Saturday, September 26, 2026
MiningNewsTerminal
Saturday, September 26, 2026 Admin

AHR.V ·

Amarc Provides Details of Exceptional Cu-Au Deposit Targets at Empress and Greater Empress, British Columbia

Corporate Updates

Amarc Provides Details of Exceptional Cu-Au Deposit

Targets at Empress and Greater Empress, British Columbia

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / January 19, 2021 / Amarc Resources Ltd. ("Amarc" or

the "Company") (TSXV:AHR)(OTCQB:AXREF) is pleased to provide details on the expansion

potential of the high grade Empress Cu-Au-Ag deposit, and surrounding Greater Empress area.

The Greater Empress area is a sizable subarea of Amarc's extensive 100% owned IKE Cu and Au

district, and is located 6 km north of the Company's substantive IKE porphyry Cu-Mo-Ag

discovery. A comprehensive review by Amarc's technical team of historical data throughout the

Greater Empress area (Figure 1) has unlocked a high potential for the discovery of substantial

intrusion-related replacement and porphyry Cu-Au±Mo-Ag deposits centered on the Empress

deposit.

The 2020 IKE Project Technical Report (the "Report") provides additional details on the

Empress Deposit and the entire Greater Empress area. The Report is available on Amarc's

website at www.amarcresources.com/ahr/Home.asp and under the Company's profile at

www.sedar.com.

The Empress Cu-Au-Ag replacement deposit is a significant body of mineralization,

characterized from historical drilling by its common high grade intersections and relatively good

vertical and lateral grade continuity. These features support the strong potential for discovery of

new high grade extensions to the deposit. Important potential exits for a well-planned core

drilling program to expand the mineralization which remains open. Table 1 provides selected

historical drill intercepts for the Empress deposit and Figures 3 and 4 show cross sections

through the mineralization.

In addition to the Empress deposit, the 35 km2 Greater Empress area includes seven identified

compelling porphyry and replacement-style Cu-Au±Mo±Ag deposit and exploration targets. The

deposit targets include, Empress East, Empress Gap, Granite and Buzzer, and the earlier-stage

exploration targets include Empress West. Each are discussed below with selected historical drill

results provided in Tables 2 and 3. These targets are either not fully drill delineated or have been

tested only by shallow, widely-spaced historical reconnaissance percussion drilling: and can with

focused exploration be brought to a drill ready status. Amarc has a permit for up to 300 drill

holes for the IKE Project.

Management is considering its options to advance this exciting high grade Cu-Au segment of its

extensive overall IKE district mineral tenures.

Table 1: EMPRESS DEPOSIT

Selected Drill Intervals from Historical Drilling

Notes to Table 1

1. Widths reported are drill widths, such that the thicknesses are unknown.

2. All assay intervals represent length-weighted averages.

3. Some figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.

(-) means not assayed for.

4. Copper equivalent (CuEQ) calculations use metal prices of: Cu US$3.00/lb, Mo

US$12.00/lb, Ag US$18.00/oz and Au US$1,400.00/oz and conceptual recoveries of: Cu

90%, Au 72%, 67% Ag and 82% Mo. Conversion of metals to an equivalent Cu grade

based on these metal prices is relative to the Cu price per unit mass factored by predicted

recoveries for those metals normalized to the copper recovery. The metal equivalencies

for each metal are added to the Cu grade. The general formula for this is: CuEQ % =

Cu% + (Au g/t * (Au recovery / Cu recovery) * (Au $ per oz/ 31.1034768) / (Cu $ per lb*

22.04623)) + (Ag g/t * (Ag recovery / Cu recovery) * (Ag $ per oz/ 31.1034768) / (Cu $

per lb* 22.04623)) + (Mo % * (Mo recovery / Cu recovery) * (Mo $ per lb / Cu $ per

lb)).

5. The estimated metallurgical recoveries are conceptual in nature. There is no guarantee

that the metallurgical testing required to determine metal recoveries will be done or, if

done, the metallurgical recoveries could be at the level of the conceptual recoveries used

to determine the CuEQ.

6. Details of analysis, QA/QC (where available) and data verification for the Empress and

Greater Empress historical drilling is provided in the 2020 Report which is posted on the

Amarc website and the Company's profile on SEDAR.

Amarc's IKE Cu and Au district is located in a fertile region of south-central British Columbia

("BC") that hosts other large Cu±Au±Mo deposits with similar geological settings. Like many

major porphyry districts, the IKE district formed in a very active environment characterised by

long-lived, multi-phase magmatic-hydrothermal-structural activity, resulting in multiple centers

of mineralization. The Au-bearing Empress deposit and other deposit targets within the Greater

Empress area were formed at about 85-80 Ma and, as such are distinct from the hydrothermal

activity that formed the approximately 46 Ma IKE porphyry Cu-Mo-Ag deposit that is hosted

within the Coastal Plutonic Complex ("CPC") (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of the IKE and Empress deposits, the Greater Empress Cu-Au Project area

("Greater Empress" or "GECAP"), and other IKE district deposit targets and mineral

occurrences.

The Greater Empress area straddles the CPC contact with volcanic rocks to the north, over a

strike length of 15 km (Figure 1). Strong and widespread alteration with abundant sulphides is

associated with a variety of deposit types including porphyry Cu±Au±Mo±Ag and high

temperature Cu-Au-Ag replacement, as well as Au-Ag high sulphidation and possibly low

sulphidation epithermal systems. The range of paleodepth indicated by these deposit types

increases the possibility for the preservation of deposits in the IKE district, so increasing the

discovery potential.

Amarc's technical team diligently compiled, verified and integrated Greater Empress area

historical information. This compilation of data from geochemical and geophysical surveys and

drilling (including 138 core holes totaling 19,298 m averaging approximately 140 m depth, and

96 short percussion holes totaling 4,382 m averaging approximately 46 m in depth for which

only Cu and Mo assay data is available), combined with the geological and geophysical survey

data from the Company's programs, has permitted a rapid advancement in the understanding of

the high value development potential in the Greater Empress area.

Empress Cu-Au-Ag Replacement Deposit: Historical drilling at Empress has indicated a

significant body of good grade Cu-Au mineralization, which remains open to expansion with a

modern core drilling program (Table 1). Mineralization at the Empress deposit is considered to

have formed by the replacement of previously altered volcanics by a quartz-magnetite-sulphide

assemblage, with higher Cu-Au-Ag grades commonly occurring within 100 m in vertical

distance above the CPC's contact, within the overlying volcanics (Figures 2 and 3). An initial

examination of historical drill core by the Amarc team recognized the nearby Granite porphyry

Cu-Au-Ag-Mo deposit target, which is shallowly concealed by overburden (see below). The

Granite porphyry deposit target is considered a possible source of Empress replacement fluids.

The Granite deposit target requires drill delineation.

Figure 2: Greater Empress historical shallow percussion and core drill holes in spatial reference

to the northern boundary of the CPC at surface, and both Cu-Au replacement and porphyry

targets. The figure shows concentrations of Cu in the first 3 samples of bedrock below base of

overburden.

Figure 3: South to north cross section S-N (see Figure 2 for section location) through the

Empress deposit drilling looking West, showing drill hole sample bar graphs for Cu-Au grades.

The location of the CPC-volcanic contact is shown by the blue line.

Empress East Cu-Au-Ag Replacement Deposit Target: Located 1 km east of the Empress

deposit, limited historical core holes drilled at the Empress East deposit target intercepted

mineralization similar to that at the Empress deposit in both style and grade Table 2 and Figures

3 and 4). This drilling together with moderate to locally strong IP chargeability responses (Figure

5), magnetic geophysical features, and results from historical Cu and Au soil geochemistry (>250

ppm Cu and ≥50 ppb Au which closely reflect the first three historical drill samples results at the

base of overburden, see Report), indicate there is significant potential with further core drilling to

enlarge this body of mineralization. Notably there is a complete absence of drill holes in the

southern part of this target, which is at a position that is analogous to shallower, high grade Cu-

Au-Ag replacement-style mineralization at the Empress deposit to the west.

Table 2: EMPRESS EAST DEPOSIT TARGET

Selected Drill Intervals from Historical Drilling

For all notes to this table refer to Table 1.

Figure 4: West to east Long Section W-E (see Figure 2 for section location) through the

Empress, Empress Gap and Empress East drilling, looking north, showing Cu-Au grades. Note

the CPC-volcanic contact as shown by the blue line.

Figure 5: Greater Empress area shallow penetrating historical IP chargeability combined with

Amarc Buzzer North IP chargeability survey data, showing shallow historical percussion and

core drill holes. Integrated data shows strong IP chargeability anomalies extending over many

square km and generally corresponding with known soil geochemical anomalies. The presence of

mineralization is confirmed by the widely-spaced historical drill holes across the Greater

Empress.

Empress Gap Cu-Au-Ag Replacement Deposit Target: Results from limited historical

drilling, comprising eleven shallow percussion drill holes and three deeper core holes, in the >1

km long Empress Gap zone located between the Empress and Empress East suggest a clear

opportunity to discover additional Cu-Au-Ag mineralization in proximity to the volcanic-CPC

contact (Figure 2). Many of the short percussion holes returned anomalous Cu‐Mo (Au and Ag

were not analyzed for), potentially indicative of higher grade underlying mineralization as at the

Empress deposit (Figure 4). Of the deeper core holes, Cu‐Au mineralization associated with

alteration similar to that at Empress is also reported, however only two of these holes reached the

volcanic-CPC contact.

Empress Gap is a significantly underexplored target and drill testing of areas close to the CPC-

volcanic contact is required.