Silver Tiger Announces PFS with NPV of US$222M FOR the Stockwork Zone of the El Tigre Silver-GOLD Project, Sonora, Mexico
NEWS RELEASE
SILVER TIGER ANNOUNCES PFS WITH NPV OF US$222M FOR THE
STOCKWORK ZONE OF THE EL TIGRE SILVER-GOLD PROJECT, SONORA,
MEXICO
HALIFAX, NOV A SCOTIA – October 22, 2024 – Silver Tiger Metals Inc. (TSXV:SLVR and OTCQX:SLVTF)
("Silver Tiger" or the “Corporation”) is pleased to announce a Preliminary Feasibility Study (“PFS”) for its 100%
owned, silver-gold El Tigre Project (the "Project" or "El Tigre") located in Sonora, Mexico. The PFS is focused on
the conventional open pit mining economics of the Stockwork Mineralization Zone defined in the updated Mineral
Resource Estimate (“MRE”) (Figure 1). The updated MRE also contains an Out-of-Pit Mineral Resource that Silver
Tiger plans to study in a Preliminary Economic Assessment in H1-2025.
Highlights of the PFS are as follows (all figures in US dollars unless otherwise stated):
• After-Tax net present value (“NPV”) (using a discount rate of 5%) of US$222 million with an After-Tax IRR
of 40.0% and Payback Period of 2.0 years (Base Case);
• 10-year mine life recovering a total of 43 million payable silver equivalent ounces (“AgEq”) or 510 thousand
payable gold equivalent ounces (“AuEq”) , consisting of 9 million silver ounces and 408 thousand gold
ounces;
• Total Project undiscounted after-tax cash flow of US$318 million;
• Initial capital costs of $86.8 million, which includes $9.3 million of contingency costs, over an expected 18-
month build, expansion capital of $20.1 million in year 3 and sustaining capital costs of $6.2 million over the
life of mine (“LOM”);
• Average LOM operating cash costs of $973/oz AuEq, and all in sustaining costs (“AISC”) of $1,214/oz AuEq
or Average LOM operating cash costs of $12/oz AgEq, and all in sustaining costs (“AISC”) of $14/oz AgEq;
• Average annual production of approximately 4.8 million AgEq oz or 56.7 thousand AuEq oz; and
• Three (3) years of production in the Proven category in the Phase 1 Starter Pit.
Glenn Jessome, President & CEO stated “We are very pleased with the work completed by our consultants and our
technical team on the PFS for the open pit at El Tigre. The open pit delivers robust economics with an NPV of US$222
million, an initial capital expenditure of US$87 million, and a payback of 2 years with 3 years of production in the
Proven category in the ‘Starter Pit using metal prices greatly discounted to the spot price.” Mr. Jessome continued
“This is a pivotal point for our Company as we now have a clear path forward to making a construction decision for
the open pit. The open pit has good grade (48 g/t AgEq), low strip ratio (1.7:1), and wide benches (~150 m) with
mineralization at surface. With such positive parameters and with our VP of Operations Francisco Albelais, a career
expert in the construction of large heap leach mines in Mexico, we are confident we will be able to advance the Project
very quickly.” Mr. Jessome concluded “The open pit is only one component of El Tigre as we have also today
delivered over 113 Mozs AgEq in the underground Mineral Resource Estimate and disclosed an Exploration Target
establishing 10 to 12 million tonnes at 225 to 265 g/t AgEq for 73 to 100 Moz AgEq. This disclosed ‘near -mine’
Mineral Resource and potential, when coupled with the fact that only 30% of this prolific Property has been explored,
shows the value of the El Tigre Project. The Company will also continue to work on this substantial underground
Mineral Resource by starting underground drilling immediately, and plan to release an underground PEA in H1-2025.”
Highlights of the updated Mineral Resource
• Increased confidence in MRE, with increase of 132% in Total Measured & Indicated Silver Equivalent
(“AgEq”) Ounces from September 2023 MRE, with 59% increase in Measured & Indicated AgEq grade;
• Total Measured & Indicated Mineral Resource of 200 Moz AgEq grading 92 g/t AgEq contained in 68.0
million tonnes (“Mt”);
• Inferred Mineral Resource of 84 Moz AgEq grading 180 g/t AgEq contained in 14.5 Mt; and
• Inclusion of Out-of-Pit Mineral Resource of 5.3 Mt Measured & Indicated Mineral Resource at grade of
255 g/t AgEq and 10.1 Mt Inferred Mineral Resource grading 216 g/t AgEq.
Preliminary Feasibility Summary
The PFS was prepared by independent consultants P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (“P&E”), with metallurgical test
work completed by McClelland Laboratories, Inc. – Sparks, Nevada, process plant design and costing by D.E.N.M.
Engineering Ltd., and environmental and permitting led by CIMA Mexico. Following are tables and figures showing
key assumptions, results, and sensitivities.
Table 1: El Tigre PFS Key Economic Assumptions and Results(1-2)
Assumption / Result Unit Value Assumption / Result Unit Value
Total OP Plant Feed Mined kt 40,292 Net Revenue US$M 1,093
Operating Strip Ratio Ratio 1.7:1 Initial Capital Costs US$M 87
Silver Grade1 g/t 14.9
Expansion Capital
Costs US$M 15
Gold Grade1 g/t 0.40
Sustaining Capital
Costs US$M 11
Silver Recovery (Oxide/Sul.)2 % 45 / 40 Mining Costs $/t Material 2.24
Gold Recovery (Oxide/Sul.)2 % 83 / 56
Processing Costs
(Phase 1 and Phase 2) $/t Feed 5.79/4.74
Figure 1: El Tigre Block Model Visualization, Showing Pit- Constrained Mineral Resources.
Assumption / Result Unit Value Assumption / Result Unit Value
Silver Price US$/oz 26.00 G&A Costs $/t Feed 1.27
Gold Price US$/oz 2,150
Operating Cash Cost US$/oz
AgEq 11.6
Payable Silver Metal Moz 8.57
All-in Sustaining Cost US$/oz
AgEq 14.4
Payable Gold Metal koz 408
After-Tax NPV (5%
discount) US$M 222
Payable AgEq Moz 42.9
Pre-Tax NPV (5%
discount) US$M 342
Mine Life Yrs 10 After-Tax IRR % 40.0
Average mining rate t/day 30,000 Pre-Tax IRR % 51.2
After-Tax Payback
Period Yrs 2.0
1. Grades shown are LOM average process plant feed grades include only OP sources. Mining losses and external dilution of 3.7% were incorporated in the mining schedule.
2. Column testing indicated both variable gold and silver recovery for the oxide material vs the previously reported non-discounted PEA (83% and 64%) at a 3/8-in crush size. In the process design and
financial model for the PFS process design and financial model recoveries have been discounted by 3% for leaching in the field versus optimum conditions in the laboratory and shown accordingly.
The presence of transition and sulfide zones has affected both the gold and silver recoveries and are shown as separate recoveries. These are reasonable and appropriate for use in this PFS design and
economic analysis.
Figure 2: El Tigre Cash Flow Profile by Year
Figure 2 above highlights the post -tax cash flows of US$318 million associated with the E l Tigre Project. The
economics of the Project have been evaluated based on the base case scenario $ 26/oz silver price and gold price of
$2,150/oz. As illustrated in the following sensitivity tables, the P roject remains robust even at lower commodity
prices or with higher costs (Tables 2 and 3).
$(150)
$(100)
$(50)
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
El Tigre Cash Flow Profile by Y ear
Post-Tax CF Initial & Expansion Capital Cumulative Post-Tax
Cash Flow (US$M)
Table 2 – El Tigre PFS Gold and Silver Price Sensitivities
Sensitivity
Base
Case
Silver Price (US$/oz) 18 22 26 30 34 38 42
Gold Price (US$/oz) 1,500 1,750 2,150 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250
After-Tax NPV (5%) (US$M) 55.9 123.9 221.5 308.7 375.6 442.5 509.4
After-Tax IRR (%) 15.8 26.7 40.0 50.2 57.2 63.9 70.3
After-Tax Payback (years) 4.5 3.4 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3
Table 3 – El Tigre PFS Operating Cost and Capital Cost Sensitivities
Sensitivity -20% -10%
Base
Case 10% 20%
Operating Costs – NPV (5%) (US$M) 270.4 246.0 221.5 194.2 169.6
Operating Costs – IRR (%) 46.2 43.2 40.0 36.1 32.7
Capital Costs – NPV (5%) (US$M) 236.7 229.1 221.5 211.1 203.4
Capital Costs – IRR (%) 48.5 43.9 40.0 36.1 33.2
Capital and Operating Costs
The El Tigre Project has been envisioned as an open pit mining operation starting at a processing rate of 7,500 tonnes
per day for years 1-3 and then ramping up to 15,000 tonnes per day by year 4 after 1 year construction for ramp up in
year 3.
The process plant is comprised of conventional three (3) stage crushing to an optimum -3/8 inch (10 mm) crush size.
The crushed material will be conveyed and loaded on the lined pad areas. A series of pumping and piping will allow
irrigation of the stacked heap material and subsequent production of pregnant solution to flow to the respective
impoundment pond. The pregnant solution will be pumped to the recovery facility consisting of the Merrill – Crowe
process (zinc precipitation) and refinery to produce the gold and silver dore for marketing. The process barren solution
will be recycled (with NaCN addition) and pumped back to the heap for further leaching. The process plant location
will be adjacent to the pad and pond infrastructure area.
Water supply to the process plant is provided by pumping from nearby Bavispe R iver to the process area water
distribution system and high voltage grid power will be installed by the local utility to supply process and
infrastructure electrical requirements. Expansion capital includes the cost to increase the process plant capacity from
7,500 tonnes per day to 15,000 tonnes per day as noted in Year 4 of operation.
Table 4 – LOM Capital Cost Estimate
Type
Initial Expansion Sustaining Total
(US$k) (US$k) (US$k) (US$k)
Process Plant direct costs 42,851 13,584 1,600 58,034
Mining direct costs 2,660 4,362 3,956 10,978
Pre-stripping 3,362 3,362
Infrastructure 20,489 20,489
Process indirect costs
(with EPCM) 8,121 8,121
Total 77,483 17,946 5,556 100,985
Contingency (12%) 9,298 2,199 622 12,118
Total with Contingency 86,780 20,145 6,178 113,103
Mining
Open pit mining will be contracted and carried out by drill and blast followed by conventional loading and truck
haulage to the waste rock storage facilities and the process plant.
Metallurgy
A detailed metallurgical test program was carried out by McClelland Laboratories, Inc., Sparks, Nevada on six (6) El
Tigre starter pit samples. The program included crushing, coarse bottle rolls, and column testing at both 80% passing
3/8 inch and 1/2 inch (10 and 12 mm) crush size for five (5) of the six samples. One low grade sample was only
crushed to 80% passing 1-1/2 inch (38 mm) as an indication of low grade leachability. The leach samples comprised
of drill core sample representing the starter pit and during the testing process it became apparent that the presence of
transition and sulfide zones are in the starter pit thus affecting the base design recoveries. This variable test program
(column and coarse bottle roll) estimated oxide average gold and silver respective metallurgical recoveries of 8 6%
Au and 48% Ag at the 3/8 inch (10 mm) crush. The transition and sulfide zones had estimated recoveries of 59% Au
and 43% Ag. Further percolation testing also confirmed no requirement for agglomeration of the crushed material is
required prior to loading on the leach pad.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The basis for the PFS is the Mineral Resource Estimate completed by P&E for the El Tigre Project located in Sonora
State, Mexico, which has an effective date of October 22, 2024, with an NI 43-101 Technical Report to be filed within
45 days of this news release. A summary of the Mineral Resource Estimate is provided in Table 5.
Table 5 – Updated Mineral Resource Estimate October 2024
1) Mineral Resources, which are not Mineral Reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
2) The Inferred Mineral Resource in this estimate has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Reso urce and must not be converted to a Mineral
Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of the Inferred Mineral Resource could be upgraded to an Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration.
3) The Mineral Resources were estimated in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and
Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definiti ons and adopted by the CIM Council.
4) Historically mined areas were depleted from the Mineral Resource model.
5) Prices used are US$2,000/oz Au, US$25/oz Ag, US$4.00/lb Cu, US$0.95 lb Pb and US$1.25/lb Zn.
6) The pit-constrained AuEq respective oxide and sulfide cut -off grades of 0.10 and 0.15 g/t were derived from 40% Ag and 83% Au oxide process recovery, 40% Ag and 56%
Au sulfide process recovery, US$5.25/tonne process and G&A cost. The constraining pit optimization parameters were $2.00/t mining cost a nd 45-degree pit slopes. Regarding
recoveries, the PFS recovery for Ag in oxide material was increased to 45% after a more detailed study was complete after the MRE was finalized.
7) The out-of-pit AuEq cut-off grade of 1.50 g/t was derived 93% Ag and 89% Au process recovery, US$28/tonne process and G&A cost, and a $60/tonne mining cost. The out -
of-pit Mineral Resource grade blocks were quantified above the 1.50 g/t AuEq cut -off, below the constraining pit shell and within the constraining mineralized wireframes.
Out–of-Pit Mineral Resources are restricted to the El Tigre Main Veins, which exhibit historical continuity and reasonable potential for extraction by cut and fill and long hole
mining methods.
8) The Low-Grade Stockpile AuEq cut-off grade of 0.54 g/t was derived from 85% Ag and 85% Au recovery US$28/tonne process and G&A cost, and a $2/tonne mining cost.
9) The Tailings AuEq cut-off grade of 0.55 g/t was derived from 82% Ag and 83% Au process recovery, US$28.72/tonne process and G&A cost.
10) AgEq and AuEq were calculated at an Ag/Au ratio of 166:1 (oxide) and 122:1 ( sulfide) for pit-constrained Mineral Resources.
11) AgEq and AuEq were calculated at an Ag/Au ratio of 77:1 for out -of-pit Mineral Resources.
12) AgEq and AuEq were calculated at an Ag/Au ratio of 80:1 for Low -Grade Stockpile Mineral Resources.
13) AgEq and AuEq were calculated at an Ag/Au ratio of 79:1 for Tailings Mineral Resources
14) Totals may not sum due to rounding.
PIT CONSTRAINED Cutoff TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
OXIDE + SULFIDE AuEq g/t 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs % % % g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
Measured 0.10/0.15 34,821 16 17,819 0.40 452 0.003 0.010 0.017 78 87,078 0.50 565
Indicated 0.10/0.15 26,943 16 13,490 0.38 326 0.002 0.007 0.013 75 65,286 0.48 415
Mea + Ind 0.10/0.15 61,764 16 31,309 0.39 778 0.002 0.009 0.015 77 152,364 0.49 980
Inferred 0.10/0.15 4,333 25 3,454 0.46 64 0.003 0.010 0.016 98 13,606 0.65 91
OUT-OF-PIT Cutoff TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
AuEq g/t 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs % % % g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
Measured 1.50 1,523 226 11,070 0.34 16.6 0.13 0.38 0.57 292 14,313 3.80 186
Indicated 1.50 3,788 187 22,811 0.48 57.9 0.05 0.17 0.27 241 29,313 3.13 382
Mea + Ind 1.50 5,311 198 33,881 0.44 74.5 0.071 0.229 0.355 255 43,626 3.33 568
Inferred 1.50 10,063 140 45,207 0.62 202.1 0.06 0.28 0.50 216 69,731 2.81 908
TAILINGS Cutoff TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
AuEq g/t 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs % % % g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
Measured 0.54 146 79 371 0.29 1.4 NA NA NA 102 479 1.29 6
Indicated 0.54 706 77 1,752 0.26 5.9 NA NA NA 98 2,218 1.24 28
Mea + Ind 0.54 852 77 2,124 0.27 7.3 NA NA NA 99 2,697 1.25 34
Inferred 0.54 52 81 134 0.27 0.5 NA NA NA 103 170 1.30 2
STOCKPILE Cutoff TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
AuEq g/t 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs % % % g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
Measured 0.55 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indicated 0.55 101 181 586 0.92 3.0 0.023 0.226 0.104 255 824 3.49 11
Mea + Ind 0.55 101 181 586 0.92 3.0 0.023 0.226 0.104 255 824 3.49 11
Inferred 0.55 18 146 83 0.46 0.3 0.016 0.168 0.085 183 104 2.52 1
TOTAL Cutoff TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
AuEq g/t 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs % % % g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
Measured NA 36,490 25 29,260 0.40 469.9 0.008 0.026 0.041 88 101,871 0.66 757
Indicated NA 31,538 38 38,640 0.39 392.9 0.007 0.027 0.044 96 97,641 0.82 836
Mea + Ind NA 68,028 31 67,900 0.40 862.8 0.008 0.026 0.042 92 199,512 0.73 1,593
Inferred NA 14,465 105 48,878 0.57 266.7 0.041 0.201 0.351 180 83,612 2.16 1,002
2024 El TIGRE MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE (1-14)
Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology – El Tigre Project
The El Tigre Project includes the El Tigre Veins, El Tigre Tailings and the El Tigre Low-Grade Stockpile.
The databases used for this Mineral Resource update contain a total of 20,149 collar records that contribute directly
to the Mineral Resource Estimate and includes collar, survey, assay, lithology and bulk density data. Assay data
includes Au g/t, Ag g/t, Cu %, Pb % and Zn % grades. The drilling extends approximately five km along strike.
P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (“P&E”) collaborated with Silver Tiger personnel to develop the mineralization models,
grade estimates, and reporting criteria for the Mineral Resources at El Tigre. Mineraliz ed domains were initially
developed by Silver Tiger and were reviewed and modified by P&E. A total of twenty-seven individual mineralized
domains have been identified through drilling and surface sampling. Interpreted mineralization wireframes were
developed by Silver Tiger geologists for the El Tigre Veins based on logged drill hole lithology, assay grades and
historical records. Silver Tiger identified continuous zones of mineralization from assay grades equal to or greater
than 0.30 g/t AuEq with observed continuity along strike and down- dip, using a calculated Ag:Au equivalent factor
of 75:1. The selected intervals include lower grade material where necessary to maintain wireframe continuity
between drill holes.
P&E developed mineralized domains for the El Tigre Low -Grade Stockpile and the El Tigre Tailings based on
lithological logging and LiDAR surface topography.
Assay samples were composited to either 1.00 m or 1.50 m for the vein domains. No compositing was used for the
Low-Grade Stockpiles and Tailings models. Composites were capped prior to grade estimation based on the analysis
of individual composite log-probability distributions.
A total of 5,542 bulk density values were taken by Silver Tiger from drill hole core. Mineralized bulk density values
were assigned for each of the El Tigre Main Veins based on the median vein measurement. For the El Tigre North
Veins, a bulk density of 2.65 t/m3 was assigned for the veins and a value of 2.42 t/m3 was assigned for the Protectora
Halo. For the Low-Grade Stockpile a value of 1.60 t/m3 was assigned, and for the Tailings a value of 1.39 t/m 3 was
used based on 37 nuclear density measurements.
Vein block grades for gold and silver were estimated by Inverse Distance Cubed (“ID3”) interpolation of capped
composites using a minimum of four and a maximum of twelve composites. Vein block grades for copper, lead and
zinc were estimated by Inverse Dist ance Squared (“ID2”) interpolation of capped composites using a minimum of
four and a maximum of twelve composites.
Nearest-Neighbour grade interpolation was used for the Low -Grade Stockpiles, and for the Tailings, block grades
were estimated by ID2 estimation of capped assays using a minimum of four and a maximum of twelve samples.
For the El Tigre Main Veins, blocks within 30 m of three or more drill holes/channels were classified as Measured
Mineral Resources, and blocks within 60 m of three or more drill holes/channels were classified as Indicated Mineral
Resources. All additional estimated blocks were classified as Inferred Mineral Resources.
For the North Veins, blocks interpolated by at least two drill holes within 50 m were classified as Indicated Mineral
Resources. Blocks interpolated by at least one drill hole within a maximum distance of 200 m were classified as
Inferred Mineral Resources.
For the Low-Grade Stockpiles, blocks within 15 m of two or more drill holes were classified as Indicated Mineral
Resources. All additional estimated blocks were classified as Inferred Mineral Resources.
For the Tailings, blocks within 30 m of three or more auger or core drill holes were classified as Measured Mineral
Resources. Blocks within 60 m of two or more auger/drill holes/pits or trenches were classified as Indicated Mineral
Resources. All additional estimated blocks were classified as Inferred Mineral Resources.
P&E considers that the block model Mineral Resource Estimates and Mineral Resource classification represent a
reasonable estimation of the global mineral resources for the El Tigre Project with regard to compliance with generally
accepted industry standards and guidelines, the methodology used for estimation, the classification criteria used and
the actual implementation of the methodology in terms of Mineral Resource estimation and reporting. The Mineral
Resources have been estimated in conformity with the requirements of the CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resource and
Mineral Reserves Best Practices” guidelines as required by the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National
Instrument 43-101. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Table 6: AuEq Cut-off Sensitivities – ET Pit-Constrained Mineral Resource
MEASURED TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
CUTOFF AUEQ 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs pct pct pct g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
1.00 3,433 63 6,905 1.24 136 0.01 0.02 0.02 251 27,680 1.63 180
0.90 4,268 56 7,647 1.14 157 0.01 0.02 0.02 230 31,577 1.50 206
0.80 5,386 49 8,472 1.05 182 0.01 0.01 0.02 209 36,234 1.36 236
0.70 6,926 42 9,461 0.96 213 0.00 0.01 0.02 188 41,913 1.23 273
0.60 8,957 37 10,608 0.86 248 0.00 0.01 0.02 168 48,409 1.10 316
0.50 11,719 32 11,917 0.77 288 0.00 0.01 0.02 148 55,898 0.97 364
0.40 15,505 27 13,439 0.67 333 0.00 0.01 0.02 129 64,330 0.84 419
0.30 20,491 23 14,928 0.58 379 0.00 0.01 0.02 111 72,938 0.72 474
0.20 27,171 19 16,475 0.48 423 0.00 0.01 0.02 93 81,137 0.60 528
0.15 31,396 17 17,287 0.44 441 0.00 0.01 0.02 84 84,801 0.55 551
0.10 35,709 16 17,879 0.40 455 0.00 0.01 0.02 76 87,481 0.50 569
INDICATED TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
CUTOFF AUEQ 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs pct pct pct g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
1.00 2,364 97 7,373 1.22 93 0.00 0.01 0.02 290 22,019 1.89 144
0.90 2,861 85 7,802 1.15 105 0.00 0.01 0.02 265 24,380 1.73 159
0.80 3,496 74 8,269 1.07 120 0.00 0.01 0.02 241 27,074 1.57 176
0.70 4,356 63 8,765 0.98 137 0.00 0.01 0.02 216 30,290 1.40 197
0.60 5,549 52 9,351 0.89 158 0.00 0.01 0.02 192 34,197 1.24 221
0.50 7,267 43 10,027 0.79 184 0.00 0.01 0.02 167 38,970 1.08 252
0.40 9,818 34 10,833 0.68 216 0.00 0.01 0.02 142 44,826 0.91 288
0.30 13,828 26 11,740 0.57 255 0.00 0.01 0.02 117 51,997 0.75 333
0.20 19,824 20 12,693 0.47 297 0.00 0.01 0.01 94 59,676 0.60 381
0.15 23,452 17 13,141 0.42 314 0.00 0.01 0.01 84 62,962 0.53 401
0.10 27,220 15 13,505 0.37 327 0.00 0.01 0.01 75 65,410 0.48 416
MEA+IND TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
CUTOFF AUEQ 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs pct pct pct g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
1.00 5,797 77 14,278 1.23 229 0.00 0.02 0.02 267 49,698 1.74 324
0.90 7,129 67 15,449 1.15 263 0.00 0.01 0.02 244 55,956 1.59 365
0.80 8,882 59 16,742 1.06 302 0.00 0.01 0.02 222 63,308 1.44 412
0.70 11,282 50 18,227 0.97 350 0.00 0.01 0.02 199 72,202 1.30 470
0.60 14,507 43 19,959 0.87 406 0.00 0.01 0.02 177 82,606 1.15 537
0.50 18,986 36 21,944 0.77 473 0.00 0.01 0.02 155 94,868 1.01 616
0.40 25,324 30 24,273 0.67 549 0.00 0.01 0.02 134 109,155 0.87 707
0.30 34,319 24 26,668 0.57 634 0.00 0.01 0.02 113 124,935 0.73 807
0.20 46,995 19 29,168 0.48 719 0.00 0.01 0.02 93 140,813 0.60 908
0.15 54,848 17 30,428 0.43 756 0.00 0.01 0.02 84 147,763 0.54 952
0.10 62,929 16 31,384 0.39 782 0.00 0.01 0.02 76 152,892 0.49 985
INFERRED TONNAGE Ag Ag Au Au Cu Pb Zn AgEq AgEq AuEq AuEq
CUTOFF AUEQ 1000t g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs pct pct pct g/t 1000ozs g/t 1000ozs
1.00 538 125 2,161 1.11 19 0.00 0.01 0.01 302 5,223 2.17 38
0.90 663 105 2,242 1.06 23 0.00 0.01 0.01 272 5,807 1.94 42
0.80 985 78 2,459 0.94 30 0.00 0.01 0.01 228 7,203 1.58 50
0.70 1,350 63 2,718 0.85 37 0.00 0.01 0.02 198 8,577 1.36 59
0.60 1,703 53 2,915 0.79 43 0.00 0.01 0.02 178 9,729 1.21 66
0.50 2,006 47 3,040 0.74 48 0.00 0.01 0.02 164 10,560 1.11 72
0.40 2,277 43 3,160 0.69 51 0.00 0.01 0.02 153 11,176 1.03 76
0.30 2,713 38 3,273 0.63 55 0.00 0.01 0.02 137 11,945 0.92 81
0.20 3,495 30 3,367 0.54 60 0.00 0.01 0.02 115 12,946 0.77 87
0.15 3,946 27 3,409 0.49 63 0.00 0.01 0.02 105 13,351 0.70 89
0.10 4,406 24 3,458 0.45 64 0.00 0.01 0.02 96 13,639 0.64 91
EL TIGRE PIT-CONSTRAINED SENSITIVITIES