Record 2025 results position Coeur Mining (NYSE: CDE) for New Gold deal
Filing Impact
Filing Sentiment
Form Type
8-K
Rhea-AI Filing Summary
Coeur Mining reported a breakout 2025, with revenue rising to
Operating cash flow surged to
The company issued 2026 guidance calling for gold production of 390,000–460,000 ounces and silver production of 18.2–21.3 million ounces, with higher costs reflecting royalties, a stronger Mexican peso and inflation. Coeur expects to pay
Coeur also highlighted its pending acquisition of New Gold, expected to close in the first half of 2026, and plans to add New Gold’s CEO Patrick Godin and director Marilyn Schonberner to Coeur’s board upon closing. A new technical report for the Wharf Mine supports a mine life extended to about twelve years.
Positive
- Exceptional 2025 financial performance – Revenue rose to $2.1 billion from $1.1 billion in 2024, GAAP net income from continuing operations increased to $586 million from $59 million, and adjusted EBITDA reached $1.0 billion with a 50% margin.
- Strong free cash flow and balance sheet – 2025 free cash flow was $665.7 million, lifting cash and short-term investments to $553.6 million against $340.5 million of total debt, resulting in a net cash position and negative 0.2x leverage.
- Visible growth and extended mine life – 2026 guidance targets up to 460,000 ounces of gold and 21.3 million ounces of silver, while a new Wharf technical report supports a mine life extended to about twelve years and management plans substantial exploration investment.
Negative
- None.
Insights
Record 2025 profitability, strong cash build and ambitious 2026 outlook mark a structurally stronger Coeur.
Coeur Mining delivered a step-change year in 2025. Revenue climbed to
Crucially, earnings translated into cash. Operating cash flow expanded to
Management’s 2026 guidance targets gold production of 390,000–460,000 ounces and 18.2–21.3 million ounces of silver, with co-product cash costs that keep most mines in attractive margin territory if prices hold. Planned sustaining and development capital of
The pending New Gold acquisition, expected to close in the first half of
The new Wharf technical report, effective
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 13, 2026
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
(Commission File Number)
|
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
|
(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
|
|
|
|
|
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 2.02. |
Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
|
On February 18, 2026, Coeur Mining, Inc. issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2025
and production, cost and expense guidance for 2026. A copy of the press release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. The press release shall be deemed furnished, not filed, for
purposes of this Current Report on Form 8-K.
| Item 5.02 |
Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
|
As previously announced, on November 2, 2025, Coeur Mining, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Coeur”), New Gold Inc., a corporation existing under
the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada (“New Gold”), and 1561611 B.C. LTD., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coeur (“Canadian Sub”),
entered into an arrangement agreement (the “Arrangement Agreement”) whereby, Canadian Sub would acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of New Gold pursuant to a court-approved plan of arrangement (the “New Gold Transaction”). The New
Gold Transaction is anticipated to close in the first half of 2026, subject to relevant regulatory approvals and routine closing conditions.
In connection with the New Gold Transaction, on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, the Coeur Board of Directors (“Coeur Board”) approved the appointment
of Mr. Patrick Godin and Ms. Marilyn Schonberner to the Coeur Board, effective at, and contingent upon, the closing of the New Gold Transaction.
Mr. Godin currently serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of New Gold Inc. and has over 30 years of
corporate, technical and operations experience in the mining industry. Prior to joining New Gold in November 2022, Mr. Godin served as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Pretium Resources Inc. and was responsible for the
operations of Brucejack Mine in British Columbia, Canada. Prior to that, Mr. Godin was the Chief Operating Officer and then President and Chief Executive Officer of Stornoway Diamond Corporation. Mr. Godin also previously served as Vice
President, Project Development for G Mining Services and held executive and senior operations roles with Canadian Royalties Inc., IAMGOLD Corporation and Cambior Inc. Mr. Godin holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree in mining from Laval
University in Quebec, Canada and has been a chartered director since 2010.
Ms. Schonberner has over 35 years of international experience in the energy and mining sectors. Ms. Schonberner served as the Chief Financial
Officer of Nexen Energy ULC until her retirement in 2018. During her 21-year career with Nexen, she held various executive roles with responsibility for financial and risk management, audit, human resources, strategic planning and budgeting,
supply chain, and information services. Ms. Schonberner has served on the Board of Directors of New Gold Inc. since 2017 and currently serves as Chair of its Audit Committee. Additionally, Ms. Schonberner serves on the Board of Directors of
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and on the Advisory Boards of Heritage Royalty and the Calgary Chapter of the Institute of Corporate Directors. Ms. Schonberner holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Alberta and a Master of Business
Administration from the University of Calgary. She is a Certified Public Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, and a Certified Internal Auditor. Additionally, she has completed the Senior Executive Development Programme at the London
Business School and obtained the ICD.D designation from the Institute of Corporate Directors.
The compensation of each of Mr. Godin and Ms. Schonberner for his and her respective services as a non-employee director will be consistent with
that of Coeur’s non-employee directors.
On February 13, 2026, N. Eric Fier, a director on the Coeur Board, notified the Chairman of the Coeur Board of his resignation as a director,
effective as of February 16, 2026, to focus on other business ventures. Mr. Fier’s resignation was not the result of any disagreement with Coeur on any matter relating to Coeur's operations, policies, or practices.
| Item 8.01 |
Other Events.
|
On February 18, 2026, Coeur Mining, Inc. issued a technical report summary for its Wharf Mine (the “Report”). The Report is filed as Exhibit 99.2
to this Current Report on Form 8-K and incorporated herein by reference.
| Item 9.01 |
Financial Statements and Exhibits.
|
| (d) |
Exhibits.
|
|
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
|
23.1
|
Consent of Qualified Person – Christopher Pascoe.
|
|
23.2
|
Consent of Qualified Person – Tony Auld.
|
|
23.3
|
Consent of Qualified Person – Kenan Sarratt.
|
|
23.4
|
Consent of Qualified Person – John Key.
|
|
23.5
|
Consent of Qualified Person – Troy Christensen.
|
| 99.1 |
Press Release dated February 18, 2026.
|
| 99.2 |
Technical Report Summary for the Wharf Mine effective December 31, 2025.
|
| |
|
|
104
|
Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document).
|
Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Statements
Certain statements in this document concerning the proposed New Gold Transaction, including any statements regarding the
expected timetable for completing the New Gold Transaction, and any other statements regarding Coeur’s future expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events that are not historical facts are “forward-looking” statements
based on assumptions currently believed to be valid. Forward-looking statements are all statements other than statements of historical facts. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “ensure,” “expect,” “if,” “intend,” “estimate,” “probable,”
“project,” “forecasts,” “predict,” “outlook,” “aim,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “potential,” “may,” “might,” “anticipate,” “likely” “plan,” “positioned,” “strategy,” and similar expressions or other words of similar meaning, and the
negatives thereof, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Specific forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding Coeur’s expectations with respect to the timing of the closing of the New Gold
Transaction. The forward-looking statements are intended to be subject to the safe harbor provided by Section 27A of the Securities Act, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and applicable Canadian securities laws.
These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those anticipated, including, but not limited to, the risk that any condition to Closing may not be satisfied; the risk that the Closing might be delayed or not occur at all; the risk that the either Coeur or New Gold may
terminate the Arrangement Agreement and either Coeur or New Gold is required to pay a termination fee to the other party; the risk that Coeur or New Gold may not receive the required stock exchange and regulatory approvals of the New Gold
Transaction; the expected listing of shares on the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange; the risk of any litigation relating to the proposed New Gold Transaction; the risk of changes in governmental regulations or enforcement
practices. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described above can be found in Coeur’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, which is on file with the SEC and available from
Coeur’s website at www. coeur.com under the “Investors” tab, and in other documents Coeur files with the SEC.
All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and are based on information available at that time. Coeur does not assume any obligation to update forward-looking
statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements were made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events except as required by applicable securities laws. As forward-looking
statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, caution should be exercised against placing undue reliance on such statements.
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 18, 2026 |
By:
|
/s/ Thomas S. Whelan | ||
|
Name: Thomas S. Whelan
|
||||
|
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
||||
Exhibit 99.1
 |
 |
Coeur Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2025 Results
2025 revenue nearly doubles to $2.1 billion on record production and
prices; net income increases more than tenfold to $586 million and adjusted EBITDA more than triples to $1 billion; provides 2026 guidance reflecting expected record results
Chicago, Illinois - February 18, 2026 - Coeur
Mining, Inc. (“Coeur” or the “Company”) (NYSE: CDE) today reported record fourth quarter 2025 financial results, including revenue of $675 million and cash flow from
operating activities of $375 million. The Company reported record quarterly GAAP net income from continuing operations of $215 million, or $0.29 per share. On an adjusted basis1, Coeur reported record quarterly EBITDA of $425 million, record cash flow from operating activities before changes in working capital of $318 million and record net
income from continuing operations of $227 million, or $0.35 per share.
For the full year, Coeur reported revenue of $2.1 billion, cash flow from operating
activities of $887 million and GAAP net income from continuing operations of $586 million, or $0.95 per share. On an adjusted basis1, the Company reported EBITDA of $1.0 billion, cash
flow from operating activities before changes in working capital of $772 million and net income from continuing operations of $493 million, or $0.80 per share.
Key Highlights
| • |
Record full-year gold and silver production – Balanced contributions across Coeur’s portfolio led to 2025 full-year production of 419,046 ounces of gold and 17.9 million ounces of silver, representing year-over-year
increases of 23% and 57%, respectively, within the Company’s 2025 consolidated guidance
ranges
|
| • |
Record financial results – Fourth quarter free cash flow
increased 66% versus the prior quarter to a record $313 million, bringing the full-year
total to $666 million. Adjusted EBITDA1 increased 60% versus the prior
quarter to a record $425 million, driving the last twelve-month total to over $1.0 billion.
Average realized prices for gold and silver increased 21% and 39%, respectively,
compared to the third quarter
|
| • |
Long-term objective of net cash achieved – Cash and
equivalents more than doubled compared to the prior quarter-end and increased tenfold compared to the prior year-end to $554 million; total debt decreased 42% to $341 million at December 31, 2025 compared to year-end 2024
|
| • |
Strong quarter at Rochester – Silver and gold production at
Rochester increased 6% and 20% quarter-over-quarter, respectively, and 40% and 54%
year-over-year, respectively. During the fourth quarter, both tonnes2 crushed and tonnes placed reached record levels, with tonnes crushed increasing 12% to 6.4 million tonnes (7.0 million imperial tons) and tonnes placed
increasing 23% to 9.3 million tonnes (10.2 million imperial tons). Fourth quarter free cash flow increased to $78 million compared to $30 million in the third quarter and $12 million in the fourth quarter for the prior year
|
| • |
New Gold transaction approved by stockholders – On January
27, 2026, stockholders of both Coeur and New Gold voted overwhelmingly in favor of Coeur’s proposed acquisition of New Gold Inc. (“New Gold”). The transaction, which remains on track to close in the first half of 2026, is expected to
create a new, sector-leading, all-North American senior precious metals mining company
|
1
| • |
2026 guidance highlights portfolio strength – The Company
expects 2026 gold and silver production from Coeur’s current portfolio of assets of 390,000 - 460,000 ounces and 18.2 - 21.3 million ounces, respectively, driven
by strong contributions across the portfolio, including expected continued growth at Rochester and a full year of production at Las Chispas. The Company plans to issue guidance including New Gold’s two assets, the New Afton and Rainy
River mines, upon closing of the transaction
|
“Coeur finished 2025 on a high note, achieving a third consecutive quarter of record-setting financial results, driven by higher realized prices, strong production and
disciplined cost management,” said Mitchell J. Krebs, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. “Each of the Company’s five operations delivered solid results and record free cash flow. Rochester’s fourth quarter results were especially
noteworthy, with ore crushing and placement rates reaching record levels. Since closing the SilverCrest acquisition in mid-February, Las Chispas contributed $286 million of free cash flow to the Company, while Kensington delivered one of its
strongest quarters ever on the back of its recently completed multi-year underground development and drilling program.
“Coeur’s 2026 production guidance reflects our continued confidence in delivering record-setting operating and financial results this year. Following the expected
close of our acquisition of New Gold in the first half of 2026, the addition of the New Afton and Rainy River operations in Canada will further enhance our emergence as a new precious metals mining leader at just the right time. On a combined
basis, we expect to generate approximately $3 billion of EBITDA and $2 billion of free cash flow from our seven North American operations while remaining a top five global silver producer. We look forward to sharing updated guidance following the
transaction close that highlights the scale and quality of this exciting new North American-only precious metals platform.
“Coeur’s successful reserve and resource update issued yesterday further underscores the Company’s long-term growth potential through our sustained commitment to
exploration. In addition to more than replacing Company-wide depletion, the near-doubling of mine life at Wharf to twelve years and strong reserve increases at Kensington and Palmarejo highlight the success of our organic growth strategy and long
track record of generating value through investing in brownfield exploration.”
2
Financial and Operating Highlights (Unaudited)
|
(Amounts in millions, except per share amounts, gold
ounces produced & sold, and per-ounce metrics)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold Sales
|
$
|
1,343.7
|
$
|
424.8
|
$
|
360.5
|
$
|
323.1
|
$
|
235.3
|
$
|
734.9
|
$
|
205.2
|
||||||||||||||
|
Silver Sales
|
$
|
726.4
|
$
|
250.1
|
$
|
194.1
|
$
|
157.5
|
$
|
124.7
|
$
|
319.1
|
$
|
100.2
|
||||||||||||||
|
Consolidated Revenue
|
$
|
2,070.1
|
$
|
674.7
|
$
|
554.6
|
$
|
480.7
|
$
|
360.1
|
$
|
1,054.0
|
$
|
305.4
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs Applicable to Sales3
|
$
|
898.4
|
$
|
215.9
|
$
|
248.7
|
$
|
229.5
|
$
|
204.3
|
$
|
606.2
|
$
|
158.8
|
||||||||||||||
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
$
|
57.2
|
$
|
15.2
|
$
|
14.8
|
$
|
13.3
|
$
|
13.9
|
$
|
47.7
|
$
|
11.1
|
||||||||||||||
|
Net Income
|
$
|
585.9
|
$
|
215.0
|
$
|
266.8
|
$
|
70.7
|
$
|
33.4
|
$
|
58.9
|
$
|
37.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Net Income Per Share
|
$
|
0.95
|
$
|
0.29
|
$
|
0.41
|
$
|
0.11
|
$
|
0.06
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
0.08
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted Net Income1
|
$
|
493.4
|
$
|
227.3
|
$
|
122.7
|
$
|
102.9
|
$
|
40.5
|
$
|
70.1
|
$
|
45.3
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted Net Income1 Per Share
|
$
|
0.80
|
$
|
0.35
|
$
|
0.19
|
$
|
0.16
|
$
|
0.08
|
$
|
0.18
|
$
|
0.11
|
||||||||||||||
|
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
|
614.7
|
645.9
|
644.9
|
643.1
|
521.2
|
397.4
|
401.0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
EBITDA1
|
$
|
964.6
|
$
|
407.2
|
$
|
249.1
|
$
|
203.0
|
$
|
105.3
|
$
|
302.6
|
$
|
104.6
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted EBITDA1
|
$
|
1,025.8
|
$
|
424.5
|
$
|
265.6
|
$
|
213.8
|
$
|
121.9
|
$
|
339.2
|
$
|
116.4
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash Flow from Operating Activities
|
$
|
886.9
|
$
|
374.6
|
$
|
237.7
|
$
|
207.0
|
$
|
67.6
|
$
|
174.2
|
$
|
63.8
|
||||||||||||||
|
Capital Expenditures
|
$
|
221.2
|
$
|
61.4
|
$
|
49.0
|
$
|
60.8
|
$
|
50.0
|
$
|
183.2
|
$
|
47.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free Cash Flow1
|
$
|
665.7
|
$
|
313.2
|
$
|
188.7
|
$
|
146.2
|
$
|
17.6
|
$
|
(9.0
|
)
|
$
|
16.1
|
|||||||||||||
|
Cash Income and Mining Taxes
|
$
|
178.5
|
$
|
41.2
|
$
|
36.4
|
$
|
38.2
|
$
|
62.6
|
$
|
45.1
|
$
|
11.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash, Equivalents & Short-Term Investments
|
$
|
553.6
|
$
|
553.6
|
$
|
266.3
|
$
|
111.6
|
$
|
77.6
|
$
|
55.1
|
$
|
55.1
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total Debt4
|
$
|
340.5
|
$
|
340.5
|
$
|
363.5
|
$
|
380.7
|
$
|
498.3
|
$
|
590.1
|
$
|
590.1
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average Realized Price Per Ounce – Gold
|
$
|
3,184
|
$
|
3,818
|
$
|
3,148
|
$
|
3,021
|
$
|
2,635
|
$
|
2,156
|
$
|
2,399
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average Realized Price Per Ounce – Silver
|
$
|
40.01
|
$
|
54.30
|
$
|
38.93
|
$
|
33.72
|
$
|
32.05
|
$
|
27.95
|
$
|
31.11
|
||||||||||||||
|
Gold Ounces Produced
|
419,046
|
112,429
|
111,364
|
108,487
|
86,766
|
341,582
|
87,149
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver Ounces Produced
|
17.9
|
4.7
|
4.8
|
4.7
|
3.7
|
11.4
|
3.2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold Ounces Sold
|
422,032
|
111,273
|
114,495
|
106,948
|
89,316
|
340,816
|
85,555
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver Ounces Sold
|
18.2
|
4.6
|
5.0
|
4.7
|
3.9
|
11.4
|
3.2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
1,347
|
$
|
1,207
|
$
|
1,355
|
$
|
1,405
|
$
|
1,476
|
$
|
1,203
|
$
|
1,192
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AgOz1
|
$
|
17.69
|
$
|
17.29
|
$
|
18.45
|
$
|
16.48
|
$
|
17.94
|
$
|
16.55
|
$
|
16.93
|
||||||||||||||
Financial Results
Fourth quarter 2025 revenue totaled $675 million compared to $555 million in the prior period and $305 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company produced 112,429 and 4.7 million ounces of gold and silver, respectively, during the quarter. Metal sales for
the quarter totaled 111,273 ounces of gold and 4.6 million ounces of silver. Average realized gold
and silver prices for the quarter were $3,818 and $54.30 per ounce, respectively, compared to $3,148 and $38.93 per ounce in the prior period and $2,399 and $31.11 per ounce in the fourth quarter of 2024.
Coeur generated $2.1 billion in revenue in 2025, compared to $1.1 billion in 2024. Full-year gold and silver production totaled 419,046 and 17.9 million ounces, respectively, compared to 341,582 ounces of gold and 11.4 million ounces of silver in 2024. Metal sales in 2025 included 422,032 and 18.2
million ounces of gold and silver, respectively. Average realized gold and silver prices for the year were $3,184 and $40.01 per ounce, respectively, compared to $2,156 and $27.95 per ounce in
2024.
Gold and silver sales represented 63% and 37% of quarterly revenue, respectively. For the full year, gold and silver sales accounted for 65% and 35% of revenue, respectively. The Company’s U.S. operations accounted for approximately 59% and 57% of fourth quarter and full-year revenue, respectively.
3
Adjusted costs applicable to sales per ounce1 of gold and silver totaled $1,207
and $17.29, respectively. General and administrative expenses increased 3% quarter-over-quarter to $15 million, due primarily to increased stock-based compensation.
Coeur invested approximately $25 million ($19 million expensed and $7 million capitalized) in exploration during the quarter, compared to approximately $30 million ($25 million expensed and $5 million
capitalized) in the prior period. For the full year, the Company invested approximately $108 million ($87
million expensed and $21 million capitalized) compared to roughly $77 million ($60 million expensed and $17 million capitalized) in 2024. See the “Operations” and “Exploration”
sections for additional detail on the Company’s exploration activities.
The Company recorded income tax expense of approximately $113 million and $97 million during the fourth quarter and for the full year, respectively. Cash income and
mining taxes paid during the period totaled approximately $41 million, bringing the full-year total to $178 million, including $63 million, $38 million, and $36 million in the first, second, and third quarters, respectively. Cash taxes paid in 2025
primarily reflect income and mining tax payments in Mexico. Coeur expects to pay approximately $150 - $160 million in cash taxes during the first quarter of 2026, primarily as a result of strong operational performance at Palmarejo and Las Chispas.
Quarterly operating cash flow increased to $375 million compared to $238 million in the prior period, driven by strong operational performance, increased metal sales and higher average metals prices. For the full year, operating cash flow totaled
$887 million compared to $174 million in the prior period.
Fourth quarter capital expenditures were $61 million compared to $49 million in the
prior period, bringing the full-year total to $221 million and within Coeur’s 2025 guidance range of $187 - $225 million. Sustaining and development capital
expenditures accounted for approximately $48 million and $14 million, or 78% and 22%, respectively, of Coeur’s total capital investment during the quarter.
Coeur repurchased $2.3 million of shares in the fourth quarter, bringing the full-year total to $9.6 million. Repurchase activity was limited in
the quarter due to a blackout period leading up to the announcement of the New Gold acquisition and trading restrictions post-announcement that limited repurchase volume and timing.
4
Operations
Fourth quarter and full-year 2025 highlights for each of the Company’s operations are provided below.
Las Chispas, Mexico
|
(Dollars in millions, except per ounce amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tonnes milled
|
403,011
|
114,814
|
126,930
|
107,410
|
53,857
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average gold grade (grams/tonne)
|
4.4
|
4.4
|
3.7
|
5.0
|
4.4
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average silver grade (grams/tonne)
|
409
|
411
|
354
|
457
|
436
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average recovery rate – Au
|
97.1
|
%
|
89.9
|
%
|
97.9
|
%
|
98.6
|
%
|
98.6
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average recovery rate – Ag
|
97.2
|
%
|
90.3
|
%
|
97.8
|
%
|
98.5
|
%
|
98.1
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces produced
|
54,705
|
14,719
|
16,540
|
16,271
|
7,175
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces produced (000’s)
|
5,146
|
1,371
|
1,572
|
1,489
|
714
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces sold
|
58,251
|
14,819
|
17,800
|
16,025
|
9,607
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces sold (000’s)
|
5,445
|
1,367
|
1,675
|
1,479
|
924
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce
|
$
|
3,489
|
$
|
4,131
|
$
|
3,427
|
$
|
3,315
|
$
|
2,902
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per silver ounce
|
$
|
40.07
|
$
|
53.68
|
$
|
38.89
|
$
|
33.48
|
$
|
32.63
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Metal sales
|
$
|
421.4
|
$
|
134.6
|
$
|
126.1
|
$
|
102.7
|
$
|
58.0
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales3
|
$
|
201.7
|
$
|
33.1
|
$
|
68.1
|
$
|
57.7
|
$
|
42.8
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
1,649
|
$
|
1,010
|
$
|
1,836
|
$
|
1,857
|
$
|
2,095
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AgOz1
|
$
|
19.11
|
$
|
13.37
|
$
|
21.13
|
$
|
18.57
|
$
|
23.61
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Exploration expense
|
$
|
10.4
|
$
|
2.7
|
$
|
2.5
|
$
|
3.3
|
$
|
1.9
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operating activities5
|
$
|
323.9
|
$
|
92.3
|
$
|
75.9
|
$
|
58.6
|
$
|
97.1
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sustaining capital expenditures (excludes capital lease payments)
|
$
|
38.1
|
$
|
13.8
|
$
|
9.8
|
$
|
9.2
|
$
|
5.3
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Development capital expenditures
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total capital expenditures
|
$
|
38.1
|
$
|
13.8
|
$
|
9.8
|
$
|
9.2
|
$
|
5.3
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow1,5
|
$
|
285.8
|
$
|
78.5
|
$
|
66.1
|
$
|
49.4
|
$
|
91.8
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
Operational
| • |
Fourth quarter gold and silver production totaled 14,719 and 1.4 million ounces, respectively, compared to 16,540 and 1.6 million
ounces in the prior period. For the full year, gold and silver production totaled 54,705 and 5.1
million ounces, respectively, which fell within the Company’s 2025 guidance ranges of 50,000 - 58,000 ounces of gold and 5.0 - 5.5 million ounces of silver
|
| • |
Production during the quarter was affected by higher gold and silver grades, offset by lower throughput rates and recoveries
|
Financial
| • |
Silver and gold accounted for approximately 55% and 45%, respectively, of revenue during the quarter
|
| • |
Fourth quarter adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $1,010 and $13.37 per ounce, respectively. CAS1 per gold and silver ounce includes the impact of the $3.3 million of purchase price allocation ascribed to inventory,
which contributed $101 per gold ounce and $1.33 per silver ounce to costs applicable to sales
|
| • |
For the full year, adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $1,649 and $19.11 per ounce, respectively. CAS1 per gold and silver ounce includes the impact of the $93.5 million of purchase price allocation ascribed to inventory,
which contributed $770 per gold ounce and $8.93 per silver ounce to costs applicable to sales. Excluding this non-cash adjustment, both gold and silver ended the year within their 2025 guidance ranges of $850 - $950 and $9.25 - $10.25 per
ounce, respectively. The non-cash PPA adjustment will not be required on a go-forward basis as the original four-month stockpile has been fully processed and replaced with newly mined material in front of the mill, totaling approximately
1.8 million ounces of silver and approximately 18,800 ounces of gold
|
5
| • |
Free cash flow1 in the fourth quarter and full year totaled $79 million and $286 million, respectively
|
Exploration
| • |
Exploration investment in the fourth quarter totaled approximately $7 million ($3 million expensed and $4 million capitalized) compared to $4 million ($3 million expensed and $2 million capitalized) in the prior
period
|
| • |
Up to six rigs were operational in the Las Chispas Block and the Gap Zone (three on surface and three underground), and up to seven rigs active at Babicanora
|
| • |
Drilling in 2025 was mainly focused on expansion and infill drilling of known veins, with scout drilling undertaken at the El Cumaru and Espiritu Santo targets
|
| • |
Several new veins and associated splays were discovered this year, including the Augusta and Promesa systems in the Gap/Las Chispas Blocks, and the Lupita vein discovered during the quarter in the
Babicanora Block
|
| • |
All three veins are delivering multi‑kilo silver‑equivalent intercepts, highlighting the strong mineralization and continued discovery potential of the land package not only through scout drilling,
but also through focused expansion and infill drilling between the known vein systems
|
| • |
In 2026, the Company expects to continue systematic expansion and infill drilling, with greater emphasis on scout drilling
|
Guidance
| • |
Full-year 2026 production is expected to be 55,000 - 65,000 ounces of gold and 5.5 - 6.3 million ounces of silver
|
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 in 2026 are expected to be $750 - $950 per gold ounce and $12.50 - $14.50 per silver ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures in 2026 are expected to be $71 - $84 million, consisting primarily of sustaining capital and underground development
|
| • |
Exploration investment in 2026 is expected to be $21 - $26 million ($11 - $14 million expensed and $10 - $12 million capitalized)
|
6
Palmarejo, Mexico
|
(Dollars in millions, except per ounce amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tonnes milled
|
1,749,318
|
470,127
|
440,227
|
438,968
|
399,996
|
1,599,167
|
380,118
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average gold grade (grams/tonne)
|
1.9
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
2.1
|
1.9
|
2.3
|
2.0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average silver grade (grams/tonne)
|
130
|
117
|
119
|
139
|
149
|
155
|
143
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average recovery rate – Au
|
94.2
|
%
|
93.9
|
%
|
95.0
|
%
|
92.9
|
%
|
95.2
|
%
|
93.0
|
%
|
91.2
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average recovery rate – Ag
|
88.7
|
%
|
88.8
|
%
|
89.9
|
%
|
88.6
|
%
|
87.4
|
%
|
85.0
|
%
|
88.3
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces produced
|
100,768
|
25,662
|
24,802
|
27,272
|
23,032
|
108,666
|
22,490
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces produced (000’s)
|
6,501
|
1,566
|
1,514
|
1,741
|
1,680
|
6,780
|
1,543
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces sold
|
100,723
|
24,378
|
26,850
|
26,782
|
22,713
|
108,783
|
22,353
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces sold (000’s)
|
6,499
|
1,510
|
1,633
|
1,720
|
1,636
|
6,797
|
1,598
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce
|
$
|
2,165
|
$
|
2,492
|
$
|
2,144
|
$
|
2,093
|
$
|
1,924
|
$
|
1,751
|
$
|
1,750
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per silver ounce
|
$
|
39.35
|
$
|
54.26
|
$
|
38.97
|
$
|
33.76
|
$
|
31.85
|
$
|
27.74
|
$
|
31.27
|
||||||||||||||
|
Metal sales
|
$
|
473.8
|
$
|
142.7
|
$
|
121.2
|
$
|
114.1
|
$
|
95.8
|
$
|
379.1
|
$
|
89.1
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales3
|
$
|
191.7
|
$
|
48.3
|
$
|
51.0
|
$
|
48.7
|
$
|
43.7
|
$
|
195.5
|
$
|
45.5
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
871
|
$
|
847
|
$
|
887
|
$
|
888
|
$
|
882
|
$
|
892
|
$
|
894
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AgOz1
|
$
|
15.85
|
$
|
18.13
|
$
|
16.44
|
$
|
14.39
|
$
|
14.37
|
$
|
14.28
|
$
|
15.92
|
||||||||||||||
|
Exploration expense
|
$
|
18.5
|
$
|
4.9
|
$
|
5.7
|
$
|
4.0
|
$
|
3.9
|
$
|
13.2
|
$
|
3.8
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operating activities
|
$
|
180.0
|
$
|
70.8
|
$
|
52.6
|
$
|
47.9
|
$
|
8.7
|
$
|
138.1
|
$
|
33.2
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sustaining capital expenditures (excludes capital lease payments)
|
$
|
15.6
|
$
|
5.2
|
$
|
4.3
|
$
|
3.6
|
$
|
2.5
|
$
|
18.3
|
$
|
6.5
|
||||||||||||||
|
Development capital expenditures
|
$
|
9.9
|
$
|
3.1
|
$
|
1.4
|
$
|
2.0
|
$
|
3.4
|
$
|
12.3
|
$
|
3.4
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total capital expenditures
|
$
|
25.5
|
$
|
8.3
|
$
|
5.7
|
$
|
5.6
|
$
|
5.9
|
$
|
30.6
|
$
|
9.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow1
|
$
|
154.5
|
$
|
62.5
|
$
|
46.9
|
$
|
42.3
|
$
|
2.8
|
$
|
107.5
|
$
|
23.3
|
||||||||||||||
Operational
| • |
Fourth quarter gold and silver production totaled 25,662 and 1.6 million ounces, respectively, compared to 24,802 and 1.5 million
ounces in the prior period and 22,490 and 1.5 million ounces in the fourth quarter of
2024. For the full year, gold and silver production totaled 100,768 and 6.5 million
ounces, respectively, which fell within the Company’s 2025 guidance ranges of 96,000 - 106,000 ounces of gold and 6.0 - 6.8 million ounces of silver
|
| • |
Production increases during the quarter were driven by higher tonnes milled, partially offset by lower gold and silver grades
|
Financial
| • |
Silver and gold accounted for approximately 57% and 43%, respectively, of revenue during the quarter
|
| • |
Fourth quarter adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $847 and $18.13 per ounce, respectively
|
| • |
For the full year, adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $871 and $15.85 per ounce, respectively, compared to $892 and $14.28 per ounce in the prior period. Gold CAS1 finished the year below the Company’s 2025 guidance range of $890 - $960 per ounce, while silver CAS1 was within the Company’s
2025 guidance range of $15.00 - $16.00 per ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures increased to $8 million compared to $6 million in the prior period. For the full year, capital expenditures decreased 17% from the
prior period to $26 million
|
| • |
Free cash flow1 in the fourth quarter and full year totaled $63 million and $155 million, respectively, compared to $47 million and $108 million, respectively, in the prior periods
|
Exploration
7
| • |
Exploration investment for the fourth quarter totaled approximately $6 million ($5 million expensed and $1 million capitalized) compared to roughly $6 million (substantially all expensed) in the prior period. For the full year, exploration investment increased 50% to roughly $20 million (substantially all expensed)
|
| • |
The exploration program continued with 11 rigs across the property during the fourth quarter
|
| • |
Step-out drilling along the Hidalgo Corridor (Hidalgo, Libertad and San Juan veins) delivered excellent results, with a cumulative 850 meters of additional strike length defined this year. Since
its discovery in 2019, Hidalgo has become Palmarejo’s second largest reserve (after the Guadalupe deposit) and is expected to expand further
|
| • |
A key focus during the quarter was the Guazapares block located in East Palmarejo, where validation drilling of the San Miguel and La Union deposits was successfully completed, with excellent
results including some of the best intercepts ever seen at Palmarejo (see press release dated December 8, 2025)
|
| • |
Exploration in 2025 was primarily focused on supporting mine life in the Hidalgo – Independencia Mine Corridor, validating the historic Fresnillo resources (at Independencia Sur, San Miguel and La
Union) outside the area impacted by the gold stream with Franco-Nevada, and continuing to build the inferred pipeline, with particular focus in East Palmarejo. All these goals were successfully achieved with significant additions to
reserves in the Mine Corridor and large resource growth in the Guazapares Corridor
|
| • |
Key goals in 2026 are to accelerate infill drilling via new underground infrastructure at Hidalgo, continue to build the near-mine inferred pipeline and further increase budget allocation to East
Palmarejo in order to build significant new resources outside the Franco-Nevada gold stream area of interest. Over 70% of this year’s exploration budget is expected to be allocated outside this area of interest, representing the highest
level ever
|
Other
| • |
Approximately 49% and 48% of Palmarejo’s gold
sales in the fourth quarter and full year, respectively, were sold under the gold stream agreement with Franco-Nevada at a price of $800 per ounce, totaling 11,948
ounces in the fourth quarter and 48,394 ounces for the full year. The Company anticipates approximately 40% - 50% of Palmarejo’s 2026 gold sales will be sold under
the gold stream agreement
|
Guidance
| • |
Full-year 2026 production is expected to be 95,000 - 105,000 ounces of gold and 6.25 - 7.0 million ounces of silver
|
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 in 2026 are expected to be $700 - $900 per gold ounce and $21.50 - $23.50 per silver ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures in 2026 are expected to be $35 - $41 million, consisting primarily of sustaining capital and underground development
|
| • |
Exploration investment in 2026 is expected to be $24 - $28 million ($22 - $24 million expensed and $2 - $4 million capitalized)
|
8
Rochester, Nevada
|
(Dollars in millions, except per ounce amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ore tonnes placed
|
30,272,766
|
9,275,732
|
7,535,326
|
7,122,912
|
6,338,796
|
21,345,895
|
7,463,248
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average silver grade (grams/tonne)
|
19
|
17
|
19
|
20
|
20
|
18
|
15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average gold grade (grams/tonne)
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces produced (000’s)
|
6,132
|
1,748
|
1,644
|
1,456
|
1,284
|
4,378
|
1,551
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces produced
|
60,178
|
17,722
|
14,801
|
14,302
|
13,353
|
39,203
|
15,752
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces sold (000’s)
|
6,077
|
1,701
|
1,656
|
1,438
|
1,282
|
4,389
|
1,571
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces sold
|
60,612
|
18,043
|
13,975
|
13,881
|
14,713
|
38,345
|
14,824
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per silver ounce
|
$
|
40.70
|
$
|
54.85
|
$
|
38.95
|
$
|
33.88
|
$
|
31.86
|
$
|
28.31
|
$
|
30.97
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce
|
$
|
3,476
|
$
|
4,139
|
$
|
3,431
|
$
|
3,333
|
$
|
2,840
|
$
|
2,387
|
$
|
2,604
|
||||||||||||||
|
Metal sales
|
$
|
458.0
|
$
|
167.9
|
$
|
112.5
|
$
|
95.0
|
$
|
82.6
|
$
|
215.8
|
$
|
87.2
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales3
|
$
|
209.1
|
$
|
60.7
|
$
|
52.0
|
$
|
47.9
|
$
|
48.5
|
$
|
154.6
|
$
|
51.5
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AgOz1
|
$
|
18.39
|
$
|
19.69
|
$
|
17.73
|
$
|
16.83
|
$
|
18.41
|
$
|
20.07
|
$
|
17.96
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
1,570
|
$
|
1,458
|
$
|
1,585
|
$
|
1,675
|
$
|
1,670
|
$
|
1,663
|
$
|
1,495
|
||||||||||||||
|
Prepayment, working capital cash flow
|
$
|
(17.5
|
)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
(17.5
|
)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||
|
Exploration expense
|
$
|
8.6
|
$
|
2.7
|
$
|
3.2
|
$
|
1.2
|
$
|
1.5
|
$
|
5.1
|
$
|
2.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operating activities
|
$
|
166.4
|
$
|
92.6
|
$
|
41.2
|
$
|
39.6
|
$
|
(7.0
|
)
|
$
|
4.6
|
$
|
26.0
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sustaining capital expenditures (excludes capital lease payments)
|
$
|
49.8
|
$
|
13.1
|
$
|
7.5
|
$
|
20.7
|
$
|
8.5
|
$
|
42.6
|
$
|
10.4
|
||||||||||||||
|
Development capital expenditures
|
$
|
16.0
|
$
|
1.7
|
$
|
4.1
|
$
|
3.8
|
$
|
6.4
|
$
|
30.1
|
$
|
3.5
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total capital expenditures
|
$
|
65.8
|
$
|
14.8
|
$
|
11.6
|
$
|
24.5
|
$
|
14.9
|
$
|
72.7
|
$
|
13.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow1
|
$
|
100.6
|
$
|
77.8
|
$
|
29.6
|
$
|
15.1
|
$
|
(21.9
|
)
|
$
|
(68.1
|
)
|
$
|
12.1
|
||||||||||||
Operational
| • |
Silver and gold production in the fourth quarter increased to 1.7 million and 17,722 ounces, respectively, compared to 1.6 million and 14,801
ounces in the prior period and 1.6 million and 15,752 ounces in the fourth quarter of
2024. For the full year, silver and gold production totaled 6.1 million and 60,178
ounces, respectively, which was within 2025 guidance ranges of 6.0 - 6.7 million ounces of silver and 55,000 - 62,500 ounces of gold, and represented year-over-year increases of 40% and 54%, respectively
|
| • |
Record quarterly ore tonnes crushed and placed were achieved during the quarter. Ore tonnes placed through the crushing circuit increased 12% to 6.4 million tonnes (7.0 million imperial tons)
compared to 5.7 million tonnes (6.3 million imperial tons) in the prior quarter. Tonnes placed during the quarter totaled 9.3 million tonnes (10.2 million imperial
tons), compared to 7.5 million tonnes (8.3 million imperial tons) in the prior period. Additionally, the Company placed approximately 2.9 million tonnes (3.2
million imperial tons) of direct-to-pad (“DTP”) material, up 57% from 1.9 million tonnes (2.0 million imperial tons) of DTP material placed in the prior quarter
|
Financial
| • |
Silver and gold accounted for approximately 56% and 44%, respectively, of revenue during the quarter
|
| • |
Fourth quarter adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $1,458 and $19.69 per ounce, respectively
|
| • |
Full-year adjusted CAS1 for gold and silver on a co-product basis totaled $1,570 and $18.39 per ounce, respectively, compared to $1,663 and $20.07 per ounce in the prior period
|
| • |
Capital expenditures increased to $15 million compared to $12 million in the prior period, driven by ramp-up of activities related to the next phase of Stage 6 leach pad development. Full-year capital expenditures totaled $66 million compared to $73 million in the prior period
|
9
| • |
Free cash flow1 in the fourth quarter and for the full year totaled $78 million and $101 million, respectively, compared to $30 million and $(68) million, respectively, in the prior periods
|
Exploration
| • |
Exploration investment in the fourth quarter totaled approximately $3 million (substantially all expensed) compared to
roughly $3 million (substantially all expensed) in the prior quarter. For the full year, exploration investment totaled roughly $12 million ($9 million expensed and $3 million
capitalized)
|
| • |
One rig was active during the quarter conducting infill, expansion and condemnation drilling at Lincoln Hill
|
| • |
During 2025, exploration programs were mainly focused on the drilling and upgrading of the geological models at Rochester, Nevada Packard and Lincoln Hill. Drilling was focused on assessing the
opportunity for higher grade material. Multiple high-grade structures were tested, with targets in East Rochester demonstrating strong potential. In 2026, further work is planned to test higher grade targets in the Corridor and at Lincoln
Hill
|
| • |
Three new geological models were completed in 2025, enabling enhanced exploration targeting and operational support through inclusion of more orebody characterization for long range planning
|
| • |
In the first half of 2026, drilling to support POA 12 is expected to be completed, with a pivot to target generation, ranking and scout drilling for the remainder of the year
|
Guidance
| • |
Full-year 2026 production is expected to be 6.4 - 7.8 million ounces of silver and 70,000 - 90,000 ounces of gold
|
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 in 2026 are expected to be $23.00 - $25.00 per silver ounce and $1,350 - $1,550 per gold ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures in 2026 are expected to be $96 - $110 million, which includes projects related to the Phase 2 development of the Stage 6 leach pad and modifications after the startup of the
crusher corridor
|
| • |
Exploration investment in 2026 is expected to be $14 - $17 million ($7 - $9 million expensed and $7 - $8 million capitalized)
|
10
Kensington, Alaska
|
(Dollars in millions, except per ounce amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tonnes milled
|
692,178
|
178,513
|
171,190
|
174,333
|
168,142
|
634,156
|
166,595
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average gold grade (grams/tonne)
|
5.2
|
5.6
|
5.5
|
5.2
|
4.5
|
5.1
|
5.5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average recovery rate
|
92.0
|
%
|
92.7
|
%
|
90.5
|
%
|
91.8
|
%
|
93.3
|
%
|
91.3
|
%
|
91.8
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces produced
|
106,068
|
29,567
|
27,231
|
26,555
|
22,715
|
95,671
|
26,931
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces sold
|
105,682
|
28,715
|
28,011
|
26,751
|
22,205
|
95,361
|
25,839
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce, gross
|
$
|
3,632
|
$
|
4,379
|
$
|
3,588
|
$
|
3,410
|
$
|
2,990
|
$
|
2,415
|
$
|
2,702
|
||||||||||||||
|
Treatment and refining charges per gold ounce
|
$
|
58
|
$
|
67
|
$
|
56
|
$
|
56
|
$
|
53
|
$
|
53
|
$
|
53
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce, net
|
$
|
3,574
|
$
|
4,312
|
$
|
3,532
|
$
|
3,354
|
$
|
2,937
|
$
|
2,362
|
$
|
2,649
|
||||||||||||||
|
Metal sales
|
$
|
377.7
|
$
|
123.8
|
$
|
98.9
|
$
|
89.8
|
$
|
65.2
|
$
|
225.1
|
$
|
68.3
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales3
|
$
|
179.1
|
$
|
44.1
|
$
|
46.7
|
$
|
46.1
|
$
|
42.2
|
$
|
157.8
|
$
|
39.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
1,685
|
$
|
1,533
|
$
|
1,659
|
$
|
1,713
|
$
|
1,882
|
$
|
1,651
|
$
|
1,529
|
||||||||||||||
|
Prepayment, working capital cash flow
|
$
|
(12.1
|
)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
(12.1
|
)
|
$
|
(12.9
|
)
|
$
|
(12.9
|
)
|
||||||||||
|
Exploration expense
|
$
|
7.8
|
$
|
0.8
|
$
|
2.2
|
$
|
1.5
|
$
|
3.3
|
$
|
5.5
|
$
|
0.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operating activities
|
$
|
157.3
|
$
|
69.0
|
$
|
46.4
|
$
|
36.0
|
$
|
5.9
|
$
|
40.9
|
$
|
8.5
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sustaining capital expenditures (excludes capital lease payments)
|
$
|
46.3
|
$
|
9.4
|
$
|
9.4
|
$
|
12.3
|
$
|
15.2
|
$
|
68.7
|
$
|
18.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Development capital expenditures
|
$
|
19.3
|
$
|
8.8
|
$
|
6.2
|
$
|
4.0
|
$
|
0.3
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total capital expenditures
|
$
|
65.6
|
$
|
18.2
|
$
|
15.6
|
$
|
16.3
|
$
|
15.5
|
$
|
68.7
|
$
|
18.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow1
|
$
|
91.7
|
$
|
50.8
|
$
|
30.8
|
$
|
19.7
|
$
|
(9.6
|
)
|
$
|
(27.8
|
)
|
$
|
(10.4
|
)
|
|||||||||||
Operational
| • |
Gold production in the fourth quarter totaled 29,567 ounces compared to 27,231 ounces in the prior period and 26,931
ounces in the fourth quarter of 2024. For the full year, gold production totaled 106,068 ounces and was within the 2025 guidance range of 98,500 - 108,500 ounces, and represented a
year-over-year increase of 11%
|
| • |
Stronger production during the quarter was driven by higher average gold grade and increased mill throughput
|
Financial
| • |
Fourth quarter adjusted CAS1 totaled $1,533 per ounce compared to $1,659
per ounce in the prior period, due primarily to increased metal sales. Full-year adjusted CAS1 totaled $1,685 per ounce compared to $1,651 in the prior period and was below the 2025 guidance range of $1,700 - $1,800 per ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures increased 17% quarter-over-quarter to $18 million. For the full year, capital expenditures decreased 5% to $66 million
|
| • |
Free cash flow1 in the fourth quarter and full year totaled $51 million and $92 million, respectively, compared to $31 million and $(28) million, respectively, in the prior periods
|
Exploration
| • |
Exploration investment in the fourth quarter totaled approximately $2 million ($1 million expensed and $1
million capitalized), compared to $4 million ($2 million expensed and $2 million capitalized) in
the prior period. For the full year, exploration investment totaled roughly $15 million ($8 million expensed and $8
million capitalized)
|
| • |
Expansion and infill drilling in Lower Kensington was completed during the quarter. Additional expansion and infill drilling was also undertaken in Upper Kensington at Zone 30B
|
11
| • |
In 2025, the Company successfully achieved its exploration goals at Kensington resulting in a meaningful increase in life of mine, with efforts focused on maintaining life-of-mine levels, recommencing scout drilling, and improving
orebody knowledge
|
| • |
Exploration programs in 2026 are expected to continue similarly with an increased focus on scout drilling
|
Guidance
| • |
Full-year 2026 production is expected to be 98,000 - 110,000 gold ounces
|
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 in 2026 are expected to be $1,750 - $1,950 per gold ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures in 2026 are expected to be $54 - $63 million, which includes investment related to raising the main tailings storage facility embankment, expected to be completed this year
|
| • |
Exploration investment in 2026 is expected to be $14 - $15 million ($8 - $9 million expensed and $6 - $6 million capitalized)
|
Wharf, South Dakota
|
(Dollars in millions, except per ounce amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ore tonnes placed
|
3,757,245
|
595,737
|
1,220,764
|
1,002,988
|
937,756
|
4,539,495
|
1,056,774
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average gold grade (grams/tonne)
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
1.0
|
1.2
|
0.7
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces produced
|
97,327
|
24,759
|
27,990
|
24,087
|
20,491
|
98,042
|
21,976
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces produced (000’s)
|
136
|
24
|
25
|
36
|
51
|
232
|
54
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces sold
|
96,764
|
25,318
|
27,859
|
23,509
|
20,078
|
98,327
|
22,539
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces sold (000’s)
|
134
|
27
|
22
|
35
|
50
|
233
|
54
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average realized price per gold ounce
|
$
|
3,452
|
$
|
4,120
|
$
|
3,412
|
$
|
3,315
|
$
|
2,827
|
$
|
2,315
|
$
|
2,620
|
||||||||||||||
|
Metal sales
|
$
|
339.2
|
$
|
105.8
|
$
|
95.9
|
$
|
79.1
|
$
|
58.4
|
$
|
234.0
|
$
|
60.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales3
|
$
|
116.9
|
$
|
30.0
|
$
|
30.9
|
$
|
29.0
|
$
|
27.0
|
$
|
98.4
|
$
|
22.1
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted CAS per AuOz1
|
$
|
1,151
|
$
|
1,121
|
$
|
1,079
|
$
|
1,175
|
$
|
1,260
|
$
|
934
|
$
|
902
|
||||||||||||||
|
Prepayment, working capital cash flow
|
$
|
(12.5
|
)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
(12.5
|
)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||
|
Exploration expense
|
$
|
7.4
|
$
|
0.6
|
$
|
0.7
|
$
|
3.5
|
$
|
2.6
|
$
|
6.2
|
$
|
2.7
|
||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operating activities
|
$
|
180.2
|
$
|
65.9
|
$
|
57.2
|
$
|
41.4
|
$
|
15.7
|
$
|
101.9
|
$
|
22.2
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sustaining capital expenditures (excludes capital lease payments)
|
$
|
12.8
|
$
|
2.9
|
$
|
1.2
|
$
|
2.3
|
$
|
6.4
|
$
|
7.2
|
$
|
2.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Development capital expenditures
|
$
|
5.0
|
$
|
0.7
|
$
|
2.0
|
$
|
1.3
|
$
|
1.0
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||
|
Total capital expenditures
|
$
|
17.8
|
$
|
3.6
|
$
|
3.2
|
$
|
3.6
|
$
|
7.4
|
$
|
7.2
|
$
|
2.9
|
||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow1
|
$
|
162.4
|
$
|
62.3
|
$
|
54.0
|
$
|
37.8
|
$
|
8.3
|
$
|
94.7
|
$
|
19.3
|
||||||||||||||
Operational
| • |
Gold production in the fourth quarter decreased 12% quarter over quarter to 24,759 ounces. For the full year, gold and silver production totaled 97,327 and 135,722 ounces, respectively, which was within the 2025 guidance ranges of 93,000 - 103,000 ounces of gold and 100,000 - 150,000 ounces of
silver
|
| • |
Lower production during the quarter was largely due to timing of ounces placed on the leach pad in the prior quarter at a lower average gold grade
|
| • |
Ore tonnes placed were 51% lower than the third quarter as a result of a fire incident at the tertiary crusher which occurred during regularly scheduled maintenance. The tertiary crusher
sustained damage to conveyor belts, electrical system components and other ancillary equipment which will require replacement, but the site is partially mitigating reduced crushing capacity by adding temporary crushing capacity.
Detailed engineering for the replacement crusher has been completed and a new tertiary crushing system is planned to be installed and commissioned during the second quarter of 2026. Production is expected to progressively increase
throughout the year as permanent crushing capacity is restored
|
12
Financial
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 on a by-product basis increased 4% quarter-over-quarter to $1,121
per ounce, due primarily to lower gold sales. Full-year adjusted CAS1 totaled $1,151 per ounce and was within the 2025 guidance range of $1,125 - 1,225 per ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures totaled approximately $4 million compared to $3 million in the prior period
|
| • |
Free cash flow1 in the fourth quarter and full year totaled $62 million and $162 million, respectively, compared to $54 million and $95 million in the prior periods
|
Exploration
| • |
Exploration investment during the fourth quarter totaled $1 million (substantially all expensed), compared to $3 million ($1 million expensed and $2 million capitalized) in the prior quarter. For the full year, exploration investment totaled roughly $10
million ($7 million expensed and $2 million capitalized)
|
| • |
During 2025, the key aims of exploration at Wharf were to complete expansion and infill programs at the Juno and North Foley deposits with the aim of extending mine life. These were achieved in the third quarter, with results
supporting a doubling of mine life and a trebling of inferred resources to 1.5 million
|
| • |
In 2026, programs are expected to be focused on further conversion at Juno and North Foley and to build the inferred pipeline
|
Guidance
| • |
Full-year 2026 production is expected to be 72,000 - 90,000 ounces of gold and 50,000 - 200,000 ounces of silver
|
| • |
Adjusted CAS1 in 2026 are expected to be $1,400 - $1,600 per gold ounce
|
| • |
Capital expenditures in 2026 are expected to be $17 - $23 million, which reflects remediation of the existing crusher and planned infrastructure upgrades
|
| • |
Exploration investment in 2026 is expected to be $10 - $12 million ($8 - $9 million expensed and $2 - $3 million capitalized)
|
13
Exploration
During the fourth quarter, Coeur invested approximately $25 million ($19 million expensed and $7 million capitalized), compared to roughly $30 million ($25 million expensed and $5 million
capitalized) in the prior period. For the full year, the Company invested approximately $108 million ($87 million expensed and $21 million capitalized), compared to roughly $77 million ($60 million expensed and $17 million
capitalized) in 2024.
At Silvertip, exploration investment totaled approximately $6 million in the fourth quarter, compared to $10 million in the
prior period, with up to five rigs drilling across the property. During the fourth quarter, scout and expansion drilling focused on the Southern Silver, Discovery, Camp Creek and Saddle Zones, using one underground rig and four surface rigs. In
2025, all the key exploration aims were achieved, including completion of the geological model, drilling to support the study program that is underway, and completion of regional programs that started in 2024.
The Company’s exploration investment in 2026 is expected to total $93 - $103 million for expansion drilling (classified as exploration expense) and $27 - $33 million for infill drilling (capitalized exploration) for a total expected investment of $120 - $136 million.
Top exploration priorities for 2026 are: (i) continuing to extend and infill known deposits to support future life of mine and building the inferred pipeline at Las Chispas, in addition to restarting regional
exploration; (ii) infill drilling at Hidalgo to support near-term life of mine additions at Palmarejo, continuing to build the inferred pipeline to provide optionality to the operation, with particular emphasis on East Palmarejo; (iii)
completing all drilling to support the next stage of mine permit expansion at Rochester along with regional studies and scout drilling across the district to build the exploration pipeline; (iv) maintaining a five-year reserve-based mine life
at Kensington and increasing focus on scout drilling to add inferred resources; (v) continuing the expansion and infill programs at Wharf to further add to the life of mine and district-scale work to support long-term mine life additions; (vi)
drill programs to support the study program and continue expanding the resource base at Silvertip through a mix of scout, expansion and infill drilling, totaling approximately $35 million.
14
2026 Guidance
The Company has provided guidance for full-year 2026 including production, CAS, capital expenditures, depreciation, depletion and amortization (“DD&A”), exploration, general and
administrative expenses (“G&A”), and income and mining tax.
Overall cost guidance reflects higher expected royalty expense driven by stronger realized metal prices, particularly at Rochester, the impact of a stronger Mexican peso, inflation of 3% to
5% across the portfolio, and higher planned maintenance costs. For our co-product mines (Las Chispas, Palmarejo, Rochester), costs are allocated to gold and silver based on their relative revenue contribution. Given the higher expected
contribution of silver to total revenue due to the silver price’s outperformance relative to the gold price, silver CAS per ounce is expected to be higher in 2026, consistent with the trend seen in the second half of 2025.
2026 Production Guidance
|
Gold
|
Silver
|
|||||||
|
(oz)
|
(K oz)
|
|||||||
|
Las Chispas
|
55,000 - 65,000
|
5,500 - 6,300
|
||||||
|
Palmarejo
|
95,000 - 105,000
|
6,250 - 7,000
|
||||||
|
Rochester
|
70,000 - 90,000
|
6,400 - 7,800
|
||||||
|
Kensington
|
98,000 - 110,000
|
—
|
||||||
|
Wharf
|
72,000 - 90,000
|
50 - 200
|
||||||
|
Total
|
390,000 - 460,000
|
18,200 - 21,300
|
||||||
2026 Adjusted Costs Applicable to Sales Guidance
|
Gold
|
Silver
|
||||
|
($/oz)
|
($/oz)
|
||||
|
Las Chispas (co-product)
|
$750 - $950
|
$12.50 - $14.50
|
|||
|
Palmarejo (co-product)
|
$700 - $900
|
$21.50 - $23.50
|
|||
|
Rochester (co-product)
|
$1,350 - $1,550
|
$23.00 - $25.00
|
|||
|
Kensington
|
$1,750 - $1,950
|
—
|
|||
|
Wharf (by-product)
|
$1,400 - $1,600
|
—
|
2026 Capital, DD&A, Exploration, G&A and Income and Mining Tax Guidance
|
($M)
|
||
|
Capital Expenditures, Sustaining
|
$207 - $239
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures, Development
|
$98 - $125
|
|
|
Exploration, Expensed
|
$93 - $103
|
|
|
Exploration, Capitalized
|
$27 - $33
|
|
|
General & Administrative Expenses
|
$63 - $67
|
|
|
Cash Income and Mining Taxes
|
$400 - $500
|
|
|
Amortization
|
$335 - $390
|
|
|
Effective Tax Rate (%)
|
29% - 35%
|
Note: The Company’s guidance figures assume estimated prices of $4,550/oz gold and $77.50/oz silver as well as CAD of 1.38 and MXN of 18.00. Guidance figures exclude the impact of any metal sales
or foreign exchange hedges.
The normalized effective tax rate excludes items that are not reflective of Coeur’s underlying performance, such as the impacts of foreign currency on deferred taxes, taxes related to prior
periods, and one-time, non-cash, tax valuation allowance adjustments.
15
Financial Results and Conference Call
Coeur will host a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter 2025 financial results on February 19, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Dial-In Numbers: (855) 560-2581 (U.S.)
(855) 669-9657 (Canada)
(412) 542-4166 (International)
Conference ID: Coeur Mining
Hosting the call will be Mitchell J. Krebs, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Coeur, who will be joined by Thomas S. Whelan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Michael “Mick”
Routledge, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Aoife McGrath, Executive Vice President, Exploration, and other members of management. A replay of the call will be available through February 26, 2026.
Replay numbers:
(855) 669-9658 (U.S./Canada)
(412) 317-0088 (International)
Conference ID: 424 35 40
About Coeur
Coeur Mining, Inc. is a U.S.-based, well-diversified, growing precious metals producer with five wholly-owned operations: the Las Chispas silver-gold mine in Sonora, Mexico, the Palmarejo gold-silver complex in
Chihuahua, Mexico, the Rochester silver-gold mine in Nevada, the Kensington gold mine in Alaska and the Wharf gold mine in South Dakota. In addition, the Company wholly-owns the Silvertip polymetallic critical minerals exploration project in
British Columbia.
Cautionary Statements
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of securities legislation in the United States and Canada, including statements regarding EBITDA, cash flow, production, costs, capital
expenditures, tax rates and treatment, exploration and development efforts and plans and potential impacts on reserves and resources, mine lives and expected extensions, the gold stream agreement at Palmarejo, anticipated production, and costs
and expenses and operations at Las Chispas, Palmarejo, Rochester, Kensington and Wharf. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause Coeur’s actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, the risk that anticipated production, cost and expense
levels are not attained, the risks and hazards inherent in the mining business (including risks inherent in developing and expanding large-scale mining projects, environmental hazards, industrial accidents, weather or geologically-related
conditions), changes in the market prices of gold and silver and a sustained lower price or higher treatment and refining charge environment, the uncertainties inherent in Coeur’s production, exploration and development activities, including
risks relating to permitting and regulatory delays (including the impact of government shutdowns) and mining law changes, ground conditions, grade and recovery variability, any future labor disputes or work stoppages (involving the Company and
its subsidiaries or third parties), the risk of adverse outcomes in litigation, the uncertainties inherent in the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, impacts from Coeur’s future acquisition of new mining properties or businesses,
risks associated with the anticipated acquisition of New Gold Inc., the risk that the Rochester expansion does not sustain planned performance, the loss of access or insolvency of any third-party refiner or smelter to whom Coeur markets its
production, materials and equipment availability, inflationary pressures, changes in applicable tax laws or regulatory interpretations, impacts from tariffs or other trade barriers, continued access to financing sources, the effects of
environmental and other governmental regulations and government shut-downs, the risks inherent in the ownership or operation of or investment in mining properties or businesses in foreign countries, Coeur’s ability to raise additional financing
necessary to conduct its business, make payments or refinance its debt, as well as other uncertainties and risk factors set out in filings made from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Canadian
securities regulators, including, without limitation, Coeur’s most recent report on Form 10-K. Actual results, developments and timetables could vary significantly from the estimates presented. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on
forward-looking statements. Coeur disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Additionally, Coeur undertakes no obligation to comment
on analyses, expectations or statements made by third parties in respect of Coeur, its financial or operating results or its securities. This does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale.
16
The scientific and technical information concerning our mineral projects in this news release have been reviewed and approved by a “qualified person” under Item 1300 of SEC Regulation S-K, namely our Senior Vice
President, Technical Services, Christopher Pascoe. For a description of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate mineral reserves and mineral resources, as well as data verification procedures and a general discussion of the
extent to which the estimates may be affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing or other relevant factors, please review the Technical Report Summaries for each of the Company’s material
properties which are available at www.sec.gov.
Non-U.S. GAAP Measures
We supplement the reporting of our financial information determined under United States generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) with certain non-U.S. GAAP financial measures, including EBITDA,
adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA margin, free cash flow, adjusted net income (loss), operating cash flow before changes in working capital and adjusted costs applicable to sales per ounce. We believe that these adjusted measures provide
meaningful information to assist management, investors and analysts in understanding our financial results and assessing our prospects for future performance. We believe these adjusted financial measures are important indicators of our
recurring operations because they exclude items that may not be indicative of, or are unrelated to our core operating results, and provide a better baseline for analyzing trends in our underlying businesses. We believe EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA,
adjusted EBITDA margin, free cash flow, adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted costs applicable to sales per ounce are important measures in assessing the Company’s overall financial performance. For additional explanation regarding our use of
non-U.S. GAAP financial measures, please refer to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025.
Notes
| 1. |
EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA margin, free cash flow, adjusted net income (loss), operating cash flow before changes in working capital and adjusted costs applicable to sales per ounce (gold and silver) are non-GAAP
measures. Please see tables in the Appendix for the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. Free cash flow is defined as cash flow from operating activities less capital expenditures. Liquidity is defined as cash and cash equivalents plus
availability under the Company’s RCF. Future borrowing under the RCF may be subject to certain financial covenants. Please see tables in Appendix for the calculation of consolidated free cash flow and liquidity. The amounts shown in
this news release for costs applicable to sales (CAS) per ounce for Las Chispas, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income from continuing operations are presented on a different basis compared to the amounts reported in the news
releases reporting results for the first, second, and third quarters of 2025 as a result of revisions to “Acquisition Accounting”. Based on discussions with the SEC staff in the course of a regular review of Company disclosures, the
staff has provided its view that, under its guidance on non-GAAP financial measures, the Company is required to calculate Las Chispas CAS, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income using the fair value of Las Chispas’ legacy inventory
held as of the Las Chispas acquisition closing date, February 14, 2025, except when calculating the net leverage ratio under the Company’s revolving credit facility (“RCF”) since the RCF contractually provides for certain adjustments to
be made. As a result, except when calculating the net leverage ratio under the RCF, the Company is not making adjustments that were intended to calculate non-GAAP financial measures using SilverCrest Metals Inc.’s historical costs of
producing legacy inventory as such inventory is sold. In our view, the historical cost remains more indicative of the costs Las Chispas incurred in producing this legacy inventory, and is a better measure of performance, than the
acquisition accounting measures of these costs. As a result of removing these adjustments, for the three months ended September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2025, adjusted EBITDA (including LTM adjusted EBITDA) and adjusted net income in
this release are lower than previously reported, and Las Chispas CAS are higher, except as used in calculation of the net leverage ratio under the RCF, including the impact of the amortization of acquired inventory purchase price
allocation of $3.3 million, $33.4 million, $29.7 million, and $27.0 million for the three months ended December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2025, respectively and an impact of $93.5 million for last twelve months. In each
case we are also providing separately the amount of the relevant impact of amortizing the non-cash, non-recurring step-up in cost basis for legacy inventory from the acquisition-related fair value accounting, so readers can
supplementally assess such amounts to the extent they deem appropriate to understand the normal, recurring cost performance of Las Chispas as well as Company-wide adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income. To calculate amounts comparable
to first, second and third quarter disclosures, which is the methodology the Company’s management uses to assess normal, recurring performance and our lenders use for purposes of calculating the net leverage ratio covenant under our
revolving credit facility, readers would need to subtract the step-up in cost basis from Las Chispas CAS, and add back the impact of the step-up in cost basis to adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income.
|
17
|
2.
|
Operating Statistics, Proven and Probable Reserves and Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources presented above contain tabular information that is presented in both metric and imperial as follows:
(i) metric tonnage is utilized for all metals; (ii) gold and silver grades are presented in grams per tonne; (iii) lead and zinc are presented in percentages; and (iv) metal content for gold and silver is presented in ounces while
metal content for lead and zinc is presented in pounds. The information that is presented in metric for the periods ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 has been converted from the 2024 10-K, filed with the SEC on February 19, 2025, as
this information was previously presented in imperial.
|
|
3.
|
Excludes amortization.
|
|
4.
|
Includes capital leases. Net of debt issuance costs and premium received.
|
|
5.
|
Includes $72.0 million of monetized finished goods following the SilverCrest acquisition on February 14, 2025.
|
Average Spot Prices
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average Gold Spot Price Per Ounce
|
$
|
3,432
|
$
|
4,135
|
$
|
3,457
|
$
|
3,280
|
$
|
2,860
|
$
|
2,386
|
$
|
2,663
|
||||||||||||||
|
Average Silver Spot Price Per Ounce
|
$
|
40.03
|
$
|
54.73
|
$
|
39.40
|
$
|
33.68
|
$
|
31.88
|
$
|
28.27
|
$
|
31.38
|
||||||||||||||
For Additional Information
Coeur Mining, Inc.
200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Attention: Jeff Wilhoit, Senior Director, Investor Relations
Phone: (312) 489-5800
www.coeur.com
Source: Coeur Mining
18
COEUR MINING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
December 31, 2025
|
December 31, 2024
|
|||||||
|
ASSETS
|
In thousands, except share data
|
|||||||
|
CURRENT ASSETS
|
||||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
$
|
553,597
|
$
|
55,087
|
||||
|
Receivables
|
69,160
|
29,930
|
||||||
|
Inventory
|
163,330
|
78,617
|
||||||
|
Ore on leach pads
|
157,461
|
92,724
|
||||||
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
29,129
|
16,741
|
||||||
|
972,677
|
273,099
|
|||||||
|
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
|
||||||||
|
Property, plant and equipment and mining properties, net
|
2,744,884
|
1,817,616
|
||||||
|
Goodwill
|
625,812
|
—
|
||||||
|
Ore on leach pads
|
119,446
|
106,670
|
||||||
|
Restricted assets
|
9,114
|
8,512
|
||||||
|
Receivables
|
19,683
|
19,583
|
||||||
|
Deferred tax assets
|
140,553
|
3,632
|
||||||
|
Other
|
63,513
|
72,635
|
||||||
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
$
|
4,695,682
|
$
|
2,301,747
|
||||
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||||||
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES
|
||||||||
|
Accounts payable
|
$
|
148,872
|
$
|
125,877
|
||||
|
Accrued liabilities and other
|
212,213
|
156,609
|
||||||
|
Debt
|
16,996
|
31,380
|
||||||
|
Reclamation
|
15,063
|
16,954
|
||||||
|
393,144
|
330,820
|
|||||||
|
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
|
||||||||
|
Debt
|
323,537
|
558,678
|
||||||
|
Reclamation
|
262,448
|
243,538
|
||||||
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
322,983
|
7,258
|
||||||
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
80,519
|
38,201
|
||||||
|
989,487
|
847,675
|
|||||||
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|
||||||||
|
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
||||||||
|
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share; authorized 900,000,000 shares, 642,092,761 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2025 and 399,235,632 at December 31, 2024
|
6,421
|
3,992
|
||||||
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
5,783,019
|
4,181,521
|
||||||
|
Accumulated deficit
|
(2,476,389
|
)
|
(3,062,261
|
)
|
||||
|
3,313,051
|
1,123,252
|
|||||||
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
$
|
4,695,682
|
$
|
2,301,747
|
||||
19
COEUR MINING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
|
2025
|
2024
|
2023
|
||||||||||
|
|
In thousands, except share data
|
|||||||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
2,070,126
|
$
|
1,054,006
|
$
|
821,206
|
||||||
|
COSTS AND EXPENSES
|
||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales(1)
|
898,437
|
606,192
|
632,896
|
|||||||||
|
Amortization
|
251,099
|
124,974
|
99,822
|
|||||||||
|
General and administrative
|
57,197
|
47,727
|
41,605
|
|||||||||
|
Exploration
|
86,592
|
59,658
|
30,962
|
|||||||||
|
Pre-development, reclamation, and other
|
69,788
|
51,273
|
54,636
|
|||||||||
|
Total costs and expenses
|
1,363,113
|
889,824
|
859,921
|
|||||||||
|
Income from operations
|
707,013
|
164,182
|
(38,715
|
)
|
||||||||
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE), NET
|
||||||||||||
|
Gain (loss) on debt extinguishment
|
(113
|
)
|
417
|
3,437
|
||||||||
|
Fair value adjustments, net
|
(342
|
)
|
—
|
3,384
|
||||||||
|
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest
|
(30,942
|
)
|
(51,276
|
)
|
(29,099
|
)
|
||||||
|
Other, net
|
6,922
|
13,027
|
(7,463
|
)
|
||||||||
|
Total other income (expense), net
|
(24,475
|
)
|
(37,832
|
)
|
(29,741
|
)
|
||||||
|
Income before income and mining taxes
|
682,538
|
126,350
|
(68,456
|
)
|
||||||||
|
Income and mining tax benefit (expense)
|
(96,666
|
)
|
(67,450
|
)
|
(35,156
|
)
|
||||||
|
NET INCOME
|
$
|
585,872
|
$
|
58,900
|
$
|
(103,612
|
)
|
|||||
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS):
|
||||||||||||
|
Change in fair value of derivative contracts designated as cash flow hedges
|
—
|
(18,507
|
)
|
(318
|
)
|
|||||||
|
Reclassification adjustments for realized (gain) loss on cash flow hedges
|
—
|
17,176
|
(10,694
|
)
|
||||||||
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
—
|
(1,331
|
)
|
(11,012
|
)
|
|||||||
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
$
|
585,872
|
$
|
57,569
|
$
|
(114,624
|
)
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
NET INCOME PER SHARE
|
||||||||||||
|
Basic income per share:
|
||||||||||||
|
Basic
|
$
|
0.96
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.30
|
)
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Diluted
|
$
|
0.95
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.30
|
)
|
|||||
(1) Excludes amortization.
20
COEUR MINING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
||||||||||||
|
2025
|
2024
|
2023
|
||||||||||
|
In thousands
|
||||||||||||
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
585,872
|
$
|
58,900
|
$
|
(103,612
|
)
|
|||||
|
Adjustments:
|
||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
251,099
|
124,974
|
99,822
|
|||||||||
|
Accretion
|
20,978
|
18,208
|
16,381
|
|||||||||
|
Deferred taxes
|
(161,015
|
)
|
(8,734
|
)
|
(1,495
|
)
|
||||||
|
(Gain) loss on debt extinguishment
|
113
|
(417
|
)
|
(3,437
|
)
|
|||||||
|
Fair value adjustments, net
|
342
|
—
|
(3,384
|
)
|
||||||||
|
Stock-based compensation
|
19,209
|
12,022
|
11,361
|
|||||||||
|
Loss on the sale or disposition of assets
|
—
|
4,250
|
25,197
|
|||||||||
|
Write-downs
|
—
|
3,235
|
40,247
|
|||||||||
|
Deferred revenue recognition
|
(42,824
|
)
|
(55,562
|
)
|
(25,468
|
)
|
||||||
|
Acquired inventory purchase price allocation
|
93,477
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||
|
Other
|
4,306
|
5,483
|
3,215
|
|||||||||
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||||
|
Receivables
|
(6,688
|
)
|
(504
|
)
|
933
|
|||||||
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
72,634
|
2,777
|
(461
|
)
|
||||||||
|
Inventory and ore on leach pads
|
(51,798
|
)
|
(69,640
|
)
|
(47,592
|
)
|
||||||
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
101,174
|
79,242
|
55,581
|
|||||||||
|
CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
886,879
|
174,234
|
67,288
|
|||||||||
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||||
|
Capital expenditures
|
(221,162
|
)
|
(183,188
|
)
|
(364,617
|
)
|
||||||
|
Acquisitions, net
|
93,635
|
(10,000
|
)
|
—
|
||||||||
|
Proceeds from the sale of assets
|
13
|
37
|
8,546
|
|||||||||
|
Sale of investments
|
—
|
—
|
47,611
|
|||||||||
|
Proceeds from notes receivable
|
—
|
—
|
5,000
|
|||||||||
|
Other
|
(328
|
)
|
(362
|
)
|
(239
|
)
|
||||||
|
CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
(127,842
|
)
|
(193,513
|
)
|
(303,699
|
)
|
||||||
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
||||||||||||
|
Issuance of common stock
|
10,005
|
22,823
|
168,964
|
|||||||||
|
Issuance of notes and bank borrowings, net of issuance costs
|
166,500
|
391,500
|
598,000
|
|||||||||
|
Payments on debt, finance leases, and associated costs
|
(417,886
|
)
|
(398,348
|
)
|
(528,541
|
)
|
||||||
|
Share repurchases
|
(9,625
|
)
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||
|
Other financing activities
|
(9,625
|
)
|
(2,085
|
)
|
(2,370
|
)
|
||||||
|
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
(260,631
|
)
|
13,890
|
236,053
|
||||||||
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
425
|
(1,115
|
)
|
567
|
||||||||
|
INCREASE IN CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS AND RESTRICTED CASH
|
498,831
|
(6,504
|
)
|
209
|
||||||||
|
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period
|
56,874
|
63,378
|
63,169
|
|||||||||
|
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
|
$
|
555,705
|
$
|
56,874
|
$
|
63,378
|
||||||
21
Adjusted EBITDA Reconciliation
|
(Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
585,872
|
$
|
214,969
|
$
|
266,824
|
$
|
70,726
|
$
|
33,353
|
$
|
58,900
|
$
|
37,852
|
||||||||||||||
|
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest
|
30,942
|
5,968
|
6,273
|
8,251
|
10,450
|
51,276
|
11,887
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
96,666
|
112,539
|
(96,881
|
)
|
62,595
|
18,413
|
67,450
|
18,420
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
251,099
|
73,655
|
72,930
|
61,421
|
43,093
|
124,974
|
36,533
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
EBITDA
|
964,579
|
407,131
|
249,146
|
202,993
|
105,309
|
302,600
|
104,692
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fair value adjustments, net
|
342
|
—
|
—
|
(4
|
)
|
346
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
(1,429
|
)
|
(4,021
|
)
|
2,080
|
(246
|
)
|
758
|
(4,753
|
)
|
(1,321
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Asset retirement obligation accretion
|
19,697
|
5,077
|
4,988
|
4,900
|
4,732
|
16,778
|
4,315
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inventory adjustments and write-downs
|
6,265
|
1,541
|
1,198
|
1,598
|
1,928
|
8,042
|
1,552
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Gain) loss on sale of assets
|
698
|
282
|
113
|
117
|
186
|
4,250
|
(102
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
RMC bankruptcy distribution
|
(37
|
)
|
—
|
—
|
(37
|
)
|
—
|
(1,294
|
)
|
(95
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
(Gain) loss on debt extinguishment
|
113
|
107
|
6
|
—
|
—
|
(417
|
)
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transaction costs
|
26,409
|
14,248
|
451
|
2,823
|
8,887
|
8,517
|
7,541
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kensington royalty settlement
|
(66
|
)
|
1
|
—
|
28
|
(95
|
)
|
7,369
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Wage and hour litigation settlement
|
7,059
|
61
|
6,998
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mexico arbitration matter
|
2,950
|
57
|
743
|
1,740
|
410
|
3,612
|
152
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Flow-through share premium
|
(808
|
)
|
—
|
(111
|
)
|
(112
|
)
|
(585
|
)
|
(5,563
|
)
|
(369
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
COVID-19
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
11
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted EBITDA
|
$
|
1,025,772
|
$
|
424,484
|
$
|
265,612
|
$
|
213,800
|
$
|
121,876
|
$
|
339,152
|
$
|
116,365
|
||||||||||||||
|
Revenue
|
$
|
2,070,126
|
$
|
674,847
|
$
|
554,567
|
$
|
480,650
|
$
|
360,062
|
$
|
1,054,006
|
$
|
305,444
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted EBITDA Margin
|
50
|
%
|
63
|
%
|
48
|
%
|
44
|
%
|
34
|
%
|
32
|
%
|
38
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
Adjusted Net Income Reconciliation
|
(Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
|
2025
|
4Q25
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net income
|
$
|
585,872
|
$
|
214,969
|
$
|
266,824
|
$
|
70,726
|
$
|
33,353
|
$
|
58,900
|
$
|
37,852
|
||||||||||||||
|
Fair value adjustments, net
|
342
|
—
|
—
|
(4
|
)
|
346
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign exchange loss (gain)(1)
|
42,040
|
1,563
|
11,831
|
28,072
|
574
|
(4,448
|
)
|
265
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Gain) loss on sale of assets
|
698
|
282
|
113
|
117
|
186
|
4,250
|
(102
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
RMC bankruptcy distribution
|
(37
|
)
|
—
|
—
|
(37
|
)
|
—
|
(1,294
|
)
|
(95
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
(Gain) loss on debt extinguishment
|
113
|
107
|
6
|
—
|
—
|
(417
|
)
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transaction costs
|
26,409
|
14,248
|
451
|
2,823
|
8,887
|
8,517
|
7,541
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kensington royalty settlement
|
(66
|
)
|
1
|
—
|
28
|
(95
|
)
|
7,369
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Wage and hour litigation settlement
|
7,059
|
61
|
6,998
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mexico arbitration matter
|
2,950
|
57
|
743
|
1,740
|
410
|
3,612
|
152
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Flow-through share premium
|
(808
|
)
|
—
|
(111
|
)
|
(112
|
)
|
(585
|
)
|
(5,563
|
)
|
(369
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
COVID-19
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
11
|
—
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuation allowance and tax effect of adjustments
|
(171,211
|
)
|
(3,992
|
)
|
(164,162
|
)
|
(467
|
)
|
(2,590
|
)
|
(820
|
)
|
142
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted net income
|
$
|
493,361
|
$
|
227,296
|
$
|
122,693
|
$
|
102,886
|
$
|
40,486
|
$
|
70,117
|
$
|
45,386
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted net income per share - Basic
|
$
|
0.81
|
$
|
0.36
|
$
|
0.19
|
$
|
0.16
|
$
|
0.08
|
$
|
0.18
|
$
|
0.12
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted net income per share - Diluted
|
$
|
0.80
|
$
|
0.35
|
$
|
0.19
|
$
|
0.16
|
$
|
0.08
|
$
|
0.18
|
$
|
0.11
|
||||||||||||||
(1) Includes the impact of foreign exchange rates on deferred tax balances of $43.5 million and $0.3 million for the years
ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and $5.9 million, $9.8 million, $28.3 million, $(0.2) million, $(1.0) million for the the three months ended December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024,
respectively.
22
Consolidated Free Cash Flow Reconciliation
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cash flow from operations
|
$
|
886,879
|
$
|
374,587
|
$
|
237,706
|
$
|
206,951
|
$
|
67,635
|
$
|
174,234
|
$
|
63,793
|
||||||||||||||
|
Capital expenditures
|
221,162
|
61,319
|
49,034
|
60,807
|
50,002
|
183,188
|
47,720
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Free cash flow
|
$
|
665,717
|
$
|
313,268
|
$
|
188,672
|
$
|
146,144
|
$
|
17,633
|
$
|
(8,954
|
)
|
$
|
16,073
|
|||||||||||||
Consolidated Operating Cash Flow
Before Changes in Working Capital Reconciliation
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
2025
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
2024
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cash provided by operating activities
|
$
|
886,879
|
$
|
374,587
|
$
|
237,706
|
$
|
206,951
|
$
|
67,635
|
$
|
174,234
|
$
|
63,793
|
||||||||||||||
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Receivables
|
6,688
|
(1,265
|
)
|
7,132
|
4,766
|
(3,945
|
)
|
504
|
(16
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
(72,634
|
)
|
4,366
|
7,489
|
(2,424
|
)
|
(82,065
|
)
|
(2,777
|
)
|
408
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Inventories
|
51,798
|
24,314
|
5,011
|
14,125
|
8,348
|
69,640
|
15,852
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
(101,174
|
)
|
(84,436
|
)
|
(18,636
|
)
|
(61,845
|
)
|
63,743
|
(79,242
|
)
|
(1,485
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Operating cash flow before changes in working capital
|
$
|
771,557
|
$
|
317,566
|
$
|
238,702
|
$
|
161,573
|
$
|
53,716
|
$
|
162,359
|
$
|
78,552
|
||||||||||||||
Net Debt and Leverage Ratio
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
4Q 2025
|
3Q 2025
|
2Q 2025
|
1Q 2025
|
4Q 2024
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Total debt
|
$
|
340,533
|
$
|
363,516
|
$
|
380,722
|
$
|
498,269
|
$
|
590,058
|
||||||||||
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
(553,597
|
)
|
(266,342
|
)
|
(111,646
|
)
|
(77,574
|
)
|
(55,087
|
)
|
||||||||||
|
Net debt
|
$
|
(213,064
|
)
|
$
|
97,174
|
$
|
269,076
|
$
|
420,695
|
$
|
534,971
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net debt
|
$
|
(213,064
|
)
|
$
|
97,174
|
$
|
269,076
|
$
|
420,695
|
$
|
534,971
|
|||||||||
|
Last Twelve Months Adjusted EBITDA
|
$
|
1,025,772
|
$
|
807,817
|
$
|
634,803
|
$
|
443,729
|
$
|
339,152
|
||||||||||
|
Leverage ratio
|
(0.2
|
)
|
0.1
|
0.4
|
0.9
|
1.6
|
||||||||||||||
23
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for the Year Ended December 31, 2025
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
295,897
|
$
|
228,672
|
$
|
278,397
|
$
|
218,349
|
$
|
123,486
|
$
|
3,903
|
$
|
1,148,704
|
||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(94,213
|
)
|
(37,015
|
)
|
(69,283
|
)
|
(39,295
|
)
|
(6,558
|
)
|
(3,903
|
)
|
(250,267
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
201,684
|
$
|
191,657
|
$
|
209,114
|
$
|
179,054
|
$
|
116,928
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
898,437
|
||||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(1,590
|
)
|
(911
|
)
|
(2,195
|
)
|
(949
|
)
|
(467
|
)
|
—
|
(6,112
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
(17
|
)
|
(5,121
|
)
|
—
|
(5,138
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
200,094
|
$
|
190,746
|
$
|
206,919
|
$
|
178,088
|
$
|
111,340
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
887,187
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
58,251
|
100,723
|
60,612
|
105,682
|
96,764
|
—
|
422,032
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
5,445,330
|
6,498,821
|
6,077,114
|
133,970
|
—
|
18,155,235
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
48
|
%
|
46
|
%
|
46
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
52
|
%
|
54
|
%
|
54
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
1,649
|
$
|
871
|
$
|
1,570
|
$
|
1,685
|
$
|
1,151
|
$
|
1,347
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
19.11
|
$
|
15.85
|
$
|
18.39
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
17.69
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
24
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended December 31, 2025
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
65,377
|
$
|
56,553
|
$
|
79,791
|
$
|
55,272
|
$
|
31,745
|
$
|
1,040
|
$
|
289,778
|
||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(31,995
|
)
|
(8,312
|
)
|
(19,127
|
)
|
(11,167
|
)
|
(1,774
|
)
|
(1,040
|
)
|
(73,415
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
33,382
|
$
|
48,241
|
$
|
60,664
|
$
|
44,105
|
$
|
29,971
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
216,363
|
||||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(131
|
)
|
(242
|
)
|
(861
|
)
|
(115
|
)
|
(123
|
)
|
—
|
(1,472
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
18
|
(1,478
|
)
|
—
|
(1,460
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
33,251
|
$
|
47,999
|
$
|
59,803
|
$
|
44,008
|
$
|
28,370
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
213,431
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
14,819
|
24,378
|
18,044
|
28,715
|
25,318
|
—
|
111,274
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
1,367,427
|
1,508,856
|
1,700,956
|
—
|
4,577,239
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
45
|
%
|
43
|
%
|
44
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
55
|
%
|
57
|
%
|
56
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
1,010
|
$
|
847
|
$
|
1,458
|
$
|
1,533
|
$
|
1,121
|
$
|
1,207
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
13.37
|
$
|
18.13
|
$
|
19.69
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
17.29
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
25
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended September 30, 2025
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
99,012
|
$
|
61,125
|
$
|
70,487
|
$
|
57,144
|
$
|
32,689
|
$
|
989
|
$
|
321,446
|
||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(30,908
|
)
|
(10,115
|
)
|
(18,501
|
)
|
(10,435
|
)
|
(1,762
|
)
|
(989
|
)
|
(72,710
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
68,104
|
$
|
51,010
|
$
|
51,986
|
$
|
46,709
|
$
|
30,927
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
248,736
|
||||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(36
|
)
|
(358
|
)
|
(473
|
)
|
(272
|
)
|
(23
|
)
|
—
|
(1,162
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
41
|
(846
|
)
|
—
|
(805
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
68,068
|
$
|
50,652
|
$
|
51,513
|
$
|
46,478
|
$
|
30,058
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
246,769
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
17,800
|
26,850
|
13,975
|
28,011
|
27,859
|
—
|
114,495
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
1,674,770
|
1,633,196
|
1,656,336
|
—
|
21,650
|
—
|
4,985,952
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
48
|
%
|
47
|
%
|
43
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
52
|
%
|
53
|
%
|
57
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
1,836
|
$
|
887
|
$
|
1,585
|
$
|
1,659
|
$
|
1,079
|
$
|
1,355
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
21.13
|
$
|
16.44
|
$
|
17.73
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
18.45
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
26
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended June 30, 2025
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
80,122
|
$
|
58,109
|
$
|
64,676
|
$
|
56,304
|
$
|
30,542
|
$
|
928
|
$
|
290,681
|
||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(22,375
|
)
|
(9,406
|
)
|
(16,748
|
)
|
(10,221
|
)
|
(1,549
|
)
|
(928
|
)
|
(61,227
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
57,747
|
$
|
48,703
|
$
|
47,928
|
$
|
46,083
|
$
|
28,993
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
229,454
|
||||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(523
|
)
|
(147
|
)
|
(489
|
)
|
(222
|
)
|
(191
|
)
|
—
|
(1,572
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
(41
|
)
|
(1,188
|
)
|
—
|
(1,229
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
57,224
|
$
|
48,556
|
$
|
47,439
|
$
|
45,820
|
$
|
27,614
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
226,653
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
16,025
|
26,782
|
13,881
|
26,751
|
23,509
|
—
|
106,948
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
1,479,410
|
1,720,383
|
1,437,811
|
—
|
34,916
|
—
|
4,672,520
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
52
|
%
|
49
|
%
|
49
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
48
|
%
|
51
|
%
|
51
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
1,857
|
$
|
888
|
$
|
1,675
|
$
|
1,713
|
$
|
1,175
|
$
|
1,405
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
18.57
|
$
|
14.39
|
$
|
16.83
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
16.48
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended March 31, 2025
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
51,770
|
$
|
52,884
|
$
|
63,443
|
$
|
49,627
|
$
|
28,511
|
$
|
946
|
$
|
247,181
|
||||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(8,936
|
)
|
(9,181
|
)
|
(14,907
|
)
|
(7,471
|
)
|
(1,474
|
)
|
(946
|
)
|
(42,915
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
42,834
|
$
|
43,703
|
$
|
48,536
|
$
|
42,156
|
$
|
27,037
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
204,266
|
||||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(900
|
)
|
(164
|
)
|
(372
|
)
|
(339
|
)
|
(131
|
)
|
—
|
(1,906
|
)
|
|||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
(36
|
)
|
(1,608
|
)
|
—
|
(1,644
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
41,934
|
$
|
43,539
|
$
|
48,164
|
$
|
41,781
|
$
|
25,298
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
200,716
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
9,607
|
22,713
|
14,713
|
22,205
|
20,078
|
—
|
89,316
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
923,723
|
1,636,386
|
1,282,010
|
—
|
50,034
|
—
|
3,892,153
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
48
|
%
|
46
|
%
|
51
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
52
|
%
|
54
|
%
|
49
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
2,095
|
$
|
882
|
$
|
1,670
|
$
|
1,882
|
$
|
1,260
|
$
|
1,476
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
23.61
|
$
|
14.37
|
$
|
18.41
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
17.94
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
27
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended December 31, 2024
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
55,032
|
$
|
67,406
|
$
|
48,195
|
$
|
23,665
|
$
|
799
|
$
|
195,097
|
||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(9,550
|
)
|
(15,858
|
)
|
(8,547
|
)
|
(1,607
|
)
|
(799
|
)
|
(36,361
|
)
|
||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
45,482
|
$
|
51,548
|
$
|
39,648
|
$
|
22,058
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
158,736
|
||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(76
|
)
|
(1,190
|
)
|
(182
|
)
|
(56
|
)
|
—
|
(1,504
|
)
|
|||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
43
|
(1,680
|
)
|
—
|
(1,637
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
45,406
|
$
|
50,358
|
$
|
39,509
|
$
|
20,322
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
155,595
|
||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
22,353
|
14,824
|
25,839
|
22,539
|
85,555
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
1,596,875
|
1,570,448
|
54,000
|
—
|
3,221,323
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
44
|
%
|
44
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
56
|
%
|
56
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
894
|
$
|
1,495
|
$
|
1,529
|
$
|
902
|
$
|
1,192
|
||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
15.92
|
$
|
17.96
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
16.93
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
28
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales
for Three Months Ended September 30, 2024
|
In thousands (except metal sales, per ounce or per pound amounts)
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
Silvertip
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
59,439
|
$
|
49,640
|
$
|
45,711
|
$
|
34,198
|
$
|
794
|
$
|
189,782
|
||||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(11,984
|
)
|
(10,231
|
)
|
(7,612
|
)
|
(2,419
|
)
|
(794
|
)
|
(33,040
|
)
|
||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
47,455
|
$
|
39,409
|
$
|
38,099
|
$
|
31,779
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
156,742
|
||||||||||||
|
Inventory Adjustments
|
(572
|
)
|
(536
|
)
|
50
|
(119
|
)
|
—
|
(1,177
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
12
|
(1,332
|
)
|
—
|
(1,320
|
)
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
46,883
|
$
|
38,873
|
$
|
38,161
|
$
|
30,328
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
154,245
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
28,655
|
9,186
|
24,800
|
34,272
|
—
|
96,913
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
1,860,976
|
1,098,407
|
—
|
45,118
|
—
|
3,004,501
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead pounds
|
—
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
50
|
%
|
41
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Silver
|
50
|
%
|
59
|
%
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
|
—
|
%
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
818
|
$
|
1,735
|
$
|
1,539
|
$
|
885
|
$
|
1,113
|
||||||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
12.60
|
$
|
20.88
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
15.67
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Zinc ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead ($/lb)
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
—
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Reconciliation of Costs Applicable to Sales for 2026 Guidance
|
In thousands (except metal sales and per ounce amounts)
|
Las Chispas
|
Palmarejo
|
Rochester
|
Kensington
|
Wharf
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales, including amortization (U.S. GAAP)
|
$
|
397,764
|
$
|
161,390
|
$
|
365,418
|
$
|
233,583
|
$
|
142,683
|
||||||||||
|
Amortization
|
(174,548
|
)
|
(36,491
|
)
|
(88,753
|
)
|
(41,722
|
)
|
(8,965
|
)
|
||||||||||
|
Costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
223,216
|
$
|
124,899
|
$
|
276,665
|
$
|
191,861
|
$
|
133,718
|
||||||||||
|
By-product credit
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
(6,132
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
$
|
223,216
|
$
|
124,899
|
$
|
276,665
|
$
|
191,861
|
$
|
127,586
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Metal Sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ounces
|
59,521
|
100,000
|
81,143
|
105,137
|
86,868
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Silver ounces
|
5,934,277
|
6,796,223
|
7,136,315
|
79,401
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revenue Split
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold
|
34
|
%
|
37
|
%
|
40
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
100
|
%
|
||||||||||
|
Silver
|
66
|
%
|
63
|
%
|
60
|
%
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted costs applicable to sales
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gold ($/oz)
|
$
|
750 - $950
|
$
|
700 - $900
|
$
|
1,350 - $1,550
|
$
|
1,750 - $1,950
|
$
|
1,400 - $1,600
|
||||||||||
|
Silver ($/oz)
|
$
|
12.50 - $14.50
|
$
|
21.50 - $23.50
|
$
|
23.00 - $25.00
|
||||||||||||||
29
Exhibit 99.2
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
| Prepared for: | Prepared by: |
| Coeur Mining, Inc. | Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME |
| Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME | |
|
Report current as at:
|
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME
Mr. John Key, RM SME
|
|
December 31, 2025
|
|
| Mr. Troy Christensen, RM SME |
 |
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Date and Signature Page
The following Qualified Persons, who are employees of Coeur Mining, Inc. or its subsidiaries, supervised the preparation of this technical report summary, entitled “Wharf Operation, South Dakota, S-K
1300 Technical Report Summary” and confirm that the information in the technical report summary is current as at December 31, 2025 and filed on February 18, 2026.
/s/ Christopher Pascoe
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME
/s/ Tony Auld
Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME
/s/ Kenan Sarratt
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME
/s/ John Key
Mr. John Key, RM SME
/s/ Troy Christensen
Mr. Troy Christensen, RM SME
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
1-6
|
|
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
|
1-10
|
|
1.12
|
Mining Methods
|
1-11
|
|
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
|
1-14
|
|
1.17
|
Capital Cost Estimates
|
1-14
|
|
1.18
|
Operating Cost Estimates
|
1-15
|
|
1.19
|
Economic Analysis
|
1-16
|
|
1.19.1
|
Forward-Looking Information
|
1-16
|
|
1.19.2
|
Methodology and Assumptions
|
1-16
|
|
1.19.3
|
Economic Analysis
|
1-17
|
|
1.19.4
|
Sensitivity Analysis
|
1-18
|
|
1.20
|
Risks and Opportunities
|
1-19
|
|
1.20.1
|
Risks
|
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
|
|
2.2.2
|
Terms of Reference
|
2-1
|
|
2.3
|
Qualified Persons
|
2-2
|
|
2.4
|
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
|
2-3
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
2.5
|
Report Date
|
2-3
|
|
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
|
|
3.3.1
|
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
|
3-6
|
|
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
|
3-10
|
|
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
|
3-13
|
|
3.7.9
|
Valentine Royalty
|
3-13
|
|
3.7.10
|
White House Congress, Inc. Royalty
|
3-15
|
|
3.8
|
Encumbrances
|
3-16
|
|
3.8.1
|
Credit Agreement
|
3-16
|
|
3.8.2
|
Permitting Requirements
|
3-16
|
|
3.8.3
|
Permitting Timelines
|
3-16
|
|
3.8.4
|
Violations and Fines
|
3-16
|
|
3.9
|
Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs
|
3-16
|
|
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
|
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
|
6-9
|
|
6.4
|
Property Geology
|
6-10
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
6.4.1
|
Deposit Dimensions
|
6-10
|
|
6.4.2
|
Lithologies
|
6-10
|
|
6.4.3
|
Structure
|
6-14
|
|
6.4.4
|
Alteration
|
6-14
|
|
6.4.5
|
Mineralization
|
6-14
|
|
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
|
7-5
|
|
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
|
|
8.8
|
Database
|
8-6
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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
|
10-1
|
|
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
|
Database and Data Quality
|
11-1
|
|
11.3
|
Geological and Mineral Resource Domains
|
11-1
|
|
11.4
|
Density Assignment
|
11-3
|
|
11.5
|
Compositing and Grade Capping
|
11-4
|
|
11.6
|
Variography
|
11-4
|
|
11.7
|
Estimation Methodology
|
11-5
|
|
11.8
|
Model Validation
|
11-7
|
|
11.9
|
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
|
11-10
|
|
11.9.1
|
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
|
11-10
|
|
11.9.2
|
Uncertainties Considered During Confidence Classification
|
11-10
|
|
11.10
|
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
|
11-10
|
|
11.10.1
|
Input Assumptions
|
11-10
|
|
11.10.2
|
Commodity Price
|
11-11
|
|
11.10.3
|
Cut-off
|
11-11
|
|
11.10.4
|
QP Statement
|
11-12
|
|
11.11
|
Mineral Resource Statement
|
11-12
|
|
11.12
|
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
|
11-12
|
|
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
|
12-5
|
|
12.6
|
Density and Moisture
|
12-6
|
|
12.7
|
Ore Loss and Dilution
|
12-6
|
|
12.8
|
Commodity Price
|
12-6
|
|
12.9
|
Mineral Reserve Statement
|
12-6
|
|
12.10
|
Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate
|
12-7
|
|
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
|
|
13.6
|
Grade Control and Production Monitoring
|
13-2
|
|
13.7
|
Production Schedule
|
13-2
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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
|
14-6
|
|
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
|
14-9
|
|
14.6.2
|
Personnel
|
14-9
|
|
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
|
15-5
|
|
15.6
|
Spent Ore Facilities
|
15-6
|
|
15.7
|
Water Management
|
15-6
|
|
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
|
16-1
|
|
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
|
17-1
|
|
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
|
|
18.3.4
|
Infrastructure Operating Costs
|
18-3
|
|
18.3.5
|
General and Administrative Operating Costs
|
18-4
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
18.3.6
|
Owner (Corporate) Operating Costs
|
18-5
|
|
18.3.7
|
Operating Cost Summary
|
18-5
|
|
18.4
|
QP Statement
|
18-5
|
|
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
|
19-2
|
|
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
|
22-1
|
|
22.5
|
Data Verification
|
22-2
|
|
22.6
|
Metallurgical Testwork
|
22-2
|
|
22.7
|
Mineral Resource Estimates
|
22-2
|
|
22.8
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates
|
22-3
|
|
22.9
|
Mining Methods
|
22-3
|
|
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
|
22-7
|
|
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
|
24-4
|
|
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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
1-8
|
|
Table 1‑2:
|
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
1-8
|
|
Table 1‑3:
|
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,200/oz gold price)
|
1-10
|
|
Table 1‑4:
|
LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$)
|
1-15
|
|
Table 1‑5:
|
LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate (US$)
|
1-15
|
|
Table 1‑6:
|
Cashflow Summary Table
|
1-18
|
|
Table 1‑7:
|
NPV Sensitivity Table (US$ M)
|
1-19
|
|
Table 2‑1:
|
QP Chapter Responsibilities
|
2-3
|
|
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
|
3-11
|
|
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:
|
Assigned density values by lithology.
|
11-3
|
|
Table 11‑2:
|
Composite and capping summary statistics.
|
11-4
|
|
Table 11‑3:
|
Gold grade estimation parameters
|
11-7
|
|
Table 11‑4:
|
Constraining Pit Shell Assumptions
|
11-11
|
|
Table 11‑5:
|
Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
11-13
|
|
Table 11‑6:
|
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
11-13
|
|
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
|
12-6
|
|
Table 12‑4:
|
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,200/oz gold price)
|
12-7
|
|
Table 13‑1:
|
Forecast LOM Production Schedule
|
13-3
|
|
Table 13‑2:
|
Peak Required Equipment List
|
13-3
|
|
Table 14‑1:
|
Process Equipment List Summary (Crusher, Cones, Screens)
|
14-8
|
|
Table 14‑2:
|
Process Equipment List Summary (Plant)
|
14-9
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 16‑1:
|
Commodity Price Forecast Used in Cashflow Analysis
|
16-2
|
|
Table 17‑1:
|
Key Permits and Approvals
|
17-3
|
|
Table 18‑1:
|
LOM Capital Cost Estimate
|
18-2
|
|
Table 18‑2
|
Mining Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
18-3
|
|
Table 18‑3:
|
Process Plant Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
18-4
|
|
Table 18‑4:
|
G&A Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
18-4
|
|
Table 18‑5:
|
General and Administrative Operating Costs
|
18-6
|
|
Table 18‑6:
|
LOM Operating Cost Estimate
|
18-6
|
|
Table 18‑7:
|
LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate (US$)
|
18-7
|
|
Table 19‑1:
|
Cashflow Summary Table
|
19-4
|
|
Table 19‑2:
|
Cashflow Forecast on Annualized Basis
|
19-5
|
|
Table 19‑3:
|
Sensitivity Table (US$ M)
|
19-7
|
FIGURES
|
Figure 2‑1:
|
Project Location Plan
|
2-2
|
|
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
|
3-12
|
|
Figure 3‑5:
|
Claims Subject to Valentine Royalty
|
3-14
|
|
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:
|
Modeled stratigraphy and grouped mineral resource domains
|
11-2
|
|
Figure 11‑2:
|
Bulk density box plot by lithology. Values in t/ft3.
|
11-3
|
|
Figure 11‑3:
|
Correlogram models for domains 1212 and 10261.
|
11-5
|
|
Figure 11‑4:
|
Plan view of local varying anisotropy assigned to block model in domain 1212
|
11-6
|
|
Figure 11‑5:
|
Plan and section views showing bock model and drillhole gold grades
|
11-8
|
|
Figure 11‑6:
|
Swath plot of estimation domain 10261. Swath oriented from NW to SE.
|
11-9
|
|
Figure 11‑7:
|
Change of support checks on domains 1212 and 10261
|
11-9
|
|
Figure 12‑1:
|
Life-of-Mine Plan Outline
|
12-3
|
|
Figure 12‑2:
|
Mine Progression Layout Plan
|
12-4
|
|
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
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 1.0 |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
|
|
1.1
|
Introduction
|
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, Mr. John Key, RM SME, and Mr. Troy Christensen, 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, 2025.
Mineral reserves are reported for the Boston, Juno, North Foley, and Summit Flat open pits, which are exploiting the Wharf deposit. In addition to the aforementioned, mineral resources are also
reported for Green Mountain and Annie Creek open pits. Mining commenced in 1982, and mining operations were conducted at the American Eagle, Green Mountain, Golden Reward, and Portland Ridgeline pits.
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) (S-K 1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Illustrations, where specified in S-K 1300, 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 $200 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 have 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
test work; 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 test work; environmental, social, and permitting activities; and active mining operations.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
1.7
|
Drilling and Sampling
|
A total of 11,521 drill holes (2,948,342 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 7,960 drill holes (2,162,637 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.
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 2007–2025 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 t/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/t 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/t) 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/t Au.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 2025–mid-year 2025 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 2015–2025, 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 2009–2025. 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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.
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 above a grade of 0.012 oz/t. At grades below 0.012 oz/t
the recovery varies by grade. Life-of-mine (LOM) forecast recoveries include:
For ore greater than 0.012 oz/t:
| • |
Intermediate: 80.0%.
|
| • |
Lower Contact: 71.0%.
|
| • |
Porphyry: 80.5%.
|
For ore less than 0.012 oz/t:
|
Au Grade (oz/t)
|
Recovery (%)
|
|
<0.004
|
0
|
|
0.004-0.005
|
55
|
|
0.005-0.006
|
60
|
|
0.006-0.008
|
65
|
|
0.008-0.009
|
70
|
|
0.009-0.010
|
71.5
|
|
0.010-0.011
|
73
|
|
0.011-0.012
|
74
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
1.10
|
Mineral Resource Estimation
|
| 1.10.1 |
Estimation Methodology
|
The database closeout date for the estimate was November 15, 2025. 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 crosscut lithological units. A total of three
main structural domains were modeled resulting in sixteen 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. 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 sixteen 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 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.
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; and,
|
| • |
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$2,500/oz. The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
A breakeven cut-off grade of $16.12/t NSR was used for conceptual pit designs. Within that design, an incremental cut-off grade of $13.42/t NSR 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 $13.42/t NSR.
| 1.10.2 |
Mineral Resource Statement
|
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in S-K 1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources converted to mineral reserves. Estimates
are current as at December 31, 2025. 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.
Table 1‑1: Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x 1,000)
|
Gold Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
Gold Cut-off
Grades
($/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Measured
|
10,671
|
0.016
|
171
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
57,448
|
0.018
|
1,014
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Total Measured
and Indicated
|
68,119
|
0.017
|
1,185
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
Table 1‑2: Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x 1,000)
|
Gold Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
Gold Cut-off
Grades
($/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Inferred
|
80,338
|
0.019
|
1,487
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 1. |
The mineral resource estimates are current as at December 31, 2025, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (S-K 1300).
|
| 2. |
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ. The Qualified Person for the estimate is Mr. Troy Christensen, RM SME, a Coeur Mining 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$2,500/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of $13.42/t NSR; metallurgical recovery
assumption shown in section 2.9; royalty burden of US$112/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 27–50º; mining costs of $2.71/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.92/t rehandled, process costs of US$13.42/t processed (includes general
and administrative costs).
|
| 5. |
Recoveries vary by rock type and grade. Deadwood rock type has an 80% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Lower Contact rock type has a 71% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Porphyry rock type has an 80.5% recovery
above 0.012 oz/t Au. Grades below 0.012 oz/t Au have lower recoveries and vary between 55-74 % and no recovery below 0.004 oz/t
|
| 6. |
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, 2025. 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 5.1 million tons from the crusher is expected. Throughput rates were
established and proven over the more than forty years of operational history at the site.
The mining area consists of the Boston, Juno, North Foley, and Summit Flat pits. 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 $2,200/oz. was used for the economic shells.
Pit optimizations were completed using the Pseudoflow algorithm using Whittle software. Individual pits were phased by the Wharf Operations engineering staff using a design cut-off grade of
$16.12/st NSR 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
the toe, crest, and 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$2,200/oz for gold for the mineral reserve estimate. The QP considers this price to be reasonable.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
An operational cut-off grade of $13.42/t NSR was used to determine the material that is economically viable to mine.
The topography used for reserve estimation was an updated 2025 December 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 S-K 1300. 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, 2025.
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.
Table 1‑3: Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,200/oz gold price)
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x 1,000)
|
Gold Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
Gold Cut-off
Grades
($/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Proven
|
22,414
|
0.021
|
477
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Probable
|
38,280
|
0.020
|
773
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Total proven and
probable
|
60,694
|
0.021
|
1,250
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
Notes to accompany mineral reserve table:
| 1. |
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as at December 31, 2025, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR Part 229) (S-K 1300).
|
| 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$2,200/oz; reported above a gold cut-off grade of $13.42/t NSR; metallurgical recovery
assumption shown in section 2.9; royalty burden of US$112/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 27–50º; mining costs of $2.71/st mined, rehandle costs of US$1.92/t rehandled, process costs of US$13.42/t processed (includes general
and administrative costs).
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 4. |
Recoveries vary by rock type and grade. Deadwood rock type has an 80% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Lower Contact rock type has a 71% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Porphyry rock type has an 80.5% recovery
above 0.012 oz/t Au. Grades below 0.012 oz/t Au have lower recoveries and vary between 55-74 % and no recovery below 0.004 oz/t
|
| 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.
|
|
1.12
|
Mining Methods
|
The most recent geotechnical study was completed in 2021 by personnel from third-party consultants, RESPEC. Geotechnical reviews are currently under way to validate current geotechnical
parameters. 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 5,940 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 5,920 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.
The production plan assumes a twelve-year mine life to 2037, with residual leaching and reclamation happening beyond 2037.
Equipment is leased, and conventional to open pit operations. The fleet includes drills, dozers, wheel loaders, motor-graders, haul trucks, back- and track-hoes, water, oil, sand trucks and
snowplows.
The mine operations personnel requirement for the remaining LOM averages 265.
|
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 4.6–5.5 million tons
per year 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 85–95% 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, antiscalant, hydrogen peroxide, and lime.
The personnel requirements in the heap leach and process area for the LOM total 73.
|
1.14
|
Infrastructure
|
All infrastructure required to support operations is currently constructed and operational. However, infrastructure moves, such as the truck shop, will be required as mining progresses.
All infrastructure moves will happen within already permitted disturbance and will not require additional permitting. 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 leak 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.
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$2,200/oz Au;
|
| • |
Mineral resources:
|
| o |
US$2,500/oz Au;
|
The economic analysis uses a reverting price curve, which results in a forecast range of US$4,200/oz. for 2026 to US$3,100/oz. for the last year of operations in 2038, and for the closure
costs consolidated into 2039.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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, 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 surety bonds held by the state of South
Dakota include $73.9M of reclamation bonds, $0.84M of cyanide spill bonds, and $65M of post closure bonds for a total of approximately $140M in surety bonding.
| 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%.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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$63.6 M, capitalized drilling and development costs are US$57.2 M, for an overall capital cost estimate for the LOM of approximately
US$120.8 M (Table 1‑4).
Table 1‑4: LOM Capital Cost Estimate (US$)
|
Description
|
Unit
|
Total/Ave
|
|
Capex
|
||
|
Development Capex
|
$M
|
$19
|
|
Sustaining Capex
|
$M
|
$64
|
|
Exploration
|
$M
|
$38
|
|
Total Capex
|
$M
|
$121
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
|
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$1.6 B (Table 1‑5). The LOM mining cost is forecast at US$2.71/st mined, the process cost estimate is US$8.80/st crushed and the general and
administrative (G&A) cost estimate is US$4.61/st crushed.
Table 1‑5: LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate (US$)
|
Description
|
Unit
|
Total/Ave
|
|
Operating Costs
|
||
|
Mining Cost
|
$/t mined.
|
$2.71
|
|
Mining Cost Total
|
$M
|
$740
|
|
Processing Cost
|
$/t crushed
|
$8.10
|
|
Processing Cost Total
|
$M
|
$487
|
|
G&A
|
$/t crushed
|
$4.61
|
|
G&A Total
|
$M
|
$280
|
|
Selling Expense
|
$/oz
|
$6.2
|
|
Selling Expense Total
|
$M
|
$6.2
|
|
Management Fee
|
$M
|
$35
|
| Royalty |
$M |
$204.9
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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
| 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 2026 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 twelve years, with mining complete in 2037 and processing and gold production continuing to 2038. 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. While the active mining operation ceases in 2037, closure costs are estimated to 2083. For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2039 are included in the cash flow as
occurring in 2039.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 1.19.3 |
Economic Analysis
|
The Project’s NPV at 5% is US$902 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Table 1‑6: Cashflow Summary Table
|
Description
|
Unit
|
Total/Ave
|
|
Operating Metrics
|
||
|
Tons Mined
|
kst
|
272,882
|
|
Contained Au Mined
|
koz
|
1,243
|
|
Au Grade Mined
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
|
Recovery Au
|
%
|
79.8%
|
|
Tons Processed
|
oz/t
|
60,694
|
|
Au Grade Processed
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
|
Au Produced
|
koz
|
999
|
|
Operating Costs
|
||
|
Mining Cost
|
$/t $/t mined.
|
$2.71
|
|
Mining Cost Total
|
$M
|
$740
|
|
Processing Cost
|
$/t crushed
|
$8.10
|
|
Processing Cost Total
|
$M
|
$487
|
|
G&A
|
$/t crushed
|
$4.61
|
|
G&A Total
|
$M
|
$280
|
|
Selling Expense
|
$/oz
|
$6.24
|
|
Selling Expense Total
|
$M
|
$6.2
|
|
Management Fee
|
$M
|
$35
|
| Royalty |
$M |
$204.9
|
|
Closure/Reclamation
|
$M
|
$107
|
|
Capex
|
||
|
Development Capex
|
$M
|
$19
|
|
Sustaining Capex
|
$M
|
$64
|
|
Exploration
|
$M
|
$38
|
|
Cash Flow
|
||
|
EBITDA
|
$M
|
$1,643
|
|
FCF
|
$M
|
$1,101
|
|
Pre-Tax/After-Tax NPV 5%
|
$M
|
$1,170/$902
|
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
| 1.19.4 |
Sensitivity Analysis
|
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, capital costs and operating cost assumptions was evaluated using a range of 30% above and below the base case values. The
NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 1‑7, with the base case bolded. Recovery is not shown as the sensitivity to recovery mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
The Project is most sensitive to gold price, less sensitive to operating cost increases, and least sensitive to capital expenditure changes. The primary sensitivity is to
macroeconomic and other factors impacting gold pricing. Coeur typically ensures that production from the Wharf Operations is sold in the year that the doré is produced.
Table 1‑7: NPV Sensitivity Table (US$ M)
|
Parameter
|
-30%
|
-20%
|
-10%
|
-5%
|
0%
|
5%
|
10%
|
20%
|
30%
|
|
Metal Price ($M)
|
$317
|
$517
|
$711
|
$807
|
$902
|
$998
|
$1,093
|
$1,284
|
$1,474
|
|
Operating Cost ($M)
|
$1,156
|
$1,071
|
$987
|
$945
|
$902
|
$860
|
$817
|
$731
|
$640
|
|
Capital Cost ($M)
|
$929
|
$920
|
$911
|
$907
|
$902
|
$898
|
$893
|
$884
|
$875
|
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 5,940 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 5,920
ft elevation;
|
| • |
Coeur leases most of the earth-moving equipment used at the mine. Relationships with local dealers average 20 years. Current truck and loader fleet lease rates are under contract through 2026.
The new contract, beginning in 2027, is currently being negotiated. 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;
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
| • |
The current nitrate model was last completed in Q1 2025 and is updated regularly. The mine planning estimates will be used to update the nitrate model and permitting may be required based on the model
results.
|
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.
|
| • |
Stockpiling of material below current reserve cutoff but profitable at current gold prices. This material could be processed at the end of the mine life.
|
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 2.0 |
INTRODUCTION
|
|
2.1
|
Registrant
|
Mr. Christopher Pascoe, RM SME, Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, Mr. John Key, RM SME, and Mr. Troy Christensen, 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 and mineral reserve estimates, for the Wharf Operations in Coeur’s Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2025.
| 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.
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) (S-K 1300) of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Illustrations,
where specified in S-K 1300, are provided in the relevant Chapters of report where that content is requested. The Report uses US English.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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, Vice President, Technical Services; Coeur
|
| • |
Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, Operations Manager; Wharf Resources
|
| • |
Mr. Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, Chief Geologist; Wharf Resources
|
| • |
Mr. John Key, RM SME, Process Operations Manager; Wharf Resources
|
| • |
Mr. Troy Christensen, RM SME, Manager, Mineral Resources, Technical Services; Coeur
|
The QPs are responsible for, or co-responsible for, the Report Chapters set out in Table 2‑1.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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; 11.10, 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. Kenan Sarratt
|
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, 1.20, 1.22; 2; 5; 6; 7.1, 7.2; 8; 9; 11.2, 11.3; 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 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
|
||
|
Mr. Troy Christensen
|
11.1, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.11, 11.12
|
|
2.4
|
Site Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection
|
Mr. Pascoe’s most recent site visit was November 19, 2025. He had previously visited the site on multiple occasions from 2015 to 2025. 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.
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.
Mr. Christensen’s most recent site visit was April 14, 2025. The site visit served as his initial introduction to the operation. During the visit, a comprehensive review of the
drilling, geologic modeling, and past resource estimations was undertaken whilst also ground-truthing several pit wall exposures.
|
2.5
|
Report Date
|
Information in the Report is current as at December 31, 2025.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
The Report updates the technical report summary filed by Coeur on February 16, 2022, current as of December 31, 2021 (Pascoe et al., 2022).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 3.0 |
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
|
|
3.1
|
Property Location
|
The Wharf Operations (Figure 3‑1) 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 30 each year.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 3‑1:
|
Mineral Tenure Location Plan
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 $200 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 3‑2:
|
Property Agreements Location Plan
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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."
|
| 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 eight hundred 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.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 amended,
which extended the expiration to the year 2028. 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 3‑3:
|
Claims Subject To Royalties
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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, $100,000.
| 3.7.5 |
Kunz Royalty
|
Under a December 31, 1990 Contract for Deed, James A. Kunz and Marjorie L. Kunz reserved a 5% production royalty on all gold recovered from two patented lode claims, the Wm. B.
Allison and Summit Flat (USMS #1516), which encompass 28.07 acres. This production royalty also encumbers the Precambrian Mineral Estate.
| 3.7.6 |
Mountain View Heights, Inc. Royalty
|
Under a January 19, 2011 Warranty Deed, Mountain View Heights, Inc. retained a production royalty of 1.5% on gold produced from the 5.46-acre Dark Horse (USMS #866) patented lode
claim. This production royalty also encumbers the Precambrian Mineral Estate.
| 3.7.7 |
Royal Gold, Inc. Royalty
|
Under five December 21, 1988 Quitclaim Deeds, one February 1, 1989 Quitclaim Deed, and two agreements dated November 1, 1994 and September 1, 1996, Royal Gold, Inc., the successor in
interest to Homestake, holds a sliding scale production royalty on the gross value of all gold in saleable form (Table 3‑4). This royalty encumbers most of the lands comprising the Wharf Group, together with a
small portion of the lands encompassing the Golden Reward Group and wholly excludes the Precambrian Mineral Estate (Table 3‑4).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
The severance tax paid to the State of South Dakota on the gross value of production is the only allowable deduction to this royalty.
|
Table 3‑4:
|
Royal Gold Royalty
|
|
Percentage of
Gross Value
(%)
|
Monthly Average London PM
Gold Fix
($ per ounce)
|
||
|
0
|
<350
|
||
|
0.5
|
350–399
|
||
|
1.0
|
400–499
|
||
|
2.0
|
>500
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 3‑4:
|
Claims Subject to Royal Gold Royalty
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Figure 3‑5: Claims Subject to Valentine Royalty
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 $400,000,000. The Credit Agreement matures in February 2027.
| 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.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
The Wharf permit area is approximately 2.0 miles west of Lead, Lawrence County, South Dakota. The permit area occupies approximately 1,980 acres in Townships (T) 4 and 5
North (N), Ranges (R) 2 and 3 East (E). Historically, the general area was part of an active underground mining district. The current principal land uses are mineral extraction, recreation, logging, and
residential development.
The area is roughly bounded by McKinley Gulch to the west, Labrador Gulch and False Bottom Creek to the north, Sugarloaf Mountain to the southeast, and Lost Camp Gulch and
Terry Peak to the south. The area lies at the head of several drainages, including False Bottom Creek, Deadwood Creek, Nevada Gulch, Annie Creek, Ross Creek, McKinley Gulch, Labrador Gulch, and Squaw
Creek. Elevations range from approximately 5,500 to 6,600 feet above sea level. Numerous occupied residences and a ski lodge are beyond the permit area, in the south-central portion of the wildlife survey
area.
The principal habitats in the area include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), white spruce (Picea glauca), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests. Pine and spruce
are the most prevalent native habitats in the area, whereas aspen habitat is less common.
Limited meadow and riparian habitats, as well as grassland reclamation and disturbed areas, are also present.
|
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 3 miles to the mine office.
|
4.3
|
Climate
|
The climate in the Wharf Operations area is classified as cold and semi-arid.
The 10 year average for annual precipitation at the Wharf Operations is 27.6 inches, and the average annual snowfall is 119 inches. Between 1999–2024, annual precipitation at the mine ranged from
14.64–41.96 inches. Precipitation data is referenced from the Lead weather station and in later years, the Wharf weather station.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Annual temperature averages indicate a median high of 55.3°F and a median low of 33.5°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.
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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):
| • |
Eleven 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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Figure 5‑1: Location Plan, Historical Open Pits
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
||||
|
2015–2025
|
Annual expansion and infill drilling. Updated Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve estimates.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 6.0 |
GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT
|
|
6.1
|
Deposit Type
|
The deposits in the Wharf Operations area are 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).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 6‑1:
|
Regional Geology Map
|
Compositions of igneous bodies in the dome area include rhyolite, alkali rhyolite, trachyte, quartz trachyte, and phonolite, as well as intrusive
breccias.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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)
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 6‑2:
|
Project Geology Plan |
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
|||||||
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 6‑3:
|
Stratigraphic Column
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur (2015) and modified after Loomis and Alexander (1990).
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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, 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).
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).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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).
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 6‑4:
|
Wharf Geology Cross-Section
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Note: Figure prepared by Pedraza (2018) and modified by Coeur, 2021
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 6‑5:
|
Wharf Geological and Mineralization Cross-Section
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2025.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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. A
drone-based magnetic and radiometric survey was conducted in 2025 over Wharf’s surface property.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 north of the Juno and Foley pits testing at depth and perpendicular to strike.
Near-mine locations have been evaluated with regards to metals pricing, production limitations, and socioeconomic factors. Near-mine areas include Two Johns to
the north, Summit Flat, deeper open pits at Annie Creek and property south west of past activity.
|
7.2
|
Drilling
|
| 7.2.1 |
Overview
|
A total of 11,521 drill holes (2,948,342 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 the drill holes shown on Figure 7‑1 were used in the variography and
exploratory data analysis for the resource model excluding drilling designated at Golden Reward. These data are a separate domain compared to the current resource area.
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; Boart Longyear in 2021; Major Drilling in 2024-2025.
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). Hytech Drilling completed the
core holes in 2024.
| 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).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
—
|
—
|
|
2022
|
49
|
24,350
|
||
|
2024
|
147
|
86,410
|
14
|
13,283
|
|
2025
|
171
|
123,300
|
||
|
Total
|
11,496
|
2,916,019
|
25
|
32,323
|
|
Table 7‑2:
|
Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates |
|
Number of RC Holes
|
RC Footage
(ft)
|
Number of Core Holes
|
Core Footage
(ft)
|
|
7,960
|
2,162,637 ft
|
11
|
19,040
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 7‑1:
|
Property Drill Collar Location Plan
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2026. Drill holes can plot outside current boundaries as permit areas have changed over time.
| 7.2.4 |
Recovery
|
Recovery is not recorded for RC. The recovery for the 2024 core drilling averages 95%.
| 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.
Historically, the collar coordinates were written on paper logs and input manually as actuals into a GEMS database.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 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
|
All drilling included in the resource have valid assays that have satisfied Coeur’s QA/QC standards. The close out date for the current resource was October 30,
2025.
| 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.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 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.
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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.
Ongoing geotechnical work is being conducted by RESPEC in 2025.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 pounds, with 90% of samples weighing between 5.4–28.1 pounds, 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. Drilling in 2024 saw a return to dry sampling through to early 2025 when difficult ground conditions and some formational water necessitated the switch back to wet sampling.
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 2015–2025, 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. Early campaigns had sample runs of holes recorded as core averaged 4.5 ft at the Wharf Operation.
Sample lengths on the newest core drilling was a minimum of 1 foot and maximum of 3 feet. All intervals sampled with half the core sent to assay the rest is
currently stored at site.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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. The LIMS system data is directly stored in acQuire for data validation and
integrity.
|
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.
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. Further in-house testing on all units was conducted on pit samples in 2022 and 2023. The current data set is comprised of more than 3,500 samples. From these data, the
densities are as follows:
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Lithology Unit Name
|
Density Value (t/ft3) | ||
|
•
|
Colluvium
|
0.0590
|
|
|
•
|
Biotite Phonolite Porphyry Intrusive
|
0.0765
|
|
|
•
|
Upper Phonolite Porphyry Intrusive
|
0.0772
|
|
|
•
|
Lower Phonolite Sill Intrusive
|
0.0772
|
|
|
•
|
Quartz Trachyte Dike Intrusive
|
0.0772
|
|
|
•
|
Quartz Trachyte Porphyry Intrusive
|
0.0772
|
|
|
•
|
Trachyte Porphyry Sills Intrusive
|
0.0766
|
|
|
•
|
Winnipeg Formation
|
0.0800
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Upper Sandstone
|
0.0721
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Glauconitic Sandstone
|
0.0716
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Upper Interbedded
|
0.0755
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Gray Shale
|
0.0800
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Lower Interbedded
|
0.0761
|
|
|
•
|
Deadwood Formation – Lower Sandstone
|
0.0773
|
|
|
•
|
Precambrian Basement
|
0.0781
|
|
|
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 to 2020. The laboratory is accredited under
ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for selected analytical techniques and is independent of Coeur.
Primary assaying was completed with Bureau Veritas in 2024-2025 with external checks completed with ALS.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
|
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/t Au. From 2007–2014, the over limit trigger was 0.008 oz/t 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/t) in 2015, and for all samples with gold fire assays above 0.006 oz/t in 2016. Over-limit gold
fire analyses were completed with gravimetric finish above a trigger of 0.292 oz/t 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/t 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/t) 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/t Au.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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/t 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/t 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.
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/t 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/t 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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/t 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 2015–2025 QA/QC data indicated no significant biases or contamination in the reviewed data.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 2015–2025, 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 for resource modelling efforts.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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:
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| • |
Imported and conducted QA/QC on all assay data from 2015–2025,
|
| • |
Quarterly QA/QC reports of gold assay data from 2015–2025,
|
| • |
Logged all geologic data from 2015, 2017, and 2018,
|
| • |
Conducted a 10–20% check of geologic logs from 2016 and 2025,
|
| • |
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, and
|
| • |
Working at the Wharf Operations from 2009–2025.
|
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Table 10‑2 includes pads from a period 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 levels. Lime is added to the crushed ore that is placed on the leach pad
to control pH levels. 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 levels. 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 10‑1:
|
Forecast Metallurgical Recovery Estimates |
|
Ore Type > 0.012
oz/t Au
|
% Gold Recovery
|
|
|
Intermediate
|
80.0
|
|
|
Lower Contact
|
71.0
|
|
|
Porphyry
|
80.5
|
|
|
Ore Type < 0.012 oz/t Au
|
||
|
Head Grade (oz/t
Au)
|
Recovery %
|
|
|
< 0.004
|
0.0
|
|
|
0.004 - 0.005
|
55.0
|
|
|
0.005 - 0.006
|
60.0
|
|
|
0.006 - 0.008
|
65.0
|
|
|
0.008 - 0.009
|
70.0
|
|
|
0.009 - 0.010
|
72.0
|
|
|
0.010 - 0.011
|
73.0
|
|
|
0.011 - 0.012
|
74.0
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 11.0 |
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
|
|
11.1
|
Introduction
|
The year-end 2025 mineral resource estimate for the Wharf gold mine represents a significant advancement over the previously reported 2021 model,
reflecting extensive new drilling, enhanced geological and structural modeling, and the implementation of local varying anisotropy (LVA) to improve mine-to-mill reconciliation. The
updated estimate is compliant with S-K 1300 reporting standards and is effective as of December 31, 2025.
|
11.2
|
Database and Data Quality
|
The mineral resource estimate is supported by a comprehensive drillhole database, which includes primarily reverse circulation (RC) drilling, and the
more recent addition of core drilling. The model incorporates 7,960 drillholes for 2,162,637 ft of drilling, and 217,625 assays within the model extents. The global average gold grade
within mineral resource domains is 0.012 oz/ton. In the last few years, the largest increases in data density focused on the Juno and Folley areas.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols are rigorously applied, including immediate site-level review of assay results, database audits,
and periodic external reviews. Collar and downhole survey data are validated by both digital and empirical methods. The database has undergone several large-scale audits, and only data
passing QA/QC are included in the estimate.
|
11.3
|
Geological and Mineral Resource Domains
|
The mineral resource model is based on a modernized litho-structural interpretation, constructed in Leapfrog Geo (version 2025.1.1) and validated
through multiple peer reviews. Eight estimation domains were defined, reflecting grouped lithologies defined by contact plots and geological interpretation, and improved structural
controls, particularly in the upper mineralized horizons (Figure 11‑1). This approach departs from the previous use of discrete structural domains, instead allowing for more
geologically realistic boundaries and improved grade interpolation across lithologic units along modeled sub-vertical fractures. Final domain wireframes were exported from Leapfrog Geo
and validated in Vulcan for closure and consistency.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 11‑1:
|
Modeled stratigraphy and grouped mineral resource domains
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
11.4
|
Density Assignment
|
Bulk density values are assigned by lithology, derived from hand samples collected from the pit, analyzed using the water dispersion method with wax (Figure
11‑2 and Table 11‑1). The average density is applied by lithology, following the removal of outliers. The average densities applied are consistent with previous models, with differences
generally less than 1%.
|
Figure 11‑2:
|
Bulk density box plot by lithology. Values in t/ft3.
|
|
Table 11‑1:
|
Assigned density values by lithology.
|
|
Lithology
|
Model Code
|
Applied Density Value (st/ ft3)
|
|
|
Colluvium
|
999
|
0.0590
|
|
|
Biotite Phonolite Porphyry Intrusive
|
72
|
0.0765
|
|
|
Upper Phonolite Porphyry Intrusive
|
71
|
0.0772
|
|
|
Lower Phonolite Sill Intrusive
|
71
|
0.0772
|
|
|
Quartz Trachyte Dike Intrusive
|
12
|
0.0772
|
|
|
Quartz Trachyte Porphyry Intrusive
|
12
|
0.0772
|
|
|
Trachyte Porphyry Sills Intrusive
|
6
|
0.0766
|
|
|
Winnipeg Formation
|
16
|
0.0800*
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Upper Sandstone
|
2
|
0.0721
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Glauconitic Sandstone
|
1
|
0.0716
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Upper Interbedded
|
31
|
0.0755
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Gray Shale
|
4
|
0.0800
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Lower Interbedded
|
33
|
0.0761
|
|
|
Deadwood Formation – Lower Sandstone
|
102
|
0.0773
|
|
|
Precambrian Basement
|
11
|
0.0781
|
|
|
*Only 4 samples for Winnipeg Formation. The density value from the Gray Shale is used as proxy.
|
|||
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
11.5
|
Compositing and Grade Capping
|
Assay data are composited to 10-foot intervals (Table 11‑2), matching the dominant sample length and the vertical dimension of the selective mining unit
(SMU). Domains are treated as hard boundaries during compositing to preserve observed grade relationships. No grade capping has been applied in the mineral resource model, as statistical
analysis and reconciliation trends indicate that the upper tails of the grade distributions are stable, particularly in the main economic domains (1212 and 10261), and quarterly
reconciliation usually shows slightly more gold than estimated (meaning the model tends to under-estimate metal). Instead of hard capping, local estimation parameters, such as high-yield
limited radii restrictions, are used to control grade smearing where necessary.
|
Table 11‑2:
|
Composite and capping summary statistics.
|
|
Domain
|
Database
Variable
|
Sample
Count
|
Mean
(oz/ton)
|
CV
|
Min
(oz/ton)
|
Max
(oz/ton)
|
Cap
Level
(oz/ton)
|
Avg.
Length
(ft)
|
|||||||
|
999
|
Au
|
95
|
0.0143
|
1.42
|
0.0001
|
0.106
|
NONE.
|
3.53
|
|||||||
|
16
|
Au
|
2,004
|
0.0031
|
2.02
|
0.0001
|
0.109
|
NONE.
|
8.84
|
|||||||
|
1212
|
Au
|
119,650
|
0.0132
|
2.56
|
0.0001
|
4.116
|
NONE.
|
9.94
|
|||||||
|
71
|
Au
|
6,849
|
0.0028
|
3.02
|
0.0001
|
0.255
|
NONE.
|
9.63
|
|||||||
|
4
|
Au
|
22,404
|
0.0055
|
3.08
|
0.0001
|
0.780
|
NONE.
|
9.87
|
|||||||
|
33
|
Au
|
5,749
|
0.0124
|
2.26
|
0.0001
|
0.534
|
NONE.
|
9.16
|
|||||||
|
10261
|
Au
|
47,656
|
0.0143
|
1.66
|
0.0001
|
2.057
|
NONE.
|
9.95
|
|||||||
|
11
|
Au
|
10,230
|
0.0094
|
2.86
|
0.0001
|
1.922
|
NONE.
|
9.83
|
|||||||
|
All
|
Au
|
214,637
|
0.0120
|
2.44
|
0.0001
|
4.116
|
NONE.
|
9.89
|
|
11.6
|
Variography
|
Wharf shows strong zonal anisotropy due to high-grade zones controlled by narrow, discrete sub-vertical fracture structures trending southwest–northeast,
with a secondary set oriented more north–south. Variography was conducted using uncapped gold composites, with major directions aligned to the dominant southwest-northeast structural
trends.
Experimental variograms were modeled in Datamine Supervisor for all principal domains, with particular emphasis on domains 1212 and 10261 (Figure 11‑3).
Three-structure models (one exponential and two spherical) were typically used to achieve best fit. Variogram parameters were translated for use in Vulcan and validated against both
exploration and blast hole data.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 11‑3:
|
Correlogram models for domains 1212 and 10261.
|
|
11.7
|
Estimation Methodology
|
The estimation methodology for the estimate focused on maintaining consistency with previous models, particularly the well-validated 2023 estimate, while
introducing targeted improvements. Most parameters were kept the same to ensure continuity and reliability, but enhancements were made by incorporating additional drillhole data and
refining the structural and domain wireframes. This approach ensures that the model benefits from both historical robustness and new geological insights.
The Wharf block model is constructed in Maptek Vulcan using a regularized, unrotated grid (25 ft x 25 ft x 10 ft blocks) in mine grid space. Ordinary
kriging (OK) is the primary interpolation method, with parallel inverse distance weighted to the power of 2 (ID2) and nearest neighbor (NN) estimates run for validation. The model
incorporates local varying anisotropy, with local orientation parameters derived from fracture surface modeling and applied to each block during estimation.
Figure 11‑4 presents a plan view slice approximately 10 ft thick, illustrating blocks and fracture surfaces within domain 1212. Several search ellipse
orientations are shown for randomly selected blocks. The blocks also include anisotropy vectors, representing the assigned anisotropic orientation determined by each block’s proximity to
the fracture surfaces.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 11‑4:
|
Plan view of local varying anisotropy assigned to block model in domain 1212
|
The estimation process involves two passes: the first without grade restrictions, and the second with a larger search ellipse and tighter grade controls
to minimize grade smearing. Both passes use consistent discretization and sampling parameters. Additional validation steps include calculating average distances from blocks to drillholes
for classification purposes and running separate ID2 estimates on production blasthole data. Table 11‑3 shows the estimation parameters per estimation domain.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 11‑3:
|
Gold grade estimation parameters
|
|
Domain
|
Min Samples/Max
Samples/Samples
per Drillhole
|
Restriction
Threshold
(oz/ton Au)
|
Search Ellipse
|
|||||
|
Variable
Bearing
Orientation
|
Bearing
Distance
(ft)
|
Plunge
Orientation
(º)
|
Plunge
Distance
(ft)
|
Dip
Orientation
(º)
|
Dip
Distance
(ft)
|
|||
|
PASS 1
|
||||||||
|
999
|
2/4/1
|
N/A
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
16
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
1212
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
71
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
4
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
33
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
100
|
|
10261
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
100
|
|
11
|
2/4/1
|
None
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
40
|
-10.0
|
120
|
|
PASS 2
|
||||||||
|
999
|
2/4/1
|
N/A
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
16
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
1212
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
71
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
4
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
33
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
200
|
-10.0
|
100
|
|
10261
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
200
|
-10.0
|
100
|
|
11
|
2/4/1
|
0.06
|
LVA Bearing
|
250
|
0.0
|
100
|
-10.0
|
150
|
|
11.8
|
Model Validation
|
Model validation includes visual checks (sectional and plan views), statistical comparisons (swath plots, change of support), and reconciliation with
historical production. Multiple interpolation methods are compared to ensure consistency and to identify any local or global bias. The model validations confirms the robustness of the
estimate.
Figure 11‑5 shows a plan view and sectional view displaying good correlation between gold grades in the drillhole composites and OK estimated gold
grades in the block model. Figure 11‑6 shows a swath plot oriented from NW to SE displaying the expected correlation between the OK estimated model, the NN model, and the clustered and
declustered composites in domain 10261. Figure 11‑7 shows the quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot of the OK estimated blocks compared to the change of support discrete Gaussian model (DGM)
corrected diffusion model of NN blocks. The OK model has a grade distribution that correlates very well with the change of support expected distribution without a bias.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 11‑5:
|
Plan and section views showing bock model and drillhole gold grades
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 11‑6:
|
Swath plot of estimation domain 10261. Swath oriented from NW to SE.
|
|
Figure 11‑7:
|
Change of support checks on domains 1212 and 10261
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
11.9
|
Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate
|
| 11.9.1 |
Mineral Resource Confidence Classification
|
Mineral resource classification follows a multi-step process, initially assigning confidence categories (measured, indicated, inferred) based on average
distance to nearest samples and domain-specific criteria. Smoothing and shell construction are applied in AR2GEMS and Leapfrog to ensure spatial coherence and minimize isolated blocks.
Final classification is written to the model and visualized for consistency.
| • |
Measured: ≤40 ft to 2 nearest samples (avg. distance)
|
| • |
Indicated: 40–80 ft to 2 nearest samples (avg. distance)
|
| • |
Inferred: 80–200 ft to nearest sample (avg. distance)
|
| 11.9.2 |
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.
|
11.10
|
Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction
|
| 11.10.1 |
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 11‑4.
Pit optimizations were completed using the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm in Whittle software.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Table 11‑4: Constraining Pit Shell Assumptions
| Mining Cost |
Process Cost |
||||||
|
Drilling
|
US$0.26/t mined
|
||||||
|
Blasting
|
US$0.26/t mined
|
Crushing
|
US$2.71/t processed
|
||||
|
Dozing
|
US$0.17/t mined
|
Pad load
|
US$0.91/t processed
|
||||
|
*Hauling(waste)
|
US$0.97/t mined
|
Unload
|
US$1.34/t processed
|
||||
|
Loading
|
US$0.37/t mined
|
Process
|
US$3.14/t processed
|
||||
|
Roads & yards
|
US$0.20/t mined
|
G&A
|
US$4.61/t processed
|
||||
|
General mining
|
US$0.24/t mined
|
||||||
|
Total Mining
|
US$2.71/t mined
|
Wharf Total Process
|
US$13.42/t processed
|
||||
|
Rehandle cost
|
US$1.92/t rehandled
|
Metallurgical recovery
|
78.7%
|
||||
|
Cut-off grade (NSR $/t)
|
US$13.42/t
|
||||||
|
Selling price (Au/oz)
|
US$2,500
|
||||||
|
Burden
|
|||||||
|
Royalty (Au/oz)
|
US$112.00
|
||||||
|
Pit slopes by rock type
|
|||||||
|
Deadwood Formation
|
45°
|
||||||
|
Porphyry
|
50°
|
||||||
|
Fill
|
27°
|
||||||
| 11.10.2 |
Commodity Price
|
The gold price used in for mineral 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 resources estimates. The gold price
forecast for the mineral resource estimate is US$2,500/oz. The QP reviewed the forecasts as outlined in Chapter 16.
| 11.10.3 |
Cut-off
|
The mineral resources are reported using a cut-off of US$13.42/t NSR. The cut-off is based on the total process cost. The processing costs are
calculated by averaging the 2025 actuals with the projected 2026 through 2028 budgeted costs. The following parameters were used to calculate the NSR cut-off grade for resource.
| • |
Gold price US$2,500/oz
|
| • |
Process recovery 78%
|
| • |
Crushing cost US$2.71/t
|
| • |
Pad load cost US$0.91/t
|
| • |
Pad unload cost US$1.34/t
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| • |
Process cost US$3.14/t
|
| • |
G&A cost US$4.61/t
|
| • |
Sustaining capital cost US$0.71/t
|
| • |
(US$2.71/t + US$0.91/t + US$1.34/t + US$3.14/t + US$4.61/t + US$0.71/t = US$13.42/t
|
| 11.10.4 |
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.
|
11.11
|
Mineral Resource Statement
|
Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in S-K 1300 and are reported exclusive of those mineral resources
converted to mineral reserves. The mineral resources are current as at December 31, 2025. 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. Estimates are reported on a 100%
ownership basis.
The Qualified Persons for the mineral resource estimate are Troy Christensen, RM SME, a Coeur Mining corporate employee, and Kenan Sarratt, RM SME, a
Wharf Resources employee.
|
11.12
|
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 cut-off value,
|
| • |
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, and
|
| • |
Changes to the input and design parameter assumptions that pertain to the assumptions for the conceptual pit shell constraining the estimates.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| • |
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.
|
|
Table 11‑5:
|
Summary of Gold Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x 1,000)
|
Gold Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
NSR Cut-off
Grades
(US$/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Measured
|
10,671
|
0.016
|
171
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Indicated
|
57,448
|
0.018
|
1,014
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Total Measured and Indicated
|
68,119
|
0.017
|
1,185
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
|
Table 11‑6:
|
Summary of Gold Inferred Mineral Resources at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,500/oz gold price)
|
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x 1,000)
|
Gold Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
NSR Cut-off
Grades
(US$/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Inferred
|
80,337
|
0.019
|
1,487
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
Notes to accompany mineral resource tables:
| 1. |
The mineral resource estimates are current as of December 31, 2025 and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR
Part 229) (S-K 1300).
|
| 2. |
The reference point for the mineral resource estimate is in situ. The Qualified Persons for the estimate are Troy Christensen, RM SME, a Coeur
Mining 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$2,500/oz; reported above a
cut-off grade of US$13.42/t NSR; royalty burden of US$112/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 27–50º; mining costs of $2.707/t mined, rehandle costs of US$1.92/t
rehandled, and process costs of US$13.418/t processed (includes general and administrative costs).
|
| 5. |
Recoveries vary by rock type and grade. Deadwood rock type has an 80% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Lower Contact rock type has a 71% recovery
above 0.012 oz/t Au. Porphyry rock type has an 80.5% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Grades below 0.012 oz/t Au have lower recoveries and vary between 55-74 % and no recovery
below 0.004 oz/t.:
|
| 6. |
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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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, 2025. 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 5.1 million tons from the crusher is expected.
Throughput rates were established and proven over the more than 40 years of operational history at the site.
The Wharf mining area contains Boston, Juno, North Foley, and Summit Flat pits. 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 US$2,200/oz. was used for the economic shells.
|
12.3
|
Designs
|
Pit optimizations were completed using the Pseudoflow 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
increases. If the pits are mined in order, they will generate the maximum value.
The nested pits generated from the Whittle software are brought into Deswik 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
27
|
||||
|
Catch bench (ft.)
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
||||
|
Slope (degrees)
|
45
|
50
|
22
|
||||
| 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 US$16.12/t NSR was used to determine the material that is economically viable to mine. The ultimate pit design was generated using an operational cut-off
grade of US$13.42/t NSR.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 12‑1:
|
Life-of-Mine Plan Outline
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 12‑2:
|
Mine Progression Layout Plan
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
The calculated design cut-off (NSR) is based on the following equation:
| • |
Processing Cost per ton + G&A Cost per ton + Sustaining Capital cost per ton
|
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 US$13.42/t NSR. The material above US$13.42/t NSR is sent to the leach pad for processing.
The material below US$13.42/t NSR is sent to the WRSF. The mining cost is the same for ore and waste. The reserves are reported above the operational cut-off of US$13.42/t NSR.
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 2025 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 t/ft3;
|
| o |
Porphyry: 0.0769 t/ft3;
|
| o |
Deadwood Formation: 0.0714 t/ft3;
|
| • |
Stockpile: 0.0591 t/ft3.
|
In situ moisture averages 5% and stockpile material averages 5%.
Mineral reserve tonnages are reported as dry bank tons.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 12‑3:
|
Mineral Reserves Pit Shell Input Parameters
|
| Mining Cost | Process Cost | ||||||
|
Drilling
|
US$0.26/t mined
|
||||||
|
Blasting
|
US$0.26/t mined
|
Crushing
|
US$2.71/t processed
|
||||
|
Dozing
|
US$0.17/t mined
|
Pad load
|
US$0.91/t processed
|
||||
|
*Hauling(waste)
|
US$0.97/t mined
|
Unload
|
US$1.34/t processed
|
||||
|
Loading
|
US$0.37/t mined
|
Process
|
US$3.14/t processed
|
||||
|
Roads & yards
|
US$0.20/t mined
|
G&A
|
$US4.61/t processed
|
||||
|
General mining
|
US$0.24/t mined
|
||||||
|
Total Mining
|
US$2.71/t mined
|
Wharf Total Process
|
US$13.42/t processed
|
||||
|
Rehandle cost
|
US$1.92/t rehandled
|
||||||
|
Cut-off grade (NSR $/t)
|
US$13.418/t
|
||||||
|
Selling price (Au/oz)
|
US$2,200
|
||||||
|
Burden
|
|||||||
|
Royalty (Au/oz)
|
US$112.00
|
||||||
|
Pit slopes by rock type
|
|||||||
|
Deadwood Formation
|
45°
|
||||||
|
Porphyry
|
50°
|
||||||
|
Fill
|
27°
|
||||||
|
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 period used is the eight-year LOM that supports the mineral reserves estimates. The gold price forecast for the
mineral reserve estimate is US$2,200/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 S-K 1300. 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, 2025. The Qualified Person for the
estimate is Mr. Tony Auld, RM SME, a Wharf Resources employee.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 12‑4:
|
Summary of Gold Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves at December 31, 2025 (based on US$2,200/oz gold price)
|
|
Confidence
Category
|
Tons
(t x
1,000)
|
Gold
Grade
(oz/t)
|
Contained Gold
Ounces
(oz x 1,000)
|
Gold Cut-off
Grades
($/t)
|
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
|
||||||
|
Proven
|
22,414
|
0.021
|
477
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Probable
|
38,280
|
0.020
|
773
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
||||||
|
Total proven and probable
|
60,694
|
0.021
|
1,250
|
13.42
|
55-80.5
|
Notes to accompany mineral reserve table:
| 1. |
The Mineral Reserve estimates are current as at December 31, 2025, and are reported using the definitions in Item 1300 of Regulation S–K (17 CFR
Part 229) (S-K 1300).
|
| 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$2,200/oz; reported above a
gold cut-off grade of $13.42/t NSR; metallurgical recovery assumption shown in section 2.9; royalty burden of US$112/oz Au; pit slope angles that vary from 27–50º; mining
costs of US$2.71/t mined, rehandle costs of US$1.92/t rehandled, process costs of US$13.42/t processed (includes general and administrative costs).
|
| 4. |
Recoveries vary by rock type and grade. Deadwood rock type has an 80% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Lower Contact rock type has a 71% recovery
above 0.012 oz/t Au. Porphyry rock type has an 80.5% recovery above 0.012 oz/t Au. Grades below 0.012 oz/t Au have lower recoveries and vary between 55-74 % and no recovery
below 0.004 oz/t
|
| 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.
|
|
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;
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 2026 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 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 the entire mineral reserve.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
Ongoing geotechnical work is being conducted by RESPEC in 2025.
|
13.3
|
Hydrogeological Considerations
|
Water infiltration near the 5,940 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 5,920 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. All the planned mining falls within the permitted disturbance area.
Coeur leases nearly all the earth-moving equipment used at the mine. Relationships with local dealers span over 20 years, and the earthmoving
equipment is under contract through 2026. A new contract begins in 2027 and is currently in negotiations.
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 emulsion as the primary blasting agent with options to use
ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) in dry 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 Maptek Vulcan 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 13‑1:
|
Forecast LOM Production Schedule
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
||
|
Operating
|
||||||||||||||
|
Ore Tons Mined
|
kt
|
60,325
|
4,956
|
3,995
|
4,637
|
6,086
|
4,609
|
7,881
|
5,822
|
7,319
|
3,031
|
7,156
|
2,792
|
2,040
|
|
Contained Au Mined
|
koz
|
1,243
|
150
|
136
|
129
|
107
|
90
|
155
|
108
|
124
|
38
|
130
|
47
|
28
|
|
Au Grade Mined
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
0.030
|
0.034
|
0.028
|
0.018
|
0.020
|
0.020
|
0.019
|
0.017
|
0.012
|
0.018
|
0.017
|
0.014
|
|
Recovery Au
|
%
|
79.9%
|
78.0%
|
80.0%
|
78.1%
|
79.5%
|
80.4%
|
80.2%
|
80.6%
|
80.4%
|
80.4%
|
80.5%
|
80.5%
|
80.5%
|
|
Tons Crushed
|
t
|
60,694
|
4,973
|
4,600
|
4,600
|
5,000
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
3,022
|
|
Au Grade Processed
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
0.029
|
0.033
|
0.024
|
0.018
|
0.019
|
0.020
|
0.019
|
0.018
|
0.018
|
0.018
|
0.017
|
0.014
|
|
Au Produced
|
koz
|
999
|
85
|
121
|
87
|
73
|
85
|
87
|
84
|
79
|
80
|
80
|
75
|
62
|
|
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
|
3
|
||
|
Water truck
|
2
|
||
|
Oil/fuel truck
|
2
|
||
|
Sand truck
|
1
|
||
|
Snowplow
|
2
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 5.5 million tons per year 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 comprised of 85–95% 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 14‑1:
|
Crusher Flow Diagram
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 14‑2:
|
Leach Pad Flowsheet
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
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 t/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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 t/hr; however, rock type, moisture content, and weather conditions have a
significant impact on actual throughput. Average throughput is approximately 730 t/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 2025.
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.
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 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 85–95% 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.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 like 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.
During drought times, 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 Carbon Plant, Pond
5, Reliance holding pond, Ross Valley heat plant, Ross Valley holding pond, the Egg Pond, the Clean Water treatment plant, the Ross Valley treatment plant, and the False Bottom
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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, tertiary 3 deck, 1 in
|
||||
|
PN SFMOT-0.500-148-S00005, major wire, tertiary 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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 15.0 |
INFRASTRUCTURE
|
|
15.1
|
Introduction
|
All infrastructure required to support operations has been constructed and is operational. However, infrastructure moves, such as the truck
shop, will be required as mining progresses. All infrastructure moves will happen within already permitted disturbance and will not require additional permitting. 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, three 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 Mining Company operated the Golden Reward gold mine in the Black Hills of South Dakota and then the majority of the affected
acreage was reclaimed from 2002 until 2007. Approximately 396 of the 403 acres have been reclaimed and achieved post mining land use reclamation performance criteria.
On-site infrastructure at Golden Reward includes several monitoring wells, as well as a production well used to supply the Terry Peak Ski Area
with snow-making water, a lined pond used for snow making by the Terry Peak Ski Area, a maintenance shop building and an administration building all used by the Terry Peak Ski
Area.
|
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 right 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. Little maintenance is done to
the few existing roads on site because of the inactive status of the area.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 15‑1:
|
Infrastructure Layout Plan
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2025.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 15‑2:
|
Facilities Layout Plan
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2021.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Figure 15‑3:
|
Waste Rock and Spent Ore Facility Layout Plan
|
Note: Figure prepared by Coeur, 2025.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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. Wharf has kept this certification in all subsequent years. ICMI cyanide code re-certification was last attained in early
2025.
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.
|
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).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 210 million tons 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 and subsequent updates.
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(POP) 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 or extension to the loading limit if Coeur can demonstrate successful in-situ
denitrification or if modeling shows limits can be maintained within the POPs.
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 Q1 of 2025, which demonstrated adequate capacity for LOM projected spent ore and waste rock
within currently designed facilities.
|
15.7
|
Water Management
|
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 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 leak 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 Energy via a 12.47kV transmission line that runs up Nevada Gulch. The mine site,
excluding Annie Creek, is fed from the Trojan Sub Station.
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.
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 Energy, as needed. The secondary circuit is maintained by the
on-site electrical department.
There are three auxiliary generators used for the plant and site. Two generators are located at the process plant with one that feeds the plant
exclusively. The second generator at the plant and the third generator located at the neutralization building both back feed transformers to the rest of the mine site 12.47kV
line, excluding the crusher. One small generator is at the crusher that is setup only for lights, heaters, and pumps. Three generators are associated with the False Bottom
Plant facilities.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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, 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$2,200/oz Au.
|
| • |
Mineral resources:
|
| o |
US$2,500/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.
|
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 Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
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’ 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–$4.00/oz doré received by the refiner.
|
Table 16‑1:
|
Commodity Price Forecast Used in Cashflow Analysis
|
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030-LOM
|
|
|
Au Price (US$/oz)
|
$4,200
|
$4,000
|
$3,800
|
$3,600
|
$3,100
|
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.
|
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 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$2,200/oz Au price is a reasonable forecast for the twelve-year mine life envisaged in the mine plan. The US$2,500/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 twelve-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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 state of South Dakota currently holds approximately $139M associated with surety and post closure bonds for Wharf.
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 $0.44 M.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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. Most of the 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 forty 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 total LOM capital cost estimate is $120.8 M, which consists of US$63.58 M for sustaining capital purchases, US$19.4 M
for development capital, and $37.85 M for infill drilling programs (Table 18‑1).
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 18‑1:
|
LOM Capital Cost Estimate
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
||
|
Capex
|
||||||||||||
|
Development Capex
|
$m
|
$19.4
|
$4.0
|
$1.3
|
$3.5
|
$4.0
|
$4.2
|
$2.3
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
Sustaining Capex
|
$m
|
$63.6
|
$25.1
|
$8.9
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$1.5
|
|
Infill Exploration
|
$m
|
$37.8
|
$8.9
|
$2.2
|
$4.4
|
$2.0
|
$7.8
|
$4.0
|
$8.5
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
Total Capex
|
$m
|
120.8
|
38.1
|
12.5
|
12.4
|
10.5
|
16.5
|
10.8
|
12.5
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
1.5
|
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 forty 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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| • |
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 G&A cost estimates are provided in 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.
|
Table 18 ‑2
|
Mining Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Mining Cost
|
$M
|
$739.5
|
$52.3
|
$55.9
|
$64.0
|
$66.0
|
$60.1
|
$56.7
|
$60.3
|
$67.2
|
$52.2
|
$63.4
|
$75.0
|
$66.5
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 18‑3:
|
Process Plant Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
||
|
Operating
Costs
|
||||||||||||||
|
Processing
Cost
|
$M
|
$487.1
|
$47.2
|
$37.3
|
$37.3
|
$40.5
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$37.1
|
$20.4
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
Table 18‑4:
|
G&A Operating Cost Estimate ($US)
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
|||
|
G&A
(On-site)
|
$M
|
$280.0
|
$22.9
|
$21.2
|
$21.2
|
$23.1
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$13.9
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
| 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. 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 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 to match the expenditure with future extraction of ore.
Warehouse costs are minimal as most 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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, and soil testing which are not part of the reclamation and closure cost functions.
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 are 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
|
|
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 S-K 1300. 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, 2025.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 18‑5:
|
General and Administrative Operating Costs
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
|||
|
G&A (On-site)
|
$M
|
$280.0
|
$22.9
|
$21.2
|
$21.2
|
$23.1
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$13.9
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
Table 18‑6:
|
LOM Operating Cost Estimate
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
|||
|
Operating Costs
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Mining Cost
|
$M
|
$739.5
|
$52.3
|
$55.9
|
$64.0
|
$66.0
|
$60.1
|
$56.7
|
$60.3
|
$67.2
|
$52.2
|
$63.4
|
$75.0
|
$66.5
|
|
|
Processing Cost
|
$M
|
$487.1
|
$47.2
|
$37.3
|
$37.3
|
$40.5
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$37.1
|
$20.4
|
|
|
G&A (On-site)
|
$M
|
$280.0
|
$22.9
|
$21.2
|
$21.2
|
$23.1
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$13.9
|
|
|
Selling Expense
|
$M
|
$35.3
|
$0.5
|
$0.8
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.4
|
|
|
Management Fee
|
$M
|
$6.2
|
$2.7
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
|
|
Expensed Exploration
|
$M
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
|
Other
|
$M
|
$12.5
|
$1.1
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
|
|
Total Operating Costs
|
$M
|
1,560.6
|
126.8
|
119.1
|
127.1
|
134.0
|
134.6
|
131.1
|
134.7
|
141.6
|
126.6
|
137.8
|
142.0
|
105.2
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 18‑7:
|
LOM Total Operating Cost Estimate (US$)
|
|
Description
|
Unit
|
Total/Ave
|
|
Operating Costs
|
||
|
Mining Cost
|
$/t mined.
|
$2.71
|
|
Mining Cost Total
|
$M
|
$740
|
|
Processing Cost
|
$/t crushed
|
$8.10
|
|
Processing Cost Total
|
$M
|
$487
|
|
G&A
|
$/t crushed
|
$4.61
|
|
G&A Total
|
$M
|
$280
|
|
Selling Expense
|
$/oz
|
$6.24
|
|
Selling Expense Total
|
$M
|
$6.2
|
|
Management Fee
|
$M
|
$35
|
| Royalty |
$M | $204.9 |
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 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 2026 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 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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 twelve years with mining complete in late 2037 and processing and gold production continuing to December
2038.
| 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 and 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 2026 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.
| 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Net profits severance tax rates are 10%, royalty tax rates are 8% and production taxes are US$8/oz Au sold. Coeur Mining, Inc. pays a 21% federal
income tax.
The tax rates used are set by governmental agencies and the Wharf Operations remain in compliance. Severance and federal income taxes are the largest
tax component.
| 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 $902 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 2037; however, closure costs are estimated through 2083. For the purposes of the financial model, all costs
incurred beyond 2038 are included in the cash flow in the year 2039.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Table 19‑1:
|
Cashflow Summary Table
|
|
Description
|
Unit
|
Total/Ave
|
|
|
Operating Metrics
|
|||
|
Total Tons Mined
|
mt
|
272,882
|
|
|
LOM
|
yrs
|
12
|
|
|
Strip Ratio
|
w :o
|
3.5 : 1
|
|
|
Contained Au Mined
|
koz
|
1,243
|
|
|
Au Grade Mined
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
|
|
LOM Tons Processed
|
mt
|
61
|
|
|
Recovery Au
|
%
|
79.8%
|
|
|
Au Grade Processed
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
|
|
LOM Au Produced
|
koz
|
999
|
|
|
Operating Costs
|
|||
|
Mining Cost
|
$/t mined.
|
$2.71
|
|
|
Processing Cost
|
$/t crushed
|
$8.10
|
|
|
G&A Cost
|
$/t crushed
|
$4.61
|
|
|
Selling Expense
|
US$/oz
|
$6.24
|
|
|
Management Fee
|
US$/yr.
|
$3
|
|
| Royalty |
$M | $204.9 | |
|
Closure/Reclamation
|
$M
|
$107
|
|
|
Capex
|
|||
|
Development Capex
|
$M
|
$19
|
|
|
Sustaining Capex
|
$M
|
$64
|
|
|
Exploration Capex
|
$M
|
$38
|
|
|
Total Capex
|
$M
|
$121
|
|
|
LOM Cash Flow
|
|||
|
EBITDA
|
$M
|
$1,643
|
|
|
FCF
|
$M
|
$1,101
|
|
|
NPV
|
|||
|
Pre-Tax/After-Tax NPV 5%
|
$M
|
$1,170/$902
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Table 19‑2: |
Cashflow Forecast on Annualized Basis
|
|
Total/Ave
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
2029
|
2030
|
2031
|
2032
|
2033
|
2034
|
2035
|
2036
|
2037
|
2038
|
2039
|
||||
|
Operating
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Tons Mined
|
kst
|
60,325
|
4,956
|
3,995
|
4,637
|
6,086
|
4,609
|
7,881
|
5,822
|
7,319
|
3,031
|
7,156
|
2,792
|
2,040
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Throughput
|
ktpd
|
13.9
|
13.8
|
12.7
|
12.7
|
13.9
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
15.2
|
8.4
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Contained Au Mined
|
koz
|
1,243
|
150
|
136
|
129
|
107
|
90
|
155
|
108
|
124
|
38
|
130
|
47
|
28
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Au Grade Mined
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
0.030
|
0.034
|
0.028
|
0.018
|
0.020
|
0.020
|
0.019
|
0.017
|
0.012
|
0.018
|
0.017
|
0.014
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Recovery Au
|
%
|
79.9%
|
78.0%
|
80.0%
|
78.1%
|
79.5%
|
80.4%
|
80.2%
|
80.6%
|
80.4%
|
80.4%
|
80.5%
|
80.5%
|
80.5%
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Tons Processed
|
kst
|
60,694
|
4,973
|
4,600
|
4,600
|
5,000
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
5,500
|
3,022
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Au Grade Processed
|
oz/t
|
0.021
|
0.029
|
0.033
|
0.024
|
0.018
|
0.019
|
0.020
|
0.019
|
0.018
|
0.018
|
0.018
|
0.017
|
0.014
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Au Produced
|
koz
|
999
|
85
|
121
|
87
|
73
|
85
|
87
|
84
|
79
|
80
|
80
|
75
|
62
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Operating Costs
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Mining Cost
|
$M
|
$739.5
|
$52.3
|
$55.9
|
$64.0
|
$66.0
|
$60.1
|
$56.7
|
$60.3
|
$67.2
|
$52.2
|
$63.4
|
$75.0
|
$66.5
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Processing Cost
|
$M
|
$487.1
|
$47.2
|
$37.3
|
$37.3
|
$40.5
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$44.6
|
$37.1
|
$20.4
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
G&A (On-site)
|
$M
|
$280.0
|
$22.9
|
$21.2
|
$21.2
|
$23.1
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$25.4
|
$13.9
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Selling Expense
|
$M
|
$6.2
|
$0.5
|
$0.8
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.5
|
$0.4
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Management Fee
|
$M
|
$35.3
|
$2.7
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Expensed Exploration
|
$M
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Other
|
$M
|
$12.5
|
$1.1
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
$1.0
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Total Operating Costs
|
$M
|
1,560.6
|
126.8
|
119.1
|
127.1
|
134.0
|
134.6
|
131.1
|
134.7
|
141.6
|
126.6
|
137.8
|
142.0
|
105.2
|
-
|
-
|
||
|
Capex
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Development Capex
|
$M
|
$19.4
|
$4.0
|
$1.3
|
$3.5
|
$4.0
|
$4.2
|
$2.3
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Sustaining Capex
|
$M
|
$63.6
|
$25.1
|
$8.9
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.5
|
$4.0
|
$3.0
|
$3.0
|
$1.5
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Infill Exploration
|
$M
|
$37.8
|
$8.9
|
$2.2
|
$4.4
|
$2.0
|
$7.8
|
$4.0
|
$8.5
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
||
|
Total Capex
|
$M
|
120.8
|
38.1
|
12.5
|
12.4
|
10.5
|
16.5
|
10.8
|
12.5
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
1.5
|
||||||
|
Financial
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
EBITDA
|
$M
|
$1,643.3
|
$209.0
|
$338.6
|
$191.0
|
$116.0
|
$111.7
|
$120.3
|
$118.5
|
$89.3
|
$117.5
|
$97.7
|
$79.8
|
$82.5
|
($2.5)
|
($26.1)
|
||
|
FCF
|
$M
|
$1,101.3
|
$135.8
|
$239.9
|
$124.9
|
$80.7
|
$75.7
|
$86.5
|
$73.6
|
$69.7
|
$79.1
|
$74.3
|
$63.4
|
$59.5
|
($8.0)
|
($53.9)
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
19.5
|
Sensitivity Analysis
|
The sensitivity of the Project to changes in metal prices, grade, sustaining capital costs and operating cost assumptions was tested using a range
of 30% above and below the base case values. The NPV sensitivity to these parameters is illustrated in Table 19‑3, with the base case bolded. Recovery is not shown as the
sensitivity to recovery mirrors the sensitivity to metal price.
The Project is most sensitive to gold price, less sensitive to operating cost increases, and least sensitive to capital expenditure changes.
The Wharf Operations are not subject to exchange rates as the operation and customers are both residents of the United States.
The primary sensitivity is to the impact of macroeconomic conditions and other factors upon gold pricing. Coeur typically ensures that production
from the Wharf Operations is sold in the year that the doré is produced.
|
Table 19‑3:
|
Sensitivity Table (US$ M)
|
|
Parameter
|
-30%
|
-20%
|
-10%
|
-5%
|
0%
|
5%
|
10%
|
20%
|
30%
|
|
Metal Price
|
$317
|
$517
|
$711
|
$807
|
$902
|
$998
|
$1,093
|
$1,284
|
$1,474
|
|
Operating Cost
|
$1,156
|
$1,071
|
$987
|
$945
|
$902
|
$860
|
$817
|
$731
|
$640
|
|
Capital Cost
|
$929
|
$920
|
$911
|
$907
|
$902
|
$898
|
$893
|
$884
|
$875
|
Note: Numbers have been rounded
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
20.0
|
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
|
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
21.0
|
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
|
This Chapter is not relevant to this Report.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 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.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 2015–2025, logged all geologic data
from 2015, 2017, and 2018, and conducted a 10–20% check of geologic logs from 2016 and 2025. The QP worked at the Wharf Operations from 2009–2025.
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.
Metallurgical performance using laboratory testing suggests that recovery of gold varies by lithology and sizing of placed material. Forecast
recoveries range from 55–80.5%, depending on lithology and grade.
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 S-K 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, 2025. The
estimate was constrained using reasonable prospects of economic extraction that assumed open pit mining methods.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 S-K 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, 2025.
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, 2025. 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 5.1 million tons from the crusher is expected. Throughput rates were established and proven over the more than 40 years of
operational history at the site.
An operational cut-off grade of US$13.418/t NSR 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.
|
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 5,940 ft elevation has made drill and blast activities below this horizon challenging. Current mineral reserve
estimate includes material down to the 5,920 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 a twelve-year mine life to 2037.
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.
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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, 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, 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 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 is up to date. The surety bonds held by the state of South Dakota include $73.9M of reclamation bonds,
$0.84M of cyanide spill bonds, and $65M of post closure bonds for a total of approximately $140M in surety bonding
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$0.44 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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 40 years.
Costs remaining for the LOM are considered sustaining capital costs. The total LOM capital cost estimate is $120.8 M, which consists of US$63.58 M
for sustaining capital purchases, US$19.4 M for development capital, and $37.85 M for infill drilling programs.
|
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$1.6 B.
|
22.16
|
Economic Analysis
|
The mineral reserves support a mine life of twelve years with mining complete in 2037 and processing and gold production continuing in 2038.
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 2037; however, closure costs are estimated to 2083. For the purposes of the financial model, all costs incurred beyond 2039 are included in the cash
flow in 2039.
The NPV at 5% is US$902 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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.
|
| o |
Water infiltration near the 5,940-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 5,920 ft elevation.
|
| • |
Coeur leases most 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 2026. The new contract, beginning in 2027, is currently being negotiated. 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.
|
| • |
The current nitrate model was last completed in Q1 2025 and is updated regularly. The mine planning estimates will be used to update the nitrate model and permitting
may be required based on the model results.
|
|
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.
|
| • |
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.
|
| • |
Stockpiling of material below current reserve cutoff but profitable at current gold prices. This material could be processed at the end of the mine life.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
23.0
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
|
As the Wharf Operations is an operating mine, the QPs have no material recommendations to make.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
McDowell, F.W., 1971: K-Ar ages of Igneous Rocks From the Western United States: Isochron/West, v. 2, pp.
1–16.
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.
Pascoe, C., Auld, T., Chasten, L., Sarratt, K., Key, J., 2022: Wharf Operations, South Dakota, Technical
Report Summary. Report filed by Coeur Mining, Inc. Report current as at December 31, 2021, filed on February 16, 2022, 260 p..
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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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.
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
|
||
|
Mt/a
|
million US short 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/t
|
ounces per US short ton
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Abbreviation/Symbol | Definition | ||
|
t
|
ton, meaning US short ton,2,000 pounds
|
||
|
t/h
|
tons per hour
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
t/ft3
|
tons per cubic foot
|
|
24.3
|
Glossary of Terms
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
||
|
acid rock drainage/ acid mine drainage
|
Characterized by low pH, high sulfate, 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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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.
|
||
|
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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Term | Definition | ||
|
indicated mineral resource
|
An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or
quality are estimated based on 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 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 most 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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Term | Definition | ||
|
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.
|
||
|
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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| 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 equipment contained, 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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Term | Definition | ||
|
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.
|
||
|
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 each 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.
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
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, 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,
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 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,
• Regular inspection of
analytical and sample preparation facilities by appropriately experienced Coeur personnel, and
• 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.
|
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, and
• 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
• 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.
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
APPENDIX A
Claims in Lawrence County, South Dakota
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
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
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-030-05_1
|
Lot 2
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.36
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-030-05_2
|
Lot 3
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.13
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-030-05_3
|
Lot 4
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.03
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-030-05_4
|
Lot 5
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.08
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-040-06
|
Lot 6
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.03
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-360-00_1
|
Lot 10
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.77
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-360-00_2
|
Lot 22
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-360-00_3
|
Lot 23
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26280-00402-040-00
|
Tract 4 of MS 1704
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1
|
Wharf
|
1.61%
|
Valentine, et al
|
1.00%
|
Metalla Royalty
|
|||
|
26280-00561-000-00
|
War Eagle
|
561
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00562-000-00
|
Yukon
|
562
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26280-00564-000-00
|
Gold Eagle
|
564
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26280-00675-000-00
|
General Grant
|
675
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.12
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26340-00945-000-90
|
House only on Monday Lode MS 945
|
945
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26380-01095-000-10_1
|
Tigress
|
1095
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01095-000-10_2
|
Euphrat
|
1095
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.88
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01095-000-10_3
|
Allowez
|
1095
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.24
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01095-000-20_1
|
Gentle Annie
|
1095
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.63
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01095-000-20_2
|
Squaw Creek
|
1095
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.93
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26420-01139-000-40
|
Ground Hog, Foley, Buffaloe (part)
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-50
|
Lot A of Foley
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.5
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-70
|
Forest Queen
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.48
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01141-000-20_1
|
Saganaw (part outside CUP)
|
1141
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01141-000-20_2
|
Camden
|
1141
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26420-01141-000-20_3
|
Georgie
|
1141
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.26
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26420-01141-000-20_4
|
Ford
|
1141
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.26
|
Wharf
|
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
|
|||||||
|
26460-01205-000-20
|
Lot 2-A of MS 1341 & 1205
|
1205
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.02
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26500-01213-000-10_1
|
Thora
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.99
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-10_2
|
Comstock
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.89
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-10_3
|
Red Headed Woman
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.08
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-10_4
|
Red Headed Boy
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.98
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-10_5
|
Red Headed Girl
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.34
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_1
|
Lawrence
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.75
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_2
|
Red Headed Man
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_3
|
Lost Man
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.72
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_4
|
Gold King
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_5
|
Silver King
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.51
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_6
|
Mill Site
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.51
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_7
|
Pluto Fraction
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.04
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_8
|
Odin
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.86
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_9
|
Lucky Man
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26500-01213-000-20_10
|
Found Fraction
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_11
|
Liewellen Fraction
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.91
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_12
|
Connecting Link Fraction
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01213-000-20_13
|
Golden Wedge
|
1213
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-10_1
|
Hidden Ore
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.15
|
Wharf
|
4.00%
|
Krejci Kane et al
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-10_2
|
Saxon
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.67
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
4.00%
|
Krejci Kane
|
|||
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
||||||||||||
|
26540-01229-000-10_3
|
Delancy
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.97
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
4.00%
|
Krejci Kane
|
|||
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
||||||||||||
|
26540-01229-000-10_4
|
Coxey Fraction
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.9
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-10_5
|
Hamden
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-10_6
|
Walton
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.97
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-30
|
Harvey Fraction
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.02
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26540-01283-000-30_1
|
Buffalo
|
1283
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.7
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26540-01283-000-30_2
|
Link Fraction
|
1283
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.62
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26540-01286-000-10
|
Revenue Fraction No. 2
|
1286
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.76
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26540-01286-000-20
|
Revenue Fraction No. 1
|
1286
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.96
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26540-01288-000-20
|
Cardinal
|
1288
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.99
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_1
|
Desire No. 1 (part)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.93
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_2
|
Desire No. 2 (part)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.08
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-15
|
Gertrude Fraction
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.61
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01340-000-00
|
Ontario
|
1340
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.01
|
Wharf
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26580-01341-000-10_1
|
Apex
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-10_2
|
Argentine
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-10_3
|
Golden (part)
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-10_4
|
Star (part)
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-30
|
50'X500' Parcel, MS 1341 & 1205
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.55
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01378-000-00_1
|
Tibo
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.05
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_2
|
Alleta
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.89
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_3
|
Berta
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.73
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_4
|
Golconda
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.05
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_5
|
Yantic
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.85
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_6
|
Eclipse
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.68
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_7
|
Bancroft
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_8
|
Little Chief
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.2
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_9
|
McKenzie
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.12
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_10
|
Summit
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_11
|
Summit Fraction
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.98
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_12
|
Little Eagle
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_13
|
Perry
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.38
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_14
|
Long Valley No. 1
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_15
|
Long Valley No. 3
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_16
|
Galena Fraction
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.21
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_17
|
Galena
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.37
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01378-000-00_18
|
Porcupine
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.58
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26580-01378-000-00_19
|
Blue Jay
|
1378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01384-000-20_1
|
Bath
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.27
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_2
|
St. Croix
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.59
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_3
|
Havana
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.42
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_4
|
Cawnpore
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.55
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_5
|
Osaka
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.97
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_6
|
Ghent
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_7
|
Owls Roost
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_8
|
Boulders
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.44
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_9
|
Al Borak
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.83
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_10
|
Sometimes
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.34
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_11
|
Sardona
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.44
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_12
|
Blue Crow
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.85
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_13
|
Moscow
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.32
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_14
|
On Guard
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.15
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26580-01384-000-20_15
|
Old Iron Sides
|
1384
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.13
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01413-000-40_1
|
Spotted Pike
|
1413
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.31
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01413-000-40_2
|
Fair Day
|
1413
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.76
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01413-000-40_3
|
Ohio
|
1413
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.32
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01413-000-40_4
|
Coolgarde
|
1413
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.09
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01419-000-10
|
Burlap
|
1419
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.99
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01419-000-20
|
Paystreak No. 3 exc Lot 2
|
1419
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.28
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01419-000-30
|
Lot 2 of Paystreak No. 3
|
1419
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.8
|
Wharf
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26620-01419-000-40
|
Paystreak No. 2
|
1419
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.99
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01419-000-50
|
Paystreak
|
1419
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.06
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01427-000-00_1
|
Gault No. 1
|
1427
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01427-000-00_2
|
Gault No. 4
|
1427
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.07
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01427-000-00_3
|
Gault No. 5
|
1427
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.19
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01427-000-00_4
|
Gault No. 6
|
1427
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.49
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01431-000-00_1
|
Aztec No. 1
|
1431
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.77
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01431-000-00_2
|
Aztec No. 2
|
1431
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.1
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01431-000-00_3
|
Aztec No. 3
|
1431
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.85
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01438-000-00
|
McCullum Millsite
|
1438
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01451-000-10
|
Blanch E
|
1451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.67
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01451-000-20_1
|
May E
|
1451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.5
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01451-000-20_2
|
Nellie M
|
1451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.83
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01451-000-20_3
|
Ruth
|
1451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.1
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01451-000-20_4
|
Nettie C
|
1451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01453-000-00
|
Dolphin
|
1453
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.2
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01475-000-00_1
|
Little Allen
|
1475
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.35
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01475-000-00_2
|
Baby
|
1475
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.5
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01475-000-00_3
|
Little Robbie
|
1475
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.26
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01475-000-00_4
|
Little Darling
|
1475
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.42
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01515-000-00
|
Wandering Jew
|
1515
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.6
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01536-000-20_1
|
Francis (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.64
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01536-000-20_2
|
Rambler (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.1
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26620-01536-000-20_3
|
Madeline (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-10
|
Daisy Fraction
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.59
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01581-000-10_1
|
Modoc (part outside CUP boundary)
|
1581
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.21
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26680-01581-000-10_2
|
Paddy Ford Fraction
|
1581
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.51
|
Wharf
|
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)
|
1.5
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-20
|
Lot 3 of Lomie
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-40_1
|
Lot 1 of Lomie
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.4
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-40_2
|
Lot 4 of Lomie
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.03
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-40_3
|
Lot 5 of Lomie
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.25
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-50
|
Thusnelda
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.78
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-70_1
|
Phonolite
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01616-000-70_2
|
Trenton
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.52
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01659-000-10
|
Bad Tale Fraction
|
1657
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.01
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26680-01670-000-10
|
Camp Bird
|
1670
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.41
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01670-000-20_1
|
Log Cabin
|
1670
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.06
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01670-000-20_2
|
Denver
|
1670
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.72
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01670-000-20_3
|
Grainger
|
1670
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.9
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01670-000-20_4
|
Allentown
|
1670
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01684-000-00
|
Plum Fraction
|
1684
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26720-01760-000-00
|
Dump
|
1760
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01782-000-00_1
|
Marco Polo
|
1782
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.22
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01782-000-00_2
|
Bald Hill
|
1782
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.16
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01782-000-00_3
|
Saturday
|
1782
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.3
|
Wharf
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26760-01782-000-00_4
|
April
|
1782
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.14
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01786-000-10
|
Acme
|
1786
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.09
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01790-000-00_1
|
Remo
|
1790
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.35
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01790-000-00_2
|
Hoctor
|
1790
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.24
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01790-000-00_3
|
Russell
|
1790
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01790-000-00_4
|
Laborn No. 1
|
1790
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.75
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01790-000-00_5
|
Calumet
|
1790
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01795-000-10_1
|
Victor
|
1795
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.09
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01795-000-10_2
|
Point
|
1795
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01803-000-00_1
|
Bayou
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.03
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01803-000-00_2
|
Eagle Fraction
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.45
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01803-000-00_3
|
Eagle
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.68
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01803-000-00_4
|
Texana
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.09
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01803-000-00_5
|
Meteor
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.36
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01803-000-00_6
|
Rocket
|
1803
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.68
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01844-000-00
|
Rochester
|
1844
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.12
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01848-000-00
|
Myrtle
|
1848
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.29
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26760-01875-000-10_1
|
Norwich
|
1875
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.54
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01875-000-10_2
|
Gossan Fraction
|
1875
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.88
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01875-000-10_3
|
Gossan (part)
|
1875
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.75
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01939-000-00_1
|
Caeser
|
1939
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.81
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01939-000-00_2
|
Plunger
|
1939
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01939-000-00_3
|
Non Plus Ultra
|
1939
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.09
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_2
|
Washington exc Tract C
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.68
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_3
|
Heritage exc Tracts G & F
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_4
|
Belle Plane
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.64
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01946-000-00_1
|
Freshett
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.13
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_2
|
No Bagatelle
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.04
|
Wharf
|
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
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_4
|
Meerschtendals
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.21
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_5
|
Goldsmith Maid
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.38
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_6
|
Montesuma
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.1
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_7
|
Frankfurt
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.71
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26840-01946-000-00_8
|
Bavaria
|
1946
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.7
|
Wharf
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-54_1
|
Wall
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.84
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-54_2
|
Harrison
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-54_3
|
Morton
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.76
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01960-000-00
|
Robert Emmett
|
1960
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
5.00%
|
WH Con.
|
|||
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
||||||||||||
|
26840-01962-000-00
|
Silver King
|
1962
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.06
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01970-000-60
|
November
|
1970
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.93
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01970-000-70_1
|
July
|
1970
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01970-000-70_2
|
August
|
1970
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.5
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01970-000-70_3
|
Mollie Dare
|
1970
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.21
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26840-01979-000-10_1
|
Imperial
|
1979
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.12
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01979-000-10_2
|
Queen
|
1979
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.1
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01979-000-10_3
|
Princess
|
1979
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.22
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01979-000-10_4
|
Crown
|
1979
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02006-000-00
|
Margurite No. 2
|
2006
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.27
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-15_1
|
Mother (part)
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-15_2
|
Little Barefoot (part)
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.58
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-35_1
|
Belle Fraction
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.73
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-35_2
|
Rope Fraction
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02044-000-20
|
Tessa (part)
|
2044
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02050-000-00_1
|
Comet (part)
|
2050
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.98
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02050-000-00_2
|
Comet No. 1 (part)
|
2050
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.24
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02060-000-00
|
Pewabic
|
2060
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.56
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02066-000-10
|
Milton Fraction (part)
|
2066
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02074-000-10
|
Lillie M.
|
2074
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02074-000-30
|
Lillie M. No. 1
|
2074
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26920-00001-004-31
|
Lot 31 Block 4
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.37
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
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
|
||||||||
|
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
|
||||||||
|
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
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26920-00001-010-01
|
Lots 1 thru 25 of Block 10
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
10.77
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26920-00001-011-01
|
Lots 1 thru 12 of Block 11
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
5.23
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26920-00001-012-04
|
Lots 4, 8, 9 of Block 12
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.32
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26930-00201-010-00
|
Lots 1 thru 6 of Block 1
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.72
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26930-00202-060-00
|
Lots 6, 7, 8 of Block 2
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
6
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26940-00003-001-02
|
Lots 1, 2 of Block 1
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.82
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26940-00003-001-03
|
Lot 3 of Block 1
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.39
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26940-00003-002-68
|
Lots 68, 69 of Block 2
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.31
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26940-00005-000-50
|
Tract F
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.3
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
26940-00005-000-60
|
Tract G
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
6.71
|
Wharf
|
||||||||
|
31425-00700-002-00
|
LOT 2 BLK 7 HEARST SUB.
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
Wharf
|
|||||||||
|
12000-00402-010-00_1
|
Lot 7
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
3.25
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-010-00_2
|
Lot 25
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-00
|
Lot 1
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.06
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_1
|
Lot 2
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.47
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_2
|
Lot 3
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
2.09
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_3
|
Lot 4
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.05
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_4
|
Lot 5
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
1.38
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_5
|
Lot 7
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.25
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_6
|
Lot 8
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
1.98
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
12000-00402-020-10_7
|
Lot 10
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.02
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_1
|
Lot 8
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.08
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_2
|
Lot 9
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.09
|
Wharf
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
16000-00502-340-00_3
|
Lot 10
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.11
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_4
|
Lot 11
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
1.37
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_5
|
Lot 12
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.03
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_6
|
Lot 13
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_7
|
Lot 14
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_8
|
Lot 15
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.02
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-340-00_9
|
Lot 16
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_1
|
Lot 1
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.44
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_2
|
Lot 5
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.1
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_3
|
Lot 6
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.1
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_4
|
Lot 8
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
1.05
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_5
|
Lot 9
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.12
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-00_6
|
Lot 10
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
16000-00502-350-07
|
Lot 7
|
502
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
1.86
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26280-00195-000-00
|
Decorah
|
195
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.21
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00330-000-00
|
Portland
|
330
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00331-000-00
|
Gustavus
|
331
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.2
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00332-000-00
|
Paragon
|
332
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.05
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00356-000-00
|
Folger
|
356
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00357-000-00
|
Empire State
|
357
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00358-000-00
|
Perserverance
|
358
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.5
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00359-000-00
|
Indispensible
|
359
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.86
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26280-00360-000-00
|
Olive
|
360
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.96
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00361-000-20
|
Trojan
|
361
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.25
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00378-000-10
|
Mark Twain exc Lot U
|
378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00397-000-00
|
Alameda
|
397
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.23
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00398-000-00
|
Alameda Extension
|
398
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.36
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00472-000-20
|
Mound
|
472
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00558-000-00
|
India
|
558
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00559-000-00
|
Japan
|
559
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00560-000-00
|
Pappoose
|
560
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00563-000-00
|
Goodenough
|
563
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00565-000-00
|
Marco Polo
|
565
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Wharf
|
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
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00793-000-00_2
|
Dividend
|
793
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00793-000-00_3
|
Hector
|
793
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00866-000-00
|
Dark Horse
|
866
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.46
|
Wharf
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-25_1
|
Red Flag
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.19
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-25_2
|
Horseshoe
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-25_3
|
Horseshoe Fraction
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.2
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00914-000-10
|
North
|
914
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.91
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26340-00915-000-00
|
Bristol Fraction
|
915
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00915-000-10_1
|
Ashland
|
915
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00915-000-10_2
|
Norman
|
915
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.45
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00915-000-10_3
|
Boston
|
915
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00915-000-10_4
|
Providence
|
915
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00916-000-10_1
|
Jessie Lee
|
916
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.02
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00916-000-10_2
|
Leopard
|
916
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00944-000-00
|
Baltimore
|
944
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.15
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00945-000-10_1
|
Reindeer
|
945
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.44
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00945-000-10_2
|
Ofer Fraction
|
945
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.27
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00945-000-10_3
|
Monday
|
945
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.41
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00978-000-00
|
Beaver Fraction
|
978
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.06
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00979-000-00
|
Burlington
|
979
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.08
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00996-000-00_1
|
Apex
|
996
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00996-000-00_2
|
Northerly Segregated Burlington
|
996
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.9
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-01013-000-00_1
|
Missouri
|
1013
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.44
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-01013-000-00_2
|
Gold Hill Fraction
|
1013
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.48
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-01013-000-00_3
|
Middle Fraction
|
1013
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-01016-000-00_1
|
Annie
|
1016
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26340-01016-000-00_2
|
Annie Fraction
|
1016
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.47
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26340-01016-000-00_3
|
Josie
|
1016
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.05
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26340-01016-000-00_4
|
Josie Fraction
|
1016
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.89
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26340-01016-000-00_5
|
Katy
|
1016
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26380-01041-000-00
|
Last Fraction
|
1041
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01079-000-10_1
|
Keed
|
1079
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.48
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26380-01079-000-10_2
|
Mary
|
1079
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01104-000-10
|
Yukon
|
1104
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.57
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01104-000-20
|
Ajax
|
1104
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.96
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01104-000-30_1
|
Ajax No. 2
|
1104
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.99
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01104-000-30_2
|
Orinoco Fraction
|
1104
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.57
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01104-000-30_3
|
Atlas
|
1104
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.24
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01107-000-00_1
|
Elk Mountain Group No. 1
|
1107
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01107-000-00_2
|
Elk Mountain Group No. 2
|
1107
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01107-000-00_3
|
Elk Mountain Group No. 3
|
1107
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01107-000-10
|
Elk Mountain Group No. 3 (part)
|
1107
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01117-000-00_1
|
Keystone
|
1117
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.25
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26380-01117-000-00_2
|
Bunker Hill
|
1117
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.56
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26380-01117-000-00_3
|
Bunker Hill Fraction
|
1117
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.13
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26420-01141-000-10
|
Saganaw (part in CUP)
|
1141
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.68
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||
|
26460-01172-000-00
|
Katie Putnam exc Tracts 8 & 10
|
1172
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26460-01173-000-00_1
|
North Side exc Tracts 8 & 10
|
1173
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.6
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26460-01175-000-10
|
Ingham
|
1175
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.01
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26460-01175-000-10_1
|
Winnesheik
|
1175
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.94
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26460-01175-000-20_2
|
File Closer Fraction
|
1175
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.54
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26460-01189-000-10_1
|
Rudolph
|
1189
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.78
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26460-01189-000-10_2
|
Costello
|
1189
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.88
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26460-01189-000-10_3
|
Dolphin
|
1189
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.51
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26500-01214-000-00
|
Peggie
|
1214
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.64
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-25
|
Wenona
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-32_2
|
Lasalle Fraction
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-40
|
M&B of Huxley, Lasalle, Redwing
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.75
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-45_1
|
Austin
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.97
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-45_2
|
Tacqua
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.72
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-45_5
|
Austin Fraction
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.94
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-50_1
|
Rutland
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
7.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01226-000-50_2
|
Halford
|
1226
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
7.8
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
|||||||
|
26540-01229-000-25_1
|
High Tarriff exc Lot A
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.37
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-25_2
|
Maud
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01229-000-25_3
|
Eagle Chief
|
1229
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01233-000-10_1
|
General Jackson
|
1233
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01233-000-10_2
|
Diamond Fraction
|
1233
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.98
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01233-000-20
|
Callebogie Fraction
|
1233
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.2
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26540-01233-000-30
|
Callebogie
|
1233
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.34
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01272-000-00_1
|
Sunset
|
1272
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.11
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26540-01272-000-00_2
|
Rainy Day
|
1272
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.51
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26540-01283-000-10
|
May
|
1283
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26540-01283-000-20
|
Deadwood
|
1283
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26540-01292-000-10
|
Senator
|
1292
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.89
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01292-000-20
|
Gold Bug Fraction
|
1292
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01349-000-00
|
James G. Blain
|
1349
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.15
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26620-01404-000-10_1
|
Gunnison
|
1404
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.49
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01404-000-10_2
|
Vulcan exc Lot 1
|
1404
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.77
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01404-000-20
|
Lot 1 of Vulcan
|
1404
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
8.83
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01428-000-10_1
|
Wedge
|
1428
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01428-000-10_2
|
Jim
|
1428
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01428-000-10_3
|
Joseph
|
1428
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.08
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01428-000-10_4
|
Yellow Boy Fraction
|
1428
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01428-000-10_5
|
Little Rock
|
1428
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01429-000-20_1
|
Mono
|
1429
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.22
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01429-000-20_2
|
Tiger
|
1429
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.84
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01429-000-20_3
|
Rehl
|
1429
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.9
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01429-000-20_4
|
Lucy
|
1429
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.77
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01468-000-00
|
Loyd
|
1468
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.49
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01472-000-00
|
Ruby Evans
|
1472
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.13
|
Wharf
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26620-01516-000-00_1
|
Summit Flat
|
1516
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.08
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
Kunz, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01516-000-00_2
|
Wm. B. Allison
|
1516
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.99
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
Kunz, et al
|
|||||
|
26620-01551-000-10
|
Comerse
|
1551
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01551-000-20
|
Porcupine
|
1551
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.96
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-10
|
Daisie Fraction
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.71
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_1
|
Daisy No. 1
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.81
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_2
|
Daisy No. 2
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_3
|
Giddings
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_4
|
Funston
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_5
|
Fargo
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.1
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_6
|
Fargo Fraction
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_7
|
McLaughlin
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
12.48
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_8
|
Little Eva
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-15_9
|
Frost
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.62
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01567-000-20
|
Hogarth
|
1567
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.72
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01580-000-00
|
Juno
|
1580
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.34
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01581-000-20
|
Modoc (part inside CUP boundary)
|
1581
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.33
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26680-01616-000-60_1
|
Grenada
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.58
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01616-000-60_2
|
Genesee
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.47
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01616-000-60_3
|
Peerless
|
1616
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.64
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26680-01643-000-00_1
|
Snorter
|
1643
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.91
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01643-000-00_2
|
Snorter Fraction
|
1643
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.23
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01649-000-10
|
Orinoco
|
1649
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26680-01653-000-00
|
Golden Flag Fraction
|
1653
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.37
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01659-000-20_1
|
Telegram
|
1659
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.31
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01659-000-20_2
|
Maid of Erin
|
1659
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.4
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01659-000-20_3
|
Gannon
|
1659
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.6
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01659-000-20_4
|
B & M Fraction
|
1659
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.33
|
Wharf
|
5.00%
|
White House Congress
|
|||||
|
26680-01667-000-00_1
|
Stanley
|
1667
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.1
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26680-01667-000-00_2
|
June
|
1667
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.85
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26680-01667-000-00_3
|
Keystone Fraction
|
1667
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.11
|
Wharf
|
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
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26680-01668-000-10_2
|
Copperhead Fraction
|
1668
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.91
|
Wharf
|
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
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26680-01668-000-20
|
Flossie
|
1668
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01740-000-10
|
Deadwood
|
1740
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.06
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01740-000-20
|
General Terry
|
1740
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.45
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26720-01756-000-00
|
Alaska Fraction
|
1756
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26760-01768-000-00
|
Foran
|
1768
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.67
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01937-000-00
|
Maria
|
1937
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-37_1
|
Akka
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.97
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-37_2
|
Cornucopia
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.32
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-37_3
|
Prolific
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
16.54
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-38_1
|
Water
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-40
|
Elizabeth including Lot E1-A
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
12.96
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26840-01955-000-57
|
Granet Fraction
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
19
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01955-000-59
|
Confidence
|
1955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01960-000-10
|
Sarchfield
|
1960
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
14.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
5.00%
|
WH Con.
|
|||
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
||||||||||||
|
26840-01970-000-50
|
January including Lot J-1
|
1970
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.1
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01984-000-00_1
|
Star
|
1984
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.14
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26840-01984-000-00_2
|
Hart
|
1984
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.63
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26880-02001-000-10
|
Ryan
|
2001
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02001-000-20_1
|
Ryan Fraction exc Tract 9 Rev
|
2001
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.86
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02027-000-10
|
Index exc Lot A
|
2027
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.35
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02027-000-15
|
Huxley Fraction
|
2027
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.82
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02027-000-20
|
Lot A of Index
|
2027
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02029-000-10
|
Alaska
|
2029
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.12
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02029-000-20
|
Link
|
2029
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.25
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02036-000-00_1
|
Mill
|
2036
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.99
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26880-02036-000-00_2
|
Columbia Fraction
|
2036
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.94
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26880-02037-000-00
|
Reliance Fraction
|
2037
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.43
|
Wharf
|
3.00%
|
Dykes, et al
|
|||||
|
26880-02075-000-00
|
Snowstorm exc Tract 11
|
2075
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00351-000-00_2
|
Silver Plume (pt under Tract 11)
|
351
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.4
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00352-000-00
|
Southerland (under Tract 11)
|
352*
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.44
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00378-000-00
|
Mark Twain (under Lot U)
|
378
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.13
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00402-000-00_2
|
Santa Fe (under Tracts 5 & 11)
|
402
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.18
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00409-000-10
|
Welcome
|
409-A
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.51
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26280-00409-000-20
|
Welcome Mill Site exc. Tract B
|
409-B
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00410-000-00
|
Genoa
|
410-A
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00412-000-00
|
Marathon
|
412
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00413-000-00
|
Terry's Peak
|
413
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00414-000-00
|
Magenta
|
414
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00535-000-00
|
North Star #1
|
535
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00791-000-00
|
Ben Hur
|
791
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.07
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-00881-000-00
|
Maringo
|
881
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.71
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-01105-000-00_1
|
Little Phil
|
1105
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.11
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-01105-000-00_2
|
Surprise
|
1105
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-02069-000-00
|
Martin Fraction
|
2069
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.3
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26280-02075-000-00
|
Snowstorm (under Tract 11)
|
2075
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.9
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00900-000-00_1
|
Blizzard
|
900
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00900-000-00_2
|
Silver Peak
|
900
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.76
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00900-000-00_3
|
Hurricane
|
900
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.92
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_1
|
Alaska
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_2
|
Hudson
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_3
|
Logan
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_4
|
Mohawk
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_5
|
Opher
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_6
|
Terrific
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.09
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00902-000-00_7
|
Terror
|
902
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.84
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00976-000-00_1
|
Alexander
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26340-00976-000-00_2
|
Badger
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00976-000-00_3
|
Carbonate
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00976-000-00_4
|
Custer
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00976-000-00_5
|
Fairview
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-00976-000-00_6
|
Hubble
|
976
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26340-01089-000-00
|
Car Street
|
1089
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.16
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01040-000-00
|
May Queen (pt)
|
1040
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01119-000-00_1
|
Eva No. 2
|
1119
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.98
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01119-000-00_2
|
Monitor (pt)
|
1119
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01119-000-00_3
|
Monitor Fraction
|
1119
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.94
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01119-000-00_4
|
Oak
|
1119
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.05
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01119-000-00_5
|
Oak Fraction (pt)
|
1119
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01120-000-00
|
Singapore
|
1120
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01121-000-00_1
|
Fulva
|
1121
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.76
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01121-000-00_2
|
Katisha
|
1121
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.71
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01121-000-00_3
|
Lew Wallace
|
1121
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.61
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01121-000-00_4
|
Passiac
|
1121
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01122-000-00_1
|
Little Hope Fraction
|
1122
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.55
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01122-000-00_2
|
Star
|
1122
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.35
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01122-000-00_3
|
Urgent
|
1122
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.27
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26380-01122-000-00_4
|
White Pine
|
1122
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.71
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-10_5
|
Golden (pt)
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01341-000-10_6
|
Star (pt)
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26580-01341-000-10_7
|
Lincoln (pt)
|
1341
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.14
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-00_1
|
Lily of the West
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.88
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-00_2
|
Whale
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-00_3
|
Whale Fraction (pt)
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.43
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01139-000-40_2
|
Ground Hog, Foley, Buffaloe (part)
|
1139
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
26.82
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01205-000-00_1
|
Bunker Hill (pt)
|
1205
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26420-01205-000-00_2
|
Last Chance (pt)
|
1205
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.91
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26460-01172-000-00_2
|
Kate Putnam (under Tracts 8 & 10)
|
1172
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.41
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26460-01173-000-00_2
|
Northside (under Tracts (8 & 10)
|
1173
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.02
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26540-01271-000-00_1
|
Franklin
|
1271
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.65
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01271-000-00_2
|
Hamilton
|
1271
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.96
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01271-000-00_3
|
Tallahasse
|
1271
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.11
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01271-000-00_4
|
Tariff
|
1271
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01279-000-00_1
|
Hoboe Queen
|
1279
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01279-000-00_2
|
Tin Pie
|
1279
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.78
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26540-01279-000-00_3
|
Yogo
|
1279
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.49
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_4
|
Desire No. 1 (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.56
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_5
|
Desire No. 2 (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.82
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_6
|
Emma Fraction (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.44
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_7
|
Hattie and Lost Camp exc lots
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.87
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_8
|
Leta (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.24
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_9
|
Attraction
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.12
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26580-01310-000-00_10
|
Minnesota Maid (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.99
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_11
|
Tiger Fraction (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.05
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01310-000-00_12
|
Terry Fraction (pt)
|
1310
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-00
|
Emperor Fraction
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_1
|
Belle of Deadwood
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.59
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_2
|
Elroy Fraction
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.31
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_3
|
Pasha Fraction
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.69
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_4
|
Magnolia Fraction
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.74
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_5
|
Transit of Venus
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.85
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26580-01335-000-10_6
|
Magnolia Fraction No. 2
|
1335
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.25
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26583-00410-000-00
|
Rinaldo Mill Site
|
410-B
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.09
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01493-000-00
|
Star (under Tracts 7 & 11)
|
1493
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.82
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
26620-01536-000-00_1
|
Francis (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.67
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01536-000-00_2
|
Rambler (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.67
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26620-01536-000-00_3
|
Madeline (pt)
|
1536
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01648-000-00
|
Baltimore
|
1648
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.79
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01704-000-00
|
Black Moon
|
1704
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.54
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01705-000-00_1
|
Cygnet
|
1705
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
11.49
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26680-01705-000-00_2
|
Sunnyside
|
1705
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.54
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26684-01425-000-00_1
|
Freeport
|
1425
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.93
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01425-000-00_2
|
J.C.
|
1425
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.35
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01425-000-00_3
|
Newport
|
1425
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.83
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01425-000-00_4
|
R.G.
|
1425
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.87
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26684-01439-000-00_1
|
Blacktail Chief
|
1439
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.25
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01439-000-00_2
|
Valet Chief
|
1439
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.43
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01439-000-00_3
|
Manning (W/2)
|
1439
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.92
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01439-000-00_4
|
Maggie Fraction
|
1439
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.01
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26684-01439-000-00_5
|
Mongrel and Dhoul
|
1439
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.8
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
26760-01802-000-10
|
Revenue
|
1802
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.64
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_5
|
Busby (under Tract C)
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.45
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_6
|
Washington (under Tract C)
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.95
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_7
|
Paris
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.76
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_8
|
Maggie
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
17.63
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_9
|
Edinbergh
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
18.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_10
|
Angeline Fraction
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.85
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_11
|
Rome
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
20.58
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01942-000-30_12
|
Heratage (pt)
|
1942
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.85
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_1
|
Apex
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
13.49
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_2
|
Apex No. 3
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.18
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_3
|
Apex No. 4
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.11
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_4
|
Missing Link
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.17
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_5
|
Snowstorm No. 1
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
15.13
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_6
|
Snowstorm Fraction
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.46
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26840-01993-000-00_7
|
Hidden Fraction
|
1993
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.07
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-10_2
|
Clarence (pt)
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.49
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26880-02021-000-15_3
|
Mother (pt)
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.68
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02021-000-15_4
|
Little Barefoot (pt)
|
2021
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.52
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02044-000-20_2
|
Tessa (pt)
|
2044
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.6
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02050-000-00_3
|
Comet (pt)
|
2050
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.18
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02050-000-00_4
|
Comet No. 1 (pt)
|
2050
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.7
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
26880-02066-000-10_2
|
Milton (pt)
|
2066
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.11
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC98673
|
INCLINE LODE
|
MMC 98673
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC98674
|
M & V
|
MMC 98674
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC114132
|
MARCIE
|
MMC 114132
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
15.36
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC114133
|
FISCHER
|
MMC 114133
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.59
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC114134
|
ANNE
|
MMC 114134
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.32
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC114135
|
CYNTHIA
|
MMC 114135
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
15.98
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC114136
|
BEANIE
|
MMC 114136
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
15.45
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC117070
|
KL #5
|
MMC 117070
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.59
|
Wharf
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||||
|
MMC164704
|
DIRTY DICK
|
MMC 164704
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164705
|
PEDER DRAGON
|
MMC 164705
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.53
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164706
|
CASEY FRACTION #1
|
MMC 164706
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
19.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164707
|
CASEY FRACTION #2
|
MMC 164707
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
19.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164708
|
CASEY FRACTION #3
|
MMC 164708
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
19.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164709
|
CASEY FRACTION #4
|
MMC 164709
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
19.28
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164710
|
D. J. K. 1
|
MMC 164710
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164711
|
D.J.K. 2
|
MMC 164711
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164712
|
D.J.K. 3
|
MMC 164712
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164713
|
D.J.K. 4
|
MMC 164713
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
MMC164714
|
D. J. K. 5
|
MMC 164714
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164715
|
D. J. K. 6
|
MMC 164715
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164716
|
D. J. K. 7
|
MMC 164716
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
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
|
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
|
|||||||
|
MMC164719
|
D. J. K. 10
|
MMC 164719
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164720
|
D. J. K. 11
|
MMC 164720
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164721
|
D. J. K. 12
|
MMC 164721
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164722
|
D. J. K. FRACTION
|
MMC 164722
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Wharf
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|||
|
MMC164723
|
D. J. K. FRACTION 1
|
MMC 164723
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
3.44
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164724
|
D. J. K. FRACTION 2
|
MMC 164724
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.53
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164725
|
D. J. K. FRACTION 3
|
MMC 164725
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
11.02
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC164726
|
D. J. K. FRACTION 4
|
MMC 164726
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.53
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173949
|
BIG MOUTH
|
MMC 173949
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173950
|
BIG FOOT
|
MMC 173950
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173951
|
BIG LEG
|
MMC 173951
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173952
|
BIG HEAD
|
MMC 173952
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.58
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173953
|
BIG WIG
|
MMC 173953
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.77
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173954
|
BIG STICK
|
MMC 173954
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.77
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173955
|
BIG MAMA
|
MMC 173955
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173956
|
BIG LAC
|
MMC 173956
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173957
|
BIG HILL
|
MMC 173957
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173958
|
BIG DEAL
|
MMC 173958
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC173959
|
BIG SADDLE
|
MMC 173959
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.77
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183350
|
SPOTTED OWL
|
MMC 183350
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.07
|
Wharf
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
MMC183447
|
SQUAW CREEK FRACTION
|
MMC 183447
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.82
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183448
|
M. BEAR
|
MMC 183448
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.64
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183449
|
LACROSSE
|
MMC 183449
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
19.97
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183450
|
HAWK FRACTION
|
MMC 183450
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183451
|
GOLD FRACTION
|
MMC 183451
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183452
|
FALCON
|
MMC 183452
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183453
|
BALD EAGLE
|
MMC 183453
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183454
|
ASHLEY
|
MMC 183454
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183455
|
CAMDEN WEDGE
|
MMC 183455
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
8.26
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183456
|
VINCENT
|
MMC 183456
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
7.35
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183689
|
GRAY WOLF
|
MMC 183689
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
6.2
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183693
|
CHELSEA
|
MMC 183693
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC183694
|
STEALTH
|
MMC 183694
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.53
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC187939
|
DUTCHMAN
|
MMC 187939
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.23
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC187940
|
GUIEDO
|
MMC 187940
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.23
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
MMC187941
|
RUFUS
|
MMC 187941
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.07
|
Wharf
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_1
|
Lot 7
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_2
|
Lot 13
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
5.14
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_3
|
Lot 14
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_4
|
Lot 15
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_5
|
Lot 16
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.08
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_6
|
Lot 17
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.02
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_7
|
Lot 18
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.05
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-00_8
|
Lot 27
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
13000-00403-060-00_9
|
Lot 30
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
13000-00403-060-10
|
Lot 6 exc Oxford Subdivision
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.51
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Carlson
|
|||||
|
13000-00403-070-00
|
Lot 2
|
403
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
2.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00316-000-00
|
Steward
|
316
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00401-000-00
|
North Star
|
401
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00480-000-00
|
Black Sulphate
|
480
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.14
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00516-000-00
|
Bonanza
|
516
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.32
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00517-000-10
|
Plutus
|
517
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00518-000-00
|
Buxton
|
518
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00519-000-00
|
Cheetor
|
519
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.64
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00520-000-00
|
Clarinda
|
520
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00536-000-00
|
Richelieu exc Hwy
|
536
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.24
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00537-000-00
|
Patrick Henry
|
537
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00538-000-00
|
Ruby Bell
|
538
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.92
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00539-000-00
|
Golden Reward
|
539
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00540-000-00
|
Silver Case
|
540
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.76
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00541-000-00
|
Golden Wedge Fraction
|
541
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.18
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00542-000-00
|
Isadorah Fraction
|
542
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.59
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00543-000-00
|
Silver Shower exc Oxford Sub
|
543
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00544-000-00
|
Smiley & Lundt
|
544
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00572-000-20
|
May Flower
|
572
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00573-000-00
|
Aurora
|
573
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00574-000-00
|
Lucke
|
574
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name
|
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage
|
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2)
|
|
26280-00575-000-00
|
Rebecca
|
575
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00576-000-00
|
Motto
|
576
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.04
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00577-000-00
|
Motto Fraction
|
577
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.46
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00578-000-00
|
Point Fraction
|
578
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.15
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00579-000-00
|
Crown Point
|
579
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.6
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26280-00600-000-00
|
Minnie (part)
|
600
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.37
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00760-000-00
|
New Atlantic
|
760
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00763-000-00
|
Green Point
|
763
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00764-000-00
|
Ophir exc Oxford Sub
|
764
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00765-000-00
|
Mikado
|
765
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00766-000-00
|
Silver Springs
|
766
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.23
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00768-000-00
|
Elizabeth
|
768
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.85
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00769-000-00
|
Fannie
|
769
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00781-000-00
|
Sunrise
|
781
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00782-000-00
|
Sunset
|
782
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00784-000-00
|
Sunshine
|
784
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00785-000-00
|
Sunday
|
785
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00789-000-00
|
Tilton
|
789
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00845-000-00
|
Comit
|
845
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.17
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00872-000-00
|
National
|
872
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00873-000-00
|
International
|
873
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00880-000-00_1
|
Little Bonanza
|
880
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.46
|
Golden Reward
|
|||||||
|
26340-00880-000-00_2
|
Perry
|
880
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.84
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
Claim
|
Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage |
Project
|
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1)
|
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26340-00880-000-00_3
|
Penny
|
880
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.84
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00896-000-00
|
Alice May
|
890
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_1
|
General Custer
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.88
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_2
|
Silver Reef
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_3
|
Florence Fraction
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.08
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_4
|
Belle Fourch
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_5
|
Alta
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_6
|
Glencoe
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00899-000-00_7
|
Sundance
|
899
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_3
|
Oppitz
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_4
|
Yetter
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_5
|
Hilton
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.03
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_6
|
Sarsfield
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_7
|
Pat Claybourne
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_8
|
Scott
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_9
|
Great Scott
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.27
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_10
|
Mason
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.05
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_11
|
Security
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_12
|
Syndicate
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-82_1
|
Bacon Rind
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.44
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-82_2
|
Armada
|
902
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.12
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00911-000-10
|
Schuylkill
|
911
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00911-000-20
|
Eddie
|
911
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.01
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type
|
Acreage |
Project
|
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
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00911-000-40
|
Lansford
|
911
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.57
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00911-000-50
|
Lansford No. 2
|
911
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.72
|
Golden Reward
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
|
26340-00922-000-00_1
|
Hannibal
|
922
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00922-000-00_2
|
Ruby Basin Fraction
|
922
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.03
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00922-000-00_3
|
Roanoke
|
922
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00923-000-00_1
|
Rob Roy Fraction
|
923
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00923-000-00_2
|
Huron
|
923
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.08
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00923-000-00_3
|
Powhattan
|
923
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00923-000-00_4
|
Grove
|
923
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00924-000-00_1
|
Boston
|
924
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.34
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00924-000-00_2
|
Clark Fraction
|
924
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.78
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00924-000-00_3
|
Jimmie Fraction
|
924
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.53
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00924-000-00_4
|
Carthage
|
924
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.88
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00924-000-00_6
|
Plowman Frac., west of Hwy
|
924
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00951-000-10
|
Tract A of Henry George
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.12
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00951-000-20
|
Harrison
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.1
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00951-000-40_1
|
Axiom
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.67
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00951-000-40_2
|
Buna Vista
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.94
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00951-000-40_3
|
Clontarf
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.67
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00951-000-50
|
Tract A of Powderly
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
0.21
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26340-00951-000-60
|
Tract B of Powderly
|
951
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
9.05
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00956-000-20
|
Clinton exc Oxford Sub
|
956
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.1
|
Golden Reward
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00966-000-00_1
|
Aldebaran
|
966
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.56
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00966-000-00_2
|
Nabob
|
966
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00966-000-00_3
|
Northern Crown
|
966
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00966-000-00_4
|
Andromeda
|
966
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-00_1
|
Buckingham
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.93
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-00_2
|
Rubican
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.93
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-00_3
|
Champion exc Lot 3
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.87
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-00_4
|
Peruvian exc Lot 3
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-00_5
|
Home
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-01014-000-00_1
|
John Collins
|
1014
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-01014-000-00_2
|
Harry
|
1014
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-01014-000-00_3
|
Fred Fraction
|
1014
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.34
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-01014-000-00_4
|
Little Blanch
|
1014
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.1
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01037-000-00
|
Last Chance exc Hwy
|
1037
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.66
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01039-000-10
|
Lot S of Silver Wave
|
1039
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.47
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26380-01052-000-00
|
Spargo
|
1052
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.14
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01061-000-00_1
|
Emma
|
1061
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.79
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01061-000-00_2
|
Emma Fraction No. 2
|
1061
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-00
|
Silver Hill
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-10
|
Billy
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-20
|
Isadorah
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.92
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-30
|
Rock Bluff
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.07
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-40
|
Silver Hill Fraction
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01062-000-50
|
Jessie Fraction
|
1062
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.23
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01063-000-00
|
Alpha exc Oxford Sub
|
1063
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.86
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-20
|
Minnie
|
1064
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-30
|
Minnie Fraction
|
1064
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01065-000-00_1
|
Mineral Point exc. Oxford Sub
|
1065
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.91
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01065-000-00_2
|
Oxford exc. Oxford Sub
|
1065
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01065-000-00_3
|
Mohawk exc. Oxford Sub
|
1065
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.42
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01065-000-00_4
|
Dump Fraction
|
1065
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01071-000-00_1
|
Bald Eagle
|
1071
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.8
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01071-000-00_2
|
Log Cabin
|
1071
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01072-000-00_1
|
Mountain Peak
|
1072
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01072-000-00_2
|
Compliment
|
1072
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.56
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01072-000-00_3
|
Ernest
|
1072
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01072-000-00_4
|
Mountain Peak Fraction
|
1072
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.54
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01073-000-00_1
|
Lone Pine exc. Oxford Sub
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.92
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties
|
Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26380-01073-000-00_2
|
Lone Jack exc. Oxford Sub
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.9
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01073-000-00_3
|
Meadow Lark
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.07
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01073-000-00_4
|
ED R.A.
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01073-000-00_5
|
Shaft Fraction
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01074-000-00
|
Golden Bar
|
1074
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.03
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01075-000-10
|
Monte Cristo
|
1075
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01075-000-20
|
Maybury
|
1075
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01076-000-00_1
|
Comet No. 1
|
1076
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01076-000-00_2
|
Comet No. 2
|
1076
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.76
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01077-000-00
|
Victory
|
1077
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01097-000-00
|
Clarinda Extension
|
1097
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.56
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01101-000-00_1
|
St. Ives
|
1101
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.48
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01101-000-00_2
|
Some Left Frac., west of Hwy
|
1101
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.48
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_1
|
Blaine, west of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.36
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_2
|
Cleveland, west of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_3
|
Dickinson, west of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01112-000-00
|
Sunny
|
1112
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01124-000-00
|
Bertha Fraction
|
1124
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26385-01073-010-00
|
Oxford Sub, Lot 1
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26385-01073-020-00
|
Oxford Sub, Lot 2
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.15
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26385-01073-030-00
|
Oxford Sub, Lot 3
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26385-01073-040-00
|
Oxford Sub, Lot 4
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26385-01073-050-00
|
Oxford Sub, Lot 5
|
1073
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.1
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_2
|
Silver Belt No. 2
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_3
|
Big Crow
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_4
|
Aztec
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_5
|
Bayard
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_6
|
Little Crow
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_7
|
Little Crow Fraction
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.79
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-00_8
|
Saw Tooth Fraction
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.44
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-04
|
Lot 4 of Cuba & Great Western
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-10_1
|
Cyclone Fraction No. 2
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-10_2
|
Cyclone Frac., west of Hwy
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.94
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-10_3
|
Sioux, west of Hwy
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.44
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-30
|
Evangeline No. 7 & 8 (1/2 int)
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-35
|
Evangeline No. 7 & 8 (1/2 int)
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01167-000-00_1
|
Canyon exc. Hwy
|
1167
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.59
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01167-000-00_2
|
Ruby Belle Frac. exc Hwy
|
1167
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01176-000-00_1
|
Harvard
|
1176
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.78
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01176-000-00_2
|
Cleveland
|
1176
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.64
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01197-000-00
|
Tony
|
1197
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.57
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01197-000-10
|
Maggie Fraction
|
1197
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-10_1
|
Carter, west of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-10_2
|
Trial No.1, west of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.46
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-10_3
|
Trial No. 2, west of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.66
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26460-01200-000-10_4
|
Trial No. 3, west of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-10_5
|
Trial Fraction, west of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_1
|
Bismark
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.42
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_2
|
Bismark No. 1
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_3
|
Bismark No. 2
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.5
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_4
|
Bismark No. 3
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_5
|
Crown Point
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_6
|
Crown Point No. 1
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.62
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_7
|
Crown Point No. 2
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.62
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_8
|
Crown Point No. 3
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_9
|
Crown Point No. 4
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_10
|
Crown Point No. 5
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_11
|
Hanify
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_12
|
Hanify No. 1
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_13
|
Hanify No. 2
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_14
|
Hanify No. 3
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_15
|
Hanify No. 4
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_16
|
Hanify No. 5
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_17
|
Hanify No. 6
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01204-000-00_18
|
Hanify No. 7
|
1204
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.24
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26540-01221-000-00_1
|
Lovisa
|
1221
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.28
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26540-01221-000-00_2
|
Eva
|
1221
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26540-01221-000-00_3
|
Addie
|
1221
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.56
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26540-01221-000-00_4
|
Gamba Fraction
|
1221
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.91
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26540-01221-000-00_5
|
Foster Fraction
|
1221
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26680-01606-000-20
|
Lot 2B of Lot 2 of Augusta
|
1606
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
6
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
12000-00402-010-05_1
|
Lot 22
|
402
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.03
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
12000-00402-010-05_2
|
Lot 23
|
402
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.09
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
12000-00402-010-05_3
|
Lot 27
|
402
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.02
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
12000-00402-120-00
|
Lot 1
|
402
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Government Lot or Block (Fee)
|
0.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00761-000-00
|
Bosebel
|
761
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00800-000-00
|
Harmony
|
800
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00801-000-00
|
Brewery exc Railroad ROW
|
801
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00802-000-00
|
Brewery Fraction
|
802
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.56
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00907-000-00_1
|
Nevada Gulch Fraction
|
907
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.17
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00907-000-00_2
|
Silver Light
|
907
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.79
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00907-000-00_3
|
Liberty Hill
|
907
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00907-000-00_4
|
Oblique Fraction
|
907
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00907-000-00_5
|
Oblique Fraction No. 2
|
907
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00925-000-10
|
Mogul exc Tract B
|
925
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.58
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00925-000-20
|
Tract B of Omega
|
925
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
3.41
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00925-000-30
|
Peabody exc Tract B
|
925
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.66
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00958-000-10_1
|
Belcher exc Tract B
|
958
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.57
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00958-000-10_2
|
North Cross
|
958
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.47
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00958-000-10_3
|
Hardscrabble No. 2
|
958
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.45
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26340-00958-000-10_4
|
Contact
|
958
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.36
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00989-000-00_1
|
Yuba exc Terry Cemetary
|
989
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00989-000-00_2
|
Eldora exc Terry Cemetary
|
989
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.05
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00989-000-10
|
Terry Cemetary
|
989
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.34
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01052-000-10
|
Garland
|
1052
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01052-000-20
|
Graham
|
1052
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-00_1
|
Big Test Fraction
|
1084
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.27
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-00_2
|
St. Louis
|
1084
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-00_3
|
Silver Fraction
|
1084
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-00_4
|
Tornado
|
1084
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-10_1
|
Daisy Fraction
|
1567
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.26
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26380-01064-000-10_2
|
Little Bird
|
1064
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.15
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-20
|
Minnie
|
1064
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01064-000-30
|
Minnie Fraction
|
1064
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01075-000-00
|
Livingston
|
1075
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.08
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01078-000-00
|
Ibex Fraction
|
1078
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.25
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00762-000-00
|
Mariposa
|
762
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26280-00411-000-30
|
Tract A of Oriole
|
411
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
2.68
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00984-000-03
|
Lot 3 of Champion & Peruvian Lodes
|
984
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
1.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_4
|
St. Just
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.79
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26380-01102-000-00_5
|
Specie Payment Fraction
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.9
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_6
|
Bryan
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.78
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_7
|
Blaine lying E & S of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.36
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_8
|
Cleveland lying E & S of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01102-000-00_9
|
Dickinson lying E & S of Hwy
|
1102
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_1
|
Overdraft
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.42
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_2
|
Cleopatra
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.8
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_3
|
Argenta
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_4
|
Daybreak
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.91
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_5
|
Midnight
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_6
|
Brandywine
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.95
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_7
|
Brandywine Fraction
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.12
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_8
|
Georgiana
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01131-000-00_9
|
Florence Fraction
|
1131
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_1
|
Wye House
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_2
|
Mix
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.67
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_3
|
Stir
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_4
|
Glendale Fraction
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_5
|
Buckeye No. 2
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.58
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_6
|
Stone Wall
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.78
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_7
|
Blue Ridge
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.24
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26380-01132-000-00_8
|
Lloyd Lounds
|
1132
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-10_1
|
Cuba
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26420-01136-000-10_2
|
Cuba Fraction
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01136-000-10_3
|
Great Western
|
1136
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.74
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_1
|
Beaver
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.72
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_2
|
Sound Money
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_3
|
Boone
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_4
|
Cuba No. 1 Fraction
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.46
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_5
|
Colts
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.99
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_6
|
Cook
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.73
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_7
|
Missing Link
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_8
|
Syracuse
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.65
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_9
|
Cuba Fraction
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.95
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_10
|
McKinley Fraction
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.57
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_11
|
Diorite
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_12
|
Xerxes
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01151-000-10_13
|
Linnaeus
|
1151
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.72
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_1
|
Boston
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.85
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_2
|
Welcome
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.91
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_3
|
Derby
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.91
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_4
|
Tiger
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_5
|
Seagull
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01152-000-00_6
|
Sitting Bull
|
1152
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.17
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_1
|
Old Bill
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_2
|
McLeod
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_3
|
Golden Key
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.92
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_4
|
Bayard Fraction
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.57
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_5
|
Cyclone Frac. lying E & S of Hwy
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01153-000-00_6
|
Sioux lying E & S of Hwy
|
1153
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_1
|
On Time
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_2
|
On Time No. 1
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_3
|
On Time No. 2
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_4
|
On Time No. 3
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_5
|
On Time No. 4
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_6
|
Evangeline No. 1
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_7
|
Evangeline No. 2
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_8
|
Evangeline No. 3
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_9
|
Evangeline No. 4
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_10
|
Evangeline No. 5
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.21
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_11
|
Evangeline No. 6
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.04
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_12
|
Evangeline No. 7
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_13
|
Evangeline No. 8
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_14
|
Big Four
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.8
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_15
|
Big Four No. 1
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.54
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_16
|
Big Four No. 2
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.62
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26420-01158-000-00_17
|
Big Four No. 3
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.6
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_18
|
Big Four No. 4
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_19
|
Square
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.72
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_20
|
High Point
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.18
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_21
|
Big Foot
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_22
|
Black Thunder
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_23
|
Crow Dog
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_24
|
Bull Eagle
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.87
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26420-01158-000-00_25
|
Little Bird Fraction
|
1158
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_1
|
CAW
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.02
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_2
|
I.M.H.
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.36
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_3
|
Florence
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.23
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_4
|
Stead
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_5
|
Stead No. 1
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_6
|
Stead No. 2
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_7
|
Stead No. 3
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_8
|
Stead No. 4
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.42
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_9
|
McLeod
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.02
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_10
|
McLeod No. 1
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_11
|
McLeod No. 2
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.74
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_12
|
Gertrude
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_13
|
Coppy Fraction
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_14
|
Low
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26450-00200-000-00_15
|
High
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_16
|
Poorman
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.71
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_17
|
Elsie
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.97
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_18
|
Monmouth
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_19
|
Monmouth No. 1
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_20
|
Monmouth No. 2
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_21
|
Monmouth No. 3
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_22
|
Monmouth No. 4
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_23
|
Monmouth No. 5
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.93
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_24
|
Monmouth No. 6
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.18
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_25
|
December
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.1
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_26
|
Bridgeport
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_27
|
Blue Danube
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_28
|
Dr. Late
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_29
|
Lamplighter
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_30
|
West Virginia
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_31
|
Client Fraction
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-00200-000-00_32
|
Client
|
1142
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.58
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_1
|
Carmyllie
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_2
|
Sol Star
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_3
|
Golden Eagle
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.33
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_4
|
Guild
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_5
|
Mose Lyon Fraction
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26450-01058-000-00_6
|
Doctor Flick Fraction
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
0.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01058-000-00_7
|
Robert Emet
|
1058
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01188-000-00_1
|
Wild Deer No. 1
|
1188
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.18
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01188-000-00_2
|
Wild Deer No. 2
|
1188
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01188-000-00_3
|
Wild Fawn
|
1188
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_1
|
Leona Lock
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.23
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_2
|
Lone Star
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.94
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_3
|
Bengal Tiger
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.34
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_4
|
Deposit
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_5
|
B & M Fraction
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_6
|
Gopher No. 1
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_7
|
Gopher No. 2
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.53
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26450-01215-000-00_8
|
Gopher No. 3
|
1215
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26455-01169-000-00_1
|
Polar Bear
|
1169
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26455-01169-000-00_2
|
Wedge
|
1169
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26455-01169-000-00_3
|
Edison
|
1169
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26455-01169-000-00_4
|
Edison No. 2
|
1169
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.2
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26455-01169-000-00_5
|
Edison No. 3
|
1169
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_1
|
King
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.32
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_2
|
Carter No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.88
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_3
|
Carter No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_4
|
Carter No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.94
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_5
|
Fay No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.65
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26460-01200-000-00_6
|
Fay No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_7
|
Ray
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.94
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_8
|
Ray No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_9
|
Ray No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.31
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_10
|
Ray No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_11
|
Bancroft No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.71
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_12
|
Bancroft No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.41
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_13
|
Bancroft No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_14
|
Violet No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.17
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_15
|
Violet No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_16
|
Violet No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.83
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_17
|
Ox
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.62
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_18
|
Flat
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.3
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_19
|
Rainbow
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_20
|
Albert Steele
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.47
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_21
|
Browning
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_22
|
Paragon
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.53
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_23
|
Charlie
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.99
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_24
|
Ruby Basin
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_25
|
Cunniff
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_26
|
Star
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.07
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_27
|
Principal Fraction
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_28
|
Principal Fraction No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26460-01200-000-00_29
|
Principal No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_30
|
Principal No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_31
|
Principal No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.28
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_32
|
Principal No. 4
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_33
|
Sheridan
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_34
|
Annie
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.96
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_35
|
Springview
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.15
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_36
|
Maggie
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_37
|
Amy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_38
|
Waukegon
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.12
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_39
|
Genevieve
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_40
|
Little Johnny
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_41
|
Llama
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.74
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_42
|
Tum-Tum
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
1.84
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_43
|
Lucky Girl
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.8
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_44
|
Jay No. 1
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_45
|
Jay No. 2
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_46
|
Jay No. 3
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.64
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_47
|
Albert Steel Fraction
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.7
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_48
|
Log Cabin
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.87
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_49
|
Hazard
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.16
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26460-01200-000-00_50
|
Carter lying E of Hwy
|
1200
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_1
|
St. George No. 1
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_2
|
St. George No. 2
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.04
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_3
|
Monte Carlo
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_4
|
Venus
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_5
|
Jupiter
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_6
|
Deer Mountain
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_7
|
Evarts
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.19
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_8
|
Fairview
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.15
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_9
|
World's Fair
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_10
|
Bangor Fraction No. 2
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_11
|
Bangor No. 1
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.61
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_12
|
Selbie
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.74
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_13
|
Transit
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_14
|
First Chance
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.93
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_15
|
Chicago
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_16
|
Big Dipper Fraction
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.87
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_17
|
Big Dipper No. 1
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.74
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_18
|
Big Dipper No. 2
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.06
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_19
|
Big Dipper No. 3
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_20
|
Big Dipper No. 4
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.29
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26500-01209-000-00_21
|
Big Dipper No. 5
|
1209
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.22
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_1
|
Havana No. 1
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.9
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26583-01210-000-00_2
|
Havana No. 2
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.64
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_3
|
Havana No. 3
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.36
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_4
|
Havana No. 4
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.39
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_5
|
Havana No. 5
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_6
|
Havana No. 6
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_7
|
Havana No. 7
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_8
|
Havana No. 8
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.66
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_9
|
Havana No. 9
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.01
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_10
|
Havana No. 10
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
5.81
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_11
|
Connecting
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.5
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_12
|
Wabash No. 1
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.43
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_13
|
Wabash No. 2
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
4.44
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_14
|
Wabash No. 3
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.98
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_15
|
Wabash No. 4
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
3.95
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26583-01210-000-00_16
|
Wabash No. 5
|
1210
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
2.99
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_1
|
Doze
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_2
|
Doze Fraction
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.57
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_3
|
Evening Star
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.4
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_4
|
Bryan
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.38
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_5
|
Belt
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_6
|
Isreal
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26584-01217-000-00_7
|
Dolphin
|
1217
|
|
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
8.45
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_13
|
Quit Claim
|
902
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
10.27
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
26340-00925-000-40
|
Tract A of Omega
|
925
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Tract or Parcel (Fee)
|
6.81
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26280-00411-000-10
|
Oriole exc Tract A
|
411-A
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.64
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_1
|
Cyanide
|
902
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
6.01
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26340-00902-000-30_2
|
LaPierre
|
902
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
9.67
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
26620-01470-000-00
|
Cherry Gulch
|
1470
|
|
|
|
Wharf Resources (USA) Inc.
|
Patented Lode Claim
|
7.65
|
Golden Reward
|
2.61%
|
Valentine, et al, Metalla
|
2.00%
|
Royal Gold
|
|
MMC89109
|
GOLDEN REWARD #2
|
|
|
MMC 89109
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
5.51
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC89110
|
GOLDEN REWARD #4
|
|
|
MMC 89110
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC92905
|
GOLDEN REWARD #5
|
|
|
MMC 92905
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC94456
|
GOLDEN REWARD #15
|
|
|
MMC 94456
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC94457
|
GOLDEN REWARD #16
|
|
|
MMC 94457
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.82
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC94459
|
GOLDEN REWARD #18
|
|
|
MMC 94459
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC94460
|
GOLDEN REWARD #19
|
|
|
MMC 94460
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC94462
|
GOLDEN REWARD #25
|
|
|
MMC 94462
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
6.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC125813
|
MOCO JV-11
|
|
|
MMC 125813
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
6.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC125814
|
MOCO JV-12
|
|
|
MMC 125814
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
6.89
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC125815
|
MOCO JV-13
|
|
|
MMC 125815
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC132782
|
BABY
|
|
|
MMC 132782
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC132783
|
MELANIE
|
|
|
MMC 132783
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
7.35
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134347
|
PATTI #2
|
|
|
MMC 134347
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
1.84
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134349
|
PATTI #4
|
|
|
MMC 134349
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134350
|
PATTI #5
|
|
|
MMC 134350
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134351
|
PATTI #6
|
|
|
MMC 134351
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
2.75
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134352
|
PATTI #7
|
|
|
MMC 134352
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.13
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC134353
|
PATTI #8
|
|
|
MMC 134353
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
1.84
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
MMC172950
|
FRED #1
|
|
|
MMC 172950
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
8.26
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC172951
|
FRED #2
|
|
|
MMC 172951
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
3.67
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC172952
|
FRED #3
|
|
|
MMC 172952
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
3.67
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC172953
|
FRED #4
|
|
|
MMC 172953
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
3.67
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC184192
|
BONESPUR FRACTION
|
|
|
MMC 184192
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.23
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC193034
|
GREMLIN NO 1
|
|
|
MMC 193034
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
16.52
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC193035
|
GREMLIN NO 2
|
|
|
MMC 193035
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
13.77
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC193323
|
GREMLIN NO 3
|
|
|
MMC 193323
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.55
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC193324
|
GREMLIN NO 4
|
|
|
MMC 193324
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.11
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC222709
|
CAITLIN NO. 1
|
|
|
MMC 222709
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
1.03
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC222710
|
CAITLIN NO. 2
|
|
|
MMC 222710
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
4.12
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC222711
|
CAITLIN NO. 3
|
|
|
MMC 222711
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
1.03
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC223020
|
CAITLIN NO. 4
|
|
|
MMC 223020
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
6.43
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC223021
|
CAITLIN NO. 5
|
|
|
MMC 223021
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
0.69
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC234507
|
Hattie Clay Lode
|
|
|
MMC 234507
|
|
Golden Reward Mining Company LP
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Golden Reward
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236754
|
JH 1
|
|
|
MMC 236754
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236755
|
JH 2
|
|
|
MMC 236755
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236756
|
JH 3
|
|
|
MMC 236756
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236757
|
JH 4
|
|
|
MMC 236757
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236758
|
JH 5
|
|
|
MMC 236758
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236759
|
JH 6
|
|
|
MMC 236759
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236760
|
JH 7
|
|
|
MMC 236760
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236761
|
JH 8
|
|
|
MMC 236761
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236762
|
JH 9
|
|
|
MMC 236762
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236763
|
JH 10
|
|
|
MMC 236763
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
MMC236764
|
JH 11
|
|
|
MMC 236764
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236765
|
JH 12
|
|
|
MMC 236765
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236766
|
JH 13
|
|
|
MMC 236766
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236767
|
JH 14
|
|
|
MMC 236767
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236768
|
JH 15
|
|
|
MMC 236768
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236769
|
JH 16
|
|
|
MMC 236769
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236770
|
JH 17
|
|
|
MMC 236770
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236771
|
JH 18
|
|
|
MMC 236771
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236772
|
JH 19
|
|
|
MMC 236772
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236773
|
JH 20
|
|
|
MMC 236773
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236774
|
JH 21
|
|
|
MMC 236774
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236775
|
JH 22
|
|
|
MMC 236775
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236776
|
JH 23
|
|
|
MMC 236776
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236777
|
JH 24
|
|
|
MMC 236777
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236778
|
JH 25
|
|
|
MMC 236778
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236779
|
JH 26
|
|
|
MMC 236779
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236780
|
JH 30
|
|
|
MMC 236780
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236781
|
JH 31
|
|
|
MMC 236781
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236782
|
JH 32
|
|
|
MMC 236782
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236783
|
JH 33
|
|
|
MMC 236783
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236784
|
JH 34
|
|
|
MMC 236784
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236785
|
JH 35
|
|
|
MMC 236785
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236786
|
JH 36
|
|
|
MMC 236786
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236787
|
JH 37
|
|
|
MMC 236787
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236788
|
JH 38
|
|
|
MMC 236788
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236790
|
JH 40
|
|
|
MMC 236790
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236791
|
JH 41
|
|
|
MMC 236791
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236792
|
JH 42
|
|
|
MMC 236792
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236793
|
JH 43
|
|
|
MMC 236793
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236794
|
JH 44
|
|
|
MMC 236794
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236795
|
JH 47
|
|
|
MMC 236795
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236796
|
JH 48
|
|
|
MMC 236796
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236797
|
JH 49
|
|
|
MMC 236797
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236798
|
JH 50
|
|
|
MMC 236798
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236799
|
JH 51
|
|
|
MMC 236799
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236800
|
JH 53
|
|
|
MMC 236800
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236801
|
JH 54
|
|
|
MMC 236801
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236802
|
JH 55
|
|
|
MMC 236802
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236803
|
JH 62
|
|
|
MMC 236803
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236804
|
JH 65
|
|
|
MMC 236804
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236805
|
JH 68
|
|
|
MMC 236805
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236806
|
JH 69
|
|
|
MMC 236806
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236807
|
JH 70
|
|
|
MMC 236807
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236808
|
JH 71
|
|
|
MMC 236808
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236809
|
JH 72
|
|
|
MMC 236809
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236810
|
JH 73
|
|
|
MMC 236810
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236811
|
JH 74
|
|
|
MMC 236811
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236812
|
JH 75
|
|
|
MMC 236812
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236813
|
JH 76
|
|
|
MMC 236813
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
| Claim | Name |
M.S.
Number
|
Patent
#
|
BLM
S/N
|
State
S/N
|
Owner/Parties | Type | Acreage | Project |
Royalty
(1)
|
Royalty Holder (1) |
Royalty
(2)
|
Royalty Holder (2) |
|
MMC236814
|
JH 77
|
|
|
MMC 236814
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236815
|
JH 78
|
|
|
MMC 236815
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236816
|
JH 79
|
|
|
MMC 236816
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
MMC236817
|
JH 80
|
|
|
MMC 236817
|
|
Coeur Explorations, Inc.
|
Federal Lode Claim
|
20.66
|
Johana (Wharf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
Maps
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
|
|
Wharf Operations
South Dakota
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary
|
FAQ
How did Coeur Mining (CDE) perform financially in 2025?
Coeur Mining delivered a standout 2025, with revenue reaching $2.1 billion, nearly double 2024’s level. GAAP net income from continuing operations rose to $586 million, or $0.95 per share, while adjusted EBITDA climbed to $1.0 billion and free cash flow to $665.7 million.
What were Coeur Mining’s 2025 production and metal price highlights?
In 2025 Coeur produced 419,046 ounces of gold and 17.9 million ounces of silver. Average realized prices were $3,184 per ounce for gold and $40.01 per ounce for silver, substantially above 2024 levels and a key driver of record revenue and profitability.
What guidance did Coeur Mining (CDE) provide for 2026 production and costs?
For 2026, Coeur guides to 390,000–460,000 ounces of gold and 18.2–21.3 million ounces of silver. Adjusted cash costs per ounce vary by mine, with co-product gold CAS targeted between $700–$1,950 and silver CAS between $12.50–$25.00, reflecting royalties, currency and inflation impacts.
How strong is Coeur Mining’s balance sheet after 2025 results?
By year-end 2025, Coeur held $553.6 million in cash, equivalents and short-term investments against $340.5 million of total debt. This produced net cash of about $213 million and a leverage ratio of -0.2x on last-twelve-months adjusted EBITDA, indicating substantial financial flexibility.
What is the status of Coeur Mining’s acquisition of New Gold?
Coeur’s acquisition of New Gold is governed by a court-approved arrangement agreement and is anticipated to close in the first half of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals and routine closing conditions. Upon closing, New Gold’s CEO Patrick Godin and director Marilyn Schonberner will join Coeur’s board.
What does the new Wharf Mine technical report mean for Coeur Mining (CDE)?
The new technical report for Wharf, effective December 31 2025, underpins a near-doubling of mine life to twelve years. This extended life-of-mine, alongside reserve increases at Kensington and Palmarejo, supports Coeur’s long-term production and cash flow outlook from its North American asset base.
How much will Coeur Mining spend on taxes and exploration in 2026?
Coeur expects $400–$500 million of cash income and mining taxes in 2026, following strong 2025 profitability. The company also plans $93–$103 million of expensed exploration and $27–$33 million of capitalized exploration, for a total exploration investment of $120–$136 million.
Filing Exhibits & Attachments
10 documentsPress Releases
Financial & Certifications
Coeur Mng Inc
NYSE:CDE
CDE Rankings
CDE Latest News
CDE Latest SEC Filings
Feb 18, 2026
[10-K] Coeur Mining, Inc. Files Annual Report
Jan 27, 2026
[8-K] Coeur Mining, Inc. Reports Material Event
Jan 16, 2026
[8-K] Coeur Mining, Inc. Reports Material Event
Dec 22, 2025
[DEFM14A] Coeur Mining, Inc. Merger Proxy Statement