Solaris Resources Inc 6-K, filed Sep 6, 2024

Solaris Resources Inc. (SLSR)

6-K 2024-09-06 For: 2024-09-05

View Original

Added on April 11, 2026

About this 6-K

Solaris Resources Inc filed this 6-K on September 6, 2024.

Search and read filings like this one from Claude or ChatGPT with the SEC filings MCP server →

Exhibit		Description
99.1		Mineral Resource Estimate Update NI 43-101 Technical Report Warintza Project, Ecuador with an effective date of July 1, 2024
99.2		Consent of Mario E. Rossi, RM-SME; Fellow, AusIMM; GeoSystems International, Inc.

	Solaris Resources Inc.
	(Registrant)

Date: September 5, 2024	By:	/s/ Tom Ladner
	Name:	Tom Ladner
	Title:	VP Legal

	Qualified Person	Company
	Mario E. Rossi	GeoSystems International, Inc.

1.0	Summary	16
1.1	Introduction	16
1.2	Property Description and Ownership	16
1.3	Geology and Mineralization	17
1.4	Mineral Resource Estimate	17
1.5	Conclusions and Recommendations	20
2.0	Introduction	23
2.1	Terms of Reference	23
2.2	Units, Currency, and Abbreviations	23
3.0	Reliance on Other Experts	29
3.1	Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Agreements, and Environmental Information	29
4.0	Property Description and Location	30
4.1	Project Location and Area	30
4.2	Licenses and Mineral Tenure	31
4.3	Royalties	31
4.4	Mineral Rights in Ecuador	31
4.5	Environmental Obligations	32
4.6	Permits	33
	Mining Title	33
	Environmental Registry	33
	Certificate of Intersection	33
	Forestry Permit	33
	Hazardous Waste Generator Registration	33
	Biotic Collection Permit	33
	Certification of Non-Affectation of Water Sources	34
	Permit to Use Water for Human Consumption	34
	Permit to Use Water for Industrial Use	34
	Sworn Declaration of Non-Impact to Infrastructure	34
	Annual Exploration Report	34
	Patent Payments	34
	Fuel Permit	34

	Mineral Transportation Permit	34
	Archeological Investigation Authorization	35
4.7	Environmental Licensing for Advanced Exploration Phase	35
5.0	Accesibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography	36
5.1	Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation	36
5.2	Access	37
5.3	Proximity to Population Centre and Transport	37
5.4	Infrastructure and Personnel	37
6.0	History	41
6.1	Property Ownership Changes	41
6.2	Exploration by Previous Owners	42
6.2.1	Surface Geochemistry	42
6.2.2	Geophysics	44
6.3	Historic Mineral Resource Estimates	44
6.3.1	Mineral Resource Estimate (Ronning and Ristorcelli, 2006)	45
6.3.2	Mineral Resource Estimate (Ronning and Ristorcelli, 2018)	46
6.4	Historical Production	47
7.0	Geological Setting and Mineralization	48
7.1	Regional Geology	48
7.1.1	Subandean and Cordillera del Cóndor Geology	48
7.1.2	Regional Metallogeny	50
7.2	Geologic Features of the Warintza Cluster	51
7.3	Warintza Central	52
7.4	Warintza East	57
8.0	Deposit Types	59
9.0	Exploration	60
9.1	Introduction	60
9.2	Geochemical Sampling	60
9.3	Geophysical Surveys	67
10.0	Drilling	68
10.1	Drilling Procedures	75
10.2	Core Handling Procedures	76

11.0	Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security	78
11.1	Sample Preparation and Analyses	80
11.1.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	80
11.1.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	81
11.1.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign Sampling Procedures	82
11.2	Sample Security	83
11.2.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	83
11.2.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	83
11.2.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	84
11.3	Quality Control and Quality Assurance Program	85
11.3.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	85
11.3.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	86
11.3.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	92
11.4	Data Adequacy	103
11.4.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	103
11.4.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	103
11.4.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	103
11.5	Author’s Opinion	104
12.0	Data Verification	105
12.1	Drill Hole Location Verification	105
12.1.1	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	105
12.1.2	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	106
12.2	Geological Data Verification and Interpretation	106
12.2.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	106
12.2.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	107
12.2.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	107
12.3	Assay Verification	109
12.3.1	2000-2001 Drilling Campaign	109
12.3.2	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	109
12.3.3	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	110
12.4	Data Adequacy	111
12.4.1	2020-2021 Drilling Campaign	111

12.4.2	2022-2024 Drilling Campaign	111
13.0	Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing	112
13.1	Resource Development, Inc., Test Work	112
13.2	Current Testing	115
13.2.1	Mineralogy / Comminution Test Work Completed	115
13.3	Planned Metallurgical Test Work Scope (New Samples)	121
13.4	Sample Representativity	122
14.0	Mineral Resource Estimates	123
14.1	Database	123
14.2	Exploratory Data Analysis	124
14.2.1	In-situ Bulk Density	126
14.3	Geological Models and Estimation Domains	126
14.3.1	Additional Interpreted Volumes	136
14.3.2	Estimation Domain Definition	137
14.3.2	In-situ Bulk Density Domains	144
14.4	Outlier Grade Control	146
14.5	Composites	148
14.6	Spatial Clustering	150
14.7	Contact Analysis	151
14.8	Variography	153
14.9	Block Model and Grade Estimation	158
14.10	Validation	164
14.10.1	Visual Validation	164
14.11	Statistical Validation	165
14.12	Classification of Mineral Resources	168
14.13	Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction	171
14.14	Mineral Resource Inventory	172
14.15	Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate	175
15.0	Mineral Reserve Estimate	176
16.0	Mining Methods	177
17.0	RECOVERY Methods	178
18.0	Project Infrastructure	179

19.0	Market Studies and Contracts	180
20.0	Environmental Studies, Permitting & Social OR Community Impact	181
21.0	Capital and Operating Costs	182
22.0	Economic Analysis	183
23.0	Adjacent Properties	184
24.0	Other Relevant Informtion	187
25.0	Interpretation and Conclusions	188
25.1	Risks and Uncertainties	188
25.1.1	Risks and Uncertainties Affecting the Resource Estimate	188
25.1.2	Risks and Uncertainties Affecting Potential Additional Discoveries	189
26.0	Recommendations	190
26.1	Drilling Program	190
26.2	Pre-Feasibility Study	190
27.0	REFERENCES	191
27.1	Additional Internal Documentation and References	193

Table 1: Warintza Mineral Resource at 0.25 % CuEq Cut-Off Grade, Effective July 1, 2024	18
Table 2: Warintza Mineralization Cut-Off Grade Sensitivity	19
Table 3: Abbreviations and Measurement Units	24
Table 4: Warintza Concessions	31
Table 5: Exploration and Exploitation Phases	32
Table 6: Summary of Surface Samples from the Warintza Property	42
Table 7: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Primary Zone	45
Table 8: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Enriched Zone	46
Table 9: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Total	46
Table 10: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Primary Zone	47
Table 11: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Enriched Zone	47
Table 12: Warintza Central Deposit Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate – Total	47
Table 15: Historical Sampling	60
Table 16: Recent Surface Sampling	62
Table 17: Summary of Drilled Meters by Year	68
Table 18: 2020 to 2024 Assay Results	68
Table 19: Collar Locations	71
Table 20: Sample Composite Lengths Applied to Sample Based on Mineralized Zone Character	80
Table 21: Table of Assays and QA/QC Samples Submitted	80
Table 22: Sample Preparation Protocol from ALS Chemex Quito	82
Table 23: Summary of the overall QA/QC Program to date for Warintza	85
Table 24: Acceptance Criteria for Duplicates (Precision)	87
Table 25: Acceptance Criteria for CRMs (Accuracy)	87
Table 26: Acceptance Criteria for Blanks (Contamination)	87
Table 27: Differences Between Reference Materials Expected, Measured Value and Overall Bias Condition (Source: GSI 2022)	91
Table 28: Differences Between Reference Materials Expected, Measured Value and overall bias. Source: GSI 2024.	97
Table 29: Comparison of Re-Assays (Ck) to Original (Or) Assay Data	110
Table 30: Head Grades of Warintza Metallurgical Sample	112
Table 31: Calculated Bond’s Work Index for Warintza Sample	113

Table 32: Grind Time Requirements for Targeted Grind Size	113
Table 33: Summary of Rougher Flotation Results	114
Table 34: Second-Cleaner Concentrate Product Quality	115
Table 35: QEMSCAN Bulk Mineralogy	116
Table 36: QEMSCAN Cu Deportment	117
Table 37: Cu Sulfide Liberation (Distribution % of Cu Sulfides)	118
Table 38: Cu Sulfide Liberation (Distribution % of Pyrite)	118
Table 39: Pyrite Liberation (Distribution % of Pyrite)	119
Table 40: Head Assays for Samples and Master Composite	119
Table 41: Detection Limits for Elements Assayed and Not Listed	120
Table 42: Summarized SMC Test Results	120
Table 43: Bond Ball Mill Work Index (BWi) Summarized Test Results	121
Table 44: Ball Mill Work Index (BWi) Hardness/Resistance to Breakage Classification Ranges	121
Table 45: Summary Warintza Drill Database	123
Table 46: Lithology Codes Used in Modelling	127
Table 47: Alteration Codes Used in Modelling	127
Table 48: Mineralization Zone Codes Used in Modelling	127
Table 49: Warintza Cu Estimation Domains	141
Table 50: Warintza Mo Estimation Domains	141
Table 51: Warintza Au Estimation Domains	142
Table 52: Warintza In-situ Bulk Density Estimation Domains	145
Table 53: Summary Outlier Restriction by Domain, Cu	147
Table 54: Summary Outlier Restriction by Domain, Mo	148
Table 55: Summary Outlier Restriction by Domain, Au	148
Table 56: Cu Correlograms Models by Domain	155
Table 57: Mo Correlograms Models by Domain	156
Table 58: Au Correlograms Models by Domain	157
Table 59: Cu Estimation Plans by Domain	159
Table 60: Mo Estimation Plans by Domain	160
Table 61: Au Estimation Plans by Domain	161
Table 62: Values Used for Assignment When Not Estimated, Only Within The Drill Hole Influence Envelope, by Metal and Domain.	162
Table 63: In-situ Bulk Density Estimation Plans by Domain	163

Table 64: In-situ Bulk Density Assigned Values by Domain (after discarding data outside ±3*Standard Deviation)	163
Table 65: Global Means by Domain, Nearest-Neighbour Model, and Estimated Grades, Cu	166
Table 66: Global Means by Domain, Nearest-Neighbour Model and Estimated Grades, Mo	166
Table 67: Global means by Domain, Nearest-Neighbor Model, and Estimated Grades, Au	167
Table 68: Summary Average Distances (Closest; Farthest; and Average) of all 2m Composites Used to Estimate Blocks, by Resource Class.	170
Table 69: Warintza Conceptual Resource Pit Parameters	171
Table 70: Warintza Mineral Resource at 0.25 % CuEq Cut-Off Grade, Effective July 1, 2024	173
Table 71: Warintza MRE’s Cut-Off Grade Sensitivity	174

Figure 1: Location Map of the Warintza Project	30
Figure 2: Monthly Average Rainfall, Warintza Project	36
Figure 3: Regional Infrastructure Map	39
Figure 4: Unsealed Airstrip Access at Warintza Village	40
Figure 5: Property Soil and Rock Geochemistry Summarizing Cu Results	43
Figure 6: Property Soil and Rock Geochemistry Summarizing Mo Results	44
Figure 7: Location of the Warintza Cluster Within Zamora Batholith	49
Figure 8: Simplified Geologic Map of Warintza Cluster	50
Figure 9: Simplified Geologic Cross Section of Warintza Cluster	52
Figure 10: Simplified Geologic Cross Section Through Warintza Central	53
Figure 11: Historical Cu Soil and Rock Geochemistry Map of Warintza Cluster	61
Figure 12: Historical Mo Soil and Rock Geochemistry Map of Warintza Cluster	61
Figure 13: Warintza Soil and Stream Sediments Cu Anomalies	63
Figure 14: Warintza Soil and Stream Sediments Mo Anomalies	63
Figure 15: Caya Stream Sediment Anomalies	64
Figure 16: Caya and Mateo Au in Soil Samples Geochemistry	65
Figure 17: Caya and Mateo As in Soil Samples Geochemistry	65
Figure 18: Caya and Mateo in Sb Soil Samples Geochemistry	66
Figure 19: Caya and Mateo in Cu Soil Samples Geochemistry	66
Figure 20: Caya and Mateo in Mo Soil Samples Geochemistry	67
Figure 21: Drilling Completed	76
Figure 22: Warintza Project, Central Core Shed Facilities in Quito, Ecuador	78
Figure 23: Warintza Project. Lima Office, Peru (left) and Central Core Shed Facilities (right) in Quito, Ecuador. Source: GSI (2024).	79
Figure 24: Warintza Project. Central Core Shed Facilities in Quito, Ecuador. Source: GSI (2024).	79
Figure 25: Laboratory Sample Reception and Preparation - ALS Quito, Ecuador	81
Figure 26: Sample Boxes Waiting to be Picked Up from Drilling Platform by Helicopter	83
Figure 27: Samples in Patuca for Transport to Quito-Core Shed Facilities	84
Figure 28: Samples Arrival to the ALS Laboratory - Quito, Ecuador	84
Figure 29: ALS Chemex Contamination Chart Control for Au, Cu and Mo. (PB=pulp blank, CB= coarse blank)	88

Figure 30: Control Charts of Reference Materials for Au, Cu, and Mo - ALS Chemex Laboratory	89
Figure 31: Control Charts of Reference Materials for Au, Cu, and Mo - Bureau Veritas Laboratory	90
Figure 32: ALS Chemex vs Bureau Veritas Contamination Chart Control for Au, Cu and Mo (PB= pulp blank)	93
Figure 33: ALS Chemex Contamination Chart Control for Au, Cu and Mo (CB= coarse blank)	94
Figure 34: ALS Chemex Contamination Chart Control for Au, Cu and Mo (PB=pulp blank)	95
Figure 35: ALS Chemex. Certificate Reference Materials for Cu and Mo	96
Figure 36: ALS Chemex vs Bureau Veritas. Certificate Reference Materials for Cu and Mo.	97
Figure 37: Certified Cu and Mo reference materials used. ALS Chemex results are shown. Overall Bias Condition is Good.	98
Figure 38: Field Duplicate Control Charts Au – ALS Chemex Laboratory	99
Figure 39: Field Duplicate Control Charts Cu – ALS Chemex Laboratory	100
Figure 40: Field Duplicate Control Charts Mo – ALS Chemex Laboratory	100
Figure 41: Pulp Duplicate Control Charts Au – Bureau Veritas Laboratory	101
Figure 42: Pulp Duplicate Control Charts Cu – Bureau Veritas Laboratory	102
Figure 43: Pulp Duplicate Control Charts Mo – Bureau Veritas Laboratory	102
Figure 44: Drilling Platform PE-01, Drill Hole SLSE-08	106
Figure 45: Meterage Control and Geology, Drill Hole SLSE-08	107
Figure 46: Review of Holes Drilled in 2022-2023, Quito, 2024	108
Figure 47: Update of Re-Logged Drillings and Review of 3D Models, Quito, 2024	108
Figure 48: Pulp Samples Selected for Independent Re-Assaying	110
Figure 49: QEMSCAN Cu Deportment	117
Figure 50: Plan View of Warintza Drill Holes	123
Figure 51: Warintza Global Histogram and Basic Statistics, Cu (%)	124
Figure 52: Warintza Global Histogram and Basic Statistics, Mo (%)	125
Figure 53: Warintza Global Histogram and Basic Statistics, Au (g/t)	125
Figure 54: Box and Whisker Plot, In-situ Bulk Density Values by Lithology	126
Figure 55: Cross Section 9,648,060N Showing Lithology, Final Interpreted Model	128
Figure 56: Box and Whisker Plot, Cu Grade by Lithology Codes	129
Figure 57: Box and Whisker Plots, Mo (L) and Au (R) Grades by Lithology Codes	130
Figure 58: Cross Section 9,648,060N Showing Alteration, Final Interpreted Model	131
Figure 59: Box and Whisker Plot, Cu Grade by Alteration Codes	132
Figure 60: Box and Whisker Plots, Mo (L) and Au (R) Grades by Alteration Codes	133

Figure 61: Cross Section 9,648,060N Showing Mineralization Zones (Minzone), Final Interpreted Model	134
Figure 62: Box and Whisker Plot, Cu Grade by Minzone Codes	135
Figure 63: Box and Whisker Plots, Au (left) and Mo (right) Grades by Minzone Codes	136
Figure 64: 3D View to the NNW Showing the 0.1% Total Cu Grade Shell (Red); Drill Hole Influence Envelope (Magenta); and the 10% Sulfate (Anhydrite/Gypsum) Grade Shell (Yellow)	137
Figure 65: Q-Q Plot, Cu, Example of two lithologies that are grouped	139
Figure 66: Q-Q Plot, Cu, Example of two preliminary domains that cannot be grouped	139
Figure 67: Cross Section 9,648,060N Showing Cu Estimation Domains	140
Figure 68: Box and Whisker Plots with summary statistics, Cu Grades by Cu Estimation Domains	142
Figure 69: Box and Whisker Plots with summary statistics, Mo Grades by Mo Estimation Domains	143
Figure 70: Box and Whisker Plots with summary statistics, Au Grades by Au Estimation Domains	144
Figure 71: Box and Whisker Plots, Bulk Density Domains	145
Figure 72: Probability Plot, Cu, Estimation Domain 5, Warintza	147
Figure 73: Conditional Cu Grade Means by Composite Length (Blue),	149
Figure 74: Histogram and Basic Statistics, Cu, Domain 8, 2 m Composites	149
Figure 75: Probability Plot, Cu, Domain 8, 2 m Composites	150
Figure 76: Declustered Histogram and Basic Statistics, Cu, Domain 8, 2 m Composites	151
Figure 77: Contact Profile, Cu, Domains 8-9 Contact	152
Figure 78: Contact Matrix, Cu. In Red, Hard Contacts (No Sharing); In Green, Semi-Soft Contact (Share Only in The First Pass).	152
Figure 79: Contact Matrix, Mo. In Red, Hard Contacts (No Sharing); In Green, Semi-Soft Contact (Share Only in The First Pass).	153
Figure 80: Contact Matrix, Au. In Red, Hard Contacts (No Sharing); In Green, Semi-Soft Contact (Share Only in The First Pass).	153
Figure 81: Correlogram Model, Cu, Domain 13. Views of the Model Parameters (Left); Main Orientations for the Two Structures Modelled (Central); and Three Directions with the Fitted Model, approximately on the main directions of anisotropy.	154
Figure 82: Warintza Central and Warintza East, Cu Grade Estimates and 2m Cu composites, Section N9648060, ±12.5m window	164
Figure 83: Warintza Central and Warintza East, Cu Grade Estimates and 2m Cu composites, 875m Plan View, ±7.5m window	165
Figure 84: Drift Plots, Cu	167
Figure 85: Drift Plots, Mo	168
Figure 86: Drift Plots, Au	168

Figure 87: Warintza Resource Classification Plan View, Level 800 m	170
Figure 88: Warintza Resource Classification East West Section, N9648100	171
Figure 89: Map of Concessions, Known Prospects and Mines Surrounding Warintza Property	186

	1.	The Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2014.
	2.	Reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction assume open-pit mining with conventional flotation processing and were tested using Whittle and Minesight pit optimization software with the following assumptions: metal prices of US$4.00/lb Cu, US$20.00/lb Mo, and US$1,850/oz Au; operating costs of US$1.50/t+US$0.02/t per bench mining, US$5.0/t milling, US$1.0/t G&A, and recoveries of 90% Cu, 85% Mo, and 70% Au based on preliminary metallurgical testwork.
	3.	Metal price assumptions for copper, molybdenum and gold are based on a discount to the lesser of the 3-year trailing average (in accordance with US Securities and Exchange Commission guidance) and current spot prices for each metal.

	4.	Mineral Resources include grade capping and dilution. Grade was interpolated by ordinary kriging populating a block model with block dimensions of 25m × 25m × 15m.
	5.	Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	6.	Copper-equivalent grade calculation for reporting assumes metal prices of US$4.00/lb Cu, US$20.00/lb Mo, and US$1,850/oz Au, and recoveries of 90% Cu, 85% Mo, and 70% Au based on preliminary metallurgical testwork and includes provisions for downstream selling costs. CuEq formula: CuEq (%) = Cu (%) + 5.604 × Mo (%) + 0.623 × Au (g/t).
	7.	The Mineral Resources estimate was prepared by Mario E. Rossi, FAusIMM, RM-SME, Principal Geostatistician of Geosystems International Inc., who is an Independent Qualified Person under NI 43-101. The Mineral Resources estimate is at a 0.25% CuEq cut-off grade.
	8.	In Mr. Rossi’s opinion, there are currently no relevant factors or legal, political, environmental, or other risks that could materially affect the potential development of Mineral Resources.
	9.	All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore may not appear to add precisely.
	10.	The effective date of the mineral resource estimate is July 1, 2024.

Cut-off	Category	Tonnage	Grade
CuEq (%)		(Mt)	CuEq (%)	Cu (%)	Mo (%)	Au (g/t)
0.15%	Measured	246	0.61	0.45	0.02	0.05
	Indicated	836	0.44	0.30	0.02	0.04
	M&I	1,082	0.48	0.34	0.02	0.04
	Inferred	3,135	0.27	0.20	0.01	0.04
0.25% (Base Case)	Measured	232	0.64	0.47	0.02	0.05
	Indicated	677	0.49	0.34	0.02	0.04
	M&I	909	0.53	0.37	0.02	0.05
	Inferred	1,426	0.37	0.27	0.01	0.04
0.35%	Measured	207	0.68	0.50	0.03	0.06
	Indicated	497	0.56	0.40	0.02	0.05
	M&I	704	0.60	0.43	0.02	0.05
	Inferred	640	0.47	0.34	0.02	0.05
0.50%	Measured	157	0.76	0.56	0.03	0.06
	Indicated	269	0.69	0.50	0.03	0.05
	M&I	427	0.71	0.52	0.03	0.06
	Inferred	177	0.62	0.45	0.02	0.07

%	Percent
% w/w	% Of Solid Mass in Liquid Mass
°	Degrees
°C	Degrees Celsius
µm	Micron
3D	Three-Dimensional
AAS	Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
AB	Air Blast
AG	Auger
Ag	Silver
ARD	Acid Rock Drainage
As	Arsenic
Au	Gold
BD	Bulk Density
BLEG	Bulk Leach Extractable Gold
BOCO	Base of Complete Oxidation
Capex	Capital Expenditure
BWI	Bond’s work index
CIM	Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum
cm	Centimeter(s)
CMP	Composite
CN	Cyanide
COEF	Coefficient
COG	Cut-off Grade
CRM	Certified Reference Material
CSV	Comma Separated Value
Cu	Copper
CuEq	Copper equivalent
CV	Coefficient of Variation
DBA	Database Administrator
DC	Diamond Core
DD	Diamond Drill
DFS	Definitive Feasibility Report
DH	Drill Hole
DDH	Diamond Drill Hole
EIA	Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS	Environmental Impact Study
EM	Electromagnetic

EMP	Environmental Management Plan
EMS	Environmental Management Systems
EOH	End of Hole
EOM	End of Month
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
EPCM	Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management
EPMA	Electron Probe Microanalysis
ESE	East-Southeast
ESIA	Environmental And Social Impact Assessment
EXP	Exploration
FA	Fire Assay
FS	Feasibility Study
g	Gram(s)
G&A	General And Administration
g/cm³	Grams Per Cubic Centimetre
g/t	Grams Per Tonne
Ga	Giga-Annum
GIS	Geographic Information System
GPS	Global Positioning System
h	Hour(s)
ha	Hectare(s)
HSE	Health, Safety, And Environment
ICMC	International Cyanide Management Code
ICP AES	Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry
ICP MS	Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
ID²	Inverse Distance Squared
ID³	Inverse Distance Cubed
IFC	International Finance Corporation
IFRS	International Financial Reporting Standards
ILR	Intensive Leach Reactor
IP	Induced Polarization
ISO	International Standards Organization
IT	Information Technology
JV	Joint Venture
K	Thousand
kg	Kilogram(s)
kL	Kilolitre
Km	Kilometer(s)
km²	Square Kilometers
koz	Kilo Ounce/Thousand Ounce (Troy)

kt	Thousand Tonnes
kW	Kilowatt
L	Litre
lbs	Pounds
m	Meter(s)
m²	Square Meter(s)
m³	Cubic Meter(s)
M	Million
M+I	Measured and Indicated
Ma	Million Years Ago
MAMSL	Meters Above Mean Sea Level
masl	Meters Above Sea Level
mm	Millimetre(s)
Mo	Molybdenum
MOU	Memorandum Of Understanding
MRE	Mineral Resource Estimate
Mt	Million Tonnes
Mtpa	Million Tonnes Per Annum
N	North
NE	Northeast
NI 43-101	Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101
NNE	North-northeast
NPV	Net Present Value
NSR	Net Smelter Revenue
OK	Ordinary Kriging
OPEX	Operating Expenditure
oz	Ounce (Troy)
oz/ton	Troy Ounce Per Short Ton
PAG	Potentially Acid Generating
Pb	Lead
pH	Acidity Scale
PFS	Pre-Feasibility Study
ppb	Part Per Billion
ppm	Part Per Million
PSAD-56	Provisional South American datum
P80	80% Passing Through Grind Test
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4	Quarter One, Quarter Two, Quarter Three, Quarter Four
QA/QC	Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QA	Quality Assurance

QC	Quality Control
QEMSCAN	Quantitative Evaluation of Materials by Scanning Electron Microscopy
QP(s)	Qualified Person(s)
QQ	Quantile-Quantile
QSP	Quartz Sericite Pyrite
Qtz	Quartz
QV	Quartz Veins
RBU	Remuneración Básica Unificada (Annual Ecuadorian Wage Calculation)
RC	Reverse Circulation
RCD	Reverse Circulation with Diamond Tail
RF	Revenue Factor
RHS	Right Hand Side
RQD	Rock Quality Designations
Sb	Antimony
SBM	Sub-Celled Block Model
SCC	Sericite-clay-chlorite
SD	Standard Deviation(s)
SE	Southeast
SEC	U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
SG	Specific Gravity
SGS	SGS Laboratories
SiO₂	Silicon Dioxide (Silica)
SMU	Selective Mining Unit
SOX	Strongly Oxidized
SQL	Structured Query Language
t	Tonne(s)
t/m³	Tonnes Per Cubic Metre
TOFR	Top of Fresh Rock
Tpa	Tonnes Per Annum
TSF	Tailings Storage Facility
TSX	Toronto Stock Exchange
UCS	Unconfined Compressive Strength
US$	United States Dollars
USB	Universal Serial Bus
UTM	Universal Transverse Mercator
VTEM	Versatile Time-Domain Electromagnetic Surveying
W	West
WOX	Weakly Oxidized

Name	Concession Number	Area (Ha)	Type	Registration Date	Good to Date
CAYA 21	101083	2,499	Concession	25/5/2010	7/2/2041
CAYA 22	101092	2,499	Concession	25/5/2010	7/2/2041
CURIGEM 9	100081	4,049	Concession	25/5/2010	27/10/2041
CURIGEM 9-1	10000938	950	Concession	8/4/2022	15/12/2036
CLEMENTE	90000337	1,601	Concession	31/3/2017	31/3/2042
MAIKI 01	90000310	4,072	Concession	8/3/2017	8/3/2042
MAIKI 02	90000311	4,304	Concession	8/3/2017	8/3/2042
MAIKI 03	90000313	2,500	Concession	31/3/2017	31/3/2042
MAIKI 04	90000314	4,300	Concession	8/3/2017	8/3/2042
	Grand Total	26,774

Project Stage	Length of Time	RBU per hectare
Initial Exploration	Up to four years from the time the concessionaire obtained all the previous administrative acts, according to Art. 26 of the Mining Law.	2.5%
Advanced Exploration	Up to four years, the application must be made prior to the end of the Initial Exploration Period. The application must include a waiver of part of the surface initially granted.	5%
Economic Evaluation	Up to two years, starting once the Initial Exploration Period or the Advanced Exploration Period has ended. May be extended, on application, for up to an additional two years.	5%
Exploitation	Commences on the request of the concessionaire, which must be made prior to the end of the Economic Evaluation Period. Various requirements and conditions apply.	10%

Sample Type	Count
Soil	981
Rock channel	256
Rock chip	240
Rock panel	15

		chalcopyrite into pyrite, as defined by the observed paragenetic relationships between these two minerals.

Historical Data
Sample Type	Count
Soil	981
Rock	511
Stream Sediment	241

Surface Sampling
Sample Type	Count	Analysis
Soil	9535	Aqua regia - ICP MS
Stream Sediments	379	Aqua regia - ICP MS
Rock	5659	4 Acids ICP MS

Campaign	Number of Drillholes	Meters Drilled
2000	16	2,391
2001	17	4,139
2020	16	14,400
2021	56	48,650
2022	42	26,062
2023	14	4,150
2024	2	1,468
Totals	163	101,259

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Cu (%)	Mo (%)	Au (g/t)
SLSE-08	8	544	536	0.35	0.02	0.04
SLSE-07	632	1069	437	0.29	0.02	0.04
SLSE-06	0	484	484	0.33	0.02	0.04
SLSE-05	0	714	714	0.26	0.01	0.05
SLSE-04	0	892	892	0.43	0.01	0.04
SLSE-03	38	856	818	0.29	0.02	0.03
SLSE-15	124	1,034	910	0.31	0.02	0.04
SLSE-14	24	718	694	0.29	0.02	0.04
SLSE-13	4	622	618	0.22	0.01	0.03
SLSE-12	0	508	508	0.29	0.02	0.04
SLSE-11	112	600	488	0.3	0.01	0.03
SLSE-10	78	576	498	0.33	0.01	0.05
SLSE-09	0	773	773	0.18	0.03	0.03
SLS-54	0	1093	1093	0.45	0.02	0.04
SLS-53	10	967	957	0.39	0.01	0.03
SLS-52	42	1019	977	0.39	0.01	0.03
SLS-51	36	1048	1012	0.38	0.01	0.06

Hole ID	Easting	Northing	Elevation (m)	Depth (m)	Azimuth (degrees)	Dip (degrees)
EMM-008	799538	9647858	1485	270	269	-65
EMM-010	799400	9647961	1504	262	306	-69
SLS-01	799765	9648034	1571	805	0	-80
SLS-02	799765	9648033	1571	744	0	-89
SLS-03	800187	9648062	1568	1090	270	-80
SLS-04	800189	9648063	1568	1150	0	-90
SLS-05	800125	9648032	1566	1063	230	-80
SLS-06	800127	9648034	1566	1069	45	-79
SLS-07	800190	9648063	1568	1067	55	-80
SLS-08	800256	9648099	1556	824	20	-80
SLS-09	800265	9648212	1475	500	0	-89
SLS-10	799765	9648033	1571	691	270	-75
SLS-11	800187	9648061	1568	861	270	-65
SLS-12	800124	9648033	1566	783	286	-62
SLS-13	799673	9648031	1492	469	0	-80
SLS-14	799768	9648033	1571	1020	90	-80
SLS-15	800188	9648060	1568	1231	223	-80
SLS-16	800124	9648033	1566	1033	270	-77

Cu, %	0.732
Cu (acid soluble), %	0.028
Au, g Au/tonne	0.21
Ag, g Ag/tonne	3.09
Notes: Adapted from part of Table 1 of RDI (2002)

XF, µm (80% passing feed size)	1382
XP, µm (80% passing product size)	133
Work Index	17.54
Notes: Adapted from part of Table 4 of RDI (2002)

Mesh Size	Grind Time, Minutes
P80 = 65 mesh	20
P80 = 100 mesh	27
P80 = 150 mesh	45
Notes: Adapted from part of Table 5 of RDI (2002)

Grind, P80 mesh	Recovery (10 minutes)			Feed		Tailing	Rougher Flotation Conc. Grade, % Cu
Grind, P80 mesh	Wt., grams	Cu, %	Au, %	Calculated % Cu	Assayed g Au/T	Assayed g Au/T	Rougher Flotation Conc. Grade, % Cu
65	16.75	94.4	72.3	0.809	0.21	<0.07	4.56
100	13.84	94.2	71.3	0.804	0.21	<0.07	5.47
150	14.03	94.0	71.3	0.777	0.21	<0.07	5.21
Notes: Copied from part of Table 6 of RDI (2002)