
5.0000%
2.0000%
WH Con.
Royal Gold
26840-01970-000-50
January including Lot J-1
1970
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.10
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01984-000-00_1
Star
1984
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.14
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Royal Gold
    
26840-01984-000-00_2
Hart
1984
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.63
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Royal Gold
    
26880-02001-000-10
Ryan
2001
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02001-000-20_1
Ryan Fraction exc Tract 9 Rev
2001
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.86
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02027-000-10
Index exc Lot A
2027
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02027-000-15
Huxley Fraction
2027
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26880-02027-000-20
Lot A of Index
2027
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02029-000-10
Alaska
2029
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02029-000-20
Link
2029
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02036-000-00_1
Mill
2036
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26880-02036-000-00_2
Columbia Fraction
2036
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.94
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26880-02037-000-00
Reliance Fraction
2037
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.43
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
3.00%
Dykes, et al
    
26880-02075-000-00
Snowstorm exc Tract 11
2075
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00351-000-00_2
Silver Plume (pt under Tract 11)
351
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.40
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00352-000-00
Southerland (under Tract 11)
352*
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00378-000-00
Mark Twain (under Lot U)
378
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00402-000-00_2
Santa Fe (under Tracts 5 & 11)
402
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.18
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00409-000-10
Welcome
409-A
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.51
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00409-000-20
Welcome Mill Site exc. Tract B
409-B
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00410-000-00
Genoa
410-A
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00412-000-00
Marathon
412
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26280-00413-000-00
Terry's Peak
413
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00414-000-00
Magenta
414
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00535-000-00
North Star #1
535
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00791-000-00
Ben Hur
791
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00881-000-00
Maringo
881
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-01105-000-00_1
Little Phil
1105
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-01105-000-00_2
Surprise
1105
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-02069-000-00
Martin Fraction
2069
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.30
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-02075-000-00
Snowstorm (under Tract 11)
2075
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.90
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00900-000-00_1
Blizzard
900
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00900-000-00_2
Silver Peak
900
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00900-000-00_3
Hurricane
900
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.92
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_1
Alaska
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_2
Hudson
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_3
Logan
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00902-000-00_4
Mohawk
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_5
Opher
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_6
Terrific
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-00_7
Terror
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.84
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_1
Alexander
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_2
Badger
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_3
Carbonate
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_4
Custer
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_5
Fairview
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00976-000-00_6
Hubble
976
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-01089-000-00
Car Street
1089
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.16
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01040-000-00
May Queen (pt)
1040
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01119-000-00_1
Eva No. 2
1119
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01119-000-00_2
Monitor (pt)
1119
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01119-000-00_3
Monitor Fraction
1119
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.94
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01119-000-00_4
Oak
1119
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01119-000-00_5
Oak Fraction (pt)
1119
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01120-000-00
Singapore
1120
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01121-000-00_1
Fulva
1121
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01121-000-00_2
Katisha
1121
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01121-000-00_3
Lew Wallace
1121
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.61
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01121-000-00_4
Passiac
1121
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01122-000-00_1
Little Hope Fraction
1122
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.55
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01122-000-00_2
Star
1122
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01122-000-00_3
Urgent
1122
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.27
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01122-000-00_4
White Pine
1122
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.71
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_5
Golden (pt)
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_6
Star (pt)
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01341-000-10_7
Lincoln (pt)
1341
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.14
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-00_1
Lily of the West
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.88
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01139-000-00_2
Whale
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-00_3
Whale Fraction (pt)
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.43
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01139-000-40_2
Ground Hog, Foley, Buffaloe (part)
1139
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
26.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01205-000-00_1
Bunker Hill (pt)
1205
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26420-01205-000-00_2
Last Chance (pt)
1205
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.91
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26460-01172-000-00_2
Kate Putnam (under Tracts 8 & 10)
1172
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.41
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01173-000-00_2
Northside (under Tracts (8 & 10)
1173
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01271-000-00_1
Franklin
1271
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.65
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01271-000-00_2
Hamilton
1271
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.96
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01271-000-00_3
Tallahasse
1271
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01271-000-00_4
Tariff
1271
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01279-000-00_1
Hoboe Queen
1279
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01279-000-00_2
Tin Pie
1279
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.78
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26540-01279-000-00_3
Yogo
1279
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_4
Desire No. 1 (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.56
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26580-01310-000-00_5
Desire No. 2 (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_6
Emma Fraction (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_7
Hattie and Lost Camp exc lots
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_8
Leta (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.24
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_9
Attraction
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.12
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_10
Minnesota Maid (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.99
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_11
Tiger Fraction (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.05
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01310-000-00_12
Terry Fraction (pt)
1310
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-00
Emperor Fraction
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_1
Belle of Deadwood
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.59
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_2
Elroy Fraction
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.31
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_3
Pasha Fraction
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.69
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_4
Magnolia Fraction
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.74
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_5
Transit of Venus
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26580-01335-000-10_6
Magnolia Fraction No. 2
1335
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26583-00410-000-00
Rinaldo Mill Site
410-B
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.09
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01493-000-00
Star (under Tracts 7 & 11)
1493
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26620-01536-000-00_1
Francis (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01536-000-00_2
Rambler (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.67
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01536-000-00_3
Madeline (pt)
1536
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01648-000-00
Baltimore
1648
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.79
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01704-000-00
Black Moon
1704
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.54
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01705-000-00_1
Cygnet
1705
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
11.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26680-01705-000-00_2
Sunnyside
1705
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.54
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26684-01425-000-00_1
Freeport
1425
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.93
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01425-000-00_2
J.C.
1425
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01425-000-00_3
Newport
1425
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.83
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01425-000-00_4
R.G.
1425
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.87
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01439-000-00_1
Blacktail Chief
1439
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.25
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01439-000-00_2
Valet Chief
1439
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.43
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26684-01439-000-00_3
Manning (W/2)
1439
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
4.92
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01439-000-00_4
Maggie Fraction
1439
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.01
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26684-01439-000-00_5
Mongrel and Dhoul
1439
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.80
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26760-01802-000-10
Revenue
1802
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_5
Busby (under Tract C)
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_6
Washington (under Tract C)
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.95
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_7
Paris
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.76
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_8
Maggie
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
17.63
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_9
Edinbergh
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
18.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_10
Angeline Fraction
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_11
Rome
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
20.58
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01942-000-30_12
Heratage (pt)
1942
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
1.85
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_1
Apex
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
13.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_2
Apex No. 3
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.18
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_3
Apex No. 4
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26840-01993-000-00_4
Missing Link
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.17
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_5
Snowstorm No. 1
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
15.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_6
Snowstorm Fraction
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.46
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26840-01993-000-00_7
Hidden Fraction
1993
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02001-000-20_2
Ryan Fraction (under Tracts 8 & 9 Rev)
2001
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
2.19
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-10_2
Clarence (pt)
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.49
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-15_3
Mother (pt)
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.68
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02021-000-15_4
Little Barefoot (pt)
2021
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.52
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02044-000-20_2
Tessa (pt)
2044
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
3.60
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02050-000-00_3
Comet (pt)
2050
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
8.18
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02050-000-00_4
Comet No. 1 (pt)
2050
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
0.70
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26880-02066-000-10_2
Milton (pt)
2066
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
5.11
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC98673
INCLINE LODE
    
MMC 98673
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC98674
M & V
    
MMC 98674
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC114132
MARCIE
    
MMC 114132
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
15.36
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC114133
FISCHER
    
MMC 114133
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.59
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC114134
ANNE
    
MMC 114134
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
13.32
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC114135
CYNTHIA
    
MMC 114135
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
15.98
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC114136
BEANIE
    
MMC 114136
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
15.45
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC117070
KL #5
    
MMC 117070
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.59
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
MMC164704
DIRTY DICK
    
MMC 164704
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164705
PEDER DRAGON
    
MMC 164705
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164706
CASEY FRACTION #1
    
MMC 164706
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
19.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164707
CASEY FRACTION #2
    
MMC 164707
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
19.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164708
CASEY FRACTION #3
    
MMC 164708
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
19.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164709
CASEY FRACTION #4
    
MMC 164709
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
19.28
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164710
D. J. K. 1
    
MMC 164710
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164711
D.J.K. 2
    
MMC 164711
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164712
D.J.K. 3
    
MMC 164712
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164713
D.J.K. 4
    
MMC 164713
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164714
D. J. K. 5
    
MMC 164714
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164715
D. J. K. 6
    
MMC 164715
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC164716
D. J. K. 7
    
MMC 164716
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
1.6125% NSR
Valentine, et al
1.00% NSR
Metalla Royalty
MMC164717
D. J. K. 8
    
MMC 164717
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
1.6125% NSR
Valentine, et al
1.00% NSR
Metalla Royalty
MMC164718
D. J. K. 9
    
MMC 164718
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164719
D. J. K. 10
    
MMC 164719
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164720
D. J. K. 11
    
MMC 164720
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164721
D. J. K. 12
    
MMC 164721
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164722
D. J. K. FRACTION
    
MMC 164722
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
10.33
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC164723
D. J. K. FRACTION 1
    
MMC 164723
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
3.44
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164724
D. J. K. FRACTION 2
    
MMC 164724
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164725
D. J. K. FRACTION 3
    
MMC 164725
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
11.02
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC164726
D. J. K. FRACTION 4
    
MMC 164726
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173949
BIG MOUTH
    
MMC 173949
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173950
BIG FOOT
    
MMC 173950
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173951
BIG LEG
    
MMC 173951
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173952
BIG HEAD
    
MMC 173952
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.58
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173953
BIG WIG
    
MMC 173953
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
13.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173954
BIG STICK
    
MMC 173954
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
13.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173955
BIG MAMA
    
MMC 173955
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173956
BIG LAC
    
MMC 173956
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173957
BIG HILL
    
MMC 173957
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC173958
BIG DEAL
    
MMC 173958
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC173959
BIG SADDLE
    
MMC 173959
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
13.77
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183350
SPOTTED OWL
    
MMC 183350
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
2.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183447
SQUAW CREEK FRACTION
    
MMC 183447
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.82
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183448
M. BEAR
    
MMC 183448
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.64
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183449
LACROSSE
    
MMC 183449
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
19.97
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183450
HAWK FRACTION
    
MMC 183450
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
2.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183451
GOLD FRACTION
    
MMC 183451
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
2.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183452
FALCON
    
MMC 183452
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183453
BALD EAGLE
    
MMC 183453
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183454
ASHLEY
    
MMC 183454
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183455
CAMDEN WEDGE
    
MMC 183455
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
8.26
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183456
VINCENT
    
MMC 183456
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
7.35
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183689
GRAY WOLF
    
MMC 183689
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
6.20
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183693
CHELSEA
    
MMC 183693
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
2.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC183694
STEALTH
    
MMC 183694
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
16.53
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC187939
DUTCHMAN
    
MMC 187939
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
0.23
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC187940
GUIEDO
    
MMC 187940
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
0.23
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC187941
RUFUS
    
MMC 187941
  
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
2.07
Wharf
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_1
Lot 7
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_2
Lot 13
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
5.14
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
13000-00403-060-00_3
Lot 14
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_4
Lot 15
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_5
Lot 16
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.08
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_6
Lot 17
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.02
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_7
Lot 18
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.05
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_8
Lot 27
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-00_9
Lot 30
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
13000-00403-060-10
Lot 6 exc Oxford Subdivision
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Carlson
    
13000-00403-070-00
Lot 2
403
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
2.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00316-000-00
Steward
316
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00401-000-00
North Star
401
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00480-000-00
Black Sulphate
480
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.14
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00516-000-00
Bonanza
516
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.32
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00517-000-10
Plutus
517
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.00
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00518-000-00
Buxton
518
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26280-00519-000-00
Cheetor
519
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.64
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00520-000-00
Clarinda
520
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00536-000-00
Richelieu exc Hwy
536
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.24
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00537-000-00
Patrick Henry
537
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00538-000-00
Ruby Bell
538
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.92
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00539-000-00
Golden Reward
539
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00540-000-00
Silver Case
540
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.76
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00541-000-00
Golden Wedge Fraction
541
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.18
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00542-000-00
Isadorah Fraction
542
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.59
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00543-000-00
Silver Shower exc Oxford Sub
543
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00544-000-00
Smiley & Lundt
544
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00572-000-20
May Flower
572
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00573-000-00
Aurora
573
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00574-000-00
Lucke
574
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00575-000-00
Rebecca
575
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26280-00576-000-00
Motto
576
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00577-000-00
Motto Fraction
577
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.46
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00578-000-00
Point Fraction
578
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.15
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00579-000-00
Crown Point
579
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.60
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00600-000-00
Minnie (part)
600
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.37
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00760-000-00
New Atlantic
760
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00763-000-00
Green Point
763
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00764-000-00
Ophir exc Oxford Sub
764
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00765-000-00
Mikado
765
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00766-000-00
Silver Springs
766
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.23
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00768-000-00
Elizabeth
768
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.85
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00769-000-00
Fannie
769
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00781-000-00
Sunrise
781
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00782-000-00
Sunset
782
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00784-000-00
Sunshine
784
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00785-000-00
Sunday
785
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00789-000-00
Tilton
789
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00845-000-00
Comit
845
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.17
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00872-000-00
National
872
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00873-000-00
International
873
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00880-000-00_1
Little Bonanza
880
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.46
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00880-000-00_2
Perry
880
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.84
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00880-000-00_3
Penny
880
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.84
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00896-000-00
Alice May
890
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_1
General Custer
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.88
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_2
Silver Reef
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_3
Florence Fraction
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.08
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_4
Belle Fourch
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_5
Alta
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00899-000-00_6
Glencoe
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00899-000-00_7
Sundance
899
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00902-000-30_3
Oppitz
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00902-000-30_4
Yetter
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_5
Hilton
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_6
Sarsfield
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_7
Pat Claybourne
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_8
Scott
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_9
Great Scott
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_10
Mason
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.05
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00902-000-30_11
Security
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00902-000-30_12
Syndicate
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00902-000-82_1
Bacon Rind
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.44
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-82_2
Armada
902
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.12
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00911-000-10
Schuylkill
911
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00911-000-20
Eddie
911
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00911-000-30
Monroe
911
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00911-000-40
Lansford
911
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00911-000-50
Lansford No. 2
911
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.72
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.0000%
Royal Gold
    
26340-00922-000-00_1
Hannibal
922
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00922-000-00_2
Ruby Basin Fraction
922
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00922-000-00_3
Roanoke
922
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00923-000-00_1
Rob Roy Fraction
923
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00923-000-00_2
Huron
923
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.08
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00923-000-00_3
Powhattan
923
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00923-000-00_4
Grove
923
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00924-000-00_1
Boston
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.34
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00924-000-00_2
Clark Fraction
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.78
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00924-000-00_3
Jimmie Fraction
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.53
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00924-000-00_4
Carthage
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.88
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00924-000-00_5
What's Left Frac., west of Hwy
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00924-000-00_6
Plowman Frac., west of Hwy
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00951-000-10
Tract A of Henry George
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.12
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-20
Harrison
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.10
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-30
Tract B of Henry George
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
7.88
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-40_1
Axiom
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-40_2
Buna Vista
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-40_3
Clontarf
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-50
Tract A of Powderly
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00951-000-60
Tract B of Powderly
951
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
9.05
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00956-000-20
Clinton exc Oxford Sub
956
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.10
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.00%
Carlson
3.00%
Thompson, et al
26340-00958-000-20_1
Tract A of Hardscrabble #3
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
4.49
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-20_2
Tract B of Hardscrabble #3
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
0.62
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-20_3
Tract A of Hardscrabble #4
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
4.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-20_4
Tract B of Hardscrabble #4
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00966-000-00_1
Aldebaran
966
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00966-000-00_2
Nabob
966
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00966-000-00_3
Northern Crown
966
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00966-000-00_4
Andromeda
966
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-00_1
Buckingham
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.93
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-00_2
Rubican
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.93
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-00_3
Champion exc Lot 3
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.87
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-00_4
Peruvian exc Lot 3
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-00_5
Home
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-01014-000-00_1
John Collins
1014
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-01014-000-00_2
Harry
1014
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-01014-000-00_3
Fred Fraction
1014
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.34
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-01014-000-00_4
Little Blanch
1014
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.10
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01037-000-00
Last Chance exc Hwy
1037
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01039-000-10
Lot S of Silver Wave
1039
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.47
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01052-000-00
Spargo
1052
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.14
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01061-000-00_1
Emma
1061
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.79
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01061-000-00_2
Emma Fraction No. 2
1061
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-00
Silver Hill
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-10
Billy
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-20
Isadorah
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.92
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-30
Rock Bluff
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.07
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-40
Silver Hill Fraction
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01062-000-50
Jessie Fraction
1062
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.23
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01063-000-00
Alpha exc Oxford Sub
1063
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.86
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-20
Minnie
1064
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-30
Minnie Fraction
1064
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01065-000-00_1
Mineral Point exc. Oxford Sub
1065
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.91
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01065-000-00_2
Oxford exc. Oxford Sub
1065
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01065-000-00_3
Mohawk exc. Oxford Sub
1065
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.42
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01065-000-00_4
Dump Fraction
1065
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01071-000-00_1
Bald Eagle
1071
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.80
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01071-000-00_2
Log Cabin
1071
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01072-000-00_1
Mountain Peak
1072
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01072-000-00_2
Compliment
1072
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01072-000-00_3
Ernest
1072
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01072-000-00_4
Mountain Peak Fraction
1072
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.54
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01073-000-00_1
Lone Pine exc. Oxford Sub
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.92
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01073-000-00_2
Lone Jack exc. Oxford Sub
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.90
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01073-000-00_3
Meadow Lark
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.07
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01073-000-00_4
ED R.A.
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01073-000-00_5
Shaft Fraction
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01074-000-00
Golden Bar
1074
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01075-000-10
Monte Cristo
1075
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01075-000-20
Maybury
1075
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01076-000-00_1
Comet No. 1
1076
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01076-000-00_2
Comet No. 2
1076
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.76
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01077-000-00
Victory
1077
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01097-000-00
Clarinda Extension
1097
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01101-000-00_1
St. Ives
1101
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.48
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01101-000-00_2
Some Left Frac., west of Hwy
1101
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.48
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_1
Blaine, west of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_2
Cleveland, west of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_3
Dickinson, west of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01112-000-00
Sunny
1112
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01124-000-00
Bertha Fraction
1124
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26385-01073-010-00
Oxford Sub, Lot 1
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26385-01073-020-00
Oxford Sub, Lot 2
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.15
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26385-01073-030-00
Oxford Sub, Lot 3
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26385-01073-040-00
Oxford Sub, Lot 4
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26385-01073-050-00
Oxford Sub, Lot 5
1073
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.10
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01136-000-00_1
Silver Belt No. 1, west of Hwy
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.72
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_2
Silver Belt No. 2
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_3
Big Crow
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_4
Aztec
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_5
Bayard
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_6
Little Crow
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_7
Little Crow Fraction
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.79
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-00_8
Saw Tooth Fraction
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.44
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-04
Lot 4 of Cuba & Great Western
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-10_1
Cyclone Fraction No. 2
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-10_2
Cyclone Frac., west of Hwy
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-10_3
Sioux, west of Hwy
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.44
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-30
Evangeline No. 7 & 8 (1/2 int)
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-35
Evangeline No. 7 & 8 (1/2 int)
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01167-000-00_1
Canyon exc. Hwy
1167
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.59
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01167-000-00_2
Ruby Belle Frac. exc Hwy
1167
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01176-000-00_1
Harvard
1176
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.78
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01176-000-00_2
Cleveland
1176
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.64
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01197-000-00
Tony
1197
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01197-000-10
Maggie Fraction
1197
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-10_1
Carter, west of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-10_2
Trial No.1, west of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.46
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-10_3
Trial No. 2, west of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-10_4
Trial No. 3, west of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-10_5
Trial Fraction, west of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_1
Bismark
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.42
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_2
Bismark No. 1
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_3
Bismark No. 2
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.50
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_4
Bismark No. 3
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_5
Crown Point
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01204-000-00_6
Crown Point No. 1
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.62
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_7
Crown Point No. 2
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.62
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_8
Crown Point No. 3
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_9
Crown Point No. 4
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_10
Crown Point No. 5
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_11
Hanify
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_12
Hanify No. 1
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_13
Hanify No. 2
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_14
Hanify No. 3
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_15
Hanify No. 4
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_16
Hanify No. 5
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_17
Hanify No. 6
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01204-000-00_18
Hanify No. 7
1204
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.24
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01221-000-00_1
Lovisa
1221
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01221-000-00_2
Eva
1221
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.00
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26540-01221-000-00_3
Addie
1221
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01221-000-00_4
Gamba Fraction
1221
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.91
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26540-01221-000-00_5
Foster Fraction
1221
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26680-01606-000-20
Lot 2B of Lot 2 of Augusta
1606
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
6.00
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-010-05_1
Lot 22
402
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-010-05_2
Lot 23
402
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.09
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-010-05_3
Lot 27
402
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.02
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
12000-00402-120-00
Lot 1
402
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
0.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00761-000-00
Bosebel
761
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00800-000-00
Harmony
800
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00801-000-00
Brewery exc Railroad ROW
801
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00802-000-00
Brewery Fraction
802
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.56
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00898-000-10
Tract B of M.S. 898, etal
898
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
15.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00907-000-00_1
Nevada Gulch Fraction
907
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.17
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00907-000-00_2
Silver Light
907
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.79
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26340-00907-000-00_3
Liberty Hill
907
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00907-000-00_4
Oblique Fraction
907
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00907-000-00_5
Oblique Fraction No. 2
907
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00925-000-10
Mogul exc Tract B
925
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.58
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00925-000-20
Tract B of Omega
925
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
3.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00925-000-30
Peabody exc Tract B
925
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-10_1
Belcher exc Tract B
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-10_2
North Cross
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.47
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-10_3
Hardscrabble No. 2
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00958-000-10_4
Contact
958
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00989-000-00_1
Yuba exc Terry Cemetary
989
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00989-000-00_2
Eldora exc Terry Cemetary
989
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.05
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00989-000-10
Terry Cemetary
989
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.34
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01052-000-10
Garland
1052
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01052-000-20
Graham
1052
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01064-000-00_1
Big Test Fraction
1084
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-00_2
St. Louis
1084
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-00_3
Silver Fraction
1084
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-00_4
Tornado
1084
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-10_1
Daisy Fraction
1567
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26380-01064-000-10_2
Little Bird
1064
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.15
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-20
Minnie
1064
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01064-000-30
Minnie Fraction
1064
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01075-000-00
Livingston
1075
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.08
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01078-000-00
Ibex Fraction
1078
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.25
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00762-000-00
Mariposa
762
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26280-00411-000-30
Tract A of Oriole
411
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
2.68
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00924-000-00
What's Left Frac. lying E & S of Hwy
924
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.05
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00984-000-03
Lot 3 of Champion & Peruvian Lodes
984
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01101-000-00
Some Left Frac. lying E & S of Hwy
1101
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01102-000-00_4
St. Just
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.79
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_5
Specie Payment Fraction
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.90
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_6
Bryan
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.78
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_7
Blaine lying E & S of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_8
Cleveland lying E & S of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01102-000-00_9
Dickinson lying E & S of Hwy
1102
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_1
Overdraft
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.42
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_2
Cleopatra
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.80
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_3
Argenta
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_4
Daybreak
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.91
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_5
Midnight
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_6
Brandywine
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.95
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_7
Brandywine Fraction
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.12
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_8
Georgiana
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01131-000-00_9
Florence Fraction
1131
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26380-01132-000-00_1
Wye House
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_2
Mix
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_3
Stir
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_4
Glendale Fraction
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_5
Buckeye No. 2
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.58
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_6
Stone Wall
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.78
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_7
Blue Ridge
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.24
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26380-01132-000-00_8
Lloyd Lounds
1132
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-10_1
Cuba
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-10_2
Cuba Fraction
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-10_3
Great Western
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.74
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01136-000-10_4
Silver Belt No. 1 lying E & S of Hwy
1136
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_1
Beaver
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.72
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_2
Sound Money
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_3
Boone
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01151-000-10_4
Cuba No. 1 Fraction
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.46
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_5
Colts
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.99
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_6
Cook
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.73
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_7
Missing Link
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_8
Syracuse
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.65
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_9
Cuba Fraction
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.95
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_10
McKinley Fraction
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_11
Diorite
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_12
Xerxes
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01151-000-10_13
Linnaeus
1151
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.72
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_1
Boston
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.85
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_2
Welcome
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.91
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_3
Derby
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.91
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_4
Tiger
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_5
Seagull
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01152-000-00_6
Sitting Bull
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.17
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_7
Lot D of Doze, Palmetto , et al
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
32.88
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01152-000-00_8
Lot F of Doze Frac. & Dexter
1152
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
1.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_1
Old Bill
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_2
McLeod
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_3
Golden Key
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.92
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_4
Bayard Fraction
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_5
Cyclone Frac. lying E & S of Hwy
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01153-000-00_6
Sioux lying E & S of Hwy
1153
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_1
On Time
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_2
On Time No. 1
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_3
On Time No. 2
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_4
On Time No. 3
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_5
On Time No. 4
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_6
Evangeline No. 1
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01158-000-00_7
Evangeline No. 2
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_8
Evangeline No. 3
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_9
Evangeline No. 4
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_10
Evangeline No. 5
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.21
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_11
Evangeline No. 6
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_12
Evangeline No. 7
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_13
Evangeline No. 8
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_14
Big Four
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.80
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_15
Big Four No. 1
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.54
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_16
Big Four No. 2
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.62
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_17
Big Four No. 3
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.60
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_18
Big Four No. 4
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_19
Square
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.72
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_20
High Point
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.18
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_21
Big Foot
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26420-01158-000-00_22
Black Thunder
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_23
Crow Dog
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_24
Bull Eagle
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.87
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26420-01158-000-00_25
Little Bird Fraction
1158
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_1
CAW
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.02
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_2
I.M.H.
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_3
Florence
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.23
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_4
Stead
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_5
Stead No. 1
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_6
Stead No. 2
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_7
Stead No. 3
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_8
Stead No. 4
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.42
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_9
McLeod
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.02
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_10
McLeod No. 1
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_11
McLeod No. 2
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.74
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26450-00200-000-00_12
Gertrude
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_13
Coppy Fraction
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_14
Low
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_15
High
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_16
Poorman
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.71
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_17
Elsie
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.97
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_18
Monmouth
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_19
Monmouth No. 1
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_20
Monmouth No. 2
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_21
Monmouth No. 3
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_22
Monmouth No. 4
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_23
Monmouth No. 5
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.93
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_24
Monmouth No. 6
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.18
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_25
December
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.10
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_26
Bridgeport
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26450-00200-000-00_27
Blue Danube
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_28
Dr. Late
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_29
Lamplighter
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_30
West Virginia
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_31
Client Fraction
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-00200-000-00_32
Client
1142
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.58
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_1
Carmyllie
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_2
Sol Star
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_3
Golden Eagle
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.33
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26450-01058-000-00_4
Guild
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_5
Mose Lyon Fraction
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_6
Doctor Flick Fraction
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
0.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01058-000-00_7
Robert Emet
1058
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01188-000-00_1
Wild Deer No. 1
1188
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.18
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01188-000-00_2
Wild Deer No. 2
1188
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26450-01188-000-00_3
Wild Fawn
1188
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_1
Leona Lock
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.23
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_2
Lone Star
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_3
Bengal Tiger
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.34
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_4
Deposit
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_5
B & M Fraction
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_6
Gopher No. 1
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_7
Gopher No. 2
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.53
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26450-01215-000-00_8
Gopher No. 3
1215
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26455-01169-000-00_1
Polar Bear
1169
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26455-01169-000-00_2
Wedge
1169
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26455-01169-000-00_3
Edison
1169
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26455-01169-000-00_4
Edison No. 2
1169
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.20
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26455-01169-000-00_5
Edison No. 3
1169
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_1
King
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.32
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01200-000-00_2
Carter No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.88
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_3
Carter No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_4
Carter No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_5
Fay No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.65
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_6
Fay No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_7
Ray
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.94
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_8
Ray No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_9
Ray No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.31
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_10
Ray No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_11
Bancroft No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.71
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_12
Bancroft No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.41
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_13
Bancroft No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_14
Violet No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.17
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_15
Violet No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_16
Violet No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.83
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01200-000-00_17
Ox
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.62
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_18
Flat
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.30
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_19
Rainbow
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_20
Albert Steele
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.47
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_21
Browning
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_22
Paragon
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.53
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_23
Charlie
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.99
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_24
Ruby Basin
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_25
Cunniff
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_26
Star
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.07
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_27
Principal Fraction
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.00
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_28
Principal Fraction No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_29
Principal No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_30
Principal No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_31
Principal No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.28
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01200-000-00_32
Principal No. 4
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_33
Sheridan
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_34
Annie
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.96
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_35
Springview
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.15
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_36
Maggie
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_37
Amy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_38
Waukegon
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.12
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_39
Genevieve
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_40
Little Johnny
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_41
Llama
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.74
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_42
Tum-Tum
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.84
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_43
Lucky Girl
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.80
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_44
Jay No. 1
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_45
Jay No. 2
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_46
Jay No. 3
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.64
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26460-01200-000-00_47
Albert Steel Fraction
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.70
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_48
Log Cabin
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.87
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_49
Hazard
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.16
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_50
Carter lying E of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_51
Trial No. 1 lying E of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.86
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26460-01200-000-00_52
Trial No. 2 lying E of Hwy
1200
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
1.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_1
St. George No. 1
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_2
St. George No. 2
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.04
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_3
Monte Carlo
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_4
Venus
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_5
Jupiter
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_6
Deer Mountain
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_7
Evarts
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.19
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_8
Fairview
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.15
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_9
World's Fair
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26500-01209-000-00_10
Bangor Fraction No. 2
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_11
Bangor No. 1
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.61
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_12
Selbie
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.74
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_13
Transit
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_14
First Chance
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.93
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_15
Chicago
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_16
Big Dipper Fraction
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.87
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_17
Big Dipper No. 1
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.74
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_18
Big Dipper No. 2
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.06
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_19
Big Dipper No. 3
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_20
Big Dipper No. 4
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
10.29
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26500-01209-000-00_21
Big Dipper No. 5
1209
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.22
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_1
Havana No. 1
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.90
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_2
Havana No. 2
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.64
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_3
Havana No. 3
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.36
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26583-01210-000-00_4
Havana No. 4
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.39
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_5
Havana No. 5
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_6
Havana No. 6
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
9.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_7
Havana No. 7
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_8
Havana No. 8
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_9
Havana No. 9
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_10
Havana No. 10
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
5.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_11
Connecting
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.50
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_12
Wabash No. 1
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.43
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_13
Wabash No. 2
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
4.44
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_14
Wabash No. 3
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.98
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_15
Wabash No. 4
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
3.95
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26583-01210-000-00_16
Wabash No. 5
1210
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
2.99
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_1
Doze
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
6.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_2
Doze Fraction
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
7.57
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
26584-01217-000-00_3
Evening Star
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.40
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_4
Bryan
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.38
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_5
Belt
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_6
Isreal
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26584-01217-000-00_7
Dolphin
1217
      
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Patented Lode Claim
8.45
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
26340-00902-000-30_13
Quit Claim
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
10.27
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00925-000-40
Tract A of Omega
925
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
6.81
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26280-00411-000-10
Oriole exc Tract A
411-A
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.64
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_1
Cyanide
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
6.01
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26340-00902-000-30_2
LaPierre
902
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
9.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
26620-01470-000-00
Cherry Gulch
1470
      
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
Patented Lode Claim
7.65
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
2.6125%
Valentine, et al, Metalla
2.0000%
Royal Gold
MMC89109
GOLDEN REWARD #2
    
MMC 89109
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
5.51
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC89110
GOLDEN REWARD #4
    
MMC 89110
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC92905
GOLDEN REWARD #5
    
MMC 92905
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
13.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC94456
GOLDEN REWARD #15
    
MMC 94456
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC94457
GOLDEN REWARD #16
    
MMC 94457
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.82
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC94459
GOLDEN REWARD #18
    
MMC 94459
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC94460
GOLDEN REWARD #19
    
MMC 94460
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC94462
GOLDEN REWARD #25
    
MMC 94462
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
6.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC125813
MOCO JV-11
    
MMC 125813
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
6.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC125814
MOCO JV-12
    
MMC 125814
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
6.89
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC125815
MOCO JV-13
    
MMC 125815
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
2.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC132782
BABY
    
MMC 132782
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
2.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC132783
MELANIE
    
MMC 132783
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
7.35
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134347
PATTI #2
    
MMC 134347
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
1.84
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134349
PATTI #4
    
MMC 134349
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
2.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134350
PATTI #5
    
MMC 134350
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
2.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134351
PATTI #6
    
MMC 134351
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
2.75
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134352
PATTI #7
    
MMC 134352
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.13
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC134353
PATTI #8
    
MMC 134353
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
1.84
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC172950
FRED #1
    
MMC 172950
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
8.26
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC172951
FRED #2
    
MMC 172951
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
3.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC172952
FRED #3
    
MMC 172952
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
3.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC172953
FRED #4
    
MMC 172953
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
3.67
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC184192
BONESPUR FRACTION
    
MMC 184192
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
0.23
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC193034
GREMLIN NO 1
    
MMC 193034
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
16.52
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC193035
GREMLIN NO 2
    
MMC 193035
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
13.77
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC193323
GREMLIN NO 3
    
MMC 193323
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
0.55
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC193324
GREMLIN NO 4
    
MMC 193324
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
0.11
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC222709
CAITLIN NO. 1
    
MMC 222709
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
1.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC222710
CAITLIN NO. 2
    
MMC 222710
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
4.12
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC222711
CAITLIN NO. 3
    
MMC 222711
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
1.03
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC223020
CAITLIN NO. 4
    
MMC 223020
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
6.43
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC223021
CAITLIN NO. 5
    
MMC 223021
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
0.69
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC234507
Hattie Clay Lode
    
MMC 234507
  
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Golden Reward
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236754
JH 1
    
MMC 236754
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236755
JH 2
    
MMC 236755
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236756
JH 3
    
MMC 236756
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236757
JH 4
    
MMC 236757
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236758
JH 5
    
MMC 236758
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236759
JH 6
    
MMC 236759
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236760
JH 7
    
MMC 236760
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236761
JH 8
    
MMC 236761
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236762
JH 9
    
MMC 236762
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236763
JH 10
    
MMC 236763
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236764
JH 11
    
MMC 236764
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236765
JH 12
    
MMC 236765
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236766
JH 13
    
MMC 236766
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236767
JH 14
    
MMC 236767
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC236768
JH 15
    
MMC 236768
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236769
JH 16
    
MMC 236769
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236770
JH 17
    
MMC 236770
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236771
JH 18
    
MMC 236771
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236772
JH 19
    
MMC 236772
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236773
JH 20
    
MMC 236773
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236774
JH 21
    
MMC 236774
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236775
JH 22
    
MMC 236775
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236776
JH 23
    
MMC 236776
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236777
JH 24
    
MMC 236777
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236778
JH 25
    
MMC 236778
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236779
JH 26
    
MMC 236779
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236780
JH 30
    
MMC 236780
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236781
JH 31
    
MMC 236781
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236782
JH 32
    
MMC 236782
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236783
JH 33
    
MMC 236783
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236784
JH 34
    
MMC 236784
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236785
JH 35
    
MMC 236785
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236786
JH 36
    
MMC 236786
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236787
JH 37
    
MMC 236787
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236788
JH 38
    
MMC 236788
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC236789
JH 39
    
MMC 236789
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236790
JH 40
    
MMC 236790
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236791
JH 41
    
MMC 236791
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236792
JH 42
    
MMC 236792
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236793
JH 43
    
MMC 236793
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236794
JH 44
    
MMC 236794
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236795
JH 47
    
MMC 236795
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236796
JH 48
    
MMC 236796
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236797
JH 49
    
MMC 236797
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236798
JH 50
    
MMC 236798
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236799
JH 51
    
MMC 236799
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236800
JH 53
    
MMC 236800
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236801
JH 54
    
MMC 236801
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236802
JH 55
    
MMC 236802
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236803
JH 62
    
MMC 236803
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236804
JH 65
    
MMC 236804
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236805
JH 68
    
MMC 236805
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236806
JH 69
    
MMC 236806
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236807
JH 70
    
MMC 236807
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236808
JH 71
    
MMC 236808
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236809
JH 72
    
MMC 236809
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
c
Name
M.S.
Number
Patent
#
BLM
S/N
State
S/N
Owner/Parties
Type
Acreage
Project
State
County
Royalty (1)
Royalty
Holder (1)
Royalty
(2)
Royalty
Holder
(2)
MMC236810
JH 73
    
MMC 236810
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236811
JH 74
    
MMC 236811
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236812
JH 75
    
MMC 236812
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236813
JH 76
    
MMC 236813
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236814
JH 77
    
MMC 236814
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236815
JH 78
    
MMC 236815
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236816
JH 79
    
MMC 236816
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
MMC236817
JH 80
    
MMC 236817
  
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
Federal Lode Claim
20.66
Johana (Wharf)
South Dakota
Lawrence
        
 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   
Maps
 

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
Technical Report Summary
   

 
Effective Date:  December 31, 2021
  
Appendix.A