Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project El Oro Province, Ecuador

CANGREJOS GOLD-COPPER PROJECT
EL ORO PROVINCE, ECUADOR

NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment
Prepared for: Managed by:

Lumina Gold Corp.
410–625 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6C 2T6 MTB Enterprises, Inc.
Tel: (604) 646-1890 7887 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80111
Authors and Qualified Persons: USA
Kathleen Ann Altman, Ph.D., P.E.
Larry Breckenridge, P.E.
Bruce M. Davis, Ph.D., FAusIMM
Scott Elfen, P.E.
Nelson King, SME Registered Member
Joseph McNaughton, P.E.
Robert Michel, SME Registered Member
Norman I. Norrish, P.E. Effective Date: June 8, 2020
Robert Sim, P.Geo. Execution Date: July 24, 2020
Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
Ecuador
Table of Contents
1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 1-3
1.2.2 Resource .............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.2.3 Mining ................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.4 Mine Geotechnical ............................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.5 Metallurgy ............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.2.6 Process and Infrastructure Design....................................................................... 1-4
1.2.7 Geotechnical ........................................................................................................ 1-5
1.2.8 Water Supply........................................................................................................ 1-6
1.2.9 Geochemistry ....................................................................................................... 1-6
1.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 1-6
1.4 Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.5 Execution Plan ................................................................................................................. 1-9
1.6 Technical Summary ....................................................................................................... 1-10
1.6.1 Property Description and Location ..................................................................... 1-10
1.6.2 Land Tenure ....................................................................................................... 1-11
1.6.3 Existing Infrastructure and Accessibility ............................................................ 1-12
1.6.4 History ................................................................................................................ 1-12
1.6.5 Geology and Mineralization ............................................................................... 1-14
1.6.6 Exploration Status .............................................................................................. 1-14
1.6.7 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................. 1-14
1.6.8 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................... 1-16
1.6.9 Mining Method.................................................................................................... 1-16
1.6.10 Metallurgical Testing ........................................................................................ 1-18
1.6.11 Processing ....................................................................................................... 1-19
1.6.12 Project Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 1-20
1.6.13 Market Studies ................................................................................................. 1-20
1.6.14 Environmental, Permitting, and Social Considerations .................................... 1-20
1.6.15 Capital Cost Estimate ...................................................................................... 1-21
1.6.16 Operating Cost Estimate .................................................................................. 1-22
2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Technical Report ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Sources of Information ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Personal Inspection of the Cangrejos Project .................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 2-3
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 i

Ecuador
3 Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................................. 3-1

4 Property Description and Location ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Property Location ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Property Ownership and Agreements .............................................................................. 4-2
4.3 Environmental Liabilities and Permitting .......................................................................... 4-7
5 Accessibility, Climate, Infrastructure, and Physiography ............................................................... 5-1
5.1 Accessibility ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 5-2
5.4 Physiography ................................................................................................................... 5-3
6 History ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1
7 Geological Setting .......................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Regional Geology............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Local and Property Geology ............................................................................................ 7-2
7.3 Geological Studies and Age Dating ................................................................................. 7-2
7.4 Lithology ........................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.5 Alteration .......................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.6 Mineralization ................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.7 Paragenetic Sequence ..................................................................................................... 7-5
7.8 Cangrejos Zone................................................................................................................ 7-5
7.9 Gran Bestia Zone ............................................................................................................. 7-7
8 Deposit Types ................................................................................................................................ 8-1
9 Exploration ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1
10 Drilling .......................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Drill Programs ................................................................................................................ 10-2
10.1.1 Newmont (1999–2000) .................................................................................... 10-2
10.1.2 Odin Mining (2011–2012) ................................................................................ 10-3
10.1.3 Odin Mining (2014–2015) ................................................................................ 10-3
10.1.4 Lumina (2017) .................................................................................................. 10-4
10.1.5 Lumina (2018–2019) ........................................................................................ 10-4
10.2 Drill Collar Coordinates .................................................................................................. 10-4
10.3 Diamond Drill Core Logging Procedures ....................................................................... 10-5
10.4 Drill Core Storage........................................................................................................... 10-5
10.5 Summary of Drill Results ............................................................................................... 10-5
10.6 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Drilling Procedures ........................................................ 10-7
11 Sampling Preparation, Analyses, and Security ............................................................................ 11-1
11.1 Drill Hole Sampling......................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Newmont Drilling (1999–2000) ........................................................................ 11-1
11.1.2 Odin Mining Drilling (2011–2012) .................................................................... 11-1
11.1.3 Odin Mining Drilling (2014–2015) .................................................................... 11-2
11.1.4 Lumina Drilling (2017–2019) ............................................................................ 11-2
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 ii

Ecuador
11.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................................................................... 11-3

11.3 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Analytical and Security Procedures
11-6
12 Data Verification ........................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Database Validation ....................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1.1 Collar Coordinate Validation ............................................................................ 12-1
12.1.2 Down-hole Survey Validation ........................................................................... 12-1
12.1.3 Assay Verification............................................................................................. 12-1
12.2 Geological Data Verification and Interpretation ............................................................. 12-1
12.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 12-2
13 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................. 13-1
13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 13-1
13.2 Metallurgical Samples .................................................................................................... 13-1
13.3 Metallurgical Testing ...................................................................................................... 13-4
13.4 Projected Metallurgical Performance ............................................................................. 13-8
14 Mineral Resource Estimate .......................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 14-1
14.2 Available Data ................................................................................................................ 14-2
14.3 Geological Model, Domains and Coding...................................................................... 14-11
14.4 Specific Gravity Data.................................................................................................... 14-12
14.5 Compositing ................................................................................................................. 14-13
14.6 Generation of a Gold Probability Shell Domain ........................................................... 14-13
14.7 Exploratory Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 14-13
14.7.1 Basic Statistics by Domain ............................................................................. 14-14
14.7.2 Contact Profiles .............................................................................................. 14-18
14.7.3 Conclusions and Modelling Implications ........................................................ 14-22
14.8 Evaluation of Outlier Grades ........................................................................................ 14-23
14.9 Variography .................................................................................................................. 14-23
14.10 Model Setup and Limits ............................................................................................... 14-25
14.11 Interpolation Parameters .............................................................................................. 14-26
14.12 Validation ..................................................................................................................... 14-27
14.12.1 Visual Inspection .......................................................................................... 14-27
14.12.2 Model Checks for Change of Support .......................................................... 14-31
14.12.3 Comparison of Interpolation Methods .......................................................... 14-32
14.12.4 Swath Plots (Drift Analysis).......................................................................... 14-33
14.13 Mineral Resource Classification ................................................................................... 14-34
14.13.1 Indicated Mineral Resources ....................................................................... 14-35
14.13.2 Inferred Mineral Resources.......................................................................... 14-35
14.14 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................... 14-35
14.15 Sensitivity of Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 14-42
14.16 Comparison with the Previous Estimate of Mineral Resources ................................... 14-45
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 iii

Ecuador
14.17 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 14-46

15 Mineral Reserves ......................................................................................................................... 15-1
16 Mining Methods ............................................................................................................................ 16-1
16.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 16-1
16.2 Mine Production Schedule ............................................................................................. 16-1
16.3 Pit Optimization .............................................................................................................. 16-4
16.4 Phase Design ................................................................................................................. 16-5
16.4.1 Waste Storage ................................................................................................. 16-9
16.4.2 Geotechnical Recommendations ..................................................................... 16-9
16.5 Mine Equipment ........................................................................................................... 16-11
16.6 Mine Labor ................................................................................................................... 16-13
17 Recovery Methods ....................................................................................................................... 17-1
17.1 Process Trade-off Study ................................................................................................ 17-1
17.2 Comminution Trade-off Study ........................................................................................ 17-2
17.3 Process Description ....................................................................................................... 17-7
17.4 Process Labor .............................................................................................................. 17-10
18 Project Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 18-1
18.1 Power Supply and Distribution ....................................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Communications ............................................................................................................ 18-1
18.3 Water Supply and Use ................................................................................................... 18-1
18.4 Roads ............................................................................................................................. 18-2
18.4.1 Site Access Road ............................................................................................. 18-2
18.4.2 Mine Access Road ........................................................................................... 18-2
18.4.3 Haul Roads ...................................................................................................... 18-2
18.4.4 Ancillary Roads ................................................................................................ 18-2
18.5 Waste Rock and Saprolite Storage Facilities ................................................................. 18-2
18.6 Dry Stack Tailings Storage Facility ................................................................................ 18-4
18.7 Concentrate Storage, Handling, and Transport ............................................................. 18-6
18.8 Port ................................................................................................................................. 18-7
18.9 Site Ancillary Facilities ................................................................................................... 18-7
19 Market Studies and Contracts ...................................................................................................... 19-1
19.1 Transportation Costs ...................................................................................................... 19-1
19.1.1 Concentrate...................................................................................................... 19-1
19.1.2 Doré ................................................................................................................. 19-1
19.2 Treatment Charges, Refining Charges, Payment Terms and Penalties ........................ 19-1
19.2.1 Flotation Concentrates ..................................................................................... 19-1
19.2.2 Doré ................................................................................................................. 19-2
19.3 Contracts ........................................................................................................................ 19-2
19.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 19-2
20 Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Environmental and Social Impacts ............................... 20-1
20.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 20-1
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 iv

Ecuador
20.2 Environmental Permitting Requirements ....................................................................... 20-1

20.3 Environmental Baseline and Impact Studies ................................................................. 20-1
20.4 Environmental Area of Influence .................................................................................... 20-2
20.5 Biodiversity Studies ........................................................................................................ 20-2
20.6 Archaeological Studies .................................................................................................. 20-3
20.7 Socioeconomic Study..................................................................................................... 20-3
20.7.1 Social Setting ................................................................................................... 20-3
20.7.2 Social AOI ........................................................................................................ 20-4
20.7.3 Social Risks, Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 20-6
20.7.4 Legal Requirements. ........................................................................................ 20-8
20.7.5 Stakeholder Mapping ....................................................................................... 20-8
20.7.6 Socioeconomic Benefits, Community Relations, and Communications .......... 20-9
20.8 Social Management Policies and Social Management System ..................................... 20-9
20.9 Geochemistry ............................................................................................................... 20-10
20.9.1 Static Geochemical Samples ......................................................................... 20-10
20.9.2 Kinetic Geochemical Testing ......................................................................... 20-15
20.9.3 Geochemistry Conclusions ............................................................................ 20-17
20.10 Baseline Water Quantity and Quality ........................................................................... 20-17
20.10.1 Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 20-17
20.10.2 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................... 20-18
20.10.3 Water Balance ............................................................................................. 20-18
20.11 Conceptual Closure Plan ............................................................................................. 20-19
20.12 Compliance with International Practices ...................................................................... 20-19
21 Capital and Operating Costs ........................................................................................................ 21-1
21.1 Capital Cost Estimate..................................................................................................... 21-1
21.1.1 Initial and Expansion Capital Costs ................................................................. 21-1
21.1.2 Sustaining Capital Costs .................................................................................. 21-3
21.1.3 Reclamation and Closure Costs ...................................................................... 21-4
21.1.4 Working Capital ................................................................................................ 21-4
21.2 Operating Cost Estimate ................................................................................................ 21-4
21.3 Labor Costs .................................................................................................................... 21-5
21.4 Mine Operating Costs .................................................................................................... 21-5
21.5 Process Operating Costs ............................................................................................... 21-6
21.6 General and Administrative Operating Costs ................................................................ 21-7
21.6.1 General and Administrative Labor ................................................................... 21-8
22 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 22-1
22.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 22-1
22.1.1 Key Objectives ................................................................................................. 22-1
22.1.2 General Criteria and Assumptions ................................................................... 22-1
22.2 Gross Revenue from Mining .......................................................................................... 22-4
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 v

Ecuador
22.3 Net Smelter Return Calculation ..................................................................................... 22-4

22.3.1 Transportation .................................................................................................. 22-4
22.3.2 Treatment Charges, Refining Charges, Payment Terms and Penalties.......... 22-5
22.4 Royalty ........................................................................................................................... 22-5
22.5 Operating Margin ........................................................................................................... 22-5
22.6 Depreciation and Income Tax ........................................................................................ 22-6
22.7 Value Added Tax............................................................................................................ 22-6
22.8 Initial and Expansion Capital Costs ............................................................................... 22-6
22.9 Sustaining Capital Costs ................................................................................................ 22-7
22.10 Working Capital .............................................................................................................. 22-7
22.11 Employment Severance Costs ....................................................................................... 22-7
22.12 Equipment Salvage Value .............................................................................................. 22-7
22.13 Cash Flow Projections ................................................................................................... 22-8
22.14 Sensitivity Analysis......................................................................................................... 22-8
23 Adjacent Properties ...................................................................................................................... 23-1
24 Other Relevant Data .................................................................................................................... 24-1
24.1 Execution Plan ............................................................................................................... 24-1
24.2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 24-1
24.3 Execution Plan ............................................................................................................... 24-1
24.3.1 Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management ............................ 24-1
24.3.2 Procurement and Logistics .............................................................................. 24-2
24.3.3 Construction ..................................................................................................... 24-2
24.3.4 Preoperational Testing ..................................................................................... 24-3
24.3.5 Commissioning................................................................................................. 24-4
24.3.6 Estimated Manpower ....................................................................................... 24-4
24.4 Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 24-4
24.4.1 Basis of Schedule ............................................................................................ 24-6
24.4.2 Critical Paths .................................................................................................... 24-6
24.5 Assumptions, Qualifications, and Clarifications ............................................................. 24-7
25 Interpretation and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 25-1
25.1 Interpretations and Conclusions .................................................................................... 25-1
25.1.1 Summary .......................................................................................................... 25-1
25.1.2 Resource .......................................................................................................... 25-1
25.1.3 Mining ............................................................................................................... 25-1
25.1.4 Mine Geotechnical ........................................................................................... 25-2
25.1.5 Metallurgy ......................................................................................................... 25-2
25.1.6 Process and Infrastructure Design................................................................... 25-2
25.1.7 Geotechnical .................................................................................................... 25-2
25.1.8 Water Supply.................................................................................................... 25-4
25.1.9 Geochemistry ................................................................................................... 25-4
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 vi

Ecuador
25.2 Risks and Opportunities ................................................................................................. 25-4

25.2.1 Risks ................................................................................................................ 25-4
25.2.2 Opportunities .................................................................................................... 25-7
26 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 26-1
26.1 Overall Recommendation .............................................................................................. 26-1
26.2 Recommendations from Individual QPs......................................................................... 26-1
26.2.1 Resource Estimate ........................................................................................... 26-1
26.2.2 Mining ............................................................................................................... 26-2
26.2.3 Mine Geotechnical ........................................................................................... 26-2
26.2.4 Geotechnical Drilling ........................................................................................ 26-2
26.2.5 Metallurgy ......................................................................................................... 26-4
26.2.6 Processing ....................................................................................................... 26-5
26.2.7 Geotechnical .................................................................................................... 26-5
26.2.8 Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Surface Water Management, and Environmental
Management, and Water Balance ................................................................................. 26-6
26.2.9 Environmental and Social ................................................................................ 26-8
27 References ................................................................................................................................... 27-1
28 Date and Signature Pages ........................................................................................................... 28-4
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Sensitivity Analyses for Capital and Operating Costs ............................................................ 1-9
Figure 1-2: Cangrejos Project Location .................................................................................................. 1-11
Figure 1-3: Cangrejos Project in Relationship to the Local Area ............................................................ 1-12
Figure 4-1: Cangrejos Project Location .................................................................................................... 4-1
Figure 4-2: Current Concession Boundaries ............................................................................................ 4-2
Figure 4-3: Surface Rights ........................................................................................................................ 4-4
Figure 4-4: Concession Consolidation Process – Contiguous Advanced Exploration Concessions ....... 4-6
Figure 4-5: Final Consolidation/Unification of Advanced Exploration Mineral Concessions .................... 4-7
Figure 5-1: Access to Cangrejos............................................................................................................... 5-1
Figure 7-1: Regional Geology ................................................................................................................... 7-1
Figure 7-2: Local Geology Cangrejos Project ........................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-3: Paragenetic Sequence ........................................................................................................... 7-5
Figure 7-4: Simplified Geology Plan of the Cangrejos Gold – Copper Zone ............................................ 7-6
Figure 7-5: Cross Section 800E – Cangrejos Zone .................................................................................. 7-7
Figure 7-6: Simplified Geology Plan of the Gran Bestia Gold – Copper Zone ......................................... 7-8
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 vii

Ecuador
Figure 7-7: Vertical Cross Section – Gran Bestia – Section 350E ........................................................... 7-9
Figure 9-1: Soil Geochemistry – Gold ....................................................................................................... 9-1
Figure 9-2: Soil Geochemistry – Copper................................................................................................... 9-2
Figure 9-3: Exploration Targets – Cangrejos Project – RTP Magnetics ................................................... 9-3
Figure 10-1: Drill Collar Plan Map Cangrejos Project .............................................................................. 10-2
Figure 10-2: Plan Map – Cangrejos, Gran Bestia .................................................................................... 10-6
Figure 10-3: Vertical Cross Section – Gran Bestia to Cangrejos ............................................................ 10-7
Figure 11-1: Au g/t for CDN-CM-27 ......................................................................................................... 11-4
Figure 11-2: Cu ppm for CDN-CM-28 ...................................................................................................... 11-5
Figure 11-3: Au g/t - Blank ....................................................................................................................... 11-5
Figure 13-1: Isometric View of the Metallurgical Drill Holes in Relation to the Potential Pit (1999–2017) 13-
2
Figure 13-2: Isometric View of the Metallurgical Drill Holes in Relation to the Potential Pit (2018–2019)13-
3
Figure 13-3: Data Analysis to Estimate the Grade of the Copper Concentrate ...................................... 13-9
Figure 14-1: Plan View of Gold Grades in Drilling .................................................................................. 14-2
Figure 14-2: Isometric View of Gold Grades in Drilling at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia Deposits ........... 14-3
Figure 14-3: Isometric View of Drilling Completed Since the Previous Estimate of Mineral Resources 14-4
Figure 14-4: Plan View of Gold Sample Data in Drilling ......................................................................... 14-5
Figure 14-5: Plan View of Copper Sample Data in Drilling ..................................................................... 14-6
Figure 14-6: Plan View of Silver Sample Data in Drilling ........................................................................ 14-7
Figure 14-7: Plan View of Molybdenum Sample Data in Drilling ............................................................ 14-8
Figure 14-8: Plan View of Sulfur Sample Data in Drilling ....................................................................... 14-9
Figure 14-9: Isometric View of Interpreted Lithologic Units in the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia Deposit
Areas ...................................................................................................................................................... 14-11
Figure 14-10: Vertical Cross Section through the Cangrejos Deposit Showing Oxidation Surfaces and
Lithologic Domains Relative to Gold Grades in Drilling ......................................................................... 14-12
Figure 14-11: Boxplots of Gold and Copper by Logged Lithology Type at Cangrejos ......................... 14-15
Figure 14-12: Boxplots of Gold and Copper by Logged Lithology Type at Gran Bestia ....................... 14-16
Figure 14-13: Boxplots of Silver, Molybdenum, and Sulfur by Logged Lithology Type at Cangrejos . 14-17
Figure 14-14: Boxplots Comparing Sample Data Between Oxidation Domains at Cangrejos ............. 14-18
Figure 14-15: Contact Profiles for Gold Samples Between Interpreted Geology Domains at Cangrejos 14-
19
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 viii

Ecuador
Figure 14-16: Contact Profiles for Copper Samples Between Interpreted Geology Domains at Cangrejos
............................................................................................................................................................... 14-20
Figure 14-17: Contact Profiles for Gold and Copper Across the Probability Grade Shell Domain ....... 14-21
Figure 14-18: Contact Profiles for Silver, Molybdenum and Sulfur Across the SAP+SRK vs.
TransOxide+Fresh Rock Boundary at Cangrejos .................................................................................. 14-22
Figure 14-19: Vertical Cross Section Showing Gold Grades in Drilling and Block Model at Cangrejos . 14-
28
Figure 14-20: Vertical Cross Section Showing Copper Grades in Drilling and Block Model at Cangrejos
............................................................................................................................................................... 14-29
Figure 14-21: Vertical Cross Section Showing Gold Grades in Drilling and Block Model at Gran Bestia 14-
30
Figure 14-22: Vertical Cross Section Showing Copper Grades in Drilling and Block Model at Gran Bestia
............................................................................................................................................................... 14-31
Figure 14-23: Herco Grade/Tonnage Plot for Gold and Copper Models .............................................. 14-32
Figure 14-24: Grade/Tonnage Comparison of Gold Models ................................................................ 14-33
Figure 14-25: Swath Plot of Gold and Copper OK and NN Models by Easting .................................... 14-34
Figure 14-26: Isometric Views of Base Case with Resource Limiting Pit Shell ................................... 14-39
Figure 14-27: Isometric Views of Base Case Mineral Resource with Resource Limiting Pit Shell...... 14-40
Figure 16-1: Mined Material Movement .................................................................................................. 16-4
Figure 16-2: Mine and Waste Storage Configuration at the End of Year 25 .......................................... 16-8
Figure 16-3: Fresh Rock Slope Design ................................................................................................. 16-10
Figure 16-4: Slope Design Guidance for Saprolite and Saprock .......................................................... 16-11
Figure 17-1: Simplified Process Flowsheet ............................................................................................ 17-4
Figure 17-2: Plant General Arrangement ................................................................................................ 17-5
Figure 18-1: Waste Rock Storage Facility and Saprolite Storage Facility .............................................. 18-4
Figure 18-2: Dry Stack Tailings Facility .................................................................................................. 18-6
Figure 20-1: Social Setting - Project Location in Relation to Parish and Canton Areas .......................... 20-4
Figure 20-2: Graphic of ABA Results by Rock Type ............................................................................. 20-11
Figure 20-3: Graphic of ABA Results Based on Location ..................................................................... 20-11
Figure 20-4: On Site Kinetic Cell Leachate, pH Results ....................................................................... 20-16
Figure 21-1: Initial Capital Cost Estimate by Major Categories .............................................................. 21-3
Figure 21-2: Life-of-Mine Operating Cost Summary per Tonne Processed ........................................... 21-5
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 ix

Ecuador
Figure 22-1: After-tax NPV Sensitivity at Various Discount Rates ......................................................... 22-9
Figure 22-2: Metal Price Sensitivity ........................................................................................................ 22-9
Figure 22-3: Capital and Operating Cost Sensitivity Analyses ............................................................. 22-10
Figure 22-4: Metal Recovery Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................. 22-11
Figure 22-5: Metal Grade Sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 22-12
Figure 24-1: Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project Preliminary Execution Schedule ..................................... 24-5
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Comparison of 2018 and 2020 Mineral Resources ................................................................. 1-2
Table 1-2: 2020 Financial Results Compared to 2018 ............................................................................. 1-3
Table 1-3: Estimated Cost to Advance to Prefeasibility Study ................................................................. 1-7
Table 1-4: Financial Analysis Assumptions and Results .......................................................................... 1-8
Table 1-5: Operating Cost Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 1-8
Table 1-6: Initial Plus Expansion Capital Cost Sensitivity......................................................................... 1-9
Table 1-7: Estimate of Mineral Resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia ............................................. 1-16
Table 1-8: Mine Production Schedule – All Material Types .................................................................... 1-17
Table 1-9: Estimated Metallurgical Recovery by Rock Type .................................................................. 1-18
Table 1-10: Process Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 1-19
Table 1-11: Initial and Expansion Capital Costs Including Contingency ................................................ 1-22
Table 1-12: Life of Mine Operating Cost Summary ................................................................................ 1-23
Table 2-1: Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 4-1: Mining Concessions – Cangrejos ............................................................................................ 4-3
Table 4-2: Surface Rights ......................................................................................................................... 4-3
Table 6-1: Exploration History of the Cangrejos Project ........................................................................... 6-5
Table 9-1: Untested Exploration Targets – Cangrejos Project ................................................................. 9-3
Table 10-1: Summary of Drilling Cangrejos Project................................................................................. 10-1
Table 13-1: FLS Comminution Testing Results ...................................................................................... 13-6
Table 13-2: Summary of HPGR Locked Cycle Test ............................................................................... 13-6
Table 13-3: Estimated Metallurgical Recovery by Rock Type ................................................................ 13-9
Table 14-1: Summary of Basic Statistics of Data Proximal to the Cangrejos Mineral Resource Model .. 14-
10
Table 14-2: Summary of Basic Statistics of Data Proximal to the Gran Bestia Mineral Resource Model 14-
10
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 x

Ecuador
Table 14-3: Summary of Estimation Domains ...................................................................................... 14-22

Table 14-4: Treatment of Outlier Sample Data at Cangrejos ............................................................... 14-23
Table 14-5: Treatment of Outlier Sample Data at Gran Bestia ............................................................. 14-23
Table 14-6: Variogram Parameters for Cangrejos ................................................................................ 14-24
Table 14-7: Variogram Parameters for Gran Bestia ............................................................................. 14-25
Table 14-8: Block Model Limits ............................................................................................................. 14-26
Table 14-9: Interpolation Parameters for Cangrejos ............................................................................. 14-26
Table 14-10: Interpolation Parameters for Gran Bestia ........................................................................ 14-27
Table 14-11: Estimate of Mineral Resources at Cangrejos .................................................................. 14-37
Table 14-12: Estimate of Mineral Resources at Gran Bestia ............................................................... 14-37
Table 14-13: Estimate of Mineral Resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia ....................................... 14-38
Table 14-14: Sensitivity of Indicated Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Cangrejos ....................... 14-43
Table 14-15: Sensitivity of Inferred Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Cangrejos ......................... 14-43
Table 14-16: Sensitivity of Indicated Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Gran Bestia .................... 14-44
Table 14-17: Sensitivity of Inferred Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Gran Bestia....................... 14-44
Table 14-18: Sensitivity of Indicated Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia 14-
45
Table 14-19: Sensitivity of Inferred Mineral Resource to Cut-off Grade at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia .. 14-
45
Table 14-20: Comparison of Current and Previous Estimate of Mineral Resources ............................ 14-46
Table 16-1: Mine Production Schedule – All Material Types .................................................................. 16-2
Table 16-2: Mill Production Schedule ..................................................................................................... 16-3
Table 16-3: Tonnage Tabulations within Phase Designs ....................................................................... 16-7
Table 16-4: Mine Equipment Fleet on Hand for Selected Years .......................................................... 16-12
Table 16-5: Hourly Mine Labor for Selected Years ............................................................................... 16-13
Table 16-6: Salary Mine Labor .............................................................................................................. 16-14
Table 17-1: Process Trade-off Study Results ......................................................................................... 17-1
Table 17-2: Comminution Trade-off Study Results ................................................................................. 17-2
Table 17-3: Process Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 17-6
Table 17-4: Major Equipment List ........................................................................................................... 17-6
Table 17-5: Expatriates Required and Duration ................................................................................... 17-10
Table 17-6: Process Management and Technical Personnel Requirements ....................................... 17-11
Table 17-7: Assay Lab and Mill Production Labor ................................................................................ 17-11
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 xi

Ecuador
Table 20-1: Social Management / Mitigation Strategies According to Sources of Impacts (Positive &
Negative) and Risks ................................................................................................................................. 20-6
Table 20-2: ABA Results of Cangrejos Mine Tailings ............................................................................ 20-13
Table 20-3: Supernatant Analysis ......................................................................................................... 20-14
Table 21-1: Initial and Expansion Capital Cost Estimates Including Contingency ................................. 21-2
Table 21-2: Areas of Major Cost Increases ............................................................................................ 21-3
Table 21-3: Life-of-Mine Operating Cost Summary ................................................................................ 21-4
Table 21-4: Mine Operating Cost Summary ........................................................................................... 21-6
Table 21-5: Process Operating Costs ..................................................................................................... 21-7
Table 21-6: General and Administrative Operating Costs ...................................................................... 21-7
Table 21-7: General and Administrative Staffing Level (Year 1 of Operations) ..................................... 21-8
Table 22-1: Economic Model Inputs ....................................................................................................... 22-2
Table 22-2: Key Results .......................................................................................................................... 22-3
Table 22-3: After-tax NPV at Various Discount Rates ............................................................................ 22-8
Table 22-4: Metal Price Sensitivity.......................................................................................................... 22-9
Table 22-5: Operating Cost Sensitivity ................................................................................................. 22-10
Table 22-6: Initial Plus Expansion Capital Cost Sensitivity................................................................... 22-10
Table 22-7: Metal Recovery Sensitivity................................................................................................. 22-11
Table 22-8: Variation in Gold Grade ..................................................................................................... 22-11
Table 22-9: Cash Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................... 22-13
Table 26-1: Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................................... 26-1
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 xii

Ecuador
1 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
The Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project (Cangrejos or the Project) is a gold-copper project located
within the historic El Oro province in southwestern Ecuador. The Cangrejos concessions are fully
owned by Lumina Gold Corp. (Lumina or the Company), based in Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, through its 100% owned Ecuadorian subsidiary, Odin Mining del Ecuador S.A. (Odin).
For this report, the International System (SI) of units is used throughout unless otherwise noted
and all currency is reported in United States dollars (US$), which is the currency used in the
country of Ecuador.
MTB Enterprises Inc. (MTB) was engaged to update the 2018 PEA and Preliminary Economic
Assessment (PEA), with the main purpose of incorporating the updated resource estimate for the
Project and other engineering work and studies that were completed between 2018 and 2020.
The 2020 PEA demonstrates substantial improvements with the addition of the Gran Bestia
satellite deposit, increased mineral resource definition, and improved process flow sheet.
MTB was assisted by SIM Geological Inc. (SIM), Independent Mining Consultants Inc. (IMC),
Ausenco Engineering Canada, Inc. (Ausenco), Global Resource Engineering Ltd. (GRE), ND King
Consulting LLC (NDK), BD Resource Consulting, Inc. (BDRC), Wylie & Norrish Rock Engineers,
Inc. (W&N), Robert Michel Enterprises (RME), and AKA PROS, Inc. (AKA) who provided the
Qualified Persons (QPs) responsible for the report.
Initially the engagement was for the completion of a Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) on the
main Cangrejos deposit. A decision was made to update the 2018 Scoping Study and PEA to a
second PEA given that Lumina had only been working on the Gran Bestia deposit since 2018 and
further work is required to bring Gran Bestia to a PFS level. Lumina felt that it is important to
include Gran Bestia for the purpose of scaling the project correctly for future studies and permitting
efforts.
There are no Mineral Reserves for the Project currently. The information reported in this PEA is
preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative
geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be
categorized as Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited geological
evidence and sampling. The tonnage and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources have significant
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically. There is no
certainty that this PEA will be realized.
Table 1-1 compares the June 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate with the updated 2020 Mineral
Resource Estimate. Lumina converted 10.4 million ounces of contained gold and 1.4 billion
pounds of contained copper from Inferred to Indicated. In addition, the Project also has 6.7 million
ounces of contained gold and 0.8 billion pounds of contained copper in the Inferred category. The
total contained metal at the Project increased substantially given the addition of the Gran Bestia
Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-1

Ecuador
deposit, expansion drilling at the Cangrejos deposit, and a change in cut-off grade based on more
refined assumptions and a higher gold price.
The 2019 Mineral Resource estimate served as the basis for development of the mine plan, which
envisions open pit mining of the two deposits operating over a 25-year mine life. The nominal
production rate ramps up to 40,000 tpd during the first year of operation and includes an
expansion to ramp up to 80,000 tpd in year six. Compared to the 2018 PEA, the mine life
increased from the previous 16 years to the current 25 years.
TABLE 1-1: COMPARISON OF 2018 AND 2020 MINERAL RESOURCES
Average Grade Contained Metal

Date Mt
AuEq Au Cu Ag Mo Au Cu Ag Mo
(g/t) (g/t) (%) (g/t) (ppm) (Moz) (Mlbs) (Moz) (Mlbs)
Indicated
June 2018 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
June 2020 570.8 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 10.4 1,409 12.8 26.7
Inferred
June 2018 408.0 0.85 0.65 0.11 0.6 25.0 8.5 1,033 7.8 22.5
June 2020 500.4 0.53 0.41 0.08 0.6 13.0 6.7 838 10.3 14.3
Note: The estimates in Table 1-1 are limited inside the $1,500/oz Au pit shell. The base case cut-off grade is 0.30 g/t gold equivalent
(AuEq). Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves because the economic viability has not been demonstrated.
The 2020 PEA highlights include:

• Life of mine (LOM) average annual payable production of 366 thousand ounces gold
• LOM average annual payable by-product production of 46 Mlbs copper
• 25-year mine life
• 40 ktpd processing operation from years 1-5, with an expansion to 80 ktpd in year 6
• After-tax NPV (5%) and IRR of $1.6 billion and 16.2%
• After-tax NPV (5%) and IRR of $2.5 billion and 21.7% using $1,680 per ounce gold
(Please refer to Table 22-2 for details)
• Average cash operating costs of $545/oz and all-in sustaining costs of $604/oz, net of
by-product credits
• LOM processed grades of 0.56 g/t gold and 0.10% copper
• LOM revenue mix of 78.9% gold, 19.4% copper and 1.7% molybdenum plus silver
• Initial capital costs including working capital and refundable Value Added Tax (VAT),
of $1,000 million
• Expansion capital to double throughput of $454 million, including working capital and
VAT
The effective date of the PEA is June 8, 2020. Base case economics were calculated using a
gold price of $1,400 per ounce, copper price of $2.75 per pound, molybdenum price of $9.00 per
pound and a silver price of $16.00 per ounce.
A comparison of the economic results between the 2018 and 2020 PEAs is provided in Table 1-
2.

Ecuador
TABLE 1-2: 2020 FINANCIAL RESULTS COMPARED TO 2018
Description June 2018 June 2020

Gold Price $ 1,300/oz $ 1,400/oz
Copper Price $ 3.25/lb $ 2.75/lb
Post-tax NPV (5%) $ 920 M $ 1,571 M
Post-tax IRR 15.0% 16.2%
Processed Tonnes 339 Mt 640 Mt
LOM Processed Gold Grade 0.69 g/t Au 0.56 g/t Au
LOM Processed Copper Grade 0.12% Cu 0.10% Cu
LOM Contained Gold 7.5 Moz 11.4 Moz
LOM Contained Copper 0.9 Blbs 1.5 Blbs
Average Annual Gold Production 373 koz 366 koz
Average Annual Copper Production 43 Mlbs 46 Mlbs
Mine Life 16 years 25 years
Initial Capital Cost, including working capital and VAT $831 M $ 1,000 M
Expansion Capital Costs, including working capital and VAT $ 406 M $ 454 M
Sustaining Capital Costs $ 230 M $ 445 M
Ecuadorian NSR Royalty 5% 3%
1.2 Conclusions
1.2.1 Summary
• The results of this PEA show that the Mineral Resources at the Cangrejos Project are
potentially viable with a Net Present Value (NPV) of 16.2% and an Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) of $1,571 M at a 5% discount rate over a mine life of 25 years processing
approximately 640 Mt.
• The life of mine average mill feed grade is 0.556 gpt gold, 0.1% copper, 0.67 gpt silver,
and 20 ppm molybdenum. This equates to an average gold equivalent grade of 0.695
gpt.
• The initial capital cost to construct the mine, processing facilities, and required
infrastructure is approximately $1,000 M including freight, duties, taxes, contingency,
VAT and working capital.
• The average operating cost over the life of the mine is approximately $11.31 per tonne
of material processed.
• The information reported in this PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred
Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic
considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral
Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited geological evidence and
sampling. The tonnage and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources have significant
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically.
There is no certainty that this PEA will be realized.

Ecuador
1.2.2 Resource
• Based on the current level of exploration, the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits
contain a total estimated Indicated Mineral Resource of 571 Mt at a grade of 0.57 g/t
Au, 0.11% Cu, 0.7 g/t Ag and 21.2 ppm Mo containing 10.4 Moz Au, 1,409 Mlbs Cu,
12.8 Moz Ag and 26.7 Mlbs Mo.
• There is an additional total estimated Inferred Mineral Resource of 500 Mt at a grade
of 0.41 g/t Au, 0.08% Cu, 0.6 g/t Ag and 13 ppm Mo containing 6.7 Moz Au, 838 Mlbs
Cu, 10.3 Moz Ag and 14.3 Mlbs Mo.
• Mineral Resources are constrained within pit shells and are tabulated at a cut-off grade
of 0.30 g/t gold equivalent.
• Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves because the economic viability has not
been demonstrated.
1.2.3 Mining
• The Cangrejos Project is amenable to conventional, large-scale, open pit mining
methods.
• The production schedule developed for the Project includes seven phases over a 25-
year mine life following an 18-month preproduction period.
1.2.4 Mine Geotechnical

• For this Study, it is assumed that through-going, low shear strength, geologic
structures (i.e. regional faults) are not present based on current structural
interpretations by Lumina and third-party geologists that included field mapping, image
analyses, and the inability to correlate structures between borings.
• The detailed statistical evaluation of a comprehensive database of rock quality
parameters led to the conclusion that rock quality is high, is not spatially variable to
any significant extent, and is not lithologically controlled.
• Saprolith deposits (i.e., saprolite over saprock) were assumed to have combined
thickness to a maximum of 40 m based on borehole intersections and to have exhibited
historical instability probably related to precipitation.
• Pit slope designs incorporated groundwater levels that were assumed to be high in
both the bedrock and saprolith due to predicted limited natural drawdown related to pit
excavation.
1.2.5 Metallurgy
• Metallurgical test data shows that economically viable metal recovery processes are
available for samples taken from Cangrejos and Gran Bestia.
1.2.6 Process and Infrastructure Design

• The process and infrastructure design that has been completed as the basis for this
Study is a conceptual design that has been completed to a scoping-level of accuracy.
Unit operations have been optimized and/or added based on an improved
understanding of the resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia. This includes HPGR
comminution, addition of sand flotation and cyanide leaching to increase gold recovery
and more detailed designs. The additional work results in more accurate cost

Ecuador
estimates, particularly for tailings filtration and overland conveying of both crushed
rock and the filtered tailings.
1.2.7 Geotechnical
Seismic
• Based on a review of the available technical literature, Ausenco concluded that the
seismicity in the Cangrejos project area is controlled mainly by the crustal background
seismicity within the coastal zone, as well as intra-slab seismicity.
• In accordance with the review and the Ecuadorian Construction Code (ECN), Ausenco
recommends using a design peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.40g for 1:475 yr and
0.61g for 1:2,475 return periods measured in soils of type C-D (typical soils present in
the Project area) for project infrastructure in accordance with international design
standards.
Geotechnical Investigation
• A geotechnical program was performed in 2019 including test pits and boreholes along
with the collection of soil and rock samples, laboratory testing and geotechnical
surface mapping and geophysical investigations to understand the foundation
conditions for the Plant Site, Primary Crusher area, Waste Rock Storage Facility
(WRSF), Haul Road, Dry Stack Tailings Facility (DSTF), and Saprolite Storage Facility
(SSF).
• This information was used to develop the conceptual designs for the site infrastructure.
A limited field program was conducted and additional geotechnical investigations will
be required during the Prefeasibility Study.
• Geochemistry work to date indicates that tailings, waste rock, saprolite, and saprock
are non-acid generating based on results of acid-based accounting, paste pH testing
and barrel leaching tests. The tailings and waste rock contain naturally-occurring
minerals that are net neutralizing, as well as low concentrations of sulfide. Therefore,
runoff should not produce any constituents of concern except for potential sediment
that will be captured in sediment ponds directly below the DSTF and WRSF.
Dry Stack Tailings Facility
• Ausenco evaluated disposal technologies and storage sites. Applyjng safety, terrain,
and land usage criteria the selected technology is filtered dry stack tailings. The site
for the DSTF is located 2.1 kms from the plant site and was selected based on location
and stable terrain deemed ideal for such infrastructure. The site has storage capacity
to provide secure and permanent storage of 640 Mt of filtered tailings.
• The filtered tailings will be transported to the DSTF by overland conveyor and stacked
using portable conveyors, radial stacker and dozers and compactors in thin lifts to
improve stability of this facility. In addition, the filtered tailings surface will be
compacted and raincoats will be installed to reduce rain infiltration and erosion. The
conceptual design for the facility uses bottom up construction along with an extensive
underdrain system to capture near surface groundwater and seepage. The facility was
designed in accordance with Canadian Dam Association (CDA) 2014 guidelines.
• Based on the geotechnical parameters that were determined by laboratory testing and
the DSTF configuration, an operating dry stack facility with an overall slope of 3.25:1
(H:V) was designed. Stability analyses were performed and the design has an

Ecuador
adequate factor of safety (i.e., greater than 1.3). In addition, the ultimate facility has
an acceptable long-term factor of safety greater than 1.5 and a pseudo-static factor of
safety greater than 1.0.
Waste Rock and Saprolite Storage Facilities
• The WRSF and SSF are designed to provide secure and permanent storage of
approximately 728 Mt of non-economical waste rock and overburden (i.e., saprolite
and saprock). The WRSF is scheduled to be constructed in multiple phases, initially
from the top down to create the WRSF haul road and then from the bottom up to
improve stability. During the initial years, the saprolite and saprock will be stored in a
separate facility until the ratio of transitional and fresh rock to saprolite and saprock is
greater than 7:1. This concept keeps the saprolite and saprock away from the toe
areas of the WRSF and provides necessary stability. This facility was designed in
accordance with international waste rock storage guidelines. The facility has an
extensive underdrain system to capture near surface groundwater and seepage.
• Based on the geotechnical parameters that were determined by laboratory testing and
the WRSF and SSF configurations, stability analyses were performed and both
facilities were found to have an adequate factor of safety (i.e., greater than 1.3). In
addition, the ultimate combined facilities have acceptable long-term factors of safety
greater than 1.5 and a pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1.0.
1.2.8 Water Supply

• Because the Project is in an area with a net positive water balance and abundant
surface water resources, there is sufficient water to supply the operations.
1.2.9 Geochemistry
• Geochemical analyses of waste rock and tailings that have been completed to date
indicate that the mine waste rock and mine tailings are non-acid generating. Mine
contact water quality meets Ecuadorian standards for direct discharge to the
environment after sedimentation but without further treatment.
1.3 Recommendations
The outcome of this PEA is an overall recommendation to complete a Preliminary Feasibility
Study to advance the development of the Project.
The estimated costs to complete the Prefeasibility Study, as recommended by the Qualified
Persons (QPs) and supporting consultants who completed this PEA, are summarized in Table 1-
3.

Ecuador
TABLE 1-3: ESTIMATED COST TO ADVANCE TO PREFEASIBILITY STUDY

Estimated Cost
Description
(US$ 000)
Project Management 418
Resource Drilling 6,073
Resource Estimation and QA/QC 54
Mine Design 200
Mine Geotechnical Drilling 208
Mine Geotechnical 250
Structural Modeling 60
Metallurgy 405
Metallurgical Oversight 56
Process & Infrastructure Engineering 780
Engineering Design Oversight 48
Geotechnical 539
Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Surface Water Management, Environmental 463
Management, and Water Balance
Marketing/Transportation Update 50
Environmental 445
Power Supply Update 30
General and Administrative 70
Subtotal 10,149
Contingency (15%) 1,522
Total to Complete a Prefeasibility Study 11,671
1.4 Economic Analysis

A discounted cash flow analysis was completed to evaluate the potential viability of the Mineral
Resources at the Cangrejos Project.
Details of the assumptions and the outcome of the analysis are provided in Table 1-4.

Ecuador
TABLE 1-4: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS
Assumption/Outcome Value/Results
Prices
Gold (per oz) $ 1,400
Silver (per oz) $ 16.00
Copper (per lb) $ 2.75
Molybdenum (per lb) $ 9.00
Material Processed (Mt) 640.3
Average LOM Grades
Gold (g/t) 0.56
Silver (g/t) 0.67
Copper (%) 0.10
Molybdenum (ppm) 20
NSR to Ecuador 3%
VAT 12%
Discount Rate 5%
Pre-tax IRR 20.2%
Pre-tax NPV $ 2,555 M
Post-tax IRR 16.2%
Post-tax NPV $ 1,571 M
The sensitivity of the economic outcome to operating costs and capital costs are provided in
Tables 1-5 and 1-6, respectively. The results are shown graphically in Figure 1-1.
TABLE 1-5: OPERATING COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
OPEX $/t
Operating Cost IRR NPV (5%) $M
processed
80% $ 9.05 18.8% $ 2,059

90% $ 10.18 17.6% $ 1,818
100% $ 11.31 16.2% $ 1,571
10% $ 12.44 14.7% $ 1,322
20% $ 13.57 13.1% $ 1,071

Ecuador
TABLE 1-6: INITIAL PLUS EXPANSION CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY 1
Capital Cost CAPEX $M IRR NPV (5%) $M
80% $ 1,043 19.5% $ 1,749

90% $ 1,173 17.7% $ 1,662
100% $ 1,304 16.2% $ 1,571
10% $ 1,434 14.9% $ 1,479
20% $ 1,564 13.7% $ 1,384
20.0% 2,500,000
19.0%
18.0% 2,000,000
17.0%
NPV ($ 000)
16.0% 1,500,000
IRR (%)
15.0%
14.0% 1,000,000
13.0%
12.0% 500,000
11.0%
10.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Percent of Nominal
OPEX IRR CAPEX IRR OPEX NPV CAPEX NPV
FIGURE 1-1: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
1.5 Execution Plan

To support the capital cost estimate, a conceptual execution plan and schedule were developed.
The plan comprises engineering, procurement, construction, and other related preproduction
activities that are required to bring the Cangrejos Project into commercial production.
The plan assumes that the Project will move into a three-year preproduction period after
environmental approval, receipt of all required licenses and permits, project financing, and
corporate approval to proceed. A summary-level schedule was developed using logic and
durations for major activities, including manufacturing and delivery durations for major mining and
1Capital costs in Table 1-6 do not include spare parts or initial fills. Therefore, the values shown are
different from the values shown in Table 1-2.

Ecuador
process equipment provided by IMC/Lumina and ONIX, respectively. Durations for preproduction
mining activities were developed by IMC using first principles. Durations for critical path activities
were developed using recent data from similar projects. Other construction activities were
considered to fit within the overall timeline for the critical activities.
During a future Feasibility Study some early/basic engineering may be performed to facilitate early
placement of purchase orders for the primary crusher, ball mills, high pressure grinding roll
(HPGR), and other long-lead items in order to reduce schedule risk due to vendor
manufacturing/delivery delays. Early engineering of some of the site infrastructure during the
permitting process may be advantageous if it facilitates an efficient start of construction on site
after permit approvals are received.
Basic and detailed process and related infrastructure engineering, procurement, and construction
management (EPCM) services are to be completed by an international engineering firm with
experience in the design and construction of similar projects. Experienced international
companies will also be contracted to complete the mine design, specification of mining equipment,
and materials, and detailed design and quality assurance services for geotechnical facilities
including the WRSF and DSTF.
Discrete packages for some infrastructure and ancillary facilities will be subcontracted to qualified
Ecuadorian engineering firms for detailed design and procurement. It is anticipated that the
EPCM contractor will source materials and equipment from within Ecuador to the extent possible.
1.6 Technical Summary
1.6.1 Property Description and Location

Cangrejos is located in southwestern Ecuador in the province of El Oro, about 223 km from
Guayaquil and 30 km southeast of the provincial capital of Machala at 3° 28’ 58” south latitude,
79° 49’ 3” west latitude, as shown in Figure 1-2. The Project lies primarily within the Cantons (i.e.,
counties) of Santa Rosa and Atahualpa. The Project is in the El Oro Metamorphic Belt Zone of
the Cordillera Real, in steep, high-relief terrain near the northeastern rim of an ancient caldera at
the eastern edge of the coastal plain. Project elevations range from approximately 100 masl to
1,370 masl.
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the Project are 9614300 North and
633200 East (geographic projection: Provisional South American 1956, Zone 17S). The
proposed mine and major elements of supporting infrastructure will be located primarily in areas
of evergreen montane and secondary forest, as well as altered pasture and agricultural areas in
the central part of the Project.

Ecuador
Source: Lumina, 2017

FIGURE 1-2: CANGREJOS PROJECT LOCATION
1.6.2 Land Tenure

The Cangrejos Project currently consists of a group of ten mining concessions totaling 6,373 ha.
All concessions are held by Lumina through Odin. The concessions are in good standing with all
fees paid to date. In addition, Odin owns or controls by legal easement land areas of
approximately 1,512 ha. The concessions are outlined in the Project area shown in Figure 1-3.

Ecuador
Source: Odin Mining, 2020

FIGURE 1-3: CANGREJOS PROJECT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOCAL AREA
1.6.3 Existing Infrastructure and Accessibility

Currently infrastructure on site includes an exploration camp and core logging and storage
facilities. The site also has power and cell phone coverage.
1.6.4 History
In 1992, Odin carried out a stream sediment sampling program to locate the source of the Birón
alluvial gold deposit that it was mining (69,000 oz Au). A number of good gold stream sediment
anomalies were located and mineral concessions were acquired over these areas. In 1994, Odin
formed the El Joven Joint Venture with Newmont Overseas Exploration Limited (Newmont) to
explore the region. Newmont was the operator and carried out an airborne magnetic-radiometric
survey, an IP survey, geological mapping and extensive soil and rock geochemical surveys.
Survey procedures, sampling methodology, and analysis of these samples are described in detail
by Mayor and Soria (2000) and Potter (2004, 2010). Detailed information on the geological
mapping and airborne and ground geophysics programs are also discussed in the above-
mentioned reports.

Ecuador
From these exploration programs, well-defined gold and/or copper soil anomalies have been
delineated. A sub-circular, gold-copper soil anomaly with a diameter of approximately 2,700 m
occurs at the center of the property. The Cangrejos and Gran Bestia mineralized zones occur
within this area of anomalous gold and copper soil values.
Other mineralized showings on the property also have anomalous,but somewhat less-extensive,
gold and copper soil values.
In 1999, Newmont drilled the large gold-copper soil anomaly and discovered a zone of porphyry-
style, gold-copper mineralization (Hole C99-14: 1.57 g/t Au, 0.19% Cu over 192 m) (Odin Mining,
Dec. 1999) which was subsequently named the Cangrejos Zone. Newmont also discovered
another zone of porphyry-style mineralization at Gran Bestia, located 1.2 km northwest of the
Cangrejos Zone (Hole C99-06: 1.19 g/t Au over 132 m) (Odin Mining, Sept. 1999).
In 2001, Newmont withdrew from the Joint Venture following a risk and evaluation review of the
Project that suggested that it would not meet corporate requirements. Odin retained the northern
claims which covered the Cangrejos Zone and several other geochemical anomalies. Between
2004 and 2007, it carried out additional stream sediment and soil sampling.
From April 2008 to November 2009, the Ecuadorian government imposed a country-wide
moratorium on exploration, so no work was done on the property during that time.
In 2010, exploration work continued with additional soil sampling.
In 2011 and 2012, drilling tested the extent of the Cangrejos Zone and a gold soil anomaly in the
Casique area.
In 2014 and early 2015, additional drilling extended the lateral and depth extents of the Cangrejos
Zone and tested the El Capitán copper-molybdenum soil anomaly. Based on the historical and
2014 drilling at the Cangrejos Zone, an initial Inferred Mineral Resource estimate of
191.8 Mtonnes of mineralized material at 0.64 g/t Au, 0.8 g/t Ag, 0.10% Cu, 31.2 ppm Mo (using
a 0.35 g/t Au equivalent cut-off and a $1,250/oz Au pit shell) contained 4.0 million ounces of gold,
4.6 million ounces of silver, 440 million pounds of copper and 13 million pounds of molybdenum
(Brepsant et al., 2017).
In 2017, additional drilling of the Cangrejos Zone discovered a deep, high-grade gold-copper
zone. An updated mineral resource estimate was published in December 2017 (Sim and Davis,
2017) and was updated for a PEA completed in August 2018 (Rose et al., 2018). The Cangrejos
Zone had an Inferred Mineral Resource estimate of 408 Mtonnes of mineralized material at 0.65
g/t Au, 0.6 g/t Ag, 0.11% Cu and 25 ppm Mo (using a 0.35 g/t Au equivalent cut-off and a $1,400/oz
Au pit shell) which contained 8.5 Moz Au, 1,033 Mlbs Cu, 7.8 Moz Ag and 22.5 Mlbs Mo (Lumina,
2018a).
Drilling continued at Cangrejos to convert the Inferred Mineral Resource to Indicated and to
assess the extent of mineralization at Gran Bestia. The Mineral Resource estimate described in
this Technical Report is based on these drill results.

Ecuador
1.6.5 Geology and Mineralization

The Cangrejos Project is underlain by Miocene quartz diorite intrusions which intrude the El Oro
metamorphic complex. A large gold-copper soil anomaly is associated with breccia zones located
near the contacts of these Miocene intrusions.
The Cangrejos Zone is a northeasterly trending zone of porphyry-style, gold-copper-silver-
molybdenum mineralization. It extends for approximately 1,000 m in a northeasterly direction, has
widths ranging from 70 m to 600 m, and has been defined to a depth of at least 600 m. The zone
remains open to expansion with further exploration to the west and at depth.
At Gran Bestia, the porphyry-style gold-copper mineralization is associated with breccias. The
mineralized zone has dimensions of 700 m (north-south) by 600 m (east-west) and has been
defined to depths of 700 m. The zone remains open to the north, west, and at depth.
Mineralization consists of finely disseminated chalcopyrite, pyrite and minor bornite, molybdenite
and pyrrhotite. The host rocks exhibit patchy secondary biotite (potassic) alteration and a late-
stage, calcic-sodic alteration which is characterized by actinolite, chlorite and albite.
1.6.6 Exploration Status

The Cangrejos Project is an advanced exploration project that has seen extensive geological
mapping, historical geochemical (streams, soils, top of bedrock soils and rocks) surveys and an
airborne magnetic-radiometric survey. This work defined several exploration targets and drilling
outlined mineralized zones at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia.
1.6.7 Mineral Resources

This is the fifth estimate of Mineral Resources for the Cangrejos Project. The most recent
previous estimate was presented in a technical report titled, Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
Ecuador, NI 43-101 Technical Report, dated December 12, 2019, with an effective date of
November 7, 2019 (Sim, et.al., 2019). The mineral resource model presented in the December
2019 Technical Report remains essentially unchanged and forms the basis of resources in this
PEA. However, there have been some minor adjustments to the classification of model blocks in
the deeper part of the Gran Bestia deposit that resulted in some minor changes to the extent of
the resource limiting pit shell. These changes had a negligible effect on the resources for the
Cangrejos deposit but resulted in a minor increase (of approximately 25 Mt) of Mineral Resources
in the Inferred category at the Gran Bestia deposit. There has been no additional exploration
drilling completed on the Cangrejos Project since the generation of the resource block model and,
therefore, the effective date of the estimate of Mineral Resources in this report is June 8, 2020..
There has been no additional exploration drilling completed on the Cangrejos Project since the
generation of the resource block model.
The Mineral Resource estimate was generated using drill-hole sample assay results and the
interpretation of a geological model which relates to the spatial distribution of gold, copper, silver,
molybdenum, and sulfur. Interpolation characteristics were defined based on the geology, drill
hole spacing, and geostatistical analysis of the data. Estimations are made from 3D block models

Ecuador
based on geostatistical applications using commercial mine planning software (MinePlan® v15.60,
formerly called MineSight®).
Grade estimates were made using ordinary kriging (OK) into a model with a nominal block size of
15 m × 15 m × 15 m. Potentially anomalous outlier grades have been identified and their
influences on the grade models are controlled during interpolation through the use of top-cutting
and outlier limitations. Specific gravities are estimated in model blocks using the inverse distance
weighting (IDW) interpolation method.
The results of the modelling process were validated using a combination of visual and statistical
methods to ensure the grade estimates are approriate representations of the underlying sample
data.
The Mineral Resources were classified according to their proximity to the sample data locations
and are reported, as required by NI 43-101, according to the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves (May 2014). Mineral Resources in the Indicated category include zones of consistent
mineralization where drill holes are spaced at a maximum distance of 100 m. Inferred class
Mineral Resources include areas that are within a maximum distance of 150 m from a drill hole.
To ensure that the Mineral Resource exhibits reasonable prospects for eventual economic
extraction, it has been constrained within a floating cone pit shell that was generated using the
following projected economic and technical parameters:
Mining (open pit) $2.00/t
Processing $8.00/t
General and Administrative (G&A) $1.50/t
Gold price $1,500/oz
Silver price $18.00/oz
Copper price $3.00/lb
Molybdenum price $7.00/lb
Gold process recovery 83% fresh rock; 80% part oxidized;
75% Saprolite (SAP) & Saprock (SRK)
Silver process recovery 60% fresh rock; 60% part oxidized;
65% SAP&SRK
Copper process recovery 87% fresh rock; 50% part oxidized
Molybdenum process recovery 50% fresh rock and part oxidized
Pit slope 47.5 degrees
The estimate of Mineral Resources, contained within the $1,500/oz Au pit shell, is based on gold
equivalent grades (AuEq) calculated using the following formula:
AuEq = Au g/t + (Ag g/t × 0.012) + (Cu% × 1.37) + (Mo ppm/10,000 × 3.2)
(Note: there is no contribution from copper or molybdenum in the saprolite or saprock units)
Using the assumed metal prices, operating costs and metallurgical recoveries listed above, the
base case cut-off grade for Mineral Resources is estimated to be 0.30 g/t AuEq.

Ecuador
Table 1-7 shows the combined estimate of Mineral Resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia.
Note that totals may not add due to rounding.
TABLE 1-7: ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES AT CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA

Type Mt AuEq Au Cu Ag Mo S Au Cu Ag Mo
(g/t) (g/t) (%) (g/t) (ppm) (%) (Moz) (Mlbs) (Moz) (Mlbs)
Indicated
SAP+SRK 17.0 0.60 0.57 0.09 2.8 4.8 0.04 0.3 35 1.5 0.2
TransOxide 19.5 0.71 0.56 0.10 0.7 16.1 0.19 0.4 41 0.5 0.7
Fresh 534.3 0.74 0.57 0.11 0.6 21.9 0.24 9.8 1331 10.8 25.8
Combined 570.8 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 0.24 10.4 1,409 12.8 26.7
Inferred
SAP+SRK 11.6 0.44 0.42 0.07 1.9 4.3 0.10 0.2 17 0.7 0.1
TransOxide 16.9 0.49 0.38 0.07 0.7 11.5 0.38 0.2 25 0.4 0.4
Fresh 471.9 0.53 0.42 0.08 0.6 13.3 0.33 6.3 791 9.3 13.8
Combined 500.4 0.53 0.41 0.08 0.6 13.0 0.33 6.7 838 10.3 14.3
Mineral Resources in the Inferred category have a lower level of confidence than that applied to
Indicated Mineral Resources and, although there is sufficient evidence to imply geologic grade
and continuity, these characteristics cannot be verified based on the current data. It is reasonably
expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral
Resources with continued exploration.
1.6.8 Mineral Reserves

There are no Mineral Reserves for the Cangrejos Project at this time. The information reported
in this PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered
too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable
them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited
geological evidence and sampling. The tonnage and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources have
significant uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically.
There is no certainty that this PEA will be realized.
The material to be moved according to this mine plan will be referred to as potentially minable
material which is a sub-set of the mineral resource. Material that is to be fed to the processing
plant is referred to as mill feed or processed material.
1.6.9 Mining Method

The Cangrejos Project consists of two adjacent open pit mines referred to as 1) Cangrejos
(eastern pit) and 2) Gran Bestia (western pit). Both pits will be mined with conventional hard rock
open pit mining methods. The terrain is very steep with evergreen montane secondary forest,
saprolite, and saprock overlying both pit areas. Dealing with the saprolite and saprock presents

Ecuador
challenges for mine operations. This was anticipated during the development of the mine
production schedule and in selecting the mine equipment.
The mine delivers 40,000 tpd of feed to the plant beginning in mid-year one through year five.
The production ramps up during year six so the mine delivers 80,000 tpd of mill feed in years 7 to
25. IMC developed the production schedules by rock types of saprolite, saprock, partially
oxidized, and fresh rock. A summary of the mined and processed material based on all material
types is provided in Table 1-8. The material listed as Processed during the PP period is stockpiled
and fed to the plant during year one.
TABLE 1-8: MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE – ALL MATERIAL TYPES
Cutoff Material Mined Total
Waste
Year NSR Processed NSR Gold Silver Copper Moly Gold Eq Sulfur Material
kt
$/t kt $/t gpt gpt % ppm gpt % kt
PP 21.00 1,163 27.73 0.817 2.5 0.11 10 0.898 0.12 5,588 6,751
1 21.00 9,057 30.54 0.818 1.1 0.14 21 0.959 0.15 14,917 23,974
2 21.00 14,600 34.74 0.854 0.7 0.16 32 1.061 0.21 31,400 46,000
3 20.00 14,600 31.71 0.749 0.8 0.17 21 0.969 0.27 50,400 65,000
4 20.00 14,600 28.05 0.718 0.7 0.11 21 0.860 0.20 50,400 65,000
5 18.00 14,600 27.44 0.678 0.4 0.12 31 0.837 0.23 50,400 65,000
6 17.00 26,280 28.52 0.678 0.6 0.14 27 0.869 0.24 38,720 65,000
7 16.00 29,200 25.97 0.641 0.9 0.12 19 0.796 0.24 35,800 65,000
8 14.00 29,200 24.51 0.633 0.8 0.08 21 0.748 0.25 35,800 65,000
9 12.00 29,200 26.02 0.651 0.8 0.11 26 0.796 0.22 35,800 65,000
10 10.50 29,200 22.41 0.547 0.6 0.11 23 0.687 0.21 35,800 65,000
11 9.50 29,200 22.25 0.525 0.6 0.12 19 0.679 0.26 35,800 65,000
12 9.50 29,200 27.87 0.671 0.7 0.13 17 0.849 0.28 28,629 57,829
13 9.50 29,200 18.85 0.476 0.6 0.08 16 0.577 0.29 32,067 61,267
14 9.50 29,200 20.86 0.515 0.6 0.09 21 0.637 0.23 33,257 62,457
15 9.50 29,200 22.72 0.545 0.8 0.11 21 0.693 0.35 31,631 60,831
16 9.50 29,200 21.22 0.518 0.7 0.09 18 0.647 0.34 32,594 61,794
17 9.50 29,200 17.55 0.431 0.6 0.08 15 0.535 0.30 33,611 62,811
18 9.50 29,200 21.92 0.527 0.7 0.10 18 0.668 0.25 25,774 54,974
19 9.50 29,200 25.77 0.591 0.8 0.14 27 0.785 0.28 20,917 50,117
20 9.50 29,200 25.26 0.599 0.8 0.13 21 0.771 0.32 16,151 45,351
21 9.50 29,200 18.50 0.453 0.7 0.09 14 0.566 0.27 24,154 53,354
22 9.50 29,200 16.77 0.413 0.6 0.07 15 0.513 0.30 8,716 37,916
23 9.50 29,200 14.95 0.362 0.4 0.07 17 0.456 0.26 6,345 35,545
24 9.50 29,200 14.85 0.359 0.4 0.07 17 0.452 0.26 8,958 38,158
25 9.50 19,754 19.43 0.489 0.4 0.08 15 0.592 0.26 4,480 24,234
TOTAL 640,254 22.74 0.556 0.7 0.10 20 0.695 0.26 728,109 1,368,363
A monthly schedule was developed by IMC for the 18 months prior to plant commissioning for
planning the capital expenditures, personnel requirements, and for scheduling. The
preproduction period begins after the road between the site facilities and the crusher site is

Ecuador
completed. The initial five months are for access pioneering only. Additional pioneering continues
throughout the period of preproduction mining.
Waste material was reported by the rock types of saprolite, saprock, partially oxidized, and fresh
rock. During the first five years of the mine life, the saprolite and saprock are delivered to the
saprolite storage facility (SSF) located south-southeast of the Cangrejos pit. The SSF is
constructed in four stages.
The fresh rock waste is delivered to the waste rock storage facility (WRSF) located south of the
Cangrejos pit and the primary crusher. A portion of the saprock is delivered to the WRSF during
the first five years. After year five, all of the saprolite and saprock are stored in the main WRSF.
The WRSF is built in five stages.
Cangrejos is unique in that the waste haulage distances begin to slowly reduce over much of the
mine life from year seven until just a few years before the end of the mine life in year 25. This is
because the waste dump rises in elevation to meet the exit elevation from the pit.
1.6.10 Metallurgical Testing

Following a moratorium on exploration drilling in Ecuador, Odin embarked on additional
exploration work beginning in 2009. C.H. Plenge & CIA. S.A. (Plenge) conducted metallurgical
testing programs in 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2020 using a total of 63 samples including saprolite,
saprock, partially oxidized, and fresh rock samples. Initial optimization work was conducted using
composite samples and, after the optimized conditions were determined, additional tests were
conducted using variability samples of the three fresh rock lithologies (i.e., breccia, equigranular
quartz diorite, and porphyritic quartz diorite) from both deposits. Pilot plant tests were also
completed using separate samples from Cangrejos and Gran Bestia in order to prepare samples
of flotation concentrate and tailings for additional testing.
The estimated recoveries by rock type are provided in Table 1-9.
TABLE 1-9: ESTIMATED METALLURGICAL RECOVERY BY ROCK TYPE
Products Units Fresh Rock Partially Oxidized Saprock Saprolite
Doré
Gold Recovery % Au 10 20 75 75
Silver Recovery % Ag 10 10 65 65
Gold-Copper Concentrate
Copper Recovery % Cu 86 50 0 0
Molybdenum Concentrate
Molybdenum Recovery % Mo 50 50 0 0

Ecuador
Recovery assumptions:
• Gold and silver recoveries are constant
• Copper concentrate grades for fresh rock are variable
• Copper concentrate grade for partially oxidized material is 15% copper
• Molybdenum concentrate grade is 45% molybdenum
The copper concentrate grade for fresh rock material is estimated using the following equation,
where ST is the total sulfur concentration and Cu is the copper grade, in percent, of the processed
material:
𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇
𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (% 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) = −4.45 × ln + 20.96
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Metallurgical testing also included mineralogy, comminution including high pressure grinding roll
(HPGR) testing, and liquid-solid separation testing to provide data to be used as the basis for the
process design and capital and operating cost estimates.
1.6.11 Processing
The unit operations include:
• Primary crushing
• Secondary crushing
• HPGR crushing
• Ball milling with hydro-cyclone classification
• Bulk copper-molybdenum rougher flotation
• Regrinding of the bulk flotation concentrate
• Three stages of bulk concentrate cleaner flotation and cleaner scavenger flotation
• Thickening of the bulk concentrate
• Copper-molybdenum separation flotation via rougher flotation, scavenger flotation,
and five stages of cleaner flotation
• Thickening and filtering of copper and molybdenum final concentrates
• Hydro-cyclone classification of the bulk copper-molybdenum flotation tailings
• Sand flotation of the cyclone underflow of the flotation tailings
• Carbon-in-leach (CIL) of the combined sand flotation concentrate and cleaner
scavenger tailings
• Detoxification of the residual cyanide in CIL tailings
• Thickening and filtering of the tailings and recycling decant water
• Dry stack tailings storage
A summary of the conceptual process design criteria is provided in Table 1-10.
TABLE 1-10: PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA
Criteria Units Value Source
Plant Throughput Years 1 – 5 tpd 40,000 Production Schedule

Plant Throughput Years 1 – 5 Mtpa 14.6 Production Schedule

Ecuador
Plant Availability (primary crushing) % 75 Onix

Plant Availability (other) % 92 Onix
Plant Throughput Years 1 – 5 tph 1,800 Calculated
Head Grade gpt Au 0.556 Production Schedule
Head Grade gpt Ag 0.7 Production Schedule
Head Grade % Cu 0.10 Production Schedule
Head Grade ppm Mo 20 Production Schedule
Mineralized Material Specific Gravity g/cc 2.7 Plenge
Bond Ball Mill Work Index (BWi) kWh/t 17.1 FLS
Bond Abrasion Index (Ai) g 0.3511 FLS
Primary Grind Size (P80) µm 90 Plenge
Concentrate Regrind Size (P80) µm 35 Plenge
Bulk Rougher Flotation Time minutes 12 Plenge Data – factored
Tailings Thickener Sizing m2/tpd 0.125 Pocock
The CIL circuit nominally processes 10% of the plant feed, approximately 4,000 tpd during the
first five years and 8,000 tpd following the plant expansion in year 5 and commencing in year 6.
1.6.12 Project Infrastructure

The Project includes all infrastructure required to support the mining and processing operations
including:
• Dry Stack Tailings Facility (DSTF)
• Saprolite Storage Facility (SSF)
• Waste Rock Storage Facility (WRSF)
• Water supply and water management facilities
• Mine truck shop, warehouse, fuel storage and delivery, explosives storage
• Office building, warehousing, guard house
1.6.13 Market Studies

H&H Metals Inc. (H&H) completed a marketing study and provided the terms for the gold-copper
and molybdenum concentrates, including the estimated treatment charges (TCs), refining
charges (RCs), ocean shipping costs, and payment terms. Costs for shipping the doré and
payment terms were estimated based on similar projects.
1.6.14 Environmental, Permitting, and Social Considerations

The Project will be located primarily in areas of evergreen montane and secondary forest and
altered pasture and agricultural areas in the central part of the Project. The Project is drained by
a network of small streams; apart from these streams, no significant surface water features are
directly impacted by the Project. The natural environment in the area of the Project has been

Ecuador
significantly altered by a wide range of intrusive human influences that span many decades, and
archaeological evidence suggests a history of human habitation and influence that dates back
hundreds of years. No primary forest remains. Current land usage in the area of the Project is
typically a mixture of cattle grazing and light agriculture, in cleared areas adjacent to secondary
forest "islands.” The latter are usually situated in steep ravines and rugged terrain unsuitable for
agriculture or grazing. There are no villages or significant groups of dwellings in the project’s
environmental Area of Influence (AOI).
The Project is being developed in accordance with the Constitution, the Ecuadorian Mining Law
and its Regulations, the Environmental Organic Code and its Regulations, the Organic Law of
Water Resources and its Regulations,and other applicable Ecuadorian norms, standards, laws,
and regulations. Based on the experience of similar-scale projects in Ecuador, it is estimated that,
in aggregate, major permitting actions (excluding certain municipal, tax registration, and potential
concentrate export permits), several of which can occur in parallel, will take a minimum of 24
months to complete.
Social Capital Group completed a socioeconomic study for the Cangrejos Project. The Project is
located almost entirely in the parishes of Bellamaria and La Victoria, which are both within the
Canton of Santa Rosa. A small portion of the Project footprint crosses into the Canton of
Atahualpa. The Cantons of Santa Rosa and Atahualpa are both located within the coastal
Province of El Oro. The Project´s mining operation, access road (after exiting the national
highway), and water impacts will almost entirely be limited to Bellamaria parish. As a result, the
social AOI includes seven nearby settlements in Bellamaria parish and one in La Victoria.
However, the Project’s exploration and prospective construction activities are on rural land and
are physically removed from these villages. There are no nearby villages in Atahualpa.
Lumina corporate policies guide Odin’s management of social and other issues associated with
Project development.
1.6.15 Capital Cost Estimate

The capital cost estimate for the Project includes the initial capital, sustaining capital, and
expansion capital. The capital cost estimates include:
• Contracted Direct Costs
• Construction Indirect Costs
• Contracted Indirect Costs
• Owner’s Direct and Indirect Costs
The capital costs were organized by area using a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Direct
Capital Costs were estimated for the mine by IMC, for the processing plant by ONIX, for the
geotechnical infrastructure by Ausenco, and for water management by GRE. Support was
provided by MTB and PLS for the G&A costs. Contingency, freight, duty, and taxes are included
in the capital costs. Table 1-11 provides a summary of the estimated initial and expansion capital
costs.

Ecuador
TABLE 1-11: INITIAL AND EXPANSION CAPITAL COSTS INCLUDING CONTINGENCY

Initial Capital Expansion Capital
WBS Description
(US$ M) (US$ M)
0100 Mine 59.2 -----
0200 Crushing and Conveying 113.1 67.2
0300 Grinding 67.0 67.0
0400 Flotation & Concentrate Filtration 30.0 30.0
0500 CIL / Detox 12.4 12.4
0600 Carbon Plant & Refinery 3.4 3.4
0700 Reagent Preparation & Storage 4.3 4.3
0800 Tailings Thickening, Filtration, Conveying, Storage 136.1 92.4
0900 Site & Off-site Infrastructure and Facilities 30.1 3.1
1000 Plant Mobile Equipment & Light Vehicles 1.3 -
2000 Site Development 39.2 6.1
Total Direct Costs 496.3 286.0
3000 Construction Indirect Costs 24.8 5.3
4000 Contracted Indirect Costs 80.6 48.9
Total Indirect Costs 105.4 54.2
5000 Owner's Direct Costs 137.7 0.2
6000 Owner's Indirect Costs 42.0 7.3
Total Owner's Costs 179.7 7.5
Freight, Duty, and Taxes 24.1 9.2
Total Contingency 107.6 57.9
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 913.2 414.9
Working Capital 1.7 2.3
VAT 87.0 N/A
Total 1,000.2 417.2
Contingency Percentage of Total Costs 13.8% 16.7%
1.6.16 Operating Cost Estimate

Operating costs were estimated from first principles for mining, processing, General and
Administrative (G&A) costs, and tailings deposition costs. The life-of-mine operating costs are
summarized in Table 1-12. It should be noted that the costs associated with thickening, filtering
and transporting the tailings to the DSTF by overland conveyor are included in the process
operating costs. The tailings deposition costs include costs for tranporting them from the end of
the overland conveyor to the location where they will be deposited in the facility, spreading and
compacting, and purchasing and placing of geomembrane raincoats. The process operating
costs for thickening, filtering, and long-distance conveying, excluding reagents and maintenance,
is estimated to be $1.42 per tonne for years 1 through 5, bringing the total cost for dry stack
tailings to over $1.71 during this time period, which is consistent with costs for dry stack tailings
at similar projects.

Ecuador
TABLE 1-12: LIFE OF MINE OPERATING COST SUMMARY
Total LOM Average Unit Costs per t Processed

Area Cost Years 1 – 5 Years 6 – 25 LOM
US$ M US$/t US$/t US$/t
Mining 2,555 7.72 3.54 3.99
Processing 4,039 6.51 6.29 6.31
G&A 500 1.37 0.71 0.78
Tailings Deposition 148 0.29 0.22 0.23
Total 7,243 15.90 10.76 11.31
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Information and Statements

Certain statements and information herein, including all statements that are not historical facts
are “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable
securities laws. Examples of forward-looking statements in this Technical Report include, but are
not limited to, information and statements with respect to: Lumina’s plans and expectations for
the Project; estimates of mineral resources; possible related discoveries or extensions of new
mineralization or increases or upgrades to reported mineral resources estimates; mined and
processed material estimates for the Project; the internal rate of return of the Project; the annual
production of the Project; the net present value of the Project; the life of mine of the Project; the
capital costs, operating costs and other costs and payments estimated for the Project; the
proposed infrastructure for the Project; projected metallurgical recoveries; the proposed
equipment and employment for the Project; the potential upgrade of the Project to the pre-
feasibility study stage; the timing for completion of the Project; plans to conduct further
comprehensive engineering and metallurgical studies; anticipated environmental liabilities;
anticipated royalty liabilities and budgets for recommended work programs. In certain cases,
forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "budget", "estimates",
or variations of such words or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "would", or
"occur".
These forward-looking statements are based, in part, on assumptions and factors that may
change, thus causing actual results or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or
implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors and assumptions include, but are not
limited to, assumptions concerning base metal and precious metal prices; cutoff grades; accuracy
of mineral resource estimates and resource modelling; reliability of sampling and assay data;
representativeness of mineralization; accuracy of metallurgical testwork; timely receipt of
regulatory approvals; general business and economic conditins and anticipated costs and
expenditures. The foregoing list of assumptions is not exhaustive.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors
which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Lumina to be materially
different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Such risks and other factors include, among others, fluctuation in the
price of base and precious metals; expropriation risks; currency fluctuations; requirements for

Ecuador
additional capital; government regulation of mining operations; environmental, safety and

regulatory risks; risks related to inaccurate geological and engineering assumptions; risks relating
to unanticipated operational difficulties, unavailability of materials and equipment, unanticipated
reclamation expenses; title disputes or claims; limitations on insurance coverage; changes in
project parameters as plans continue to be refined; failure of plant, equipment or processes to
operate as anticipated; accidents, labour disputes; risks relating to adverse weather conditions;
political risk and social unrest; the risks of global or localized pandemics or epidemics; other risks
of the mining industry; competition inherent in the mining exploration industry; delays in obtaining
governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of exploration, development or
construction activities, as well as those factors discussed in the sections entitled “Risks and
Uncertainties” in Lumina’s annual Management’s Discussion and Analysis. Although Lumina and
the authors of this Technical Report have attempted to identify important factors that could affect
Lumina and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ, perhaps materially, from those
described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or
results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-
looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ
materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue
reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this Technical Report
are based on beliefs, expectations and opinions as of the effective date of this Technical Report.
Lumina and the authors of this Technical Report do not undertake any obligation to update any
forward-looking information and statements included herein, except in accordance with applicable
securities laws.

Ecuador
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of the Technical Report

MTB Enterprises Inc. (MTB) was engaged by Lumina Gold Corp. (Lumina) to update the 2018
Scoping Study and Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). A number of consultants were
retained to support completion of this Study, as outlined in Section 2.2. The purpose of this report
is to disclose the results of the PEA.
Lumina is a Vancouver, Canada based precious and base metals exploration and development
company focused on developing the Cangrejos Project, located in the historic El Oro Province in
southwestern Ecuador. The Cangrejos concessions are fully owned by Lumina through its 100%
owned Ecuadorian subsidiary, Odin Mining del Ecuador S.A. (Odin).
The Project is located 223 km from Guayaquil and 30 km southeast of the provincial capital of
Machala. It lies primarily within the Cantons (i.e., counties) of Santa Rosa and Atahualpa. The
Project is in the El Oro Metamorphic Belt Zone of the Cordillera Real, in steep, high-relief terrain
near the northeastern rim of an ancient caldera at the eastern edge of the coastal plain. The Project
consists of two deposits, Cangrejos and Gran Bestia that are to be mined using open pit mining
methods. The processing rate is 40,000 tpd for the first five years of the mine life followed by a
plant expansion and ramp up to 80,000 tpd in year six for the remaining 25-year mine life.
The recovery processes include flotation to recover gold-copper and molybdenum flotation
concentrates plus a carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuit to process approximately 10% of the plant feed
(i.e., 4,000 tpd and 8,000 tpd for the initial and expansion time periods, respectively) to produce
precious metal doré.
2.2 Sources of Information

The following Qualified Persons (QPs) are responsible for the information provided in the
indicated sections. All of the QPs are independent within the meaning of Canadian National
Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). They are
responsible for the preparation of this Technical Report on the Cangrejos Project, which has been
prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 Technical Report (Form 43-101F1).
This Technical Report is based on information known to the QPs as of June 8, 2020.
• Robert Sim, P.Geo. of SIM Geological Inc. (SIM) is responsible for Sections 7,
8, 9, 10, 14, and portions of Sections 1, 25, 26, 27, and 28.
• Bruce M. Davis, FAusIMM of BD Resource Consulting, Inc. (BDRC) is
responsible for Sections 11 and 12 and portions of Section 1, 14, and 25.
• Joseph McNaughton, P.E. of International Mining Consultants (IMC) is
responsible for Sections 15 and 16 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25, 26, 27,
and 28.
• Norman I. Norrish, P.E. of Wyllie & Norrish Rock Engineers Inc. (W&N) is
responsible for the majority of Section 16.4.2 and portions of Sections 1, 25,
26, 27, and 28.

Ecuador
• Nelson King, SME Registered Member of ND King Consulting, LLC (NDK) is

responsible for Section 13 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28.
• Scott Elfen, P.E. of Ausenco Engineering Canada, Inc. (Ausenco) is
responsible for Sections 18.4, 18.5, 18.6 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25,
26, 27, and 28.
• Kathleen Ann Altman, Ph.D., P.E. of AKA PROS, Inc. (AKA) is responsible for
Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18.1, 18.2, 18.7, 18.8, 18.9, 24 and portions of
Sections 1, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28.
• Larry Breckenridge, P.E. of Global Resource Engineering, Ltd. (GRE) is
responsible for Sections 18.3 and 20 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25, 26,
27, and 28.
• Robert S. Michel, SME Registered Member of Robert Michel Enterprises
(RME) is responsible for Sections 19 and 22 and portions of Sections 1, 21,
25, 26, 27, and 28.
The process design and the capital cost estimate were completed by ONIX Engenharia e
Consultoria Ltda. (ONIX) of Nova Lima, Brazil under the direction of AKA. MTB, H&H Metals
(H&H), C.H. Plenge & CIA. S.A. (Plenge), P.L. Services Eirelli (PLS), and Social Capital Group
(SCG) also contributed to this PEA under the direction of the QPs.
2.3 Personal Inspection of the Cangrejos Project

Robert Sim visited the Cangrejos Project from November 28 to 29, 2017. He inspected drill core
from numerous holes and visited a number of drill sites and the core storage facility.
Joseph McNaughton visited the Cangrejos Project from May 5 to 7, 2019. The purpose of the
site visit was to review the area geology, examine core, and inspect topography to commence
mine design.
Nelson King visited the Cangrejos Project from January 16 to 17, 2018. The purpose of the site
visit was to observe site conditions, examine core, and inspect topography for process facility
siting.
Larry Breckenridge visited the Cangrejos Project most recently from May 9 to July 23, 2019. The
purpose of the site visit was to inspect and evaluate the environmental network and sampling plan
onsite together with the Lumina/Odin team, select geochemical samples for analysis, evaluate
core drilling results for waste rock storage and handling, and present hydrological and
hydrogeological issues to other consultants that were visiting the site in that period.
Scott Elfen completed site visits on January 15-18, 2018 and May 16 to 18, 2019. The purpose
of the site visit was to gain an understanding of the local conditions as they relate to tailings and
waste rock storage, roads, and project infrastructure development.
Norman Norrish visted the project site from May 2 – 8, 2019. The purpose of the site visit was
site familiarization, progress review of the ongoing borehole televiewer program, surface
mapping, core examination, sample selection for rock mechanics testing and test pit excavations
for characterization and sample selection of saprolite.

Ecuador
Kathleen Altman, Bruce Davis, and Robert S. Michel have not conducted personal inspections of
the Cangrejos Project as it was not required to complete the scope of work for which they were
retained.
2.4 Abbreviations
Units of measurement used in this report conform to the metric system. All currency in this report
is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted. Abbreviations used throughout this report are shown
in Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1: ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Meaning Abbreviation Meaning

A ampere M mega (million); molar
a annum (year) Ma Mega-annum or million years
btu British thermal units m2 square meters
C$ Canadian dollars m meter
cal calorie m3 cubic meters
cfm cubic feet per minute m3/h cubic meters per hour
cm centimeter masl meters above sea level
cm2 square centimeter µ micron
cm3 cubic centimeter µm micrometer
d day mg milligrams
dB Decibel mg/L milligrams per liter
°C degree Celsius mi mile
dia diameter min minute
dmt dry metric tonne mm millimeters
dwt dead-weight ton mph miles per hour
°F degree Fahrenheit MVA megavolt-amperes
ft foot MW megawatt
ft/s foot per second MWh megawatt-hour
ft2 square foot NAG Non-Acid Generating
ft3 cubic foot NPV Net Present Value
g gram NSR Net Smelter Return
G giga (billion) oz Troy ounce (31.1035 g)
g/L gram per liter oz/st Troy ounce per short ton
g/t gram per tonne oz/t, opt Troy ounce per metric tonne
gr/ft3 grain per cubic foot ppb part per billion
gr/m3 grain per cubic meter ppm part per million
ha hectare PS 6 IFC Performance Standard 6
hp horsepower psia pound per square inch absolute
hr hour psig pound per square inch gauge
Hz hertz RL relative elevation
in inch ROM Run of Mine

Ecuador
Abbreviation Meaning Abbreviation Meaning

in2 square inch s second
J joule st short ton
k kilo (thousand) stpa short ton per year
K-Ar Potassium-Argon dating stpd short ton per day
kcal kilocalorie t metric tonne
kg kilogram tpa metric tonne per year
km kilometer tpd metric tonne per day
km/h kilometer per hour US$ United States dollar
km2 square kilometer USg United States gallon
kPa kilopascal USgpm US gallon per minute
kVA kilovolt-amperes V volt
kW kilowatt W watt
kWh kilowatt-hour wmt wet metric tonne
L liter wt % weight percent
L/s liters per second yd3 cubic yard
lb pound yr year (see also annum)

Ecuador
3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

This report has been prepared at the request of Lumina Gold Corp. (Lumina or the Company).
The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:
a) Information available at the time of preparation of this report
b) Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report
c) Data, reports, and opinions supplied by Lumina and other third-party sources
The current status of the concessions is based on a legal opinion provided by Tobar ZVS Legal
Opinion on Cangrejos Project dated March 20, 2020 (Zumarraga, 2020). No independent
research has been conducted regarding property title or mineral rights for the Project. Therefore,
no independent opinion as to the ownership status of the property is expressed in this report.
Lumina and PLS provided guidance on applicable taxes, royalties, and other government levies
or interests, applicable to revenue or income from the Project.

Ecuador
4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 Property Location

Cangrejos is located in southwestern Ecuador in the province of El Oro, about 223 km from
Guayaquil and 30 km southeast of the provincial capital of Machala as shown in Figure 4-1. The
Project lies primarily within the Cantons (i.e., counties) of Santa Rosa and Atahualpa. The Project
is in the El Oro Metamorphic Belt Zone of the Cordillera Real, in steep, high-relief terrain near the
northeastern rim of an ancient caldera at the eastern edge of the coastal plain. Project elevations
range from approximately 100 masl to 1,370 masl.
The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the Project are 9614300 North and
633200 East (geographic projection: Provisional South American 1956, Zone 17S). The
proposed mine and major elements of supporting infrastructure will be located primarily in areas
of evergreen montane and secondary forest, as well as altered pasture and agricultural areas in
the central part of the Project.

FIGURE 4-1: CANGREJOS PROJECT LOCATION

Ecuador
4.2 Property Ownership and Agreements

The Cangrejos Project currently consists of a group of ten mining concessions totaling 6,373 ha,
as depicted in Figure 4-2. All concessions are held by Lumina through Odin.

FIGURE 4-2: CURRENT CONCESSION BOUNDARIES
Table 4-1 presents the legal descriptions and land areas of these concessions.

Ecuador
TABLE 4-1: MINING CONCESSIONS – CANGREJOS

Date of
File Date of Area Date of Expiration
Concession Registration or Phase
Number Concession (ha) day/month/year
Re-registration
2847 Los Cangrejos* 04/05/2010 25/05/2010 3,498 Small Mining 29/08/2031
Initial
300972 Cangrejos 10 05/05/2010 25/05/2010 70 25/09/2034
Exploration
Initial
300971 Cangrejos 11 04/05/2010 25/05/2010 21 26/09/2034
Exploration
5114 Casique* 06/05/2010 25/05/2010 342 Small Mining 07/11/2031
2649.1 Las Canarias* 05/05/2010 25/05/2010 380 Small Mining 01/11/2031
Advanced
30000203 Cangrejos 20 29/11/2016 13/12/2016 779 15/12/2041
Exploration
30000695 Cangrejos A 17/04/2019 28/05/2019 497 Small Mining 22/07/2031
30000694 Cangrejos B 17/04/2019 27/05/2019 25 Small Mining 21/07/2031
30000693 Cangrejos C 17/04/2019 27/05/2019 691 Small Mining 27/07/2031
30000692 Cangrejos D 17/04/2019 28/05/2019 70 Small Mining 22/07/2031
* Odin initiated the process of consolidating the small-scale mining concessions and changing the regime to large-scale mining.
The maintenance of each mining concession requires an annual payment that is due before the
31st of March each year. For 2020, this amount totalled $61,424 for the ten mining concessions.
These fees were paid, and all concessions are in good standing. The Small Mining concession
royalty for the Los Cangrejos concession has been reported as zero, as instructed by the Mining
Control Agency.
Table 4-2 and Figure 4-3 describe land areas within or adjacent to these concessions that are
currently owned by Odin or controlled by Odin via legal easement. The 25-year life span for the
concessions can be renewed for additional 25 year periods as many times as needed.
TABLE 4-2: SURFACE RIGHTS
Date of
Area
Number Previous Owner Location Registration
ha
Day-month-year
1 Víctor Manuel Ramírez Román 54.00 Santa Rosa 10-Apr-07
2 Manuel Abad Ruiz 66.38 Santa Rosa 21-Sep-07
3 Carlos Porfirio Tituana 81.20 Santa Rosa 17-Dec-07
4 Juan Antonio Tituana Torres 76.00 Atahualpa 02-Apr-08
5 Víctor Manuel Ramírez Román 58.75 Santa Rosa 29-May-08
6 Francisco Castro Sanchez 122.40 Atahualpa 22-Aug-16
7 Francisco Castro Sanchez 46.50 Santa Rosa 28-Dec-16
Juan Eduardo Venegas
8 95.00 Santa Rosa 17-Feb-17
Francisco Soria Venegas
9 Jose Ernesto Ponton Loaiza 24.69 Santa Rosa 08-Jan-19
10 Jorge Vicente Ponton Loaiza 21.77 Santa Rosa 08-Jan-19
11 Lauro Evaristo Pineda Labanda 79.47 Santa Rosa 22-Nov-19

Ecuador
Date of
Area
Number Previous Owner Location Registration
ha
Day-month-year
12 Noblecilla Family 400.50 Santa Rosa TBD 2
Total Purchased 1,126.66
Mauricio Mendieta (C20
13 359.94 Santa Rosa 27-Mar-18
Easement)
Andrea Armijos (Access
14 25.70 Santa Rosa 23-Nov-18
Easement)
Total Surface Rights 1,512.30

FIGURE 4-3: SURFACE RIGHTS
Physical access to the Cangrejos 20 (C20) concession required a mining easement over a portion
of the surface of the concession in order to proceed with exploration. On May 11, 2017, Odin filed
an easement request with the Mining Regulation and Control Agency (Agencia de Regulación y
Control Minero or ARCOM) for 359.94 ha of private surface rights within C20, in order to legally
access the area of geologic interest and conduct exploration work. The easement was granted
2 Promise to buy in effect; last payment due November 2020, registry programmed for November 2020.

Ecuador
in December 2017, enabling the execution of exploration and drilling in C20. The legal easement
is valid for the duration of the Project and mine, however, ARCOM will perform a new economic
evaluation and define financial terms to compensate the owner over the long term when the
Project moves to the production phase. ODIN has the legal rights to change the regime phase of
the mining easement with addional compensation requirements regulated by ARCOM’s valuation.
Project lands and mining concessions have no royalty requirements beyond a 3% to 8% Net
Smelter Return (NSR), mandated by and for the Ecuadorian government, which is negotiated
once a Prefeasibility Study is completed. 3 No “back-in” rights or any other encumbrances exist
that could affect the Project’s title, nor are there any other known impediments or significant risks
that could affect the ability to perform mining work on the property.
Odin is currently engaged in a legal process with the Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable
Natural Resources (Ministerio de Energía y Recursos Naturales No Renovables or MERNNR) to
consolidate the key areas of the Project’s mineral rights, as described above, into a single new,
unified mineral concession of 4,999 ha, as the Mining Law establishes a maximum concession
size of 5,000 ha for projects to pass to the exploitation phase. This consolidation of the Project
into a single, large concession is desirable to enable more effective negotiations with
governmental authorities, as well as more efficient processing of the permitting requirements that
will arise as the Project advances towards construction and operation. The unified concession
will contain all the mineralized areas projected for the development of the Cangrejos and Gran
Bestia deposits, as described in this PEA. Odin anticipates that the unified concession will be
considered to be in the Advanced Exploration regime and is working to complete the consolidation
in 2020 with support from Ecuadorian legal counsel. However, timing for completion of the
process is dependent on regulatory approvals.
The consolidation process involves several steps. The first step, as depicted in Figure 4-2, was
to divide the original Los Cangrejos concession (4,781 ha), which was then considered to be
under the Small Mining regime, into five smaller concessions as follows:
• Los Cangrejos (now reduced to 3,498 ha)
• Cangrejos A (497 ha)
• Cangrejos B (25 ha)
• Cangrejos C (691 ha)
• Cangrejos D (70 ha)
The second step was to file requests for regime change (i.e., from Small Mining to Large-Scale
Mining) for three concessions:
• Los Cangrejos (3,498 ha)
• Casique (342 ha)
• Las Canarias (380 ha)
3 Recent agreements signed by other companies indicate a 5% NSR; however, negotiation of a 3% NSR
is considered feasible because of the potential size of the Project.

Ecuador
Approval of these regime change requests is pending. MERNNR and ARCOM representatives
conducted a field inspection, which was followed by the issuance of internal reports on technical,
economic, and regulatory issues, all of which were favorable. MERNNR is expected to issue a
decision in 2020 that will allow the mining titles to be changed from Small Mining to Large-Scale
Mining. After the mining titles have been changed, four contiguous Advanced Exploration
concessions will exist as follows and as depicted in Figure 4-4:
• Los Cangrejos (3,498 ha)
• Casique (342 ha)
• Las Canarias (380 ha)
• Cangrejos 20 (779 ha)

FIGURE 4-4: CONCESSION CONSOLIDATION PROCESS – CONTIGUOUS ADVANCED EXPLORATION
CONCESSIONS
These four contiguous concessions will then be merged into a final single unified Advanced
Exploration concession of 4,999 ha as shown in Figure 4-5.

Ecuador

FIGURE 4-5: FINAL CONSOLIDATION/UNIFICATION OF ADVANCED EXPLORATION MINERAL
CONCESSIONS
4.3 Environmental Liabilities and Permitting

and regulations. These include:
• Regulations to the Environmental Organic Code
• The Organic Law of Water Resources and Water Use and the Regulation for the
Organic Law of Water Resources and Water Use, issued by DE No. 650 on March 31,
2015 and published in the First Supplement to RO No. 483 April 20, 2015
• The Organic Law of Rural Lands and Ancestral Territories and the Regulation for the
Organic Law of Rural Lands and Ancestral Territories, issued December 16, 2016 by
DE No. 1283 and published in the Supplement to RO No. 920 January 11, 2017
• General Regulation of the Mining Law, issued by DE No. 119 November 4, 2009,
published in RO Supplement No. 67 November 16, 2009; last updated January 31,
2019

Ecuador
• Environmental Regulation for Mining Activities, issued by Ministerial Agreement No.

37 of March 24, 2014, published in the R.O.S. 213 of March 27, 2014 and last updated
June 12, 2019
• Regulation for Mining Workplace Health and Safety, issued by Resolution ARCOM 020-
INS-DIR-ARCOM-2014 April 25, 2014, published in RO No. 247 May 16, 2014
• Regulation for the Control of Mineral Exports issued under Resolution No. 002-005-
2019-DIR-ARCOM August 6, 2019 and published in Official Gazette No. 23 on August
22, 2019
• Regulation of the Organic Health Law, issued through DE No. 1395 and published in
RO No. 457 October 30, 2008; last amended May 8, 2012
• General Regulation for the Application of the Organic Law of Ground-based Transport,
Transit and Roadway Safety, issued by DE No. 1196 June 11, 2012, published in
Second Supplement to RO No. 731June 25, 2012; last amended September 13,
MA2017
• Environmental Regulation for Hydrocarbon Operations in Ecuador, issued by DE No.
1215 and published in RO No. 265 February 13, 2001
• Regulations for Workers’ Health and Safety and the Improvement of the Work
Environment, issued by DE No. 2393, published in RO No. 565 November 17, 1986;
last amended February 21, 2003
• Unified Text of Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment (TULSMA),
entered into force in RO No. 725 December 16, 2002, ratified by DE No. 3516, and
published fully in the EE of RO No. 51 March 31, 2003; last updated April 21, 2019
Prior to the commencement of mine construction and mineral production, the Project will be
subject to a wide array of additional permitting and related support actions, as required by current
Ecuadorian laws and regulations. Based on the prior experience with similar-scale projects in
Ecuador, it is estimated that, in aggregate, major permitting actions (excluding certain municipal,
tax registration, and potential concentrate export permits), several of which can occur in parallel,
will take a minimum of 24 months to complete. A summary is included in the following paragraphs.
• Mining Phase Change - Permitting for Initiating Production Phase (estimated
minimum duration: approximately eight months): After the end of advanced exploration,
the concessionaire may prepare the economic evaluation of the deposit. In order to
move to the production phase, the concessionaire must submit an application supported
by a technical report based on guidelines issued by the Mining Regulation and Control
Agency [Agencia de Regulación y Control Minero (ARCOM)] and specific MERNNR
instructions for exploration, exploitation, negotiation, and execution of exploitation
agreements. It will also be necessary to negotiate and develop a production contract
that, among its requirements, defines the royalties for the Project. Negotiation of
signature approval of the production contract is estimated to require at least six months
after formal initiation of the production phase.
• Environmental Licensing Process (estimated minimum duration: approximately
twelve months): Since under Ecuadorian law the Environmental License applies to
specific activities, and not the concession per se, the licensing process may commence
prior to submitting the petition for exploitation. Registration of the Project and its
associated production contract in a governmental information management system,

Ecuador
Sistema Unico de Informacion Ambiental (SUIA) formally initiates the change from
advanced exploration to exploitation status. A comprehensive exploitation-phase
EIA/EMP will then need to be developed using a team of Ministerio de Ambiente y Agua
de la República del Ecuador 4 (MAAE) approved consultants. The selected consultants
must prepare and upload the proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIA/EMP and
obtain MAAE approval prior to initiation of work. A biotic investigation permit will also
be required to conduct an updated biotic and forestry baseline study and supporting
fieldwork. Biotic samples must be managed in compliance with specific guidelines and
all scientific studies must be submitted for approval. An updated archaeological study
must also be performed in the proposed AOI and submitted for National Institute of
Cultural Heritage (INPC) concurrence, and, if required, authorization for execution of
archaeological rescue activities.
Once the draft EIA/EMP documents are prepared in accordance with the approved TOR,
they must be uploaded to the SUIA for MAAE review. The Project must also organize
and conduct a documented Public Participation Process (PPS), using the timing,
locations, and scope defined by the TOR. The MAAE will review the results of the PPS,
and if acceptable, will issue a favorable pronouncement of approval. The Project’s
Forest Inventory must also be separately reviewed and approved. After resolution of
MAAE review comments, the final version of the EIA/EMP must be uploaded to the
SUIA. Required fees, including ecosystem services loss fees for lands predicted to be
impacted by the mining process must be paid, and an EMP compliance insurance policy
or bank guarantee submitted. When these actions are complete and approved, the
MAAE will issue the Project’s exploitation-phase Environmental License.
• Water Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately twelve months): The
Project needs to prepare a detailed technical report describing its overall water
management approach, as well as identifying all potential impacts to water bodies and
any use of groundwater or surface water for mining processes and other human needs.
Abstraction/usage permits must be negotiated with MAAE, in parallel with the early
phases of the Environmental Licensing process as previously discussed. Results and
specific ongoing water management actions need to be reflected in the exploitation-
phase EIA/EMP.
• Health and Safety Planning Actions (estimated minimum duration: approximately two
months): An appropriately detailed workplace/occupational health and safety system
must be prepared to support mine construction and operation. Local workers must be
registered with the Ecuadorian Institute of Social Security (IESS), and a joint
(management and workforce) Health and Safety Committee established and registered.
An internal Workplace Health and Safety Regulation must be developed and submitted
4In 2020, the President of Ecuador issued a Presidential Decree ordering the merger of the Ministerio del
Ambiente (MAE) and Secretaría Nacional del Agua (SENAGUA) to form Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua
del Ecuador (MAAE).

Ecuador
for Ministry of Labor approval. Industrial safety and medical service units must be
established within the Project’s management organization and a comprehensive
Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan prepared. These planning actions
should also be completed during the early development of the exploitation phase
EIA/EMP and results reflected therein.
• General Environmental Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately four
months): Other general environmental permits need to be negotiated with MAAE,
typically within two to three months prior to the end of the Environmental Licensing
process described above. The Project needs to seek authorization for any stationary
emission sources not already addressed in the exploitation phase EIA/EMP. Separate
discharge and disposal permits for liquid effluents may be also required if not already
addressed in the EIA/EMP. The Project will also need to register as a Hazardous Waste
Generator. All reagents and other hazardous chemical substances employed in
construction and mineral production must be identified and registered and supported by
a Reduction, Elimination, or Replacement Plan for restricted or prohibited substances.
Controlled substances subject to periodic inspection need to be registered and transport
guides must be prepared. Authorizations are also required for the storage of chemical
substances and/or hazardous wastes.
• Electricity Related Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately 12 months):
Permits need to be negotiated with the MERNNR and the Electricity Regulation and
Control Agency (ARCONEL) for the construction of the electrical substations and
transmission lines required to serve the infrastructure defined by final mine and plant
designs. From discussions with the electrical power consultant, EPTEC, permit
application/approval actions may take up to 12 months. In addition, per Odin’s permitting
consultant, such actions should be planned so they can be completed no later than two
to three months from the end of the Environmental Licensing process.
• Transport/Road Related Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately three
months): Permits issued by the Ministry of Transport and Public works and MAAE will
also be required for the construction of roads and the transport of heavy machinery to
the Project site. Permit application and approval should be completed within three
months of the end of the Environmental Licensing process.
• Municipal Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately two months): A formal
patent from the Municipality of Santa Rosa will be required, along with additional local
permits for land use, various aspects of mine construction, and general Project
operations. An operating permit from the Santa Rosa fire department is also required.
Permit applications and approval actions should be completed within the two months
prior to the end of the Environmental Licensing process.
• Fuel Permits (estimated minimum duration: approximately two months): Permits from
the Hydrocarbon Regulation and Control Agency (ARCH) are required for the purchase,

Ecuador
transport, and safe controlled storage of fuel. The fuel permit should be completed within
two months prior to the end of Environmental Licensing.
• Explosives Permit (estimated minimum duration: approximately two months): A permit
will also be required from the Joint Command of the Armed Forces (CC.DD.AA.)
Firearms Control Office in Machala for the purchase, transport, and the safe, secure,
and controlled storage and usage of explosives. This permit should be obtained within
the two months prior to the end of Environmental Licensing.
• Heliport (estimated minimum duration: approximately six months): If the final design
requires location of a heliport at the Project, authorization from the Civil Aviation
Authority (AAC) should be sought early in the Environmental Licensing process.
• Internal Revenue Service Tax Authorizations (estimated minimum duration:
approximately one month): Current Internal Revenue Service (SRI) tax registration
documents must be updated to accommodate the change to the production phase of
operation. Since sale and export of minerals or concentrates may not proceed until
these updates are approved, they should be submitted well ahead of the start of
production, nominally 24 months after receipt of the Exploration License and the
beginning of construction.
• Customs Permits for Outgoing Product (estimated minimum duration: to be
determined): Permits for exportation of concentrates related to large-scale mining are
not yet defined by the current regulatory framework. Regulatory changes in this area
should be carefully monitored and new permitting requirements should be addressed
well in advance of the projected date for shipment of concentrates.
• Telecommunications (estimated minimum duration: approximately six months): An
Enabling Title of Use with the Agency for the Regulation and Control of
Telecommunications (ARCOTEL) may be required to support radio communications.
Negotiations should be completed as early as possible and in parallel with the early
phases of Environmental License development.
• Easements/Rights of Way (estimated minimum duration: approximately six months):
Negotiation of the easements with surface property owners that may be required by final
mine design should be completed as soon as possible and in parallel with the early
phases of Environmental License development.
The QP is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the property. To the QP’s knowledge,
Lumina has all necessary permits required to conduct the proposed work on the property. Lumina
is not aware of any other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or
ability to perform the proposed work program on the property.

Ecuador
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1 Accessibility
Figure 5-1 shows the relative locations of the population centers and the Cangrejos project site.
Machala (population approximately 250,000 5) is 58 km from the Project and is the closest major
city; it also is the capital of El Oro province. Santa Rosa is the closest urban area to the Project,
at a distance of 24 km, and has a population of approximately 50,000. It also hosts the nearest
commercial airport.
Access to the Project is provided by paved roads to the village of Valle Hermoso. The Company
rebuilt an abandoned road from Valle Hermoso to the Project area and exploration camp in 2019.
Driving time from Machala to the Cangrejos future plant site is typically 75 minutes and the drive
from Santa Rosa to the future plant site is approximately 35 minutes. The site access road from
Santa Rosa to Valle Hermoso passes through four small towns: Medina, El Recreo, Bellamaria,
and San Carlos. Gravel road bypasses, 10-m wide, will be constructed around the towns of
Bellamaria and San Carlos to reduce potential conflicts between mine and local traffic.

FIGURE 5-1: ACCESS TO CANGREJOS
5 Population estimates are based on the national census of 2010.

Ecuador
The mine will be accessed by a private gravel road with a security gatehouse, visitor and truck
parking, and truck scale. The mine access road is approximately 860-m long and starts 300 m
west of the town of Valle Hermoso and passes to the north of the town. The mine access road
terminates at the mine gate house and parking area.
5.2 Climate
The Project is located in the El Oro Metamorphic Belt Zone of the Cordillera Real, in high-relief
terrain near the northeastern rim of an ancient caldera at the eastern edge of the coastal plain.
Elevations range from approximately 100 masl to 1,370 masl and temperatures are relatively
constant, ranging between 18°C and 22°C.
The Project area experiences a wet season, typically from January through May and a dry season
that lasts roughly June through December. Average annual rainfall for the Project varies greatly
by elevation and by year. The site set up two meteorological stations, one at high elevation (i.e.,
1149 masl) near the exploration camp and one at low elevation (i.e., 348 masl) near the future
plant site to measure the meteorological conditions at two different elevations. Average
precipitation at the upper station is ~1500 mm/yr, but in 2019, the station measured 2,571 mm.
The lower meterological station measured approximately 30% to 50% less precipitation in the
same time periods.
Based on the available information, the mine and the processing facilities can operate year round.
However, the mine production schedule allows for the loss of five days per year due to weather
delays.
5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure

Machala, with a population of approximately 250,000, is the largest city in the vicinity of the
Project, while Santa Rosa, a smaller city with a population of approximately 50,000, is closest to
the Project. Both Santa Rosa and Machala can provide basic goods and services for the early
stages of exploration and mining. Skilled and unskilled labour are also available from various
small towns and villages in closer proximity to the Project.
The Project is well served by regional transportation infrastructure; Machala and Santa Rosa are
both situated on the section of the Pan-American Highway linking Guayaquil to Lima, Peru. There
are regular flights between Quito and the Santa Rosa airport, which also serves Machala.
Puerto Bolivar is a major deep-water port located nine kilometers to the west of Machala and
approximately 60 km from the Project. Having ready access to Puerto Bolivar is expected to
facilitate the exportation of concentrate and importation of equipment, materials, and other
consumables. The Mirador mine is currently shipping concentrates from Puerto Bolivar. It is
expected, however, that some of the imported goods for the Project will require use of the Port of
Guayaquil.
The power study (EPTEC, 2020) indicates that the national grid has sufficient power to supply the
total demand for the Project for both the 40,000 tpd and 80,000 tpd milling operations.

Ecuador
Since the Project is in an area with a net positive water balance, there is sufficient water to supply
the operations.
Since Odin owns or controls approximately 6,400 ha of concessions and over 1,500 ha of surface
rights, in the opinion of the QP, there is sufficient area to support the mining, processing, mine
overburden and waste disposal, and tailings deposition that are required over the life of the mine.
Additionally, the local area is capable of providing sufficient manpower, power, and water.
5.4 Physiography
Cangrejos is located in moderately hilly terrain located southeast of the coastal plain. Elevations
range between 100 m and 1,370 m above sea level. A prominent northwest-trending ridge, Cerro
Azul, forms a watershed boundary between Rio Caluguro and Rio San Agustin.
agriculture or grazing. There are no villages or significant groups of dwellings in the project’s
environmental Area of Influence (AOI).
Ecuador is a very biodiverse country and like other nations has established a range of laws and
regulations to protect its environmental resources. At the same time, the country is seeking to
diversify and grow its economy, an increasingly vital component of which is mining. In keeping
with Ecuadorian law and international Best Management Practices (BMPs), mining project
proponents must seek a practical and appropriate balance between project economics and
environmental protection, including the preservation of biodiversity.
In order to better understand the specific biodiversity considerations in the Project area, Odin
commissioned environmental studies as part of the various exploration phase EIAs. A desktop
biodiversity screening study was completed in 2017. Dry and wet season field studies were
conducted in 2019 that were focused specifically on biodiversity in and around the initial Project
footprint, as defined by Odin’s 2018 PEA.
The 2019 studies confirmed that the Project location is many kilometers distant from any officially
protected environmental areas and that the Project’s concession areas have been significantly
impacted by centuries of intrusive human activity. Primary forest no longer exists and the area of
the Project is now comprised of a mixture of agricultural and grazing clearances and young or
mature secondary forest islands. Such types of forest are not unique and can be found elsewhere
in coastal areas of Ecuador.

Ecuador
Minor populations of several sensitive and/or endemic species of flora and fauna were found in
land areas that will be required for mine construction and operation. However, the Project is
adjacent to (and in several cases already owns) substantial areas not required for mining that are
forested or modified. These can be set aside or rehabilitated as ecological offsets to compensate
for any disturbance or loss of habitat that might be critical to the species observed. Establishment
of offsets, in conjunction with a biodiversity monitoring program, robust adaptive management
protocols, and specific management and mitigation measures based on international BMPs will
enable successful Project permitting and compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
Ecuador is a seismically active country. The seismicity has been taken into account in the
conceptual design.

Ecuador
6 HISTORY
Odin Mining is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ecuador by public deed
and registered on December 15, 1993 (Zumarraga, 2020). It is a subsidiary of Lumina, which is
a Canadian company. The history in this section is taken primarily from Potter (2010).
After mining the Biron alluvial gold mine on the Rio Caluguro north of Bellamaria, Odin Mining
initiated an exploration program in 1992. The objective of the exploration program was to locate
the hard-rock source of the alluvial gold in the Biron deposit. A number of gold anomalies were
identified in the general area. The overall extent of the anomalies was sufficiently encouraging
for Newmont Overseas Exploration Limited (Newmont) to enter into a joint venture agreement
with Odin Mining. The area of interest was 22,500 ha encompassing the entire area that could
be the source of the Biron Project and the joint venture was named the “El Joven Joint Venture”.
Odin Mining held a 40% interest and Newmont held 60% and was the operator.
In 1999 and 2000 the work on the northern sector culminated in the drilling of 29 HQ diamond drill
holes. Twenty three holes tested the Cangrejos gold-copper porphyry zone, five holes tested the
gold-copper porphyry-style mineralization at Gran Bestia, and one hole tested a gold soil anomaly
at Casique. The results from these holes appeared to indicate good potential for widespread
disseminated sulfide mineralization with grades of about 1.0 g/t Au and 0.1% Cu associated with
extensive hydrothermal alteration and brecciation within a quartz diorite intrusive cut by intrusive
andesites.
Towards the end of 2000, Newmont carried out a risk and evaluation review of the project. With
the gold price at about $270 per ounce, in order to continue with the project, Newmont required
strong evidence for the presence of several hundred million tonnes of mineralization at a grade
higher than 1.0 g/t gold. Since Newmont did not consider this outcome to be likely, they reduced
their work on the project and formally withdrew from the joint venture in August 2001.
In accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement Newmont transferred back to Odin
the seven concessions that had been contributed to the joint venture by them. These concessions
were Los Cangrejos, Cangrejos 1, Cangrejos 2, Cangrejos 4 and Cangrejos 5, Estero Zapato,
and Tadao with a total area of 4,576 hectares. These concessions were later consolidated into
the Los Cangrejos concession (Zumarraga, 2020).
Newmont also transferred to Odin all the remaining drill cores and an information package.
In early 2000, when the gold price was about US$ 300 per ounce, Odin commissioned Equity
Engineering of Vancouver, British Columbia to carry out a review of the potential of the property
as indicated by the Newmont results. AGRA Simons also carried out a conceptual scoping study
based on the conclusions of the Equity Engineering review. These studies concluded that the
property had the potential for the discovery of a sufficient quantity of gold-copper mineralization
to support a major open pit milling operation of between 5 Mt/a and 15 Mt/a.
The property lay dormant during 2001, 2002, and 2003. In 2004 Odin commissioned a consultant
to conduct a review of all the information available over the entire area of interest of the El Joven
Joint Venture.

Ecuador
Later in 2004, Odin Mining commissioned Mr. Michael Potter, who had been Odin’s Chief
geologist from 1988-1998, to write a NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Cangrejos property. The
basis of the Report was the information that Newmont transferred to Odin when they withdrew
from the joint venture. The Report included recommendations for a drilling program to test the
known geochemical anomalies away from the areas drilled by Newmont with a view to assessing
the potential of the property to contain large tonnage and sufficient mineralization to support a
large-scale (i.e., 5Mt to 15Mt/yr) open pit operation.
The 2004 NI 43-101 Technical Report (Potter, 2004) proposed a program of 20 scout diamond
drill holes totalling 5,000 m to investigate the potential of the geochemical anomalies away from
the area already drilled by Newmont. However, Odin did not implement this program. The Board
of Directors believed that access to two contiguous concession blocks would be needed in order
to develop a large-scale open pit mine. In late 2004 Odin acquired four additional concessions
(Cangrejos 10, 11, 12, and 13) with a combined area of 3,043 hectares by direct application to
the government.
Between November 2005 and February 2006 Odin Mining carried out a top-of-bedrock soil
sampling exercise over the Dos Bocas target in the northeast corner of the concession block.
Then, in July and August 2006 Odin carried out a similar exercise over the Trinchera/Paloma
target in the area drilled by Newmont in 1999 and 2000.
Importantly, in May 2007 Odin reached an agreement with Mr. Castro to include the Casique and
Las Canarias concessions with a combined area of 722 hectares in the Cangrejos property.
By mid-2007 the gold price had risen to about US$ 650 per ounce but construction and operation
costs for large scale, open-pit mines was also rising rapidly. Consequently, Odin no longer
considered the large-scale mining scenario conceptualized in the May 2004 Technical Report an
attractive exploration target. Therefore, Odin moved its first stage exploration focus away from
the low-grade, high-tonnage, porphyry-style, gold-copper mineralization towards the higher-
grade, lower-tonnage, structurally-controlled style of gold mineralization that was thought to
dominate on the Castro concessions.
The Castro agreement included control of about 160 hectares of surface land. Subsequently,
Odin purchased several additional land packages with a total area of approximately 380 ha in
critical locations to ensure that their development programs could be carried out in a timely and
cost effective manner.
In March 2008 Odin announced plans for a new drilling program on the Cangrejos property.
However, in April, eleven days after their announcement, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Council
accepted the Mining Mandate. This mandate intended to cancel the majority of mining titles in
Ecuador without compensation and imposed a moratorium on all metalliferous mineral exploration
and mining throughout the country until a new mining law could be brought into effect. This
development created uncertainty as to the practicality and desirability of continued mineral
exploration in Ecuador, so Odin announced the indefinite suspension of its drilling and fund raising
plans. In July 2008, Odin also laid off its entire technical team in Ecuador and suspended all

Ecuador
technical assistance from outside consultants. Technical work on the property remained at a
standstill until the moratorium was lifted.
The new Mining Law came into effect on January 29, 2009, but general regulations had to be
developed in order to implement the law. In March 2009 Odin’s Ecuadorian legal team advised
that they had informal indication that all of the Cangrejos concessions were likely to survive.
Nevertheless, at the end of that month Odin voluntarily relinquished the Cangrejos 13 concession
as a non-core asset.
On November 16, 2009 the general regulations needed to implement the new Mining Law were
brought into effect and the mining and mineral exploration moratorium was lifted. However,
exploration was now to be conducted in a much more strictly regulated regime than it had been
previously. Environmental controls, evidence of social acceptance within the local community,
and an increased level of government involvement in the approval, review, and audit of annual
work plans and budgets were required under the new law.
Following resolution of the situation, Odin completed a non-brokered private placement to raise
C$ 1.5 M during December 2009. The funding allowed Odin to re-engage its former technical
staff within Ecuador and its external technical advisors. In January 2010 Odin restarted fieldwork
on the Cangrejos property with a new top-of-bedrock soil sampling over much the same area that
was covered previously, but following the ridges and spurs rather than on a grid pattern. Also, in
January 2010 the company submitted a revised environmental impact study to begin to acquire
the necessary permits to enter the advanced stage of exploration status that would allow diamond
drilling on the property.
In May 2010 Odin received formal confirmation that all twelve of the greater Cangrejos mining
concessions were in good standing. In June 2010, after the completion of the ridge and spur soil
sampling, Odin embarked on a program of detailed stream sediment sampling to extend the
program carried out in 2007 over the eastern side of the property to cover the whole area of the
Cangrejos property.
In 2011 and 2012 Odin drilled 17 HQ holes on the Cangrejos Project. Four holes tested the extent
of the Cangrejos Zone and the remaining 13 holes tested a gold soil anomaly in the Casique area.
The mineralization at Casique is confined to relatively narrow, discontinuous zones related to
silicified diorite, hydrothermal breccias, faults, or fracture zones.
In 2014 and early 2015, Odin completed nine HQ drill holes. Eight holes tested the lateral and
down-dip extent of the Cangrejos Zone and confirmed the grade that was previously defined by
Newmont. One hole tested the El Capitán copper-molybdenum soil anomaly, but found no
significant mineralization.
In 2015, four samples taken from the 2014 drilling program were used to conduct a preliminary
metallurgical testing program that included determination of physical properties, comminution
parameters, and testing of the metallurgical recovery of copper, gold, and molybdenum. The tests
concluded that the samples were medium hard and both cyanide leaching and flotation were
viable recovery options.

Ecuador
In 2016, Odin changed its name to Lumina Gold Corp. (Lumina) after acquiring 100% ownership
of Ecuador Gold and Copper Corp, the owner of the Condor Project.
In September 2016, an Independent Technical Report was filed on the System for Electronic
Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR) to provide an updated review of the exploration
activity (Brepsant, 2016). The Cangrejos 20 concession was registered on December 15, 2016
and subsequently changed to an Advanced Exploration claim.
In 2017, Lumina completed 15 HQ drill holes on the Cangrejos Zone. A maiden Mineral Resource
Estimate was reported in a March 2017 Technical Report (Brepsant, Sim, and Davis, 2017) and
an updated Mineral Resource Estimate was reported in a Technical Report in November 2017
(Sim and Davis, 2017). The drilling discovered a zone of higher grade gold-copper mineralization
associated with hydrothermal breccias which occur below the resource pit used for the November
2017 resource that was reported in a 43-101 Technical Report.
Lumina applied for two mining easements in 2017. The C20 easement was registered on March
27, 2018 and an access easement was registered on October 6, 2018. They also acquired
additional surface property rights for 95 ha in the Cangrejos area.
In July of 2018, the Ecuadorian Minister of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources
(Ministerio de Energia y Recursos Naturales No Renovables or MERNNR), Carlos Pérez Garcia,
enacted a Ministerial Agreement, which allows mining concession holders to perform “non-
systematic” exploration drilling, also known as “Scout Drilling”. Drilling activities were previously
only permitted during the Advanced Exploration Phase of mining concessions and required an
environmental license. That Ministerial Agreement and subsequent norms enabled the drilling of
previously untested areas on the west side of the Cangrejos deposit (Cangrejos 20), as well as
the Gran Bestia satellite deposit, located approximately one kilometer to the northwest, where
Newmont Mining Corp. previously drilled 978 meters over five holes in 1999. Lumina's tests
helped to determine that the Gran Bestia deposit contains mineral resources that add to the
existing Cangrejos deposit and to the conceptual mine plan.
Lumina continued to drill in 2018 and 2019. A total of 72 holes were drilled in the Cangrejos Zone
including 52 infill drilling holes, 11 geotechnical holes, four metallurgical holes and five
condemnation holes in the area of planned infrastructure for the Project. In addition to the drilling
at Cangrejos, 26 holes were completed at Gran Bestia to assess the significance of the
mineralized zone and complete an initial Mineral Resource Estimate.
Eight samples from the 2018 drilling program were used for an additional metallurgical testing
program. The testing included mineralogy, comminution tests, gravity concentration, cyanide
leaching, and flotation tests. The results from the metallurgical testing and drilling were used to
complete an updated Mineral Resource Estimate and a Scoping Study to evaluate the economic
viability of the Cangrejos Property. The results were reported publically in a Preliminary Economic
Analysis (PEA) Technical Report that was posted on SEDAR in August 2018 (Rose, et. al., 2018).
In early 2019, the current technical team was assembled with the objective of completing a
Prefeasibility Study (PFS) for the Project. The scope of work included additional drilling to expand
the mineral resource, geotechnical drilling, geochemical analyses, hydrogeological and

Ecuador
hydrological evaluations of the surface and underground waters at the site, and an extensive
metallurgical testing program to optimize the conceptual processing plant design. Using the
additional data, engineering for the Project was also advanced with updated designs for the mine,
the processing plant, infrastructure, and dry stack tailings facility (DSTF).
In conjunction with the work at site and in engineering, Odin acquired additional surface property
rights and was able to access further areas for drilling that had previously been inaccessible. As
a result of the success in drilling at Gran Bestia, the decision was made to complete another PEA
for development of the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits and incorporate the Inferred Mineral
Resources in the PEA instead of completing the planned PFS. The Mineral Resource estimate
that supports this PEA was reported in a 43-101 Technical Report that was posted on SEDAR in
December 2019 (Sim, Davis, and King, 2019).
Table 6-1 summarizes the exploration history for the Cangrejos Project.
TABLE 6-1: EXPLORATION HISTORY OF THE CANGREJOS PROJECT
Year Company Description

Regional stream sediment and geological mapping program to
1992 Odin locate the source of the Birón alluvial gold
(1987–1995: production; 69,000 oz Au).
Formation of “El Joven Joint Venture” to explore stream anomalies
Odin/
1994 with Newmont as the Operator. The Cangrejos Project is located in
Newmont
the northern part of the Joint Venture area.
Airborne magnetics, radiometrics, soil and rock geochemistry,
Odin/
1994-2001 geological mapping, and 29 diamond drill holes (7,509.2 m)
Newmont
completed on the Cangrejos Project.
Newmont withdrew from the Joint Venture, and the original seven
Odin/ concessions were returned to Odin.
2001
Newmont Odin also acquired Newmont’s drill core and exploration data for the
Cangrejos Project.
2004 Odin Acquired an additional four concessions (3,043 ha).
Top of bedrock soil sampling, additional
2007 Odin
stream sediment sampling.
The Government of Ecuador imposed a moratorium on exploration;
2008-2009 Odin
no work is done on the Cangrejos Project.
2010 Odin Top of bedrock, ridge, and spur soil sampling.
Diamond drill testing of gold soil anomalies at Casique
2011-2012 Odin (13 holes; 3,296.13 m) and the extent of mineralization at Cangrejos
(four holes; 1,402 m).
Diamond drilling to test the strike and depth extent of the Cangrejos
2014-2015 Odin Zone (8 holes; 3,188.5 m) and a Cu-Mo-Au soil anomaly at El
Capitán (one hole; 350.15 m).
Diamond drilling to infill and test the depth extent of the Cangrejos
2017 Lumina
Zone (15 holes; 7,186.1 m)
Diamond drilling to infill and test the extents of the Cangrejos deposit
2018-2019 Lumina (72 holes; 26,450.9 m) and the Gran Bestia deposit (26 holes;
13,170.8 m)
The Mineral Resource estimates that were completed and reported in 2017, 2018, and 2019 are
all in compliance with 43-101 categories. Historically, there has been artisanal mining on the
Cangrejos property but no production estimates have been reported.

Ecuador
7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
7.1 Regional Geology

The regional geology of southern Ecuador is shown in Figure 7-1. There are several north-south-
trending domains of volcanic and sedimentary rocks which accreted onto the Amazon Craton
from Late Jurassic to Eocene. These terranes are cut by younger magmatic intrusions which
locally host porphyry copper/gold and epithermal gold deposits (shown as black stars in
Figure 7-1).
Source: DINAGE, 2001; Lumina, 2017
FIGURE 7-1: REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Ecuador
7.2 Local and Property Geology

A more detailed picture of the geology in the vicinity of the Cangrejos Project is shown in
Figure 7-2. Quaternary sediments occur to the northwest in the coastal areas around Machala.
Oligocene continental volcanics occur to the east. These two domains are separated by the Late
Cretaceous-Paleozoic El Oro metamorphic complex which consists of phyllites, schists,
amphibolites, granites, and serpentinites.
The Cangrejos Project is largely underlain by a Miocene (K-Ar age, 16.89 Ma and 19.92 Ma
(Potter, 2010)) porphyritic quartz diorite and a Cretaceous equigranular diorite which is interpreted
as being part of the El Oro metamorphic complex. Gold showings are associated with the
Miocene porphyry and adjacent breccias and metamorphic rocks.
Source: Newmont, 2001; INIGEMM, 2017; Lumina, 2019
FIGURE 7-2: LOCAL GEOLOGY CANGREJOS PROJECT
7.3 Geological Studies and Age Dating

Additional drilling at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia has helped improve the geological map in these
areas. Drill holes were relogged by Pratt, Gordon, and Rowe (2018) and Gordon and Rowe
(2019) to produce a geological model for the gold-copper mineralization.

Ecuador
Age-dating of selected rock types has helped to interpret the geology. Seven samples
representing the main rock types were dated at the Geological Institute, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences in Sofia, Bulgaria. U-Th-Pb isotope analyses of zircons were completed using a laser
ablation ICP mass spectrometer (LA-ICP-MS) (Lumina, 2018). The porphyritic quartz diorite
(PQD) returned a Miocene age ranging from 21.22 Ma to 22.49 Ma. The foliated and equigranular
quartz diorite (SCH and EQD) is Cretaceous with ages ranging from 76.4 Ma to 79.09 Ma which
correlates with the El Oro metamorphic complex.
Re-Os ages for two molybdenite samples were determined using Re-Os isotope analyses
completed at ALS Labs in North Vancouver, Canada (Lumina, 2018). The age of the
mineralization is 23.40 Ma to 23.52 Ma which is slightly older than the Miocene porphyritic quartz
diorite intrusions.
7.4 Lithology
Based on relogging of drill core by Pratt, Gordon, and Rowe (2018) and Gordon and Rowe (2019),
there are four main lithological units:
1. Saprolite (SAP)/Saprock (SRK) – This unit includes weathered bedrock which occurs
as a generally thin layer at the top of a drill hole. Clay content varies from 10% to 50%
and is dominated by kaolinite and smectite. The base of the saprolite/saprock is
generally sharp with an abrupt change into fresh rock.
2. El Oro Metamorphic Complex (EQD, GSC, SCH) – This unit comprises of meta-
diorites, amphibolites and schists. An equigranular, medium- to coarse-grained quartz
diorite (EQD) is the most common lithology at Cangrejos. The rock is frequently
foliated and grain-size reduction is apparent. Feldspars are broken in sheared diorite
in contrast to the euhedral crystals seen in the Miocene porphyries. Two types of
schists are present: a fine-grained, massive amphibole-rich meta-basalt (GSC) and a
fine-grained biotite-feldspar-quartz schist (SCH). Folding and boudinage are common
in both schists. Rare intervals of medium- to coarse-grained meta-gabbros (GAB) are
also present.
3. Miocene Intrusions (PQD, PAD) – Porphyritic quartz diorite intrusions (PQD) occur as
stocks and dikes that intrude the metamorphic complex. The PQD comprises of
euhedral, crowded feldspar phenocrysts (1 mm to 4 mm) and large mafic phenocrysts
in a very fine-grained siliceous groundmass. This unit contains early porphyry “A” type
barren quartz veins and commonly exhibits strong biotite and calcic-sodic alteration.
Late, fine-grained, porphyritic diorite to andesitic dikes (PAD) cross-cut the early PQD
intrusions.
4. Breccias – There are three types of magmatic and hydrothermal breccias associated
with the quartz diorite porphyritic intrusions:
• Igneous breccia: This unit is pre- and inter-mineralization and can be both clast- and
matrix-supported. Subangular to rounded clasts occur in a matrix comprising feldspar

Ecuador
phenocrysts, biotite, mafic minerals, and fine-grained igneous material. This type of
breccia is common at Gran Bestia.
• Hydrothermal breccia: This unit is clast-supported with a matrix comprising actinolite,
albite, chlorite, tourmaline, ± sulfides, and ± carbonates. It resembles a jigsaw breccia
where the clasts are the same composition as the adjacent porphyry intrusion. The
gold and copper mineralization occurs as open-space fillings and veinlets. This unit is
common within the porphyry and at contacts with the country rock.
• Magnetite-biotite hydrothermal breccia: This unit is angular to subrounded clasts of
metamorphic country rock occuring in a matrix of magnetite and subordinate biotite
and quartz. Early quartz veins and chalcopyrite-bornite-pyrrhotite veinlets cross-cut
this unit. This lithology is associated with some of the highest gold-copper values and
dominantly occurs within the metamorphic country rock adjacent to porphyry contacts.
7.5 Alteration
Hydrothermal alteration is associated with the gold-copper mineralization. The main types of
alteration include:
• Potassic – The equigranular and porphyritic quartz diorite intrusions exhibit porphyry-
style potassic alteration which is characterized by secondary biotite alteration of the
mafic minerals and weakly developed “A” and “D” type veins.
• Propylitic – Propylitic alteration consists of chlorite and epidote which overprints and
is peripheral to the potassic alteration.
• Calcic-Sodic – Calcic-sodic alteration overprints the early porphyry alteration phases.
It is characterized by actinolite replacing hornblende and biotite, albite replacing
feldspar crystals and bleaching the matrix, and minor epidote associated with
tourmaline and chlorite. It is commonly seen in the breccia units. Most of the sulfide
and gold-copper mineralization is associated with this alteration phase.
• Phyllic/Intermediate Argillic – The Cangrejos and Gran Bestia areas exhibit limited
evidence of this style of alteration. Scattered, narrow pyrite-rich veinlets with light
green micaceous selvages, illite haloes and minor carbonate may represent an
intermediate argillic alteration.
7.6 Mineralization
Gold-copper mineralization is associated with sulfides that occur as open-space breccia fill or as
disseminations in former mafic phenocrysts. Total sulfide content is generally less than 5% and
consists of chalcopyrite and pyrite with minor bornite, molybdenite and pyrrhotite. In drill hole
C17-65, native copper is found on fracture surfaces at depths ranging from 142 m to 186 m. This
is not very common and is probably due to strong oxidation along a fracture zone.
The highest gold grades occur in calcic-sodic altered breccias at contacts between the PQD and
the metamorphic complex. The best gold grades occur in breccias where the dominant clast type
is EQD. The EQD is more mafic in composition, and gold is preferentially deposited in reducing
(mafic) environments.

Ecuador
7.7 Paragenetic Sequence

A preliminary paragenetic sequence for the lithologies, alteration, and mineralization is shown in
Figure 7-3.
Source: Lumina, 2017, 2019
FIGURE 7-3: PARAGENETIC SEQUENCE
7.8 Cangrejos Zone

Current understanding of the surface geology of the Cangrejos Zone is limited because of a lack
of outcrop exposures. The simplified geological map shown in Figure 7-4 is based primarily on
drill hole geological logs and assays. An east-northeasterly trending porphyritic quartz diorite
(PQD) intrudes quartz diorites (EQD) and schists (SCH) of the metamorphic complex. The
southeastern contact is steep, but the northwestern contact dips approximately 50° to the
southeast and is defined by porphyry dikes. The edges of the porphyry are brecciated with
dominant PQD clasts. These breccias extend at depth and may relate to breccia pipes that are
associated with the intrusion of the porphyry. Breccias with dominant metamorphic clasts (EQD,
SCH) occur at the edge of the porphyry.

Ecuador
FIGURE 7-4: SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGY PLAN OF THE CANGREJOS GOLD – COPPER ZONE
A vertical cross section across the central part of the deposit is shown in Figure 7-5; a higher
grade gold-copper zone is highlighted on this figure.
Drilling has defined a northeast-southwest-trending, steeply dipping zone of gold-copper
mineralization which is commonly associated with hydrothermal breccias and quartz vein
stockwork in the quartz diorite porphyry (Figure 7-5). Gold-copper values are not restricted to
these lithologies and can be found in all units except the late stage dikes.
The mineralized zone extends for approximately 1,000 m in a northeasterly direction, has widths
ranging from 70 m to 600 m, and has been defined to a depth of at least 600 m below surface.
The zone remains open to expansion with further exploration to the west and at depth.

Ecuador
FIGURE 7-5: CROSS SECTION 800E – CANGREJOS ZONE
7.9 Gran Bestia Zone

As with Cangrejos, current understanding of the surface geology of the Gran Bestia Zone is limited
because of a lack of outcrop exposures. The simplified geological map shown in Figure 7-6 is
based primarily on drill hole geological logs and limited outcrop exposures.
The southern portion of the Gran Bestia deposit is similar to the Cangrejos deposit in that
porphyritic quartz diorite (PQD) intrusions are present. Gold-copper mineralization occurs at the
contact between the porphyries and the surrounding metamorphic country rock, with higher
grades associated with breccias and quartz vein stockworks. The southern breccia has
dimensions of 400 m (northwest-southeast) by 200 m (northeast-southwest).
The northern part of the Gran Bestia deposit is underlain by a polymictic intrusive breccia.
Metamorphic complex clasts are hosted in a fine-grained diorite porphyry matrix. Several massive
diorite porphyry dikes also occur within this breccia. The northern breccia has dimensions of 600
m by 400 m.

Ecuador
FIGURE 7-6: SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGY PLAN OF THE GRAN BESTIA GOLD – COPPER ZONE
A vertical cross section across the central part of the Gran Bestia deposit is shown in Figure 7- 7.
The gold-copper mineralized zone at Gran Bestia extends for approximately 700 m (north-south)
by 600 m (east-west) and has been defined to depths ranging from 200 m in the south to 700 m
in the north. The zone remains open to the north, west, and at depth.

Ecuador
FIGURE 7-7: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION – GRAN BESTIA – SECTION 350E

Ecuador
8 DEPOSIT TYPES
The Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits are gold-copper, silica-saturated, alkalic porphyry-style
deposits. This type of deposit is found along paleo-subduction margins (Carter, 1981; Cox et al.,
1987).
Other deposits of note within this family include Cadia, Australia; Bingham Canyon, USA;
Andacollo, Chile; and Red Chris, Canada. All of these deposits have the following similar
chemical affinities and host-rock provenance:
• They are associated with porphyry intrusive rocks that intrude volcanic and
sedimentary packages as stocks, plugs, dikes, and dike swarms.
• Mineralization results from late-stage hydrothermal activity driven by remnant heat
from the porphyry intrusion. Thermal gradients within these systems give rise to
broadly concentric, although often complexly intermingled, zones of alteration and
mineralization. Mineralization is generally low grade and consists of disseminated,
fractured, veinlet and quartz stockwork-controlled sulfide mineralization. Deposit
boundaries are determined by economic factors that outline the zones of mineralized
material.
• The distribution of alteration and mineral facies are largely influenced by breccias,
dikes, veins, and fracture systems which concentrate and control fluid flow.
• Weathering from percolation of meteoric water can result in the oxidation of the
hypogene sulfide mineralization in a portion of the deposit to chalcocite and native
copper.

Ecuador
9 EXPLORATION
Extensive geochemical surveys (streams, soils, top of bedrock soils and rocks), geological
mapping, and airborne and ground geophysical surveys were completed by Odin and the Odin-
Newmont El Joven Joint Venture during the period between 1992 to 2010.
Survey procedures, sampling methodology, and analysis of these samples are described in detail
by Mayor and Soria (2000) and Potter (2004, 2010). Detailed information on the geological
mapping and airborne and ground geophysics programs is also discussed in the above-
mentioned reports.
Well-defined gold and/or copper soil anomalies have been defined by this previous work and are
shown in Figures 9-1 and 9-2. A sub-circular, gold-copper soil anomaly with a diameter of
approximately 2,700 m occurs at the center of the property. The Cangrejos and Gran Bestia
mineralized zones occur within this area of anomalous gold and copper soil values. The other
mineralized showings on the property also have anomalous, but somewhat less-extensive, gold
and copper soil values.
Note: Cangrejos Project is outlined in orange.

FIGURE 9-1: SOIL GEOCHEMISTRY – GOLD

Ecuador

FIGURE 9-2: SOIL GEOCHEMISTRY – COPPER
The airborne magnetic survey was used to help define structures. In addition, small circular
magnetic highs are interpreted as breccia pipes. The location of exploration targets other than
the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits are shown in Figure 9-3 and described in Table 9-1.
Other than diamond drilling, Lumina has not conducted any other exploration on the Cangrejos
Project.
Terra Remote Sensing completed a light detection and ranging (Lidar) orthophotographic survey
over part of the Project area from February 24, 2019 to March 31, 2019. This helicopter survey
covered an area of 76.82 km2 with a point density of 12 points per m2 and a 10 cm orthophoto
resolution. The purpose of the survey was to provide an accurate digital terrain model (DTM) for
the area covering the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits.

Ecuador

Source: Encom, 2007; Lumina, 2017
FIGURE 9-3: EXPLORATION TARGETS – CANGREJOS PROJECT – RTP MAGNETICS
TABLE 9-1: UNTESTED EXPLORATION TARGETS – CANGREJOS PROJECT
Target Geochemistry Magnetics Geology

Anomalous gold:
TADAO Circular magnetic high Breccia pipes
rocks, soils and local streams
Anomalous gold, copper: North-trending series of
DURAM Breccia pipes
rocks, soils magnetic highs
Anomalous gold, copper: Several magnetic highs
DOS BOCAS Unknown
streams, soils, rocks and lows
Weak to moderate
Anomalous gold, copper, arsenic: magnetic anomaly
VALAREZO Unknown
rocks, soils south of the
geochemical anomaly

Ecuador
10 DRILLING
Since 1999, a total of 168 holes, totalling 62,553.75 m has been completed on the Project. This
is summarized in Table 10-1 and shown in Figure 10-1. Seven additional drill holes totalling 408
m were drilled by Lumina in 2019 for metallurgical and condemnation purposes. These holes
were not assayed and have not been used for the resource calculation.
TABLE 10-1: SUMMARY OF DRILLING CANGREJOS PROJECT
Zone Year Operator Number of Holes Meters

1999 Odin Mining-Newmont JV 17 4,617.10
2000 Odin Mining-Newmont JV 6 1,620.30
2011–2012 Odin Mining 4 1,402.00
Cangrejos 2014 Odin Mining 8 3,188.50
2017 Lumina 15 7,186.07
2018–2019 Lumina 72 26,450.85
TOTAL 122 44,464.82
1999 Odin Mining-Newmont JV 5 977.81
Gran Bestia 2018–2019 Lumina 26 13,170.84
TOTAL 31 14,148.65
2000 Odin Mining-Newmont JV 1 294.00
Casique 2011–2012 Odin Mining 13 3,296.13
TOTAL 14 3,590.13
El Capitán 2015 Odin Mining 1 350.15
GRAND TOTAL 168 62,553.75

Ecuador

FIGURE 10-1: DRILL COLLAR PLAN MAP CANGREJOS PROJECT
10.1 Drill Programs

Details of the various drill programs are presented in the following sections.
10.1.1 Newmont (1999–2000)

In 1999–2000, Newmont used Connors Perforaciones S.A. to drill 29 HQ holes totalling 7,509.2 m
in the northern part of the El Joven Joint Venture area (Potter, 2004).
Drills were mobilized by helicopter and moved between sites by large crews of local workers.
Twenty three holes (6,237.4 m) tested the Cangrejos gold-copper porphyry zone; five holes
(977.8 m) tested the gold-copper, porphyry-style mineralization at Gran Bestia; and one hole
(294 m) tested a gold soil anomaly at Casique.
A Tropari was used to provide down-hole deviation data. This was available for the 1999 drill
program but not for the 2000 drill program.
Cangrejos Zone
Hole C99-14 intersected a wide zone of porphyry-style, gold-copper mineralization associated
with the soil anomalies (Hole C99-14: 1.57 g/t Au, 0.19% Cu over a core length of 192 m; this

Ecuador
may not represent the true width of the zone because additional drilling is required to determine
the exact geometry of the mineralized zone) (Odin Mining, Dec. 1999).
Additional drilling delineated two sub-parallel northeasterly trending zones: Trinchera (southern
zone) and Paloma (northern zone). These zones appear to have steep to sub-vertical dips. The
Newmont drilling indicated that the mineralized zones have a lateral extent of 850 m, horizontal
widths ranging from 100 m to 250 m and extend to depths of approximately 250 m.
Gran Bestia Zone
Five holes tested a gold-copper soil anomaly in the Gran Bestia area, approximately 1.2 km
northwest of the Cangrejos Zone. All holes intersected wide zones of low-grade, gold
mineralization associated with intrusive breccias containing fragments of diorite, porphyritic
diorite, and quartz diorite. The rocks exhibit silica-chlorite alteration with patchy biotite, albite,
and silica overprints. Sulfide mineralization consisting of pyrite, chalcopyrite, and traces of
molybdenite occurs in quartz veins and as disseminations. Overall, sulfide content is low (<5%).
Hole C99-06 returned values of 1.19 g/t Au over 132 m (based on a 1 g/t Au cut-off) (Odin Mining,
September 1999). Due to the widely spaced drilling, the true width of this mineralization is
unknown, and additional drilling is required to determine the exact geometry of the mineralized
zone.
Casique
One hole (C00-29) tested a gold soil anomaly in the Casique area. A 22-m wide zone with
2.56 g/t Au is associated with a silicified fracture or fault zone (Potter, 2010).
10.1.2 Odin Mining (2011–2012)

In 2011 and 2012, Odin Mining used Terranova Drilling S.A.C. to drill 17 HQ holes on the
Cangrejos Project. A Hydracore 2000 drill was used and drill moves were completed using a
small tractor. A Reflex EZ-SHOT™ was used to provide down-hole deviation data.
Four holes (1,402 m) tested the extent of the Cangrejos Zone and the remaining 13 holes
(3,296.13 m) tested a gold soil anomaly in the Casique area. The mineralization at Casique is
confined to relatively narrow, discontinuous zones related to silicified diorite, hydrothermal
breccias, faults, or fracture zones.
Significant results from this drill program have been included in several press releases (Odin
Mining; January 2012, April 2012, June 2012). Highlights include the following holes:
• C12-37: 8.96 g/t Au, 0.23% Cu over 6 m
• C12-39: 2.55 g/t Au, 0.18% Cu over 18 m
• C12-40: 1.65 g/t Au, 0.08% Cu over 24 m
• C12-45: 14.2 g/t Au, 0.24% Cu over 2 m
10.1.3 Odin Mining (2014–2015)

In 2014 and early 2015, Odin Mining used Hubbard Perforaciones S.A. (Hubbard) to complete
nine HTW (HQ) drill holes (3,538.65 m) on the Cangrejos Project. A Hydracore 2000 drill was

Ecuador
used and drill moves were completed using a small tractor. A Reflex EZ-SHOT™ was used to
provide down-hole orientation data at 50-m intervals.
Eight holes (3,188.5 m) tested the lateral and down-dip extent of the Cangrejos Zone and
confirmed the grade as previously defined by Newmont (Odin Mining, 2015). In addition, one
hole (350.15 m) tested the El Capitán copper-molybdenum soil anomaly. It intersected unaltered
granodiorite with thin andesite dikes and intrusive breccia zones. No significant mineralization
was present.
10.1.4 Lumina (2017)

In 2017, Lumina used Hubbard to complete 15 HTW (HQ) drill holes (7,186.1 m) on the Cangrejos
Zone. A Hydracore 2000 drill was used and drill moves were completed using a small tractor. A
Reflex EZ-SHOT™ was used to provide down-hole orientation data at 50 m intervals.
This drilling discovered a zone of higher grade gold-copper mineralization associated with
hydrothermal breccias which occurs at depth below the resource pit used for the November 2017
Mineral Resources estimate (Sim and Davis, 2017).
10.1.5 Lumina (2018–2019)

In 2018 and 2019, Lumina continued to use Hubbard to complete 63 HTW (HQ) drill holes
(26,457.31 m) on the Project. Two Hydracore 2000 drills were used and drill moves were
completed using a small tractor. A Reflex EZ-SHOT™ was used to provide down-hole orientation
data at 50-m intervals. In February 2019, two more Hydracore 2000 drills owned by Rumi Drilling
Company (Rumi) were mobilized to the Project. Rumi completed 35 HQ drill holes (13,164.38 m)
on the Project. It used a small tractor to make drill moves. A Reflex EZ-SHOT™ was used to
provide down-hole orientation data at 50 m intervals.
A total of 72 holes (26,450.85 m) were completed on the Cangrejos Zone. This included infill
resource holes (52 holes; 21,129.77 m) that have been used for the updated Mineral Resources
estimate contained in this Report, geotechnical holes (11 holes; 4,590.25 m), metallurgical holes
(four holes; 585.0 m), and condemnation holes in areas of planned infrastructure (five holes;
145.83 m).
Wide-spaced drilling (26 holes; 13,170.84 m) was completed at Gran Bestia to assess the
significance of this mineralized zone and provide an initial Mineral Resources estimate.
10.2 Drill Collar Coordinates

Drill hole collars were initially located using a hand-held Garmin GPS. Since 2017, all of the holes
at the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits have been surveyed by a local contractor, Victor
Tobar. He used a Trimble differential GPS and base station which is accurate to 0.005 m
horizontal and 0.010 m vertical.

Ecuador
10.3 Diamond Drill Core Logging Procedures

There is no documentation for the logging procedures used in Odin’s 2011–2012 drill program.
However, except for the introduction of geotechnical logging during the 2014–2015 drill program,
procedures were similar to what is currently in place.
With respect to both the Odin and Lumina drill programs, drill core was logged in the core logging
facility located at the Cangrejos exploration camp. Upon receipt from the drill, Lumina field
assistants checked the depth and recorded the "FROM_TO" intervals on the outside of the core
box. Photos were taken of both dry and wet core. Lumina geologists then examined the core
and prepared geotechnical and geological logs. The geotechnical log includes rock quality data
(RQD), core recovery, fracture and vein quantity, and vein angles. Point-load tests were taken at
5-m intervals and density measurements were taken at 10-m intervals. For the 2017 and 2018–
2019 drill programs, every tenth density sample was shipped to ALS Labs in Lima, Peru for a
second density measurement using paraffin-coated samples.
All drill data from the Newmont (1999–2000), Odin (2011–2012), (2014–2015), and Lumina (2017
to March 2018) drill programs were compiled in Excel® spreadsheets. In March 2018, Lumina
purchased the GeoSpark ACCESS®-based database management system. All previous drill data
were imported into GeoSpark. Since March 2018, drill data have been entered directly into
GeoSpark’s core logging form which includes data validation and pick lists for collar information,
down-hole surveys, lithology, alteration, mineralization and geotechnical information. Assay
sample numbers and intervals were also entered in the field, and, when assay data were received
from the lab, they were imported directly into the GeoSpark database.
10.4 Drill Core Storage

All drill core from the Cangrejos Project is stored in a dry, secure building at Lumina’s field camp,
located at the Project. The drill core from the 1999 drill program on the Cangrejos 20 concession
is stored in Machala at a warehouse owned by the previous concession owner.
10.5 Summary of Drill Results

Drilling at the Cangrejos Project has defined two zones of porphyry-style gold-copper
mineralization. The Cangrejos Zone has dimensions of 1,000 m by 70 m to 600 m and has been
tested to depths of at least 600 m. It is open to the west and at depth. The Gran Bestia Zone is
located approximately 700 m northwest of Cangrejos (Figure 10-2). It has dimensions of 700 m
by 600 m and has a vertical extent of 200 m in the south to at least 700 m in the north.
Figure 10-3 is a vertical cross section showing the relationship of the two mineralized zones. Gran
Bestia remains open to the north, west, and at depth.

Ecuador

FIGURE 10-2: PLAN MAP – CANGREJOS, GRAN BESTIA

Ecuador

FIGURE 10-3: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION – GRAN BESTIA TO CANGREJOS
10.6 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Drilling Procedures

In the QPs’ opinion, the core handling, logging, sampling, and core storage protocols in place on
the Cangrejos Project meet or exceed common industry standards, and the QPs are not aware
of any drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially impact the accuracy and
reliability of these results.

Ecuador
11 SAMPLING PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

11.1 Drill Hole Sampling
Drill hole sampling, analytical, QA/QC, and security procedures for each of the drilling phases is
described in the following sections.
11.1.1 Newmont Drilling (1999–2000)

Mayor and Soria (2000) and Potter (2004, 2010) describe the sampling procedures used by
Newmont. The core was cut in half using a diamond saw and 2-m samples were sent to Bondar
Clegg (now ALS Chemex) for sample preparation in Quito, Ecuador and analysis in Vancouver,
Canada. Pulps were analyzed for gold using a fire assay procedure with an atomic absorption
(AA) finish using a 30 g charge. Samples with Au > 0.5 g/t were analyzed for copper, lead, zinc,
molybdenum, and silver by atomic absorption after a 4-acid digestion.
Newmont also selected some samples for “blaster” gold analysis. This method is similar to
conducting a screen metallic gold assay where the coarse (+150 mesh) and fine (-150 mesh)
fractions are analyzed for gold. This method tests for coarse gold. The results from the fire assay
and “blaster” analyses were similar, which suggests that, if coarse gold exists, it is not being
liberated in the sample preparation process.
Newmont inserted its own standards every 25 samples to control the analytical quality.
There is no record of any special measures taken to monitor the security of the samples during
their transportation to the preparation lab in Quito.
Rejects and pulps from this drill program were stored in a house in Santa Rosa, but most of this
material was damaged and is no longer available.
11.1.2 Odin Mining Drilling (2011–2012)

Section 11.1.4 (Lumina Drilling) describes core handling procedures that were similar to those
used during Odin’s 2011–2012 drill program.
Drill core samples from the 2011–2012 drill program were assayed by Acme Labs (now Bureau
Veritas) in Vancouver. Samples were prepared at LAC y Asociados Cia. Ltda. (LAC), which has
ISO 9001:2008 accreditation and is Acme Labs’ preparation lab in Cuenca, Ecuador. Pulps were
sent to Acme Labs in Vancouver for analysis. All samples were analyzed for gold using a fire
assay technique using a 30 g charge. In addition, a 35-element ICP analysis was done using a
4-acid digestion.
QA/QC samples were inserted on a random basis, but, generally, insertion averaged every 10
samples. These included six certified standards, a blank, and duplicate samples.
During this drill program, 2,563 samples were analyzed: 83 were blanks, 75 were certified
reference material, 74 were duplicates, and 2,331 were core samples.

Ecuador
Remaining reject and pulp material from the 2011–2012 drill program was returned to Odin and
stored in a secure warehouse located in Quito.
11.1.3 Odin Mining Drilling (2014–2015)

Section 11.1.4 (Lumina Drilling) describes core handling procedures that were similar to those
used during Odin’s 2014–2015 drill program.
Drill core samples from the 2014–2015 drill program were assayed by Acme Labs (now Bureau
Veritas) in Vancouver. Sample shipments were picked up by a representative from LAC and
delivered to its lab in Cuenca where the samples were processed. Approximately 250 g of
pulverized material was shipped for analysis at Acme Labs. Certified reference standards,
purchased from CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd., were hand-delivered to Acme Labs and
inserted into each sample batch. All samples were analyzed for gold using a fire assay technique
using a 30 g charge. In addition, a 35-element ICP analysis was done using a 4-acid digestion.
Remaining reject and pulp material from the 2014–2015 drill program was returned to Odin and
is stored in a secure warehouse located in Quito.
11.1.4 Lumina Drilling (2017–2019)

The core handling and sample procedures described here were used for Lumina’s 2017 and
2018–2019 drill programs and all previous drill campaigns by Odin.
The drillers placed the HQ drill core in plastic boxes (four rows; total approximately 2.5 m per
box). Wooden tags marked with the down-hole depth were placed in the box. Lids were placed
on the box and taped shut. The core was then transported by tractor to the nearest road and then
trucked to Lumina’s core facility at the Cangrejos Project exploration camp. Upon receipt, Lumina
field assistants checked the depth and recorded the "FROM_TO" intervals on the outside of the
box. Photos were taken of both dry and wet core. Lumina geologists then examined the core
and prepared geotechnical and geological logs.
The geologist marked up samples at 2-m intervals and the core was cut in half using a diamond
saw. For each 2-m sample, half the core was put into a plastic bag, and the other half was
returned to the plastic box and stored on site. Bar-coded sample tags were included in each
sample bag and a duplicate sample tag was stapled into the core box. Sample bags were secured
with a tamper-proof plastic tag and put into larger mesh sacks which were also tied with a
numbered, tamper-proof nylon tie.
These large sample sacks were driven to a secure warehouse in Santa Rosa. When a large
batch of samples accumulated in the warehouse or a drill hole was complete, a representative
from Carlos Puig & Asociados S.A. (ALS Labs’ preparation lab in Quito, Ecuador) picked up the
samples from the secure warehouse and drove them directly to the preparation lab in Quito. The
secure, tamper-proof plastic tag was checked against a list emailed to the lab. Note: No
irregularities were detected in any sample shipment. The samples were then crushed and
pulverized. From September 2018 onwards, samples were sent to ALS Corplabec S.A. which is
ALS Lab’s new preparation lab in Quito.

Ecuador
The core samples were crushed to 70% passing minus 2 mm (ALS procedure CRU-31); a 1 kg
sub-sample was split from the crushed material using a riffle splitter and pulverized to 85%
passing 75 microns (ALS procedure PLU-32).
For each sample, approximately 250 g of pulverized material was split and placed in a kraft paper
bag and shipped to ALS, Lima, Peru for analysis. All samples were analyzed for gold using a fire
assay technique using a 30 g charge and atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish. In
addition, a 33-element ICP analysis was done using a 4-acid digestion.
QA/QC samples were inserted after every eight core samples. These include three certified
standards (high, medium, and low gold grades) and a coarse blank, fine blank, coarse duplicate,
and fine duplicate.
Remaining reject and pulp material from the 2017–2019 drill programs has been returned to
Lumina and is stored in a dry secure warehouse in Quito.
11.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

A review of the QA/QC protocols was conducted prior to drilling and formalized in a detailed
QA/QC manual developed by Lumina. Each drilling phase was reviewed by a QP who was on
site during the drill program. The procedures for core processing and the insertion of blanks and
standards were examined. The QA/QC program was conducted in accordance with industry best
practice.
No quality control issues were discovered with the Odin (2011–2012) and Newmont (1999–2000)
drill programs.
During the 2014–2015 drill program, 2,139 samples were analyzed: 60 blanks, 60 certified
reference material, 60 coarse duplicates, 59 fine duplicates, and 1,900 drill core samples. After
each batch of analytical results came in, the QA/QC samples were reviewed by an Odin geologist.
Odin’s QA/QC consultant also reviewed the data on a regular basis.
QA/QC monitoring of the gold assays from Odin’s 2014–2015 drill program indicated that the gold
assays were apparently biased consistently high. Based on the Odin QA/QC consultant’s
recommendation, any sample with > 0.1 g/t Au was re-assayed at a second lab. This resulted in
1,215 samples being re-assayed at the ALS Chemex laboratory in Lima, Peru. The re-assayed
results replaced the original assays in the Project database.
During the 2017 drill program, 4,036 samples were analyzed: 112 blanks, 114 certified reference
materials, 112 coarse duplicates, 112 fine duplicates, and 3,586 drill core samples. After each
batch of analytical results was released by the lab, the QA/QC samples were reviewed by a
Lumina geologist. Lumina’s QA/QC consultant also reviewed these data.
Lumina’s QA/QC consultant indicated that the results from the 2017 drill program were acceptable
and no further action was required.
During the 2018–2019 drill program, 22,036 samples were analyzed: 615 blanks, 619 certified
reference materials, 611 coarse duplicates, 612 fine duplicates, and 19,579 drill core samples.

Ecuador
After each batch of analytical results was released by the lab, the QA/QC samples were reviewed
by a Lumina geologist. Lumina’s QA/QC consultant also reviewed these data.
Two of the CDN standards used in the 2018–2019 drill program were suspected of being more
heterogeneous than certified and have been replaced. All other standards performed adequately.
Figure 11-1 shows an example of a control chart for gold in standard CM-27. The failure rate for
CM-27 is approximately 7%.

FIGURE 11-1: AU G/T FOR CDN-CM-27
All failures trigger the assaying of duplicates for three samples immediately before and after the
standard failure. The duplicates were submitted for assay, including another sample of the same
standard that failed. Averages of the original and duplicate sets were never more than 2%
different and the original assays were, therefore, accepted.
All standards, including CM-28 and CM-43, performed well for copper with failure rates well below
10%. An example of a control chart for CM-28 is shown in Figure 11-2.

Ecuador

FIGURE 11-2: CU PPM FOR CDN-CM-28
The control limit for gold in sample blanks is 0.015 g/t (3 times the detection limit of 0.005 g/t).
There are very few failures as shown in Figure 11-3. All failures were investigated by assaying
duplicates and more blank material. No abnormalities in the preparation or assay processes were
identified.

FIGURE 11-3: AU G/T - BLANK

Ecuador
Lumina’s QA/QC consultant and the QP indicated that the results from the 2018–2019 drill
program were acceptable and no further action was required.
11.3 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Sample Preparation, Analytical and

Security Procedures
In the QPs’ opinion, the security, sampling, and analytical procedures are appropriate and
consistent with common industry practice. The laboratories are recognized, accredited
commercial assayers which are independent from Lumina and previous operators. Lumina
analyzed its samples at ALS Chemex in Lima, Peru which has ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation.
Odin (2011–2012) used Acme Labs (now Bureau Veritas) in Santiago, Chile which had an ISO
9001:2000 accreditation at the time the work was done. Newmont/Odin (1999–2000) used
Bondar Clegg (now ALS Chemex) which has an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation.
The sampling has been carried out by trained technical staff under the supervision of a QP and
in a manner that meets or exceeds common industry standards. Samples are properly identified
and transported in a secure manner from site to the lab.
A sample bias in the gold assays was identified by the QPs during the review of the drill data and
assays for the 2014–2015 drill program. This bias was corrected. There were no significant
issues with the assays from the other drill programs.

Ecuador
12 DATA VERIFICATION
12.1 Database Validation
12.1.1 Collar Coordinate Validation

All drill collars at the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits have been surveyed using a Trimble
differential GPS and base station. Collar elevation data are validated by comparing surveyed
elevations with the LIDAR digital elevation model (DEM). Most elevation differences in the collars
were less than one meter.
12.1.2 Down-hole Survey Validation

The down-hole survey data were validated by identifying any large discrepancies between
sequential dip and azimuth readings. No significant discrepancies were found.
12.1.3 Assay Verification

All the collars, surveys, geology, and assays were exported from GeoSpark into Excel® files which
were then imported into MinePlan® software. No identical sample identifications exist; all
FROM_TO data are either zero or a positive value; and, no interval exceeds the total depth of its
hole.
To validate the data, the following checks were confirmed:
• The maximum depth of a sample was checked against the depth of the hole.
• The less-than-the-detection-limit values were converted into a positive number equal
to one-half the detection limit.
• All gold values greater than 0.1 g/t from each drill hole were checked against the
original assay certificate. No errors were found.
The core recovery for the 2018–2019 drill program averaged just over 95%. There is no indication
that grade is related to core recovery.
12.2 Geological Data Verification and Interpretation

Several geological variables were captured during core logging. The geological data were verified
by confirming that the geological designations were correct in each sample interval. This process
included the following:
• Examine FROM_TO intervals for gaps, overlaps, and duplicated intervals.
• Look for collar and sample identification mismatches.
• Verify correct geological codes.
A geological legend was provided and it was used to compare the values logged in the
database. The geological model was found to be reasonable and adequate for use.

Ecuador
12.3 Conclusion
Inspection of the drill core during the site visit and validation of the collected data indicate that the
drill data are adequate for interpretation.
In the QPs’ opinion, the database management, validation, and assay QA/QC protocols are
consistent with common industry practices. Therefore, the database is acceptable for use in this
Report.

Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador
NI 43-101 Technical Report
13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
13.1 Introduction
Metallurgical testing programs were performed by NMS of Englewood, Colorado, USA in 1999,
and by Plenge, FLSmidth Minerals Testing and Research Center (FLS Testing) of Salt Lake City,
Utah, USA, FLSmidth USA, Inc. Ore Characterization & Process Mineralogy Labs (FLS
Mineralogy), also of Salt Lake City, Utah USA, and Pocock Industrial, Inc. (Pocock) of Salt Lake
City, Utah USA between 2015 and January 2020.
Laboratory reports reviewed for this report include:
• Metallurgical Study for Cangrejos (Ecuador) Ores – Progress Report 1 – NMS
Project No. 11802 (NMS, 1999)
• Metallurgical Study for Cangrejos (Ecuador) Ores – Progress Report 2 – NMS
Project No. 11802, (NMS, 1999)
• Cangrejos Project, Progress Report, (Plenge, 2015)
• Comminution, Head Assays and XRD, (Plenge, 2018a)
• Saprolite, Sap-Rock and Oxide Screening Tests, Gravity, Cyanidation and
Flotation, (Plenge, 2018b)
• Comminution, Gravity, Cyanidation and Flotation, (Plenge, 2018c)
• Primary Optimization and Variability; Oxide and Saprock Progress Report,
(Plenge, 2019)
• HPGR and Comminution Suite, (Rucci, 2019)
• Lumina Gold Cangrejos Mineralogy, (Zahn, 2019)
• Cangrejos and Gran Bestia Deposits, Variability and Flotation Piloting Progress
Report, (Plenge, 2020)
• Sample Characterization & PSA, Flocculant Screening, Gravity Sedimentation,
Pulp Rheology and Pressure Filtration Studies, (Pocock, 2020)
13.2 Metallurgical Samples

Samples for the Plenge metallurgical test programs completed to date were obtained from 60 drill
holes representing various rock types, alterations, lithologies, metal concentrations, and locations
within the current Cangrejos and Gran Bestia pit areas. In the opinion of the QP, the test samples
are considered representative of the various types and styles of mineralization found in the
deposits.
Figures 13-1 and 13-2 show isometric views of all the metallurgical drill holes in relation to the
potential pits.
The predominant lithologies (e.g., rock types) identified by Lumina are:
• Hydrothermal or Intrusive Breccia (BX)
• Equigranular Quartz Diorite (EQD), also as Schistose (SCH) EQD or Foliated Quartz
Diorite (FQD)
• Porphyritic Quartz Diorite (PQD) or Porphyritic Diorite (POR)

Source: SIM Geological, 2020

FIGURE 13-1: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE METALLURGICAL DRILL HOLES IN RELATION TO THE POTENTIAL PIT (1999–2017)


FIGURE 13-2: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE METALLURGICAL DRILL HOLES IN RELATION TO THE POTENTIAL PIT (2018–2019)

13.3 Metallurgical Testing

Detailed descriptions of the historical metallurgical testing programs are available in the 2019
Technical Report (Sim, Davis, and King, 2019). The information in this report is focused on
metallurgical data and information that became available after that report was published and the
information that is used as the basis of this PEA.
Plenge performed testing from 2015 through December 2019 using 68 composite samples that
were prepared from 60 diamond drill holes. Plenge test results are summarized as follows:
• Comminution tests indicate that the fresh rock and partially oxidized samples are hard
and moderately abrasive with the Bond ball mill work index (BWi) ranging from 13
kWh/t to 17 kWh/t, abrasion indices averaging 0.26 g, JK specific energy values
averaging 12 kWh/t and JK A×b values averaging approximately 26. Saprolitic
samples are softer and have a BWi ranging from 5 kWh/t to 12 kWh/t.
• In 2017, gravity concentration tests on the fresh rock master composite indicated that
37% of the gold and 9% of the silver were recovered into a gravity gold concentrate
that assayed 143 g/t gold. An average of 17% of the gold was recovered by gravity
concentration from the saprolite, saprock, and partially oxidized materials.
• In 2019, gravity concentration tests on a lower-grade master composite of fresh rock
recovered 24% of the gold and 17% of the silver into a concentrate that assayed 74
g/t Au.
• In 2017, locked-cycle flotation testing of fresh rock gravity tailings produced a bulk
gold-copper-molybdenum concentrate that assayed 21% copper. Copper, gold, and
molybdenum recoveries in the concentrate were 86%, 43%, and 65%, respectively.
Overall gold recovery for this test (gravity plus flotation) was 82%.
• In 2019, locked-cycle flotation testing using a low-grade sulfur and copper fresh rock
composite, without prior gravity concentration, produced a bulk gold-copper-
molybdenum concentrate that assayed 21.5% copper. Copper, gold and molybdenum
recoveries in the concentrate were 87%, 73%, and 67%, respectively. Cyanidation of
the cleaner scavenger flotation tailings plus a sand flotation concentrate that was
produced by flotation of the plus 74-µm size fraction from the rougher flotation tailings
recovered an additional 9% of the gold. Overall gold recovery was estimated to be
82%, which is similar to the results achieved during the 2017 test program.
• In late 2019, a continuous mini-pilot flotation plant was operated to separately treat
composite samples taken from the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits. The sulfur
and copper concentrates recovered from the two large composites were two to three
times larger than the flotation concentrates produced from the 2019 locked-cycle test.
Bulk flotation concentrate assays averaged 15% copper with copper, gold, and
molybdenum recoveries in the final concentrates averaging 86%, 72%, and 49%,
respectively. Cyanidation of the bulk cleaner scavenger tailings plus the sand flotation
concentrate is estimated to recover an additional 10% of the gold into doré for a total
gold recovery of 82%. These results are similar to the results from previous tests.
• In 2015, a separate molybdenum concentrate was produced by flotation from the bulk
gold-copper-molybdenum concentrate. The final, cleaned molybdenum concentrate
assayed 43% molybdenum at a recovery of 51%.
• Open circuit flotation using four partially oxidized samples resulted in salable
concentrate grades that ranged from 15% copper to 22% copper. Based on the test

data, NDK estimates that 80% of the gold and 50% of the copper will be recovered
from partially oxidized materials by the flotation plus leaching process.
• Bulk rougher flotation recoveries from three saprock samples in 2019 were 75% for
gold and 35% for copper. Cleaner flotation of the saprock did not produce salable
flotation concentrates. However, during the 2019 flotation testing, when saprock was
blended with fresh rock, gold in saprock reported to copper concentrates and the
cleaner flotation tailings where it was recovered by cyanide leaching. NDK estimates
that 75% of the gold, but none of the copper, will be recovered from saprock.
• In 2017, rougher flotation of saprolite materials indicated that gold and copper
recoveries were 43% and 32%, respectively, which are similar to the saprock rougher
flotation recoveries from that year. A salable copper concentrate was not produced
by cleaning. More work is required on saprolite to better determine gold recoveries by
the flotation plus leaching process; however, NDK estimates that 75% of the gold will
be recovered due to its similar rougher flotation response to that of saprock in 2017.
• Cyanide leaching tests of fresh rock samples recovered 90% of the gold and 45% of
the silver. For near-surface rock (partially oxidized, saprock, and saprolite), gold
recoveries were similar; however, silver recoveries increased to 84% due to oxidation
of sulfide minerals.
• The selected processing flow sheet produces separate gold-copper and molybdenum
flotation concentrates and precious metal doré.
Flotation Tests
Bulk rougher flotation tests and cleaner flotation tests were conducted using gravity tailings and
tests that did not include gravity concentration. Cleaner flotation tests of the bulk flotation
concentrate were also conducted. Finally, in 2014 one copper-molybdenum separation test was
conducted.
Mineralogy
Mineralogy was performed by Plenge using X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) Bulk Mineralogy. The
majority of the minerals are noted as Quartz, Anorthite, Albite, Actinolite, Chamosite, Labradorite,
Kaolinite, Biotite and Andesine. Additional mineralogical examinations were completed by Eagle
Engineering in Butte, Montana USA and the FL Smidth (FLS) Ore Characterization & Process
Mineralogy Labs in Salt Lake City, Utah USA.
In summary, mineralogical investigations indicate that the fresh rock materials contain copper
primarily as chalcopyrite and bornite with minor amounts of chrysocolla. Gold is mostly free or
exposed at a 74-µm grind with gravity concentrates containing gold sizes ranging from 30 µm to
40 µm, flotation concentrates contain gold particle sizes of approximately 20 µm, and flotation
tailings contain gold particles encapsulated in non-sulfides at approximately 5 µm in size.
Refractory gold exists and is locked in pyrite and pyroxene. Copper mineral liberation is
approximately 150 µm for 50% liberation and 36 µm for 100% liberation. Copper mineralization
in partially oxidized materials is primarily chalcopyrite with minor amounts of bornite and tenorite
(copper oxide). Saprock materials contain copper minerals primarily as copper chlorite.
Comminution Tests
In addition to the historical comminution tests that were completed by Plenge, in 2019 the FLS
Minerals Testing and Research Center in Salt Lake City, Utah USA performed basic comminution

and high pressure grinding roll (HPGR) testing using a sample that was composited from four PQ
(i.e., 85 mm diameter) drill holes. The FLS Testing comminution data is provided in Table 13-1.
TABLE 13-1: FLS COMMINUTION TESTING RESULTS
DWT UCS CWi Ai RWi Feed BWi
Samples
A*b psi kWh/t g kWh/t kWh/t
2019 Master Comp 27.4 20179 10 0.3511 18.1 17.1
2017-2018 Averages 25.8 14286 --- 0.2841 17.3 15.5
The HPGR test results were reported “very positive, showing a specific energy of 1.8 kWh/t at a
recirculating load of 65% to reduce the material from 16.5 mm to below 1 mm” (Rucci, 2019). A
summary of the results from the HPGR Locked Cycle Test are provided in Table 13-2.
TABLE 13-2: SUMMARY OF HPGR LOCKED CYCLE TEST
Value Units Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4

Total Feed kg 144.33 144.33 144.33 144.33
% Moisture % 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Dry Feed kg 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0
Operating Gap mm 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Throughput dmtph 10.96 10.39 10.29 10.08
Specific Throughput
(M-dot) ts/hm3 292.3 277.1 274.4 268.8
Specific Press Force kN/m2 3490.6 3489.16 3490.07 3492.12
Net Power Draw kW 20.68 18.81 17.73 18.18
Specific Energy kWh/dmt 1.89 1.81 1.72 1.8
Total Feed P80 microns 16586 --- --- ---
% Oversize +2 mm % 73.2 73.5 63.3 64.2
Additional Material kg 35.56 37.93 52.21 51.57
% Undersize -2 mm % 24.6 26.3 36.2 35.7
Total Undersize Product P80 microns 894 875 916 921
FLS used the results of the comminution tests performed at their laboratory to size the
comminution equipment and recommend the comminution circuit configurations. The information
provided by FLS was used to complete a comminution trade-off study and as the basis for the
process design of the HPGR – ball mills circuit.
Gravity Concentration
Gravity concentration resulted in gold recoveries between approximately 5% and 30% to a mass
that is approximately 0.25% of the feed.
Cyanidation Tests
Cyanidation tests were conducted using composite samples and the variability samples that were
tested in 2019. In addition intensive cyanide leaching tests were conducted on gravity
concentrates, cleaner scavenger tailings, and sand flotation concentrates. The results of these
tests were used to complete the process trade-off study and to estimate the metallurgical
performance of the processing plant.

Solid Liquid Separation Tests

In addition to sedimentation and filtration tests that were conducted by Plenge, Pocock Industrial
performed sedimentation and pressure filtration tests using a combined sample of Cangrejos and
Gran Bestia (3:1 weight ratio) tailings, including rougher flotation tailings and detoxified leach
residues from the mini-pilot plant tests to provide data needed to size the tailings filtration circuit.
Pocock’s results and recommendations are as follows:
• P80 size of the solids was 80 µm with 46.5% minus 25 µm.
• Recommended flocculant was a medium to high molecular weight seven percent
charge density anionic polyacrylamide (AN 905 SH).
• Recommended conventional thickener design criteria includes feed density of 20% to
25% solids by weight, flocculant dosage of 15 g/t to 25 g/t, maximum underflow density
of 67% solids by weight, and a design basis of 0.125 m2/t/d tails.
• Recommended high-rate thickener design criteria includes feed density of 18% to 22%
solids by weight, flocculant dosage of 20 g/t to 25 g/t, maximum underflow density of
67% solids by weight, and a design net feed loading rate of 3.67 m3/ m2/hr.
• Pressure filtration tests were performed using thickened and diluted tailings slurry for
fill times of 0.08 minutes to 0.3 minutes at 552 kPa (80 psi) and air-blowing. The
targeted moisture content was 16% by weight in order to minimize the estimated
number of filters required. The analysis indicates that there are 89 cycles per 20-hour
day required to achieve 40,000 tpd of tailings filtration. This is equivalent to eight
recessed plate and frame pressure filters fitted with 168 plates, each with 2.5 m x 2.5
m x 60 mm plate chamber openings for a plant processing 40,000 tpd.
Flotation Concentrate Assays
Assays of the gold-copper flotation concentrate show that the samples from Cangrejos are clean
and did not contain elements that are subject to smelter penalties. The molybdenum concentrate
contained elevated levels of copper that potentially affect the payment terms.
Process Development and Flowsheet Design

The testing completed by Plenge focused on selection of an appropriate process flowsheet and
optimization of the processes. The 2018 flowsheet included semi-autogenous grinding and ball
milling as the comminution circuit because the preliminary comminution data indicated that was
the preferred flowsheet. Similarly, the 2018 flowsheet included a gravity concentration circuit and
no cyanide leaching. During the 2019 test program, comminution testing conducted by FLS using
samples taken from PQ holes demonstated that HPGR and ball milling resulted in a more
economic comminution process from both capital and operating cost perspectives. Also, flotation
testing of samples taken from the western side of the Cangrejos deposit and from Gran Bestia
had lower concentrations of gold and sulfide sulfur which resulted in lower recoveries of gold to
the flotation concentrate. As a result sand flotation of the rougher flotation tailings was tested and
cyanide leaching tests were conducted on bulk cleaner scavenger tailings plus the sand flotation
concentrate in order to improve the overall gold recovery. These tests proved successful and the
carbon-in-leach circuit was added to the process flowsheet. For the current flowsheet, gravity
concentration was also removed due to inconsistent results in the tests and the large mass

recovered to the gravity concentrate. Future testing using samples from new areas of the deposits
must continue to evaluate and confirm the results achieved to date.
13.4 Projected Metallurgical Performance

The 2019 Plenge tests were used to estimate the gold and copper recoveries for processing fresh
rock. They included open circuit bulk rougher flotation and three-stage bulk cleaner flotation tests
and the mini-pilot plant tests using all of the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia variability samples.
Results from cyanide leaching of the combined cleaner scavenger flotation tailings plus the sand
flotation concentrates were also used.
The following were established from Plenge’s data:
• Rougher flotation copper recoveries for the 40 variability samples averaged 89% from
samples with head assays that ranged from 0.04% copper to 0.45% copper (average
of 0.14% copper). As a comparison, the rougher flotation copper recoveries from the
mini-pilot plant tests averaged 91% with head assays of approximately 0.13% copper.
• Copper recoveries to the final gold-copper flotation concentrates from the mini-pilot
plant tests averaged 86%.
• Rougher flotation gold recoveries for the 40 variability samples averaged 83%. As a
comparison, rougher flotation gold recoveries in the mini-pilot plant tests averaged
78%, but another 5% gold recovery was added with sand flotation of the rougher
flotation tailings.
• Gold recoveries in final gold-copper flotation concentrates from the mini-pilot tests
averaged 72%. Additional gold recoveries to doré, after cyanide leaching of the bulk
cleaner scavenger tailings plus the sand flotation concentrates, are estimated to be
10% for a total of 82%.
• Copper concentrate grades are predicted to be variable, depending on the ratio of total
sulfur to copper (i.e., the higher the ratio, the more pyrite reports to and dilutes the final
concentrates). At average head grades for sulfur and copper, the final concentrate
grade is estimated to average approximately 17% copper.
An equation was developed to estimate the grade of copper in the final concentrates assuming a
constant copper recovery in the final concentrate of 86% as shown in Figure 13-3.

40.0
Copper Concentrate Grade, % Cu
35.0
y = -4.45ln(x) + 20.957
30.0 R2 = 0.3464
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Feed Grade, ST/Cu
FIGURE 13-3: DATA ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE GRADE OF THE COPPER CONCENTRATE
The equation is:
𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (% 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) = −4.45 × ln + 20.957
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Table 13-3 summarizes the estimated metallurgical recoveries by rock type.
TABLE 13-3: ESTIMATED METALLURGICAL RECOVERY BY ROCK TYPE
Products Units Fresh Rock Partially Oxidized Saprock Saprolite

Doré
Gold-Copper Concentrate
Copper Recovery % Cu 86 50 0 0
Molybdenum Concentrate
Molybdenum Recovery % Mo 50 50 0 0
Assumptions:
• Gold and siver recoveries are constant
• Copper concentrate grades for fresh rock are variable
• Copper concentrate grade for partially oxidized material is 15% copper
• Molybdenum concentrate grade is 45% molybdenum
There are no known deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on potential
economic extractions.

Ecuador
14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE

14.1 Introduction
The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared under the direction of Robert Sim, P.Geo, with the
assistance of Bruce Davis, Ph.D., FAusIMM. This section of the Report describes the mineral
resource estimation methodology and summarizes the key assumptions considered by the
Qualified Person (QP) to prepare the mineral resource model for the gold, copper, silver,
molybdenum, and sulfur mineralization at the Cangrejos Project. This is the fifth estimate of
Mineral Resources for the Cangrejos Project. The most recent previous estimate was presented
in a technical report titled, Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador, NI 43-101 Technical Report,
dated December 12, 2019, with an effective date of November 7, 2019 (Sim, Davis, and King,
2019). The mineral resource model presented in the December 2019 Technical Report remains
essentially unchanged and forms the basis of resources in this PEA. However, there have been
some minor adjustments to the classification of model blocks in the deeper part of the Gran Bestia
deposit that resulted in some minor changes to the extent of the resource limiting pit shell. These
changes have had a negligible effect on the resources for the Cangrejos deposit but have resulted
in a minor increase (of approximately 25 M tonnes) of Mineral Resources in the Inferred category
at the Gran Bestia deposit. There has been no additional exploration drilling completed on the
Cangrejos Project since the generation of the resource block model and, therefore, the effective
date of the estimate of Mineral Resources in this report is June 8, 2020.
In the opinion of the QP, the Mineral Resource estimate reported herein is a reasonable
representation of the mineralization found at the Cangrejos Project at the current level of
sampling. The Mineral Resources were estimated in conformity with generally accepted
guidelines stated in Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Estimation of
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practices Guidelines (November 29, 2019) and is
reported in accordance with NI 43-101 (CIM, 2019).
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves, and they do not have demonstrated economic
viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted into a
Mineral Reserve upon application of modifying factors.
Estimations are made from 3D block models based on geostatistical applications using
commercial mine planning software (MinePlan® v15.60, formerly called MineSight®). The Project
limits are based in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system (Provisional
South American Datum 1956, UTM Zone 17S) using a nominal block size measuring
15 m x 15 m x 15 m. Drill holes penetrate the Cangrejos deposit at a variety of orientations to
depths approaching 750 m below surface. The Mineral Resources estimate was generated using
drill hole sample assay results and the interpretation of a geological model which relates to the
spatial distribution of gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, and sulfur. Interpolation characteristics
were defined based on the geology, drill hole spacing, and geostatistical analysis of the data. The
Mineral Resources were classified according to their proximity to the sample data locations and
are reported, as required by NI 43-101, according to the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 2014).

Ecuador
14.2 Available Data

Lumina provided the drill hole sample data for the Cangrejos Project on October 8, 2019. This
comprised a series of Excel® (spreadsheet) files containing collar locations, down-hole survey
results, geologic information, and assay results for a total of 161 drill holes representing 62,146 m
of drilling. (Note: This database excludes seven holes (408.15 m) included in Table 10-1 that
were drilled for condemnation purposes or were drilled to collect additional material for
metallurgical testing. These seven holes were not assayed.) Of these, 115 drill holes, totalling
43,998 m of drilling, test the Cangrejos deposit. An additional 31 drill holes, totalling 14,207 m of
drilling, were completed in the vicinity of the Gran Bestia deposit. The remainder of the drilling,
15 holes totalling 3,941 m, tested for mineralization approximately 1.5 km east of the Cangrejos
deposit in an area called Casique. All holes are HQ diamond drill holes. The distribution of gold
grades in all drill holes is shown in plan view in Figure 14-1.
In the opinion of the QP, Lumina has completed sufficient drilling at the Cangrejos and Gran
Bestia deposits to support estimates of Mineral Resources, but there is not enough delineation
drilling at Casique to support a Mineral Resources estimate at this time. The distribution of gold
grades in drilling at the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits is shown in an isometric view in
Figure 14-2.

FIGURE 14-1: PLAN VIEW OF GOLD GRADES IN DRILLING

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-2: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF GOLD GRADES IN DRILLING AT CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA
DEPOSITS
Figure 14-3 shows the location of drill holes completed on the Cangrejos Project since the
estimate of Mineral Resources in November 2017.

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-3: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF DRILLING COMPLETED SINCE THE
PREVIOUS ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES
There are a total of 30,893 individual samples in the Project database, the majority of which were
analyzed for a variety of elements (as part of a multi-element package). Individual sample
intervals range from a minimum of 0.35 m to a maximum of 9 m and average 2 m long, and over
98% of the samples in the database are exactly 2 m long. Sample data for gold, silver, copper,
molybdenum, and sulfur have been extracted from the main database and imported into
MinePlan® to develop the mineral resource model.
All cored intervals were sampled and analyzed for gold content except for 289 m, which mainly
represents intervals of overburden or saprolitic material that were not originally sampled and
assayed. In some rare instances, these missing samples represent intervals of poor core
recovery. With respect to holes drilled by Newmont in 1999 and 2000, not all samples were
analyzed for copper, silver, molybdenum, or sulfur, and, as a result, this information is missing
(about 6% of core intervals in the database are missing copper, silver, and molybdenum data,
and about 12% of core intervals are missing sulfur data). The distributions of gold data and
available copper, silver, molybdenum and sulfur data are shown in plan view in Figures 14-4
through 14-8, respectively. The distribution of core intervals, where sample data are missing,
correlates reasonably well with low-grade (copper, silver, and molybdenum) zones encountered
in the more recent drilling. It is assumed that these intervals were not sampled because they do

Ecuador
not show visible signs of significant mineralization. Based on this assumption, core intervals
without sample assay results were assigned the following default grades: Cu = 0.01%; Ag =
0.1 g/t; and Mo = 5 ppm. No adjustments were made to account for missing sulfur data.
Resampling and analyzing for these missing elements are recommended if core or sample rejects
are available.

FIGURE 14-4: PLAN VIEW OF GOLD SAMPLE DATA IN DRILLING

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-5: PLAN VIEW OF COPPER SAMPLE DATA IN DRILLING

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-6: PLAN VIEW OF SILVER SAMPLE DATA IN DRILLING

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-7: PLAN VIEW OF MOLYBDENUM SAMPLE DATA IN DRILLING

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-8: PLAN VIEW OF SULFUR SAMPLE DATA IN DRILLING
Specific gravity (SG) data are available for 111 holes that were drilled by Lumina and Odin
between 2014 and 2019. Newmont did not conduct SG measurements on holes drilled in 1999
and 2000 and Odin also did not conduct SG measurements on holes drilled during the initial drill
programs in 2011 and 2012. Samples selected for SG measurements are spaced at 10 m
intervals down each drill hole. The volume and distribution of SG data are considered sufficient
to interpolate density values in the transitional (partial oxidized) rocks and fresh rocks. There are
only a few SG measurements recorded for the saprolite and saprock zones and this is not enough
to support SG estimation in these upper, highly oxidized units.
A Lidar survey was conducted in 2019; it provides detailed topographic information for the
Cangrejos property.
Geologic information, derived from observations during core logging, provide lithology code
designations for the various rock units present on the property.

Ecuador
The statistical properties of the data in the vicinity of the Cangrejos mineral resource model,
excluding exploration drill holes, are shown in Table 14-1; this table shows the statistics for the
initial sample data and the statistics for copper, silver, and molybdenum following the assignment
of default grades for missing data.
TABLE 14-1: SUMMARY OF BASIC STATISTICS OF DATA PROXIMAL TO THE
CANGREJOS MINERAL RESOURCE MODEL
Number Total
Coef. of
Element of Sample Min Max Mean Std. Dev.
Variation
Samples Length (m)
Gold (g/t) 39,960 43,767 0.001 38 0.443 0.8762 1.98
Copper1 (%) 38,304 41,101 0 4.76 0.092 0.135 1.47
Copper2 (%) 39,960 43,767 0 4.76 0.087 0.132 1.523
Silver1 (g/t) 38,304 41,101 0.1 114 0.78 2.69 3.44
Silver2 (g/t) 39,960 43,767 0.1 102.1 0.74 2.59 3.5
Molybdenum1 (ppm) 38,304 41,101 0 2,696 19.8 52.6 2.7
Molybdenum2 (ppm) 39,960 43,767 0 2,696 18.9 51.1 2.7
Sulfur (%) 36,205 37,912 0.01 10 0.238 0.334 1.408
SG 3,537 n/a 1.34 3.61 2.747 0.114 0.041
Note: Original sample data are weighted by sample length. The data used in Table 14-1 are restricted to drill holes in the vicinity of
the Cangrejos deposit. An Element suffix of “1” denotes initial sample data; a suffix of “2” includes default grades assigned to missing
sample data (copper, silver and molybdenum).
The statistical properties of the data in the vicinity of the Gran Bestia mineral resource model,
excluding exploration drill holes, are shown in Table 14-2; this table shows the statistics for the
initial sample data and the statistics for copper, silver and molybdenum following the assignment
of default grades for missing data.
TABLE 14-2: SUMMARY OF BASIC STATISTICS OF DATA PROXIMAL TO THE
GRAN BESTIA MINERAL RESOURCE MODEL
Number Total
Coef. of
Element of Sample Min Max Mean Std. Dev.
Variation
Samples Length (m)
Gold (g/t) 13,001 14,189 0.003 32.3 0.364 0.7349 2.022
Copper1 (%) 12,755 13,752 0 1.33 0.066 0.066 0.994
Copper2 (%) 13,001 14,189 0 1.33 0.065 0.066 1.016
Silver1 (g/t) 12,755 13,752 0.1 100 0.77 2.63 3.41
Silver2 (g/t) 13,001 14,189 0.1 100 0.75 2.59 3.46
Molybdenum1
12,755 13,752 1 1,890.00 13.9 37.7 2.7
(ppm)
Molybdenum2
13,001 14,189 1 1,890.00 13.6 37.2 2.7
(ppm)
Sulfur (%) 12,494 13,306 0.01 3.32 0.322 0.295 0.918
SG 1,231 na 1.19 3.54 2.759 0.087 0.032
Note: Original sample data are weighted by sample length. The data used in Table 14-2 are restricted to drill holes in the vicinity of
the Gran Bestia deposit. An Element suffix of “1” denotes initial sample data; a suffix of “2” includes default grades assigned to missing
sample data (copper, silver and molybdenum).

Ecuador
14.3 Geological Model, Domains and Coding

The Cangrejos deposit is interpreted as a gold-copper porphyry deposit with mineralization
resulting from the intrusion of quartz-dioritic rocks in host of metamorphosed schistose volcanic
rocks, also of dioritic composition. A series of brecciated zones were identified that generally
straddle the contact between the intrusive porphyry and the schistose host rocks. Sulfide
mineralization is present in all rock types but generally tends to occur in the vicinity of the contact
between the porphritic and metamorphic host rocks.
Figure 14-9 shows the shape and extent of the intrusive porphyry and the various breccia units in
relation to the gold grades encountered in drilling. The rocks surrounding these interpreted
lithologic domains (not shown on Figure 14-9) represent the metamorphic host rocks.

FIGURE 14-9: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF INTERPRETED LITHOLOGIC UNITS IN THE
CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA DEPOSIT AREAS
The type of surface oxidation recorded is also based on observations during drill core logging.
Saprolite comprises a clay-like texture in which no original textures have been retained. Saprock
is partially altered material that contains remnants of the original rock texture in a clay-rich host.
Transitional, partially oxidized rocks, Transitional Oxidation, exhibit some signs of minor oxidation,
typically along fracture surfaces. There is only a thin layer of organic overburden material on the
surface and this material is included in the interpreted Saprolite unit. Surfaces representing the

Ecuador
base of Transitional Oxidation, Saprock, and Saprolite were interpreted over the deposit areas.
These surfaces are used to assign oxide-material types to model blocks on a majority basis. An
example of the oxidation surfaces, relative to the gold grades in drilling and the interpreted
lithologic domains, are shown in vertical cross section in Figure 14-10.

FIGURE 14-10: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION THROUGH THE CANGREJOS DEPOSIT SHOWING
OXIDATION SURFACES AND LITHOLOGIC DOMAINS RELATIVE TO GOLD GRADES IN DRILLING
14.4 Specific Gravity Data

There are 4,843 individual measurements for SG taken from samples in 111 holes drilled by
Lumina between 2014 and 2019. SG is measured using the water immersion method (weight in
air vs. weight in water) with unwaxed core samples (Note: there is little or no evidence of porosity
in the rocks from the Cangrejos Project). During the 2017 drill program, approximately 10% of
the samples were sent to ALS Chemex for SG determinations using waxed samples. These
results show reasonable comparison with the results obtained by Lumina.
Samples for SG measurement were initially taken at 5-m intervals throughout the length of the
drill holes, but this distance was increased to 10-m intervals for the majority of drill holes. SG
values range from a minimum of 1.19 to a maximum of 3.61 and average 2.75. A series of 13 SG
measurements taken from the top 150 m of hole C17-56 are anomalously low (SG <2). It appears

Ecuador
there may have been an error in these measurements, and, as a result, they were removed from
the database. A review of the remaining SG data showed that several anomalous high and low
SG values were still present, and, as a result, three samples with SG values less than 1.85 and
five samples with SG greater than 3.40 were also removed from the database.
There are very few SG measurements taken from the near-surface oxidized units (only one from
Saprolite and three from Saprock material). The volume and distribution of SG data are
considered sufficient to support the estimation of SG values in the Transitional Oxide and Fresh
rocks at the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits. However, there are not enough data to support
estimation in the Saprolite and Saprock units; therefore, these units are assigned default values
of 1.50 and 1.90, respectively.
14.5 Compositing
Compositing the drill hole samples helps standardize the database for further statistical
evaluation. This step eliminates any effect that inconsistent sample lengths might have on the
data.
To retain the original characteristics of the underlying data, a composite length was selected that
reflects the average, original sample length. The generation of longer composites can result in
some degree of smoothing which could mask certain features of the data. A composite length of
2 m was selected for both the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits, reflecting the fact that over
98% of the original samples were selected on 2 m intervals.
Drill hole composites are length-weighted and were generated down-the-hole; meaning that
composites begin at the top of each hole and are generated at 2-m intervals down the length of
the hole.
14.6 Generation of a Gold Probability Shell Domain

A probability shell domain was generated based on the distribution of gold in the deposit. Indicator
values are assigned to 2 m composited sample data based on a threshold grade of 0.15 g/t Au.
Probability estimates are made in model blocks using ordinary krigging (OK). A 3D domain was
then produced in which the areas inside the probability shell represent areas where there is a
greater than 50% probability that the grade will be greater than 0.15 g/t Au. In areas where gold
mineralization is not bounded by drill holes, this shell domain extends for a maximum distance of
200 m from drilling.
The probability shell domain tends to be quite large and extensive at depth at the Cangrejos
deposit and in parts of the Gran Bestia deposit because the lateral and depth extents of the
mineralization have not been defined by the current drilling. The probability shell domain does,
however, outline the low-grade zone in the center of the Cangrejos deposit.
14.7 Exploratory Data Analysis

Exploratory data analysis (EDA) involves the statistical summarization of the database to better
understand the characteristics of the data that may control grade. One of the main purposes of
this exercise is to determine if there is evidence of spatial distinctions in grade which may require

Ecuador
the separation and isolation of domains during interpolation. The application of separate domains
prevents unwanted mixing of data during interpolation, and, therefore, the resulting grade model
will better reflect the unique properties of the deposit. However, applying domain boundaries in
areas where the data are not statistically unique may impose a bias in the distribution of grades
in the model.
A domain boundary, which segregates the data during interpolation, is typically applied if the
average grade in one domain is significantly different from that of another domain. A boundary
may also be applied if there is evidence that a significant change in the grade distribution has
occurred across the contact.
14.7.1 Basic Statistics by Domain

The basic statistics for the distribution of gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, and sulfur were
evaluated by reviewing the original, logged lithology codes and also by evaluating the various
interpreted lithologic domains shown in Figure 14-9. The results are quite similar, suggesting the
interpreted lithology model is an appropriate representation of the underlying geology data. The
results based on the logged geology information are presented in this section.
The boxplot in Figure 14-11 shows similar distributions of gold and copper in essentially all of the
logged lithology types. Elevated average grades occur in the breccia rocks (EQDD, PQDD, and
SCHD), but there remains a wide interquartile range of grades within each of these units that
tends to coincide with grades in other units. Similar trends are also seen at Gran Bestia as shown
in Figure 14-12.

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-11: BOXPLOTS OF GOLD AND COPPER BY LOGGED LITHOLOGY TYPE AT CANGREJOS

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-12: BOXPLOTS OF GOLD AND COPPER BY LOGGED LITHOLOGY TYPE AT GRAN BESTIA
Figure 14-13 shows that the distributions of silver, molybdenum, and sulfur are relatively
consistent in rock units above and below the oxidation layer. The Saprolite and Saprock units
show elevated silver grades and lower molybdenum and sulfur grades compared to the deeper
(fresh) rocks. Similar trends are also seen at Gran Bestia.

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-13: BOXPLOTS OF SILVER, MOLYBDENUM, AND SULFUR
BY LOGGED LITHOLOGY TYPE AT CANGREJOS

Ecuador
Figure 14-14 shows the distributions of all elements across the oxidation domains at Cangrejos.
There are no significant changes in gold or copper grades between these units. However, silver
is elevated and molybdenum and sulfur are depressed in the Saprolite and Saprock units. There
are almost no SG samples in the upper units. The SG of Transitional Oxide and Fresh rocks are
very similar. Similar trends are also seen at Gran Bestia.

FIGURE 14-14: BOXPLOTS COMPARING SAMPLE DATA BETWEEN
OXIDATION DOMAINS AT CANGREJOS
14.7.2 Contact Profiles

Contact profiles evaluate the nature of grade trends between two domains: they graphically
display the average grades at increasing distances from the contact boundary. Those contact
profiles that show a marked difference in grade across a domain boundary indicate that the two
datasets should be isolated during interpolation. Conversely, if a more gradual change in grade
occurs across a contact, the introduction of a hard boundary (e.g., segregation during
interpolation) may result in a much different trend in the grade model; in this case, the change in
grade between domains in the model is often more abrupt than the trends seen in the raw data.
Finally, a flat contact profile indicates no grade changes across the boundary; in this case, hard
or soft domain boundaries will produce similar results in the model.
A series of contact profiles were produced to evaluate the nature of gold and copper grades
across the lithologic and oxidation domain boundaries. Figure 14-15 shows gold and
Figure 14-16 shows copper in a series of contact profiles between various domains and, in all
cases, the gold and copper grades are either constant or marginally transitional across all

Ecuador
contacts. This suggests that these domains have no distinct influence on the distribution of gold
or copper in these deposits.

FIGURE 14-15: CONTACT PROFILES FOR GOLD SAMPLES BETWEEN
INTERPRETED GEOLOGY DOMAINS AT CANGREJOS

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-16: CONTACT PROFILES FOR COPPER SAMPLES BETWEEN
INTERPRETED GEOLOGY DOMAINS AT CANGREJOS
Figure 14-17 shows the change in grade for both gold and copper moving across the contact of
the grade probability shell domain. The change in grade is considered significant. Note that the
distributions of gold and copper in the deposits are quite coincident, and, as a result, the gold
probability shell domain also encompasses areas with elevated copper mineralization. In the
absence of geologic controls, the probability shell domain essentially segregates mineralized from
unmineralized rocks for estimation purposes.

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-17: CONTACT PROFILES FOR GOLD AND COPPER ACROSS THE
PROBABILITY GRADE SHELL DOMAIN
Figure 14-18 shows contact profiles of silver, molybdenum, and sulfur across the contact between
Saprolite plus Saprock (SAP+SRK) and the underlying Transitional Oxide plus Fresh
(TransOxide+Fresh) rocks in the Cangrejos deposit. Similar trends are also seen at the Gran
Bestia deposit. In all cases, the change in grade for all three elements is relatively abrupt. This

Ecuador
suggests the data should not be mixed across this boundary during grade estimation in the
mineral resource model.

FIGURE 14-18: CONTACT PROFILES FOR SILVER, MOLYBDENUM AND SULFUR ACROSS THE
SAP+SRK VS. TRANSOXIDE+FRESH ROCK BOUNDARY AT CANGREJOS
14.7.3 Conclusions and Modelling Implications

The results of the EDA indicate that the gold and copper grades are not distinctly controlled by
any of the interpreted lithologic domains. This is not that uncommon in porphyry-type deposits
where mineralization is often present in both the intrusive (porphyry) as well as the host rocks,
and grades tend to be gradational or transitional in nature. The oxidation domains are quite recent
events and have little to no influence on the distribution of gold or copper in the deposits.
The distributions of silver, molybdenum, and sulfur are moderately influenced by the presence of
the Saprolite and Saprock layers. These boundaries should be recognized during grade
estimation for these elements.
A summary of estimate domains are shown in Table 14-3.
TABLE 14-3: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATION DOMAINS
Element Domain Boundary Type

Gold ProbShell Hard
Copper ProbShell Hard
Silver SAP+SRK, TransOxide+Fresh Hard
Molybdenum SAP+SRK, TransOxide+Fresh Hard
Sulfur SAP+SRK, TransOxide+Fresh Hard
TransOxide+Fresh only
SG Hard
(assign SG to SAP and SRK)

Ecuador
14.8 Evaluation of Outlier Grades

Histograms and probability plots for the distribution of gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, and
sulfur were reviewed to identify the presence of anomalous outlier grades in the composited (2 m)
database. Following a review of the physical location of potentially erratic samples in relation to
the surrounding sample data, it was decided that these would be controlled during block grade
interpolations using a combination of traditional top-cutting and the application of outlier
limitations. An outlier limitation controls the distance of influence of samples above a defined
grade threshold. During grade interpolations, samples above the outlier thresholds are limited to
a maximum distance-of-influence of 35 m.
The grade thresholds are shown in Table 14-4 for Cangrejos and Table 14-5 for Gran Bestia.
These tables also list the reduction in contained metal (as a percentage) resulting from the
treatment of anomalous high-grade sample data. These reductions are considered appropriate
for projects at this stage of exploration.
TABLE 14-4: TREATMENT OF OUTLIER SAMPLE DATA AT CANGREJOS
Top-cut Contained Metal
Element Domain Maximum Outlier Limit
Limit Lost (%)
Inside Shell 24.90 - 10
Gold (g/t) -8
Outside Shell 38.000 - 4
Inside Shell 4.76 2.5 1.50
Copper (%) -1
Outside Shell 3.00 - 0.50
Silver (g/t) All 102.1 - 80 -3
Molybdenum (ppm) All 2696 1500 700 -5
Sulfur (%) All 10.00 8 3 -1
Note: Table 14-4 reflects 2 m composited drill hole data.
TABLE 14-5: TREATMENT OF OUTLIER SAMPLE DATA AT GRAN BESTIA
Top-cut Outlier Contained Metal
Element Domain Maximum
Limit Limit Lost (%)
Inside Shell 32.300 - 5
Gold (g/t) -7
Outside Shell 4.000 - 2
Inside Shell 1.33 - 0.45
Copper (%) -2
Outside Shell 0.49 - 0.20
Silver (g/t) All 100.0 - 15 -5
Molybdenum (ppm) All 1890 1000 300 -4
Sulfur (%) All 3.20 - 2 -2
Note: Table 14-5 reflects 2 m composited drill hole data.
14.9 Variography
The degree of spatial variability in a mineral deposit depends on both the distance and direction
between points of comparison. Typically, the variability between samples increases as the
distance between those samples increases. If the degree of variability is related to the direction
of comparison, then the deposit is said to exhibit anisotropic tendencies which can be summarized

Ecuador
with the search ellipse. The semi-variogram is a common function used to measure the spatial
variability within a deposit.
The components of the variogram include the nugget, the sill, and the range. Often samples
compared over very short distances, even samples compared from the same location, show some
degree of variability. As a result, the curve of the variogram often begins at some point on the y-
axis above the origin: this point is called the nugget. The nugget is a measure of not only the
natural variability of the data over very short distances but also a measure of the variability which
can be introduced due to errors during sample collection, preparation, and the assay process.
The amount of variability between samples typically increases as the distance between the
samples increases. Eventually, the degree of variability between samples reaches a constant,
maximum value: this is called the sill and the distance between samples at which this occurs is
called the range.
In this Report, the spatial evaluation of the data was conducted using a correlogram rather than
the traditional variogram. The correlogram is normalized to the variance of the data and is less
sensitive to outlier values, generally giving better results.
Variograms were prepared using the commercial software package Sage 2001© developed by
Isaaks & Co. Multidirectional variograms for gold, copper, silver, moybdenum, and sulfur were
generated from the sample data located inside the pertinent estimation domains. The results are
summarized in Tables 14-6 and 14-7.
TABLE 14-6: VARIOGRAM PARAMETERS FOR CANGREJOS
1st Structure 2nd Structure

Element Nugget Sill 1 Sill 2 Range Azimuth Range Azimuth
Dip Dip
(m) (°) (m) (°)
0.375 0.443 0.182 60 11 7 230 302 16
Gold Inside
19 99 -18 216 139 73
Prob Shell Spherical
18 123 71 72 33 5
0.600 0.350 0.050 132 338 1 435 277 71
Gold Outside
25 248 19 197 149 12
8 72 71 36 236 -15
0.300 0.433 0.267 39 94 23 967 313 26
Copper Inside
31 15 -23 473 175 56
23 324 56 141 53 19
Copper 0.341 0.456 0.203 220 177 2 591 177 10
Outside Prob 42 267 0 449 67 63
Shell Spherical
12 3 88 328 92 -25
0.349 0.250 0.400 164 86 -59 257 256 61
Silver 30 340 -10 18 27 20
Spherical
5 64 29 17 125 21

Ecuador

Dip Dip
(m) (°) (m) (°)
0.532 0.357 0.111 98 77 -59 592 66 74
Molybdenum 27 45 27 211 26 -13
Spherical
11 142 14 149 118 -10
0.300 0.437 0.263 147 298 25 805 97 -66
Sulfur 143 4 -41 462 66 21
Spherical
50 50 39 300 340 -11
Note: Correlograms were conducted on 2 m composite sample data.
TABLE 14-7: VARIOGRAM PARAMETERS FOR GRAN BESTIA

Dip Dip
(m) (°) (m) (°)
0.419 0.427 0.154 202 92 -8 282 318 21
Gold Inside
20 17 60 145 57 22
7 178 29 70 189 59
0.121 0.255 0.624 106 78 -39 684 145 4
Gold Outside
32 43 45 12 55 -3
7 152 19 7 355 85
0.595 0.205 0.200 36 72 24 718 266 54
Copper Inside
36 285 62 228 135 26
25 348 -13 46 33 24
Copper 0.470 0.359 0.171 152 120 -44 473 261 1
Outside Prob 120 51 21 197 357 75
Shell Spherical
8 159 39 85 171 15
0.187 0.762 0.051 96 296 -23 1289 169 -27
Silver 22 350 54 341 134 58
Spherical
6 218 26 272 71 -16
0.550 0.377 0.073 80 78 -3 1126 267 30
Molybdenum 21 136 84 544 107 59
Spherical
13 348 5 321 182 -9
0.300 0.317 0.383 30 286 12 1242 16 57
Sulfur 30 21 21 492 67 -22
Spherical
13 167 65 189 147 23
Note: Correlograms were conducted on 2 m composite sample data.
14.10 Model Setup and Limits

A block model was initialized in MinePlan®, and the dimensions are defined in Table 14-8. This
block model covers the extents of both the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits. The selection
of a nominal block size measuring 15 m x 15 m x 15 m is considered appropriate with respect to

Ecuador
the current drill hole spacing as well as the selective mining unit (SMU) size typical of an operation
of this type and scale.
TABLE 14-8: BLOCK MODEL LIMITS
Block Size Number of

Direction Minimum Maximum
(m) Blocks
X (east) 631050 633900 15 190
Y (north) 9613300 9616150 15 190
Z (elevation) 0 1500 15 100
Blocks in the model were coded on a majority basis with the gold probability shell domain and the
oxidation domains. During this stage, blocks along a domain boundary are coded if more than
50% of the block occurs within the boundaries of that domain.
The proportion of blocks that occur below the topographic surface is also calculated and stored
within the model as individual percentage items. These values are used as weighting factors to
determine the in-situ Mineral Resources for the deposit.
14.11 Interpolation Parameters

The block model grades for gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, and sulfur were estimated using
OK. The results of the OK estimation were compared with the Hermitian Polynomial Change of
Support model (also referred to as the Discrete Gaussian Correction). This method is described
in more detail in Section 14.12.2. Estimates for SG were made using the inverse distance
weighting (IDW) interpolation method.
The Cangrejos OK model was generated with a relatively limited number of samples to match the
change of support or Herco (Hermitian Correction) grade distribution. This approach reduces the
amount of smoothing or averaging in the model, and, while there may be some uncertainty on a
localized scale, this approach produces reliable estimates of the recoverable grade and tonnage
for the overall deposit.
The estimation parameters for the various elements in the mineral resource block model are
shown in Table 14-9 for the Cangrejos deposit and in Table 14-10 for the Gran Bestia deposit.
All grade estimations use length-weighted composite drill hole sample data.
TABLE 14-9: INTERPOLATION PARAMETERS FOR CANGREJOS
Search Ellipse1 Range
Number of Composites
Element (m) Other
X Y Z Min/Block Max/Block Max/Hole
Gold Inside
500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell
Gold Outside
500 500 200 8 33 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell
Copper Inside
500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell

Ecuador

Element (m) Other
Copper
Outside Prob 500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Shell
Silver 500 500 200 8 27 9 1 DH per octant
Molybdenum 500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Sulfur 500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
SG 500 500 200 3 12 3 1 DH per octant
Note: 1 Ellipse orientation with long axis north-south and west-east and vertical short axis. DH = drill hole.
TABLE 14-10: INTERPOLATION PARAMETERS FOR GRAN BESTIA
Element (m) Other
Gold 500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Gold Inside
500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell
Gold Outside
500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell
Copper Inside
500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
Prob Shell
Copper
Outside Prob 500 500 200 8 33 11 1 DH per octant
Shell
Silver 500 500 200 8 33 11 1 DH per octant
Molybdenum 500 500 200 8 33 11 1 DH per octant
Sulfur 500 500 200 8 44 11 1 DH per octant
SG 500 500 200 3 12 3 1 DH per octant
1
Note: Ellipse orientation with long axis north-south and west-east and vertical short axis. DH = drill hole
14.12 Validation
The results of the modelling process were validated using several methods. These include a
thorough visual review of the model grades in relation to the underlying drill hole sample grades,
comparisons with the change of support model, comparisons with other estimation methods, and
grade distribution comparisons using swath plots.
14.12.1 Visual Inspection

A detailed visual inspection of the block model was conducted in both section and plan to ensure
the desired results following interpolation. This includes confirmation of the proper coding of
blocks within the gold grade probability shell domain. The estimated gold, copper, silver, and
molybdenum grades in the model appear to be a valid representation of the underlying drill hole
sample data.
Examples of the distribution of gold and copper grades in model blocks compared to the drill hole
sample data at Cangrejos are shown in Figures 14-19 and 14-20, respectively. Examples of the

Ecuador
distribution of gold and copper grades in model blocks compared to the drill hole sample data at
Gran Bestia are shown in Figures 14-21 and 14-22, respectively.

FIGURE 14-19: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION SHOWING GOLD GRADES IN
DRILLING AND BLOCK MODEL AT CANGREJOS

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-20: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION SHOWING COPPER GRADES IN
DRILLING AND BLOCK MODEL AT CANGREJOS

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-21: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION SHOWING GOLD GRADES IN
DRILLING AND BLOCK MODEL AT GRAN BESTIA

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-22: VERTICAL CROSS SECTION SHOWING COPPER GRADES IN
DRILLING AND BLOCK MODEL AT GRAN BESTIA
14.12.2 Model Checks for Change of Support

The relative degree of smoothing in the block model estimates were evaluated using the Discrete
Gaussian of Hermitian Polynomial Change of Support method (described by Rossi and Deutsch,
Mineral Resource Estimation, 2014).
Using this method, the distribution of the hypothetical block grades can be directly compared to
the estimated (OK) model through the use of pseudo-grade/tonnage curves. Adjustments are
made to the block model interpolation parameters until an acceptable match is made with the
Herco distribution. In general, the estimated model should be slightly higher in tonnage and
slightly lower in grade when compared to the Herco distribution at the projected cut-off grade.
These differences account for selectivity and other potential ore-handling issues which commonly
occur during mining.
The Herco distribution is derived from the declustered composite grades which have been
adjusted to account for the change in support, going from smaller drill hole composite samples to

Ecuador
the large blocks in the model. The transformation results in a less skewed distribution but with
the same mean as the original declustered samples.
Examples showing the distributions of the gold and copper models at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia
models are shown in Figure 14-23.

FIGURE 14-23: HERCO GRADE/TONNAGE PLOT FOR GOLD AND COPPER MODELS
14.12.3 Comparison of Interpolation Methods

For comparison purposes, additional models for gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, and sulfur
were generated using both the inverse distance weighted (IDW) and nearest neighbor (NN)
interpolation methods (the NN model was generated using data composited to 15 m intervals).

Ecuador
Comparisons are made between these models on grade/tonnage curves. Examples of the
grade/tonnage curves for gold and copper at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia are shown in
Figure 14-24. There is good correlation between the OK and ID models throughout the range of
cut-off grades. The NN distribution, generally showing less tonnage and higher grade, is the
result of the absence of smoothing in this modelling approach. Similar results were achieved with
the silver, molybdenum, and sulfur models. Reproduction of the model using different methods
tends to increase the confidence in the overall Mineral Resources estimate.

FIGURE 14-24: GRADE/TONNAGE COMPARISON OF GOLD MODELS
14.12.4 Swath Plots (Drift Analysis)

A swath plot is a graphical display of the grade distribution derived from a series of bands, or
swaths, generated in several directions through the deposit. Using the swath plot, grade
variations from the OK model are compared to the distribution derived from the declustered NN
grade model.
On a local scale, the NN model does not provide reliable estimations of grade, but, on a much
larger scale, it represents an unbiased estimation of the grade distribution based on the underlying
data. Therefore, if the OK model is unbiased, the grade trends may show local fluctuations on a
swath plot, but the overall trend should be similar to the NN distribution of grade.

Ecuador
Swath plots were generated in three orthogonal directions for all models. An example of the gold
distribution in north-south swaths is shown in Figure 14-25.
There is good correspondence between the models in most areas. The degree of smoothing in
the OK model is evident in the peaks and valleys shown in the swath plots. Areas indicating large
differences between the models tend to be the result of “edge” effects, where there are less
available data to support a comparison. The validation results indicate that the OK model is a
reasonable reflection of the underlying sample data.

FIGURE 14-25: SWATH PLOT OF GOLD AND COPPER OK AND NN MODELS BY EASTING
14.13 Mineral Resource Classification

The Mineral Resources for the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits were classified in accordance
with the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 2014). The
classification parameters are defined relative to the distance between gold sample data and are
intended to encompass zones of reasonably continuous mineralization that exhibit the desired
degree of confidence. These parameters are based on visual observations and statistical studies.
Classification parameters are based primarily on the nature of the distribution of gold data as it is
the main contributor to the relative value of this polymetallic deposit.
The following criteria were used to define Mineral Resources in the Indicated and Inferred
categories.

Ecuador
14.13.1 Indicated Mineral Resources

Mineral Resources in the Indicated category include relatively large volumes that show consistent
zones of mineralization and are delineated with drilling spaced at a maximum distance of 100 m.
14.13.2 Inferred Mineral Resources

Mineral Resources in the Inferred category include model blocks that are located within a
maximum distance of 150 m from a drill hole.
Domains were interpreted to encompass model blocks that are included in the Indicated and
Inferred categories. This step ensures consistency of classification across the deposit. Some
drill holes were terminated in appreciable mineralization and there are some instances where the
lateral extents of mineralization have not been defined with current drilling. In these instances,
the lateral extents of mineralization were manually truncated at 100 m or less from drilling and the
depth extent of Inferred Mineral Resources is limited to 50 m vertically below drill holes to ensure
that the appropriate level of confidence in the resource retained.
14.14 Mineral Resources

CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 2014) define a
Mineral Resource as:
“[A] concentration or occurrence of solid 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 eventual
economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geological
characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological
evidence and knowledge, including sampling.”
The “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” requirement generally implies that
quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds and that Mineral Resources are
reported at an appropriate cut-off grade that takes into account extraction scenarios and
processing recovery.
The economic viability of the Mineral Resource was tested by constraining it within a floating cone
pit shell; the pit shell was generated using the following projected economic and technical
parameters:
Mining (open pit) $2.00/t
Processing $8.00/t
G&A $1.50/t
Gold price $1,500/oz
Silver price $18.00/oz
Copper price $3.00/lb
Molybdenum price $7.00/lb
Gold process recovery 83% fresh rock; 80% part oxidized; 75%
SAP&SRK
Silver process recovery 60% fresh rock; 60% part oxidized; 65%
SAP&SRK
Copper process recovery 87% fresh rock; 50% part oxidized

Ecuador
Molybdenum process recovery 50% fresh rock and part oxidized

Pit slope 47.5 degrees
Based on the metal prices and recoveries listed here, recoverable gold equivalent (AuEqR)
grades are calculated using the following formulas:
SAP&SRK:AuEqR = (Au g/t × 0.75) + (Ag g/t × 0.65 × 0.012)
Part Oxidized:AuEqR = (Au g/t × 0.80) + (Ag g/t × 0.60 × 0.012) +
(Cu% × 0.50 × 1.37) + (Mo ppm/10,000 × 0.50 × 3.2)
Fresh Rock:AuEqR = (Au g/t × 0.83) + (Ag g/t × 0.60 × 0.012) +
(Cu% × 0.87 × 1.37) + (Mo ppm/10,000 × 0.50 × 3.2)
The pit shell is generated using a floating cone algorithm based on the AUEqR block grades.
There are no adjustments for mining recoveries or dilution. This test indicates that some of the
deeper mineralization may not be economic due to the increased waste stripping requirements.
It is important to recognize that these discussions of surface mining parameters are used solely
to test the “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction,” and that they do not represent
an attempt to estimate mineral reserves. There are no mineral reserves calculated for this Project.
These preliminary evaluations are used to prepare the Mineral Resources estimate contained in
this Report and to select appropriate reporting assumptions.
The estimate of Mineral Resources, contained within the $1,500/oz Au pit shell, are based on
gold equivalent grades (AuEq) calculated using the following formula:
AuEq = Au g/t + (Ag g/t × 0.012) + (Cu% × 1.37) + (Mo ppm/10,000 × 3.2)
(Note: there is no contribution from copper or molybdenum in the SAP or SRK units.)
Using the assumed metal prices, operating costs, and metallurgical recoveries, the base case
cut-off grade for Mineral Resources is estimated to be 0.30 g/t AuEq. Table 14-11 shows the
estimate of Mineral Resources at Cangrejos. Table 14-12 shows the estimate of Mineral
Resources at Gran Bestia. Table 14-13 shows the combined estimate of Mineral Resources at
Cangrejos and Gran Bestia.
The distribution of the base case mineral resource within the $1,500/oz Au pit shell is shown from
a series of isometric viewpoints in Figures 14-26 to 14-29.
There are no known factors related to environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-
economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors which could materially affect the Mineral
Resources estimate contained in this Report. Mineral Resources in the Inferred category have a
lower level of confidence than that applied to Indicated Mineral Resources, and, although there is
sufficient evidence to imply geologic grade and continuity, these characteristics cannot be verified
based on the current data. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral
Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

Ecuador
TABLE 14-11: ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES AT CANGREJOS

Indicated
SAP+SRK 14.5 0.61 0.57 0.10 2.9 4.2 0.04 0.3 30 1.3 0.1
TransOxide 14.8 0.71 0.56 0.10 0.8 15.7 0.18 0.3 33 0.4 0.5
Fresh 440.5 0.77 0.59 0.12 0.7 23.2 0.24 8.4 1,165 9.2 22.5
Combined 469.7 0.77 0.59 0.12 0.7 22.4 0.23 8.9 1,222 10.9 23.2
Inferred
SAP+SRK 7.4 0.43 0.41 0.07 2.0 2.7 0.07 0.1 11 0.5 0.0
TransOxide 9.4 0.46 0.36 0.07 0.7 11.8 0.38 0.1 15 0.2 0.2
Fresh 238.1 0.56 0.43 0.09 0.7 15.3 0.34 3.3 446 5.0 8.0
Combined 254.9 0.55 0.43 0.08 0.7 14.8 0.33 3.5 472 5.7 8.3
TABLE 14-12: ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES AT GRAN BESTIA

Indicated
SAP+SRK 2.6 0.55 0.52 0.08 2.4 8.6 0.04 0.0 4 0.2 0.0
TransOxide 4.7 0.69 0.56 0.08 0.6 17.2 0.22 0.1 9 0.1 0.2
Fresh 93.8 0.58 0.45 0.08 0.5 15.5 0.27 1.4 168 1.6 3.2
Combined 101.1 0.58 0.46 0.08 0.6 15.4 0.27 1.5 180 1.9 3.4
Inferred
SAP+SRK 4.1 0.46 0.44 0.07 1.6 7.1 0.17 0.1 6 0.2 0.1
TransOxide 7.5 0.51 0.41 0.06 0.7 11.1 0.38 0.1 10 0.2 0.2
Fresh 233.9 0.50 0.40 0.07 0.6 11.3 0.33 3.0 351 4.3 5.8
Combined 245.5 0.50 0.40 0.07 0.6 11.3 0.33 3.1 368 4.7 6.1
Note : The estimates in Table 14-12 are limited inside the $1,500/oz Au pit shell. The base case cut-off grade is 0.30 g/t gold equivalent

Ecuador
TABLE 14-13: ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES AT CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA

Indicated
SAP+SRK 17.0 0.60 0.57 0.09 2.8 4.8 0.04 0.3 35 1.5 0.2
TransOxide 19.5 0.71 0.56 0.10 0.7 16.1 0.19 0.4 41 0.5 0.7
Fresh 534.3 0.74 0.57 0.11 0.6 21.9 0.24 9.8 1331 10.8 25.8
Combined 570.8 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 0.24 10.4 1,409 12.8 26.7
Inferred
SAP+SRK 11.6 0.44 0.42 0.07 1.9 4.3 0.10 0.2 17 0.7 0.1
TransOxide 16.9 0.49 0.38 0.07 0.7 11.5 0.38 0.2 25 0.4 0.4
Fresh 471.9 0.53 0.42 0.08 0.6 13.3 0.33 6.3 791 9.3 13.8
Combined 500.4 0.53 0.41 0.08 0.6 13.0 0.33 6.7 838 10.3 14.3

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-26: ISOMETRIC VIEWS OF BASE CASE WITH
RESOURCE LIMITING PIT SHELL

Ecuador

FIGURE 14-27: ISOMETRIC VIEWS OF BASE CASE MINERAL RESOURCE WITH

Ecuador


Ecuador

14.15 Sensitivity of Mineral Resources

The sensitivity of Mineral Resources, contained within the $1,500/oz Au pit shell, is demonstrated
by listing Mineral Resources at a series of cut-off thresholds. Tables 4-14 and 4-15 show the
sensitivity of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at Cangrejos, respectively. Tables 4-16
and 14-17 show the sensitivity of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at Gran Bestia,
respectively. Tables 14-18 and 14-19 show the sensitivity of total Indicated Mineral Resources
at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia and Inferred Mineral Resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia,
respectively.

Ecuador
TABLE 14-14: SENSITIVITY OF INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT CANGREJOS
Cut-Off Average Grade Contained Metal

AuEq Mt
AuEq Au Cu Ag Mo S Au Cu Ag Mo
(g/t)
0.15 605.2 0.64 0.49 0.10 0.7 20.1 0.23 9.6 1334 13.8 26.8
0.20 536.3 0.70 0.54 0.11 0.7 21.1 0.23 9.3 1289 12.6 24.9
0.25 495.6 0.74 0.57 0.12 0.7 21.9 0.23 9.1 1257 11.6 23.9
0.30 469.7 0.77 0.59 0.12 0.7 22.4 0.23 8.9 1222 10.9 23.2
0.35 450.7 0.78 0.61 0.12 0.7 22.8 0.23 8.8 1202 10.4 22.7
0.40 429.2 0.80 0.62 0.12 0.7 23.3 0.23 8.6 1173 10.1 22.0
0.45 400.4 0.83 0.64 0.13 0.7 24.0 0.23 8.3 1121 9.5 21.2
0.50 367.6 0.86 0.67 0.13 0.8 24.8 0.23 7.9 1070 8.9 20.1
0.55 331.7 0.90 0.70 0.14 0.8 25.6 0.23 7.5 1002 8.1 18.7
0.60 295.2 0.94 0.73 0.14 0.8 26.4 0.23 6.9 924 7.4 17.2
Note: The estimates in Table 14-14 are limited inside the $1,500/oz Au pit shell. The base case cut-off grade used is 0.30 g/t gold
equivalent (AuEq). Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves because the economic viability has not been demonstrated.
TABLE 14-15: SENSITIVITY OF INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT CANGREJOS

AuEq Mt
(g/t)
0.15 580.8 0.36 0.27 0.06 0.7 11.5 0.34 5.1 743 12.9 14.7
0.20 419.1 0.43 0.33 0.07 0.7 12.6 0.34 4.4 628 9.4 11.6
0.25 313.5 0.50 0.39 0.08 0.7 13.9 0.33 3.9 539 7.1 9.6
0.30 254.9 0.55 0.43 0.08 0.7 14.8 0.33 3.5 472 5.7 8.3
0.35 218.1 0.59 0.46 0.09 0.7 15.4 0.33 3.2 423 4.8 7.4
0.40 184.9 0.63 0.49 0.09 0.7 16.1 0.33 2.9 383 4.1 6.6
0.45 153.2 0.68 0.53 0.10 0.7 16.7 0.32 2.6 338 3.4 5.6
0.50 126.3 0.72 0.56 0.11 0.7 17.3 0.31 2.3 298 2.8 4.8
0.55 103.9 0.76 0.59 0.11 0.7 17.9 0.31 2.0 259 2.4 4.1
0.60 84.9 0.80 0.63 0.12 0.7 18.4 0.30 1.7 223 2.0 3.4

Ecuador
TABLE 14-16: SENSITIVITY OF INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT GRAN

BESTIA

AuEq Mt
(g/t)
0.15 122.7 0.52 0.41 0.07 0.6 15.5 0.26 1.6 197 2.2 4.2
0.20 114.8 0.54 0.43 0.08 0.6 15.2 0.27 1.6 192 2.1 3.8
0.25 105.7 0.57 0.45 0.08 0.6 15.3 0.27 1.5 184 1.9 3.6
0.30 101.1 0.58 0.46 0.08 0.6 15.4 0.27 1.5 180 1.9 3.4
0.35 93.2 0.60 0.48 0.08 0.6 15.4 0.27 1.4 171 1.7 3.2
0.40 79.3 0.64 0.51 0.09 0.6 15.5 0.27 1.3 152 1.5 2.7
0.45 65.0 0.69 0.55 0.09 0.6 15.8 0.27 1.2 130 1.3 2.3
0.50 52.5 0.74 0.60 0.10 0.6 16.0 0.28 1.0 110 1.1 1.9
0.55 42.9 0.79 0.64 0.10 0.7 16.2 0.28 0.9 94 0.9 1.5
0.60 35.0 0.84 0.68 0.10 0.7 16.4 0.28 0.8 80 0.8 1.3
TABLE 14-17: SENSITIVITY OF INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT GRAN

BESTIA

AuEq Mt
(g/t)
0.15 343.4 0.42 0.33 0.06 0.6 11.7 0.32 3.6 447 6.5 8.9
0.20 306.3 0.45 0.35 0.06 0.6 11.6 0.33 3.5 425 5.9 7.8
0.25 262.7 0.49 0.39 0.07 0.6 11.3 0.33 3.3 382 5.1 6.5
0.30 245.5 0.50 0.40 0.07 0.6 11.3 0.33 3.1 368 4.7 6.1
0.35 219.6 0.52 0.42 0.07 0.6 11.1 0.33 2.9 339 4.2 5.4
0.40 178.9 0.55 0.44 0.07 0.6 10.9 0.34 2.6 284 3.5 4.3
0.45 134.7 0.60 0.48 0.08 0.6 10.4 0.34 2.1 223 2.7 3.1
0.50 98.4 0.64 0.52 0.08 0.7 10.1 0.34 1.7 169 2.1 2.2
0.55 71.1 0.69 0.56 0.08 0.7 9.9 0.35 1.3 127 1.6 1.6
0.60 50.7 0.73 0.61 0.09 0.7 9.7 0.35 1.0 95 1.1 1.1

Ecuador
TABLE 14-18: SENSITIVITY OF INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT

CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA

AuEq Mt
(g/t)
0.15 727.9 0.62 0.48 0.10 0.7 19.3 0.24 11.2 1541 15.9 31.0
0.20 651.1 0.67 0.52 0.10 0.7 20.1 0.24 10.9 1493 14.7 28.9
0.25 601.3 0.71 0.55 0.11 0.7 20.7 0.24 10.6 1445 13.5 27.4
0.30 570.8 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 0.24 10.4 1409 12.8 26.7
0.35 544.0 0.75 0.58 0.11 0.7 21.5 0.24 10.2 1367 12.2 25.8
0.40 508.4 0.78 0.61 0.12 0.7 22.1 0.24 9.9 1323 11.6 24.8
0.45 465.4 0.81 0.63 0.12 0.7 22.9 0.24 9.5 1252 10.8 23.5
0.50 420.1 0.85 0.66 0.13 0.7 23.7 0.24 8.9 1176 10.0 22.0
0.55 374.6 0.89 0.69 0.13 0.8 24.5 0.24 8.3 1098 9.0 20.2
0.60 330.3 0.93 0.73 0.14 0.8 25.4 0.24 7.7 1005 8.2 18.5
TABLE 14-19: SENSITIVITY OF INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE TO CUT-OFF GRADE AT

CANGREJOS AND GRAN BESTIA

AuEq Mt
(g/t)
0.15 924.3 0.38 0.29 0.06 0.7 11.6 0.34 8.7 1182 19.3 23.6
0.20 725.4 0.44 0.34 0.07 0.7 12.2 0.34 7.9 1055 15.4 19.5
0.25 576.2 0.49 0.39 0.07 0.7 12.7 0.33 7.1 915 12.0 16.1
0.30 500.4 0.53 0.41 0.08 0.6 13.0 0.33 6.7 838 10.3 14.3
0.35 437.7 0.56 0.44 0.08 0.6 13.3 0.33 6.2 762 9.0 12.8
0.40 363.8 0.59 0.47 0.08 0.7 13.5 0.33 5.5 666 7.6 10.8
0.45 287.9 0.64 0.51 0.09 0.7 13.8 0.33 4.7 559 6.2 8.8
0.50 224.8 0.69 0.54 0.09 0.7 14.2 0.33 3.9 466 4.9 7.0
0.55 175.0 0.73 0.58 0.10 0.7 14.6 0.32 3.3 386 3.9 5.6
0.60 135.6 0.78 0.62 0.11 0.7 15.1 0.32 2.7 317 3.1 4.5
14.16 Comparison with the Previous Estimate of Mineral Resources

Table 14-20 compares the current and previous estimates of Mineral Resources.

Ecuador
TABLE 14-20: COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS ESTIMATE OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Date Mt
AuEq Au Cu Ag Mo Au Cu Ag Mo
(g/t) (g/t) (%) (g/t) (ppm) (Moz) (Mlbs) (Moz) (Mlbs)
Indicated
Dec 2019 568.2 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 10.4 1,403 12.8 26.6
June 2020 570.8 0.73 0.57 0.11 0.7 21.2 10.4 1,409 12.8 26.7
Inferred
Dec 2019 476.0 0.52 0.41 0.08 0.7 13.4 6.3 787 9.9 14.1
June 2020 500.4 0.53 0.41 0.08 0.6 13.0 6.7 838 10.3 14.3
As stated previously, the resource block model presented in the December 2019 Technical Report
remains essentially unchanged and forms the basis of resources in this PEA. However, there
have been some minor adjustments to the classification of model blocks in the deeper part of the
Gran Bestia deposit that resulted in some minor changes to the extent of the resource limiting pit
shell. These changes have had a negligible effect on the resources for the Cangrejos deposit but
have resulted in a minor increase (of approximately 25 Mt) of Mineral Resources in the Inferred
category at the Gran Bestia deposit.
14.17 Summary and Conclusions

Based on the current level of exploration, the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits contain total
Indicated Mineral Resources of 571 Mtonnes of mineralized material at a grade of 0.57 g/t Au,
0.11% Cu, 0.7 g/t Ag and 21.2 ppm Mo containing 10.4 Moz Au, 1,409 Mlbs Cu, 12.8 Moz Ag and
26.7 Mlbs Mo. There are additional total Inferred Mineral Resources of 500 Mtonnes of
mineralized material at a grade of 0.41 g/t Au, 0.08% Cu, 0.6 g/t Ag and 13 ppm Mo containing
6.7 Moz Au, 838 Mlbs Cu, 10.3 Moz Ag and 14.3 Mlbs Mo.
The Cangrejos deposit remains open to expansion with further exploration to the west and at
depth. The Gran Bestia deposit remains open to the north, west, and at depth.

Ecuador
15 MINERAL RESERVES
There are no Mineral Reserves for the Cangrejos Project at this time.

Ecuador
16 MINING METHODS
16.1 Introduction
The qualified person for this work is Joe McNaughton P.E., a Senior Engineer at IMC. The
material to be moved according to this mine plan will be referred to as potentially minable material
which is a sub-set of the mineral resource. Material that is to be fed to the processing plant is
referred to as mill feed or processed material.
16.2 Mine Production Schedule

The Cangrejos Project consists of two adjacent open pit mines referred to as 1) Cangrejos
(eastern pit) and 2) Gran Bestia (western pit). Both pits will be mined with conventional hard rock
open pit mining methods. The terrain is very steep with evergreen montane secondary forest,
saprolite, and saprock overlying both pit areas. Dealing with the saprolite and saprock will present
a challenge for mine operations. This was anticipated during the development of the mine
production schedule and in selecting the mine equipment.
Numerous optimization trials were completed during the development of the conceptual mine plan
and mine production schedule. The trials addressed the overall pit sizes, production rates to the
processing plant, and the mine production schedule. This report summarizes the results of the
evaluations but does not report the results of each option that was evaluated. Table 16-1
summarizes the mine production schedule that is a result of the work.
The mine delivers 40,000 tpd of feed to the plant beginning in mid-year one through year five.
The production ramps up during year six so the mine delivers 80,000 tpd of mill feed in years 7 to
25.

Ecuador
TABLE 16-1: MINE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE – ALL MATERIAL TYPES
Cutoff Material Mined Total

Waste
Year NSR Processed NSR Gold Silver Copper Moly Gold Eq Sulfur Material
kt
$/t kt $/t gpt gpt % ppm gpt % kt
PP 21.00 1,163 27.73 0.817 2.5 0.11 10 0.898 0.12 5,588 6,751
1 21.00 9,057 30.54 0.818 1.1 0.14 21 0.959 0.15 14,917 23,974
2 21.00 14,600 34.74 0.854 0.7 0.16 32 1.061 0.21 31,400 46,000
3 20.00 14,600 31.71 0.749 0.8 0.17 21 0.969 0.27 50,400 65,000
4 20.00 14,600 28.05 0.718 0.7 0.11 21 0.860 0.20 50,400 65,000
5 18.00 14,600 27.44 0.678 0.4 0.12 31 0.837 0.23 50,400 65,000
6 17.00 26,280 28.52 0.678 0.6 0.14 27 0.869 0.24 38,720 65,000
7 16.00 29,200 25.97 0.641 0.9 0.12 19 0.796 0.24 35,800 65,000
8 14.00 29,200 24.51 0.633 0.8 0.08 21 0.748 0.25 35,800 65,000
9 12.00 29,200 26.02 0.651 0.8 0.11 26 0.796 0.22 35,800 65,000
10 10.50 29,200 22.41 0.547 0.6 0.11 23 0.687 0.21 35,800 65,000
11 9.50 29,200 22.25 0.525 0.6 0.12 19 0.679 0.26 35,800 65,000
12 9.50 29,200 27.87 0.671 0.7 0.13 17 0.849 0.28 28,629 57,829
13 9.50 29,200 18.85 0.476 0.6 0.08 16 0.577 0.29 32,067 61,267
14 9.50 29,200 20.86 0.515 0.6 0.09 21 0.637 0.23 33,257 62,457
15 9.50 29,200 22.72 0.545 0.8 0.11 21 0.693 0.35 31,631 60,831
16 9.50 29,200 21.22 0.518 0.7 0.09 18 0.647 0.34 32,594 61,794
17 9.50 29,200 17.55 0.431 0.6 0.08 15 0.535 0.30 33,611 62,811
18 9.50 29,200 21.92 0.527 0.7 0.10 18 0.668 0.25 25,774 54,974
19 9.50 29,200 25.77 0.591 0.8 0.14 27 0.785 0.28 20,917 50,117
20 9.50 29,200 25.26 0.599 0.8 0.13 21 0.771 0.32 16,151 45,351
21 9.50 29,200 18.50 0.453 0.7 0.09 14 0.566 0.27 24,154 53,354
22 9.50 29,200 16.77 0.413 0.6 0.07 15 0.513 0.30 8,716 37,916
23 9.50 29,200 14.95 0.362 0.4 0.07 17 0.456 0.26 6,345 35,545
24 9.50 29,200 14.85 0.359 0.4 0.07 17 0.452 0.26 8,958 38,158
25 9.50 19,754 19.43 0.489 0.4 0.08 15 0.592 0.26 4,480 24,234
TOTAL 640,254 22.74 0.556 0.7 0.10 20 0.695 0.26 728,109 1,368,363
Table 16-2 summarizes the Mill Production Schedule.

Ecuador
TABLE 16-2: MILL PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
Total Mill Feed

Gold Equiv Sulfur
Year Feed NSR Gold Silver Copper Moly
gpt %
kt $/t gpt gpt % ppm
PP
1 10,220 30.22 0.818 1.3 0.14 20 0.952 0.15
2 14,600 34.74 0.854 0.7 0.16 32 1.061 0.21
3 14,600 31.71 0.749 0.8 0.17 21 0.969 0.27
4 14,600 28.05 0.718 0.7 0.11 21 0.860 0.20
5 14,600 27.44 0.678 0.4 0.12 31 0.837 0.23
6 26,280 28.52 0.678 0.6 0.14 27 0.869 0.24
7 29,200 25.97 0.641 0.9 0.12 19 0.796 0.24
8 29,200 24.51 0.633 0.8 0.08 21 0.748 0.25
9 29,200 26.02 0.651 0.8 0.11 26 0.796 0.22
10 29,200 22.41 0.547 0.6 0.11 23 0.687 0.21
11 29,200 22.25 0.525 0.6 0.12 19 0.679 0.26
12 29,200 27.87 0.671 0.7 0.13 17 0.849 0.28
13 29,200 18.85 0.476 0.6 0.08 16 0.577 0.29
14 29,200 20.86 0.515 0.6 0.09 21 0.637 0.23
15 29,200 22.72 0.545 0.8 0.11 21 0.693 0.35
16 29,200 21.22 0.518 0.7 0.09 18 0.647 0.34
17 29,200 17.55 0.431 0.6 0.08 15 0.535 0.30
18 29,200 21.92 0.527 0.7 0.10 18 0.668 0.25
19 29,200 25.77 0.591 0.8 0.14 27 0.785 0.28
20 29,200 25.26 0.599 0.8 0.16 21 0.771 0.32
21 29,200 18.50 0.453 0.7 0.09 14 0.566 0.27
22 29,200 16.77 0.413 0.6 0.07 15 0.513 0.30
23 29,200 14.95 0.362 0.4 0.07 17 0.456 0.26
24 29,200 14.85 0.359 0.4 0.07 17 0.452 0.26
25 19,754 19.43 0.489 0.4 0.08 15 0.592 0.26
TOTAL 640,254 22.74 0.556 0.7 0.10 20 0.695 0.26
Figure16-1 summarizes the movement of mined material by year.

Ecuador
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
kt
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
PP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Years
Processed Waste
FIGURE 16-1: MINED MATERIAL MOVEMENT

After the annual schedule was developed, IMC provided a monthly schedule during the 18-month
preproduction period to be used for planning the capital expenditures, personnel requirements,
and for scheduling. The preproduction period begins after the road between the site facilities and
the crusher site is completed. The initial five months are for access pioneering only. Additional
pioneering continues throughout the period of preproduction mining.
Mill feed material that is encountered during this pre-stripping period is delivered to a stockpile
located just east of the crusher location. That stockpile will be rehandled during year one and
added to the year one feed to the process plant.
Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
16.3 Pit Optimization

Initial design parameters referred to as “mill feed definition parameters” by Lumina were
established by IMC and Lumina working with the entire project team.
Slope angles for the pit optimization are based on guidance provided by W&N. IMC reduced the
angles by a few degrees to provide an allowance for haul roads. Fresh rock overall slope angles
range from 45° to 50° with the shallower slopes on the east and west-northwest sides of the pit
as a consequence of structural geologic controls. Saprolite and saprock slope angles are
dependent on the upslope inclination of the natural terrain above the pit wall. In addition, a 15-m
to 25-m wide safety bench is recommended depending on the thickness of saprolite. To allow for
the safety bench and the variable inclinations, IMC measured the upslope inclinations and the
depth of saprolite to establish overall saprolite slope angle estimates for the pit optimization.

Ecuador
Saprolite overall slopes varied from 24.8° to 25.6° and saprock was generally 30.5° for the pit
optimization.
IMC utilized NSR to combine the economic values for all of the potentially economic metals that
will be recovered at Cangrejos. Simply put, NSR is the net revenue for metal sales less all off-
site costs for transportation, smelting, and refining. NSR was estimated based on the metal
grade units provided in the model using the following equations:
Gold NSR = Au grade x Recovery x (1-Royalty) x (Price – Au Refine) x 0.03215
+ Silver NSR = Ag grade x Recovery x (1-Royalty) x (Price – Ag Refine) x 0.03215
+ Copper NSR = Cu grade x Recovery x (1-Royalty) x (Price- Smelt/lb) x 22.0462
+ Moly NSR = Mo grade x Recovery x (1-Royalty) x (Price – Roast/lb) x 0.00220462
Total NSR in $ per tonne
Gold makes up approximately 80% of the project value and copper contributes to approximately
19% of the value. The remaining value is predominantly silver with minor credit for molybdenum.
The internal cut-off grade for NSR is $9.50/tonne, which was the total estimated cost for
processing and G&A costs.
The base case NSR was calculated for every block in the model. Then, in order to establish pit
design guidance for smaller pits, the NSR was reduced by factoring downward on a percentage
basis (revenue factors). Initial phase design work targeted the $1,250 pit. Production schedules
using those phases indicated that smaller final pits would improve the project return on investment
(ROI). Consequently, the $1,100 pit was selected as the target for final pit design. Sixty two
percent of the $1,100 processed material tonnage is based on Indicated Mineral Resources and
the remaining 38% is based on Inferred Mineral Resources.
16.4 Phase Design

A phase or pushback is a practical expansion of the open pit that is not tied to time. The initial
phase or pushback develops the highest value mill feed for initial production. The final pushback
is the final pit design. Phase designs include all access roads required for practical production
and incorporate appropriate room to operate the mine equipment. For this size of operation, mine
phase designs are generally separated from each other by at least 100 m.
For the conceptual design, every 200 vertical meters a 25-m safety bench is left in the fresh rock
slopes. At the base of the saprolite-saprock, a safety bench of 15-m to 25-m width is left in the
pit. Haul roads are 33-m wide including the ditch and the berm with a maximum gradient of 10%.
Table 16-3 summarizes the contained tonnage and grade for the phase designs using the base
case metal prices and the internal cut-off grade of $9.50 NSR/t. The tabulations include Indicated
and Inferred Mineral Resources. The model includes no Measured Mineral Resources. Mineral
Resources are not Mineral Reserves because the economic viability has not been demonstrated.
The phase tabulations do not match the mill feed tonnages in the production schedule because
the mine production schedule utilized higher cut-off grades in the early years than the cut-off

Ecuador
grades reported in Table 16-3. Note that the NSR/t declines from Phase 1 to Phase 7 and the
cash cost per equivalent ounce generally increases from Phase 1 to Phase 7. The reversal in
cost per equivalent ounce at the Gran Bestia Phase 1 is due to the low strip ratio of that phase.
However, mining could not start at Gran Bestia because there is insufficient mill feed on each
bench to sustain the process without an impractical vertical development rate in the pit.

Ecuador
TABLE 16-3: TONNAGE TABULATIONS WITHIN PHASE DESIGNS

Potentially Mineable Material at $9.50 NSR Cut-off, M+I+I Total
Phase Equiv Waste Cost per
Location Processed NSR Gold Silver Copper Moly Sulfur Material
Number Oz kt Equiv Oz
kt $/t g/t g/t % ppm % g/t kt
1 Cangrejos Ph1 47,068 $28.32 0.714 1.0 0.14 22 0.18 0.877 13,976 61,044 $ 734
2 Cangrejos Ph2 93,233 $24.97 0.607 0.7 0.12 22 0.24 0.764 89,192 182,425 $ 845
3 Cangrejos Ph3 138,932 $24.20 0.600 0.7 0.11 21 0.25 0.739 151,252 290,184 $ 875
4 Gran Bestia Ph1 26,833 $23.34 0.616 0.8 0.09 16 0.22 0.723 1,189 28,022 $ 803
5 Cangrejos Ph4 81,816 $22.74 0.548 0.7 0.11 21 0.28 0.694 112,390 194,206 $ 941
6 Cangrejos Ph5 192,299 $20.37 0.485 0.7 0.10 19 0.29 0.621 212,014 404,313 $ 987
7 Gran Bestia Ph2 135,030 $16.16 0.399 0.5 0.07 14 0.30 0.494 73,139 208,169 $ 1,094
Totals 715,211 $21.82 0.534 0.7 0.10 19 0.27 0.668 653,152 1,368,363 $ 922

Ecuador
Figure 16-2 shows the open pit and WRSF configuration at Year 25.
Source: IMC, 2020

FIGURE 16-2: MINE AND WASTE STORAGE CONFIGURATION AT THE END OF YEAR 25

Ecuador
16.4.1 Waste Storage

Waste material was reported by the rock types of saprolite, saprock, partially oxidized, and fresh
rock. During the first five years of the mine life, the saprolite and saprock are delivered to the
SSF located south-southeast of the Cangrejos pit. The SSF is constructed in four stages.
The fresh rock waste is delivered to the WRSF located south of the Cangrejos pit and the primary
crusher. A portion of the saprock is delivered to the WRSF during the first five years. After year
five, all of the saprolite and saprock are stored in the main WRSF. The WRSF is built in five
stages.
Cangrejos is unique in that the waste haulage distances begin to slowly reduce over much of the
mine life from year seven until just a few years before the end of the mine life in year 25. This is
because the waste dump rises in elevation to meet the exit elevation from the pit.
There are three large road developments that are constructed from fresh and partially oxidized
waste rock in order to connect to the final pushback at Cangrejos to get to the top of the Gran
Bestia Pit, and to provide access to the final pit at Gran Bestia. These roads have portions of cut
material, but the significant portion is constructed using mine waste as fill material.
16.4.2 Geotechnical Recommendations

Wyllie & Norrish Rock Engineers Inc. (W&N), with sub-consultants Dr. R.L. Burk of Burk
GeoConsult, LLC and Dr. B. Fisher of Fisher Rock Engineering, LLC, performed geotechnical
analyses in support of scoping-level pit slope recommendations for the Cangrejos Project. W&N
designed the geotechnical investigation program and provided guidance to Lumina personnel for
data collection. Procedures and data integrity were reviewed at the site by W&N during the course
of the program.
Sources of data for the geotechnical study included:
• Exploration Boreholes (49 at Cangrejos and 24 at Gran Bestia)
• Geotechnical Boreholes (nine holes at Cangrejos)
• Geologic Mapping
• Laboratory Testing
• Groundwater Levels from a Hydrogelogical Study completed by GRE
• Background Information provided by Lumina
Recommendations for PEA-level bench face angles and inter-ramp slope angles by material type
are summarized in Figures 16-3 and 16-4 for fresh rock and saprolite and saprock, respectively.

Ecuador
FIGURE 16-3: FRESH ROCK SLOPE DESIGN

Ecuador
FIGURE 16-4: SLOPE DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR SAPROLITE AND SAPROCK
16.5 Mine Equipment

IMC estimated the mine equipment requirements based on the mine plan and the operating
conditions at Cangrejos. The equipment fleet is larger than used at other mine sites due to steep
terrain, saprolite cover, and intense rainfall. The equipment is based on three different categories
of equipment, including:
1. Pioneering Units to be used for road building during preproduction and the early years of
mining
2. Narrow Mining Units for saprolite and saprock mining
3. Primary Mining Fleet to mine the 15-m bench height
IMC estimated equipment and manpower requirements and the associated capital and operating
costs by evaluating the production required, the productivity for the equipment, the number of
operating shifts required to meet the production, and the mechanical availability and utilization.
Table 16-4 summarizes the mine equipment on hand at Cangrejos for select years.

Ecuador
TABLE 16-4: MINE EQUIPMENT FLEET ON HAND FOR SELECTED YEARS

End Year Year 3 Year Years Years 19 Year
Equipment Type or Class
PP 1 to 10 15 18 to 23 25
Major Mine Equipment
Epiroc PV351 Blast Hole Drill (31.1 cm bit / 64,000 kg
1 2 4 4 4 4 4
pulldown)
CAT 6050 FS Hydraulic Shovel (23 m3 bucket / 2550 HP) 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
CAT 793F Haul Truck (175 m3 bed / 220 t) 8 9 26 26 21 21 21
Epiroc D45 Presplit Drill (10 cm bit / 264 kW) 1 1 1 1 1 1
CAT 994H Front End Loader (17 m3 bucket / 1577 HP) 1 1 1 1 1 1
CAT 777F Haul Truck (60.1 m3 bed / 91.2 t) 6 8 8 8 8 8
CAT D6T Track Dozers (3.3 m blade / 215 HP) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
CAT 844/854 Wheel Dozer (4.6/5.4 m blade / 680/900 HP) 2 2 3 3 3 3 2
CAT 14M Motor Grader (14 m blade / 259 HP) 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
CAT 785D Water Truck (34000 L tank / 150 t) 2 2 3 3 3 3 1
CAT 992 Aux Loader (10.7 m3 bucket / 900 HP) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CAT 740C Aux Truck (23 m3 bed / 38 tn) 8 9 9 9 9 9
Epiroc D45 Pioneering Drill (10 cm bit / 264 kW) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
CAT 349D2 L Excavator (3.1 m3 bucket / 6.1-m Boom) 3 3 3 2 2 2
Total 45 51 77 76 69 69 46
Minor Support Equipment Fleet on Hand
Blasthole Stemmer (skid steer-CAT226D) 1 2 3 3 3 3 3
Blasters Flatbed Truck (2 t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ANFO/Slurry Truck (9,300 L) 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
Fuel/Lube Truck 13,600 L fuel, 7-380 L lube 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
Ammonium Nitrate Storage (90.7 t) 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Emulsion Storage Bin (90.7 t) 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Powder Magazine (14.5 t) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Spare Loader Bucket (17 m3) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Flatbed Truck (8 - 10 t) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Crane Truck (19 t) - 2017 Terex BT3870 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cat 988 with Tire Handler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mechanics Truck (5-t crane, air compressor and welder) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Welding Truck (Combined with Mechanical Truck) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Equipment Tractor and Lowboy 1 1 1 1 1
Shop Forklift (Hyster H100XM) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
RT Forklift (Sellick S160-4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Man Bus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Pickup Truck (4x4) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Light Plants 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Ecuador
End Year Year 3 Year Years Years 19 Year

Equipment Type or Class
PP 1 to 10 15 18 to 23 25
Mine Radios (Handheld & Fixed Units) 89 99 119 119 119 119 119
Mine Communications Network 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Dispatch System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Integrated Tool Carrier (CAT IT62) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mine Planning Software 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tire Press 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Shop Jacks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hydraulic Hammer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Backhoe Loader (1.1 m3) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fuel/Lube Truck 2,500 L fuel, 3-100 380 L lube 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 154 168 191 191 191 191 191
Costs for equipment are provided in Section 21.
16.6 Mine Labor

Based on the equipment fleet, operating schedule, and work requirements for the mine fleet, the
mine operations and maintenance labor and salaried labor were estimated. Table 16-5
summarizes the hourly labor requirements for select years and Table 16-6 summarizes the
salaried labor requirements for select years.
TABLE 16-5: HOURLY MINE LABOR FOR SELECTED YEARS
Title Year 1 Year 12 Year 17 Year 25

Mine Operations
Drill Operator 9 18 18 13
Shovel and Backhoe Operator 12 16 16 8
Loader Operator 4 4 4 0
Haul Truck Driver 58 80 78 33
Track Dozer Operator 22 22 18 14
RTD Operator (Wheel Dozer) 6 9 9 9
Grader Operator 13 14 12 12
Water Truck Operator 6 8 7 6
Utility Equip Operator (Service Crew) 48 21 18 9
Blasting Crew 2 4 4 4
Blasting Helper 2 2 2 2
Mine Dispatcher 4 4 4 4
Laborer 8 8 8 8
Mine Operations Total 194 210 198 122
Mine Maintenance
Senior Maintenance Mechanics 50 56 48 29
Maintenance Technicians 18 20 17 10
Welder / Mechanic 16 17 15 9
Support Maintenance Personnel 16 17 15 9

Ecuador
Title Year 1 Year 12 Year 17 Year 25

Fuel & Lube Crew 8 8 8 8
Tire Crew 4 4 4 4
Laborer Mnt 4 4 4 4
Mine Maintenance Total 116 126 111 73
Vacation, Sick Leave & Absent at 10% 31 34 31 20
Total Personnel 341 370 340 215
Maintenance/Operations Ratio 60% 60% 56% 60%
Numbers of hourly and salaried personnel in the tables are for the total number of people on the
payroll. Operations and maintenance personnel working shifts include four crews. At any given
time, two crews will work 12-hour shifts while the other two crews are on days off.
TABLE 16-6: SALARY MINE LABOR

Year 1 to Year 3 to Year 17 to Year 21 to
Title
Year 2 Year 16 Year 20 Year 25
Mine Operations
Mine Manager (Expat) 1 1 1 1
Mine Superintendent 1 1 1 1
FL Supervisors (Shift Foremen) 12 12 12 12
Drill & Blasting Supervisor (Expat) 1 0 0 0
Drill & Blasting Supervisor (Trainee) 1 0 0 0
Drill & Blasting Supervisor (National) 0 1 1 1
Mine Operations Supervisor 1 1 1 1
Mine Trainer (Expat) 1 0 0 0
Mine Trainer (Trainee) 1 0 0 0
Mine Trainer (National) 0 1 1 1
Mine Operations Total 19 17 17 17
Mine Maintenance
Maintenance Manager 1 1 1 1
Mine Fleet Superintendent 1 1 1 1
Mine Maintenance General Foreman 2 2 2 2
FL Supervisors Mtn (Shift Foremen) 8 8 4 4
Maintenance Planners 1 1 1 1
Maintenance Trainer (Expat) 1 0 0 0
Maintenance Trainer (Trainee) 1 0 0 0
Maintenance Trainer (National) 0 1 1 1
Mine Maintenance Total 15 14 10 10
Mine Engineering
Mine Engineering Manager 1 1 1 1
Chief Mining Engineer (Expat) 1 0 0 0
Chief Mining Engineer (Trainee) 1 0 0 0
Chief Mining Engineer (National) 0 1 1 1

Ecuador
Year 1 to Year 3 to Year 17 to Year 21 to

Title
Year 2 Year 16 Year 20 Year 25
Junior Mining Engineer 2 2 2 2
Ore Control Engineer 1 1 1 1
Surveyor 1 1 1 1
Samplers 4 8 8 4
Clerk 1 1 1 1
Mine Engineering Total 12 15 15 11
Mine Geology
Senior Mine Geologist 1 1 1 1
Mine Geologist 1 1 1 1
Geotechnical Engineer 1 1 1 1
Hydrology Engineer 1 1 1 1
Geo Tech - Sampler 2 2 2 2
Mine Geology Total 6 6 6 6
Total Personnel 52 52 48 44
Some of the salaried staff, including management and some technical staff, will work day shift
only on a standard work week schedule.
Burdened costs for mine labor are provided in Section 21.

Ecuador
17 RECOVERY METHODS
In 2019, samples from additional sections of Cangrejos and Gran Bestia became available due
to access to additional parts of the property. When the head assays and preliminary test results
for the metallurgical samples became available, the gold, copper, and sulfide concentrations were
lower than those for the samples that had been tested previously. Correspondingly, the gold and
copper recoveries to the flotation concentrate were also lower.
Based on the preliminary observations, alternative flow sheets were tested and, with changes in
recovery processes, the gold and/or copper recoveries increased. The two processes that were
tested included the addition of sand flotation plus leaching to the previous flow sheet and whole
ore leaching. One trade-off study was completed to compare flotation plus leaching to leaching
only to identify the optimum recovery process.
Since the 2019 metallurgical testing program included the FLS comminution study, more accurate
data using representative samples was available to complete a second comminution trade-off
study.
17.1 Process Trade-off Study

For the Process Trade-off Study, whole ore leaching resulted in an average gold recovery of 90%
but zero percent copper recovery. The payments for gold in doré are also higher than they are
for gold in flotation concentrate and are made more quickly. The total average gold recovery for
flotation plus leaching was approximately 83%, average copper recovery was 83%, and the
average molybdenum recovery was approximately 49%. The estimated average silver recovery
was 53% and 60% for cyanide leaching and flotation plus leaching, respectively. All of these
factors were taken into account and the results of a discounted cash flow analysis were used to
select the optimum process.
The basis of the process trade-off study was the comminution circuit used for the 2018 PEA.
A summary of the Process Trade-off Study results is provided in Table 17-1.
TABLE 17-1: PROCESS TRADE-OFF STUDY RESULTS
Parameter SABC-Leach SABC-Flotation + Leach

Initial Capital Cost (40,000 tpd) $ 415.6 M $ 417.7 M
Expansion Capital Cost (80,000 tpd) $ 327.6 M $ 322.0 M
Operating Cost (40,000 tpd) per t $ 10.67 $ 8.58
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 10.2% 16.6%
Net Present Value (NPV) at 5% $ 354.4 M $ 965.9 M
Initial Capital Cost Payback (years) 5.2 4.4
Expansion Capital Payback (years) 9.3 4.8

Ecuador
Note: The financial results reported for both of the Trade-off Studies are not comparable
to the results of the current PEA because they were estimated using a different basis that
applies only to the Trade-off Studies.
17.2 Comminution Trade-off Study

Two comminution options were evaluated. They were SAG mill - ball mills circuit compared to
the HPGR - ball mills circuit. Using the data from the FLS comminution test work, FLS provided
equipment sizing, budgetary quotations, and operating costs for the major equipment for both
options. The remaining operating costs were estimated by ONIX, AKA, and NDK.
A summary of the Comminution Trade-off Study results is provided in Table 17-2.
TABLE 17-2: COMMINUTION TRADE-OFF STUDY RESULTS
Parameter SABC HPGR-Ball Mill
Initial Capital Cost (40,000 tpd) $ 166.7 M $ 152.3 M

Expansion Capital Cost (80,000 tpd) $ 149.2 M $ 134.9 M
Connected Power (40,000 tpd) MW 70.2 65.7
Connected Power (80,000 tpd) MW 139.0 130.1
Since both the capital costs and the operating costs for the HPGR-ball mills option were lower, a
discounted cash flow analysis was not required to select HPGR-ball mill as the optimum process.
The results from the two trade-off studies led to the conceptual process flowsheet that is used as
the basis for this PEA.
The unit operations include:
• Primary crushing
• Secondary crushing
• HPGR crushing
• Ball milling with hydro-cyclone classification
• Bulk copper-molybdenum rougher flotation
• Regrinding of the bulk flotation concentrate
• Three stages of bulk concentrate cleaner flotation and cleaner scavenger flotation
• Thickening of the bulk concentrate
• Copper-molybdenum separation flotation via rougher flotation, scavenger flotation,
and five stages of cleaner flotation
• Thickening and filtering of copper and molybdenum final concentrates
• Hydro-cyclone classification of the bulk copper-molybdenum flotation tailings
• Sand flotation of the cyclone underflow of the flotation tailings
• Carbon-in-leach (CIL) of the combined sand flotation concentrate and cleaner
scavenger tailings
• Detoxification of the residual cyanide in CIL tailings

Ecuador
• Thickening and filtering of the tailings and recycling decant water

• Dry stack tailings storage
A simplified flowsheet is provided in Figure 17-1. Figure 17-2 shows the General Arrangement.

Ecuador
FIGURE 17-1: SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOWSHEET

Ecuador
FIGURE 17-2: PLANT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Ecuador
A summary of the conceptual process design criteria is provided in Table 17-3.

TABLE 17-3: PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA

Plant Availability (primary crushing) % 75 ONIX
Plant Availability (other) % 92 ONIX
Head Grade gpt Au 0.556 Production Schedule
Head Grade gpt Ag 0.7 Production Schedule
Head Grade % Cu 0.10 Production Schedule
Head Grade ppm Mo 20 Production Schedule
Mineralized Material Specific Gravity g/cc 2.7 Plenge
Bond Ball Mill Work Index (BWi) kWh/t 17.1 FLS
Bond Abrasion Index (Ai) g 0.3511 FLS
Primary Grind Size (P80) µm 90 Plenge
Concentrate Regrind Size (P80) µm 35 Plenge
Bulk Rougher Flotation Time minutes 12 Plenge Data – factored
Tailings Thickener Sizing m2/tpd 0.125 Pocock
The CIL circuit nominally processes 10% of the plant feed, approximately 4,000 tpd during the
first five years and 8,000 tpd following the plant expansion.
A summary of the major equipment for the 40,000 tpd plant is provided in Table 17-4.
TABLE 17-4: MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
Equipment Number Size Each kW each

Primary Crusher 1 152 cm x 280 cm 750
Overland Conveyor 3 2.658 km1 2,7202
Coarse Material Stockpile 1 40,000 t capacity N/A
Secondary Cone Crushers 2 Raptor 1100 745
High Pressure Grinding Roll 1 F3900 6,400
Ball Mills 2 7.92 m x 13.72 m 17,000
Bulk Rougher Flotation Tank Cells 20 100 m3 132
Vertimill Regrind Mill 1 163 tph 2,250
Bulk 1st Cleaner Flotation Cells 4 50 m3 75
Bulk Cleaner Scavenger Flotation Cells 4 50 m3 75
Bulk 2nd Cleaner Flotation Cells 2 10 m3 15
Bulk 3rd Cleaner Flotation Cells 2 10 m3 15

Ecuador
Equipment Number Size Each kW each

Bulk Concentrate Thickener 1 15 m diameter 6
Sand Flotation Cells 4 85 m3 110
CIL Feed Thickener 1 15 m diam 1
pH Conditioning Tank with Agitator 1 12 m diam x 14 m 100
CIL Tanks with Agitators 5 12 m diam x 14 m 100
Cyanide Detox Tanks with Agitators 2 9 m diam x 10 m 40
Carbon Plant and Refinery 1 2-t capacity 180
Moly Rougher Flotation Cells 2 10 m3 15
Moly 1st Cleaner Flotation Cells 2 10 m3 15
Moly Cleaner Scavenger Flotation Cells 1 10 m3 15
Moly 2nd Cleaner Flotation Cells 1 10 m3 15
Moly 3rd Cleaner Flotation Cells 1 10 m3 15
Moly 4th Cleaner Cells 1 10 m3 15
Moly 5th Cleaner Cells 1 10 m3 15
Moly Concentrate Thickener 1 5 m diameter 5
Copper Concentrate Thickener 1 15 m diameter 6
Moly Filter 1 121 m2 22
Moly Dryer - gas-fired rotary 1 1.2 m x 9.1 m 15
Copper Concentrate Filter 1 186 m2 30
Tailings Thickeners 2 60 m diameter 11
Tailings Filters 9 202 chambers 2.5 m x 2.5 m 450
Tailings Overland Conveyor 4 2.095 km1 2,4602
Notes 1: Total installed length
2: Total installed power
The capital costs for the processing plant are included in Section 21.
17.3 Process Description

Run-of-mine (ROM) material is hauled from the mine by truck and either stockpiled or directly
dumped into the primary crusher. The primary crushed material is transported by an apron feeder
and short conveyor to the overland conveyor system for transport to the process plant site. The
primary crusher and the structure for the overland conveyor are sized for 80,000 tpd. The drives
on the overland conveyor are sized to convey 40,000 tpd. They are designed to be changed
quickly to support the 80,000 tpd operation during the plant expansion.
The overland conveyor system transports the crushed material to the coarse material stockpile.
Apron feeders draw material from the coarse material stockpile and transport it to a double-deck
banana screen. Underflow from the screen discharges to the coarse material stockpile and the
screen oversize is crushed in two secondary cone crushers that operate in parallel. Discharged
material from the crushers drops onto a transfer conveyor that returns it to feed the banana
screen.
Apron feeders withdraw material from the coarse material stockpile and a conveyor belt transfers
it to a log washer. The log washer is included in the conceptual design in order to remove clay

Ecuador
that may hamper subsequent operations. Fines from the log washer are pumped to the ball mill
hydro-cyclone feed. Oversize from the log washer is fed to the washing screen. Oversize from
the washing screen is conveyed to the single HPGR with 3,200 kW dual drives (i.e., 6,400 kw
total). Discharge from the HPGR is conveyed to the washing screen that is operated in closed
circuit with the HPGR. Oversize from the washing screen is returned to the HPGR for further size
reduction and undersize from the screen is the product from the HPGR that is split and fed to two
ball milling circuits that each operate in closed circuit with hydrocyclones. The cyclone underflow
is fed to the ball mills. Discharge from the ball mills is pumped to the cyclone feed. Overflow from
the cyclones has a particle size distribution of 80% passing (P80) 90 µm.
The ball mill cyclone overflow is pumped to the bulk rougher flotation circuit that consists of two
sets of tank cells that operate in parallel to provide approximately 30 minutes of retention time.
Potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), Aero Promotor 208 (A208), methyl isobutyly carbinol (MIBC),
and Dowfroth 250 (DF250) are the flotation reagents that are fed to the flotation circuits.
Concentrate from the rougher flotation circuit is reground in a Vertimill to reduce the particle size
of the bulk rougher concentrate to P80 35 µm. The cleaner flotation circuit consists of three stages
of cleaner flotation plus cleaner-scavenger flotation. Concentrate from the third cleaner flotation
circuit is fed to the bulk concentrate thickener.
Underflow from the bulk concentrate thickener is pumped to an agitated conditioning tank where
sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) is added to depress copper minerals to prohibit them from floating.
From the conditioning tank, the bulk concentrate is pumped to the molybdenum flotation circuit
that consists of rougher flotation, five stages of cleaner flotation, and a cleaner scavenger flotation
circuit. Reagents in the molybdenum flotation circuit include fuel oil and MIBC. Concentrate from
the molybdenum fifth cleaner flotation circuit is the final molybdenum concentrate.
Tailings from the bulk rougher flotation circuit are fed to the sand flotation circuit. First, the tailings
are classified in sand flotation cyclones. The cyclone overflow reports to the final tailings box.
The cyclone underflow is processed in the sand flotation circuit. Tailings from the sand flotation
cells combine with the overflow from the sand flotation cyclones and report to the final tailings
box.
The combined concentrate from the molybdenum rougher flotation tailings and the molybdenum
cleaner scavenger tailings feeds the copper concentrate thickener. The thickener underflow feeds
an agitated storage tank and then to a plate and frame pressure copper concentrate filter. The
discharge from the filter is the final copper concentrate.
Concentrate from the molybdenum fifth cleaner flotation circuit feeds the molybdenum
concentrate thickener. Underflow from the thickener is fed to an agitated storage tank and then
to the plate and frame pressure molybdenum concentrate filter. The filtered molybdenum
concentrate is dried in a rotary gas-fired dryer.
Concentrate from the sand flotation cells combines with the tailings from the bulk cleaner-
scavenger flotation circuit. The slurry flows through a trash screen and into the CIL feed thickener.
The thickener underflow is pumped to the agitated pH conditioning tank. Lime is added to the pH
conditioning tank to adjust the slurry pH to approximately 11.0. Overflow from the pH conditioning

Ecuador
tank flows by gravity through five CIL tanks that operate in series and are designed to provide a
total of approximately 24-hours of retention time. Each CIL tank is fitted with interstage screens
that are included to allow the appropriate carbon transfer, transfer pumps, and agitators. Sodium
cyanide is added to CIL tank 1 and processed air from blowers is injected into the CIL tanks to
provide oxygen that is necessary for leaching.
Fresh and/or regenerated carbon is added to CIL tank five and advanced intermittently in flow
that is counter-current to the slurry that flows by gravity from tank five to tank one. Slurry that
contains the loaded carbon is pumped from CIL tank one across the loaded carbon screen. The
slurry passes through the loaded carbon screen and returns to CIL tank one. The loaded carbon
is retained on the screen deck and flows into the loaded carbon holding vessel.
Tailings from the CIL circuit are detoxified using the sulfur dioxide-air process. The sulfur dioxide
is provided by sodium metabisulfite and air is provided by air blowers. The circuit consists of two
agitated tanks that are designed to provide a residence time of approximately 2.5 hours. Copper
sulfate is provided to catalyze the reaction and milk of lime is used to control the pH range
between 8.0 and 9.0.
Carbon is stripped in a batch system that includes a pressure strip vessel that is designed to strip
2-t of carbon per cycle. Sodium cyanide and caustic soda are added to barren solution to prepare
the strip solution. The circuit includes a water heater and heat exchanger to increase the
operating temperature and pressure of the strip solution. Barren solution and pregnant solution
tanks are included in the circuit.
Pregnant solution is pumped through three electrowinning cells where gold and silver are plated
onto the electrowinning cell cathodes.
A hydrochloric acid wash is included after the carbon strip circuit to remove inorganic
contaminants from the carbon and an electric rotary carbon regeneration kiln is included to
remove organic contaminants from the carbon in order to retain the carbon activity. The stripped
and regenerated carbon discharges from the carbon regeneration kiln into a carbon quench tank
to cool the carbon and stop the regeneration process. It is pumped to a carbon sizing screen that
is designed to remove fine particles of carbon prior to returning it to CIL tank five. A carbon
attrition tank is also provided to prepare new carbon for use. After carbon is attrited in the agitated
tank, it is pumped to the same carbon sizing screen to remove fine carbon prior to using it.
Cathodes from the electrowinning cells are power washed and sludge from the electrowinning
cells is pumped to a filter press for dewatering. The filtered sludge is dried in a drying oven, mixed
with fluxes, and smelted in a gas-fired smelting furnace to produce gold-silver doré. The doré is
shipped off site for further refining.
The detoxified leach tailings, sand flotation cyclone overflow, and sand flotation tailings, are
combined in the tailings box and flow to two tailings thickeners that operate in parallel. Underflows
from the tailings thickeners feed the tailings filtration plant. The plant includes nine pressure
plate and frame filters. The design allows for eight operating filters and one standby filter. The
dewatered tailings are conveyed to the DSTF via an overland conveyor and placed using portable
conveyors and a stacker.

Ecuador
The conceptual process design includes all facilities required to receive, mix or prepare, store,
and pump all of the reagents required in the processes. The reagents include:
• PAX
• MIBC
• Fuel oil
• Milk of lime
• NaHS
• Antifoam by Moly Cop
• Sodium metabisulfite
• Copper sulfate
• Flocculant
• Sodium cyanide
Plant utilities include:
• Fresh water
• Process water
• Fire water system
• Air blowers
• Air compressors
• Standby power generation
• Gland water system
The plant support systems include an analytical laboratory, metallurgical laboratory, truck scale,
hoists, cranes, pumps, automatic on-stream samplers and analyzers, and standard process
control systems including field instruments, programmable logic controllers, personal computers,
and operations control rooms.
17.4 Process Labor

Table 17-5 summarizes the number of Expatriates that will be employed and the duration of their
employment as they train local employees to take over their positions.
TABLE 17-5: EXPATRIATES REQUIRED AND DURATION
Duration
Labor Category Number
Years
Process Manager Permanent 1
Mill General Foreman 2 years 1
Maintenance General Foreman 2.5 years 1
Chief Metallurgist 2.5 years 1
Process Control Engineer 2 years 1
Chief Chemist 2 years 1
Chief Refiner Permanent 1
Lead Production Trainer 2 years 1
Table 17-6 summarizes the proposed management positions that are used as a basis for this
PEA.

Ecuador
TABLE 17-6: PROCESS MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Labor Category Duration 40,000 tpd 80,000 tpd

Mill Management
Mill General Foreman Trainee 2 years 1 0
Mill General Foreman Permanent 1 1
Maintenance General Foreman Trainee 2.5 years 1 0
Maintenance General Foreman Permanent 1 1
Mill Technical
Chief Metallurgist Trainee 2.5 years 1 0
Chief Metallurgist Permanent 1 1
Metallurgist Permanent 2 3
Metallurgical Technician Permanent 2 3
Process Control Engineer Trainee 2 years 1 0
Process Control Engineer Permanent 1 1
Table 17-7 summarizes the employees required for the assay lab, mill production, and
maintenance.
TABLE 17-7: ASSAY LAB AND MILL PRODUCTION LABOR
Labor Category Shifts 40,000 tpd 80,000 tpd

Assay Lab
Chief Chemist Trainee (2 years) No 1 0
Chief Chemist Permanent No 1 1
Assayers/Chemists Yes 2 4
Assay Technicians Yes 4 8
Sample Technician Yes 4 8
Admin Lab Assistant No 1 1
Mill Production and Maintenance
Production Trainers No 4 8
Shift Foreman Yes 4 4
Control Room Operator Yes 8 12
Primary Crusher Operator Yes 4 4
Secondary Crusher and HPGR Operators Yes 4 8
Grinding Operator Yes 4 8
Flotation and Regrind Operator Yes 8 8
Molybdenum Plant Operator Yes 4 4
Concentrate Handling Operator Yes 4 4
Cyclones and Tails Flotation Operator Yes 4 8
Cyanide Leach and Detox Operator Yes 4 4
Refinery Operator No 2 2
Tailings Thickening and Filtering Operator Yes 8 12
Reagent Operator Yes 2 2
ADR Operators Yes 4 4

Ecuador
Labor Category Shifts 40,000 tpd 80,000 tpd

Operator Helpers Yes 24 48
Laborers Yes 12 20
Mobile Equipment Operator Yes 4 4
Production Trainer Trainee No 1 0
Production Trainer Permanent No 0 1
Production Trainers No 4 8
Mechanic Foremen Yes 4 4
Electrical and Instrumentation Foremen No 2 2
Planner No 2 2
Mechanic 1 Yes 14 28
Mechanic Senior Yes 10 16
Pipefitter No 2 3
Welder No 2 3
Electrician 1 Yes 5 5
Electrician Senior Yes 5 5
Instrument Technicians No 3 3
Mobile Equipment Operator Yes 1 2
The number of people shown as working shifts are the total number on the payroll. The staffing
is based on four crews with two crews working 12-hour shifts at any given time while two crews
are on days off.
Burdened labor costs for process labor are included in the process operating costs provided in
Section 21.

Ecuador
18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
18.1 Power Supply and Distribution

Power is supplied in Ecuador by La Corporación Eléctrica del Ecuador (CELEC), which is a state
company in charge of generating and supplying electricity to the country under the control of
Consejo Nacional de Electricidad (CONELEC).
EPTEC was retained to evaluate the National Interconnected System (NIS) and to provide
information required to estimate the capital and operating costs for power supply to support this
Study. EPTEC reported that the NIS has sufficient capacity to supply power for Cangrejos.
During construction, power will be supplied by diesel generators since they are more cost effective
than constructing a power line to the Project site. The recommended connection point to the NIS
is the new Avanzada Substation planned for completion in 2023 via a 230 kV single-circuit, 16-
km long transmission line. The total estimated cost to complete the substation modifications at
La Avanzada, construct the Cangrejos main substation, and construct the 16-km, 230 kV single-
circuit transmission line was estimated by EPTEC to cost approximately $14.94 M. Assuming a
constant power consumption of 66 MW per month during the initial five years of operation when
the plant capacity is 40,000 tpd, EPTEC estimated the weighted average power cost, including
all factors to be $0.0681 per kWh. (EPTEC, 2020)
18.2 Communications
Communication is the infrastructure backbone for the entire operation. Servers are required at
four office locations with full networking capability between the offices. Connectivity is assumed
to be over a Virtual Private Network (VPN) using company-provided laptops and mobile phone
equipment. A large-scale system using SQL or SAP application software will provide the overall
structure for the management and control of the operation.
Communication on site will be via a combination of mobile phones and two-way radios.
18.3 Water Supply and Use

The conceptual water management plan at Cangrejos includes surface water (i.e., hydrology),
groundwater (i.e., hydrogeology), and a site-wide water balance.
GRE developed a water balance to estimate the project’s water consumption and water supply
needs. This water balance considers drought conditions and other extreme weather events. GRE
designed a system to preferentially use water that falls on the Project footprint and that minimizes
the size of the plant supply ponds and any surface water abstraction during the dry season.
Because the project is in an area with a net positive water balance with an abundance of surface
water sources, there is sufficient water available to supply operations without significantly
impacting the local water supply.

Ecuador
18.4 Roads
18.4.1 Site Access Road

Access to the site is by a sealed asphalt public road network from Santa Rosa to Valle Hermoso
that is approximately 19.5-km long, passing through four small towns: Medina, El Recreo,
Bellamaria, and San Carlos. Gravel road bypasses, 10-m wide, will be constructed around the
towns of Bellamaria and San Carlos to reduce potential conflicts between mine and local traffic.
18.4.2 Mine Access Road

The mine will be accessed by a private gravel road with a security gatehouse, visitor and truck
parking, and truck scale. The mine access road is approximately 860-m long and starts 300 m
west of the town of Valle Hermoso and passes to the north of the town, thereby avoiding conflicts
between mine traffic and local traffic within the town. The mine access road terminates at the
mine gate house and parking area.
18.4.3 Haul Roads

The mine haul roads are designed for 30-t articulated trucks for pioneering and road building, 92-
t trucks for operating in smaller spaces during pre-production and ongoing mine development and
220-t haul trucks for full scale production mining. For double lane traffic, the industry standard
indicates the running surface width should be a minimum of three times the width of the largest
truck. The overall width of a 220-t haul truck is 8.5 m, which results in a running surface of 25.5
m. The overall width of the haul road must account for safety berms and diversion channels. The
haul roads have been designed in accordance with Guidelines for Mine Haul Road Design
(Tannant and Regensburg, 2001).
18.4.4 Ancillary Roads

Ancillary roads are internal roads that connect various mine facilities and provide maintenance
access to facilities like the overland conveyors. These roads are single or double lane roads
depending on their function and usage frequency. The main ancillary roads at Cangrejos include:
• DSTF access road that provides access between the storage facility and the process
plant
• The haul road from the tailings stockpile to the base of the DSTF
• The crushed material overland conveyor maintenance road
• The tailings overland conveyor maintenance road
• Diversion channel maintenance access roads
18.5 Waste Rock and Saprolite Storage Facilities

The WRSF and SSF are designed to provide secure and permanent storage of approximately
728 Mt of non-economic waste rock and overburden (i.e., saprolite and saprock) over the 25-year
mine life.
Non-economic waste rock and overburden produced by mining activities at the project will be
used to construct site infrastructure, as road base, for other required construction or maintenance

Ecuador
products, or placed in the storage facilities to the south and east of the Cangrejos open pit. There
are two waste material storage facilities developed below the Cangrejos open pit: 1) the waste
rock storage facility, 2) the saprolite storage facility.
During the first four years, the waste rock and overburden (saprolite and saprock) generated
during operations will be managed in the two separate storage facilities due to the low waste rock
to saprolite ratio (i.e., less than 7:1 ratio). At those ratios, the saprolite mechanical properties
govern the stability of the waste storage facility. After year five, the ratio is higher than 7:1. At
that point, the mine can co-mingle waste rock and saprolite in a single facility and the mechanical
properties of the waste rock govern. The initial SSF is located on the southeast side of the WRSF.
Management of the waste storage facilities includes management of contact water and non-
contact water. Contact water is defined as precipitation that falls onto the surface of the mine
infrastructure or flows into the mine infrastructure from surface water sources. The contact waters
will be collected and used for mine operations while the non-contact water will be released into
the drainage below the facilities.
The waste storage facilities are located within a short haul distance from the open pits. The
conceptual facilities provide adequate capacity for waste materials over the life of the mine.
Waste rock and overburden will be hauled from the pit via strategically positioned egress points.
As part of the mine plan, the internal pit ramps connect to the external haul roads that support the
primary crusher, WRSF, SSF, truck maintenance area, ready-lines, and fuel depot.
Additionally, organic materials that are excavated from within the pit limits, the stockpile areas,
and infrastructure footprints will be stripped and stockpiled for future reclamation use. This topsoil
will be placed in stockpiles around the property. The general layout of the WRSF and SSF are
provided in Figure 18-1.

Ecuador
Source: Ausenco, 2020

FIGURE 18-1: WASTE ROCK STORAGE FACILITY AND SAPROLITE STORAGE FACILITY
18.6 Dry Stack Tailings Storage Facility

Based on a trade-off study between various potential disposal sites and technologies, Lumina
selected the concept of filtered and dry stacked tailings. The tailings concept has distinct
advantages over other options, most notably they are deemed to be significantly safer for the
environment and local residents than conventional wet tailings, as the consequences of any
accident, including dam failure, could be readily controlled and limited to a few hundred meters.
In addition, water usage is significantly reduced.
Ausenco updated the initial scoping-level design of the DSTF for this PEA with the primary
objectives of further reducing the project footprint and deferring initial capital costs where possible.
The selection of the current DSTF location results in a superior site to the one selected during the
2018 PEA for geotechnical stability and water management aspects and also because the site
will contain all of the estimated tailings and allow for expansion, if needed. The current design

Ecuador
accomodates 640 Mt of tailings. In addition, the project footprint is kept compact because the site
is located approximately 2.1 kms from the plant site.
Tailings will be transported from the processing facilities to the ridge above the DSTF by overland
conveyor to a staging area. From the staging area, tailings will be transported to the final storage
spot within the DSTF using semi-mobile conveyors, mobile conveyors, and a stacking system.
For the first two years, in combination with the stacking system, dozers, a grader, and compactors
will grade and compact the tailings to form a surface suitable to construct a conveyor system to
the toe of the DSTF. Dozers and compactors will then spread and compact the tailings in 0.5-m
lifts, densifying them to significantly reduce any potential for liquefaction of the tailings under either
static liquefaction or during a potential design seismic event.
Any potential seepage from the DSTF, including infiltration from precipitation, runoff that comes
in direct contact with the tailings, as well as groundwater discharges, will be collected in the
underdrain system or in temporary internal diversion channels. Contact water will flow to the
sediment pond that will be located west of the DSTF. Water collected in the sediment pond will
be collected, tested, treated, if necessary, and released. Surface runoff from the undisturbed
area (i.e., non-contact water) above the DSTF will be collected and diverted around the DSTF.
The diversion channels will be phased to match the expansion of the facility. To reduce infiltration
and contact water along with attenuating contact water from the top of the DSTF, raincoats will
be installed to collect runoff from rainfall and divert it to either non contact diversion structures
that route runoff around the facility or convey it to the underdrain pond. The raincoats will be
installed in areas where tailings are exposed, with the exception of active deposition areas, to
reduce infiltration. In addtion, progressive closure of completed slopes will also be performed to
minimize erosion and reduce infiltration.
The layout of the DSTF is provided in Figure 18-2.

Ecuador
Source: Ausenco, 2020

FIGURE 18-2: DRY STACK TAILINGS FACILITY
18.7 Concentrate Storage, Handling, and Transport

Dewatered gold-copper flotation concentrate will be transported in 20-ft (6-m) long, tipping type B
containers that have a maximum payload of 28,550 kg. The containers will be transported by
truck between Cangrejos and Puerto Bolivar, which is approximately 60 km from the Project.
Conceptually, the concentrate will be stored at site to reduce the cost of storing concentrate at
the port and, once at the port, the port operator will transport the containers to the berth, lift them,
and flip the loaded containers with installed rotation spreaders to discharge the contents into the
ship’s hold for shipment to the designated smelters. For this PEA, it is assumed that a ship will
arrive at the port every 45 days.
Dried molybdenum concentrate will be placed in bags at Cangrejos, loaded into 40-ft (12-m) long
shipping containers and transported to either Puerto Bolivar or Guayaquil. Guayaquil is
considered an option for the molybdenum concentrate because it is a busier port with more
vessels docking. Being able to ship and receive payments more quickly may offset the additional
costs associated with the longer transport distance.

Ecuador
18.8 Port
Several port options were evaluated during this Study. Puerto Bolivar was selected as the basis
for this Study since it is close (i.e., approximately 60 km) to the Project and because other options
that were considered were more difficult to access. Puerto Bolivar currenty ships concentrate
from the Mirador copper project.
18.9 Site Ancillary Facilities

The conceptual design and cost estimates for this Study include all ancillary facilities that are
required to operate a mine of this size including:
• Office Facilities
• Construction Camp that will remain at site to accommodate operations personnel who
do not live in the local area and the construction workforce during the expansion in
years 4 and 5
• Truck Shop and Shop Tools
• Fuel Dispensing
• Explosives Storage
• Pit Dewatering Systems
• Sanitary Landfill
• Water Supply Systems
• Sewage Treatment Facilities
• Domestic Water Treatment System
• Site Security Fencing
• Metallurgy and Assay Laboratories
• Process Reagent Mixing Systems

Ecuador
19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

A market study was provided by H&H Metals Corp (H&H, 2020). To determine the market pricing
for use in the model, the team reviewed the H&H forecast market values, current trading values,
price forecasts from numerous financial institutions, and had discussions with Lumina and H&H.
The following metal prices for this PEA cash flow model were selected as the basis:
Gold - $1,400/oz Copper - $2.75/lb
Silver - $16.00/oz Molybdenum - $9.00/lb
The precious metal markets are highly liquid and benefit from terminal markets around the world
(e.g., London, New York, Tokyo, and Hong Kong). The London PM fix for gold and silver on June
8, 2020 was $1,690/oz and $17.63/oz, respectively. As of June 8, 2020 year-to-date, gold traded
between $1,324/oz and $1,748/oz and silver traded between $12.01/oz and $19.31/oz.
On June 8, 2020, the closing price for copper was $2.58/lb and molybdenum was $8.16/lb. As of
June 8, 2020, year-to-date copper traded between $2.10/lb and $2.84/lb and molybdenum traded
between $7.90/lb and $12.38/lb.
To calculate gross revenue from mining, metals prices for gold, copper, silver, and molybdenum
were applied to corresponding recovered, payable gold and silver Troy ounces and copper and
molybdenum pounds in the economic model.
19.1 Transportation Costs
19.1.1 Concentrate
The transportation costs are the costs to move the concentrates to smelters for further treatment.
Domestic transportation charges for shipping two concentrate products from the Cangrejos
Project were provided by local transportation providers. H&H provided the international shipping
cost estimates of $35.00 per wet tonne to ship the gold-copper flotation concentrate to China and
$24.81 per dry tonne to ship molybdenum concentrate to Chile.
19.1.2 Doré
Doré requires special handling due to its inherent value. Industry sources provided typical doré
freight and insurance costs of $3.53/oz of doré. This estimated charge covers transportation and
insurance costs to transport the doré from the mine to the destination.
19.2 Treatment Charges, Refining Charges, Payment Terms and Penalties
19.2.1 Flotation Concentrates

Smelters apply TCs, RCs, and penalties based upon the composition of the concentrates. They
also typically provide terms of payment. The economic model applies costs for concentrate TCs,
RCs, and penalties taken from the H&H marketing study (H&H, 2020) and subsequent email
clarification and elaboration. The results of the marketing study are typical for processing gold-

Ecuador
copper and molybdenum concentrates. The marketing study is based on providing an average
of 100,000 t/a of the gold-copper concentrate. The gold-copper concentrate TCs were reported
as $70 per wet t of concentrate and refining charges of $7.50 per ounce of gold, $0.65 per ounce
of silver, and $0.07 per pound of copper. The concentrate payable metal returns for the gold-
copper concentrate were reported as 97.5% for gold and 97% for silver.
The molybdenum concentrate carries a 15% price discount to the treatment charge due to its high
copper content. Using the molybdenum price of $9/lb and the 15% discount, the estimated
discount is approximately $2,976 per dry tonne. The estimated discount is applied in the model
and the molybdenum is 95.5% payable according to the H&H report.
Payment terms for the concentrates allow for 90% payment at the Ecuadorian port upon loading
the concentrate into the shipping vessels, with 10% settlement 45 days later. Molybdenum
concentrate payment terms are assumed to be 90% 15 days after shipping with the balance paid
in 75 days.
Assays of the concentrates that were performed as part of the metallurgical testing indicate that
the concentrates are considered “clean” and that they contain no deleterious contaminants that
would trigger penalties. Therefore, no penalties are included in the cash flow analysis.
19.2.2 Doré
Doré also carries TCs and RCs based on composition and weight. The model applies doré
treatment and refining charges based upon industry sources available to the Cangrejos Project.
The treatment charges are estimated to be $0.30 per oz of doré. Doré payables are 99.95% for
gold and 99.5% for silver.
19.3 Contracts
At this PEA stage of project development, no marketing contracts exist.
19.4 Conclusion
The QP has reviewed the marketing studies and analyses and, in the QP’s opinion, the results
support the assumptions in this Technical Report.

Ecuador
20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
20.1 Environmental Setting

agriculture or grazing.
There are no villages or significant groups of dwellings in the project’s environmental Area of
Influence (AOI).
20.2 Environmental Permitting Requirements

and regulations.
Prior to the commencement of mine construction and mineral production, the Project will be
subject to a wide array of additional permitting and related support actions, as required by current
Ecuadorian laws and regulations. Based on prior experience with similar-scale projects in
Ecuador, it is estimated that, in aggregate, major permitting actions (excluding certain municipal,
tax registration, and potential concentrate export permits), several of which can occur in parallel,
will take a minimum of 24 months to complete.
Permitting requirements are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3 of this Technical Report.
20.3 Environmental Baseline and Impact Studies

Environmental baseline studies were conducted as part of Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIA)
processes for exploration licensing and are ongoing. Baseline studies include the collection of
surface water, groundwater, biodiversity, climate, and geochemical data. Odin commissioned an
advanced exploration-phase environmental baseline study in the original Cangrejos concession
areas. Field work began in July 2007 that culminated in the 2010 EIA. A similar study was
conducted in 2017 as part of the initial exploration-phase EIA for C20. Additional environmental
baseline data collection infrastructrucure, including permanent surface water flow measurement
stations, was completed in 2019. In 2020, the C20 EIA was updated and resubmitted for final
regulatory approval; the MAAE review is ongoing.

Ecuador
20.4 Environmental Area of Influence

For the purposes of this PEA, the environmental AOI for the Project is defined as the specific
areas within the concessions potentially disturbed by mine development, construction, and
operation, plus a 100-m buffer/environmental monitoring zone around the perimeter of that
footprint. Mining haul roads, service roads, and the access road are all considered to be within
the Project's environmental AOI. Haul roads located outside the pits will have a nominal 75-m
buffer zone established on either side of the road centerlines; regular access and service roads
will be provided with a 50-m buffer on either side of their centerlines. It is understood that the
primary site access road will ultimately revert to being government property. The environmental
AOI is entirely within the specific areas that have been previously evaluated in focused biological
and archaeological baseline studies.
20.5 Biodiversity Studies

Ecuador is a very biodiverse country. Like other nations, it has established a range of laws and
regulations to protect its environmental resources. At the same time, the country is seeking to
diversify and grow its economy, an increasingly vital component of which is mining. In keeping
with Ecuadorian law and international Best Management Practices (BMPs), mining project
proponents must seek a practical and appropriate balance between project economics and
environmental protection, including the preservation of biodiversity.
In order to better understand the specific biodiversity considerations in the Project area, Odin
commissioned environmental studies as part of the various exploration phase EIAs. A desktop
biodiversity screening study was completed in 2017. Dry and wet season field studies were
conducted in 2019 that were focused specifically on biodiversity in and around the initial Project
footprint, as defined by Odin’s 2018 PEA.
The 2019 studies confirmed that the Project location is many kilometers distant from any officially
protected environmental areas and that the Project’s concession areas have been significantly
impacted by centuries of intrusive human activity. Primary forest no longer exists and the area of
the Project is now comprised of a mixture of agricultural and grazing clearances and young or
mature secondary forest islands. Such types of forest are not unique to the project area and can
be found elsewhere in coastal areas of Ecuador.
Minor populations of several sensitive and/or endemic species of flora and fauna were found in
land areas that will be required for mine construction and operation. The Project, however, is
adjacent to and already owns substantial areas not required for mining that are forested or
modified. These can be set aside or rehabilitated as ecological offsets to compensate for any
disturbance or loss of habitat that may be critical to the species observed. Establishment of such
offsets, in conjunction with a biodiversity monitoring program, robust adaptive management
protocols, and specific management and mitigation measures based on international BMPs, will
enable successful Project permitting and the Project’s compliance with all applicable regulatory
requirements.

Ecuador
20.6 Archaeological Studies

In 2012, Odin commissioned a detailed archaeological survey of the concessions (excluding C20,
as it was not under its control at the time). The survey evaluated 18 areas in 12 discrete
concessions that Odin had tentatively identified as having potential mineral interest. In the
archaeologists’ opinions, the evidence over almost the entire area of study revealed a historical
presence of the Milagro culture of the Integration Period (about 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.), with an
association to the Cañari culture and a possible interrelation with the Manteño culture. None of the
sites in the original study, however, are in the current environmental AOI for the Project.
Odin commissioned two additional archaeological investigations to support advanced exploration
activities in C20 in 2019. No archaeological artifacts were encountered in either study.
Odin has implemented a "chance finds" procedure to address the handling and, if necessary,
preservation and protection of archaeological resources or artifacts that may be discovered during
the exploration process. No significant cultural resources or artifacts have been encountered in
any of the drilling campaigns associated with initial exploration or advanced exploration activities.
20.7 Socioeconomic Study
20.7.1 Social Setting

Social Capital Group completed an updated socioeconomic study for the Cangrejos Project in
2020. The Project is located almost entirely in the upper reaches of the parishes of Bellamaria
and La Victoria, which are both within the Canton of Santa Rosa. A small portion of the Project
footprint crosses into the Canton of Atahualpa. The Cantons of Santa Rosa and Atahualpa are
both located within the coastal Province of El Oro.
The Project´s mining operation, access road (after exiting the national highway), and potential
water and other environmental impacts will almost entirely be limited to Bellamaria parish. As a
result, the social AOI includes seven nearby settlements in Bellamaria parish and one in La
Victoria. However, the Project’s exploration and prospective construction activities are all on rural
land and are physically removed from these villages. There are no nearby villages in Atahualpa.
In the latest available census (2010), Bellamaria parish registered a total population of 2,322 (21
persons/km2) and La Victoria parish had a population of 3,187 (45 persons/km2). Both parishes
are classified as rural according to the National Institute of Census and Statistics (INEC).
The Project´s social area of influence (AOI) includes the following seven settlements within
Bellamaria parish: Bellamaria (pop. 800) and Valle Hermoso (pop. 550), as well as the small
villages of Santa Rita (comprised of four families), Biron (pop. 190), San Carlos (pop. 200), Rio

Ecuador
Chico (240) and El Recreo (500). The social AOI also includes Vega Rivera (pop. 270) in La
Victoria.

FIGURE 20-1: SOCIAL SETTING - PROJECT LOCATION IN RELATION TO PARISH AND CANTON AREAS
20.7.2 Social AOI

The key socioeconomic aspects of the settlements in the social area of influence include:
• Roadways: There are paved roads from the city of Santa Rosa to Bellamaria and to
La Victoria that are regularly used by passenger buses and private and commercial
vehicles. Access to most villages typically involves a combination of paved and
unpaved roads. Road maintenance, especially for unpaved roadways, is a continuing
challenge due to high levels of rainfall.
• Communications: Bellamaria and La Victoria parishes have limited access to cellular
phone and Internet services, but have open-signal and cable TV and AM/FM radio.
• Education: There are primary and secondary schools in Bellamaria. The highest
level of education achieved by most adults in Bellamaria parish and in La Victoria is
primary. Women slightly outperform men in terms of education and literacy.
• Health services: There are health centers in Bellamaria and Valle Hermoso; the
nearest hospital is in Machala.

Ecuador
• Basic utilities: Both parishes have basic services such as electricity, water, and
sanitation. However, in Bellamaría parish, wastewater from homes is typically dumped
directly into the tributaries of the Santa Rosa River without treatment.
• Non-mining economic activities: The local economy in the lower area of these
villages is based on agriculture, livestock, commerce, and general services. For the
towns of Bellamaria and Valle Hermoso and the villages of El Recreo, Rio Chico, San
Carlos, Biron, the non-mining aspect of the economy is based on agriculture (cacao
and fruit), livestock (cattle and pork), poultry, and some tourism. The location of the
Project does not interfere with agricultural activities or the raising of animals. Poultry
and pork are also produced at the household level and sometimes sold in the markets
of Santa Rosa and weekly fairs in Bellamaria. There is also some timber production
in Biron. Economic activities in the village of Vega Rivera include agriculture, livestock,
and general commerce.
Further downriver from the social AOI and nearer to the coast, the land flattens out
and transforms into far more productive and valuable land for agriculture and livestock
production. The most productive farms are dedicated to permanent crops such as
bananas, cacao, oranges, and coffee, with an average of about seven hectares in
production. Other less economically important crops include plantain, sugar cane,
corn, rice, mango, passion fruit, lemons, and beans. Cattle, pork, sheep, and poultry
are also raised. However, all processing plants for these products are outside the
canton in the cities of Machala, Guayaquil, or Cuenca.
There are also significant shrimp farming areas on the coast and on offshore islands.
These constituencies may eventually develop an active interest in the development of
the project, in particular its potential effects on water quality and quantity.
• Mining activities. In the upper reaches of the parishes, artisanal/small-scale mining
is a significant economic activity. A number of entities and individuals have legal
permits to conduct artisanal/small-scale mining, but illegal activities do occur. In
Bellamaría parish, there is a great deal of such activity, above all near the settlements
of Calaguru, Estero Medina, Río Chico, and Bellamaria. Based on information
obtained via interviews with local authorities, at least 35% of the families of the parish
receive some income from mining activity, although it is unclear just how much of this
income is derived from illegal activities.
In the areas bordering the Project, significant legal mining operations include: Mina
Los Ingleses - Sociedad Tucadulombo; Minera Bravo; Los Ingleses-Eminza, Minera
Carolina; Colorado V - El Humedo; and, Duran. There are at least 14 other entities
involved in mining activities in Bellamaria, Valle Hermoso, and Birón. In addition, there
are small international companies doing exploration in the area, including Challenger
Exploration Ltd.
At present, no active illegal mining is known to be taking place within the proposed
Project footprint. However, over the years such work has been an occasional issue in
the concessions, and, when encountered, is routinely reported to the Agency for
Mining Regulation and Control (ARCOM) for their appropriate action. Several farms
in the concessions area have traces of illegal mining activity dating back 10 to 15
years. Environmental liabilities associated with illegal mining works have also been
periodically identified and reported; these include alluvial mining at the Gran Bestia
ravine, as well as underground mining at the Gran Bestia ravine, the Dos Bocas Sector
in Vega Rivera, and the Las Pavas ravine.

Ecuador
• Land ownership: According to information from local authorities, at least 90% of the
parcels of non-urbanized land and farms in the area are private and have supporting
documentation, while the remaining 10% are public (i.e., state-owned). Odin owns or
controls approximately 60% of the surface land over the area required for Project
facilities.
• Indigenous peoples: No indigenous peoples or communities occupy or use land in
the Project's social AOI, nor live in proximity to it.
• Religious Organizations and Facilities: The local population is predominantly
Catholic. There is presently only one ordained priest serving the villages in the Santa
Rosa canton. Religious facilities include:
− Bellamaria: one large Catholic church (and a smaller Protestant church)
− San Carlos: one Catholic church
− Biron: a small covered outdoor shrine dedicated to the Virgen de El Cisne
− Valle Hermoso: one large Catholic church
− Vega Rivera: one small Catholic chapel
20.7.3 Social Risks, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 20-1 presents an initial summary of the primary sources of social impacts (both positive
and negative) and risks anticipated for the Project based on local studies, results of public
participation processes, and prior experience. The management and mitigation strategies
reflected in the Project's technical design and Lumina's social management approach are also
provided for each general category.
TABLE 20-1: SOCIAL MANAGEMENT / MITIGATION STRATEGIES ACCORDING TO SOURCES OF
IMPACTS (POSITIVE & NEGATIVE) AND RISKS
Sources of Social
Potential Management/Mitigation Strategies
Impacts and Risks
Generation of direct • Job creation at a local and national level (in addition to creating
employment opportunities to be fulfilled by international expertise)
• Training to increase opportunities for long-term local residents to work in
project construction and operation
• Monitoring effectiveness of these measures and, when necessary, taking
corrective action to ensure a positive impact in the social area of influence
• Clear communication with local stakeholders regarding the results of these
efforts and seeking feedback on how to improve performance
Generation of supply • Identification of regional and local providers capable of providing necessary
chain opportunities goods and services
• Outreach to increase local businesses’ ability to understand and meet
project requirements
• Monitoring effectiveness of these measures and, when necessary, taking
corrective action to ensure a positive impact within the social area of
influence
• Clear communication with local stakeholders regarding the results of these
efforts and seeking feedback on how improve performance
Impact of workforce • Workforce from the local area will reside in their homes and the workforce
accommodation from outside the social area of influence will reside in a camp established
inside the Project boundary on the access road to mine
• Contractors will transport workers out of the social area of influence when
they have finished their work rotations

Ecuador
Sources of Social
Impacts and Risks
• Codes of conduct will regulate social behavior of Project workers staying at
camp to minimize the potential for negative social interactions with local
residents including the spread of infectious disease
• Participatory monitoring, stakeholder engagement and the Project
Grievance Mechanism will help ensure proper behavior and early detection
of any incidents that require legal intervention or corrective action
In-migration of job • The Project will avoid significant in-migration of job seekers into the social
seekers area of influence by not creating incentives:
• Non-local residents will only be able to apply for work outside of social area
of influence
• Only existing local residents will be eligible for hiring within the social area
of influence
• The Project will seek to generate a modest level of local employment but
monitor its impacts to avoid creating an economic boom in the social area
of influence that would stimulate in-migration. It will take particular care to
avoid a boom in the social area of influence during construction
Impact on traffic and • Traffic increase in the social area of influence, would be partially offset by
access the significant access improvements that also benefit local residents and
more improvements will be completed prior to construction
• Scheduling of major deliveries of materials and equipment for daylight
hours, with routes avoiding schools, markets, and other urbanized areas to
the extent possible
• Implementation of safety measures and controls in coordination with local
stakeholders to promote safety around its primarily daylight logistics
Land acquisition • Acquisition of remaining land by negotiating directly with the property
owners
• No village resettlement requirement for Project development
Vulnerable Groups • Identification of the vulnerable groups within the social area of influence,
identification of how the Project might adversely or positively impact them
and establishment of management actions to address impacts and monitor
results
• Monitoring of prices of goods, services and land in the social area of
influence in comparison to tendencies in areas further from the Project and
implement corrective actions as needed to reduce the possible negative
impact of inflation attributable to the Project's activities
Tension or conflict due • Design to minimize and manage water and other environmental impacts
to real or perceived
• Additional measures to focus water management within one basin
impact on water or
other environmental • Information sharing on water and environmental management in public
receptors. meetings, engagement with stakeholders and local authorities, and ongoing
communications
Presence of illegal • Actively monitor its concessions against incursions from illegal mining and
mining denounce activities that may be discovered
• Communicate legal responsibilities, concerns and actions regarding illegal
mining with local stakeholders and authorities as part of its ongoing
stakeholder engagement
Improvements in • Continue to provide social investments within the social area of influence
living conditions or that promote collaborative local development and the fair distribution of
quality of life due to benefits among local stakeholders
social investment • Final impact will depend on building leadership and participation of the
directly affected populations into the management of these investments

Ecuador
Sources of Social
Impacts and Risks
Increase in public • The Project will pay significant taxes and royalties
budget from royalties • Magnitude of benefits generated by the taxes and royalties within the
and taxes social area of influence will depend on future government decisions on
how to best spend the additional income
20.7.4 Legal Requirements.

As noted in Section 4.3, the COA and associated regulations require the submittal of advanced
exploration and exploitation-phase EIAs and EMPs for MAAE approval. In addition to the
Project’s ongoing stakeholder engagement activities, it also complies with the MAAE’s legal
requirements for public participation linked to the revision and final approval of EISs.
An initial EIS was approved for the Cangrejos concessions to support advanced exploration
activities. Approval was granted after completing public presentations in the villages of Bellamaria
and Vega Rivera. The EIS included a Community Relations Plan (CRP) that committed Project
support to agricultural development, childcare, environmental protection, and local infrastructure.
Since the approval of this EIA, the environmental and social performance of the Project has been
subject to regular audits by the MAAE.
In 2018 a public participation process was implemented as part of the requirements for the
approval of an EIS to conduct advanced exploration in the then recently acquired C-20
concession. The public participation process involved implementation of a two-week Consultation
and Information Office for local residents. In addition, the study was made available via the
MAAE’s website and notifications were issued through the radio and the written press, as well as
by the posting of public notices. Over 100 people attended a public presentation of the EIA in the
village of Valle Hermoso. The presentation was followed by public commentary and a question
and answer session, during which the primary public concerns had to do with opportunities for
employment and infrastructure improvements. Participants included stakeholders from the Santa
Rosa Canton, Bellamaria and La Victoria parishes, the town of Valle Hermoso and neighboring
villages, landowners with property located within the concession area, and authorities from the
Ministry of Mines and the environmental department of the Provincial Municipality.
In January 2020, the Project also implemented a MAAE-mandated public participation process
(PPP) linked to an update for the C-20 EIA. MAAE published the EIS report online for a 15-day
period. The Project directly informed over 60 local stakeholders of the study and provided a link
for public access. The MAAE subsequently approved the PPP.
20.7.5 Stakeholder Mapping

As part of the communications program defined by the Project’s Strategic Community Relations
Plan (SCRP), the Project’s Community Relations team periodically conducts social mapping
exercises to identify key stakeholders and document their specific interests and expectations for
consideration in the planning of Project activities. The most recent mapping exercise (Social
Capital Group, 2020) focused on the primary authorities in the stakeholder communities. The
individuals contacted in this mapping exercise were generally favorable to responsible mining

Ecuador
activity and open to constructive dialogue, as was evidenced in the public participation process
for the C-20 EIA in April 2018.
20.7.6 Socioeconomic Benefits, Community Relations, and Communications

The Project will be managed to provide reasonable, fair, and appropriate socioeconomic benefits
to local stakeholders and the nation as a whole. Beyond the expected allocation of a percentage
of royalties (intended to cover improvements in public infrastructure, especially in the social area
of influence), such benefits shall include training opportunities for employment and provision of
goods and services, noting that the scope and scale of such opportunities may be expected to
increase as the Project enters construction and operation. Lumina also plans to actively assist
with community development projects on an ongoing basis, including: health and safety support
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; improvement and maintenance of churches and schools;
provision of appropriate support for local cultural activities, including festivals and community
workdays; implementation of productivity initiatives, including local agriculture and animal
husbandry projects; and/or providing resources and/or technical assistance with other issues
identified in stakeholder discussions.
The communications program defined by the Project SCRP requires the Project’s Community
Relations team to regularly engage and dialogue with leaders of the communities and
organizations in the social AOI at a level generally commensurate with the extent and complexity
of Project activities. In addition to establishing agreements with the communities, other outreach
activities are expected to include: regular contact/informational meetings with communities and
stakeholders; training of local workers and contractor personnel; monitoring of media interests
and positions regarding the development of the Project; continuing re-analysis of the
social/stakeholder risks associated with Project activities; systematic documentation of
stakeholder interactions; and, periodic stakeholder mapping exercises to identify key
stakeholders and learn about their specific interests and expectations. Interactions with those
stakeholders having the most immediate relationships to the Project are documented and form
the basis for continuing dialogue that presents proposed activities and the mitigation measures to
be taken to minimize any negative environmental and social impacts.
20.8 Social Management Policies and Social Management System

Lumina corporate policies guide Odin’s management of social and other issues associated with
Project development. These policies reflect a corporate commitment to conducting mineral
exploration and mine development activities in a manner that is fair, ethical, and in conformance
with governing laws and regulations. They also reflect a commitment to developing relationships
of trust based on communication that is transparent, respectful, and informative. The rights,
interests, and cultural heritage of host communities and affected landowners are also specifically
considered. These policies also embody a commitment to minimize and mitigate environmental
and social impacts, as well as to rehabilitate impacted areas in a manner acceptable to affected
stakeholders and regulators. The policies are implemented through management plans including
a Strategic Community Relations Plan (SCRP).

Ecuador
20.9 Geochemistry
20.9.1 Static Geochemical Samples

For this study, GRE collected 70 waste rock samples for an industry-standard static geochemical
testing program. Fifty-eight were from the Cangrejos pit and twelve were from the Gran Bestia
pit.
The rock and tailings samples were analyzed for the following:
• Acid Base Accounting (ABA)
• Whole Rock Analysis
• Metals by aqua regia digestion and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(ICP/MS)
• Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)
Tailings supernatant solution was analyzed for the following:
• Wet chemistry and metals
• Chloride, fluoride, cyanide, and nitrogen species
• Additional analysis required to test for regulated parameters under Ecuadorian law
The sample collection covered the entire range of rock types on site.
Acid Base Accounting Testing Results for Waste Rock
GRE conducted acid base accounting tests. The acid generating potential (AP) and neutralization
potential (NP) values are combined to derive a quantitative screening-level estimate of a
material's overall acid generating or neutralizing potential, resulting in the classification of the
sample as "potentially acid-generating" (PAG), "non-potentially acid-generating" (NAG) or
"uncertain". This testing is commonly called Acid Base Accounting (ABA) testing. Two
formulations are commonly used:
• Net Neutralization Potential (NNP), obtained by subtracting sample AP from NP
(NP-AP)
• Neutralization Potential Ratio (NPR), obtained by dividing sample NP by AP
(NP/AP)
The results of the ABA testing are presented in Figure 20-2. The horizontal lines represent the
different cutoff points.

Ecuador
1000
NPR = 1
100 NPR = 2
NNP = -20
Neutralization Potential Ratio
10 NNP = 20
EQD/FQD
1 PQD/QD
HYB/IB/BXI-HiB
0.1 Saprolite
Andesite/ Andesite
Dyke
0.01
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Net Neutralization Potential
FIGURE 20-2: GRAPHIC OF ABA RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE

The figure shows that nearly all of the scoping-level samples are safely within the NAG category
(upper center, and upper right). This is due to the generally low AP values in the sample set, and
the presence of NP. One sample of the andesite dike showed PAG behavior (lower left). Some
samples landed in the “uncertain” range (in the middle of the graph). Saprolite samples fell in the
non-reactive zone at the bottom middle of the graph.
If examined by rock type and location, as shown in Figure 20-3, there is a noticeable difference
between the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia sample clusters.
1000
100
NPR = 1
Neutralization Potential Ratio
10 NPR = 2
NNP = -20
1 NNP = 20
CG Data
GB Data
0.1
Sap Data
0.01
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Net Neutralization Potential
Note: two extreme samples, at -80NNP and +60 NNP have been omitted from Figure 20-3 for better scaling.
FIGURE 20-3: GRAPHIC OF ABA RESULTS BASED ON LOCATION

This figure shows that the Gran Bestia samples appear to have lower NP and therefore slightly
higher ARD risk than the Cangrejos samples. On average, the NP in Cangrejos samples is 18.0

Ecuador
tonnes CaCO3 per tonne of material (t/kt CaCO3) equivalent, and the average NP of Gran Besita
samples is 13.4 t/kt. This difference is statistically significant based on the t-test, 95% confidence
interval. However, the Gran Bestia samples are still in the NAG region.
Saprolite and saprock have significantly lower concentrations of NP and AP due to the leached-
out nature of these geologic formations.
Metals Analysis
Metals analysis of the rock mass can be used to screen out metals for consideration in future
water quality analysis. This is best done by comparing the concentration of each metal in the
rock mass with the average concentration of the metals in the earth’s crust. In general, if a rock
type has a concentration of a metal that is greater than five times the crustal average, it can be
considered enriched for that metal. If a rock is enriched with a concentration of a metal, it is at
higher risk for leaching the metal under acidic conditions or neutral conditions. However, if the
rock has a metal concentration that is near the crustal average, it is often safe to remove it from
consideration as a future geochemical issue.
The comparison shows that the following metals may be Constituents of Concern (COCs) for the
mine leachate water quality:
• Silver
• Arsenic (in saprolite)
• Copper
• Molybdenum
• Selenium
The following metals that are frequently problematic in mine leachate water quality, appear to be
near or below crustal averages:
• Arsenic (in rock)
• Cadmium
• Chromium
• Mercury
• Lead
• Zinc
It is important to note that arsenic contained in saprolite is stable since the saprolite contains iron-
arsenic compounds. Therefore, it is not leachable. The results of the metals leach testing are
consistent with the geological description of the deposit. Elevated concentrations of copper and
molybdenum are expected because those are the primary metals being recovered. Sulfide
minerals containing arsenic, zinc, and lead are not present.
Leaching Tests
Leach tests were conducted using the mine rock to determine if there are any readily soluble
elements that could impact water quality. The test used was the SPLP, based on EPA Method
1312 (US EPA 1994). This method leaches the samples with water at pH 5.5 in order to simulate
precipitation.

Ecuador
The SPLP results were also compared to effluent discharge guideline values from Ministerio de
Ambiente y Agua del Ecuador (MAAE, November 2015, Table 9) to provide an initial indication of
COCs. This comparison is for reference purposes only because the short-term leach results
cannot be extended directly to the long-term composition of mine discharge associated with the
waste rock storage facility.
The SPLP results have no values in excess of international water standards. The pH is neutral,
total dissolved solids are low, and no elevated metals concentrations were detected. Arsenic
leachate from saprolite samples is also below regulatory standards, despite elevated
concentrations in the rock.
Tailings Static Geochemical Testing Results
The following sections describe the test results from samples of the tailings solids and tailings
supernatant.
ABA Results
The results of the ABA testing of a tailings sample are shown in Table 20-2.
TABLE 20-2: ABA RESULTS OF CANGREJOS MINE TAILINGS
Detection
Parameter Units Tailings Result
Limit
Paste pH 0.02 8.92
Total Inorganic Carbon % 0.01 0.11
CaCO3 NP 9.2
S(Total) % 0.005 0.037
S(SO4) % 0.01 <0.01
S(S-2) % 0.01 0.01
Insoluble S % 0.03
AP t/kt CaCO3 0.3
NP t/kt CaCO3 0.5 18.4
Net NP t/kt CaCO3 18.1
Fizz Test None
The NNP and NPR both show that the mine tailings are NAG. This is likely because the sulfides
are recovered into the concentrates during the flotation process, but the residual acid-consuming
minerals (such as calcite) remain in the tailings.
Short-Term Leaching and Supernatant
The mine tailings appear to have largely inert supernatant solution and leachate. The results of
the supernatant analysis are compared to the fresh water discharge standards in Table 20-3.

Ecuador
TABLE 20-3: SUPERNATANT ANALYSIS

Reg. Official No. 387
Cangrejos
Parameter Units Table 9*
Supernatant
Fresh Water Discharge Standard
Titrator pH 8.43 6-9
Redox mV 375
Conductivity uS/cm 1261 0
Acidity (to pH 4.5) mg CaCO3/L #N/A 0
Total Acidity (to pH 8.3) mg CaCO3/L #N/A
Alkalinity mg CaCO3/L 93.2 0
Chloride mg/L 72 1000
Fluoride mg/L 0.89
Ammonia+Ammonium (N) as N mg/L 4.1
Nitrate (as N) as N mg/L < 0.6
Nitrite (as N) as N mg/L < 0.3
Total CN mg/L < 0.01
WAD CN mg/L < 0.01
Free CN mg/L < 0.01
Thiocyanate (SCN) mg/L 11
Cyanate (CNO) mg/L <1
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 809
Sulfide mg/L < 0.02
Sulfate mg/L 336 1000
Dissolved Metals Total Metals
Hardness CaCO3 mg/L 318
Aluminum Al mg/L 0.029 5
Antimony Sb mg/L 0.0167
Arsenic As mg/L 0.0324 0.1
Barium Ba mg/L 0.0219 2
Beryllium Be mg/L < 0.000007
Bismuth Bi mg/L < 0.000007
Boron B mg/L 0.258 2
Cadmium Cd mg/L 0.000288 0.02
Calcium Ca mg/L 106
Chromium Cr mg/L 0.00016
Cobalt Co mg/L 0.00162 0.5
Copper Cu mg/L 0.226 1
Iron Fe mg/L 0.008 10
Lead Pb mg/L 0.00022 0.2
Lithium Li mg/L 0.0299
Magnesium Mg mg/L 12.6
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.422 2
Mercury Hg ug/L < 0.01 0.005
Molybdenum Mo mg/L 0.0587

Ecuador
Reg. Official No. 387

Cangrejos
Parameter Units Table 9*
Supernatant
Fresh Water Discharge Standard
Nickel Ni mg/L 0.0059 2
Phosphorus P mg/L 0.027 10
Potassium K mg/L 21.2
Selenium Se mg/L 0.00467 0.1
Silicon Si mg/L 4.81
Silver Ag mg/L 0.00006 0.1
Sodium Na mg/L 128
Strontium Sr mg/L 0.412
Sulfur (S) mg/L 147
Thallium Tl mg/L 0.000340
Tin Sn mg/L 0.00023 5
Titanium Ti mg/L 0.00010
Uranium U mg/L 0.000799
Vanadium V mg/L 0.00138
Zinc Zn mg/L 0.111 5
Zirconium Zr mg/L < 0.002
* (Ministerio de Ambiente, 2015)
Frequently, copper or gold mines using flotation processing have supernatant solution with excess
sulfate and trace metals concentrations. In contrast, Cangrejos supernatant meets the criteria
necessary for direct-discharge of excess supernatant water to fresh water. The high wet season
precipitation and runoff from non-mine impacted ground will serve to further dilute any discharged
supernatant.
20.9.2 Kinetic Geochemical Testing

In anticipation of completing a Prefeasibility Study, Lumina authorized the commencement of
long-duration kinetic geochemical testing for waste rock and tailings samples from the Cangrejos
project. The results of this testing are summarized below.
Waste Rock Kinetic Testing
The Cangrejos project has operated onsite kinetic testing of Cangrejos waste rock samples since
May 2019. Gran Bestia samples were added to the testing in October 2019. Samples were
selected that cover the range of AP values on site as discussed in Section 20-10. Up to 48 weeks
of testing has been completed, and all kinetic cells show pH neutral or pH alkaline conditions.
Figure 20-4 shows the results of the pH readings collected from twelve onsite kinetic cell tests.

Ecuador
11
10
9
8
7
pH
6
5
4
3
2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 22 24 26 28 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Week
1 2 3 4 5 6
11
10
9
8
7
pH
6
5
4
3
2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
7 8 9 Week 10 11 12
FIGURE 20-4: ON SITE KINETIC CELL LEACHATE, PH RESULTS

The pH values from all of the tests have been steady and firmly neutral or slightly alkaline.
Furthermore, bi-monthly leachate samples sent to the laboratory show that no metals or chemical
parameters have had concentrations in excess of surface water standards (MAAE, 2015, Tabla
9). This testing further confirms that the Cangrejos waste rock does not produce ARD nor metals
leaching.
Tailings Kinetic Testing
Since January 30, 2020, a sample of the Cangrejos Tailings has been in a laboratory humidity
cell (ASTM D5744-07e1 2007). As of week 11 (the final week considered in this report), the
leachate from the tailings humidity cell is pH neutral and the alkalinity is constant. This is a strong
indication that residual sulfites are not oxidizing. However, the leachate samples have higher
concentrations of arsenic than the concentrations allowed in surface water quality discharge
standards. Arsenic concentrations are approximately 0.16 mg/L and the standard is 0.10 mg/L.
This exceedance will be monitored and evaluated as the testing continues.
Despite the slightly elevated arsenic concentration, the ongoing humidity cell test provides strong
evidence of the non-acid generating behavior of mine tailings.

Ecuador
20.9.3 Geochemistry Conclusions

In general, based on the existing dataset, the geochemical risk from the Cangrejos waste rock
and mine tailings appears to be low to very low. In the QP’s opinion, for a PEA, it is safe to
assume that the waste rock and tailings are non-acid generating and that the tails and waste rock
will have no significant impact on water quality. Tailings supernatant appears to be suitable for
direct discharge to the environment with only sediment control.
Kinetic testing results of samples collected from the waste rock and in the areas of the post-mining
pit walls strongly indicate that the post-mining pit lakes will contain water that will not be
detrimentally impacted by geochemical reactions. Additionally, because groundwater is of good
quality it is likely that the water in the post-mining pit lakes will meet surface water discharge
standards.
20.10 Baseline Water Quantity and Quality
20.10.1 Hydrology
The site has abundant surface water located primarily in steep mountain streams that are subject
to sudden changes in flow due to heavy precipitation. Lumina installed three Parshall flumes in
key drainages around the site to characterize the hydrologic system in the vicinity of the Project.
The data demonstrates that the Project has heavy rainfall events and strong runoff conditions.
The flumes measure year-round baseflows during the dry season that range from 4.0 L/s to 118
L/s.
Manual flow readings in other rivers around the site are taken by Lumina staff.
Surface water quality samples from seven locations around the site were also analyzed. All of
the contaminants regulated under Ecuadorian law were at or near non-detect levels and far below
the discharge standards.
GRE created a series of hydrologic models. The models predict the runoff response from various
rainfall events. They were created and calibrated based on the storm responses that were
measured using the flume data and the manual flow readings. The models were used to estimate
runoff and size diversion channels.
In general, surface water will be managed at the project to reduce runoff over saprolite zones and
to reduce the amount of water accumulating within the pits. The volume of water accumulating
within the pits will be minimized by diverting surface water from natural areas around project-
impacted areas and back to natural drainages downstream of the project areas via drainage
channels and culverts.
The conceptual site-wide surface water conveyance structures will be engineered and
constructed to manage storm water runoff and to minimize erosion of disturbed areas. Key water
management concepts include, but are not limited to:
• Upstream diversions to route runoff around disturbed areas
• Engineered diversions to route stream flows through work areas
• Engineered culvert crossings to route stream flows underneath roads

Ecuador
• Ponds and pumping to collect and convey water away from critical areas such as the
pit highwalls, where diversions are not possible
• Surface water pumping and pipeline system to route plant makeup water to the
process plant when necessary
• Pumps and pipeline system to convey water out of the pits
• Engineered channel reinforcement to prevent channel scour over erodible subgrade
• Progressive reclamation of disturbed areas, with revegetation of soil cover areas as
soon as practical to prevent erosion
20.10.2 Hydrogeology
The hydrogeology of the Cangrejos Project is characterized by a low-conductivity, fine-grained
saprolith (saprolite and saprock) formation sitting atop a very low conductivity hard rock formation
with few fractures. As a result, there is very little groundwater in the system. The lack of prolific
unconsolidated-material aquifers or hard-rock aquifers results in low groundwater inflow into the
open pits.
A multi-faceted characterization program conducted in 2018-2019 characterized the groundwater
system in the vicinity of the Cangrejos Project. Groundwater levels were measured using a
network of vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) and standpipe piezometers located in the area of
the Cangrejos pit.
Groundwater on site is generally shallow, hosted within the saprolite or saprock. Deep VWPs
have consistently lower pore pressures than the shallow piezometer in the same hole. The
presence of lower water levels at depth may indicate that the pit will not experience artesian or
pressurized fracture conditions within the pit. Shallow wells and VWPs located within the saprolite
and saprock respond to seasonal rainfall, rising in the wet season, and dropping in the dry season.
This behavior has been considered in slope stability modeling.
No groundwater level monitoring exists in the area of the Gran Bestia pit at this phase in the
project development.
The hydraulic conductivity of the Cangrejos hydrogeologic units was evaluated using two
techniques: 1) packer testing in the fresh rock and 2) single-well aquifer testing in the
saprolite/saprock.
Groundwater samples were collected from two wells and analyzed to evaluate the water quality.
Neither sample had concentrations that exceeded Ecuadorian drinking water standards.
The data shows that the Project will have high groundwater levels but low total groundwater yield.
The conceptual groundwater management plan within the open pits includes in-pit dewatering
sumps and horizontal borings to depressurize the pit slopes.
20.10.3 Water Balance

A site wide water balance was completed to estimate the water consumption and water supply
needs. This water balance considers drought conditions and other extreme weather events that
may hamper the mine’s ability to process material. It also took into consideration estimated
precipitation at the various locations on the property, evaporation, runoff, and consumption under

Ecuador
various conditions from very wet to extreme drought as well as annual precipitation cycles in order
to estimate water storage requirements.
Due to the small up-stream drainage basins, the water balance demonstrates that the project
cannot reliably meet its total year round water demand from the drainage basins covered by the
site footprint, so during typical and dry precipitation conditions, the project may require a modest
off-site groundwater or surface water source.
20.11 Conceptual Closure Plan

A conceptual closure plan was prepared to provide the basis for estimating Project closure costs.
The primary considerations in developing the closure strategy include:
• Physical and chemical stabilization of mine waste
• Placement of topsoil over impacted ground surfaces, as required
• Revegetation
• Regrading of mine haul roads
• Runoff management
• Demolition of the processing facilities
• Post closure monitoring and management
The closure costs are included in the financial analysis for the Project.
20.12 Compliance with International Practices

The Project will comply first and foremost with Ecuadorian regulations, financial guarantees, and
requirements that are described in detail in Section 4.3 but will also follow leading international
practices related to the mining and mineral industry, which may include the following:
• International Cyanide Management Code (ICMC)
• International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank (WB) Guidelines
• International Council on Mining and Minerals (ICMM)
• World Health Organization (WHO)

Ecuador
21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

21.1 Capital Cost Estimate

The capital cost estimate for the Project includes the initial capital, sustaining capital, and
expansion capital. The capital cost estimates include:
• Contracted Direct Costs
• Construction Indirect Costs
• Contracted Indirect Costs
• Owner’s Direct and Indirect Costs
21.1.1 Initial and Expansion Capital Costs

The capital costs were organized by area using a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Direct
Capital Costs were estimated for the mine by IMC, for the processing plant by ONIX, for the
geotechnical infrastructure by Ausenco, and for water management by GRE. Support was
provided by MTB and PLS. Construction Indirect Costs include construction equipment and
temporary facilities required to complete the construction of the Project. Contracted Indirect Costs
include services needed during construction such as Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
Management (EPCM) services, Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) support, vendor
representatives and commissioning assistance, initial fills, and spare parts. Owner’s Direct Costs
include costs associated with the preproduction of the mine and support costs during the
preproduction and construction periods. Finally, Owner’s Indirect Costs include employment and
training expenses, management costs, insurance, travel, employee meals, community
development, and costs to retain outside consultants, among others.
In completing capital cost estimates during the early stages of project development, such as this
PEA, it is impossible to define all costs that will be associated with construction of the project.
The anticipated costs that are not clearly defined but expected are covered by adding a
contingency. For this PEA, the contingency was estimated on an area by area basis dependent
upon the level of work completed to estimate the area costs and the level of accuracy. The total
contingency for the initial project is $107.6 M, which is 13.8% of the direct and indirect capital
costs. It is $57.9 M for the expansion capital cost, which is 16.7% of the direct and indirect capital
costs.
Freight, Duties, and Taxes are included in the capital costs. The total estimated costs for taxes
are $24.1 M for the initial capital and $9.2 M for the expansion capital bringing the total costs to

Ecuador
$1,000.2 M and $417.2 M for the initial capital and expansion capital, respectively. The VAT is
refundable after production commences; the total initial VAT is estimated to be approximately $87
M.
Table 21-1 summarizes the initial and expansion capital costs.
TABLE 21-1: INITIAL AND EXPANSION CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES INCLUDING CONTINGENCY
Initial Capital Expansion Capital
WBS Description
(US$ M) (US$ M)
0100 Mine 59.2 ---
0200 Crushing and Conveying 113.1 67.2
0300 Grinding 67.0 67.0
0400 Flotation & Concentrate Filtration 30.0 30.0
0500 CIL / Detox 12.4 12.4
0600 Carbon Plant & Refinery 3.4 3.4
0700 Reagent Preparation & Storage 4.3 4.3
0800 Tailings Thickening, Filtration, Conveying, Storage 136.1 92.4
0900 Site & Off-site Infrastructure and Facilities 30.1 3.1
1000 Plant Mobile Equipment & Light Vehicles 1.3 ---
2000 Site Development 39.2 6.1
Total Direct Costs 496.3 286.0
3000 Construction Indirect Costs 24.8 5.3
4000 Contracted Indirect Costs 80.6 48.9
Total Indirect Costs 105.4 54.2
5000 Owner's Direct Costs 137.7 0.2
6000 Owner's Indirect Costs 42.0 7.3
Total Owner's Costs 179.7 7.5
Freight, Duty, and Taxes 24.1 9.2
Total Contingency 107.6 57.9
Sub-total Capital Costs 913.2 414.9
Working Capital 1.7 2.3
VAT 87.0 N/A
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 1,000.2 417.2
Contingency Percentage of Total Costs 13.8% 16.7%
The comparative estimate from the previous PEA was approximately $761 M for the initial capital
cost and $369 M for the expansion capital, excluding working capital and VAT. The capital costs
include duties, freight, taxes, contingency, working capital, and VAT. The major areas of cost
increases are shown in Table 21-2.

Ecuador
TABLE 21-2: AREAS OF MAJOR COST INCREASES

Cost Increases
Area Reasons
US$ M
Testing on Representative Sample;
28.6 Tailings Filtration Vendor Involvement; Additional
Engineering
Crushed Material Overland Conveyor and
25.8 Larger Site Plan
Reclaim
23.8 Filtered Tailings Conveying and Deposition Larger Site Plan
Addition of CIL, Cyanide Detox, Carbon Plant
17.3 Process Change
and Additional Reagents
Site Development (vegetation removal,
15.6 clearing and grubbing, and earthworks to Larger Site Plan
prepare areas for construction
Construction Camp, including Catering and
11.5 Quotation from a Local Provider
Cleaning
11.0 EPCM Larger Project
A summary of the initial capital cost estimate by major categories is provided in Figure 21-1.
Freight, Duties &

Taxes, $24.1 Total Contingency,
$107.6
Total Owner's Costs,

$179.7 Total Direct Costs,
$496.3
Total Indirect Costs,

$105.4
FIGURE 21-1: INITIAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE BY MAJOR CATEGORIES
21.1.2 Sustaining Capital Costs

Sustaining capital costs include the costs required to maintain the operation over the life of the
mine as the operation expands or equipment must be replaced. It includes costs for mine
equipment, expanding the DSTF, WRSF, SSF, vegetation removal as the footprint of the
operation expands, mobile equipment, and costs related to maintaining the water supply and

Ecuador
water management systems. The total estimated cost for Sustaining Capital over the mine life is
$444.8 M.
21.1.3 Reclamation and Closure Costs

The reclamation and closure costs at the end of the mine life are estimated to be $100.2 M,
including a contingency allowance of 20%. The costs, including a net present value (NPV)
estimate, are included in the cash flow analysis in year 25, although closure costs are estimated
to occur in two years at the end of the mine life. Ten years of post closure monitoring is also
included in the estimate.
21.1.4 Working Capital

Costs for initial fills and spare parts are included in the capital cost estimate, which reduces
working capital costs. Working capital was estimated by comparing the estimated operating costs
to the revenue on a week by week basis at the start of the operation. The estimated working
capital is approximately $1.7 M for the initial construction and $2.3 M for the expansion. Working
capital costs may seem low because first fills and spare parts are not included in working capital.
They are included in other areas of the capital cost estimates.
21.2 Operating Cost Estimate

Operating costs were estimated from first principles for mining, processing, General and
Administrative (G&A) costs, and tailings deposition costs. The life-of-mine operating costs are
summarized in Table 21-3 and shown graphically in Figure 21-2. It should be noted that the costs
associated with thickening, filtering and transporting the tailings to the DSTF by overland conveyor
are included in the Processing operating costs. The tailings deposition costs include costs for
transporting them from the end of the overland conveyor to the location where they will be
deposited in the facility, spreading and compacting, and purchasing and placing of geomembrane
raincoats. The process operating costs for thickening, filtering, and long-distance conveying,
excluding reagents and labor, is estimated to be $1.42 per tonne for years 1 through 5, bringing
the total cost for dry stack tailings to over $1.71 during this time period, which is consistent with
costs for dry stack tailings at similar projects.
TABLE 21-3: LIFE-OF-MINE OPERATING COST SUMMARY
Total LOM Average Unit Costs per t Processed

Area Cost Years 1 – 5 Years 6 – 25 LOM
US$ M US$/t US$/t US$/t
Mining 2,555 7.72 3.54 3.99
Processing 4,039 6.51 6.29 6.31
G&A 500 1.37 0.71 0.78
Tailings Deposition 148 0.29 0.22 0.23
Total 7,243 15.90 10.76 11.31

Ecuador
G & A, 0.781, Tailings Deposition, 0.231,

7% 2%
Mining, 3.991,
35%
Processing, 6.309,
56%
FIGURE 21-2: LIFE-OF-MINE OPERATING COST SUMMARY PER TONNE PROCESSED
21.3 Labor Costs

Labor costs for all areas were estimated using the staffing schedules and organizational charts
provided by IMC for mining and AKA for processing. PLS developed the staffing schedule and
organizational charts for General and Administration labor.. The burdened labor costs were
estimated by PLS using actual Ecuadorian salaries and wages including burden. Burdens in
Ecuador include:
• Mandatory overtime pay for shift work
• Paid holidays calculated as the annual salary or wages, including overtime divided by
24
• 13th monthly salary
• 14th monthly salary that is an allowance that is equal to the minimum annual salary
(i.e., currently $400) divided by 12
• Employers contribution to the social tax at the rate of 12.15% of the base salary or
wages, excluding overtime
• A reserve fund equal to 8.33% of the nominal salary or wages for employees that do
not work shifts or 8.33% of the overtime pay for employees that do work shifts
21.4 Mine Operating Costs

Mine operating costs were developed from first principles using the mine plan, equipment list, and
staffing schedule provided in Section 16. The unit costs for the mine major equipment
consumables were derived from the Mine Cost Service Handbook (InfoMine, 2019). The unit

Ecuador
costs for labor were provided by PLS. The fuel costs were set at $0.4987 per liter based on the
government of Ecuador’s published rate in April 2020.
Preproduction is estimated to be 18 months in total, including five months of access pioneering
and 13 months of preproduction. Mine access roads from the crusher pad to each of the working
areas are developed during the first five months. The first 14 months of preproduction operates
at one shift per day. Thereafter, the mine plan assumes operating two 12-hour shifts per day for
365 days per year. Five days (10 shifts) of loss time are assumed to account for weather delays.
Operating labor and maintenance labor (including burden) for the mine mobile equipment are
included.
Mine access road construction and maintenance is included with the exception of the main mine
haul road which is constructed by a project contractor for schedule reasons. If mine haul trucks
drive on the road, it’s cost and maintenance is included in the mine operating costs.
The small stockpile (1,162 kt) that is generated during preproduction stripping is re-handled to the
plant in Year 1.
IMC considered all costs (with the exception of purchase cost for capital equipment) during
preproduction as operating costs. For the purposes of this PEA, all IMC “operating costs” during
pre-production are included in the initial capital costs under WBS 5010 Preproduction Mine
Development. The estimated LOM costs for mining by area are provided in Table 21-4.
TABLE 21-4: MINE OPERATING COST SUMMARY
LOM US$/t US$/t

Area
US$ 000 Moved Processed
Drilling 206,853 0.152 0.323
Blasting 686,290 0.504 1.072
Loading 205,402 0.151 0.321
Hauling 851,424 0.625 1.330
Auxiliary 316,102 0.232 0.494
General Mine 110,409 0.081 0.172
General Maintenance 61,716 0.045 0.096
G&A 108,555 0.080 0.170
Pit Dewatering 8,447 0.006 0.013
Total Mine Operation Costs 2,555,198 1.875 3.991
Notes: Total Material Moved 1,369,528 kt
Total Material Processed 640,256 kt
21.5 Process Operating Costs

Process Operating Costs Process operating costs were also estimated from first principles. They
are summarized in Table 21-5.

Ecuador
TABLE 21-5: PROCESS OPERATING COSTS

Average Average Average
LOM
Item Years 1 – 5 Years 6 – 25 LOM
(US$ 000)
US$/t Processed US$/t Processed US$/t Processed
Plant Mobile Equipment 64,025 0.100 0.100 0.100
General Supplies Allowance 42,273 0.078 0.065 0.066
External Services Allowance 160,064 0.250 0.250 0.250
Average Labor Costs 170,740 0.398 0.251 0.267
Plant Maintenance Allowance 281,823 0.520 0.431 0.440
Reagent Costs 955,736 1.493 1.493 1.493
Media Consumption 982,994 1.535 1.535 1.535
Power Costs 1,370,113 2.116 2.143 2.140
Analytical Costs 8,374 0.013 0.013 0.013
Water Supply Costs 3,228 0.008 0.005 0.005
Total Process Operating Cost 4,039,370 6.512 6.285 6.309
21.6 General and Administrative Operating Costs

The G&A costs for the Project were estimated by PLS and MTB. They are summarized in Table
21-6.
TABLE 21-6: GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATING COSTS
LOM LOM
Item
(US$ 000) US$/t Processed
Labor (Burdened) 133,673 0.209
Social Benefits (Mining, Process and G&A Staff) 39,010 0.061
Pension Fund Contributions (Mining, Process and G&A Staff) 59,876 0.094
Employee Travel and Transportation (Bus, Air) 9,565 0.015
Corporate Travel and Services 3,362 0.005
Medical, Security and Safety Supplies 28,283 0.044
Employee Meals (Catering, Cleaning & Laundry) 52,817 0.082
Office Leases Incl. Utilities 4,472 0.007
IT and Communications 9,939 0.016
Training 5,206 0.008
Legal, Permits and Fees 2,468 0.004
Insurance 95,016 0.148
Environmental Services and Consumables 11,846 0.019
Security Services 7,404 0.012
Outside Consultants 5,923 0.009
Community Development 22,212 0.035
Fuel & Maintenance for Mobile Equipment, Light Vehicles 9,202 0.014
Total G&A Operating Costs 500,275 0.781

Ecuador
21.6.1 General and Administrative Labor

Labor costs were estimated using the staffing schedule provided in Table 21-7. The total number
of G&A personnel varies by plus or minus one position in several years. Otherwise it is constant
throughout the operating mine life.
TABLE 21-7: GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING LEVEL (YEAR 1 OF OPERATIONS)
Position Number
Expatriates
General Manager 1
Marketing Manager 1
Administration Management
General Manager Assistant 1
Financial Department
Financial Superintendent 1
Financial Administrative Assistant 1
Controller 1
Controller Administrative Assistants 2
Accounting Manager 1
Treasurer 1
Accountant (Payroll) 1
Accountant (Payables) 1
Accountant (Receivables) 1
Accounting Assistants 4
Administration
Administration Superintendent 1
Administration Superintendent Assistant 1
Human Resources Department
Human Resources Manager 1
Human Resources Assistant 1
Human Resources Analysts 4
Information Technology Department
I.T. Manager 1
I.T. Technicians 4
General Maintenance
Maintenance Supervisor 1
Cleaning Helpers 6
General Maintenance Technicians 8
Legal/Permitting Department
Legal/Permitting Manager 1
Legal/Permitting Manager Assistant 1
Legal Assistant 2
Permitting Assistant 2

Ecuador
Position Number
Supply Chain, Logistics and Procurement
Logistics Superintendent 1
Logistics Superintendent Assistant 1
Contracts Department
Contract Manager 1
Contract Officer 1
Import/Export Resources
Import/Export Manager 1
Import/Export Manager Assistant 1
Forwarding Assistant 1
Customs/Duty Assistant 1
Purchasing Department
Procurement Supervisor 1
Buyers 1
Inventory Controllers 1
Warehouse Department
Warehouse Manager 1
Warehouse Workers 8
Health, Safety and Environment Division
HSEC Superintendent 1
HSEC Superintendent Assistant 1
Environmental Department
Environmental Manager 1
Environmental Technicians 8
Government and Community Relations
Government Relations Manager 1
Community Relations Coordinator 1
Community Relations Field Assistants 8
Health and Safety Department
Health and Safety Manager 1
Health and Safety Manager Assistant 1
Health and Safety Technicians 12
Doctor 1
Nurses/Paramedics 8
Corporate Training Department
Training Manager 1
Training Assistants 3
Security
Security Superintendent 1
Marketing
Marketing Assistant 1
Total 129

Ecuador
22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
22.1 Introduction
22.1.1 Key Objectives

To evaluate the potential economic viability of the Cangrejos Project, MTB and Robert Michel
Enterprises (RME) completed a scoping-level economic evaluation and review of the Project for
Lumina Gold.
Key objectives for developing the economic evaluation were to:
• Integrate information from project team members, as listed in Section 1
• Identify and balance project components to maximize value
• Provide a high-level economic simulation over the expected life of the Project and
assess the project’s potential economic viability
• Support Lumina’s management in their project decision-making process
• Provide a foundation for the next logical phase of project development
22.1.2 General Criteria and Assumptions

The general assumptions and key inputs used for the cash flow projections are clearly laid out in
the following sections. All currencies are in US dollars and no inflation was applied. Cost
estimates were static (i.e., not escalated) and cash flow values were discounted to net present
value (NPV) using a 5% annual discount rate starting one calendar year from the data date. Metal
prices were selected based on discussions with Lumina and H&H Metals, considering market
activity up to the effective date of June 8, 2020 and publicly available price forecasts. Taxation
rates applied were 15% profit tax, 22% corporate income tax, and 3% royalty to the Ecuadorian
government based on Net Smelter Return (NSR). Depreciation was calculated using depreciation
methods prescribed by Ecuadorian mining practices. Value added tax (VAT or IVA) of 12% was
applied to all goods services, including operating costs less labor and power. VAT was recaptured
to the extent possible on initial capital in Year 1. The balance was captured at a maximum of
12% of exported goods’ value per year.
Benefits to the Ecuadorian government were compared with Lumina’s profits over the life of the
project using the prescribed method to determine whether a Sovereign Adjustment Tax would
apply; no Sovereign Adjustment is required for the base case. Financial sensitivity analyses that
trigger Sovereign Adjustment reflect the adjustment.

Ecuador
The assumptions and methods used in developing the economic model are further explained in
the following sections and technical parameters are provided as applicable.
Inputs to the model are provided in detail in previous sections of this Technical Report.
Summations of key project input data and assumptions along with key results are presented in
tables extracted from the model. A listing of select model inputs is provided in Table 22-1.
TABLE 22-1: ECONOMIC MODEL INPUTS
Economic Model Inputs Values

Description
Construction Period 3 Years
Preproduction Period 1 Year
Mine Life (after preproduction) 24.7
Life of Mine Mill Feed (kt) 640,254
Life of Mine Payable Gold (koz) 9,152
Life of Mine Payable Silver (koz) 9,351
Life of Mine Payable Copper (klbs) 1,148,268
Life of Mine Payable Molybdenum (klbs) 13,368
Life of Mine Average Plant Feed Grades
Gold (g/t) 0.56
Silver (g/t) 0.67
Copper (%) 0.10%
Molybdenum (ppm) 20
Average Annual Production
Gold (koz) 366
Silver (koz) 374
Copper(klbs) 45,931
Molybdenum (klbs) 535
Market Prices
Gold ($/oz) $ 1,400
Silver ($/oz) $ 16.00
Copper ($/lb) $ 2.75
Molybdenum ($/lb) $ 9.00
Cost and Tax Basis
Estimate Basis 8-Jun-2020
Inflation None
Leverage 100% Equity
Tax - Federal 22%
Profit Tax 15%
VAT (IVA) Recouped with Export 12%
Depreciation - All Asset Categories 5 Year or UOP
Sovereign Adjustment Tax Not Required
Royalty
Ecuadorian Government 3%

Ecuador
Economic Model Inputs Values

Advance Royalty Agreement -
Transportation
Ecuador Ground Transport ($/wt AuCu conc) $ 9.60
Ecuador Ground Transport ($/dt Moly conc) $ 42.86
Dore ($/oz doré) Mine to Smelter $ 3.53
Bulk Concentrate Intl. Shipping ($/wt) $ 35.00
Moly Concentrate Intl. Shipping ($/dt) $ 24.81
Concentrate Payment Terms
Advance 90%
Settlement 10%
Doré Payment Terms
Advance 98%
Settlement 2%
Key results are provided in Table 22-2. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
TABLE 22-2: KEY RESULTS
Cangrejos Project Key Results Units Value

Life of Mine Average Gold Recovery % 82%
Life of Mine Average Silver Recovery % 69%
Life of Mine Average Copper Recovery % 84%
Life of Mine Average Molybdenum Recovery % 50%
Gold Payable (Weighted Average) % 97.9%
Silver Payable (Weighted Average) % 97.5%
Copper Payable % 93.5%
Molybdenum Payable % 95.5%
Proportion of Revenue from Gold Sales % 78.9%
Proportion of Revenue from Silver Sales % 0.9%
Proportion of Revenue from Copper Sales % 19.4%
Proportion of Revenue from Molybdenum Sales % 0.7%
Gross Revenue US$ M 16,241
Initial Capital Cost US$ M 1,000.2
Expansion Capital Cost US$ M 454.5
Sustaining Capital Cost US$ M 444.8
Life of Mine Mine Operating Costs US$ M 2,555
Life of Mine Process Operating Costs US$ M 4,039
Life of Mine Tailings Operating Costs US$ M 147.9
Life of Mine General and Administrative Operating Costs US$ M 500.3
Life of Mine Total Operating Costs US$ M 7,243
Operating Cash Costs (Gold Equivalent) US$/EqOz 725.2
After Tax Payback Time - Initial Capital Years 5.1
After Tax Payback Time - Expansion Capital Years 3.1
Cumulative Net Pre-tax Cash Flow US$ M 5,983

Ecuador
Cangrejos Project Key Results Units Value

Pre-tax IRR % 20.2%
Pre-tax NPV (5% Annual Discount Rate) US $ M 2,555
Cumulative Net After-tax Cash Flow US$ M 3,922
Post-tax IRR % 16.2%
Post-tax NPV (5% Annual Discount Rate) US$ M 1,571
22.2 Gross Revenue from Mining

The project’s economic value depends on revenue derived from sales of metals and flotation
concentrates. To determine the market pricing for use in the model, the team reviewed H&H
Metals’ forecast market values, current trading values, price forecasts from numerous financial
institutions, and had discussions with Lumina and H&H. The following metal prices for this PEA
cash flow model were selected as the basis:
Gold - $1,400/oz Copper - $2.75/lb
Silver - $16.00/oz Molybdenum - $9.00/lb
The precious metal markets are highly liquid and benefit from terminal markets around the world
(e.g., London, New York, Tokyo, and Hong Kong). The London PM fix for gold and silver on June
8, 2020 was $1,690/oz and $17.63/oz, respectively. As of June 8, 2020 year-to-date, gold traded
between $1,324/oz and $1,748/oz and silver traded between $12.01/oz and $19.31/oz.
On June 8, 2020, the closing price for copper was $2.58/lb and molybdenum was $8.16/lb. As of
June 8, 2020, year-to-date copper traded between $2.10/lb and $2.84/lb and molybdenum traded
between $7.90/lb and $12.38/lb.
To calculate gross revenue from mining, metals prices for gold, copper, silver, and molybdenum
were applied to corresponding recovered, payable gold and silver Troy ounces, and copper and
molybdenum pounds in the economic model.
The gross revenue from mining for the Cangrejos Project, based on the results of this PEA, is
estimated to be $16.1 B.
22.3 Net Smelter Return Calculation

The NSR is used to calculate the royalty that is payable to the government of Ecuador. It is
determined by subtracting the transportation costs and treatment charges and refining charges
(TCs and RCs) from the gross revenue. The estimated life of mine NSR for Cangrejos is $15.5
B.
22.3.1 Transportation
Concentrate
The transportation costs are the costs to move the concentrates to smelters for further treatment.
Domestic transportation charges for shipping two concentrate products from the Cangrejos
Project were by local transportation providers. H&H Metals of New York provided the international

Ecuador
shipping cost estimates of $35.00 per wet tonne to ship the gold-copper flotation concentrate to
China and $24.81 per dry tonne to ship molybdenum concentrate to Chile.
Doré
Doré requires special handling due to its inherent value. Industry sources provided typical doré
freight and insurance costs of $3.53/oz of doré. This estimated charge covers transportation and
insurance costs to transport the doré from the mine to the destination.
22.3.2 Treatment Charges, Refining Charges, Payment Terms and Penalties

Flotation Concentrates
Smelters apply TCs, RCs, and penalties based upon the composition of the concentrates. They
also typically provide terms of payment. The economic model applies costs for concentrate TCs,
RCs, and penalties taken from a marketing study dated April 1, 2020 received from H&H Metals
Corp. of New York, which is referenced in Section 19 of this Technical Report.
The gold-copper concentrate TCs were reported as $70 per wet t of concentrate and refining
charges of $7.50 per ounce of gold, $0.65 per ounce of silver, and $0.07 per pound of copper.
The molybdenum concentrate carries a 15% price discount to the treatment charge due to its high
copper content. Using the molybdenum price of $9/lb and the 15% discount, the estimated
discount is approximately $2,976 per dry tonne. The estimated discount is applied in the model
and the molybdenum is 95.5% payable according to the H&H report.
Doré
Doré also carries TCs and RCs based on composition and weight. The model applies doré
treatment and refining charges based upon industry sources available to the Cangrejos Project.
The treatment charges are estimated to be $0.30 per oz of doré. Doré payables are 99.95% for
gold and 99.5% for silver.
22.4 Royalty
The Federal Government of Ecuador requires that a royalty be paid on gold produced in Ecuador.
Based on expert guidance from within Ecuador, this financial evaluation applied a 3% royalty
across the life of the project. This 3% royalty is calculated using proceeds paid by smelters less
certain costs, including costs incurred to transport the concentrates to the smelters, or the NSR,
for mineralized material produced in the property area subject to the royalties. The project’s total
royalty payments add up to $466 M over the life of the project. This results in $15.1 B in gross
income from mining and processing to the Project.
22.5 Operating Margin

Gross income less operating costs yield Net Profit. Operating costs were previously described in
Section 21 of this PEA and served as inputs to the economic model to arrive at Net Profit.

Ecuador
Retention taxes were applied to the labor cost estimates according to Ecuadorian requirements,
with social taxes of 12.5% applied on all earnings, including overtime, and 8.33% contributed to
a pension plan, after the first year of employment.
22.6 Depreciation and Income Tax

Income taxes are included in the model based on Ecuador’s federal tax rates after anticipated
deductions, which are subtracted from net profit to arrive at taxable income. The tax rate of 22%
on taxable income is applied assuming that a stability agreement will be in effect for the Project,
based on recent successful negotiations by two other projects.
In calculating depreciation, all initial capital costs were assigned a five-year asset life and
depreciated in accordance with current Ecuadorian mining tax practices. Sustaining and
expansion capital were depreciated on a unit of production basis, except for vehicles and mining
equipment, which were depreciated on a five-year schedule. The model applies depreciation
considering zero value at the end of the assets’ useful lives.
After deducting allowable depreciation, the model accounts for a 15% profit sharing tax, applies
any tax loss carry forward, and then calculates the 22% federal income tax on the net income
before taxes.
After the federal tax is calculated, depreciation and any losses carried forward are added back to
arrive at net income from operations.
22.7 Value Added Tax

A 12% VAT is applied to all goods and services, including operating costs less costs for labor and
power. VAT is assumed to be recouped upon exportation of the concentrate products at a
maximum rate of 12% of the export value per year. The initial capital VAT is fully recouped in the
model within the first year of production, in accordance with Ecuadorian legal guidance. Each
year thereafter, VAT paid is shown to be fully recouped during the same year.
22.8 Initial and Expansion Capital Costs

Initial and expansion capital cost estimates provide the basis for the main project investment
costs. These estimates were previously described in Section 21 of this Technical Report. The
cost estimates served as input to the economic model.
Of the total initial capital, $14.9 M is identified as spare parts, consumables, and initial fills.
Because the cost of these items is recaptured at the end of mine life in Year 25, their value is
represented as a separate line item in the cash flow after being deducted from other initial capital
costs. Similarly, $9.5 M for initial mill ball charges is part of the expansion capital and this value
is added back into the cash flow at the end of the mine life in Year 25.

Ecuador
22.9 Sustaining Capital Costs

Sustaining capital costs consist of the costs for adding newly required assets, marginally
increasing facility capacities, or replacing assets over the life of the Project. Such expenditures
fall into nine categories for the Cangrejos Project:
1. Mine equipment
2. Waste rock storage facility (WRSF)
3. Dry stack tailings facility (DSTF)
4. Dry stack tailings conveying and compaction
5. Saprolite and saprock storage facility (SSF)
6. Sanitary landfill
7. Vegetation suppression
8. Mobile equipment
9. Pit dewatering.
Sustaining capital costs are shown in detail in Section 21 of this report. The largest single item is
mining equipment, which is estimated to cost approximately $333.7 M over the life of mine, based
on the mine equipment utilized over the life of the mine, as shown in Section 16. Total life of mine
sustaining capital costs are estimated to total $444.8 M.
22.10 Working Capital

Working capital is defined as the highest deficit between revenue and costs that is encountered
during the initial operating period.
For the initial construction, the largest deficit of funds is expected to occur in week two, in the
amount of $1.7 M. This working capital investment was reflected in the cash flow model in Year
-1, with recovery at the end of mine life in Year 25. For the expansion project, the largest deficit
of funds is estimated to occur in week three, in the amount of $2.3 M. This working capital
investment was reflected in the cash flow model in Year 6, with recovery at the end of mine life in
Year 25. Working capital costs may seem low because first fills and spare parts are not included
in working capital. They are included in other areas of the capital cost estimates.
22.11 Employment Severance Costs

The cash flow model accounts for employment severance costs that are predominantly incurred
at the end of the Project in Year 25. The costs are estimated based on Ecuadorian employment
practices. The total cost $37.9 M over the life of the project. Of this amount, $37.7 M is estimated
in Year 25.
22.12 Equipment Salvage Value

The process and mining equipment retains some market value at the end of the mine life. For
process equipment, experience with similar projects indicates a salvage value of 10% of the
original $253 M equipment cost or $25.3 M. The value of salvageable mining equipment at the
end of the project is estimated to be $15.4 M, resulting in an estimated total salvage value of
$40.7 M that is applied to the cash flow in Year 25 and applied to offset some of the closure costs.

Ecuador
22.13 Cash Flow Projections

The base case analysis for this Study estimates that payback of the initial capital investment
occurs early in the sixth year of the mine life (i.e., approximately 5.1 years after initial production).
The expansion capital payback is estimated to occur 3.1 years after the initial expansion
production commences.
The base case financial model was developed from information described in this section. Based
upon this information, the Cangrejos Project is estimated to have an after-tax IRR of 16.2%.
Assuming a discount rate of five percent over an estimated mine life of 24.7 years, the after-tax
NPV is estimated to be approximately $1,571 M.
22.14 Sensitivity Analysis

The results presented in the Cash Flow Projections Section reflect the Cangrejos Project results
using base case conditions as outlined in the assumptions. Since actual conditions are
anticipated to vary from base case assumptions, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed
to evaluate the financial results for the Project for a range of conditions.
The base case discounted cash flow model was evaluated for its sensitivity to the change in
selected inputs. The following inputs were evaluated at base case plus or minus 10% and 20%:
metals prices, capital expenses, metal feed grades, and overall operating cost. The project’s
sensitivity to metallurgical recovery was evaluated by varying recovery by plus or minus two and
four percentage points. The Project’s sensitivity to the discount rate was also evaluated by setting
the discount rate at three, five, seven, and nine percent. The base-case NPVs at the other
discount rates are presented in Table 22-3. The same data is shown graphically in Figure 22-1.
TABLE 22-3: AFTER-TAX NPV AT VARIOUS DISCOUNT RATES
Discount Rate NPV (US$ M)

3% 2,272
5% 1,571
7% 1,068
9% 702

Ecuador
2,500,000
2,000,000
NPV ($ 000)
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 9.0%
Discount Rate
FIGURE 22-1: AFTER-TAX NPV SENSITIVITY AT VARIOUS DISCOUNT RATES

Table 22-4 reflects the sensitivities for IRR and NPV in 10% increments of negative and positive
deviation from the base case for the basket of metal prices. The data is shown graphically in
Figure 22-2.
TABLE 22-4: METAL PRICE SENSITIVITY
Metals Prices Gold/oz Silver/oz Copper/lb Moly/lb IRR NPV (5%) $M

80% $ 1,120 $ 12.80 $ 2.20 $ 7.20 8.7% $ 451
90% $ 1,260 $ 14.40 $ 2.48 $ 8.10 12.8% $ 1,023
100% $ 1,400 $ 16.00 $ 2.75 $ 9.00 16.2% $ 1,571
110% $ 1,540 $ 17.60 $ 3.03 $ 9.90 19.1% $ 2,106
120% $ 1,680 $ 19.20 $ 3.30 $ 0.80 21.7% $ 2,519
25.0% 3,000,000
2,500,000
20.0%
2,000,000
NPV ($000)
15.0%
IRR (%)
1,500,000
10.0%
1,000,000
5.0%
500,000
0.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Metals Prices Multiple
IRR NPV
FIGURE 22-2: METAL PRICE SENSITIVITY

Ecuador
The operating cost and capital cost sensitivity analyses are presented in Tables 22-5 and 22-6
and shown graphically in Figure 22-3. From the data, it appears that the Project is more sensitive
to operating costs than to capital costs.
TABLE 22-5: OPERATING COST SENSITIVITY
OPEX $/t
Operating Cost IRR NPV (5%) $M
processed
80% $ 9.05 18.8% $ 2,059
90% $ 10.18 17.6% $ 1,818
100% $ 11.31 16.2% $ 1,571
110% $ 12.44 14.7% $ 1,322
120% $ 13.57 13.1% $ 1,071
TABLE 22-6: INITIAL PLUS EXPANSION CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY 6
Capital Cost CAPEX $M IRR NPV (5%) $M

80% $ 1,043 19.5% $ 1,749
90% $ 1,173 17.7% $ 1,662
100% $ 1,304 16.2% $ 1,571
110% $ 1,434 14.9% $ 1,479
120% $ 1,564 13.7% $ 1,384
20.0% 2,500,000
19.0%
18.0% 2,000,000
17.0%
NPV ($ 000)
16.0% 1,500,000
IRR (%)
15.0%
14.0% 1,000,000
13.0%
12.0% 500,000
11.0%
10.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Percent of Nominal
OPEX IRR CAPEX IRR OPEX NPV CAPEX NPV
FIGURE 22-3: CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Variances in metallurgical recovery for the four metals are shown in Table 22-7 in two percent
increments with gold recovery as a reference. The data is shown graphically in Figure 22-4.
6Initial and expansion capital costs reported in Table 22-6 do not include spare parts or initial fills.
Therefore, they do not match the costs shown in Table 22-2.

Ecuador
TABLE 22-7: METAL RECOVERY SENSITIVITY

NPV (5%)
Metals Recovery Gold Recovery IRR
(US$ M)
96% 78% 14.9% $ 1,356
98% 80% 15.6% $ 1,463
100% 82% 16.2% $ 1,571
102% 83% 16.8% $ 1,678
104% 85% 17.4% $ 1,785
18.0% 2,000,000
17.5% 1,800,000
17.0% 1,600,000
1,400,000
16.5%
NPV ($000)
1,200,000
IRR (%)
16.0%
1,000,000
15.5%
800,000
15.0%
600,000
14.5% 400,000
14.0% 200,000
13.5% -
96% 98% 100% 102% 104%
Metals Recovery Multiple
IRR NPV
FIGURE 22-4: METAL RECOVERY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Variances in metal grade are shown in Table 22-8 in ten percent increments with gold grade as a
reference. The data is shown graphically in Figure 22-5.
TABLE 22-8: VARIATION IN GOLD GRADE
Gold Grade
Metals Grade (g/t) After Tax IRR NPV (5%) $M
Reference
80% 0.4445 8.8% $ 461
90% 0.5001 12.8% $ 1,028
100% 0.5557 16.2% $ 1,571
10% 0.6112 19.1% $ 2,102
20% 0.6668 21.6% $ 2,513

Ecuador
25.0% 3,000,000
2,500,000
20.0%
2,000,000
NPV ($000)
15.0%
IRR (%)
1,500,000
10.0%
1,000,000
5.0%
500,000
0.0% -
80% 90% 100% 110% 120%
Grade Multiple
FIGURE 22-5: METAL GRADE SENSITIVITY

Table 22-9 presents the summary cash flow model.

Ecuador
TABLE 22-9: CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

Inputs Units Average Total/LOM Preproduction
Year -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Material Mined ktonnes 54,464 1,368,363 6,751 23,974 46,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 57,829 61,267 62,457 60,831 61,794 62,811 54,974 50,117 45,351 53,354 37,916 35,545 38,158 24,234
Mill Feed ktonnes 25,564 640,254 1,163 9,057 14,600 14,600 14,600 14,600 26,280 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 29,200 19,754
Saprolite Material Processed ktonnes 171 4,265 - 675 10 119 177 4 8 383 195 376 423 177 131 621 128 15 - - 1 1 106 274 328 113 - -
Saprock Material Processed ktonnes 390 9,751 - 1,897 134 186 573 26 84 1,185 265 688 507 230 173 1,042 951 322 - - 6 8 219 654 360 241 - -
Partially Oxidized Material Processed ktonnes 876 21,890 - 2,727 1,116 580 1,118 329 276 1,742 582 1,130 2,031 1,126 88 726 863 1,393 112 - 9 265 1,695 1,472 1,556 940 14 -
Fresh Rock Material Processed ktonnes 24,174 604,351 - 4,920 13,341 13,715 12,731 14,242 25,913 25,890 28,158 27,007 26,239 27,668 28,808 26,811 27,259 27,470 29,088 29,200 29,183 28,925 27,180 26,801 26,956 27,906 29,186 19,754
CuAu Concentrate Produced dry tonnes 132,314 3,307,859 45,515 98,543 108,951 70,341 82,800 169,033 162,272 124,657 146,339 145,654 166,013 183,741 124,766 127,161 166,728 149,858 133,263 148,698 195,210 180,259 132,534 128,523 114,252 116,249 86,499
Dore Produced tonnes 4.329 108.2 7.661 2.753 3.094 4.039 1.706 3.831 9.024 5.177 6.339 5.148 4.180 4.645 5.624 4.900 4.642 3.747 3.169 3.781 4.317 4.926 4.670 3.880 2.790 2.333 1.849
Molybdenum Concentrate Produced dry tonnes 564 14,109 201 529 332 335 498 784 600 663 828 738 637 545 492 651 670 583 487 584 904 678 466 479 544 552 329
GROSS REVENUE
Market Price Price
Gold 1400 $/toz $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400 $ 1,400
Silver 16.00 $/toz $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00
Copper 2.75 $/lb $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.75
Molybdenum 9.00 $/lb $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00
Contained Metals in Plant Feed
All Material Types Combined
Gold koz 458 11,438 269 401 352 337 318 573 602 594 611 514 493 630 447 484 511 487 405 495 555 562 425 388 339 337 311
Silver koz 554 13,848 415 344 398 316 189 515 834 766 713 528 581 667 620 603 756 657 563 658 757 779 673 499 387 376 254
Copper Cu klb 58,796 1,469,909 31,943 51,228 53,327 34,622 38,701 80,713 78,579 51,169 69,847 69,861 75,823 83,034 49,920 56,227 68,598 57,839 51,500 64,350 89,520 81,039 56,881 50,510 44,777 45,059 34,840
Molybdenum Mo klb 1,126 28,156 436 1050 661 669 988 1557 1203 1321 1660 1483 1273 1083 983 1297 1332 1157 966 1159 1793 1349 940 961 1085 1094 653
Saprolite Ore
Gold koz 3 79 19 0 3 4 0 0 8 4 7 8 3 2 9 2 0 - - 0 0 1 4 4 1 - -
Silver koz 12 292 59 1 5 17 0 1 39 11 30 30 11 7 32 6 1 - - 0 0 6 12 19 5 - -
Copper Cu klb 281 7,032 1,786 35 236 273 11 14 507 258 746 746 234 144 685 141 20 - - 1 1 187 423 434 149 - -
Molybdenum Mo klb 2 54 10 0 1 1 0 0 3 2 6 8 4 1 3 1 0 - - 0 0 2 5 5 2 - -
Saprock Ore
Gold koz 8 190 55 3 5 14 1 2 24 5 13 10 4 3 14 13 5 - - 0 0 3 9 4 3 - -
Silver koz 29 731 141 7 20 63 1 11 156 17 53 37 15 10 57 49 18 - - 0 1 13 29 22 11 - -
Copper Cu klb 684 17,110 5,365 443 410 1,011 69 111 1,567 351 1,365 1,006 406 229 1,149 1,048 426 - - 4 9 338 1,009 476 319 - -
Molybdenum Mo klb 4 108 27 1 2 4 0 1 8 2 12 10 5 1 5 4 1 - - 0 0 3 10 6 4 - -
Partially Oxidized Rock Ore
Gold koz 16 397 72 28 13 26 6 6 36 11 21 43 20 1 10 11 18 1 - 0 2 26 18 18 10 0 -
Silver koz 21 533 73 36 21 32 5 4 56 13 22 39 22 2 14 22 31 2 - 0 13 60 28 25 12 0 -
Copper Cu klb 1,664 41,602 8,752 3,691 1,279 2,465 943 608 2,304 898 2,242 4,478 1,986 97 800 951 1,536 123 - 8 234 2,616 2,272 2,058 1,243 19 -
Molybdenum Mo klb 32 798 143 49 23 47 15 14 50 13 35 76 45 2 30 30 58 3 - 0 8 26 39 58 33 1 -
Fresh Rock Ore
Gold koz 431 10,772 123 368 331 292 312 566 534 575 570 453 466 624 414 457 488 485 405 494 552 531 396 361 326 337 311
Silver koz 492 12,293 142 300 353 205 183 500 583 724 608 422 534 648 517 526 707 655 563 657 744 699 603 433 359 375 254
Copper Cu klb 56,167 1,404,165 16,041 47,059 51,402 30,874 37,678 79,980 74,201 49,662 65,494 63,632 73,197 82,564 47,286 54,086 66,617 57,715 51,500 64,337 89,276 77,898 53,177 47,542 43,065 45,041 34,840
Molybdenum Mo klb 1,088 27,197 256 1,000 635 617 973 1,542 1,142 1,304 1,608 1,388 1,220 1,080 946 1,262 1,272 1,154 966 1,158 1,786 1,318 886 891 1,046 1,094 653
Products Recovery
Saprolite Material
Dore Gold 75% koz 2 59 14.12 0.18 2.16 3.20 0.09 0.14 5.83 2.71 5.42 5.85 1.94 1.24 6.69 1.42 0 - - 0 0.01 1.11 2.76 3.09 0.98 - -
Dore Silver 65% koz 8 190 38.56 0.38 2.98 10.73 0.04 0.60 25.61 7.34 19.64 19.45 7.03 4.38 20.76 3.74 0 - - 0 0.04 3.99 8.02 12.34 3.54 - -
CuAu Concentrate Gold 0% koz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CuAu Concentrate Silver 0% koz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CuAu Concentrate Copper 0% Cu klb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molybdenum Concentrate Molybdenum 0% Mo klb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saprock Material
Dore Gold 75% koz 6 143 41.48 2.62 3.47 10.51 0.43 1.19 18.23 3.66 10.00 7.64 2.89 2.06 10.75 9.98 3 - - 0 0.06 2.36 6.53 3.22 2.06 - -
Dore Silver 65% koz 19 475 91.72 4.76 12.83 40.71 0.33 7.02 101.53 11.08 34.51 24.37 9.61 6.51 37.02 31.80 11 - - 0 0.33 8.70 19.13 14.29 7.05 - -
CuAu Concentrate Gold 0% koz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CuAu Concentrate Silver 0% koz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CuAu Concentrate Copper 0% Cu klb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Molybdenum Concentrate Molybdenum 0% Mo klb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Partially Oxidized Rock Material
Dore Gold 20% koz 3 79 14.34 5.68 2.62 5.29 1.19 1.15 7.12 2.13 4.12 8.51 4.05 0.22 2.06 2.19 3.64 0 - 0 0.50 5.26 3.50 3.59 1.93 0.03 -
Dore Silver 10% koz 2 53 7.27 3.59 2.05 3.24 0.53 0.35 5.60 1.31 2.18 3.92 2.17 0.23 1.40 2.22 3.14 0 - 0 1.28 5.99 2.84 2.50 1.21 0.02 -
CuAu Concentrate Gold 60% koz 10 238 43.02 17.05 7.85 15.87 3.57 3.44 21.37 6.39 12.36 25.54 12.14 0.65 6.19 6.56 10.91 1 - 0 1.50 15.79 10.51 10.78 5.78 0.08 -
CuAu Concentrate Silver 50% koz 11 266 36.36 17.94 10.26 16.18 2.64 1.77 28.00 6.55 10.90 19.59 10.86 1.13 7.00 11.10 15.68 1 - 0 6.39 29.97 14.20 12.51 6.04 0.09 -
CuAu Concentrate Copper 50% Cu klb 832 20,801 4,376.06 1,845.27 639.34 1,232.38 471.46 304.24 1,152.13 449.08 1,121.05 2,238.79 992.96 48.50 400.14 475.65 767.76 62 - 4 116.84 1,307.89 1,135.82 1,029.12 621.70 9.26 -
Molybdenum Concentrate Molybdenum 50% Mo klb 16 399 71.51 24.60 11.51 23.42 7.25 7.00 24.96 6.42 17.44 38.06 22.34 1.07 15.21 15.22 29.17 1 - 0 3.80 13.08 19.47 29.16 16.58 0.28 -
Fresh Rock Material
Dore Gold 10% koz 43 1,077 12.30 36.84 33.12 29.22 31.18 56.57 53.44 57.49 56.96 45.30 46.61 62.43 41.38 45.75 48.84 48.54 40.46 49.45 55.24 53.13 39.55 36.14 32.57 33.69 31.06
Dore Silver 10% koz 49 1,229 14.17 30.02 35.28 20.47 18.32 49.99 58.27 72.42 60.78 42.18 53.37 64.83 51.72 52.58 70.65 65.46 56.33 65.68 74.40 69.91 60.32 43.33 35.89 37.53 25.40
CuAu Concentrate Gold 72% koz 310 7,756 88.54 265.28 238.43 210.42 224.51 407.30 384.76 413.90 410.11 326.17 335.61 449.47 297.90 329.38 351.65 349.47 291.33 356.01 397.73 382.54 284.77 260.20 234.49 242.54 223.61
CuAu Concentrate Silver 60% koz 295 7,376 85.02 180.15 211.65 122.79 109.89 299.92 349.60 434.54 364.68 253.08 320.24 389.00 310.32 315.50 423.93 392.78 337.97 394.07 446.38 419.45 361.90 260.00 215.33 225.20 152.43
CuAu Concentrate Copper 86% Cu klb 48,303 1,207,582 13,795.10 40,470.69 44,205.56 26,551.40 32,402.94 68,782.49 63,812.77 42,709.45 56,325.00 54,723.28 62,949.34 71,004.95 40,666.35 46,514.10 57,290.62 49,635.06 44,289.93 55,330.19 76,777.43 66,992.32 45,732.58 40,886.28 37,036.32 38,735.11 29,962.44
Molybdenum Concentrate Molybdenum 50% Mo klb 544 13,598 127.87 500.00 317.48 308.74 486.67 771.23 570.78 651.82 803.79 694.16 609.97 539.84 472.86 631.01 635.89 577.15 482.81 579.04 892.76 659.14 443.15 445.71 522.94 546.92 326.63
Payable Metals by Product Payable
Dore Gold 99.95% koz 54 1,358 82 45 41 48 33 59 85 66 76 67 55 66 61 59 56 49 40 49 56 62 52 46 38 34 31
Dore Silver 99.50% koz 77 1,937 151 39 53 75 19 58 190 92 117 89 72 76 110 90 85 65 56 66 76 88 90 72 47 37 25
CuAu Concentrate Gold 97.50% koz 312 7,794 128 275 240 221 222 400 396 410 412 343 339 439 296 328 353 341 284 347 389 388 288 264 234 237 218
CuAu Concentrate Silver 97.00% koz 297 7,413 118 192 215 135 109 293 366 428 364 264 321 378 308 317 426 382 328 382 439 436 365 264 215 219 148
CuAu Concentrate Copper 93.48% Cu klb 45,931 1,148,268 16,986 39,556 41,920 25,972 30,730 64,581 60,728 40,344 53,699 53,247 59,772 66,419 38,388 43,925 54,272 46,456 41,401 51,725 71,879 63,846 43,812 39,182 35,202 36,217 28,008
Molybdenum Concentrate 95.50% Mo klb 535 13,368 190 501 314 317 472 743 569 629 784 699 604 517 466 617 635 552 461 553 856 642 442 453 515 523 312
Total Payable Metals
Gold koz 366.1 9,152 210 321 281 269 255 459 481 476 488 410 395 505 357 387 410 390 324 397 445 450 340 310 272 270 249
Silver koz 374.0 9,351 269 231 268 210 128 350 556 520 481 354 393 454 418 407 512 447 384 448 515 524 455 336 262 256 173
Copper Cu klb 45,930.7 1,148,268 16,986 39,556 41,920 25,972 30,730 64,581 60,728 40,344 53,699 53,247 59,772 66,419 38,388 43,925 54,272 46,456 41,401 51,725 71,879 63,846 43,812 39,182 35,202 36,217 28,008
Molybdenum Mo klb 534.7 13,368 190 501 314 317 472 743 569 629 784 699 604 517 466 617 635 552 461 553 856 642 442 453 515 523 312
Metal Revenues
Gold $ (000) 512,515 12,812,881 $ 294,664 $ 448,800 $ 394,055 $ 376,378 $ 357,370 $ 643,287 $ 672,780 $ 666,038 $ 683,729 $ 574,281 $ 552,327 $ 706,674 $ 500,288 $ 541,583 $ 573,383 $ 546,185 $ 454,283 $ 555,306 $ 623,029 $ 630,291 $ 476,290 $ 434,318 $ 380,499 $ 378,362 $ 348,682
Silver $ (000) 5,984 149,608 $ 4,299 $ 3,691 $ 4,290 $ 3,353 $ 2,052 $ 5,605 $ 8,901 $ 8,313 $ 7,693 $ 5,663 $ 6,288 $ 7,264 $ 6,690 $ 6,507 $ 8,187 $ 7,158 $ 6,142 $ 7,169 $ 8,238 $ 8,385 $ 7,275 $ 5,383 $ 4,195 $ 4,094 $ 2,770
Copper $ (000) 126,309 3,157,736 $ 46,712 $ 108,779 $ 115,280 $ 71,422 $ 84,508 $ 177,597 $ 167,002 $ 110,945 $ 147,673 $ 146,429 $ 164,373 $ 182,653 $ 105,567 $ 120,794 $ 149,247 $ 127,753 $ 113,854 $ 142,244 $ 197,668 $ 175,576 $ 120,482 $ 107,750 $ 96,805 $ 99,598 $ 77,023
Molybdenum $ (000) 4,812 120,308 $ 1,714 $ 4,509 $ 2,828 $ 2,855 $ 4,245 $ 6,689 $ 5,120 $ 5,657 $ 7,058 $ 6,293 $ 5,435 $ 4,649 $ 4,195 $ 5,554 $ 5,716 $ 4,972 $ 4,150 $ 4,978 $ 7,706 $ 5,778 $ 3,976 $ 4,081 $ 4,637 $ 4,703 $ 2,807
Gross Revenue $ (000) 649,621 16,240,533 $ 347,388 $ 565,779 $ 516,453 $ 454,008 $ 448,176 $ 833,178 $ 853,804 $ 790,954 $ 846,154 $ 732,667 $ 728,423 $ 901,240 $ 616,741 $ 674,439 $ 736,534 $ 686,068 $ 578,428 $ 709,698 $ 836,641 $ 820,029 $ 608,023 $ 551,532 $ 486,137 $ 486,758 $ 431,283

Ecuador
NSR
Product Freight & Insurance- Ecuador & Intl Moisture
CuAu Concentrate 9% wet tonnes 145,400 3,635,010 50,016.9 108,288.5 119,726.2 77,297.7 90,989.0 185,750.9 178,321.2 136,985.6 160,812.5 160,059.7 182,431.8 201,912.6 137,105.2 139,737.8 183,217.6 164,679.4 146,442.5 163,403.9 214,516.2 198,086.9 145,642.2 141,233.8 125,551.6 127,745.8 95,054.1
Dore 0% dry tonnes 4 108 7.66 2.75 3.09 4.04 1.71 3.83 9.02 5.18 6.34 5.15 4.18 4.65 5.62 4.90 4.64 3.75 3.17 3.78 4.32 4.93 4.67 3.88 2.79 2.33 1.85
Molybdenum Concentrate 0% dry tonnes 564 14,109 200.99 528.79 331.62 334.80 497.87 784.44 600.50 663.49 827.79 738.07 637.36 545.23 491.97 651.39 670.37 583.13 486.67 583.82 903.72 677.58 466.31 478.66 543.82 551.57 329.23
Ecuador Transportation
CuAu Concentrate ($/wmt) $ 9.60 $ (000) (1,396) (34,896) (480) (1,040) (1,149) (742) (873) (1,783) (1,712) (1,315) (1,544) (1,537) (1,751) (1,938) (1,316) (1,341) (1,759) (1,581) (1,406) (1,569) (2,059) (1,902) (1,398) (1,356) (1,205) (1,226) (913)
Molybdenum Concentrate ($/dmt) $ 42.86 $ (000) (24) (605) (9) (23) (14) (14) (21) (34) (26) (28) (35) (32) (27) (23) (21) (28) (29) (25) (21) (25) (39) (29) (20) (21) (23) (24) (14)
Port Handling Charges
CuAu Concentrate ($/wmt) $ 23.79 $ (000) (3,459) (86,477) (1,190) (2,576) (2,848) (1,839) (2,165) (4,419) (4,242) (3,259) (3,826) (3,808) (4,340) (4,804) (3,262) (3,324) (4,359) (3,918) (3,484) (3,887) (5,103) (4,712) (3,465) (3,360) (2,987) (3,039) (2,261)
International Freight
CuAu Concentrate ($/wmt) $ 35.00 $ (000) (5,089) (127,225) (1,751) (3,790) (4,190) (2,705) (3,185) (6,501) (6,241) (4,794) (5,628) (5,602) (6,385) (7,067) (4,799) (4,891) (6,413) (5,764) (5,125) (5,719) (7,508) (6,933) (5,097) (4,943) (4,394) (4,471) (3,327)
Dore ($/oz dore) $ 3.53 $ (000) (492) (12,297) (870) (313) (352) (459) (194) (435) (1,025) (588) (720) (585) (475) (528) (639) (557) (527) (426) (360) (430) (491) (560) (531) (441) (317) (265) (210)
Sub-Total: Freight Cost $ (000) (10,480) (262,005) (4,307) (7,760) (8,566) (5,772) (6,456) (13,201) (13,268) (10,009) (11,783) (11,589) (13,002) (14,380) (10,054) (10,165) (13,110) (11,734) (10,414) (11,651) (15,232) (14,160) (10,528) (10,137) (8,946) (9,045) (6,737)
Treatment and Refining Charges
CuAu Concentrate Gold RC ($/oz Au) $ 7.50 $ (000) (2,338) (58,458) $ (962) $ (2,065) $ (1,801) $ (1,655) $ (1,668) $ (3,004) $ (2,970) $ (3,073) $ (3,089) $ (2,572) $ (2,543) $ (3,291) $ (2,224) $ (2,457) $ (2,651) $ (2,560) $ (2,130) $ (2,604) $ (2,919) $ (2,913) $ (2,159) $ (1,982) $ (1,757) $ (1,774) $ (1,635)
CuAu Concentrate Silver RC ( $/oz Ag) $ 0.65 $ (000) (193) (4,818) $ (77) $ (125) $ (140) $ (88) $ (71) $ (190) $ (238) $ (278) $ (237) $ (172) $ (209) $ (246) $ (200) $ (206) $ (277) $ (248) $ (213) $ (249) $ (285) $ (283) $ (237) $ (172) $ (140) $ (142) $ (96)
CuAu Concentrate Copper RC ($/lb Cu) $ 0.07 $ (000) (3,215) (80,379) $ (1,189) $ (2,769) $ (2,934) $ (1,818) $ (2,151) $ (4,521) $ (4,251) $ (2,824) $ (3,759) $ (3,727) $ (4,184) $ (4,649) $ (2,687) $ (3,075) $ (3,799) $ (3,252) $ (2,898) $ (3,621) $ (5,032) $ (4,469) $ (3,067) $ (2,743) $ (2,464) $ (2,535) $ (1,961)
CuAu Concentrate TC ($/wmt) $ 70.00 $ (000) (10,178) (254,451) $ (3,501) $ (7,580) $ (8,381) $ (5,411) $ (6,369) $ (13,003) $ (12,482) $ (9,589) $ (11,257) $ (11,204) $ (12,770) $ (14,134) $ (9,597) $ (9,782) $ (12,825) $ (11,528) $ (10,251) $ (11,438) $ (15,016) $ (13,866) $ (10,195) $ (9,886) $ (8,789) $ (8,942) $ (6,654)
Molybdenum Concentrate RC ($/dmt) $ 2,976.24 $ (000) (1,680) (41,992) $ (598) $ (1,574) $ (987) $ (996) $ (1,482) $ (2,335) $ (1,787) $ (1,975) $ (2,464) $ (2,197) $ (1,897) $ (1,623) $ (1,464) $ (1,939) $ (1,995) $ (1,736) $ (1,448) $ (1,738) $ (2,690) $ (2,017) $ (1,388) $ (1,425) $ (1,619) $ (1,642) $ (980)
Dore Treatment Cost ($/oz dore) $ 0.30 $ (000) (42) (1,044) $ (74) $ (27) $ (30) $ (39) $ (16) $ (37) $ (87) $ (50) $ (61) $ (50) $ (40) $ (45) $ (54) $ (47) $ (45) $ (36) $ (31) $ (36) $ (42) $ (48) $ (45) $ (37) $ (27) $ (23) $ (18)
Sub-Total: Concentrate Treatment and Refining Charges $ (000) (17,646) $ (441,142) $ (6,401) $ (14,139) $ (14,273) $ (10,007) $ (11,757) $ (23,089) $ (21,816) $ (17,789) $ (20,867) $ (19,922) $ (21,643) $ (23,988) $ (16,227) $ (17,505) $ (21,593) $ (19,360) $ (16,972) $ (19,685) $ (25,984) $ (23,596) $ (17,091) $ (16,244) $ (14,795) $ (15,058) $ (11,343)
1 Total Transportation, Treatment and Refining Charges $ (000) (28,126) $ (703,147) $ (10,708) $ (21,899) $ (22,839) $ (15,778) $ (18,213) $ (36,289) $ (35,084) $ (27,798) $ (32,650) $ (31,511) $ (34,645) $ (38,368) $ (26,281) $ (27,670) $ (34,703) $ (31,094) $ (27,385) $ (31,336) $ (41,216) $ (37,756) $ (27,619) $ (26,382) $ (23,741) $ (24,103) $ (18,080)
NSR $ (000) 621,495 $ 15,537,387 $ 336,680 $ 543,880 $ 493,615 $ 438,230 $ 429,963 $ 796,889 $ 818,720 $ 763,156 $ 813,504 $ 701,156 $ 693,778 $ 862,872 $ 590,459 $ 646,769 $ 701,831 $ 654,974 $ 551,043 $ 678,362 $ 795,425 $ 782,273 $ 580,404 $ 525,150 $ 462,396 $ 462,655 $ 413,203
ROYALTY
Ecuador Royalty on NSR 3% $ (000) (18,645) $ (466,122) $ (10,100) $ (16,316) $ (14,808) $ (13,147) $ (12,899) $ (23,907) $ (24,562) $ (22,895) $ (24,405) $ (21,035) $ (20,813) $ (25,886) $ (17,714) $ (19,403) $ (21,055) $ (19,649) $ (16,531) $ (20,351) $ (23,863) $ (23,468) $ (17,412) $ (15,754) $ (13,872) $ (13,880) $ (12,396)
Gross Income from Mining $ (000) 602,851 $ 15,071,265 $ 326,580 $ 527,564 $ 478,806 $ 425,083 $ 417,064 $ 772,982 $ 794,159 $ 740,261 $ 789,099 $ 680,121 $ 672,965 $ 836,986 $ 572,746 $ 627,366 $ 680,776 $ 635,325 $ 534,512 $ 658,011 $ 771,562 $ 758,805 $ 562,992 $ 509,395 $ 448,524 $ 448,775 $ 400,807
OPERATING MARGIN
Operating Cost
Mining $ (000) (102,208) $ (2,555,198) $ (61,055) $ (99,553) $ (132,447) $ (120,913) $ (116,072) $ (128,625) $ (129,799) $ (127,055) $ (122,720) $ (123,431) $ (120,575) $ (104,139) $ (101,088) $ (103,880) $ (106,217) $ (108,431) $ (114,424) $ (105,900) $ (102,985) $ (95,845) $ (99,866) $ (64,905) $ (57,844) $ (62,529) $ (44,899)
Processing $ (000) (161,575) $ (4,039,370) $ (70,572) $ (94,069) $ (94,067) $ (94,069) $ (94,069) $ (167,397) $ (183,557) $ (183,557) $ (183,559) $ (183,555) $ (183,556) $ (183,560) $ (183,555) $ (183,555) $ (183,555) $ (183,554) $ (183,554) $ (183,554) $ (183,554) $ (183,554) $ (183,553) $ (183,553) $ (183,555) $ (183,552) $ (121,136)
Dry Stack Tailings $ (000) (5,917) $ (147,914) $ (3,557) $ (3,852) $ (4,160) $ (4,279) $ (4,172) $ (5,478) $ (5,630) $ (5,691) $ (5,999) $ (5,997) $ (5,997) $ (5,997) $ (6,318) $ (6,370) $ (6,427) $ (6,318) $ (6,318) $ (6,318) $ (6,639) $ (6,639) $ (6,959) $ (6,959) $ (7,280) $ (7,280) $ (7,280)
G&A $ (000) (20,011) $ (500,275) $ (17,939) $ (18,542) $ (19,058) $ (19,069) $ (19,255) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,664) $ (20,560) $ (20,609) $ (20,609) $ (14,014)
1 Total Annual Operating Cost $ (000) (289,710) $ (7,242,758) $ (153,124) $ (216,017) $ (249,733) $ (238,330) $ (233,568) $ (322,164) $ (339,649) $ (336,967) $ (332,942) $ (333,647) $ (330,792) $ (314,361) $ (311,625) $ (314,469) $ (316,863) $ (318,967) $ (324,960) $ (316,436) $ (313,841) $ (306,701) $ (311,042) $ (275,977) $ (269,287) $ (273,969) $ (187,329)
Unit Operating Costs
Mining $/tonne mined $ (1.88) $ 2.55 $ 2.16 $ 2.04 $ 1.86 $ 1.79 $ 1.98 $ 2.00 $ 1.95 $ 1.89 $ 1.90 $ 1.85 $ 1.80 $ 1.65 $ 1.66 $ 1.75 $ 1.75 $ 1.82 $ 1.93 $ 2.05 $ 2.11 $ 1.87 $ 1.71 $ 1.63 $ 1.64 $ 1.85
Mining $/ore-tonne $ (3.99) $ 5.97 $ 6.82 $ 9.07 $ 8.28 $ 7.95 $ 4.89 $ 4.45 $ 4.35 $ 4.20 $ 4.23 $ 4.13 $ 3.57 $ 3.46 $ 3.56 $ 3.64 $ 3.71 $ 3.92 $ 3.63 $ 3.53 $ 3.28 $ 3.42 $ 2.22 $ 1.98 $ 2.14 $ 2.27
Processing $/ore-tonne $ (6.31) $ 6.91 $ 6.44 $ 6.44 $ 6.44 $ 6.44 $ 6.37 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.29 $ 6.13
Dry Stack Tailings $/ore-tonne $ (0.23) $ 0.35 $ 0.26 $ 0.28 $ 0.29 $ 0.29 $ 0.21 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.21 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.22 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.25 $ 0.37
G&A $/ore-tonne $ (0.78) $ 1.76 $ 1.27 $ 1.31 $ 1.31 $ 1.32 $ 0.79 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.70 $ 0.71 $ 0.71 $ 0.71
Total Annual Unit Operating Cost $/ore-tonne $ (11.31) $ 14.98 $ 14.79 $ 17.10 $ 16.33 $ 16.00 $ 12.26 $ 11.63 $ 11.54 $ 11.40 $ 11.43 $ 11.33 $ 10.77 $ 10.67 $ 10.77 $ 10.85 $ 10.92 $ 11.13 $ 10.84 $ 10.75 $ 10.50 $ 10.65 $ 9.45 $ 9.22 $ 9.38 $ 9.48
Net Profit $ (000) $ 7,828,507 $ 173,456 $ 311,547 $ 229,074 $ 186,754 $ 183,496 $ 450,818 $ 454,509 $ 403,294 $ 456,157 $ 346,474 $ 342,173 $ 522,625 $ 261,121 $ 312,897 $ 363,913 $ 316,358 $ 209,552 $ 341,575 $ 457,721 $ 452,104 $ 251,950 $ 233,418 $ 179,237 $ 174,806 $ 213,477
PRE-TAX INCOME
Depreciation $ (000) (71,026) $ (1,775,640) $ (187,815) $ (202,732) $ (210,367) $ (210,625) $ (210,653) $ (43,159) $ (34,094) $ (29,663) $ (31,728) $ (32,915) $ (31,273) $ (31,223) $ (30,910) $ (32,192) $ (34,183) $ (38,279) $ (50,828) $ (54,932) $ (53,499) $ (51,568) $ (48,201) $ (36,235) $ (32,534) $ (32,450) $ (23,581)
Miscellaneous Taxes $ (000) (667) $ (18,675) $ (386) $ (738) $ (1,075) $ (1,058) $ (957) $ (700) $ (689) $ (676) $ (697) $ (684) $ (680) $ (678) $ (666) $ (653) $ (641) $ (637) $ (633) $ (628) $ (625) $ (643) $ (635) $ (610) $ (585) $ (563) $ (551) $ (541) $ (527) $ (519)
Adjusted Net Profit $ (000) 241,456 $ 6,034,192 $ (386) $ (738) $ (1,075) $ (15,417) $ 107,858 $ 18,006 $ (24,560) $ (27,833) $ 406,963 $ 419,731 $ 372,951 $ 423,751 $ 312,893 $ 310,248 $ 490,761 $ 229,574 $ 280,072 $ 329,102 $ 277,454 $ 158,081 $ 286,007 $ 403,613 $ 399,952 $ 203,185 $ 196,633 $ 146,162 $ 141,830 $ 189,377
Profit Sharing Tax 15% $ (000) (36,625) $ (915,630) $ - $ (16,179) $ (2,701) $ - $ - $ (61,044) $ (62,960) $ (55,943) $ (63,563) $ (46,934) $ (46,537) $ (73,614) $ (34,436) $ (42,011) $ (49,365) $ (41,618) $ (23,712) $ (42,901) $ (60,542) $ (59,993) $ (30,478) $ (29,495) $ (21,924) $ (21,274) $ (28,407)
Taxable Income Pre-Carry Forward Loss $ (000) 204,830 $ 5,120,761 $ (15,417) $ 91,679 $ 15,305 $ (24,560) $ (27,833) $ 345,918 $ 356,771 $ 317,008 $ 360,189 $ 265,959 $ 263,710 $ 417,146 $ 195,138 $ 238,061 $ 279,737 $ 235,836 $ 134,368 $ 243,106 $ 343,071 $ 339,959 $ 172,707 $ 167,138 $ 124,238 $ 120,555 $ 160,971
Carry Forward Loss Applied (25% of Current Year Income Max) $ (000) (2,837) $ (70,933) $ - $ (18,540) $ - $ - $ - $ (52,393) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Net Income Before Taxes $ (000) 201,993 $ 5,049,828 $ (15,417) $ 73,140 $ 15,305 $ (24,560) $ (27,833) $ 293,525 $ 356,771 $ 317,008 $ 360,189 $ 265,959 $ 263,710 $ 417,146 $ 195,138 $ 238,061 $ 279,737 $ 235,836 $ 134,368 $ 243,106 $ 343,071 $ 339,959 $ 172,707 $ 167,138 $ 124,238 $ 120,555 $ 160,971
Federal Income Taxes 22% $ (000) (45,035) $ (1,125,880) $ - $ (16,091) $ (3,367) $ - $ - $ (64,575) $ (78,490) $ (69,742) $ (79,241) $ (58,511) $ (58,016) $ (91,772) $ (42,930) $ (52,373) $ (61,542) $ (51,884) $ (29,561) $ (53,483) $ (75,476) $ (74,791) $ (37,996) $ (36,770) $ (27,332) $ (26,522) $ (35,414)
NET INCOME AFTER TAXES $ (000) $ 156,958 $ 3,921,748 $ (386) $ (738) $ (1,075) $ (15,417) $ 57,049 $ 11,938 $ (24,560) $ (27,833) $ 228,949 $ 278,282 $ 247,266 $ 280,947 $ 207,448 $ 205,694 $ 325,374 $ 152,207 $ 185,687 $ 218,195 $ 183,952 $ 104,807 $ 189,623 $ 267,595 $ 265,168 $ 134,712 $ 130,367 $ 96,905 $ 94,033 $ 125,557
Add-Back Depreciation $ (000) 71,026 $ 1,775,640 $ 187,815 $ 202,732 $ 210,367 $ 210,625 $ 210,653 $ 43,159 $ 34,094 $ 29,663 $ 31,728 $ 32,915 $ 31,273 $ 31,223 $ 30,910 $ 32,192 $ 34,183 $ 38,279 $ 50,828 $ 54,932 $ 53,499 $ 51,568 $ 48,201 $ 36,235 $ 32,534 $ 32,450 $ 23,581
Add-Back Carry Forward Loss $ (000) 2,837 $ 70,933 $ - $ 18,540 $ - $ - $ - $ 52,393 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS $ (000) $ 230,821 $ 5,768,321 $ (386) $ (738) $ (1,075) $ 172,398 $ 278,321 $ 222,305 $ 186,065 $ 182,820 $ 324,502 $ 312,376 $ 276,929 $ 312,675 $ 240,363 $ 236,967 $ 356,598 $ 183,118 $ 217,880 $ 252,378 $ 222,231 $ 155,636 $ 244,555 $ 321,094 $ 316,736 $ 182,913 $ 166,602 $ 129,439 $ 126,483 $ 149,138
Initial Capital less VAT $ (000) $ (898,265) $ (224,566) $ (314,393) $ (359,306)
Initial Spare Parts, Initial Fills $ (000) $ - $ (14,942) $ 14,942
Initial Working Capital $ (000) $ - $ (1,725) $ 1,725
VAT (IVA) Net Cash Flow 12% $ (000) $ - $ (12,789) $ (34,103) $ (38,366) $ 85,259 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1 Total Initial Capital $ (000) $ (898,265) $ (237,355) $ (348,496) $ (414,340) $ 85,259 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,667
Expansion Capital $ (000) $ (405,399) $ (182,429) $ (182,429) $ (40,540)
Expansion Spare Parts, Initial Fills $ (000) $ - $ (9,494) $ 9,494
Working Capital for Expansion $ (000) $ - $ (2,346) $ 2,346
1 Total Expansion Capital $ (000) $ (405,399) $ - $ - $ - $ (182,429) $ (191,923) $ (42,885) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,840
Sustaining Capital
Mine Equipment Replacement $ (000) $ (333,659) $ (14,376) $ (72,604) $ (37,010) $ (920) $ - $ (9,005) $ (2,365) $ (14,250) $ (7,438) $ (5,550) $ (3,015) $ (1,525) $ (12,031) $ (11,196) $ (14,216) $ (23,430) $ (64,271) $ (30,951) $ (1,675) $ (1,718) $ (1,675) $ (4,439) $ - $ - $ -
All Other Sustaining Capital $ (000) $ (111,167) $ (6,022) $ (15,330) $ (9,834) $ (3,031) $ (1,129) $ (15,483) $ (5,241) $ (605) $ (12,689) $ (1,215) $ - $ (3,676) $ (2,924) $ (5,257) $ (2,751) $ (123) $ (2,050) $ (2,724) $ (4,082) $ (3,110) $ (4,602) $ (2,050) $ (6,662) $ (502) $ (73)
1 Total Sustaining Capital $ (000) $ (444,826) $ (20,398) $ (87,934) $ (46,844) $ (3,951) $ (1,129) $ (24,488) $ (7,606) $ (14,855) $ (20,127) $ (6,765) $ (3,015) $ (5,201) $ (14,955) $ (16,453) $ (16,968) $ (23,553) $ (66,321) $ (33,675) $ (5,757) $ (4,829) $ (6,277) $ (6,489) $ (6,662) $ (502) $ (73)
Mine Closure and Reclamation $ 100,192 $ (000) $ (100,192) $ (100,192)
Severance $ 37,880 $ (000) $ (37,880) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (7) $ - $ (2) $ - $ - $ (113) $ (12) $ - $ - $ (37,744)
Equipment Salvage Value $ 40,656 $ (000) $ 40,656 $ 40,656
ANNUAL PRE-TAX CASH FLOW $ (000) $ 213,664 $ 5,982,601 $ (237,355) $ (348,496) $ (414,340) $ 238,317 $ 223,613 $ 182,229 $ 373 $ (9,557) $ 383,445 $ 446,903 $ 388,436 $ 436,030 $ 339,710 $ 339,158 $ 517,424 $ 246,166 $ 296,444 $ 346,946 $ 292,798 $ 143,231 $ 307,898 $ 451,964 $ 447,276 $ 245,561 $ 226,917 $ 172,575 $ 174,304 $ 144,631
CUMULATIVE PRE-TAX CASH FLOW $ (000) $ (237,355) $ (585,851) $ (1,000,191) $ (761,874) $ (538,261) $ (356,032) $ (355,659) $ (365,215) $ 18,229 $ 465,133 $ 853,569 $ 1,289,599 $ 1,629,308 $ 1,968,466 $ 2,485,891 $ 2,732,057 $ 3,028,500 $ 3,375,446 $ 3,668,245 $ 3,811,475 $ 4,119,373 $ 4,571,337 $ 5,018,613 $ 5,264,174 $ 5,491,090 $ 5,663,665 $ 5,837,969 $ 5,982,601
ANNUAL AFTER-TAX CASH FLOW PRE-SOVEREIGN ADJUSTMENT $ (000) $ 140,086 $ 3,922,415 $ (237,741) $ (349,235) $ (415,415) $ 237,259 $ 190,387 $ 175,461 $ (316) $ (10,232) $ 257,128 $ 304,770 $ 262,072 $ 292,547 $ 233,598 $ 233,952 $ 351,397 $ 168,163 $ 201,427 $ 235,410 $ 198,672 $ 89,315 $ 210,878 $ 315,337 $ 311,908 $ 176,524 $ 160,101 $ 122,777 $ 125,981 $ 80,292
CUMULATIVE AFTER-TAX CASH FLOW PRE-SOVEREIGN ADJUSTMENT $ (000) $ (237,741) $ (586,975) $ (1,002,390) $ (765,131) $ (574,745) $ (399,284) $ (399,600) $ (409,832) $ (152,704) $ 152,065 $ 414,137 $ 706,685 $ 940,283 $ 1,174,234 $ 1,525,631 $ 1,693,794 $ 1,895,221 $ 2,130,631 $ 2,329,303 $ 2,418,617 $ 2,629,495 $ 2,944,832 $ 3,256,740 $ 3,433,264 $ 3,593,365 $ 3,716,142 $ 3,842,123 $ 3,922,415
SOVEREIGN ADJUSTMENT, IF REQUIRED $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ANNUAL AFTER-TAX CASH FLOW POST-SOVEREIGN ADJUSTMENT $ (000) $ 3,922,415 $ (237,741) $ (349,235) $ (415,415) $ 237,259 $ 190,387 $ 175,461 $ (316) $ (10,232) $ 257,128 $ 304,770 $ 262,072 $ 292,547 $ 233,598 $ 233,952 $ 351,397 $ 168,163 $ 201,427 $ 235,410 $ 198,672 $ 89,315 $ 210,878 $ 315,337 $ 311,908 $ 176,524 $ 160,101 $ 122,777 $ 125,981 $ 80,292
CUMULATIVE AFTER-TAX CASH FLOW POST-SOVEREIGN ADJUSTMENT $ (000) $ (237,741) $ (586,975) $ (1,002,390) $ (765,131) $ (574,745) $ (399,284) $ (399,600) $ (409,832) $ (152,704) $ 152,065 $ 414,137 $ 706,685 $ 940,283 $ 1,174,234 $ 1,525,631 $ 1,693,794 $ 1,895,221 $ 2,130,631 $ 2,329,303 $ 2,418,617 $ 2,629,495 $ 2,944,832 $ 3,256,740 $ 3,433,264 $ 3,593,365 $ 3,716,142 $ 3,842,123 $ 3,922,415
CASH COSTS
NET CASH COST $/OZ $ 545 $ 528 $ 377 $ 534 $ 694 $ 695 $ 399 $ 430 $ 531 $ 465 $ 564 $ 538 $ 362 $ 679 $ 595 $ 523 $ 584 $ 763 $ 541 $ 362 $ 380 $ 668 $ 674 $ 776 $ 766 $ 556
ALL IN SUSTAINING NET CASH COST $/OZ $ 604 $ 625 $ 652 $ 700 $ 709 $ 699 $ 452 $ 446 $ 563 $ 506 $ 580 $ 546 $ 372 $ 720 $ 637 $ 565 $ 645 $ 967 $ 626 $ 375 $ 391 $ 687 $ 695 $ 800 $ 768 $ 947
CO-PRODUCT COSTS (GOLD EQ)
NET CASH CO-PRODUCT COST $/EQ-OZ $ 725 $ 660 $ 589 $ 739 $ 815 $ 837 $ 627 $ 636 $ 668 $ 644 $ 745 $ 746 $ 586 $ 815 $ 753 $ 717 $ 750 $ 900 $ 728 $ 627 $ 616 $ 827 $ 828 $ 911 $ 907 $ 718
ALL-IN SUSTAINING CO-PRODUCT COST $/EQ-OZ $ 772 $ 742 $ 806 $ 866 $ 827 $ 841 $ 668 $ 648 $ 695 $ 678 $ 758 $ 752 $ 594 $ 849 $ 788 $ 750 $ 799 $ 1,060 $ 794 $ 637 $ 625 $ 841 $ 845 $ 931 $ 909 $ 1,034
Initial Payback Year 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INITIAL CAPITAL AFTER TAX PAYBACK CALCULATIONS $ (237,741) $ (349,235) $ (415,415) $ 237,259 $ 190,387 $ 175,461 $ 182,113 $ 181,691 $ 300,013 $ 304,770 $ 262,072 $ 292,547 $ 233,598 $ 233,952 $ 351,397 $ 168,163 $ 201,427 $ 235,410 $ 198,672 $ 89,315 $ 210,878 $ 315,337 $ 311,908 $ 176,524 $ 160,101 $ 122,777 $ 125,981 $ 68,453
CUMULATIVE $ (237,741) $ (586,975) $ (1,002,390) $ (765,131) $ (574,745) $ (399,284) $ (217,170) $ (35,479) $ 264,534 $ 569,304 $ 831,375 $ 1,123,923 $ 1,357,521 $ 1,591,473 $ 1,942,869 $ 2,111,032 $ 2,312,459 $ 2,547,869 $ 2,746,541 $ 2,835,855 $ 3,046,733 $ 3,362,070 $ 3,673,978 $ 3,850,502 $ 4,010,603 $ 4,133,380 $ 4,259,361 $ 4,327,814
Expansion Payback Year 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
EXPANSION CAPITAL AFTER TAX PAYBACK CALCULATIONS $ - $ (182,429) $ (191,923) $ 94,877 $ 148,582 $ 123,608 $ 136,210 $ 113,417
CUMULATIVE $ - $ (182,429) $ (374,353) $ (279,476) $ (130,894) $ (7,286) $ 128,924 $ 242,341
After-tax Cash Flow

IRR 16.2%
5% NPV5% $(000) $ 1,570,811
EBITDA $(000) $ 7,828,507
Initial CAPEX Payback (yr) 5.1
Expansion CAPEX Payback (yr) 3.1
Pre-tax Cash Flow

IRR 20.2%
5% NPV5% $(000) $ 2,555,055

Ecuador
23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Although there are several gold showings and small mines in the area, there are no nearby
published Mineral Reserves. No information from any adjacent properties has been used in the
estimate of Mineral Resources for the Project.

Ecuador
24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA
24.1 Execution Plan

24.2 Introduction
To support the capital cost estimate, a conceptual execution plan and schedule were developed.
They compile engineering, procurement, construction, and other related preproduction activities
that are necessary to bring the Cangrejos Project into commercial production. The execution plan
assumes that the Project will be executed after all the required prerequisites are satisfied. Details
of the cost estimates are included in Section 21.
Prerequisites that are necessary to move the Project into the three-year preproduction period
include:
• Completion of Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) Public Participation Process
(PPS)
• EIA/Environmental Management Plan (EMP) approval
• Completion of all other required permitting actions, as summarized in Section 4.3
• Approval and receipt of the exploitation-phase Environmental License
• Receipt of the Investor Protection Agreement (IPA)
• Project financing obtained by the Company, as required
• Corporate approval to proceed with project development
A summary-level schedule was developed using logic and durations for major activities, including
manufacturing and delivery durations for major mining and process equipment provided by
IMC/Lumina and ONIX, respectively. Durations for preproduction mining activities were
developed by IMC using first principles. Durations for critical path activities were developed using
recent data from similar projects. Other construction activities were considered to fit within the
overall timeline for the critical activities.
During a future Feasibility Study some early/basic engineering may be performed to facilitate early
placement of purchase orders for the primary crusher, ball mills, high pressure grinding roll
(HPGR), and other long-lead items in order to reduce schedule risk due to vendor
manufacturing/delivery delays. Early engineering of some of the site infrastructure during the
permitting process may be advantageous if it facilitates an efficient start of construction on site
after permit approvals are received.
Durations for completion of the power supply activities were provided by the Electric Power and
Communications Company (EPTEC) in a report that is summarized in Section 18.1.
The summary Project Execution Schedule is included in Section 24.4 as Figure 24-1.
24.3 Execution Plan
24.3.1 Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management
Basic and detailed process and related infrastructure engineering, procurement, and construction
management (EPCM) services will be performed by an international engineering firm with
substantial experience in engineering and construction of large gold-copper flotation

Ecuador
concentrators and carbon-in-leach (CIL) plants, as well as having familiarity with Ecuadorian
regulatory requirements, standards, business practices, and construction methodologies/
capabilities. Ecuadorian engineers will be utilized, either as individuals or through consulting
engineering firms, to provide further insight regarding local codes, standards, and practices.
Discrete packages for certain infrastructure elements and ancillary facilities will be subcontracted
to qualified Ecuadorian engineering firms for detailed design and procurement using locally
available equipment, materials, and construction labor whenever possible.
Mine design and specification of mining equipment and materials will be performed by an
experienced international mining consultant. Procurement of the mining equipment will be
performed by Lumina.
Detailed design and quality assurance services for critical geotechnical facilities, including the
waste rock storage facility (WRSF) and dry stack tailings facility (DSTF), will be provided by an
international geotechnical engineering firm with substantial experience in constructing these
specific facilities under similar conditions, including:
• Adverse topography
• Heavy forestation/vegetation
• High seasonal precipitation
• Significant presence of saprolite soils in construction areas
Specification and procurement of any required equipment or materials will be performed by the
geotechnical engineering firm.
Design, permitting, and oversight of the procurement and construction of the 230-kV electrical
transmission line, La Avanzada substation modifications, and the Cangrejos main substation will
be performed by a specialty Ecuadorian engineering firm engaged by, and under the supervision
of, the Company.
24.3.2 Procurement and Logistics
After specifying the technical requirements for process equipment and materials, the EPCM
contractor will determine which items are available within Ecuador and which meet the Project’s
schedule and cost requirements. Equipment and materials which are not reasonably available in
Ecuador will be purchased by the EPCM contractor from leading international suppliers.
The EPCM contractor, in conjunction with the Company, will engage a freight forwarding/logistics
contractor which has substantial international experience and familiarity with local Ecuadorian
customs practices and transport providers. The contractor will coordinate, track, and report all
transport of project equipment and materials.
24.3.3 Construction
As discussed previously in Section 24.3.1, overall construction management services for the
process plant and related infrastructure will be provided by the EPCM contractor working with the
Company’s project and construction management staff.
The technical oversight of the geotechnical construction will be provided by the geotechnical
engineering firm. Contract administration/construction management of the construction of the

Ecuador
geotechnical facilities will either be provided by the EPCM contractor or the Company’s project
staff.
Major construction work packages are expected to consist of the following:
• Vegetation removal
• Road construction (i.e., light earthworks)
• Road construction (i.e., heavy earthworks)
• Major earthworks
• Civil concrete construction, including supply and operation of an onsite concrete
batch plant
• Platework and structural steel erection
• Mechanical and piping erection/installation
• Electrical, instrumentation, and controls installation
• Architectural (i.e., buildings, etc.) construction
• Installation of electrical overhead transmission lines
The work packages may be combined into several major contracts, or split into smaller packages,
depending on contractor capabilities, and if it is advantageous to the Project. The splitting of early
work packages will be beneficial if it facilitates the use of local contractors since they do not require
site accommodations and support services, are able to mobilize and begin work quickly, and are
likely to have established work forces.
Construction will be completed by in-country contractors, whenever possible, depending on
adequate resources and demonstrated capabilities. Whether qualified local resources exist in
adequate numbers to support the project schedule must be evaluated at a later stage of the
project development, as actual construction nears. Where particular skills and experiences do
not exist or do not exist in adequate numbers to support the project schedule, the EPCM
contractor will source contractors or personnel from outside Ecuador.
The EPCM contractor needs to include well-experienced, expatriate technical and supervisory
staff on its team to augment contractors in specialized areas, such as mill installation. Vendor
field engineers will also form an important component of the construction team.
To the extent possible, the design will largely progress in advance of construction needs, so lump
sum and unit price contracts are envisioned for the major contract packages.
Contractor management and supervision of construction will be performed by a team consisting
of the EPCM contractor and the Company’s Project management staff. Costs are included in the
capital cost estimate to provide these functions.
24.3.4 Preoperational Testing
Construction will proceed to mechanical completion, followed by preoperational testing of the
completed process systems in order to ensure that each system performs as designed.
Preoperational testing occurs without mineralized material feed or actual process solutions.
Preproduction testing will be performed by a team comprised of the EPCM contractor’s staff, the
Company’s preproduction operations staff, vendor representatives for key process equipment,

Ecuador
and select construction contractors’ support labor. Costs are included in the capital cost estimate
to provide these functions.
24.3.5 Commissioning
When preoperational testing of a system has been satisfactorily completed, the system will be
formally turned over to the Company. From this point on, the responsibility for care, custody, and
control of this system rests with the Company. Construction personnel may no longer access or
operate the system unless the Company approves and participates.
EPCM contractor’s staff, construction contractor’s staff personnel, and vendor representatives for
key process equipment are available to assist the Company’s operations staff with
commissioning.
Costs are included in the capital cost estimate to provide the commissioning support.
24.3.6 Estimated Manpower
The estimated construction manhours (excluding earthworks) were developed by: analyzing
factors applied to the equipment costs to obtain total construction costs, converting the resulting
construction costs to manhours using an average cost per manhour from a recently completed
project in Ecuador, adjusted for an average performance factor; and comparing the estimated
manhours to hours expended during the construction of a similar project in Latin America. The
estimated manhours, based on the factored approach, compared favorably with the actual
manhours from the other project.
Estimated manhours for earthworks were developed by applying historical manhours to known
unit rates based on experience by Ausenco for other projects in Latin America.
The average construction workforce during the 36-month construction period is expected to range
from 500 people to 700 people depending on specific activities occurring at given times. The
workforce is expected to peak at 1,000 people for a short period of time (i.e., several months).
For this estimate, thirty percent of the construction workforce is assumed to be available locally
and to reside within the local communities rather than in the construction camp.
A detailed estimate of direct and indirect construction manhours and the workforce versus time
will be completed as part of the PFS labor estimate since major construction costs will be based
on material take offs and will not utilize factoring of equipment costs to obtain construction costs.
24.4 Schedule
The preliminary summary project execution schedule is shown below as Figure 24-1.

Ecuador
FIGURE 24-1: CANGREJOS GOLD-COPPER PROJECT PRELIMINARY EXECUTION SCHEDULE

Ecuador
24.4.1 Basis of Schedule

Sequencing of the major process and related infrastructure activities is based on durations from
comparable projects and fabrication/delivery durations for the longest lead-time equipment.
Based on vendor quotations that were provided in support of the scoping-level engineering and
capital cost estimate, there are at least seven purchase orders with estimated delivery times more
than 72 weeks. They are:
• Pressure Filters (tailings)
• Gyratory Crusher
• HPGR
• Ball Mills
• Verti-mill (regrind mill)
• Carbon Plant Package
• Belt Conveyor Package, of which the long-distance overland conveyors are critical
Eight weeks were added to the vendor’s quoted durations for delivery to allow for inland transport
at port of origin, ocean freight to Guayaquil, customs clearance, and inland transport to Cangrejos.
Engineering deliverables that are required to support timely placement of purchase orders for
critical equipment and materials, as well as other purchase orders and construction bid
documents to support the overall construction schedule, will be identified and prioritized during a
future Feasibility Study.
Early construction activities that must be completed in advance of the main construction effort for
the process and related infrastructure include:
• Construction of bypasses around two local communities and improvement of
existing public road access to site
• Construction of the main access road from the existing public road to site
• Preparation of major mining equipment assembly/contractor laydown areas
• Preparation of the construction man camp site
• Installation of the initial phase of the man camp, including associated utilities (e.g.,
power supply, water, and sewage disposal)
• Purchase and stockpiling of road base aggregates for initial site road construction
• Construction of pioneer roads to areas within the project site for installation of
surface water management features to control precipitation runoff and erosion
• Installation of a mobile crushing plant at a site quarry location for production of
additional aggregates that are needed for road construction, concrete preparation,
drain materials, and ultimately for blasthole stemming when the mine operation
begins
• Vegetation removal in the areas for the mine ancillary facilities, process plant, and
main haul road platform areas
24.4.2 Critical Paths
After completion of the early construction activities, there are two critical paths. The first critical
path for the 36-month construction schedule includes:
• Site preparation (i.e., major earthworks) of the process plant platform
• Installation and commissioning of an onsite concrete batch plant and mixer trucks

Ecuador
• Structural concrete installation for crushing, grinding, flotation, CIL, thickening, and
filtration facilities
• Installation of major mechanical equipment (including tankage)
• Completion of the DSTF, including installation of the long distance filtered tailings
conveyor, ten semi-mobile conveyors, eight grasshopper conveyors, and the
mobile radial stacker
• Piping, electrical and instrumentation installation
• Completion of the 230-kV power supply to site
• Preoperational testing and commissioning.
A second critical path supports the initial mine operation including:
• Completion of mine ancillary facilities (i.e., truckshop/warehouse, fuel storage and
dispensing, mine equipment ready lines, and explosives storage)
• Assembly of major mining equipment, as it is delivered
• Initial phase construction of the saprolite storage facility (SSF) and WRSF
• Completion of the main haul road to access the Cangrejos open pit
24.5 Assumptions, Qualifications, and Clarifications
The following assumptions, qualifications, and clarifications apply to the durations of activities and
the overall project schedule:
• Early construction activities for non-process infrastructure, as discussed
previously, may start prior to the 36-month main construction period, if possible.
• Adequate levels of skilled contractors, labor, and equipment are available within
Ecuador.
• The studies, engineering, and permit approval activities for the 230-kV power
supply to Cangrejos are started as early as possible during the feasibility study
stage of the Cangrejos Project.
• The 230-kV power supply from the national grid is available at least six months
prior to the scheduled Project completion.
• For purposes of this PEA, the schedule is based on 50 hours per week. Labor
regulations in Ecuador are complex and subject to review and approval by the
Ministry of Labor. The current understanding is that employers, such as
construction contractors, may utilize standard work weeks in excess of the Ministry
of Labor’s base standard if all of the employees approve. From discussions with
some contractors, a 60-hour work week may be standard in some cases, which
has the potential to improve the schedule.
• The work week may be adjusted seasonally based on available daylight and
weather conditions. Spot overtime will be utilized, as necessary, to complete
critical activities required to maintain the overall Project schedule.
• Higher precipitation than average during the rainy season has potential to
adversely impact construction, particularly vegetation removal, road construction,
and major earthworks. Activity durations and the overall project completion
schedule could be adversely impacted, depending on the frequency, severity, and
duration of the precipitation events.

Ecuador
25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
25.1 Interpretations and Conclusions
25.1.1 Summary
• There are no Mineral Reserves for the Project currently. The information reported
in this PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that
are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited geological evidence and
sampling. The tonnage and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources have significant
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. There is no certainty that this PEA will be realized.
• The results of this PEA show that the Mineral Resources at the Cangrejos Project
are potentially viable with a Net Present Value (NPV) of 16.2% and an Internal
Rate of Return IRR) of $1,571 M at a 5% discount rate over a mine life of 25 years
processing approximately 640 Mt.
• The life of mine average mill feed grade is 0.556 gpt gold, 0.1% copper, 0.67 gpt
silver, and 20 ppm molybdenum. This equates to an average gold equivalent
grade of 0.695 gpt.
• The initial capital cost to construct the mine, processing facilities, and required
infrastructure is approximately $1,000 M including freight, duties, taxes,
contingency, working capital, and VAT.
• The average operating cost over the life of the mine is approximately $11.31 per
tonne of material processed.
25.1.2 Resource
• Based on the current level of exploration, the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits
contain a total estimated Indicated Mineral Resource of 571 Mt at a grade of 0.57
g/t Au, 0.11% Cu, 0.7 g/t Ag and 21.2 ppm Mo containing 10.4 Moz Au, 1,409 Mlbs
Cu, 12.8 Moz Ag and 26.7 Mlbs Mo.
• There is an additional total estimated Inferred Mineral Resource of 500 Mt at a
grade of 0.41 g/t Au, 0.08% Cu, 0.6 g/t Ag and 13 ppm Mo containing 6.7 Moz Au,
838 Mlbs Cu, 10.3 Moz Ag and 14.3 Mlbs Mo.
• Mineral Resources are constrained within pit shells and are tabulated at a cut-off
grade of 0.30 g/t gold equivalent.
• Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves because the economic viability has
not been demonstrated.
25.1.3 Mining
• The Cangrejos Project is amenable to conventional, medium-scale, open pit
mining methods.

Ecuador
• The production schedule developed for the Project includes seven phases over a
25-year mine life following an 18-month preproduction period.

• For this Study, it is assumed that through-going, low shear strength, geologic
structures (i.e. regional faults) are not present based on current structural
interpretations by Lumina and third-party geologists that included field mapping,
image analyses, and the inability to correlate structures between borings.
• The detailed statistical evaluation of a comprehensive database of rock quality
parameters led to the conclusion that rock quality is high, is not spatially variable
to any significant extent, and is not lithologically controlled.
• Saprolith deposits (saprolite over saprock) were assumed to have combined
thickness to a maximum of 40 m based on borehole intersections and to have
exhibited historical instability probably related to precipitation.
• Pit slope designs incorporated groundwater levels that were assumed to be high
in both the bedrock and saprolith due to predicted limited natural drawdown in
response to pit excavation.
25.1.5 Metallurgy
• Metallurgical test data shows that economically viable metal recovery processes
are available for samples taken from Cangrejos and Gran Bestia.
25.1.6 Process and Infrastructure Design

• The process and infrastructure design that has been completed as the basis for
this PEA is a conceptual design that has been completed to a scoping-level of
accuracy. Unit operations have been optimized and/or added based on the new
understanding to the resources at Cangrejos and Gran Bestia. This includes
HPGR comminution, addition of sand flotation and cyanide leaching to increase
gold recovery and more detailed conceptual designs and associated more
accurate cost estimates for tailings filtration and overland conveying of both
crushed rock and the filtered tailings.
25.1.7 Geotechnical
Seismicity
• Based on a review of the available technical literature, Ausenco concluded that the
seismicity in the Cangrejos project area is controlled mainly by the crustal
background seismicity within the coastal zone, as well as intra-slab seismicity.
• In accordance with the review and the Ecuadorian Construction Code (ECN),
Ausenco recommends using a design PGA of 0.40g for 1:475 yr and 0.61g for
1:2,475 return periods measured in soils of type C-D for project infrastructure in
accordance with international design standards.

Ecuador
• A geotechnical program was performed in 2019 including test pits and boreholes
along with the collection of soil and rock samples, laboratory testing and
geotechnical surface mapping and geophysical investigations to understand the
foundation conditions for the Plant Site, Primary Crusher area, Waste Rock
Storage Facility (WRSF), Haul Road, Dry Stack Tailings Facility (DSTF), and
Saprolite Storage Facility (SSF).
• The information was used to develop the conceptual designs for the site
infrastructure. Data for the DSTF area was incomplete due to permitting issues
and the final general layout of the infrastructure changed. Therefore, additional
geotechnical investigations are required.
• Geochemistry work to date indicates that tailings, waste rock, saprolite, and
saprock are non-acid generating based on results of acid-based accounting, paste
pH testing and short-term barrel leaching tests. The tailings and waste rock
contain low concentrations of sulfide sulfur and naturally-occurring minerals that
are net neutralizing. Therefore, runoff should not produce any constituents of
concern except for potential sediment that will be captured in sediment ponds
directly below the DSTF and WRSF.
Dry Stack Tailings Facility
• Ausenco evaluated disposal technologies and storage sites. Applyjng safety,
terrain and land usage criteria the selected technology is filtered tailings. The site
for the DSTF is located 2.1 kms from the plant site and was selected based on
location and stable terrain deemed ideal for such infrastructure. The site has
storage capacity to provide secure and permanent storage of 640 Mt of filtered
tailings.
• The filtered tailings will be transported to the DSTF by overland conveyor and
stacked using portable conveyors, radial stacker and dozers and compactors in
thin lifts to improve stability of this facility. In addition, the filtered tailings surface
will be compacted and raincoats will be installed to reduce rain infiltration and
erosion. The conceptual design for the facility uses bottom up construction along
with an extensive underdrain system to capture near surface groundwater and
seepage. The facility was designed in accordance with Canadian Dam Association
(CDA) 2014 guidelines.
• Based on the geotechnical parameters that were determined by laboratory testing
and the DSTF configuration, an operating dry stack facility with an overall slope of
3.25:1 (H:V) was designed. Stability analyses were performed and the design has
an adequate factor of safety (i.e., greater than 1.3). In addition, the ultimate facility
has an acceptable long-term factor of safety greater than 1.5 and a pseudo-static
factor of safety greater than 1.0.
Waste Rock Storage Facility
• The WRSF and SSF are designed to provide secure and permanent storage of
approximately 728 Mt of non-economical waste rock and overburden (i.e., saprolite
and saprock). The WRSF is scheduled to be constructed in multiple phases,
initially from the top down to create the WRSF haul road and then from the bottom
up to improve stability. During the initial years, the saprolite and saprock will be

Ecuador
stored in a separate facility until the ratio of transitional and fresh rock to saprolite
and saprock is greater than 7:1. This concept keeps the saprolite and saprock
away from the toe areas of the WRSF and provides the necessary stability. This
facility was designed in accordance with international waste rock storage
guidelines. The facility has an extensive underdrain system to capture near
surface groundwater and seepage.
• Based on the geotechnical parameters that were determined by laboratory testing
and the WRSF and SSF configurations, stability analyses were performed and
both facilities were found to have an adequate factor of safety (i.e., greater than
1.3). In addition, the ultimate combined facilities have acceptable long-term factors
of safety greater than 1.5 and a pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1.0.
25.1.8 Water Supply

• Because the Project is in an area with a net positive water balance and abundant
surface water resources, there is sufficient water to supply the operations.
25.1.9 Geochemistry
• Geochemical analyses that have been completed to date, indicate that the waste
rock, dry stack tailings, and post-closure pit wall material is non-acid generating
and the water quality from mine waste leachate or supernatant is sufficient for
direct discharge to the environment after sedimentation but without further
treatment.
25.2 Risks and Opportunities
25.2.1 Risks
Resource
• There are no known factors related to environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other relevant factors which could
materially affect the Mineral Resources estimate contained in this Report.
• Mineral Resources in the Inferred category have a lower level of confidence than
that applied to Indicated Mineral Resources, and, although there is sufficient
evidence to imply geologic grade and continuity, these characteristics cannot be
verified based on the current data. It is reasonably expected that most of Inferred
Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with
continued exploration.
Mining
• Inferred Mineral Resources that are included in the mine plan have the potential to
be a risk or an opportunity. Inferred Mineral Resources are speculative and may
or may not exist. Half of the material included in the production schedule from
Gran Bestia and 46% of the material planned for mining during the last ten years
are in the Inferred Mineral Resource category. Additional drilling is required to
determine if the resources can be converted into the Indicated Mineral Resource
category.

Ecuador
• The thickness of the saproliths (i.e., saprolite and saprock) is not well defined for
the northern portions of the pit. The thickness has a potential impact on the pit
geometry and overburden movement during the early mine life. Better definition
of the saprolith is required to reduce risks associated with determining the final pit
wall early in the mine life.
Mine Geotechnical
• Rock Mass Quality: Based on an evaluation of all available information, this PEA
assumes a uniform, high-quality rock mass for all slopes. Should there be spatial
variation in rock mass quality, as yet undetected, slope inclinations could
potentially require flattening. The probability of this outcome is considered low.
• Major Structures: Persistent, low-shear strength faults with adverse orientations
often control pit slope design inclinations. No such features have thus far been
identified, but a targeted subsurface investigation and ongoing structural
interpretation specific to each wall is required to discount their presence. The
probability of this outcome is considered low.
• Saprolith: Site reconnaissance and explorations of the steep areas upslope and
north of the pit crests for Cangrejos and Gran Bestia have been limited due to the
current lack of access. An exploration road is required across this area so that the
thickness and nature of the saprolite and saprock deposits can be determined.
This potential risk is categorized as moderate, but with the caveat that engineered
design features should enable mitigation of this risk.
• Geotechnical Characterization: The evolution of the pit design from the 2018
version to the 2020 version enlarged the Cangrejos Pit with the consequence that
previously planned geotechnical boreholes do not provide optimal coverage to
critical areas of the ultimate pit walls. Further, while considerable exploration
drilling at Gran Bestia indicates consistency with Cangrejos, no geotechnical
drilling has been undertaken specific to the Gran Bestia deposit. This means that
undetected geologic conditions or features may be present that have not been
accounted for in the present slope designs. This potential risk is categorized as
moderate, but the PFS and FS programs will provide opportunities to ameliorate
this risk.
Metallurgy
• There is a risk that production of molybdenum concentrate may not be economic
after samples that more nearly represent the molybdenum grades in the updated
mine plan are tested.
Process and Infrastructure Design
• The primary risk to the process and infrastructure designs is that they may be
required to change again as the Cangrejos deposit is expanded and the Gran
Bestia deposit is better understood due to delineation drilling, as it did between the
2018 Scoping Study and this PEA.
• The 2019 site wide geotechnical investigation did not provide optimal coverage of
mine infrastructure due to changes in the size and location of facilties. Additional
geotechnical investigation for the WRSF, SSF, plant site and DSTF is required to
provide facility specification foundation characteristics to better define foundation
requirements and recommendations. This potential risk is categorized as low, but

Ecuador
the PFS and FS programs will provide opportunities to develop engineering

solutions, if required.
• Additional geotechnical testing of the tailings is required to better define the
geotechnical parameters for development of the DSTF due to the proposed height
of this facility and to ensure long term stability. This potential risk is categorized as
low, but the PFS and FS programs will provide opportunities to develop
engineering solutions, if required.
Water Supply
• Recently collected site meteorological and hydrological data substantially lowers
the water supply risk in comparison to the 2018 PEA. However, permitting
challenges may exist with regards to utilization of surface water sources.
Geochemistry
• Geochemical testing in Gran Bestia was not as widespread as the testing
performed in the area of the Cangrejos pit. The lower concentration of acid-
consuming materials in Gran Bestia indicate that there is slightly higher potential
for acid rock drainage (ARD) from waste rock in the Gran Bestia deposit than from
the Cangrejos deposit. However, it is unlikely that the material will become
potentially acid generating (PAG) due to the low sulfide and residual carbonate
concentrations so this is considered to be a low risk.
Pit Dewatering and Pit Slope Depressurization
• Pit dewatering and pit slope depressurization may be more expensive and less
effective than estimated in this PEA. Additional hydrogeologic characterization
and modeling is required to determine the final necessary spacing and penetration
depth of pit slope depressurization borings.
Upper Pit Sumps and Saprolite Slopes
• The sumps located above the Cangrejos pit are conceptually designed as lined
embankments that are constructed from low permeability fill and include an
emergency spillway. The sumps are not expected to overtop; however, in the
event of high intensity or long duration storms occurring during pump failure, or
other failure, the sumps may overtop and runoff into the Cangrejos pit. Cascading
water along the pit slopes in the saprolite zone can cause a significant threat to pit
stability. The probability of this occurring can be reduced through the use of bigger
sumps, spillway pipelines to the bottom of the pit, and/or the avoidance of the
saprolite zones.
Environmental and Social
• Sedimentation risks resulting from the presence of fine-grained saprolitic soils can
be mitigated by larger sedimentation ponds, flocculant, and other management
tools. Erosion control best management practices must be applied through the
site to any impacted ground to minimize the mobilization of sediments (GRE 2019).
• The Project must begin to prepare to manage safety issues and community
concerns related to road usage and transportation of materials, reagents,
explosives and equipment. In addition, some stretches of road may eventually
have to be modified to provide bypasses, allow for increased traffic, or address
pinchpoints.

Ecuador
• Updated social data must be taken into account in developing the Project’s long-
term community relations strategy to be based on representative demographic
information, especially if the Project’s social AOI expands to include more
communities. The Project will also have to manage expectations for employment
and business opportunities, especially in the local cantons. Lastly, project
development will have to consider the long-term effects of COVID-19. During the
course of the pandemic, Odin has worked hard to provide information, food,
sanitary, and personal and protective equipment (PPE) supplies and other forms
of support as needs arise.
• There is a risk that the Project will be unable to purchase or secure control over all
of the land it needs to carry out its operations or that it may have to do so at much
higher prices than projected.
• Owing to ongoing evolution of the Project a possibility exists that the current
surface water sampling program is not sufficiently representative of background or
potential Project impacts in the watershed areas.
• There is risk to biodiversity in the event of delays in the establishment of
biodiversity offset areas and related measures until the start of construction.
25.2.2 Opportunities
Resource
• The Cangrejos deposit remains open to expansion with further exploration to the
west and at depth.
• The Gran Bestia deposit remains open to the north, west, and at depth.
Mining
• Depending on the outcome of additional delineation drilling, conversion of Inferred
Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources has the potential to be an
opportunity as well as a risk.
• Depending on the outcome of additional drilling and geotechnical evaluations,
better definition of the saprolith also has the potential to be an opportunity.
Mine Geotechnical
• Overall Slope Optimization: There is an inverse relationship between ultimate
slope height (or pit depth) and maximum achievable overall slope angle. The
current design employs two inter-ramp angles dependent on the presence or
absence of structural control for bench face angles but irrespective of overall slope
height. The opportunity exists for steeper inter-ramp and toe-to-crest slope angles
for the lower height walls on the south and west sides. The probability of this
realization is estimated as moderate.
• Bench Face Optimization: The BFAs recommended herein have been reconciled
with structural fabric for the Cangrejos Pit. The requisite data for Gran Bestia is
non-existent. Given the inferred good quality rock mass and the inferred
dominance of steep, large-scale intrusive structures, there is a low to moderate
probability that BFA values could be increased. This would probably require
specialized drilling and blasting procedures but could be a component of improved

Ecuador
rockfall control. Such design changes are subject to confirmation of structural

fabric and to a cost-benefit analysis incorporating increased mining costs.
Metallurgy
• Additional metallurgical testing may identify cost saving and/or improved metal
recovery options. For example, if higher metal recoveries are achieved or more of
the gold reports to doré, the economics improve due to higher payment terms and
faster payments.
Water Supply
• Water SupplyAdditional pond capacity can be constructed to manage any risk
related to an interruption in the water supply. Interruptions could be from
mechanical failure. It is important to note that extreme drought is already
considered in the existing project design.
o A hydrogeologic study needs to be performed to identify potential for additional
groundwater supply.
• Groundwater from the pits or from local groundwater sources may make surface
water utilization unnecessary.
Environmental and Social
• There are several options to reduce long-term transportation risks, including:
o Development of a comprehensive transportation safety management plan
o Optimization of heavy vehicle traffic routing and convoy design
o Logistics planning and coordination
o Preparation of documented emergency preparedness and response protocols
and mock drills/training programs
o Transporter licensing/certification requirements
o Potential roadway and transportation infrastructure expansions and upgrades
• The Project can continue to build constructive relations with local stakeholders
through dialogue, as well as start to prepare some of them to be able to take
advantage of the opportunities that the Project and a more formal economy will
generate in terms of direct employment, contracting for goods and services,
improved public infrastructure, and other potential benefits.
• The Project can continue its efforts to acquire or secure control over surface areas
needed to advance development objectives.
• The Project can refine its surface water monitoring program and develop a more
detailed characterization of background conditions up- and down-gradient from
areas that will be disturbed during the construction and operation of the mine.
• The Project has time to take measures needed to protect local biodiversity,
including establishing offset areas. Doing so early in the process, will make them
increasingly viable and effective during the construction, operational,
decommissioning/closure, and post-closure phases of the Project.

Ecuador
26 RECOMMENDATIONS
26.1 Overall Recommendation

Since this Study results in a positive economic return for the Cangrejos Project, the study team
recommends that the project be advanced to a Prefeasibility Study (PFS). The total estimated
cost to complete the work is approximately $12.0 M.
An summary of the estimated costs is provided in Table 26-1.
TABLE 26-1: COST ESTIMATE

Estimated
Description
Cost (US$ 000)
Project Management 418
Resource Drilling 6,073
Resource Estimation and QA/QC 54
Mine Design 200
Mine Geotechnical Drilling 208
Mine Geotechnical 250
Structural Modeling 60
Metallurgy 405
Metallurgical Oversight 56
Process & Infrastructure Engineering 780
Engineering Design Oversight 48
Geotechnical 539
Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Surface Water Management, Environmental
463
Marketing/Transportation Update 50
Environmental 445
Power Supply Update 30
General and Administrative 70
Subtotal 10,148
Contingency (15%) 1,522
Total to Complete a Prefeasibility Study 11,670
26.2 Recommendations from Individual QPs
26.2.1 Resource Estimate

Delineation Drilling
Sim recommends additional delineation drilling to upgrade the current Inferred Mineral Resources
to Indicated Mineral Resources so they can be used in a PFS.
For Cangrejos, 51 holes totalling 15,370 m are recommended. The total estimated cost at
Cangrejos is approximately $3.7 M.

Ecuador
At Gran Bestia, 34 holes totalling 7,835 m for a total cost of approximately $1.9 M are
recommended.
Exploration Drilling
Additional drilling is also recommended to expand the resources at depth by entering the existing
drill holes in the center of the deposit and extending them from the current depth of 500 m by an
additional 150 m to 250 m. Four holes consisting of 700 m of drilling are recommended at
Cangrejos. The total estimated cost is approximately $168,000.
One deep (i.e., 1,200 m) “wildcat” hole in Cangrejos is also recommended to test for possible
high-grade mineralization below the existing resource. The estimated cost is $ 360,000.
Since both a geophysical analysis and a geochemical analysis indicate that the Cangrejos deposit
may continue in the west/southwest direction, an additional six 500-m deep, exploration drill holes
on 200-m spacing are recommended. This totals 3,000 m of drilling for an estimated cost of $
900,000.
At Gran Bestia, extending one hole that was terminated in significant mineralization by 200 m is
recommended. The total estimated cost is $ 48 k.
26.2.2 Mining
IMC recommends additional drilling to upgrade the Inferred Mineral Resource to Indicated Mineral
Resources. During this drilling IMC recommends that additional geotechnical information be
gathered to better define the saprolite/saprock interface with the fresh rock. The cost of the IMC
recommendations is included in the costs for delineation drilling and the mine geotechnical
recommendations.
IMC also recommends completing a PFS in order to convert the Mineral Resources to Mineral
Reserves. The estimated cost to complete the mine design work is approximately $ 200,000.

W&N recommends the items in this section to improve information needed for the pit slope
designs.
26.2.4 Geotechnical Drilling

A six-hole 2800-m program is recommended and is comprised of two holes in the Cangrejos
deposit on Sections 5 and 6. Four holes are recommended in the Gran Bestia deposit of which
two holes are on Section 1 on the north wall and one hole each on the east and west walls. It is
estimated that four of the six proposed geotechnical holes will intersect porphyritic rock types and
will therefore serve as dual purpose infill holes for resource definition. All holes are to be
televiewer logged and core should be geotechnically logged at the drill sites. Strength profiling
by point load testing should also be continued, as per the current practice at the Project. The
televiewer logging and standby costs are estimated to cost approximately $ 63,700. The
estimated cost for drilling and core logging is approximately $174,000.

Ecuador
Surficial Mapping
It is recommended that an access road be constructed upslope of the planned pit crest for
bothpits, specifically the north and east walls for Cangrejos and the north wall for Gran Bestia.
Road cut mapping should be supplemented by test pit excavations. The information should be
used to refine the saprolith thickness maps and to update engineering properties of the rock based
on laboratory testing. Geophysical surveys should also be considered to supplement the saprolith
thickness database. The estimated cost for surficial mapping is approximately $ 50,000. The
estimated cost for the road construction is approximately $20,000.
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing, including moisture content, gradation, triaxial strength, Atterberg limits, and
density, should be performed to classify the saprolite. Also the site specific relationship between
point load strength and unconfined compressive strength should be refined and shear strength
tests should be conducted to determine the basic friction angle for major rock types. The
estimated cost for the laboratory testing is approximately $15,000.
Structural Modeling
The structural model should be updated to incorporate all new drilling available at the time the
PFS is completed. Borehole fault intersections should be traced for continuity to determine if
structural control is present in the pit walls of either pit. The cost for updating the model is
approximately $60,000. The cost for reviewing the model is estimated to be approximately
$10,000.
Rock Engineering Analyses
After the new data is available, the rock engineering analysis should include:
• Update the structural fabric database to incorporate both the Cangrejos and Gran
Bestia pit areas. Evaluate the data for spatial variation and/or lithologic correlations.
• Update the rock mass geomechanical parameters and revise design values, as
required.
• Update saprolith geomechanical parameters and spatical distribution of saprolith
thickness. Evaluate hazard posed by upslope saprolith deposits relative to pit crests
and design conceptual mitigation measures accordingly.
• Perform slope stability analyses to optimize design for each wall for both pits.
• Retain an expert geotechnical review board to provide guidance as to best practices
for pit slope design in high-relief, tropical settings.
The estimated cost for the rock engineering analysis, including the expert review board, is
approximately $ 150,000.

Ecuador
26.2.5 Metallurgy
Metallurgical Samples
A detailed analysis of the metallurgical samples that have been tested to date in relationship to
the updated resource model is recommended. The analysis should include an evaluation of the
grade distribution of the Cangrejos and Gran Bestia deposits within the areas to be mined and
the proportions of the three lithologies contained within the areas. Based on the results, additional
samples should be collected and composited to represent the results of the evaluation taking care
to ensure that the head grades, particularly for gold, copper, and sulfur are representative of the
resource and that sufficient dilution material is contained in the samples. The estimated cost to
license the software and complete the work is approximately $ 9,000.
Metallurgical Test Work
Additional testing is recommended to provide data needed to complete a trade-off study as to
whether gravity gold recovery should be included in the process flowsheet or not and to evaluate
the best means of treating the gravity concentrate.
Additional test work is recommended to provide more information about copper-molybdenum
separation. The work is required to estimate the molybdenum recovery and to confirm the process
design criteria and the costs associated with making the separation.
To support a PFS that meets industry standards, additional work is recommended with regard to
gold adsorption onto activated carbon particularly given the low gold grades of the material that
will potentially be leached and recovered in the cyanide leaching circuit. Recommended testing
includes leaching kinetics tests, gold loading tests, and carbon elution tests. The data collection
should support an evaluation as to whether to use carbon-in-leach (CIL) or carbon-in-pulp (CIP)
gold extraction and recovery.
Future metallurgical testwork should include some tests that are conducted with water from the
site. This is particularly important in preparing tailings samples that will be used for environmental
and geochemical testing.
In order to determine if the sand flotation circuit can be reduced in size or potentially eliminated,
flotation tests to compare flotation recoveries by extension of rougher flotation time to the current
sand flotation of coarse rougher flotation tailings is recommended.
Additional testing is recommended to investigate the buildup of gold inventory in the cleaner
flotation circuit and the use of depressants to maximize gold deportment to the cyanide leaching
circuit and copper to the flotation concentrate.
Additional flotation tests are recommended using blends of Cangrejos saprolite, saprock, partially
oxidized rock, and fresh rock to reflect the blend anticipated during the first several years of
processing.
Additional flotation tests are recommended using blends of Cangrejos and Gran Bestia material
to reflect material planned for mining in later years.
Bond ball mill work index tests are recommended for the composite samples.

Ecuador
The estimated cost to complete the test work is approximately $ 395,000 and the cost of oversight
is approximately $ 56,000.
26.2.6 Processing
Trade-off Studies
AKA is responsible for the processing recommendations. Three trade-off studies are
recommended during the PFS. First, a trade-off study should be completed to determine whether
gravity concentration should be included in the process design or not and to evaluate the best
treatment method for gravity concentrate. Second, a detailed study should be performed to
optimize the gold extraction/gold recovery circuit. The current CIL circuit contains high quantities
of activated carbon that results in high gold inventories in the processing circuit, which is not ideal.
Third, a trade-off study should be completed to confirm the economic viability of including
molybdenum recovery in the process design.
Engineering Design Requirements
Evaluate the impact of saprolite and saprock on the comminution circuit, particularly secondary
crushing and HPGR. Refine the design as required. The cost for the engineering is estimated to
be $780,000. The cost for coordintation and metallurgical oversight of the engineering is
approximately $48,000.
26.2.7 Geotechnical
Ausenco makes the following recommendations to support a PFS.
The following recommendations are made for geotechnical site investigation work.
Completion of seven 250-m geotechnical boreholes, 26 test pits, and geophysics in the areas of
the DSTF, WRSF, SSF, plant site, overland conveyors, haul roads, and ancillary roads to
investigate and confirm foundation conditions, specifically the extent of the saprolite and colluvium
along with depth to groundwater and to bedrock.
• Fifteen test pits and drilling of four 80-m boreholes to confirm suitability and quantity
of borrow materials for infrastructure construction.
• Additional laboratory index testing, including compaction tests, mechanical strength
tests, and permeability tests on foundation soils and potential borrow materials.
• Laboratory testing to confirm the physical characteristics of the filtered tailings,
including strength, trafficability, and permeability tests at both low and very high
confining stresses to represent the height of the DSTF.
• Using the new data, recommend designs for foundations, borrow sources,
construction materials for infrastructure, and tailings and waste rock storage facility
exterior slope configurations.
The estimated cost is approximately $ 293,500 including the drilling and excavator rental.

Ecuador
DSTF, WRSF, SSF, Mine Roads, and Plant Platform Design and Analysis
• Acquire additional satellite imagery to fill in additional topography below the plant site,
the access road from Valle Hermoso to site, and below the DSTF.
• Perform deterministic and probablistic local seismic hazard study for the development
of design seismic for infrastructure.
• Review and update meteorological and hydrology information, updating surface water
and sediment management for the DSTF, WRSF, SSF and mine roads.
• Confirm geochemical characteristization of tailings and waste rock from additional
waste characterization studies.
• Develop seepage predictions and seepage control measures for the DSTF, WRSF
and SSF.
• Update the tailings and waste rock deposition strategy to optimize material handling,
including trafficability of material handling equipment for the DSTF.
• The stability model should be reviewed and updated, as required, with consideration
of the final stacking plan using updated data about the material properties of the waste
rock, tailings, and the foundations for both the DSTF and WRSF.
• Perform a liquefaction assessment with consideration of updated information on
material properties and the updated stacking plan for the DSTF.
• Solicit budgetary quotes for earthworks and geosynthetics (i.e., geomembrane,
geotextile, and piping) to get more accurate pricing for the next cost estimates.
• Develop cost estimates (i.e, capital, sustaining capital, and operating costs) for DSTF,
WRSF, Haul Road, Mine Roads, and Plant Site Platform.
The estimated cost for the recommended work is approximately $ 245,030.
26.2.8 Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Surface Water Management, and Environmental

GRE makes the following recommendations to support a PFS.
Pit Hydrogeology
A hydrogeologic investigation of the Gran Bestia pit that is similar to the work completed at
Cangrejos is recommended. The program should include:
• A packer testing program conducted in geotechnical bore holes is recommended.
Packer testing isolates a specific interval of the boring and injects water into the
interval to quantify the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass.
• Additional aquifer testing of the saprolite and saprock formations is recommended.
This information is essential to complete a conceptual design the pit slope
depressurization borings.
• Vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) should be installed in the open pit areas and under
the future pit highwalls. VWPs are sensors that measure pit water levels at a specific
depth and location within the rock mass. They can be used to determine the water
level behind a pit high wall or to help determine if a rock fracture carries hydrostatic
pressure that will result in artesian water flows.
• A three-dimensional groundwater model is recommended to estimate the volume of
water and potential effectiveness of the conceptual dewatering design. The model
should focus on the slope stability and must have sufficient detail to simulate the

Ecuador
horizontal pit dewatering boreholes. It can also be used to determine groundwater

impacts from the Project.
The estimated cost is approximately $181,300. The cost of drilling is included in the geotechnical
drilling program.
Geochemistry
An expanded geochemistry program is recommended to support a PFS. Additional samples,
particularly from the Gran Bestia pit area should be collected and sampled. The following
geochemistry program is recommended in order to meet internationally-accepted standards for
geochemistry testing as described by INAP (2009).
• Approximately 50 additional static testing samples of waste rock in the Gran Bestia pit
• Continue the existing onsite kinetic cell testing for waste rock
• Continue humidity cell testing for tailings (i.e., two samples, run for a year)
• Additional samples of the tailings produced during execution of the PFS metallurgical
testing
The estimated cost is approximately $61,600.
Surface Water Management
GRE recommends adjusting and expanding the surface water sampling program to take into
account the current understanding of the program. The estimated cost for the expanded program
is approximarly $65,000.
GRE recommends that additional testing and analysis is required to meet PFS standards for a
surface water management plan (SWMP), including the following:
• Continued monitoring of rainfall and stream flow using the existing surface water
monitoring infrastructure and methods
• Additional surface water monitoring infrastructure within the watershed for the dry
stack tailings facility (DSTF)
• Identification of saprolite zones within and around the pit areas
• Sedimentation sampling
• Sedimentation pond design based on sedimentology and testing
• Geotechnical drilling at sediment pond locations including laboratory testing of
samples collected during drilling
• Stability analysis of the subsurface and cut slope for diversion channels included in
the conceptual designs
After the additional data is collected, the SWMP should be re-designed and calibrated against
field measurements of the surface water flows. The estimated cost is approximately $65,000.
Environmental Monitoring
In order to support permitting requirements and to meet international standards for a PFS, the
following environmental monitoring is recommended.
• Drill additional groundwater wells and complete aquifer testing
• Continue data collection from meteorological stations
• Install air quality monitoring sensors to support open pit operations

Ecuador
• Install ambient noise monitoring sensors

The estimated cost, including drilling is approximately $140,000.
Water Balance
After the recommended three-dimensional groundwater model is completed and additional data
is collected, the site-wide water balance should be updated and revised as necessary. GRE
further recommends adding a mixing model and a sedimentation model to the water balance
model. The additions will allow evaluation of the water quality and concentrations of total
suspended solids. The results will confirm whether it is safe to discharge water without treatment
and mitigate potential risks associated with the requirement for treatment beyond sedimentation.
The estimated cost to update the water balance is approximately $20,600.
Water Supply
The revisions to the water balance are expected to de-risk the project water supply. Furthermore,
groundwater modeling described above (see Pit Hydrogeology), a revised water balance, and
further hydrogeologic characterization will provide essential insight to the feasibility of supplying
the mine requirements with groundwater.
Closure Planning
The conceptual closure plan should be updated to incorporate the new information. The
estimated cost is approximately $23,400.
26.2.9 Environmental and Social

Social Baseline Study
A social baseline study is recommended to examine the results of the 2020 census, the effects of
the Covid-19 pandemic, and other factors on the expectations and concerns that local community
residents, regulatory authorities, and other external stakeholders may have with respect to the
future of the Project. The estimated cost to complete the study is approximately $75,000.
Strengthening the Community Relations Program
It is recommended that the Project continue to develop and strengthen relations with the
communities through ongoing communications and implementation of management plans and
social programs that support local development needs and target different segments of the
populace (e.g., children, mothers, farmers, aged). Specific tasks within the effort should include:
• The Project’s stakeholder map is regularly updated, however external support from
consultants for a more extensive and detailed evaluation should be conducted prior to
undertaking an FS.
• The Project should continue to refine and implement its stakeholder engagement plan
and social programs in anticipation of and in response to changes in the project’s
profile and related expectations.
• The Project should continue to make targeted efforts to maximize sourcing from local
providers. In the near term, work can be done to continue to identify existing and
potential providers as well as opportunities and requirements. Over time, the Project

Ecuador
should make it a priority to help these entities and individuals to close identified gaps
in order to enable their participation in the Project benefits. This should be a
progressive program that evolves and expands as Project needs, prospects, and
profile change.
Land Acquisition Program
It is recommended that the Project develop, implement and evaluate a sustained program to
identify and purchase or otherwise secure long-term access to lands needed for infrastructure,
buffers, biodiversity, or other purposes.
Implementation of Biodiversity Monitoring and Management Plan and Focused
Reforestation/Revegetation Program
It is recommended that the Project begin to implement a basic Project Biodiversity Monitoring and
Mangement Plan (BMMP) with the goal of increasing the ecological value of certain modified
habitat areas that can serve as ecological corridors or offsets. A focused
reforestation/rehabilitation program would be undertaken in land areas that are not expected to
be further disturbed by mining using an appropriate mix of species.
Annual direct costs for BMMP implementation and a focused reforestation/revegetation program
over the next five years are estimated to be approximately $30,000 for a total of $150,000.

Ecuador
27 REFERENCES
Brepsant, Michel Rowland, 2016, Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report,
Prepared for Odin Mining & Exploration Ltd., September 16, 2016.
Brepsant, Michel Rowland, Sim, Robert, and Davis, Bruce 2017, Cangrejo Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Prepared for Lumina Gold Corporation, March 6, 2017.
Candian Dam Association, 2007 (2013 Edition), Dam Safety Guidelines 2007, 2013
Canadian Dam Association, 2007, Technical Bulletin – Geotechnical Considerations for Dam Safety, 2007
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2003, Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves Best Practice Guidelines, November 2003.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2014, CIM Definition Standards for Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves, May 10, 2014.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 2019, Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves Best Practice Guidelines, November 29, 2019.
Carter, N.C., 1981, Porphyry Copper and Molybdenum Deposits, West-Central British Columbia, BC
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Bulletin 64, 1981.
Cox, D.P., Singer, D.A., Rodriguez, E.A., 1987, Mineral Deposit Models, USGS open file report, 87-48,
1987.
Ecuadorian Ministry of Mines, 2015, General Regulation of the Mining Law, issued by DE No. 119
November 4, 2009, published in RO Supplement No. 67 November 16, 2009, Quito, Ecuador, Ministry of
Mines, last updated January 31, 2019.
Encom Technology, 2007, Greater Cangrejos Project – Ecuador – Data Interpretation, Internal Lumina
report and data package, 2007.
EPTEC, 2020, Lumina Gold/Odin Mining Cangrejos Project Electric Energy Supply Study for the
Mining Project “Cangrejos,” April 19, 2020.
Gordon, C., Rowe, T., 2019, Lithological Modelling of Cangrejos & Gran Bestia, Ecuador, Unpublished
internal report, 2019.
GRE, 2019a, HydroCAD Modeling Methodology, 2019.
Hawley, P.M. Cunning, J., 2017, Guidelines for Mine Waste Dump and Stockpile Design, CRC Press, May
2017.
H&H Metals Corp, 2020, Cangrejos Market Study for Lumina Gold Corp., April 1, 2020.
Independent Mining Consultants, 2019, Internal figures, 2019.
Infomine USA, Inc., 2019, CostMine Mine Cost Estimating, An Estimator’s Guide, 2019.
Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censos (INEC), 2010, Censo de Población y Vivienda, 2010.

Ecuador
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Geológico Minero Metalúgico (INIGEMM), 2017, Geológica Santa Rosa
de El Oro, escala 1:100,000, 2017.
Lumina, 2017, Internal company documents, 2017.
Lumina, 2018, Age dating, Internal company document, 2018.
Lumina, 2019, Internal company documents, 2019.
Marinos, V., Marinos, P. and Hoek, E. (2005). The geological strength index; applications and limitations.
Bull Eng Geol Environ, 64: pp. 55 – 65.
Mayor, J.N. Soria, F., 2000, Cangrejos Project, El Oro Province, Ecuador, Unpublished internal Newmont
Company report, 2000.
Newmont Metallurgical Services, 1999a, Metallurgical Study for Cangrejos (Ecuador) Ores – Progress
Report 1 – NMS Project No. 11802, September 30, 1999.
Newmont Metallurgical Services, 1999b, Metallurgical Study for Cangrejos (Ecuador) Ores – Progress
Report 2 – NMS Project No. 11802, November 3, 1999.
Newmont, 2001, Information package on the Cangrejos area, El Joven Joint Venture, 2001.
Odin, September 1999, Press Release
Odin, December 1999, Press Release
Odin, January 2012, Press Release
Odin, April 2012, Press Release
Odin, June 2012, Press Release
Odin, 2015, Press Release
Plenge, C. H., 2015, Metallurgical Investigation No. 16596-99, Odin Mining and Exploration Ltd., Cangrejos
Project, Progress Report, November 11, 2015.
Plenge, C. H., 2018a, Report of Investigation No. 18412-13, Lumina Gold, Cangrejos Project, Comminution,
Head Assays and XRD, May 8, 2018.
Plenge, C. H., 2018b, Report of Investigation No. 18417-19, Lumina Gold, Cangrejos Project, Saprolite,
Sap-Rock and Oxide Screening Tests, Gravity, Cyanidation and Flotation, June 12, 2018.
Plenge, C. H., 2018c, Report of Investigation No.18278-81, Lumina Gold, Cangrejos Project, MET 2017-
01, -02, -03, and -04, Comminution, Gravity, Cyanidation and Flotation, July 10, 2018.
Plenge, C. H., 2019, Report of Investigation No. 18417, Lumina Gold, Cangrejos Project, Primary
Optimization and Variability; Oxide and Saprock Progress Report, October 2019.
Plenge, C. H., 2020, Report of Investigation No. 18529, Lumina Gold, Cangrejos Project, Cangrejos and
Gran Bestia Deposits, Variability and Flotation Piloting Progress Report, June 2020.

Ecuador
Pocock Industrial Inc., 2020, Sample Characterization & PSA, Flocculant Screening, Gravity
Sedimentation, Pulp Rheology and Pressure Filtration Studies, January 2020.
Potter, M., 2004, Summary Report on the Greater Cangrejos Property, Southwest Ecuador, Mineral
Concessions Los Cangrejos, Cangrejos Uno, Cangrejos Dos, Cangrejos Cuatro, Cangrejos Cinco, Estero
Zapato and Tadao, Prepared for Odin Mining and Exploration Limited, May 27, 2004.
Potter, M., 2010, Summary Report on the Greater Cangrejos Property, Southwest Ecuador, Prepared for
Odin Mining and Exploration Limited, December 1, 2010.
Pratt, W., Gordon, C., Rowe, T., 2018, Mineralization at Los Cangrejos, Ecuador, Unpublished internal
report, 2018.
Read, J. and Stacey, P., 2009, Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CSIRO Publishing, 2009.
Rose, N.D., Scholz, M., Burden, J., King, M., Maggs, C., and Havaej, M., 2018, Quantifying transitional rock
mass disturbace in open pit slopes related to mining excavation. XIV Congreso Internacional de Energia y
Recursos Minerales. Slope Stability 2018. April 10-13, 2018. Seville, Spain.
Rose, W., Breckenridge, L., Sim, R., Davis, B., Michel, R., King, N., Norrish, N., Elfen, S., 2018, Cangrejos
Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador, NI 63-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, August 10,
2018.
Rossi, M. and Deutsch, C., 2014, Mineral Resource Estimation, Springer, New York, NY, 2014.
Rucci, 2019, FLSmidth Testing, Lumina Gold – Cangrejos, HPGR and Comminution Suite, July 1, 2019.
Sim Geological, 2019, Internal figures, 2019.
Sim, R., and Davis, B., 2017, Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador, NI 43-101 Technical Report,
December 15, 2017.
Sim, R., Davis, B., and King, N., 2019, Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador, NI 43-101 Technical
Report, December 12, 2019.
Tannant, D., Regensburg, B., 2001, Guidelines for Mine Haul Road Design, 2001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Method 1312: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching
Procedure, part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, September 1994.
Zahn, 2019, FLS Mineralogy, Lumina Gold Cangrejos Mineralogy, June 27, 2019.
Zumarrage, 2020, letter, Legal Opinion on Cangrejos Project, March 20, 2020.

Ecuador
28 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGES

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
Kathleen Ann Altman, P.E.
I, Kathleen Ann Altman, P.E., as an author of this report entitled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
El Oro Province, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment”,
prepared for Lumina Gold Corp., dated July 24, 2020 with an effective date of June 8, 2020 do
hereby certify that:
1. I am CEO and Consulting Metallurgical Engineer of AKA PROS, Inc., 3301 W. 26 th Ave.,
Denver, CO 80211.
2. I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines in 1980 with a B.S. in Metallurgical
Engineering. I am a graduate of the University of Nevada, Reno Mackay School of Mines
with an M.S. in Metallurgical Engineering in 1994 and a Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engineering
in 1999.
3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado (Reg. #37556). I have
worked as a metallurgical engineer for a total of 39 years since my graduation. My relevant
experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:
 Review and report as a metallurgical consultant on numerous mining operations and
projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements.
 I have worked for operating companies, including the Climax Molybdenum Company,
Barrick Goldstrike, and FMC Gold in a series of positions of increasing responsibility.
 I have worked as a consulting engineer on mining projects for approximately 24 years
in roles such a process engineer, process manager, project engineer, area manager,
study manager, and project manager. Projects have included scoping, prefeasibility
and feasibility studies, basic engineering, detailed engineering and start-up and
commissioning of new projects.
 I was the Newmont Professor for Extractive Mineral Process Engineering in the Mining
Engineering Department of the Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering at
the University of Nevada, Reno from 2005 to 2009.
4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI
43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional
association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the
requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.
5. I did not visit the Cangrejos Project.
6. I am responsible for Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18.1, 18.2, 18.7, 18.8, 18.9, 24 and portions
of Sections 1, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Technical Report.
7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical
Report.
9. I have read NI 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with
NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

Ecuador
10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief, the Section Nos. for which I am responsible in the Technical Report contain all
scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical
Report not misleading.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2020
(Original Signed & Sealed) “Kathleen Ann Altman”

Kathleen Ann Altman, P.E.

Ecuador
Larry Breckenridge, P.E.
I, Larry Breckenridge, P.E., do hereby certify that:

1. I am an Environmental Engineer and have an address at 600 Grant Street, Suite 975,
Denver, Colorado 80203
2. I graduated from Dartmouth College (BA in Engineering) and the Colorado School of
Mines (MS in Environmental Science and Engineering.
3. I am a member, in good standing, of the Board of Colorado Professional Engineers,
License Number 38048
4. I have 23 years of experience in environmental engineering, mine water management,
and geochemistry.
5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my
education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past
relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the
purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 18.3 and 20 and portions of Sections 1,
21, 25, 26, 27, and 28. of the technical report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro
Province, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated
July 24, 2020, with an effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I visited the Cangrejos Project from May 9th 2019 to July 12th, 2019.
8. I am independent of Lumina Gold Corp. applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of NI 43-
101.
9. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical
Report.
10. I have read NI 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report and confirm the
Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
11. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief, the Sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all
Dated this 21st day of July, 2020.
(Original Signed & Sealed) “J. Larry Breckenridge”

J. Larry Breckenridge, P.E.

Ecuador
Bruce M. Davis, FAusIMM
I, Bruce M. Davis, FAusIMM, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an independent consultant of BD Resource Consulting Inc., and have an address at
4253 Cheyenne Drive, Larkspur, Colorado USA 80118.
2. I have B.S. (1974) and M.S. (1975) degrees from Brigham Young University. I graduated
from the University of Wyoming with a Doctor of Philosophy (Geostatistics) in 1978.
3. I am a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Number 211185.
4. I have practiced my profession continuously for over 40 years and have been involved in
mineral resource and reserve estimations and feasibility studies on numerous
underground and open pit base metal and gold deposits in Canada, the United States,
Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 11 and 12, and portions of Sections 1, 14,
and 25 of the Technical Report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro Province
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated July 24,
2020, with an effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I have not visited the Cangrejos Project.
101.
9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
I was a co-author of a previous technical report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated
August 10, 2018, with an effective date of June 27, 2018.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2020.
(Original Signed) “Bruce M. Davis”

Bruce M. Davis, FAusIMM

Ecuador
CERTIFICATE of QUALIFIED PERSON

Scott C. Elfen, P.E.
I, Scott C. Elfen, P.E., do hereby certify that:
1. I am the Global Lead Geotechnical and Civil Services of Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc., 855
Homer Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 2W2, Canada.
2. I graduated from the University of California, Davis with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering (Geotechnical) in 1991.
3. I am a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California (No. C56527) by exam since 1996 and
am also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration (SME) that are all in good standing.
4. I have practiced my profession continuously for 23 years and have been involved in geotechnical,
civil, hydrological, and environmental aspects for the development of mining projects; including
feasibility studies on numerous underground and open pit base metal and precious metal deposits
in North America, Central and South America, Africa and Australia.
5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill
the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 18.4, 18.5, 18.6 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25,
26, and 27 of the Technical Report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro Province, Ecuador
NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated July 24, 2020, with an
effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I visited the Cangrejos Project from January 15 to 18, 2018 and May 16 to 18, 2019.
8. I am independent of Lumina Gold Corp. applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I was a
co-author of a previous technical report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101
Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated August 10, 2018, with an effective date
of June 27, 2018.
10. I have read NI 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report and confirm the Technical Report
has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the
Sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information
that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “Scott C. Elfen”
Scott C. Elfen, P.E.

Ecuador
Nelson D. King, SME Registered Member
I, Nelson D. King, SME Registered Member, do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Consultant (Metallurgical Engineer) with N D King Consulting LLC and
have an address at 8317 Devinney Street, Arvada, Colorado, U.S.A.
2. I graduated from Colorado School of Mines with a B.Sc. degree in Metallurgical
Engineering in 1972.
3. I am a member, in good standing, of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration,
Inc. (SME) and am an SME Registered Member, No. 4152661 RM.
4. I have 47 years of relevant experience including work in copper, gold, silver, lead, zinc
and molybdenum operations in the U.S.A., engineering and construction company
experience in the U.S.A. and Canada and metallurgical consulting experience on global
mining projects from offices located in the U.S.A. and Australia.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Section 13 and portions of Sections 1, 21, 25, 26,
27 and 28 of the technical report titled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro Province,
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment” dated July 24,
2020, with an effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”) by Lumina Gold Corp.
7. I visited the Cangrejos Project from January 16 to 17, 2018.
8. I am independent of Lumina Gold Corp. applying all the tests in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
I was a co-author of a previous Technical Report titled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment” dated August
10, 2018 with an effective date of June 27, 2018.
10. I have read NI 43-101, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report (“Form 43-101F1”), and the
Technical Report and confirm the portions of the Technical Report for which I am
responsible have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
and belief, the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all
Dated this 24th day of July 2020.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “Nelson D. King”
Nelson D. King, SME Registered Member

Ecuador
I, Joseph McNaughton, P.E., do hereby certify that:
1. I am a senior mining engineer of:
Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. 3560

East Gas Road
Tucson, AZ 85714
2. I graduated with the following degrees:
Bachelors of Science, Mining Engineering from the University of Arizona (2012)

Bachelors of Science, Engineering Management from the University of Arizona
(2012) Bachelors of Arts, Business Finance from Butler University (2004)
3. I am a registered Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona in
Mining Engineering Registration # 65646
4. I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 9 years. I have worked as a short and
long-range mine planner. I have worked on numerous projects that include mine design,
mine planning, resource and reserve estimation, scheduling and cost estimation and
evaluation.
5. I have read the definition of “Qualified Person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI
43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional
association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the
requirements to be a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for sections 15 and 16 and I contributed to sections 1, 21, 25, 26, 27
and 28 for the preparation of the technical report titled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
El Oro Province, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic
Assessment” (the “Technical Report”), dated effective June 8, 2020, prepared for
Lumina Gold Corp.
7. I have visited the project site on May 5-7, 2019.
8. I have not had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical
Report.
9. I have provided mine planning and various other engineering support as requested.
10. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the
Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be
disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
11. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect the subject matter of

Ecuador
the Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to
disclose which makes the Technical Report misleading.
12. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National
Instrument 43-101.I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the
13. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form F43-101F1, and the Technical Report
has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
14. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other
regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the
public company files on their websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.
Signed and dated this 24th day of July, 2020.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “Joseph S.C. McNaughton”

Ecuador
Robert S. Michel, SME Registered Member
I, Robert S. Michel, SME Registered Member, do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Consultant and have an address at 133 Furman Ave., Asheville, NC.
2. I graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a B.S. in Metallurgical Engineering in
1984 and from Kettering University with a M.S. in Manufacturing Management in 1993.
3. I am a member, in good standing, of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration,
Inc. (SME) and am an SME Registered Member, No. 04170421RM.
4. I have worked as a Metallurgical Engineer, manufacturing manager, or Project Manager
continuously for a total of 36 years since my graduation from university. In the past twelve
years I have worked as a Project Manager on the development of underground and open
pit mining projects and related infrastructure in Peru, Chile, Columbia, Macedonia, Mali,
and in the United States.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 19 and 22 and portions of Sections 1, 21,
25, 26, 27, and 28 of the technical report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro
Province, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated
July 24, 2020, with an effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I have not visited the Cangrejos Project.
101.
9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report
as a co-author and Qualified Person for the 2018 Technical Report titled Cangrejos Gold-
Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment,
dated August 10, 2018, with an effective date of June 27, 2018.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “Robert S. Michel”
Robert S. Michel, SME Registered Member

Ecuador
Norman I. Norrish, P.E.
I, Norman I. Norrish, P.E., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Professional Engineer and have an address at 704 228th Ave NE, #773, Sammamish,
WA 98074.
2. I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a B.A.Sc. in Geological Engineering
(Geotechnical) and an M.A.Sc. in Mining Engineering (Rock Mechanics).
3. I am a member, in good standing, of the Washington State Board of Registration for
Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (#37407) and the American Society of Civil
Engineers.
4. I have 42 years of experience in the application of rock mechanics to mining, transportation,
and civil construction projects including senior level project responsibility for the investigation,
design and construction management of mining and transportation projects in mountainous
terrain throughout Western North America. I have worked internationally on mining projects
in Canada, Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Chile, the Philippines, the former
Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China. In addition to 38 years of consulting
experience, I worked as Senior Mining Engineer for four years at Brenda Mines Ltd, a
subsidiary of Noranda Inc.
5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 Standards
of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education,
affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work
experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of portions of Sections 1, 16, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the
Technical Report titled Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro Province, Ecuador NI 43-101
Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment, dated July 24, 2020, with an effective
date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I visited the Cangrejos Project from May 2 to 8, 2019.
9. I participated in an earlier study of the property and the resultant Technical Report titled
Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic
Assessment, dated August 10, 2018, with an effective date of June 27, 2018.
10. I have read NI 43-101, Form 43-101F1 and the Technical Report and confirm the Technical
Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
11. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, the Sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and
technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not
misleading.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “ Norman I. Norrish”
Norman I. Norrish, P.E.

Ecuador
CERTIFICATE of QUALIFIED PERSON

Robert Sim, P.Geo, SIM Geological Inc.
I, Robert Sim, P.Geo, do hereby certify that:

1. I am an independent consultant of: SIM Geological Inc. and have an address at 508–1950
Robson Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 1E8.
2. I graduated from Lakehead University with an Honours Bachelor of Science (Geology) in 1984.
3. I am a member, in good standing, of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia, Licence
Number 24076.
4. I have practiced my profession continuously for 35 years and have been involved in mineral
exploration, mine site geology and operations, mineral resource and reserve estimations and
feasibility studies on numerous underground and open pit base metal and gold deposits in
Canada, the United States, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.
5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 Standards
of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education,
affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work
experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and portions of Sections 1, 25,
26, 27 and 28 in the Technical Report titled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, El Oro Province,
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment” dated July 24, 2020,
with an effective date of June 8, 2020 (the “Technical Report
7. I visited the Cangrejos Project from November 28 to 29, 2017.
9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I was
a co-author of previous Technical Reports titled “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI
43-101 Technical Report” dated December 12, 2019 with an effective date of November 7,
2019, and “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary
Economic Assessment” dated August 10, 2018 with an effective date of June 27, 2018, and
“Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project, Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report” dated December 15,
2017 with an effective date of November 6, 2017 and “Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project,
Ecuador NI 43-101 Technical Report” dated March 6, 2017 with an effective date of January
25, 2017.
10. I have read NI 43-101, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report (“Form 43-101F1”) and the Technical
Report and confirm the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible have been
prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
11. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and
technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not
misleading.

(Original Signed & Sealed) “Robert Sim”
Robert Sim, P.Geo.

Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project El Oro Province, Ecuador

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project El Oro Province, Ecuador

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cangrejos Gold-Copper Project El Oro Province, Ecuador

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CANGREJOS GOLD-COPPER PROJECT

EL ORO PROVINCE, ECUADOR

Prepared for: Managed by:

1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 i

3 Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................................. 3-1

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 ii

11.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................................................................... 11-3

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 iii

14.17 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 14-46

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 iv

20.2 Environmental Permitting Requirements ....................................................................... 20-1

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 v

22.3 Net Smelter Return Calculation ..................................................................................... 22-4

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 vi

25.2 Risks and Opportunities ................................................................................................. 25-4

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 vii

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 viii

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 ix

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 x

Table 14-3: Summary of Estimation Domains ...................................................................................... 14-22

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 xi

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 xii

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-1

Average Grade Contained Metal

The 2020 PEA highlights include:

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-2

TABLE 1-2: 2020 FINANCIAL RESULTS COMPARED TO 2018

Description June 2018 June 2020

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-3

1.2.4 Mine Geotechnical

1.2.6 Process and Infrastructure Design

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-4

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-5

1.2.8 Water Supply

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-6

TABLE 1-3: ESTIMATED COST TO ADVANCE TO PREFEASIBILITY STUDY

1.4 Economic Analysis

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-7

TABLE 1-4: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS

80% $ 9.05 18.8% $ 2,059

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-8

TABLE 1-6: INITIAL PLUS EXPANSION CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY 1

Capital Cost CAPEX $M IRR NPV (5%) $M

80% $ 1,043 19.5% $ 1,749

OPEX IRR CAPEX IRR OPEX NPV CAPEX NPV

FIGURE 1-1: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES FOR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

1.5 Execution Plan

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-9

1.6 Technical Summary

1.6.1 Property Description and Location

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-10

Source: Lumina, 2017

1.6.2 Land Tenure

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-11

Source: Odin Mining, 2020

1.6.3 Existing Infrastructure and Accessibility

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-12

Effective Date: June 8, 2020 1-13