Bunker Hill Announces Mineral Resource Update, Including 59% Increase IN M&i to 1.1 Billion Zinc Eq Pounds at Higher Grades
BUNKER HILL ANNOUNCES MINERAL RESOURCE UPDATE, INCLUDING
59% INCREASE IN M&I TO 1.1 BILLION ZINC EQ POUNDS AT HIGHER GRADES
Bunker Hill to Host a Webinar on Wednesday, December 1 @ 2:00pm ET / 11:00am PT
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Measured & Indicated (“M&I”) Resource of 6.6 million tons at a zinc equivalent (“ZnEq”) grade of 8.4%,
equating to 1.1 billion ZnEq pounds, a 59% increase vs. the March 2021 published Indicated Resource
• M&I increase reflects 50% more tons, higher grades for all metals, and a 124% increase in silver ounces
• Inclusion of a Measured category for the first time with conversion of 2.2 million tons
• Inferred Resource increases 17% to 1.2 billion ZnEq pounds with higher grades for all metals
• CEO Sam Ash and CFO David Wiens to host live interactive 6ix virtual investor event on Wednesday,
December 1st at 2:00PM ET / 11:00AM PT. Investors are invited to register for this event at: [LINK]
TORONTO, November 30, 2021 – Bunker Hill Mining Corporation (the “Company”) (CSE: BNKR ; OTCQB: BHLL) is
pleased to announce the completion of an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) for the Bunker Hill Mine.
Sam Ash, CEO, stated “We are pleased to report an updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Bunker Hill Mine.
Most significantly, the Measured and Indicated category has increased 59% to 1.1 billion zinc equivalent pounds
with higher grades for all reported metals , including a 124% increase in silver ounces and the conversion of
material to the Measured category for the first time. These results reflect the excellent work by our geology team
over the last few months to incorporate the final results of our Phase 2 drill program , advance the detailed
digitization of historical data, and reflect a more refined geologic interpretation of Bunker Hill’s mineralization.
This allows us to further optimize mine planning and engineering studies, concurrent with the finalization of our
project finance process.”
In addition to preparing for the restart of mining in the upper part of the mine, the Company continues to refine
its plans to explore the high-grade silver potential at depth and those new areas of interest that may be highlighted
by its recent geophysical survey.
The updated MRE, effective November 29, 2021, is summarized in Table 1 below. The previous MRE, effective
March 22, 2021, is summarized in Table 2 below. Zinc equivalent pounds (as referenced in the Highlights above)
in the new Mineral Resource Estimate, effective November 29, 2021, is calculated utilizing data as presented in
Table 1, as follows: (K tons) * (1000 tons / K ton) * (ZnEq % Grade) * (2000 pounds/ton). ZnEq % Grade is calculated
as described in Footnote 4 of Table 1. Utilizing the same calculation methodology with data in Table 2, zinc
equivalent pounds for the prev ious Mineral Resource Estimate , effective March 22, 2021 , are calculated as 0.7
billion ZnEq pounds in the Indicated category, and 1.0 billion ZnEq pounds in the Inferred category.
Table 1. Updated Mineral Resource Estimate – Effective November 29, 2021
Grades Contained Metal
K Tons
ZnEq
(%)
Ag
(opt)
Pb
(%)
Zn
(%)
Ag
(koz)
Pb
(klbs)
Zn
(klbs)
Measured (M) 2,229 8.39% 1.04 2.51% 5.52% 2,309 111,975 246,046
Indicated (I) 4,385 8.42% 1.02 2.42% 5.63% 4,484 212,519 493,902
Total M&I 6,614 8.41% 1.03 2.45% 5.59% 6,793 324,495 739,948
Inferred
6,749 8.58% 1.54 2.91% 5.01%
10,410
392,757
669,358
(1) The Qualified Person for the above estimate is Scott Wilson, C.P.G., SME; effective November 29, 2021
(2) Measured, Indicated and Inferred classifications are based on the 2014 CIM Definition Standards. The Company has chosen to no longer
classify Mineral Resources as “ZnAg Resources” or “PbAg Resources”, as was done for the Mineral Resource Update effective March 22, 2021
as shown in Table 2
(3) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability
(4) Net smelter return (NSR) is defined as the return from sales of concentrates, expressed in US$/t, ie: NSR = (Contained metal) *
(Metallurgical recoveries) * (Metal Payability %) * (Metal prices) – (Treatment, refining, transport and other selling costs). For the Mineral
Resource Estimate, NSR values were calculated using updated open-cycle metallurgical results including recoveries of 92%, 82% and 88% for
Zn, Ag and Pb respectively, and concentrate grades of 54.7% Zn in zinc concentrate, and 59.7% Pb and 14.18 oz/ton Ag in lead concentrate.
All other relevant assumptions are as described in Table 16-1 of the Company’s Preliminary Economic Assessment technical report filed on
SEDAR on November 3, 2021
(5) The Qualified Person for the above metallurgical data is Deepak Malhotra, SME of Pro Solv LL
(6) Mineral Resources are estimated using a zinc price of $1.15 per pound, silver price of $20.00 per ounce, and lead price of $0.90 per
pound. Zinc equivalent grade (“ZnEq (%)”) is calculated as: ((Zn klbs) + (Ag koz) * (20.00/1.15) + (Pb klbs) * (0.90/1.15)) / (K tons)
(7) Historic mining voids, stopes and development drifting have been accounted for in the mineral resource estimate
(8) Columns may not add up due to rounding
Table 2. Previous Mineral Resource Estimate – Effective March 22, 2021
Grades Contained Metal
K Tons
ZnEq
(%)
Ag
(opt)
Pb
(%)
Zn
(%)
Ag
(koz)
Pb
(klbs)
Zn
(klbs)
Indicated Mineral Resources
ZnAg Resources 4,410 7.92% 0.69 2.00% 5.52% 3,033 176,771 487,185
Inferred Mineral Resources
PbAg Resources 1,050 12.47% 4.28 7.56% 1.50% 4,497 158,815 31,419
ZnAg Resources 4,569 7.96% 0.83 1.67% 5.66% 3,796 152,878 517,403
Total Inferred 5,618 8.80% 1.48 2.77% 4.88% 8,294 311,693 548,821
(1) The Qualified Person for the above estimate is Scott Wilson, C.P.G., SME; effective March 22, 2021
(2) Measured, Indicated and Inferred classifications are based on the 2014 CIM Definition Standards
(3) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability
(4) Mineral Resources are estimated using a zinc price of $1.00 per pound, silver price of $23.00 per ounce, and lead price of $0.80 per pound
(5) Cutoff grades for ZnAg resources were reported using a 3.3% Zn cutoff grade and PbAg resources reported using a 3.3% Pb cutoff grade
(6) Zinc equivalent grade (“ZnEq (%)”) was not previously reported for the Mineral Resource Estimate effective March 22, 2021, however has
been calculated for presentational purposes in this news release as: ((Zn klbs) + (Ag koz) * (23.00/1.00) + (Pb klbs) * (0.80/1.00)) / (K tons)
(7) Columns may not add up due to rounding
Both the Quill-Newgard and UTZ zones of the previous MRE were re -evaluated during the MRE update. New
geologic domain models were constructed based on continued digitization of development and geologic maps as
well as additional drill data within the modeled area resulting in a more constrained estimated volume.
The UTZ zone was split into 2 main zones of mineralization - one in the hanging wall of the Cate fault , and the
other in the foot wall, to better reflect historical development. The Quill-Newgard zone now includes additional
historic drilling from the 8-level of the mine and a more continuous shape was built to incorporate hanging wall
mineralization above the 10 -level. Modeled domains were subsequently built using Maptek’s Vulcan software.
Modelled dimensions for blocks in the Quill-Newgard zone are 5’x5’x5’, as compared to 5’x5’x2.5’ in the UTZ zone,
to better reflect the shallow-dipping nature of the UTZ zone’s mineralized area.
Grade estimations were performed on each metal (Ag, Pb, Zn) across the block models independently,
incorporating flagged mineral domain identifiers and constraining within their respective geologic domains. Using
detailed statistical analysis on each of the zone ’s data sets, creation of domain -specific variograms was possible
to assist in determining optimal search parameters. Combined with updated CDF grade plots to identify capping
values and cell de-clustering of spatially biased data, this allowed for an inverse distance cubed (ID3) estimation
to be carried out on all zones with a high level of confidence. Visual inspections, nearest -neighbor model
comparisons, and weighted composites vs estimated block analysis show the model to reflect sampled grade
values well.
With additional drill data, statistical analysis and completion of updated open -cycle metallurgical recovery test
work, it was determined that a substantial portion of the Bunker Hill resource should be classified under the
“Measured” category. With the data density and well -correlated variograms along the geologic trend of
mineralization, much of the mineralized material was estimated using numerous composites from multiple drill
holes and channels. Further optimization runs on resource classification definitions show that the selected criteria
are consistent with the sampled data and adhere to the geologic model.
A cut-off of $70 per ton on a net smelter return (NSR) basis was selected, which the Company believes is consistent
with the reasonable prospect of economic extraction. This also leads to a reported zinc grade, that is similar to
the average mined grade in the Pre liminary Economic Assessment (filed on November 3, 2021), which results in
minimal effect on mining parameters used in previous work -flow models . Further locked-cycle metallurgical
testing and optimization may affect NSR cut-offs applied in future resource updates.
Sensitivity of the Mineral Resource Estimate to metal price fluctuations is illustrated Table 3 below. The same
technical parameters used in Table 1 were used in this analysis.
Table 3. Sensitivity of Domain-Constrained Mineralization Inventory at Metal Prices +/-20% vs. MRE Assumptions
Grades Contained Metal
K Tons ZnEq
(%)
Ag
(opt)
Pb
(%)
Zn
(%)
Ag
(koz)
Pb
(klbs)
Zn
(klbs)
MRE Prices -20%
Zn: $0.92/lb
Ag: $16.00/oz
Pb: $0.72/lb
Measured (M) 1,303 10.20% 1.27 3.06% 6.71% 1,653 79,608 174,765
Indicated (I) 2,605 10.18% 1.28 2.94% 6.77% 3,323 153,355 352,604
Total M&I 3,908 10.19% 1.27 2.98% 6.75% 4,976 232,963 527,369
Inferred
5,359 9.33% 1.75 3.21% 5.29%
9,397 344,093 567,114
MRE Prices
Zn: $1.15/lb
Ag: $20.00/oz
Pb: $0.90/lb
Measured (M) 2,229 8.39% 1.04 2.51% 5.52% 2,309 111,975 246,046
Indicated (I) 4,385 8.42% 1.02 2.42% 5.63% 4,484 212,519 493,902
Total M&I 6,614 8.41% 1.03 2.45% 5.59% 6,793 324,495 739,948
Inferred 6,749 8.58% 1.54 2.91% 5.01%
10,410 392,757 669,358
MRE Prices +20%
Zn: $1.38/lb
Ag: $24.00/oz
Pb: $1.08/lb
Measured (M) 2,975 7.40% 0.91 2.20% 4.89% 2,708 131,115 290,867
Indicated (I) 5,854 7.43% 0.89 2.13% 4.99% 5,219 248,812 584,465
Total M&I 8,828 7.42% 0.90 2.15% 4.96% 7,927 379,927 875,332
Inferred
7,722 8.03% 1.42 2.70% 4.76%
10,935 417,307 723,683
Note: MRE metal price sensitivity figures calculated using identical cutoff ($70/ton) of updated MRE effective November 29, 2021. Mineral
resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for
mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are normally
considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as
mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to measured and indicated categories
through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.
QUALIFIED PERSON
Mr. Scott E. Wilson, CPG, President of Resource Development Associates Inc. and a consultant to the Company, is
an independent “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101 and is acting as the Qualified Person for the Company.
He has reviewed and approved the technical information summarized in this news release.
The Qualified Person has verified the information disclosed herein, including the sampling, preparation, security
and analytical procedures underlying such information, and is not aware of any significant risks and uncertainties
that could be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the information discussed herein.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
The Phase 1 and Phase 2 diamond drilling program s used HQ-size core. Bunker Hill followed standard QA/QC
practices to ensure the integrity of the core and sample preparation through delivery of the samples to the assay
lab. Drill hole collar locations were surveyed using modern survey techniques to provi de positioning of each
sample in three-dimensional space. The drill core was stored in a secure facility, photographed, logged, split into
halves (upon geologist discretion), and sampled based on lithologic and mineralogical interpretations. Standards
of certified reference materials, field duplicates and blanks were inserted as samples shipped with the core
samples to the lab.
ALS USA Inc (ALS) was used to provide drill assay analytical services and all results comply with both NI 43-101 and
industry stan dards. ALS holds an industry standard ISO 17025:2017 (Vancouver) and ISO 17025:2005 (Reno)
accreditation, specifying general requirements for laboratory performance.
Metallurgical testing was conducted by Resource Development Inc. of 11475 w. I -70 Frontage Rd, North
Wheatridge, CO 80033. Florin Analytical Services (FAS) of 7950 Security Circle, Reno, NV 89506 was utilized for
Head Assay data. The Mineral Lab of 12929 #100 w. 26th Ave, Golden, CO 80401 was utilized for Whole Rock XRF
analysis. Hazen Research Inc (Hazen) of 4601 Indiana St. Golden, CO 80403 was utilized for Bond Abrasion Index
testing.
ABOUT BUNKER HILL MINING CORP.
Under new Idaho -based leadership the Bunker Hi ll Mining Corp, intends to sustainably restart and develop the
Bunker Hill Mine as the first step in consolidating a portfolio of North American precious-metal assets with a focus
on silver. Information about the Company is available on its website, www.b unkerhillmining.com, or within the
SEDAR and EDGAR databases.
For additional information contact:
David Wiens, CFA
CFO & Corporate Secretary
+1 208 370 3665
CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
Certain statements in this news release are forward -looking and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such forward -looking
statements are within the meaning of that term in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Secti on 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as within the meaning of the phrase ‘forward -looking information’ in the Canadian Securities
Administrators’ National Instrument 51 -102 – Continuous Disclosure Obligations. Forward -looking statements are not comprised of
historical facts. Forward-looking statements include estimates and statements that describe the Company’s future plans, objectives or goals,
including words to the effect that the Company or management expects a stated condi tion or result to occur. Forward -looking statements
may be identified by such terms as “believes”, “anticipates”, “expects”, “estimates”, “may”, “could”, “would”, “will”, or “pl an”. Since
forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent
risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to the Company, the Company provides no
assurance that actual results will meet management’ s expectations. Risks, uncertainties and other factors involved with forward -looking
information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied
by such forward -looking infor mation. Forward looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the Company’s
intentions regarding its objectives, goals or future plans and statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from
such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to: the ability to predict and counteract the effects of COVID-19 on the business
of the Company, including but not limited to the effects of COVID -19 on the price of commodities, capital market conditions , restriction on
labour and international travel and supply chains; failure to identify mineral resources; failure to convert estimated minera l resources to
reserves; the inability to complete a feasibility study which recommends a production decision; the preliminary nature of metallurgical test
results; the Company’s ability to restart and develop the Bunker Hill Mine and the risks of not basing a production decision on a feasibility
study of mineral reserves demonstrating economic and technical viability, resulting in increased uncertainty due to multiple technical and
economic risks of failure which are associated with this production decision including, among others, areas that are analyzed in more detail
in a feasibility study, such as applyin g economic analysis to resources and reserves, more detailed metallurgy and a number of specialized
studies in areas such as mining and recovery methods, market analysis, and environmental and community impacts and, as a resu lt, there
may be an increased u ncertainty of achieving any particular level of recovery of minerals or the cost of such recovery, including increased
risks associated with developing a commercially mineable deposit with no guarantee that production will begin as anticipated or at all or
that anticipated production costs will be achieved; failure to commence production would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
ability to generate revenue and cash flow to fund operations ; failure to achieve the anticipated production costs woul d have a material
adverse impact on the Company's cash flow and future profitability; delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required govern mental,
environmental or other project approvals; political risks; changes in equity markets; uncertainties relat ing to the availability and costs of
financing needed in the future; the inability of the Company to budget and manage its liquidity in light of the failure to ob tain additional
financing, including the ability of the Company to complete the payments to th e Lessor and the U.S. EPA pursuant to the terms of the
agreement to acquire the Bunker Hill Mine Complex; inflation; changes in exchange rates; fluctuations in commodity prices; de lays in the
development of projects; capital, operating and reclamation cost s varying significantly from estimates and the other risks involved in the
mineral exploration and development industry; the cost, timing and ability to implement ESG initiatives which may not be technically
successful or economically viable; and those risks set out in the Company’s public documents filed on SEDAR. Although the Company believes
that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward -looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance
should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such
events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revi se any forward-
looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law. No stock exchange,
securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.