# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001680056
**File Stem:** 0001104659-26-021728
**Filing Date:** 2026-3
**Character Count:** 2270618
**Document Hash:** 9d955a01aefe9facfeb7c2ea4ab01a38
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001104659-26-021728.hdr.sgml**: 20260302

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001104659-26-021728

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 6-K

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 246

**CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT**: 20260227

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20260302

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20260227

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** Orla Mining Ltd.
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001680056
- **STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:** GOLD & SILVER ORES [1040]
- **ORGANIZATION NAME:** 01 Energy & Transportation
- **EIN:** 851126755
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** Z4
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1231

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 6-K
- **SEC ACT:** 1934 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 001-39766
- **FILM NUMBER:** 26702571

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **ADDRESS IS A NON US LOCATION:** YES
- **STREET 1:** SUITE 2020, 666 BURRARD STREET
- **CITY:** VANCOUVER
- **NON US STATE TERRITORY:** BRITISH COLUMBIA
- **PROVINCE COUNTRY:** A1
- **ZIP:** V6C 2X8
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 604-564-1852

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **ADDRESS IS A NON US LOCATION:** YES
- **STREET 1:** SUITE 2020, 666 BURRARD STREET
- **CITY:** VANCOUVER
- **NON US STATE TERRITORY:** BRITISH COLUMBIA
- **PROVINCE COUNTRY:** A1
- **ZIP:** V6C 2X8

**UNITED STATES** 

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION** 

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 6-K**

**Report of Foreign Private Issuer** 

**Pursuant to Rule 13** **a-16 or 15d-16** 

**UNDER the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

For the month of February 2026

Commission File Number: 001-39766

![](tm266907d1_6kimg01.jpg)

**ORLA MINING LTD.**

(Translation of registrant's name into English)

**Suite 2020, 666 Burrard Street<br> Vancouver, British Columbia,** 

**V6C 2X8, Canada** 

(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F ◻ Form 40-F ⌧

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ◻

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ◻

**Signature**

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **ORLA MINING LTD.** | **ORLA MINING LTD.** |
| Date: February 27, 2026 | /s/ Etienne Morin | /s/ Etienne Morin |
|  | Name: | Etienne Morin |
|  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

---

**EXHIBIT INDEX**

<u>Exhibit</u>   <u>Description of Exhibit</u> <br>[99.1](tm266907d1_ex99-1.htm) [Technical Report - South Railroad Project](tm266907d1_ex99-1.htm)

## Exhibit 99.1

**Exhibit 99.1**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img02.jpg)

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

**Date and Signatures Page**

The effective date of this report is September 30, 2025. The issue date of this report is February 27, 2026. See Appendix A, Feasibility Study Contributors and Professional Qualifications, for certificates of qualified persons. These certificates are considered the date and signature of this report in accordance with Form 43-101F1 – Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | ii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

**South Railroad Project**

**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table of Contents**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **SECTION** | **SECTION** | **SECTION** | **PAGE** |
| **Date and Signatures Page** | **Date and Signatures Page** | **Date and Signatures Page** | **ii** |
| **Table of Contents** | **Table of Contents** | **Table of Contents** | **iii** |
| **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **xiv** |
| **List of Tables** | **List of Tables** | **List of Tables** | **xxi** |
| **1** | **Summary** | **Summary** | **1** |
|  | **1.1** | **Principal Findings** | **1** |
|  | **1.2** | **Property Description and Ownership** | **3** |
|  | **1.3** | **Exploration and Mining History** | **3** |
|  | **1.4** | **Geology and Mineralization** | **4** |
|  | **1.5** | **Data Verification** | **6** |
|  | **1.6** | **Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **7** |
|  | **1.7** | **Recovery Methods** | **11** |
|  | **1.8** | **Mineral Resource Estimate and Mineral Reserve Estimate** | **11** |
|  |  | **Mineral Resource Estimate** | **11** |
|  |  | **Mineral Reserve Estimate** | **14** |
|  | **1.9** | **Mining Methods** | **15** |
|  | **1.10** | **Infrastructure** | **16** |
|  | **1.11** | **Environment and Permitting** | **16** |
|  | **1.12** | **Water Management** | **17** |
|  | **1.13** | **Capital Cost Summary** | **17** |
|  | **1.14** | **Operating Cost Summary** | **18** |
|  | **1.15** | **Conclusions and Recommendations** | **18** |
| **2** | **Introduction** | **Introduction** | **20** |
|  | **2.1** | **Purpose of Report** | **20** |
|  | **2.3** | **Project Scope and Terms of Reference** | **21** |
|  | **2.4** | **Frequently Used Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions, and Units of Measure** | **22** |
|  | **2.5** | **Forward-looking information** | **25** |
| **3** | **Reliance on Other Experts** | **Reliance on Other Experts** | **26** |
| **4** | **Property Description and Location** | **Property Description and Location** | **27** |
|  | **4.1** | **Location and Land Area** | **27** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | iii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **4.2** | **Agreements and Encumbrances** | **Agreements and Encumbrances** | **29** |
|  | **4.3** | **Environmental Permits** | **Environmental Permits** | **33** |
|  |  | **4.3.1** | **Other Permits** | **33** |
|  |  | **4.3.2** | **Private Land Disturbance** | **33** |
| **5**<br>| **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **35** |
|  | **5.1** | **Access to Property** | **Access to Property** | **35** |
|  | **5.2** | **Climate** | **Climate** | **35** |
|  | **5.3** | **Physiography** | **Physiography** | **35** |
|  | **5.4** | **Local Resources and Infrastructure** | **Local Resources and Infrastructure** | **36** |
| **6** | **History** | **History** | **History** | **37** |
|  | **6.1** | **South Railroad Property** | **South Railroad Property** | **38** |
|  |  | **6.1.1** | **Dark Star Deposit** | **39** |
|  |  | **6.1.2** | **Pinion Deposit** | **39** |
|  |  | **6.1.3** | **Jasperoid Wash Deposit** | **41** |
|  |  | **6.1.4** | **Other Prospects in the South Railroad Property** | **42** |
|  | **6.2** | **North Railroad Property** | **North Railroad Property** | **43** |
|  | **6.3** | **Pony Creek Area Exploration History** | **Pony Creek Area Exploration History** | **45** |
|  |  | **6.3.1** | **Historical Ownership (1980 – 2024) and Exploration Summary (1980 – 2017)** | **46** |
|  |  | **6.3.2** | **Pony Creek Historical Drilling (1981-2017)** | **51** |
|  | **6.4** | **Historical Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Historical Mineral Resource Estimates** | **54** |
|  |  | **6.4.1** | **Dark Star Deposit Historical Estimates** | **54** |
|  |  | **6.4.2** | **Pinion Deposit Historical Estimates** | **56** |
|  |  | **6.4.3** | **POD (North Bullion Area) Deposit Historical Mineral Resources 1985 - 2003** | **57** |
|  |  | **6.4.4** | **Pony Creek Deposits Historical Estimates 2004-2006** | **59** |
|  | **6.5** | **Historical Mine Production** | **Historical Mine Production** | **60** |
|  |  | **6.5.1** | **South Railroad Property** | **60** |
|  |  | **6.5.2** | **North Railroad Property** | **60** |
|  |  | **6.5.3** | **Pony Creek Property** | **60** |
| **7** | **Geological Setting and Mineralization** | **Geological Setting and Mineralization** | **Geological Setting and Mineralization** | **61** |
|  | **7.1** | **Regional Geologic Setting** | **Regional Geologic Setting** | **61** |
|  | **7.2** | **Local and Property Geology** | **Local and Property Geology** | **65** |
|  |  | **7.2.1** | **South Railroad Property** | **67** |
|  |  | **7.2.2** | **North Railroad Property** | **72** |
|  |  | **7.2.3** | **Pony Creek Property** | **75** |
|  |  | **7.2.4** | **Mineralization** | **80** |
|  |  | **7.2.5** | **Pony Creek** | **82** |
|  |  | **7.2.6** | **Dark Star, Pinion and North Bullion Petrography** | **84** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | iv |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **8** | **Deposit Types** | **Deposit Types** | **Deposit Types** | **85** |
| **9** | **Exploration** | **Exploration** | **Exploration** | **88** |
|  | **9.1** | **Gold Standard Exploration – 2009 – 2022** | **Gold Standard Exploration – 2009 – 2022** | **88** |
|  |  | **9.1.1** | **Geophysics** | **88** |
|  |  | **9.1.2** | **Rock Chip and Soil Sampling** | **91** |
|  |  | **9.1.3** | **Geologic Mapping** | **93** |
|  | **9.2** | **Contact Gold Exploration – 2017 – 2019** | **Contact Gold Exploration – 2017 – 2019** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.2.1** | **Geological Mapping** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.2.2** | **Surface Geochemistry** | **98** |
|  |  | **9.2.3** | **Geophysics** | **101** |
|  | **9.3** | **Orla Exploration – 2022 – 2024** | **Orla Exploration – 2022 – 2024** | **104** |
|  |  | **9.3.1** | **Geophysical Surveys** | **104** |
|  |  | **9.3.2** | **Rock Chip and Soil Sampling** | **104** |
|  |  | **9.3.3** | **Geologic Mapping** | **104** |
| **10** | **Drilling** | **Drilling** | **Drilling** | **105** |
|  | **10.1** | **Summary** | **Summary** | **105** |
|  | **10.2** | **Interval Lengths versus True Width of Mineralization** | **Interval Lengths versus True Width of Mineralization** | **109** |
|  | **10.3** | **Historical North Railroad Property Drilling** | **Historical North Railroad Property Drilling** | **109** |
|  |  | **10.3.1** | **1969-1974 American Selco, Placer Amex and El Paso Gas Company** | **109** |
|  |  | **10.3.2** | **1977-1980 AMAX** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.3** | **1980-1981 Homestake** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.4** | **1983 and 1985-1986 NICOR** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.5** | **1987-1992 Westmont** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.6** | **1994 Ramrod** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.7** | **1995 Newmont** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.8** | **1996-1997 Mirandor** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.9** | **1998-1999 Kinross** | **110** |
|  |  | **10.3.10** | **2005-2008 Royal Standard Minerals** | **111** |
|  | **10.4** | **Historical South Railroad Property Drilling** | **Historical South Railroad Property Drilling** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.1** | **1980-1981 AMOCO Minerals** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.2** | **1981-1982 Newmont** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.3** | **1983 Freeport** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.4** | **1984 Cyprus-AMAX** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.5** | **1985 Santa Fe Mining** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.6** | **1987-1989 Newmont** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.7** | **1987-1989 Teck Resources** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.8** | **1988 Battle Mountain** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.9** | **1989-1992 Westmont** | **111** |
|  |  | **10.4.10** | **1988-1989 Freeport** | **112** |
|  |  | **10.4.11** | **1990-1993 Crown Resources** | **112** |
|  |  | **10.4.12** | **1994-1995 Cyprus Mining** | **112** |
|  |  | **10.4.13** | **1997 Mirandor** | **112** |
|  |  | **10.4.14** | **1997-1999 Cameco** | **112** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | v |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **10.4.15** | **1998-1999 Kinross** | **112** |
|  |  | **10.4.16** | **2003 and 2007 Royal Standard Minerals** | **112** |
|  | **10.5** | **Historical Pony Creek Drilling** | **Historical Pony Creek Drilling** | **112** |
|  | **10.6** | **Gold Standard and Orla Drilling, North Railroad Property, 2010 - 2024** | **Gold Standard and Orla Drilling, North Railroad Property, 2010 - 2024** | **113** |
|  |  | **10.6.1** | **North Bullion Deposits Drilling** | **115** |
|  |  | **10.6.2** | **Exploration Drilling in the North Railroad Property** | **118** |
|  | **10.7** | **Gold Standard and Orla Drilling, South Railroad Property, 2012 - 2024** | **Gold Standard and Orla Drilling, South Railroad Property, 2012 - 2024** | **119** |
|  |  | **10.7.1** | **Dark Star Area Drilling** | **121** |
|  |  | **10.7.2** | **Pinion Area Drilling** | **122** |
|  |  | **10.7.3** | **Jasperoid Wash Area Drilling** | **123** |
|  | **10.8** | **Contact Gold and Orla Drilling, Pony Creek Property, 2017-2024** | **Contact Gold and Orla Drilling, Pony Creek Property, 2017-2024** | **124** |
|  |  | **10.8.1** | **Contact Gold Drilling Summary (2017-2019)** | **124** |
|  |  | **10.8.2** | **Orla Drilling Summary (2024)** | **129** |
|  |  | **10.8.3** | **Pony Creek Drilling Targets** | **130** |
|  | **10.9** | **Drill-Hole Collar Surveys** | **Drill-Hole Collar Surveys** | **152** |
|  |  | **10.9.1** | **Historical Collar Surveys** | **152** |
|  |  | **10.9.2** | **Gold Standard Collar Surveys** | **152** |
|  | **10.10** | **Down-Hole Surveys** | **Down-Hole Surveys** | **152** |
|  |  | **10.10.1** | **Historical Down-Hole Surveys, North and South Railroad Properties** | **152** |
|  |  | **10.10.2** | **Gold Standard, Contact Gold and Orla Down-Hole Surveys, North and South Railroad Properties** | **153** |
|  | **10.11** | **Summary Statement** | **Summary Statement** | **153** |
| **11** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **154** |
|  | **11.1** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security - Historical Operators** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security - Historical Operators** | **154** |
|  |  | **11.1.1** | **Drilling Samples - South Railroad Property** | **154** |
|  |  | **11.1.2** | **Drilling Samples - North Railroad Property** | **156** |
|  |  | **11.1.3** | **Pony Creek Property Exploration** | **157** |
|  | **11.2** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security – Gold Standard and Orla** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security – Gold Standard and Orla** | **159** |
|  |  | **11.2.1** | **South Railroad Property Drill Samples** | **159** |
|  |  | **11.2.2** | **North Railroad Property Drill Samples** | **163** |
|  | **11.3** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security - Contact Gold and Orla - Pony Creek Property** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security - Contact Gold and Orla - Pony Creek Property** | **164** |
|  |  | **11.3.1** | **Surface Exploration** | **164** |
|  |  | **11.3.2** | **Drilling Programs** | **166** |
|  | **11.4** | **Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) – Historical Operators** | **Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) – Historical Operators** | **167** |
|  |  | **11.4.1** | **Dark Star Drill Programs QA/QC** | **167** |
|  |  | **11.4.2** | **Pony Creek Exploration QA/QC** | **171** |
|  | **11.5** | **QA/QC – Gold Standard and Orla** | **QA/QC – Gold Standard and Orla** | **172** |
|  |  | **11.5.1** | **QA/QC Procedures** | **172** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | vi |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **11.5.2** | **Dark Star Drill Programs - QA/QC** | **172** |
|  |  | **11.5.3** | **Pinion Drill Programs - QA/QC** | **183** |
|  |  | **11.5.4** | **Jasperoid Wash Drill Programs - QA/QC** | **203** |
|  |  | **11.5.5** | **North Bullion Deposits Drill Programs - QA/QC** | **204** |
|  |  | **11.5.6** | **Contact Gold's Pony Creek QA/QC** | **214** |
|  | **11.6** |  | **Authors' Opinions** | **234** |
|  |  | **11.6.1** | **North and South Railroad Properties** | **234** |
|  |  | **11.6.2** | **Pony Creek Property** | **235** |
| **12** | **Data Verification** | **Data Verification** | **Data Verification** | **237** |
|  | **12.1** | **Dark Star Database Audit** | **Dark Star Database Audit** | **237** |
|  |  | **12.1.1** | **Historical and Gold Standard Drill-Hole Data - 2014-2018** | **237** |
|  |  | **12.1.2** | **Drill-Hole Data – 2021-2024** | **238** |
|  |  | **12.1.3** | **2019 Audit of Carbon, CO<sub>2</sub> and Sulfur Data** | **239** |
|  |  | **12.1.4** | **GPS Collar Checks** | **239** |
|  | **12.2** | **Pinion Database Audit** | **Pinion Database Audit** | **239** |
|  |  | **12.2.1** | **Historical and Gold Standard Drill-Hole Data - 2014-2018** | **239** |
|  |  | **12.2.2** | **Drill-Hole Data - 2019-2020** | **241** |
|  |  | **12.2.3** | **Drill-Hole Data - 2023-2024** | **241** |
|  |  | **12.2.4** | **2019 Audit of Carbon, CO<sub>2</sub> and Sulfur Data** | **242** |
|  | **12.3** | **Jasperoid Wash Database Audit** | **Jasperoid Wash Database Audit** | **242** |
|  |  | **12.3.1** | **Drill-Hole Data - 2017-2018** | **242** |
|  |  | **12.3.2** | **Drill-Hole Data - 2023-2024** | **242** |
|  | **12.4** | **North Bullion Deposits Database Audit** | **North Bullion Deposits Database Audit** | **243** |
|  |  | **12.4.1** | **Historical and Gold Standard Drill Data - 2010-2020** | **243** |
|  |  | **12.4.2** | **Drill-Hole Data - 2023** | **244** |
|  |  | **12.4.3** | **North Bullion GPS Collar Checks** | **244** |
|  | **12.5** | **Pony Creek Data Verification Procedures** | **Pony Creek Data Verification Procedures** | **244** |
|  |  | **12.5.1** | **2022 Data Verification** | **245** |
|  |  | **12.5.2** | **2025 Data Verification** | **245** |
|  | **12.6** | **Qualified Person Site Inspection** | **Qualified Person Site Inspection** | **246** |
|  | **12.7** | **Summary Statement on Data Verification** | **Summary Statement on Data Verification** | **251** |
| **13** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **252** |
|  | **13.1** | **Pinon Overview** | **Pinon Overview** | **252** |
|  |  | **13.1.1** | **Pinion Test Phases** | **257** |
|  | **13.2** | **Dark Star Overview** | **Dark Star Overview** | **266** |
|  |  | **13.2.1** | **Dark Star Test Phases** | **269** |
|  | **13.3** | **Process Design** | **Process Design** | **276** |
|  | **13.4** | **Trade-off Studies** | **Trade-off Studies** | **276** |
|  | **13.5** | **Blast Dynamics** | **Blast Dynamics** | **276** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | vii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **13.6** | **RoM Recovery** | **RoM Recovery** | **277** |
|  | **13.7** | **Process Design Criteria** | **Process Design Criteria** | **279** |
|  |  | **13.7.1** | **Cycle Time** | **279** |
|  |  | **13.7.2** | **Cyanide Consumption** | **280** |
|  |  | **13.7.3** | **Lime Consumption** | **281** |
|  | **13.8** | **Deleterious elements** | **Deleterious elements** | **281** |
|  | **13.9** | **Geometallurgy** | **Geometallurgy** | **281** |
|  |  | **13.9.1** | **Sample Locations Pinion** | **281** |
|  |  | **13.9.2** | **Sample Locations Dark Star** | **284** |
|  |  | **13.9.3** | **Geometallurgy** | **285** |
| **14** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **291** |
|  | **14.1** | **Introduction – Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits** | **Introduction – Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits** | **291** |
|  | **14.2** | **Dark Star Mineral Resources** | **Dark Star Mineral Resources** | **293** |
|  |  | **14.2.1** | **Dark Star Database** | **294** |
|  |  | **14.2.2** | **Dark Star Geologic Model** | **296** |
|  |  | **14.2.3** | **Dark Star Gold Domains and Estimation** | **297** |
|  |  | **14.2.4** | **Dark Star Gold Mineral Resources** | **307** |
|  |  | **14.2.5** | **Dark Star Cyanide-Soluble Gold and Geo-Metallurgical Models** | **317** |
|  |  | **14.2.6** | **Dark Star Acid-Base Accounting Model and Estimation** | **318** |
|  |  | **14.2.7** | **Dark Star Clay Model and Estimation** | **321** |
|  |  | **14.2.8** | **Dark Star Density** | **321** |
|  |  | **14.2.9** | **Discussion of Dark Star Estimated Gold Mineral Resource and Supporting Models** | **323** |
|  | **14.3** | **Pinion Deposit Mineral Resources** | **Pinion Deposit Mineral Resources** | **325** |
|  |  | **14.3.1** | **Pinion Database** | **325** |
|  |  | **14.3.2** | **Pinion Geologic Model** | **327** |
|  |  | **14.3.3** | **Pinion Gold Domains and Estimation** | **328** |
|  |  | **14.3.4** | **Pinion Silver Modeling and Estimation** | **335** |
|  |  | **14.3.5** | **Pinion Gold and Silver Resources** | **340** |
|  |  | **14.3.6** | **Pinion Geo-Metallurgical** | **349** |
|  |  | **14.3.7** | **Pinion Acid-Base Accounting Model and Estimation** | **357** |
|  |  | **14.3.8** | **Pinion Clay Model and Estimation** | **361** |
|  |  | **14.3.9** | **Pinion Density** | **361** |
|  |  | **14.3.10** | **Discussion of Pinion Estimated Mineral Resources and Supporting Models** | **362** |
|  | **14.4** | **Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | **Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | **364** |
|  |  | **14.4.1** | **Jasperoid Wash Database** | **364** |
|  |  | **14.4.2** | **Jasperoid Wash Geologic Model** | **366** |
|  |  | **14.4.3** | **Jasperoid Wash Gold Domains and Estimation** | **367** |
|  |  | **14.4.4** | **Jasperoid Wash Gold Mineral Resources** | **373** |
|  |  | **14.4.5** | **Jasperoid Wash Geo-Metallurgical Model** | **380** |
|  |  | **14.4.6** | **Jasperoid Wash Clay Model** | **381** |
|  |  | **14.4.7** | **Jasperoid Wash Density** | **382** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | viii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **14.4.8** | **Discussion of Jasperoid Wash estimated Mineral Resources** | **382** |
|  | **14.5** | **North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | **North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | **383** |
|  |  | **14.5.1** | **North Bullion Database** | **384** |
|  |  | **14.5.2** | **North Bullion Geologic Model** | **386** |
|  |  | **14.5.3** | **North Bullion Gold Domains and Estimation** | **387** |
|  |  | **14.5.4** | **North Bullion Gold Mineral Resources** | **398** |
|  |  | **14.5.5** | **North Bullion Density** | **410** |
|  |  | **14.5.6** | **Discussion of North Bullion Estimated Mineral Resources** | **411** |
|  | **14.6** | **Pony Creek Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Pony Creek Mineral Resource Estimates** | **412** |
|  |  | **14.6.1** | **Drillhole Description** | **413** |
|  |  | **14.6.2** | **Estimation Domain Interpretation** | **414** |
|  |  | **14.6.3** | **Compositing Methodology** | **418** |
|  |  | **14.6.4** | **Variography and Grade Continuity** | **421** |
|  |  | **14.6.5** | **Block Model** | **423** |
|  |  | **14.6.6** | **Grade Estimation Methodology** | **424** |
|  |  | **14.6.7** | **Grade Estimation of Waste Material** | **425** |
|  |  | **14.6.8** | **Model Validation** | **425** |
|  |  | **14.6.9** | **Mineral Resource Classification** | **429** |
|  |  | **14.6.10** | **Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction** | **430** |
|  |  | **14.6.11** | **Mineral Resource Estimate Statement** | **431** |
|  |  | **14.6.12** | **Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity** | **432** |
|  |  | **14.6.13** | **Risk and Uncertainty in the Mineral Resource Estimate** | **433** |
| **15** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **435** |
|  | **15.1** | **Introduction** | **Introduction** | **435** |
|  | **15.2** | **Pit Optimization** | **Pit Optimization** | **436** |
|  |  | **15.2.1** | **Economic Parameters** | **436** |
|  |  | **15.2.2** | **Geometric Parameters** | **438** |
|  |  | **15.2.3** | **Cutoff Grades** | **442** |
|  |  | **15.2.4** | **Pit Optimization Methods and Results** | **443** |
|  | **15.3** | **Pit Designs** | **Pit Designs** | **451** |
|  |  | **15.3.1** | **Road and Ramp Design** | **451** |
|  |  | **15.3.2** | **Dark Star Pit Designs** | **452** |
|  |  | **15.3.3** | **Pinion Pit Designs** | **456** |
|  | **15.4** | **Dilution** | **Dilution** | **462** |
|  | **15.5** | **Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Dark Star and Pinion** | **Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Dark Star and Pinion** | **462** |
| **16** | **Mining Methods** | **Mining Methods** | **Mining Methods** | **464** |
|  | **16.1** | **Waste Rock Storage Areas** | **Waste Rock Storage Areas** | **464** |
|  | **16.2** | **Stockpiles** | **Stockpiles** | **466** |
|  | **16.3** | **Mine Production Schedule** | **Mine Production Schedule** | **466** |
|  | **16.4** | **Relevant Geotechnical and Hydrological Parameters** | **Relevant Geotechnical and Hydrological Parameters** | **468** |
|  | **16.5** | **Mine Process Schedule** | **Mine Process Schedule** | **468** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | ix |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **16.6** | **Equipment Selection and Productivities** | **Equipment Selection and Productivities** | **478** |
|  | **16.7** | **Equipment Requirements** | **Equipment Requirements** | **478** |
|  |  | **16.7.1** | **Drilling Equipment** | **479** |
|  |  | **16.7.2** | **Loading Equipment** | **480** |
|  |  | **16.7.3** | **Haulage Productivity** | **480** |
|  |  | **16.7.4** | **Support and Maintenance Equipment** | **480** |
|  | **16.8** | **Mining Personnel and Staffing** | **Mining Personnel and Staffing** | **481** |
| **17** | **Recovery Methods** | **Recovery Methods** | **Recovery Methods** | **482** |
|  | **17.1** | **Gold and Silver Recoveries** | **Gold and Silver Recoveries** | **482** |
|  | **17.2** | **Reagents and Consumptions** | **Reagents and Consumptions** | **482** |
|  |  | **17.2.1** | **Sodium Cyanide** | **482** |
|  |  | **17.2.2** | **Lime** | **483** |
|  |  | **17.2.3** | **Activated Carbon** | **483** |
|  |  | **17.2.4** | **Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic)** | **483** |
|  |  | **17.2.5** | **Nitric Acid** | **483** |
|  |  | **17.2.6** | **Fluxes** | **483** |
|  |  | **17.2.7** | **Antiscalant** | **483** |
|  | **17.3** | **Process Flowsheet** | **Process Flowsheet** | **484** |
|  | **17.4** | **Crushing Plant** | **Crushing Plant** | **485** |
|  | **17.5** | **ROM Truck Stacking** | **ROM Truck Stacking** | **485** |
|  | **17.6** | **Leaching and Solution Handling** | **Leaching and Solution Handling** | **486** |
|  | **17.7** | **Leach Pad Phasing and Construction** | **Leach Pad Phasing and Construction** | **486** |
|  |  | **17.7.1** | **Solution Ponds** | **487** |
|  | **17.8** | **ADR Plant** | **ADR Plant** | **487** |
|  |  | **17.8.1** | **Adsorption** | **489** |
|  |  | **17.8.2** | **Carbon Acid Wash** | **489** |
|  |  | **17.8.3** | **Desorption** | **489** |
|  |  | **17.8.4** | **Electrowinning** | **490** |
|  |  | **17.8.5** | **Carbon Handling & Thermal Regeneration** | **490** |
|  |  | **17.8.6** | **Refining & Smelting** | **491** |
|  | **17.9** | **ADR Reagents and Utilities** | **ADR Reagents and Utilities** | **491** |
|  | **17.10** | **Laboratory Facilities** | **Laboratory Facilities** | **491** |
| **18** | **Project Infrastructure** | **Project Infrastructure** | **Project Infrastructure** | **492** |
|  | **18.1** | **Access Road** | **Access Road** | **492** |
|  | **18.2** | **Power Supply** | **Power Supply** | **492** |
|  | **18.3** | **Project Buildings** | **Project Buildings** | **493** |
|  |  | **18.3.1** | **Security Building at Access Gate** | **495** |
|  |  | **18.3.2** | **Administration Building** | **495** |
|  |  | **18.3.3** | **Truck Shop Building** | **495** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | x |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **18.3.4** | **ADR Plant** | **495** |
|  |  | **18.3.5** | **Laboratory** | **495** |
|  | **18.4** | **Sitewide Water Management Strategy** | **Sitewide Water Management Strategy** | **495** |
|  |  | **18.4.1** | **Source of Mine Water** | **496** |
|  |  | **18.4.2** | **Beneficial Reuse** | **502** |
|  |  | **18.4.3** | **Water Disposal and Large Storm Events** | **503** |
|  | **18.5** | **Water Management Infrastructure** | **Water Management Infrastructure** | **503** |
|  |  | **18.5.1** | **Dark Star Groundwater Dewatering System** | **503** |
|  |  | **18.5.2** | **Seepage and Stormwater Management System** | **505** |
|  |  | **18.5.3** | **Beneficial Reuse System** | **506** |
|  | **18.6** | **Heap Leach Pad Facility** | **Heap Leach Pad Facility** | **507** |
|  | **18.7** | **Heap Leach Facility Water Balance Analysis** | **Heap Leach Facility Water Balance Analysis** | **508** |
|  | **18.8** | **Seismic Hazard Analysis** | **Seismic Hazard Analysis** | **510** |
| **19** | **Market Studies and Contracts** | **Market Studies and Contracts** | **Market Studies and Contracts** | **517** |
| **20** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact** | **518** |
|  | **20.1** | **Introduction** | **Introduction** | **518** |
|  | **20.2** | **Environmental Baseline Studies** | **Environmental Baseline Studies** | **519** |
|  | **20.3** | **Bureau of Land Management Plan of Operations / Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation, Nevada Reclamation Permit** | **Bureau of Land Management Plan of Operations / Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation, Nevada Reclamation Permit** | **520** |
|  |  | **20.3.1** | **Bureau of Land Management Pre-Application Planning** | **520** |
|  |  | **20.3.2** | **Plan of Operations Processing** | **520** |
|  | **20.4** | **United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit** | **United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit** | **521** |
|  | **20.5** | **National Environmental Policy Act** | **National Environmental Policy Act** | **521** |
|  | **20.6** | **State of Nevada Permits** | **State of Nevada Permits** | **522** |
|  |  | **20.6.1** | **Water Pollution Control Permit** | **522** |
|  |  | **20.6.2** | **National Pollution Discharge Eliminate System Permit** | **522** |
|  |  | **20.6.3** | **Air Quality Operating Permits** | **522** |
|  |  | **20.6.4** | **Water Rights** | **523** |
|  | **20.7** | **Elko County Special Use Permit** | **Elko County Special Use Permit** | **523** |
|  | **20.8** | **Other Minor or Ministerial Permits** | **Other Minor or Ministerial Permits** | **523** |
|  | **20.9** | **Environmental Study Results and Known Issues** | **Environmental Study Results and Known Issues** | **524** |
|  | **20.10** | **Waste Disposal and Monitoring** | **Waste Disposal and Monitoring** | **526** |
|  | **20.11** | **Social and Community Issues** | **Social and Community Issues** | **526** |
|  | **20.12** | **Mine Closure** | **Mine Closure** | **526** |
| **21** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **527** |
|  | **21.1** | **Mining Capital** | **Mining Capital** | **528** |
|  |  | **21.1.2** | **Support Equipment** | **529** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xi |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **21.1.3** | **Blasting Equipment** | **529** |
|  |  | **21.1.4** | **Mine Maintenance Capital** | **529** |
|  |  | **21.1.5** | **Other Capital** | **529** |
|  |  | **21.1.6** | **Mine Pre-Production** | **530** |
|  |  | **21.1.7** | **Mine Equipment Salvage** | **530** |
|  | **21.2** | **Process Capital** | **Process Capital** | **530** |
|  |  | **21.2.1** | **Process Capital Cost Summary** | **530** |
|  |  | **21.2.2** | **Freight** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.2.3** | **Construction Support** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.2.4** | **EPCM** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.2.5** | **Vendor Support** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.2.6** | **Spare Parts** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.2.7** | **Generator** Financing | **532** |
|  | **21.3** | **Owner's Costs** | **Owner's Costs** | **532** |
|  | **21.4** | **Mine Operating Cost** | **Mine Operating Cost** | **532** |
|  |  | **21.4.1** | **Mine General Services** | **533** |
|  |  | **21.4.2** | **Mine Maintenance** | **534** |
|  |  | **21.4.3** | **Drilling** | **535** |
|  |  | **21.4.4** | **Blasting** | **536** |
|  |  | **21.4.5** | **Loading** | **536** |
|  |  | **21.4.6** | **Hauling** | **537** |
|  |  | **21.4.7** | **Mine Support** | **538** |
|  | **21.5** | **Process Operating Cost Summary** | **Process Operating Cost Summary** | **539** |
|  |  | **21.5.1** | **Personnel and Staffing** | **542** |
|  |  | **21.5.2** | **Power** | **542** |
|  |  | **21.5.3** | **Consumable Items** | **542** |
|  |  | **21.5.4** | **Maintenance** | **543** |
|  |  | **21.5.5** | **Supplies and Services** | **543** |
|  |  | **21.5.6** | **Process Operating Cost Exclusions** | **543** |
|  |  | **21.5.7** | **Generator Financing Costs** | **543** |
|  | **21.6** | **G&A Costs** | **G&A Costs** | **543** |
| **22** | **Economic Analysis** | **Economic Analysis** | **Economic Analysis** | **544** |
|  | **22.1** | **Mining Physicals** | **Mining Physicals** | **544** |
|  | **22.2** | **Process Plant Production Statistics** | **Process Plant Production Statistics** | **544** |
|  | **22.3** | **Smelter Return Factors** | **Smelter Return Factors** | **546** |
|  | **22.4** | **Capital Expenditure** | **Capital Expenditure** | **546** |
|  | **22.5** | **Revenue** | **Revenue** | **546** |
|  | **22.6** | **Total Production Cost** | **Total Production Cost** | **547** |
|  | **22.7** | **Depreciation** | **Depreciation** | **547** |
|  | **22.8** | **Royalties** | **Royalties** | **547** |
|  | **22.9** | **Excise Tax** | **Excise Tax** | **547** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **22.10** | **Income Tax** | **Income Tax** | **547** |
|  | **22.11** | **Net Income After-Tax** | **Net Income After-Tax** | **547** |
|  | **22.12** | **Project Financing** | **Project Financing** | **547** |
|  | **22.13** | **Economic Indicators** | **Economic Indicators** | **548** |
|  | **22.14** | **Sensitivity Analysis** | **Sensitivity Analysis** | **548** |
|  | **22.15** | **Detailed Financial Model** | **Detailed Financial Model** | **548** |
| **23** | **Adjacent Properties** | **Adjacent Properties** | **Adjacent Properties** | **554** |
|  | **23.1** | **Rain** | **Rain** | **554** |
|  | **23.2** | **Emigrant** | **Emigrant** | **555** |
| **24** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** | **556** |
| **25** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** | **557** |
|  | **25.1** | **Project Risks** | **Project Risks** | **557** |
|  |  | **25.1.1** | **Geotechnical Characterization** | **557** |
|  |  | **25.1.2** | **Pit Lake Geochemistry** | **557** |
|  | **25.2** | **Project Opportunities** | **Project Opportunities** | **557** |
|  | **25.3** | **Exploration and Mineral Resource Expansion** | **Exploration and Mineral Resource Expansion** | **558** |
| **26** | **Recommendations** | **Recommendations** | **Recommendations** | **559** |
| **27** | **References** | **References** | **References** | **560** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xiii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

**List of Figures and Illustrations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **FIGURE** | **DESCRIPTION** | **PAGE** |
| Figure 4-1: Location Map for the South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek) | Figure 4-1: Location Map for the South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek) | 28 |
| Figure 4-2: South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek) with Ownership Percentages, Elko County, Nevada | Figure 4-2: South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek) with Ownership Percentages, Elko County, Nevada | 28 |
| Figure 4-3: South Carlin Complex Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances (Excluding Pony Creek) | Figure 4-3: South Carlin Complex Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances (Excluding Pony Creek) | 31 |
| Figure 4-4: South Carlin Complex – Pony Creek Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances | Figure 4-4: South Carlin Complex – Pony Creek Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances | 32 |
| Figure 4-4: Property Map with Property and Permit Boundaries (excluding Pony Creek) | Figure 4-4: Property Map with Property and Permit Boundaries (excluding Pony Creek) | 34 |
| Figure 6-1: Deposit and Prospect Areas in the South Carlin Complex | Figure 6-1: Deposit and Prospect Areas in the South Carlin Complex | 38 |
| Figure 6-2: Historical rock geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area | Figure 6-2: Historical rock geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area | 48 |
| Figure 6-3: Historical soil geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area | Figure 6-3: Historical soil geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area | 49 |
| Figure 6-4: Historical drilling completed by previous operators from 1981-2017 at Pony Creek | Figure 6-4: Historical drilling completed by previous operators from 1981-2017 at Pony Creek | 50 |
| Figure 7-1: Regional Geology of the South Carlin Complex | Figure 7-1: Regional Geology of the South Carlin Complex | 62 |
| Figure 7-2: Key to Lithology in Figure 7-1 | Figure 7-2: Key to Lithology in Figure 7-1 | 63 |
| Figure 7-3: Long Section through the Carlin Trend | Figure 7-3: Long Section through the Carlin Trend | 64 |
| Figure 7-4: Geologic Map of the South Carlin Complex | Figure 7-4: Geologic Map of the South Carlin Complex | 66 |
| Figure 7-5: Stratigraphic Column for the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposit Areas | Figure 7-5: Stratigraphic Column for the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposit Areas | 67 |
| Figure 7-6: Dark Star Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14698399 | Figure 7-6: Dark Star Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14698399 | 68 |
| Figure 7-7: Pinion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14695611 | Figure 7-7: Pinion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14695611 | 70 |
| Figure 7-8: Jasperoid Wash Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N146696822 | Figure 7-8: Jasperoid Wash Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N146696822 | 72 |
| Figure 7-9: North Bullion Stratigraphic Column | Figure 7-9: North Bullion Stratigraphic Column | 74 |
| Figure 7-10: North Bullion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section NW3447.5 | Figure 7-10: North Bullion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section NW3447.5 | 75 |
| Figure 7-11: Geological map of Pony Creek | Figure 7-11: Geological map of Pony Creek | 77 |
| Figure 7-12: Continued, Legend for geological map of Pony Creek | Figure 7-12: Continued, Legend for geological map of Pony Creek | 78 |
| Figure 7-13: Detailed stratigraphic section, Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018). | Figure 7-13: Detailed stratigraphic section, Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018). | 79 |
| Figure 8-1: Regional-Scale Carlin-Type Deposit Model | Figure 8-1: Regional-Scale Carlin-Type Deposit Model | 87 |
| Figure 9-1: Ground-based Geophysical Surveys by Gold Standard 2009 to 2022 | Figure 9-1: Ground-based Geophysical Surveys by Gold Standard 2009 to 2022 | 90 |
| Figure 9-2: Rock Sample and Soil Survey Grid Locations by Gold Standard 2010 to 2018 | Figure 9-2: Rock Sample and Soil Survey Grid Locations by Gold Standard 2010 to 2018 | 92 |
| Figure 9-3: Geological interpretation map of the Pony Creek area showing blocks, relative fault movements and target areas for the 2017-2018 mapping programs (adapted from Spalding, 2018). | Figure 9-3: Geological interpretation map of the Pony Creek area showing blocks, relative fault movements and target areas for the 2017-2018 mapping programs (adapted from Spalding, 2018). | 94 |
| Figure 9-4: Location map of samples taken for micropaleontology analysis (from Spalding, 2018). | Figure 9-4: Location map of samples taken for micropaleontology analysis (from Spalding, 2018). | 97 |
| Figure 9-4: Contact Gold Soil Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek | Figure 9-4: Contact Gold Soil Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek | 99 |
| Figure 9-5: Contact Gold Rock Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek | Figure 9-5: Contact Gold Rock Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek | 100 |
| Figure 9-7: Contact Gold Processed first vertical derivative gravity map compilation for Pony Creek | Figure 9-7: Contact Gold Processed first vertical derivative gravity map compilation for Pony Creek | 102 |
| Figure 9-7: Contact Gold CSAMT Survey Compilation for Pony Creek | Figure 9-7: Contact Gold CSAMT Survey Compilation for Pony Creek | 103 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xiv |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 10-1: Drill-Hole Map - North and South Railroad Properties (1969 – 2024) | 106 |
| Figure 10-2: Drill-Collar Location Map - North Railroad Property | 117 |
| Figure 10-3: Drill-Collar Location Map - South Railroad Property | 120 |
| Figure 10-4: 2017-2024 Pony Creek area drillhole collar locations | 125 |
| Figure 10-5: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Bowl Zone. | 134 |
| Figure 10-6: Cross section of Bowl Zone looking north. | 135 |
| Figure 10-7: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Stallion Zone. | 138 |
| Figure 10-8: Cross section of Stallion Zone looking north. | 139 |
| Figure 10-9: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results across Stallion-Bowl Trend. | 140 |
| Figure 10-10: Cross section of the Stallion-Bowl Trend looking north. | 141 |
| Figure 10-11: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Appaloosa and Mustang Zones. | 144 |
| Figure 10-12: Cross section of Appaloosa Zone looking north. | 145 |
| Figure 10-13: Cross section of Mustang Zone looking north. | 146 |
| Figure 10-14: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Pony Spur. | 148 |
| Figure 10-15: Cross section of Pony Spur Zone looking north. | 149 |
| Figure 10-16: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Elliot Dome and Robinson Exploration Zones. | 151 |
| Figure 11-1: Dark Star Assay Comparison - AAL vs. MBA - 1991 CDS Holes | 169 |
| Figure 11-2: Dark Star Assay Comparison - AAL vs Actlabs - 1991 CDS Holes | 169 |
| Figure 11-3: Dark Star Check Assays – ALS Assay vs. Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), 2015 | 180 |
| Figure 11-4: Dark Star Check Assays - ALS Assay vs. Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), 2016 | 181 |
| Figure 11-5: External Check Assays – BV (ICP Ultra Method) vs. AAL (Fire Assay), 2020 | 182 |
| Figure 11-6: Scatter Plot of Twin-Hole Analysis – DC18-09 (core) vs DR18-44 (RC) | 183 |
| Figure 11-7: Control Chart for MEG-Au.11.34, Pinion, 2014–2015 | 184 |
| Figure 11-8: Control Chart for MEG-S107007X, Pinion, 2014–2015 | 185 |
| Figure 11-9: Control Chart for MEG-Au.11.19, Pinion, 2018 | 187 |
| Figure 11-10: Grade and Date Ranges of 2018 Pinion CRMs | 187 |
| Figure 11-11: Relative Percent Difference Plot of Gold in Pinion Field Duplicates, 2017-2018 | 193 |
| Figure 11-12: Plot of Pinion Gold Field Duplicates, 2019-2020 | 194 |
| Figure 11-13: Pinion Blank and Preceding Sample Gold Assays, 2015 | 196 |
| Figure 11-14: Pinion Pulp Blank MEG-SiBLANK.17.10 and Preceding Sample Gold Assays, 2019-2020 | 197 |
| Figure 11-15: Results of Pinion Coarse Blank Analyses of Gold, 2021-2024 | 199 |
| Figure 11-16: Gold Relative Percent Difference –ALS vs. Bureau Veritas, Pinion Pulps, 2017 | 200 |
| Figure 11-17: Histogram of Pinion 2018 Twin Drill-Hole Samples | 202 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xv |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-18: Counts of North Bullion CRM Analyses by Mineral Domain | 205 |
| Figure 11-19: Timeline of North Bullion CRMs in Use | 206 |
| Figure 11-20: Gold in North Bullion CRM MEG-Au.11.19 | 206 |
| Figure 11-21: Relative Percent Difference Plot for Gold in North Bullion Preparation Duplicates, 2010-2019 | 211 |
| Figure 11-22: Gold Standard Coarse Blank and Preceding Sample Analyses, North Bullion, 2017-2018 | 214 |
| Figure 11-23: 2017 RC field duplicate fire assay results for Au | 216 |
| Figure 11-24: 2017 core field duplicate fire assay results for Au | 217 |
| Figure 11-25: Coarse blank fire assay results for Au | 218 |
| Figure 11-26: 2017 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results | 219 |
| Figure 11-27: 2017 Standard reference material (OxE126 Rock Labs) fire assay results | 219 |
| Figure 11-28: 2017 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results | 220 |
| Figure 11-29: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with AAS finish results, Q-Q plot | 221 |
| Figure 11-30: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with AAS finish results, scatterplot | 221 |
| Figure 11-31: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with gravimetric finish results, Q-Q plot | 222 |
| Figure 11-32: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with gravimetric finish results, scatterplot | 222 |
| Figure 11-33: 2018 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au | 223 |
| Figure 11-34: 2018 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au | 223 |
| Figure 11-35: 2018 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results | 224 |
| Figure 11-36: 2018 Standard reference material (OxE126 Rock Labs) fire assay results | 225 |
| Figure 11-37: 2018 Standard reference material (OxE143 Rock Labs) fire assay results. | 225 |
| Figure 11-38: 2018 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results. | 226 |
| Figure 11-39: 2018 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot. | 227 |
| Figure 11-40: 2018 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot. | 227 |
| Figure 11-41: 2019 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au. | 228 |
| Figure 11-42: 2019 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au. | 228 |
| Figure 11-43: 2019 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results. | 229 |
| Figure 11-44: 2019 Standard reference material (OxE143 Rock Labs) fire assay results. | 229 |
| Figure 11-45: 2019 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results. | 230 |
| Figure 11-46: 2019 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot. | 231 |
| Figure 11-47: 2019 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot. | 231 |
| Figure 11-48: 2024 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au | 232 |
| Figure 11-49: 2024 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au | 232 |
| Figure 11-50: 2019 Standard reference material (MEG-Au.17.05) fire assay results | 233 |
| Figure 11-51: 2019 Standard reference material (MEG-Au.17.7) fire assay results | 233 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xvi |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-52: 2024 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot. | 234 |
| Figure 11-53: 2024 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot. | 234 |
| Figure 12-1: Core from drillhole PC06-06 drilled in 2006 at the Bowl Zone showing the porphyritic rhyolite geological unit and a brecciated interval of intense faulting. | 247 |
| Figure 12-2: Mr. Dufresne's verification of Contact Gold drill collar PC19-21. | 248 |
| Figure 12-3: QP site visit drill collar coordinate verification and grab sample locations. | 249 |
| Figure 13-1: Pinion Zone vs. Recovery | 253 |
| Figure 13-2: Pinion, all data, Ba vs. Zone | 253 |
| Figure 13-3: Pinion all data, Particle Size vs. Recovery | 254 |
| Figure 13-4: Pinion all data, Grade vs. Recovery | 254 |
| Figure 13-5: Pinion all data, Barium vs. Column Recovery | 255 |
| Figure 13-6: Pinion, Low Barium vs. Column Recovery | 255 |
| Figure 13-7: Pinion, High Barium vs. Column Recovery | 256 |
| Figure 13-8: Pinion all data, Si vs. Recovery | 256 |
| Figure 13-9: Pinion North and Main data, particle size vs. recovery | 257 |
| Figure 13-10: Pinon Project Gold Extraction versus Days of Leach | 259 |
| Figure 13-11: Pinion Project Gold Extraction versus Days of Leach | 261 |
| Figure 13-12: Pinion East and West Data, Particle Size vs. Recovery | 264 |
| Figure 13-13: 2024 Testing, Sulfide Grade vs. Recovery | 265 |
| Figure 13-14: Dark Star Columns, Low Sulfide vs. Secondary Crushed Recovery | 266 |
| Figure 13-15: Dark Star Columns, High Sulfide vs. Secondary Crushed Recovery | 267 |
| Figure 13-16: Dark Star all data, particle size vs. recovery | 267 |
| Figure 13-17: Dark Star, Si vs. Recovery | 268 |
| Figure 13-18: Dark Star all data grade vs. Recovery | 268 |
| Figure 13-19: Dark Star Phase 3, Particle Size vs. Recovery | 273 |
| Figure 13-20: Pinion Isometric Views of Sample Locations | 281 |
| Figure 13-21: Pinion Sectional Views of Sample Locations | 282 |
| Figure 13-22: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations | 282 |
| Figure 13-23: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations and Zones | 283 |
| Figure 13-24: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations 2023/24 Testing | 283 |
| Figure 13-25: Dark Star Isometric Views of Sample Locations (Main Pit) | 284 |
| Figure 13-26: Dark Star Isometric Views of Sample Locations (North Pit) | 284 |
| Figure 13-27: Dark Star Plan Views of Sample Locations 2023/24 Testing | 285 |
| Figure 13-28: Pinion all data, Zone vs. Recovery | 287 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xvii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 13-29: Pinion all data, Rock Type vs. Recovery (1" columns) | 287 |
| Figure 13-30: Pinion all data, Rock Type vs. Recovery (1/2" columns) | 288 |
| Figure 13-31: Dark Star, Recovery vs. Zone | 289 |
| Figure 13-32: Dark Star, all data, Si vs. Zone | 289 |
| Figure 13-33: Dark Star, all data, Si vs. Recovery | 290 |
| Figure 14-1: Dark Star Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline | 295 |
| Figure 14-2: Cumulative Probability Plot of Dark Star Gold Assays | 298 |
| Figure 14-3: Dark Star Main Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14696823 | 301 |
| Figure 14-4: Dark Star North Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14698399 | 302 |
| Figure 14-5: Dark Star Spatial Relationship Between Estimation Areas, Gold Domains and Drill Holes | 306 |
| Figure 14-6: Dark Star Main Zone Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14696823 | 314 |
| Figure 14-7: Dark Star North Zone Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14698399 | 315 |
| Figure 14-8: Cumulative Probability Plot of Dark Star Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au Ratios | 317 |
| Figure 14-9: Pinion Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline | 326 |
| Figure 14-10: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Deposit Gold Assays | 328 |
| Figure 14-11: Pinion Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14695611 | 331 |
| Figure 14-12: Pinion Estimation Areas | 334 |
| Figure 14-13: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Deposit Silver Assays | 336 |
| Figure 14-14: Pinion Silver Domains and Geology – Section N14695611 | 338 |
| Figure 14-15: Pinion Gold Domains and Block Model– Section N14695611 | 346 |
| Figure 14-16: Pinion Silver Domains and Block Model– Section N14695611 | 347 |
| Figure 14-17: Cumulative Probability plot of Barium (NITON XRF) Sample Grades at Pinion | 350 |
| Figure 14-18: Pinion Barium Domains and Geology – Section N14695611 | 352 |
| Figure 14-19: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> Ratios | 354 |
| Figure 14-20: Jasperoid Wash Deposit Drill-hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline | 365 |
| Figure 14-21: Cumulative Probability Plot of Jasperoid Wash Gold Assays | 367 |
| Figure 14-22: Jasperoid Wash Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14675822 | 370 |
| Figure 14-23: Jasperoid Wash Estimation Areas and Gold Domains in Cross Section | 372 |
| Figure 14-24: Jasperoid Wash Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14675822 | 378 |
| Figure 14-25: Cumulative Probability Plot of Jasperoid Wash Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> Ratios | 380 |
| Figure 14-26: Jasperoid Wash Geology and Metallurgical Models – Section N14675822 | 381 |
| Figure 14-27: North Bullion Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline | 385 |
| Figure 14-28: Cumulative Probability Plot of North Bullion Gold Assays | 388 |
| Figure 14-29: Cumulative Probability Plot of Sweet Hollow Gold Assays | 388 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xviii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 14-30: Cumulative Probability Plot of POD Gold Assays | 389 |
| Figure 14-31: North Bullion Deposit Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW3447.5 | 392 |
| Figure 14-32: Sweet Hollow and South Lodes Deposits Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW1773.0 | 393 |
| Figure 14-33: POD Deposit Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW3053.5 | 394 |
| Figure 14-34: Spatial Relationship Between North Bullion Deposits, Estimation Areas, Gold Domains and Drill Holes | 397 |
| Figure 14-35: North Bullion Deposit Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW3447.5 | 406 |
| Figure 14-36: Sweet Hollow and South Lodes Deposits Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW1773.0 | 407 |
| Figure 14-37: POD Deposit Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW3053.5 | 408 |
| Figure 14-38: Plan view of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains | 415 |
| Figure 14-39: Orthogonal view of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains | 416 |
| Figure 14-40: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains and geological model at the Bowl Zone looking north along 14,655,600N illustrating estimated grades | 417 |
| Figure 14-41: Distribution of raw interval lengths within the estimation domains, excluding missing intervals | 419 |
| Figure 14-42: Modelled Gold Variogram for the b2 Domain | 422 |
| Figure 14-43: Modelled Gold Variogram for the bfe Domain | 422 |
| Figure 14-44: Standardized Gold Variogram Parameters | 423 |
| Figure 14-45: Swath Plots of Estimated Gold Grades | 426 |
| Figure 14-46: Comparison of target gold distribution and estimated distribution | 427 |
| Figure 14-47: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE block model at Bowl looking north along 14,655,000N illustrating estimated grades | 428 |
| Figure 14-48: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE block model at Appaloosa looking north along 14,663,000N illustrating estimated grades | 429 |
| Figure 15-1: Dark Star Slope Sectors | 439 |
| Figure 15-2: Pinion Slope Sectors | 441 |
| Figure 15-3: Dark Star Pit by Pit Graph | 447 |
| Figure 15-4: Pinion Pit by Pit Graph | 450 |
| Figure 15-5: Dark Star Ultimate Pit Design | 453 |
| Figure 15-6: Dark Star North (Phase 1) and Main (Phase 2) Initial Pits | 454 |
| Figure 15-7: Dark Star North (Phase 3) and Main (Phase 4) | 455 |
| Figure 15-8: Pinion Ultimate Pit Design | 457 |
| Figure 15-9: Pinion Phase 1 and Phase 2 Pit Design | 458 |
| Figure 15-10: Pinion Phase 2 and Phase 3 Pit Design | 459 |
| Figure 15-11: Pinion Phase 1, Phase 3, and Phase 4 Pit Design | 460 |
| Figure 15-12: Pinion Phase 1, Phase 3, Phase 4, and Phase 5 Pit Design | 461 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xix |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Figure 16-1: Crush Fraction Extraction Curves | 470 |
| Figure 16-2: ROM Fraction Extraction Curves | 470 |
| Figure 16-3: ROM Final Stacking Design | 472 |
| Figure 16-4: Example of Channeling | 473 |
| Figure 16-5: Recovered Gold Ounces by Year | 474 |
| Figure 16-6: Recovered Gold Ounces Cumulative | 474 |
| Figure 16-7: Recovered Silver Ounces by Year | 475 |
| Figure 16-8: Recovered Silver Ounces Cumulative | 475 |
| Figure 17-1: Process Flowsheet for the South Railroad Project | 484 |
| Figure 17-2: ADR Recovery Plant General Arrangement | 488 |
| Figure 18-1: Site Plan Drawing | 494 |
| Figure 18-2: Water Management Process Flow Diagram | 498 |
| Figure 18-3: Pipeline Plan General Arrangement | 499 |
| Figure 18-4: Stormwater Controls General Arrangement | 501 |
| Figure 18-5: Typical Dewatering Well Construction Details | 504 |
| Figure 18-6: Plot of Historic Earthquake Events and Selected Seismic Source Zones within a 500 km Radius | 512 |
| Figure 18-7: Plot of PSHA Results and Comparison with DSHA Results | 514 |
| Figure 18-8: PSHA Results and Design Response Spectra | 516 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xx |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

**LIST OF TABLES**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **TABLE** | **DESCRIPTION** | **PAGE** |
| Table 1-1: Key Project Data | Table 1-1: Key Project Data | 2 |
| Table 1-2: Estimated Recovery by Zone | Table 1-2: Estimated Recovery by Zone | 8 |
| Table 1-3: Test Phases Summary (Pinion) | Table 1-3: Test Phases Summary (Pinion) | 9 |
| Table 1-4: Pinion Phases 1, 3, & 6: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size | Table 1-4: Pinion Phases 1, 3, & 6: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size | 9 |
| Table 1-5: Test Phases Summary (Dark Star) | Table 1-5: Test Phases Summary (Dark Star) | 10 |
| Table 1-6: Dark Star Phases 1, 2, & 3: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size | Table 1-6: Dark Star Phases 1, 2, & 3: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size | 10 |
| Table 1-7: Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Combined Estimated Mineral Resources | Table 1-7: Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Combined Estimated Mineral Resources | 12 |
| Table 1-8: Summary of the 2025 Inferred Mineral Resources on the Pony Creek Project <sup>(1-7)</sup> | Table 1-8: Summary of the 2025 Inferred Mineral Resources on the Pony Creek Project <sup>(1-7)</sup> | 14 |
| Table 1-9: Total Dark Star and Pinion Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves | Table 1-9: Total Dark Star and Pinion Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves | 15 |
| Table 1-10: Capital Expenditure Schedule | Table 1-10: Capital Expenditure Schedule | 18 |
| Table 1-11: LOM Operating Costs | Table 1-11: LOM Operating Costs | 18 |
| Table 1-12: Economic Analysis Summary | Table 1-12: Economic Analysis Summary | 19 |
| Table 2-1: List of Qualified Persons | Table 2-1: List of Qualified Persons | 21 |
| Table 2-2: Acronyms and Abbreviations | Table 2-2: Acronyms and Abbreviations | 23 |
| Table 6-1: Summary of Historical Exploration in the Dark Star Deposit Area | Table 6-1: Summary of Historical Exploration in the Dark Star Deposit Area | 39 |
| Table 6-2: Summary of Historical Exploration, Pinion Area | Table 6-2: Summary of Historical Exploration, Pinion Area | 41 |
| Table 6-3: Historical drilling at Pony Creek (1981-2017) | Table 6-3: Historical drilling at Pony Creek (1981-2017) | 52 |
| Table 6-4: Historical drilling significant gold intercepts, Pony Creek area (modified from Russell, 2006) | Table 6-4: Historical drilling significant gold intercepts, Pony Creek area (modified from Russell, 2006) | 52 |
| Table 6-5: 1994 Dark Star Historical Crown Mineral Resource Estimate | Table 6-5: 1994 Dark Star Historical Crown Mineral Resource Estimate | 55 |
| Table 6-6: Dark Star Deposit 1995-1996 Cyprus Mineral Resource Estimate | Table 6-6: Dark Star Deposit 1995-1996 Cyprus Mineral Resource Estimate | 56 |
| Table 6-7: Historical Pinion Deposit Estimated Mineral Resources | Table 6-7: Historical Pinion Deposit Estimated Mineral Resources | 56 |
| Table 6-8: POD Deposit Historical Mineral Resource Estimates 1985 - 2003 | Table 6-8: POD Deposit Historical Mineral Resource Estimates 1985 - 2003 | 58 |
| Table 9-1: Geological legend for Figure 9-2 (from Spalding, 2018). | Table 9-1: Geological legend for Figure 9-2 (from Spalding, 2018). | 95 |
| Table 9-2: Micropaleontology analysis results from Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018). | Table 9-2: Micropaleontology analysis results from Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018). | 96 |
| Table 10-1: All Drilling - South Carlin Complex 1969 – 2024 | Table 10-1: All Drilling - South Carlin Complex 1969 – 2024 | 105 |
| Table 10-2: Historical Drilling Summary of the South Carlin Complex | Table 10-2: Historical Drilling Summary of the South Carlin Complex | 107 |
| Table 10-3: Historical Drill-Hole Summary - Pony Creek Property | Table 10-3: Historical Drill-Hole Summary - Pony Creek Property | 113 |
| Table 10-4: Summary of Gold Standard, Contact Gold and Orla Drilling in the South Railroad Property 2010 – 2024 | Table 10-4: Summary of Gold Standard, Contact Gold and Orla Drilling in the South Railroad Property 2010 – 2024 | 114 |
| Table 10-5: Drilling Contractors and Methods - Bald Mountain | Table 10-5: Drilling Contractors and Methods - Bald Mountain | 119 |
| Table 10-6: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods – Dark Star | Table 10-6: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods – Dark Star | 121 |
| Table 10-7: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods - Pinion | Table 10-7: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods - Pinion | 122 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxi |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 10-8: Drillholes completed at Pony Creek from 2017 - 2024 | 124 |
| Table 10-9: 2017-2019 Pony Creek drillhole collar descriptions | 127 |
| Table 10-10: 2024 Pony Creek drillhole collar descriptions | 129 |
| Table 10-11: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Bowl Zone, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au. | 131 |
| Table 10-12: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Stallion Zone and Stallion-Bowl Trend, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au. | 137 |
| Table 10-13: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Appaloosa and Mustang Zones, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au. | 143 |
| Table 10-14: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Pony Spur Zone, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.30 g/t Au. | 147 |
| Table 10-15: Select significant assay results from 2024 drilling at Elliot Dome and Robinson exploration zones, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.30 g/t Au. | 150 |
| Table 11-1: Summary Counts of Historical Dark Star QA/QC Analyses | 168 |
| Table 11-2: Summary of Dark Star Certified Reference Material Analyses Results, 1997 | 170 |
| Table 11-3: List of Dark Star Failed Certified Reference Materials, 1997 | 171 |
| Table 11-4: Summary Counts of Dark Star QA/QC Analyses | 173 |
| Table 11-5: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2015 | 173 |
| Table 11-6: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2015 | 173 |
| Table 11-7: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2016 | 174 |
| Table 11-8: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2016 | 174 |
| Table 11-9: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2017 | 175 |
| Table 11-10: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2017 | 175 |
| Table 11-11: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2018 | 176 |
| Table 11-12: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2018 | 176 |
| Table 11-13: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2019-2020 | 177 |
| Table 11-14: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2019-2020 | 177 |
| Table 11-15: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2020-2024 | 177 |
| Table 11-16: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2020-2024 | 178 |
| Table 11-17: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2014–2015 | 183 |
| Table 11-18: List of Pinion Failed CRM Analyses, 2014–2015 | 184 |
| Table 11-19: Explanations for Control Charts | 184 |
| Table 11-20: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2016 | 186 |
| Table 11-21: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2017 | 186 |
| Table 11-22: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2018 | 186 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 11-23: List of Failed Pinion CRM Assays, 2018 | 186 |
| Table 11-24: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Gold Analyses, 2019-2020 | 188 |
| Table 11-25: List of Pinion Failed CRM Gold Assays, 2019-2020 | 188 |
| Table 11-26: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM AuCN Analyses, 2019-2020 | 189 |
| Table 11-27: List of Pinion Failed CRM AuCN Assays, 2019-2020 | 189 |
| Table 11-28: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Silver Analyses, 2019 | 189 |
| Table 11-29: List of Pinion Failed CRM Silver Assays | 190 |
| Table 11-30: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2021-2024 | 190 |
| Table 11-31: List of Pinion Failed CRM Assays, 2021-2024 | 191 |
| Table 11-32: Summary of Results for Pinion Field Duplicates, 2017-2018 | 192 |
| Table 11-33: Summary of Results for Pinion Silver Pulp Re-Assays, 2017-2018 | 194 |
| Table 11-34: Summary of Results for Pinion Field Duplicate Gold Analyses, 2019-2020 | 194 |
| Table 11-35: Summary of Results for Pinion Gold Field and Preparation Duplicates, 2022-2024 | 195 |
| Table 11-36: Comparison of Original and Re-Assays from PIN15-14 | 196 |
| Table 11-37: Results of Pinion Silver Analyses of Pulp Blanks | 197 |
| Table 11-38: Anomalous Blank Sample Silver Assays for Pinion CRM MEG-SiBlank.17.10 | 198 |
| Table 11-39: Summary of Results for 2018 Check Assays of 2017 Pinion Samples | 200 |
| Table 11-40: Summary of Results for Pinion Gold Check Assays, 2021 | 201 |
| Table 11-41: Summary of Pinion Twin Hole Results | 201 |
| Table 11-42: Summary Counts of Jasperoid Wash QA/QC Analyses | 203 |
| Table 11-43: Summary of Results of Jasperoid Wash CRM Analyses, 2022 – 2024 | 203 |
| Table 11-44: Summary of Results for Jasperoid Wash Field and Preparation Duplicates, 2022-2024 | 204 |
| Table 11-45: Summary of Results Obtained for North Bullion CRMs | 208 |
| Table 11-46: List of Failed Analyses of North Bullion CRMs | 209 |
| Table 11-47: Summary of North Bullion Results for Gold CRMs, 2022-2024 | 209 |
| Table 11-48: List of North Bullion Failed Gold CRM Assays, 2022-2024 | 210 |
| Table 11-49: Summary of Results for North Bullion Duplicates, 2010-2020 | 212 |
| Table 11-50: Summary of Results for North Bullion Gold Duplicates, 2022-2024 | 213 |
| Table 11-51: Summary of Results for North Bullion Blanks, 2010-2020 | 213 |
| Table 11-52: Summary of Results for North Bullion Blanks, 2022-2024 | 214 |
| Table 11-53: Summary of 2017 RC field duplicate ALS re-runs (modified from Hibdon, 2018) | 217 |
| Table 12-1: Dark Star Carbon and Sulfur Records Checked and Analytical Procedures | 239 |
| Table 12-2: MDA Verification GPS Checks of Dark Star Drill Collars (NAD27 UTM 11N feet) | 239 |
| Table 12-3: Pinion Carbon and Sulfur Records Checked and Analytical Procedures | 242 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxiii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 12-4: MDA Verification GPS Checks of North Bullion Drill Collars (NAD27 UTM 11N feet) | 244 |
| Table 12-5: Drill collar coordinate comparison table. All coordinates are in UTM Nad83 Zone 11. | 247 |
| Table 12-6: Pony Creek QP site visit verification rock grab sample locations and results, ALS code Au-ICP21 and ME-MS61. All coordinates are in UTM Nad83 Zone 11. | 250 |
| Table 12-7: QP site visit verification pulp sample results. | 250 |
| Table 13-1: Pinion Phase 1 - Summary of Column Leach Test Work | 258 |
| Table 13-2: Pinion Phase 3 - Summary of Column Test | 260 |
| Table 13-3: Pinion Phase 4 – Summary of Column Tests | 262 |
| Table 13-4: Pinion Phase 6 – Summary of Conv. Crush Column Tests | 263 |
| Table 13-5: 2023-2024 Testing – Summary of Column Tests | 265 |
| Table 13-6: Dark Star Phase 1 - Summary of Column Tests | 269 |
| Table 13-7: "Twinned" Results Dark Star Phase 1 – Summary of Bottle Roll/Column Test | 270 |
| Table 13-8: Dark Star Phase 2 - Summary of Column Tests | 272 |
| Table 13-9: Dark Star Phase 3 – Summary of Column Tests | 273 |
| Table 13-10: Dark Star Phase 3 – Column Test Summary | 274 |
| Table 13-11: Dark Star 2023/2024 Testing – Summary of Column Tests | 276 |
| Table 13-12: SG and RQD Averages | 277 |
| Table 13-13: Leach Cycle/Recovery Calculations | 280 |
| Table 13-14: Pinion column database | 286 |
| Table 13-15: Dark Star Rock Types | 288 |
| Table 14-1: Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposits Estimated Mineral Resources | 293 |
| Table 14-2: Summary of Drilling at Dark Star | 294 |
| Table 14-3: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in Dark Star Drill-Hole Database | 296 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxiv |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 14-4: Dark Star Descriptive Assay Statistics by Domain | 299 |
| Table 14-5: Dark Star Capping Levels for Gold by Domain | 303 |
| Table 14-6: Dark Star Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain | 304 |
| Table 14-7: Dark Star Estimation Areas, Search-Ellipse Orientations and Maximum Search Distances by Domain | 305 |
| Table 14-8: Dark Star Estimation Parameters | 307 |
| Table 14-9: Dark Star Classification Parameters | 308 |
| Table 14-10: Dark Star Pit Optimization Parameters | 310 |
| Table 14-11: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Measured | 311 |
| Table 14-12: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Indicated | 311 |
| Table 14-13: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resource - Measured and Indicated | 312 |
| Table 14-14: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Inferred | 312 |
| Table 14-15: Dark Star Total Gold Mineral Resources in 0.075 oz Au/ton Underground Shell – Inferred | 313 |
| Table 14-16: Dark Star Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton | 316 |
| Table 14-17: Number of Samples and Mean Inorganic Carbon Values for Dark Star Estimation Categories | 319 |
| Table 14-18: Number of Samples and Mean Sulfide Sulfur Values for Dark Star Estimation Categories | 319 |
| Table 14-19: PAG/NAG Designation Criteria | 320 |
| Table 14-20: Density Values Applied to the Dark Star Block Model | 322 |
| Table 14-21: Summary of Drilling at Pinion | 325 |
| Table 14-22: Pinion Descriptive Statistics - Exploration and Mineral Resource Drill-Hole Database | 327 |
| Table 14-23: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Gold Statistics by Domain | 329 |
| Table 14-24: Pinion Gold Capping Levels for Gold by Domain | 332 |
| Table 14-25: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Gold Assay Composite Statistics by Domain | 332 |
| Table 14-26: Search Ellipse Orientation and Distances for Pinion Estimation Areas | 333 |
| Table 14-27: Pinion Gold Estimation Parameters | 335 |
| Table 14-28: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Silver Statistics by Domain | 337 |
| Table 14-29: Pinion Capping Levels for Silver by Domain | 339 |
| Table 14-30: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Silver Assay Composite Statistics by Domain | 339 |
| Table 14-31: Pinion Silver Estimation Parameters | 340 |
| Table 14-32: Pinion Classification Parameters | 341 |
| Table 14-33: Pinion Pit Optimization Parameters | 342 |
| Table 14-34: Pinion Measured Gold and Silver Resources\* | 343 |
| Table 14-35: Pinion Indicated Gold and Silver Resources\* | 344 |
| Table 14-36: Pinion Measured and Indicated Gold and Silver Resources\* | 344 |
| Table 14-37: Pinion Inferred Gold and Silver Resources | 345 |
| Table 14-38: Pinion Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton | 348 |
| Table 14-39: Pinion Barium Assay Statistics by Domain | 350 |
| Table 14-40: Pinion Barium Composite Statistics by Domain | 351 |
| Table 14-41: Pinion Barium Estimation Parameters | 353 |
| Table 14-42: Number of Samples and Mean Organic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 355 |
| Table 14-43: Assigned Organic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 356 |
| Table 14-44: Organic Carbon Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 356 |
| Table 14-45: Number of Samples and Mean Inorganic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 357 |
| Table 14-46: Number of Samples and Mean Sulfide Sulfur Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 358 |
| Table 14-47: Assigned Inorganic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 359 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxv |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 14-48: Assigned Sulfide Sulfur Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 359 |
| Table 14-49: Inorganic Carbon Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 360 |
| Table 14-50: Sulfide Sulfur Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories | 360 |
| Table 14-51: Density Values Applied to the Pinion Block Models | 361 |
| Table 14-52: Summary of Drilling at Jasperoid Wash | 364 |
| Table 14-53: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resource Database | 366 |
| Table 14-54: Jasperoid Wash Descriptive Statistics by Gold Domain | 368 |
| Table 14-55: Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain for Jasperoid Wash | 371 |
| Table 14-56: Jasperoid Wash Search Ellipse Orientations and Maximum Search Distances by Estimation Area | 373 |
| Table 14-57: Jasperoid Wash Estimation Parameters | 373 |
| Table 14-58: Jasperoid Wash Classification Parameters | 374 |
| Table 14-59: Jasperoid Wash Pit Optimization Parameters | 375 |
| Table 14-60: Jasperoid Wash Indicated Gold Mineral Resources | 376 |
| Table 14-61: Jasperoid Wash Inferred Gold Mineral Resources | 377 |
| Table 14-62: Jasperoid Wash Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton | 379 |
| Table 14-63: Density Values Applied to the Jasperoid Wash Block Model | 382 |
| Table 14-64: Summary of Drilling at North Bullion | 384 |
| Table 14-65: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in North Bullion Mineral Resource Database | 386 |
| Table 14-66: Modeled Gold Domain Grade Ranges, North Bullion Deposits | 389 |
| Table 14-67: North Bullion Descriptive Statistics by Gold Domain | 389 |
| Table 14-68: North Bullion Capping Levels for Gold by Domain | 395 |
| Table 14-69: North Bullion Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain | 395 |
| Table 14-70: North Bullion Kriging Parameters by Domain | 396 |
| Table 14-71: Search Ellipse Orientation and Distances for North Bullion Estimation Areas | 396 |
| Table 14-72: North Bullion Estimation Parameters | 398 |
| Table 14-73: North Bullion Classification Parameters | 399 |
| Table 14-74: North Bullion Pit Optimization Parameters | 400 |
| Table 14-75: North Bullion Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 401 |
| Table 14-76: North Bullion Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 401 |
| Table 14-77: North Bullion Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Underground | 402 |
| Table 14-78: Sweet Hollow Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 402 |
| Table 14-79: Sweet Hollow Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 403 |
| Table 14-80: POD Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 403 |
| Table 14-81: POD Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 404 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxvi |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 14-82: South Lodes Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 404 |
| Table 14-83: South Lodes Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit | 405 |
| Table 14-84: North Bullion Deposits Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.017 oz Au/ton | 409 |
| Table 14-85: Density and Tonnage Factor Values Applied to the North Bullion Block Model | 410 |
| Table 14-86: Summary of drilling inside the mineralized estimation domains for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE drillhole database. | 413 |
| Table 14-87: Nominal waste values assigned to unsampled intervals in the 2025 Pony Creek MRE drillhole database and inside the estimation domains. | 413 |
| Table 14-88: Summary of geological features relevant to domain interpretation. | 414 |
| Table 14-89: Estimation Domain Descriptions | 414 |
| Table 14-90: Median bulk density for each density domain | 417 |
| Table 14-91: Raw assay statistics for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE | 418 |
| Table 14-92: Grade Capping Levels | 419 |
| Table 14-93: Final composite statistics for the 2025 Pony Creen MRE | 421 |
| Table 14-94: Standardized Gold Variogram Parameters | 423 |
| Table 14-95: 2025 Pony Creek MRE Block Definition | 424 |
| Table 14-96: 2025 Pony Creek Gold Estimation Group Summary | 425 |
| Table 14-97: 2025 Pony Creek MRE Gold Interpolation Parameters | 425 |
| Table 14-98: Parameter Assumptions for Pit Optimization | 431 |
| Table 14-99: Summary of the 2025 Inferred Mineral Resources on the Pony Creek Project <sup>(1-7)</sup> | 432 |
| Table 14-100: Sensitivities of the Inferred Pit-Constrained 2025 Pony Creek MRE | 433 |
| Table 15-1: South Railroad Economic Parameters | 437 |
| Table 15-2: Dark Star Leach Recovery Equations for Gold | 437 |
| Table 15-3: Pinion Leach Recovery Equations for Gold | 438 |
| Table 15-4: Dark Star Slope Recommendations by Sector | 440 |
| Table 15-5: Pinion Slope Recommendations by Sector | 442 |
| Table 15-6: Pinion and Dark Star ($GMV/ton) | 443 |
| Table 15-7: Dark Star Pit Optimization Results | 445 |
| Table 15-8: Dark Star Pit by Pit Results | 446 |
| Table 15-9: Pinion Pit Optimization Results | 448 |
| Table 15-10: Pinion Pit by Pit Results | 449 |
| Table 15-11: Road and Ramp Design Parameters | 452 |
| Table 15-12: Dark Star In-Pit Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves | 462 |
| Table 15-13: Pinion In-Pit Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves | 462 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxvii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 15-14: Total Dark Star and Pinion Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves | 463 |
| Table 16-1: Waste Containment Requirements (Thousands, Cubic Yards) | 464 |
| Table 16-2: Waste Deliveries by Year | 465 |
| Table 16-3: Stockpile Movement by Year | 466 |
| Table 16-4: Dark Star Mine Production Schedule | 467 |
| Table 16-5: Pinion Mine Production Schedule | 467 |
| Table 16-6: Total Project Mine Production Schedule | 468 |
| Table 16-7: Column Fit Gold Recovery Kinetics Parameters | 469 |
| Table 16-8: Ore Properties | 471 |
| Table 16-9: South Carlin Complex Process Production Schedule | 477 |
| Table 16-10: Schedule Efficiency | 478 |
| Table 16-11: Mine Equipment Placed into Service | 479 |
| Table 16-12: Personnel Requirements | 481 |
| Table 17-1: List of Main Mechanical Equipment for the Heap Leach Crushing Plant | 485 |
| Table 18-1: Current Modeled Pumping Rates for Dark Star North and Pinion Phase 4/5 Dewatering System | 497 |
| Table 18-2: Expected Pumping Rates for Contact Water Ponds | 506 |
| Table 18-3: Summary of Phased Liner Deployment | 509 |
| Table 18-4: Results Summary from the Simple Deterministic Model – Typical/Average Range Cycle | 510 |
| Table 18-5: Mean Deterministic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum by Seismic Source Zone | 515 |
| Table 18-6: 84<sup>th</sup> Percentile Deterministic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum by Seismic Source Zone | 515 |
| Table 20-1: Ministerial Permits, Plans, and Notifications | 524 |
| Table 21-1: Capital Cost Summary | 527 |
| Table 21-2: Operating Cost Summary | 528 |
| Table 21-3: Mining Capital Cost by Year | 528 |
| Table 21-4: Salvage Value Estimate (Dollars in k USD) | 530 |
| Table 21-5: Initial Capital Process Plant Cost Summary | 531 |
| Table 21-6: Yearly Mine Operating Cost Estimate | 533 |
| Table 21-7: Mine General Services Costs | 534 |
| Table 21-8: Yearly Mine Maintenance Costs | 534 |
| Table 21-9: Yearly Drilling Costs | 535 |
| Table 21-10: Yearly Blasting Costs | 536 |
| Table 21-11: Yearly Loading Costs | 536 |
| Table 21-12: Yearly Haulage Costs | 537 |
| Table 21-13: Yearly Mine Support Costs | 538 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxviii |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Table 21-14: Lease and Rental Operating Costs | 539 |
| Table 21-15: Life of Mine Average Process Operating Cost by Year | 541 |
| Table 21-16: Power Requirements Summary | 542 |
| Table 21-17: Process Consumables Average Annual Consumptions | 543 |
| Table 22-1: Yearly Mine & Process Physicals | 545 |
| Table 22-2: Life of Mine Process Statistics | 546 |
| Table 22-3: Capital Expenditure Schedule | 546 |
| Table 22-4: LOM Operating Costs | 547 |
| Table 22-5: Key Economic Results | 548 |
| Table 22-6: Sensitivity Analysis | 548 |
| Table 22-7: Detailed Financial Model | 549 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxix |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

**LIST OF APPENDICES**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **APPENDIX** | **DESCRIPTION** | **DESCRIPTION** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A | Feasibility Study Authors and Professional Qualifications | Feasibility Study Authors and Professional Qualifications |
|  | · | Certificates of Qualified Person (QP) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B | Patented and Unpatented Claims | Patented and Unpatented Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C | Breakdown of Mineral Resources | Breakdown of Mineral Resources |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | xxx |

---

**South Railroad Project**<br>**Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**<br>

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **1** | Summary |

---

This Technical Report (Technical Report) has been prepared by Qualified Persons (QP) from M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation (M3) for Orla Mining Ltd. (Orla) in accordance with the National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosures for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) of the Canadian Securities Administrators. This Technical Report presents the results of the South Railroad Feasibility Study Update (FSU), incorporating new design-work, scheduling, and projected costs, in support of mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates in the Dark Star and Pinion gold deposits.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this Technical Report to 'Orla' include, as applicable, (i) Gold Standard Ventures Corp. and its operating subsidiary, Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc. (GSV or Gold Standard), the former owner of the South Railroad Project, prior to their acquisition by Orla in 2022, and (ii) Contact Gold Corp. and its subsidiary Clover Nevada II LLC (Contact Gold), the former owner of the Pony Creek Project (Pony Creek), prior to its acquisition by Orla in April 2024.

Orla's South Carlin Complex is located in the Bullion mining district of the southern Carlin trend in Nevada. The land position has three adjacent parts. The North Railroad property (North Railroad) includes POD, Sweet Hollow, South Lodes and North Bullion (collectively called the North Bullion deposits, or the North Bullion area), and the South Railroad property (South Railroad) includes Dark Star, Pinion, and Jasperoid Wash. Pony Creek, which borders the south boundary of South Railroad, includes the Bowl, Appaloosa, and Stallion deposits. The North Railroad and South Railroad properties were previously referred to as the Railroad-Pinion property.

Orla has drilled, or received assays, for seven new holes since the effective dates of the databases for the respective deposits on the South Carlin Complex. Five holes were drilled in the North Bullion deposit, of which three tested the gold domain model, one did not reach the depth of mineralization, and one had no assays. The remaining two holes were drilled in or outside the South Lodes area. The new drilling in the North Bullion area was evaluated with respect to the resource models. Any changes resulting from the 2024 and 2025 drilling would manifest as local increases or decreases in the block model and would cause minor changes, likely small increases, to the reported resources.

Extensive metallurgical testing has been completed for the Dark Star and Pinion deposits. On the other hand, the North Railroad property has not been tested comprehensively for metallurgical response.

Orla reports mineral reserves for Dark Star and Pinion deposits in this Technical Report. This Feasibility Study Update includes the mine schedule, process-plant design, and financial analysis, covers only these two deposits.

The proposed project is an open-pit gold mine operation that will deliver ore to a heap leach facility over 10 years of mine life. The heap leach facility will treat Run-of-Mine (ROM) ore and two-stage crushed ore via leaching on a dedicated leach pad with cyanide-bearing solution. The metal-bearing solution reports to a metal recovery facility consisting of carbon adsorption, desorption, and regeneration (ADR) and a refinery for production of gold-silver Dore bars.

Orla selected M3 and other third-party consultants to prepare mineral resource/reserve estimates, mine plans, process plant design, and to complete environmental studies and cost estimates used for this Technical Report. All consultants have the capability to support the project, as required and within the confines of their expertise, from feasibility study to full operation.

**1.1** Principal
 Findings

The key project parameters and findings are presented in Table 1-1, including a summary of the project size, productions, capital and operating costs, metal prices, and financial indicators.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>1</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 1-1: Key Project Data**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Life | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 Years + pre-strip (6 months) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;Open Pit |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Description | &nbsp;&nbsp; ROM & 2-Stage Crushed Heap Leach, All Truck Stacked<br> Gold/silver recovery by ADR plant & Refinery, dual carbon column trains |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mineral Reserve Estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.4 M Tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 oz Au/ton; 0.084 oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold / Silver Ounces | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.516 M oz Au; 6.195 M oz Ag |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;Overall: 70.8% Au, 12.4% Ag |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average Annual Tons Moved | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.1 Million Tons (first 9 years) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Annual Mineral Reserve Estimate (Ore Tons) | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.0 Million Tons (first 9 years) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Strip Ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.00:1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Throughput (tons/day) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nominal: 14,000 tpd (ROM); 11,000 tpd (2-Stage Crushed) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Capital Expenditures | &nbsp;&nbsp;$394.7 M |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital Expenditures | &nbsp;&nbsp;$209.1 M |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Payable Metals** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Payable Metals** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold, oz | &nbsp;&nbsp;1072300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver, oz | &nbsp;&nbsp; 760000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit Operating Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit Operating Costs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average Life of Mine (LOM) Mining Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2.22 / ton mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average LOM Processing Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4.12 / ore ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G & A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1.10 / ore ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.03 / ore ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1,211 / oz Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Costs After By-Product Credit | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1,207 / oz Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All in Sustaining Costs (AISC) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1,505 / oz Au |

---

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2,000 Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price (per troy oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$3100** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Price (per troy oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$52.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$41.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$36.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$23.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Cash Flow, $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2872.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1332.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1413.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$787.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$266.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2136.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$989.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1010.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$528.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$126.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | &nbsp;&nbsp;106.6% | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;**54.7%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Payback (Years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Cash Flow, $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2203.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1030.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1094.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$611.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$201.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1650.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$764.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$782.7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$405.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$82.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | &nbsp;&nbsp;95.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;**48.0%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Payback (Years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.9 |

---

Note: The issuer would not proceed with the currently presented Project if the gold price was below $2,000 per ounce and would reoptimize the Project for lower gold prices.

The effective date of this Technical Report is September 30, 2025, and the issue date of the Technical Report is February 27, 2026. The effective dates of the Pinion and Dark Star databases on which the mineral resources described in this Technical Report are estimated on are February 19, 2025 and February 20, 2025, respectively. The effective date of the Jasperoid Wash database is January 29, 2025, and the effective date of the North Bullion deposits database is December 22, 2023. New optimized pits and underground shells were generated using current mining costs in 2025, so the effective dates of the reported mineral resource estimates for all deposits is September 30, 2025, when the new reporting gold price was established.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>2</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**1.2** Property
 Description and Ownership

The primary site access for South Railroad will be from Elko, NV using a 41.7-mile access route. This 41.7-mile route begins from its intersection with 12<sup>th</sup> Street in Elko, NV and continues approximately 5.5 miles along the existing paved State Route (SR) 227 (i.e., Lamoille Highway) to the intersection with SR 228 (i.e., Jiggs Highway). The route continues south along paved SR 228 for another 5.5 miles to the paved Elko County Road 715 (i.e., South Fork Road). The route follows southward along County Road 715 approximately 5.7 miles to the intersection with County Road 715B (i.e., Lucky Nugget Road/Grant Avenue). From this intersection, the route follows County Road 715B approximately 3.1 miles along the west shore of South Fork Reservoir through a semi-rural residential area to the intersection with BLM Road 1119, which continues southwest approximately 6 miles to its intersection with Elko County Road 720 (i.e., Bullion Road). The route follows the Bullion Road southwest approximately 10 miles to the intersection with the un-improved BLM Road 1053, then continues southward following the approximate alignment of BLM Road 1053 along the eastern flank of the Pinion Range approximately 6 miles to the South Railroad Project). The property is centered approximately at UTM NAD27 Zone 11 coordinates of 585,000E and 4,480,000N.

Orla's contiguous South Carlin Complex properties combined constitute a land position totaling 66,507 acres in Elko County, Nevada, centered approximately at UTM NAD27 Zone 11 with coordinates of 585,000E and 4,480,000N. This includes 1,454 claims owned by Orla and 207 claims held under lease, a total of 30 claims are patented. There is also a total of 23,630 gross acres of private lands of which Orla's ownership of the subsurface mineral rights varies from 49.2% to 100%.

Access to the Pony Creek Property from Elko is provided by traveling southeast on State Highway NV-227 E for 9 km (5.6 miles) and then south along State Highway NV-228 S for 53.3 km (33.1 miles) past the town of Jiggs, Nevada, to the intersection with the Red Rock Ranch gravel county road. Travel west along the Red Rock Ranch gravel road for approximately 4.8 km (3 miles), continue south for 4.5 km (2.8 miles) and follow the gravel road in a westward direction for 17.9 km (11.1 miles) to the eastern edge of the Property. From this location, several unmaintained two-track roads transect the Property and provide access to the northern and southern portions of the Property. Alternately, the Property can be accessed from Carlin, NV, by travelling south along State Highway NV-278 S for 45 km (28 miles) and 0.3 km (0.2 miles) along an unnamed gravel road to Indian Pony Road, which provides access to the western edge of the Property.

The Pony Creek Property lies in the Piñon Mountain range in the Railroad Mining District at the southeast end of the Carlin Trend. The Property is located within section 1 in Township 27N, Range 53E; sections 3-10, 15-16 in Township 27N, Range 54E; sections 1-4, 11-14, 23-25, 36 in Township 28N, Range 53E; sections 4-9, 16-21, 28-34 in Township 28N, Range 54E; sections 10, 14, 16, 20-22, 25-28, 33-36 in Township 29N, Range 53E; Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The approximate center of the Property is at UTM NAD27 Zone 11 coordinates 590,500E and 4,462,300N.

**1.3** Exploration
 and Mining History

The South Railroad property is being explored on an ongoing basis by Orla using geological mapping, geochemical and geophysical surveying, and drilling. Exploration work by Gold Standard commenced in 2010 and has resulted in the identification of 17 prospect areas or zones of mineralization within the property.

Twenty-five different historical operators are known to have drilled 1,300 holes, for a total of 632,387 ft, from 1969 through 2008 on the North Railroad, South Railroad and Pony Creek properties. As of the database effective dates, Gold Standard and Orla have drilled 1,300 holes for a total of 1,075,690 ft on the North and South Railroad properties, and Contact Gold and Orla have drilled 156 holes for a total of 110,264 ft on the Pony Creek property. At least 82% of all drilling used RC methods. However, the amount of RC drilling may be understated because the hole-types are not known for 88 holes drilled in the late 1980s and 1990s, when RC drilling was common.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>3</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**1.4** Geology
 and Mineralization

The South Carlin Complex is located in the southern portion of the Carlin trend, centered on the Railroad dome in the Piñon Range, which is comprised of Ordovician through Permian marine sedimentary rocks. Eastern assemblage formations throughout the property include the Pogonip, Hanson Creek, Eureka Quartzite, Lone Mountain Dolomite, Oxyoke, Beacon Peak, Sentinel Mountain Dolomite, and Devils Gate Limestone and Tripon Pass formations. Siliceous clastic units include those of the Webb, Chainman, and Tonka formations. The north-south-striking Bullion fault corridor separates Tertiary volcanic rocks to the east from the Paleozoic sedimentary units in the range, which have been intruded by a complex of Eocene igneous rocks centered south of Bald Mountain, in the core and east flank of the range.

The gold-silver deposits within the South Carlin Complex that are the focus of this Technical Report are considered to be Carlin-type, sedimentary-rock-hosted deposits. Precious metal mineralization is generally submicroscopic, disseminated, and hosted principally in sedimentary rocks, with some mineralization in felsic dikes and sills as well.

In the South Railroad property, the Dark Star Main (Dark Star Main) and Dark Star North (Dark Star North) zones, which comprise the Dark Star deposit are hosted primarily within Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks, with minor amounts of gold mineralization found in the Chainman Formation and Tertiary conglomerates. The deposits are centered along the roughly north-south Dark Star fault corridor, within which is a horst block and associated silicified zone bounded by the West fault and Dark Star fault. Gold mineralization in the horst block is hosted in the middle, coarse-grained conglomeratic and bioclastic limestone-bearing unit of a Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated sequence interpreted to be equivalent to the Tomera Formation. In addition to horst-block faulting, the unit is moderately folded in a north-south-trending anticline between the West and Dark Star faults. The dip of the western fold limb in Dark Star Main ranges from 25° to 45° and the steeper eastern limb dips 50º to 65º in Dark Star North.

Also, in the South Railroad property, the Pinion deposit is situated in a sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks exposed within large horst blocks in which the sedimentary rocks have been broadly folded into an approximately 25° to 30° south- to southeastward-plunging, asymmetric anticline. The axis of this Pinion anticline trends approximately N20ºW and can be traced for approximately 2 mi (3.2 km). The limbs of the anticline dip shallowly at 10° to 35° to the west, and more steeply at 25° to 50° to the east. Disseminated gold and silver mineralization at the Pinion deposit is strongly controlled by a 50 ft to 500 ft-thick (15 m to 150 m-thick) dissolution-collapse breccia at the contact between calcarenite of the Devils Gate Limestone and the overlying silty micrite of the Tripon Pass Formation. Gold deposition was contemporaneous with breccia development, quartz veins formation, silica ± barite replacement and infill of open spaces.

The Jasperoid Wash disseminated gold deposit, also located in the South Railroad property, is hosted by altered Tertiary feldspar porphyry dikes and their host Pennsylvanian-Permian conglomeratic rocks of a Tomera Formation equivalent. The deposit has approximate extents of 6,200 ft (1,900 m) to the north and a width of about 2,300 ft (700 m), and is partially contained within an elongate, north to south, steeply dipping structural corridor. Drilling shows the deposit dips steeply to the west nearby and within Tertiary dikes; east of the dikes, the deposit dips gently to the west. The gold is Inferred to be submicroscopic in grain size, however, petrographic studies have yet to be performed.

In the North Railroad property, disseminated gold mineralization has been defined by drilling in the North Bullion, POD, Sweet Hollow, and South Lodes deposits. The mineralization is focused in the footwall of the Bullion fault zone. Faults and stratigraphy appear to be important controls on mineralization. In general, gold-silver mineralization is localized in gently to moderately dipping, strongly sheared rocks of the Chainman and Webb formations, in dissolution-collapse breccia developed above and within silty micrite of the Tripon Pass Formation, and calcarenite of the Devils Gate Limestone. Only POD and Sweet Hollow are exposed at the surface. The top of gold mineralization in the North Bullion deposit varies from 250 ft to 1,300 ft (75 m to 400 m) below the surface and varies in dip from 15° to the southeast. Gold is associated with "sooty" sulfide minerals, silica, carbon, clay, barite, realgar, and orpiment.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>4</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The primary zones of gold mineralization at Pony Creek, are the Bowl, Stallion, Appaloosa and Pony Spur Zones. Additional target areas include Stallion-Bowl Trend, Palamino, Willow, Mustang, Elliott Dome, and Robinson.

The gold mineralization discovered to date at Pony Creek is principally hosted within the Tertiary (or Jurassic) rhyolite, or within altered and silicified calcareous clastic rocks of the Pennsylvanian – Permian (Penn-Perm) Moleen Formation. Known stratigraphic controls of mineralization include: the pre-mineral rhyolite intrusion acting as a barrier to focus auriferous fluids along its lower margin and within it at structural intersections. Other lithologies to host mineralization include permeable calcareous conglomerates and sandstones, and fossil hash limestone beds.

Interpreted structural controls on gold mineralization at Pony Creek include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Northeast striking folds and thrust faults and northwest striking transverse faults formed during Mesozoic
compressional deformation events;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· North-south striking tension faults formed between the northwest transverse faults, as first order controls
on mineralization; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Intersections of northwest and northeast striking faults as secondary controls.

Middle to Upper Devonian through Permian carbonate, possible Jurassic clastic sedimentary rocks and Jurassic felsic (rhyolite) intrusive rocks are exposed at the Pony Creek area, with the principal resource zones hosted within rocks interpreted as Pennsylvanian-Permian in age.

The Devils Gate Limestone is the oldest unit in the Pony Creek area, outcropping on the western edge of the area. The Devils Gate Limestone is comprised of medium to thick bedded, light and dark grey, fine-grained limestone. Above the Devils Gate is the Webb Formation, characterized by siliceous mudstone and claystone. This unit is overlain by Chainman Formation shale, sandstone with conglomerate lenses, limestone and calcareous sandstones. The Chainman and Webb Formations are commonly silicified with alteration increasing with proximity to the Devils Gate Limestone contact. The Chainman Formation at Pony Creek is overlain by a sequence of conglomerates, sandstones and shales that are assigned to the Upper Mississippian to Lower Pennsylvanian Diamond Peak Formation. Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian Moleen Formation, composed of gray, medium-bedded, silty limestone with banded, nodular chert and conglomerate interbeds overlies the Diamond Peak Formation and is in turn overlain by unnamed upper Pennsylvanian to Permian sedimentary rocks, some of which have been assigned to the Strathearn Formation during geological mapping by Contact Gold. Calcareous sandstone and conglomerate with interbedded limestone make up this unnamed "Penn-Perm" unit.

A porphyritic rhyolite intrusive body of Jurassic age is present as a north-south elongated body. The rhyolite body pinches out to the northwest as it encroaches on the Stallion-Bowl Trend area. The porphyritic rhyolite has been variously described as rhyolite, felsite or felsic porphyry. Four felsic lithologies have been described, including: 1) white- to cream-colored, fine-grained feldspar porphyry, 2) white- to cream-colored, fine-grained quartz porphyry, 3) fragmental rhyolite, and 4) dark-colored to nearly black, aphanitic felsite. These rock types are hydrothermally altered and locally mineralized along the contact of the underlying sedimentary units and within the margins of the intrusive, which may have served as a trap for auriferous fluids (e.g. Bowl and Appaloosa zones).

Volcanic tuffs, flows, and volcaniclastic rocks previously assigned to the Eocene Indian Well Formation crop out on the east side of the Property and are at least 800 ft (243.8 m) thick. The base of these rocks is not observed within the Property, and they occur only in fault contact with the Paleozoic rocks described above.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>5</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**1.5** Data
 Verification

Mr. Lindholm is satisfied that the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion drilling databases are in good condition. Various audits and checks were performed by Mine Development Associates Inc (MDA) and RESPEC Company LLC (RESPEC) to verify collar coordinates, down-hole deviation surveys, geology and assay data in the drill-hole databases. All Gold Standard gold assay data was verified using digital laboratory certificates. However, about one third of the Pinion assays and one quarter of the Dark Star assays from historical drill campaigns were unsupported with original assay certificates. The same is true at North Bullion, where Gold Standard and Orla drilling makes up only 37% of the database, most of which is in the North Bullion deposit. The drill-hole data at the POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes deposits was almost entirely historical until Gold Standard and Orla drilled more holes into the areas from 2020 to 2025. Drill-hole data lacking adequate supporting documentation, as well as data from holes observed during sectional modeling to be inconsistent with surrounding holes, were treated as lower confidence, or excluded from use in modeling and estimation.

In 2019, Gold Standard supplemented their Pinion silver database with re-assayed individual samples for which composites of multiple intervals had previously been analyzed. Over 50% of the original certificates were available for all silver data and were used for verification. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data was also evaluated, and the silver data was deemed acceptable for use in estimation of classified mineral resources.

There is no evidence of significant historical QA/QC programs for drilling prior to 2014. For Gold Standard programs at Dark Star, Pinion and Jasperoid Wash, the QA/QC program was minimal in 2014 through 2016 but was more comprehensive in 2017 to 2024. Similarly at North Bullion, over the full-time span of the Gold Standard drilling from 2010 to 2017 and 2020 to 2025 there is a reasonable implementation of QA/QC protocols, but during some of the former time period, it is less substantial. The results and amount of QA/QC data, as well as non-remedied QA/QC "failures," were considered in mineral resource classification for the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits. Mr. Lindholm concludes that the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion analytical data are adequate for the purposes used in this Technical Report, subject to issues described in Sections 11 and 12.

Cyanide-soluble gold assays at Dark Star and Pinion were verified, but no QA/QC data was available for evaluation. Carbon and sulfur species data were audited and determined to be adequate for use in their respective estimates done for waste handling and metallurgical characterization. No QA/QC data was associated with the carbon and sulfur analyses.

Barium was estimated in the Pinion deposit block model for metallurgical characterization. Barium analyses were done using pressed-powder energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence (XRF-ED) and loose-powder NITON XRF analytical methods. These methods were evaluated by running additional analyses on duplicate pulp samples by various methods. After evaluating the reliability and relationship of barium assays produced by the two methods, and verification of the data, the data was used to model and estimate NITON XRF-derived barium grades.

Pony Creek has been the site of numerous exploration programs since the 1980's as a result, a substantial volume of geological data has been generated, some of which is historical and was collected prior to the adoption of NI 43-101.

In 2022, APEX Geoscience Ltd. personnel completed a thorough data verification program that investigated the following historical information and data:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Historical and Contact Gold surface sampling locations and assay analytical results.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Historical and Contact Gold drill-hole data, including drill logs, assay analytical results and laboratory
certificates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Contact Gold metallurgical test work data and laboratory certificates.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>6</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The 2022 data verification procedures included compiling all digital drilling data into excel spreadsheets and importing the data into Micromine to create a drill-hole database (DHDB). This was a combination of historical data compilations conducted by Mine Development Associates (MDA; Gustin, 2017), as well as original logs and assay certificates from Contact Gold drilling in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The compilation included collar coordinates, down-hole survey information, geological interval data and assay information. Once verified, data were compiled into the Micromine drill-hole database. A total of 373 drill holes, with collar and assay data, were compiled into the database.

Once compiled, a brief and concise validation program was completed comparing the original drill logs, assay certificates and collar coordinates to the compiled database. Checks were conducted to confirm that drilling data (including the pre-2017 drilling data) was correctly digitized and properly imported into the database. Approximately 10% of the historical (pre-2018) drill-hole data, including collars, down-hole surveys (if present), geology intervals and assays were compared against original paper logs and assay certificates to verify the digitized historical data. Minor typos, precision errors, conversion errors and columns mismatches were found and rectified. Overall, the database is considered accurate and acceptable for resource estimation and mining given the current data at hand.

In 2025, additional verification was undertaken to assess drilling completed at Pony Creek since 2022. The verification covered all 25 drill holes from 2024, distributed across Appaloosa, Bowl, Mustang, Pony Spur, and Stallion prospects. The results of this investigation are summarized below. Collar locations, downhole surveys, assays and lithologies were all compared against original data and were found to be in excellent shape with no errors found.

In addition to verifying the database against source data, APEX personnel conducted logical validation checks in Leapfrog Geo, specifically for overlapping intervals and maximum depth exceedances. No errors were identified, indicating internal consistency of the drill hole data. Overall, the Authors and QPs, Mr. Black and Mr. Dufresne consider the Pony Creek drilling database accurate and acceptable for resource estimation and development.

**1.6** Processing
 and Metallurgical Testing

A review of the metallurgy and proposed process route described in the previous FS concluded that RoM leaching is high risk, particularly for Pinion. This perceived risk applies to both the predicted RoM particle size of 80% passing 6 inch, and the recovery estimates. The recovery estimates for RoM leaching were 71.9% for the Dark Star deposit and 56.3% for the Pinion deposit. The estimates were based on an assumed linear logarithmic relationship between particle size and recovery. The FS predicted average differences in recovery between 80% passing 1 inch and 6 inches at approximately 5% for Pinion and 2% for Dark Star. However, the recent review agreed with the FS in that it also concluded that the recovery from Dark Star ore is much less sensitive to crush size than Pinion ore. It was therefore decided to crush Pinion ore and retain the RoM leach for Dark Star. This report estimates a 5% difference in recovery between 80% passing 1 inch and 80% passing 6 inches for Dark Star based on consideration of rock types and benchmarks. The relevant sections from the FS are reproduced below in italics.

Note: Unless mentioned otherwise, recovery refers to gold recovery.

*The Pinion deposit can be characterized as hard and abrasive material, with a steep feed P<sub>80</sub> vs. gold recovery response. Much of the gold is contained in the rock ground mass and requires fine crushing (-1/4" inch) to liberate gold for the most efficient cyanide-leach extraction.*

*The Dark Star deposit can be characterized as hard and moderately abrasive material, with a flat feed P<sub>80</sub> vs. gold recovery response. Most of the gold is contained in fractures that have been oxidized and accessible to cyanide solutions that easily pass through the rock matrix.*

Consequently, high gold extractions are achieved at coarse particle size, requiring no crushing prior to heap leaching.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>7</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Economic analyses of alternative process routes for Pinion, such as RoM, secondary and tertiary crushing of the ores indicated that closed-circuit secondary crushing has acceptable economics and avoids the high-risk RoM leach, and the high cost, high power and high wear issues associated with tertiary crushing.

Table 1-2 summarizes the recovery estimates by zone for both deposits. Table 1-3, Table 1-4, Table 1-5, and Table 1-6 summarize the available test data, and average recoveries, listed by the relevant Testing Phases for Pinion and Dark Star respectively. Analysis has shown that the Pinion North, Main and West zones are metallurgically similar, although Pinion North has a slightly higher estimated recovery. Pinion East is a separate high Barium zone with lower recovery. Dark Star uses Main, North and Transition sample designations. The Main and North zones have similar metallurgy and recovery, and there is only a small amount of Transition material.

Only test results from columns loaded with conventionally crushed samples are used in this analysis and summarized in this FSU. That is there is no reference to Comminution or leach data relevant to HPGR or grinding. Important points are:

Each set of data, in both the Pinion and Dark Star deposits, has fairly large variations in recovery. No single analytical, or test-related reason, for the high variation in recoveries was identified. However, possible reasons are high Barium and/or silica, variations in RQD or preg- robbing by organic carbon etc. In Phase 6, four of columns exhibited recoveries below 40%. These were removed from the analysis. Some of these low recoveries can be explained by high "preg-robbing", high Sulfide values and in some cases very high Barium content. The values in Table 1-4 are numerical averages of column testing data grouped by phase. The recoveries do not have the 2 or 3% field reduction recommended by KCA and others. This is because the leach curves in the test reports show that leaching is continuing and LoM cycle times will be much longer than the cycle times used in testing.

In Pinion test Phases 1 and 6, there is a strong trend between particle size and recovery. This is not the case at Dark Star, where "twinning" of samples and testing in bottle rolls and columns was tested. For most twinned Dark Star samples, testing indicated almost no trend between particle size and recovery, at least at the ranges tested. This indicates that the Dark Star deposit is likely to be more amenable to RoM leaching than Pinion.

**Table** 1-2: Estimated Recovery by Zone**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**80% < 1"** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **\* 80% < 6"**<br> **(RoM)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comments** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion North | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion (<2.7% Ba) | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion East (>2.7% Ba) | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 – 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40-53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Actual recovery depends on Ba grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star (Main & North) | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 – 88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 – 83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Actual recovery depends on Sulfide grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Transition/sulfide >0.10% S | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. \*The Dark Star RoM recovery is estimated by applying a fixed difference of 5% to the 1" recovery based
on similar benchmarks. It is an estimate only as no coarse column test results, except the Forte Dark Star diffusion testing on coarse
samples, are available.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Phase 4 test results on Pinion Transition ores were not used, except to indicate the relationship between
sulfide and recovery. as there is very little Transition, or Sulfide material in the Pinion pit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Phase 2 test results on Pinion ore were not used as the material tested was crushed by HPGR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Testing results from the 2023-2024 program on Pinion and Dark Star samples were not used, except to indicate
the relationship between sulfide and recovery.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. The properties of the rocks in each of the two deposits, Dark Star and Pinion are compared in the Blast Dynamics
section. Rocks from both deposits are hard and abrasive with a variable RQD, however Dark Star has a lower density which appears to be
due to its porosity.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Analysis does not indicate a strong grade vs. recovery relationship for Pinion, although it does exist
at Dark Star.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Dark Star Column results from Testing Phases 1, 2, 3 and Forte have been used in this report.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>8</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 1-3: Test Phases Summary (Pinion)**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test<br> Phase or<br> name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Title** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA file no.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comments** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of useful<br> column tests** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Column leach tests | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 07-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 - 2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Pinion Main and North | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;HPGR test work | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 09-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;The Phase 2 columns are filled with material fine crushed by HPGR and compared with material crushed conventionally to ½ inch. The results are not considered relevant to the current flow sheet. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 3 met program | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 09-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Pinion Main and North, and by rock type | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3A | &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 3 HPGR test work | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 10-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conventional crush results suspect, therefore, not used. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Variability Composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 11-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are Transition, of which there is very little in the Pinion pit. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;HPGR Feasibility comps. | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 12-05 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Pinion East and West. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Phase 4 Composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIN 12-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled by rock type. Some have the zones listed as Pinion East and West. | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TKK | &nbsp;&nbsp;Testing of Pinion and Dark Star composites by Conv. Crush & HPGR. |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2021/22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled as Pinion East and West. |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023-2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC23-01 Column Group 1-4 and DSC23- 02 Column Group 1-2. Report of Metallurgical Test Work. | &nbsp;&nbsp;SRR06_07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Pinion. However, they are high sulfide and therefore not used. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

**Table** 1-4: Pinion Phases 1, 3, & 6: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**12 mm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**25 mm** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North | &nbsp;&nbsp;73% | &nbsp;&nbsp;74% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Main | &nbsp;&nbsp;62% | &nbsp;&nbsp;56% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East | &nbsp;&nbsp;73% | &nbsp;&nbsp;39% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;West | &nbsp;&nbsp;81% | &nbsp;&nbsp;57% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>9</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 1-5: Test Phases Summary (Dark Star)**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test<br> Phase or<br> name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Title** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA file no.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comments** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of useful<br> column tests** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Project Bottle Roll and Column Leach Tests. Report of Metallurgical Test Work 2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DKST01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star and Main. Contains twinning results. | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Dark Star Project HPGR Test Work.<br> Report of Metallurgical Test Work. | &nbsp;&nbsp;DKST02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star Main and North Composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Phase 3 met program. | &nbsp;&nbsp;DKST03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star Main and North, and by rock type. Contains twinning results. | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TKK | &nbsp;&nbsp;Testing of Pinion and Dark Star composites by Conv. Crush & HPGR. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2021-2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star Main and North Composites. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Forte | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Diffusion testing. | &nbsp;&nbsp;20009/21032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star Main and North Composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023-2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC23-01 Column Group 1-4 and DSC23-02 Column Group 1-2, Report of Metallurgical Test Work. | &nbsp;&nbsp;SRR06_07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples are labelled Dark Star, they are high sulfide and therefore not used, except to indicate the relationship between sulfide and recovery. |  |

---

**Table** 1-6: Dark Star Phases 1, 2, & 3: Average Recoveries by Zone and Particle Size**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**12 mm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**25 mm** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North | &nbsp;&nbsp;81% | &nbsp;&nbsp;77% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Main | &nbsp;&nbsp;74% | &nbsp;&nbsp;77% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>10</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**1.7** **Recovery Methods** 

The process selected for recovery of gold and silver from the Pinion and Dark Star ore is a conventional heap-leach recovery circuit. The ore will be mined by standard open pit mining methods from two separate pits. Pinion and Dark Star ore will be truck-stacked on the heap. Approximately half of the ore will be truck-stacked as Run-of-Mine (ROM) ore directly; the other half of the ore will be truck-stacked after passing through a two-stage crushing circuit to produce a particle size of 80 percent passing (P<sub>80</sub>) equal to 1-inch.

The stacking rate will be in accordance with the mine plan. Gold and silver in the stacked ore will be leached with a dilute cyanide solution using a drip irrigation system at application rates in the range of 4,500-6,000 gallons per minute. The leached gold and silver will be recovered from solution using a carbon adsorption circuit. The gold and silver will be stripped from carbon using a desorption process, followed by electrowinning to produce a precipitate sludge. The precipitate sludge will be processed using a retort oven for drying and mercury recovery and then refined in a melting furnace to produce gold and silver doré bars.

**1.8** **Mineral Resource Estimate and Mineral Reserve Estimate** 

**1.8.1** **Mineral Resource Estimate** 

The estimated mineral resources presented in this Technical Report were classified in order of increasing geological and quantitative confidence into Inferred, Indicated, and Measured categories to be in accordance with the "CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" (2014) and therefore NI 43-101. Mineral resources are reported at cutoffs that are reasonable for deposits of this nature given anticipated mining methods and plant processing costs, while also considering economic conditions, because of the regulatory requirements that a mineral resource exists "*in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.*"

1.8.1.1 Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resource Estimates

RESPEC modeled geology and metal domains for the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits, then estimated and classified gold mineral resources. A silver estimate was also produced for the Pinion deposit. Gold Standard and RESPEC updated the geologic modeling for the various deposits and Gold Standard was intimately involved with metal domain modeling. Block sizes were 30 ft x 30 ft x 30 ft for Dark Star and Pinion, and 20 ft x 20 ft x 20 ft for Jasperoid Wash. The block size for modeling and estimation at the North Bullion deposits model was 10 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft for evaluation of underground potential, but reblocked to 30 ft x 30 ft x 30 ft to optimize open pits. Estimation was done using inverse-distance methods with powers ranging from two to four. Multiple models were estimated in order to optimize the estimation parameters.

The mineral resources estimated by RESPEC for the North and South Railroad properties is the block-diluted inverse-distance estimate and is reported at variable cutoffs for open-pit and underground mining. The cutoff for oxidized and transitional redox material in an open pit is 0.003 oz Au/ton, whereas the cutoff for sulfide material is 0.017 oz Au/ton. Potential sulfide underground resources, present at Dark Star North and the North Bullion deposit, are reported at a cutoff of 0.075 oz Au/ton. Mineral resources were classified as Measured, Indicated or Inferred for each deposit separately. Factors considered for classification include results of data verification and QA/QC results, the level of geologic understanding of each deposit, and performance of past mineral resource block models with new drilling. Table 1-7 presents the optimized pit- and underground grade shell-constrained estimated mineral resources for the individual Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits based on a $2,800/oz gold price. The Pinion mineral resources are reported at a cutoff grade based on a gold price of $2,800/oz and silver price of $33.00/oz, and within pits optimized using a gold price of $2,300/oz and silver price of $27.00/oz. A table with the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits mineral resources combined is also included. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>11</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 1-7: Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Combined Estimated Mineral Resources**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br> **(kton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br> **(kton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grades**<br> **Au (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Metal** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br> **(kton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br> **(kton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Grades**<br> **Au (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold (koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold (koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold (koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver (koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver (koz)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured | &nbsp;&nbsp;15001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;509 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;101739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6915 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6915 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured + Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured + Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;116740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;116740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7424 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7424 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;22375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;519.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;519.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;519.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Mineral Resources** |
|  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12117000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12117000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12117000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;33675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;665000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;665000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;45792000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45792000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45792000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1005000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1005000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Open Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Open Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Open Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\*\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1450000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1450000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1450000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred - Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;380000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;380000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;380000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves*<br> *\*\*Cutoff for oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Mineral Resources** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2884000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;509000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52979000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;871000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;871000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;871000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6915000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55863000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;932000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;932000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;932000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7424000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1435000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> *\*Mineral resources are inclusive of mineral reserves* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources** |
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6211000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6211000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6211000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11086000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11086000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11086000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82000 |

---

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Mineral Resources** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Mineral Resources** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion Indicated - Open Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;5657000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;371000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion Inferred - Open Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;4199000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;254000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion Inferred - Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;215000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1707000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;2069000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1132000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;690000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;South Lodes Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;South Lodes Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;645000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>*\*\*Cutoff for open pit oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>*\*\*Cutoff for open pit oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>*\*\*Cutoff for open pit oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>*\*\*Cutoff for open pit oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* | &nbsp;&nbsp;<br>*\*\*Cutoff for open pit oxide and transitional resources is 0.003 oz Au/ton, and for sulfide resources at 0.017 oz Au/ton* |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>12</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The base cases for all mineral resources are reported at cutoff grades based on a gold price of $2,800
oz Au, and have an effective date of September 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades for oxide/transitional and sulfide materials
within the $2,800 optimized pits or within a 0.075 oz Au/ton grade shell for underground. Pit optimizations vary by deposit and used throughput
rates of 12,200 tons/day and 20,000 tons/day; waste mining costs of US$2.12/ton to $2.20/ton mined; crushing, stacking and heap leaching
costs of US$3.64/ton to US$4.48/ton; and general and administrative costs of $1.14/ton. At North Bullion, transportation costs of $40/ton
are applied for shipping refractory material off-site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Recoveries are calculated within each block model, and vary by deposit, ore-type, redox state, sulfide-sulfur
and inorganic-carbon content, and gold and silver grade. At Dark Star, assumed minimum metallurgical recoveries of 65% and 70% for gold
for ROM and crushed ore, respectively, are applied; At Pinion, assumed variable metallurgical recoveries with base cases at 53% and 70%
for gold for ROM and crushed ore, respectively, and base cases at 5% and 15% for silver for ROM and crushed ore, respectively.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within
the optimized pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

Barium was estimated into the Pinion deposit block model for use in metallurgical characterization of the Pinion mineralized material. The average barium grade is ~2.65% for the gold mineralization grading at least 0.005 oz Au/ton. Factoring between barium analytical results were required, which added some uncertainty to the model.

Cyanide-soluble gold block models were produced for the Pinion and Dark Star deposits. These estimates appear reasonable in areas with Gold Standard drilling, however, there is less confidence in some areas where cyanide-soluble gold data is lacking, such as where historical drilling is predominant.

An acid-base accounting (ABA) model was generated for Pinion and Dark Star to characterize waste material for mine planning and handling. An organic carbon model was also produced to evaluate effects on metallurgy at Pinion. Because of limited data, these estimates can only be considered as guides for environmental planning and metallurgy.

1.8.1.2 Pony Creek Deposit

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE is reported in accordance with the NI 43-101 and has been estimated using the CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines" dated November 29, 2019, and CIM "Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" dated May 10, 2014.

AEPX completed the 2025 Pony Creek MRE in NAD27 / BLM 11N (ftUS) Coordinate System (EPSG:4411). The Pony Creek MRE utilized a block model with a size of 20 ft (X) by 20 ft (Y) by 10 ft (Z) to honor the mineralization wireframes for estimation. Gold grades were estimated for each block using Ordinary Kriging with locally varying anisotropy to ensure grade continuity in various directions is reproduced in the block model. The MRE is reported as undiluted.

The reported open-pit resources utilize a cutoff of 0.103 Au g/t Au for heap leach and 0.17 Au g/t for vat leach material. The resource block model underwent pit optimization using Deswik's Pseudoflow pit optimization. The resulting pit shell is used to constrain the reported open-pit resources.

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE comprises Inferred Mineral Resources of 493,000 thousand troy ounces (koz) gold at a grade of 0.0126 ozt/st (0.47<u>3</u> g/t) Au, within 35,417 thousand short tons (kst; 39,041 thousand metric tonnes [mkt]). Table 1-8 presents the complete 2025 Pony Creek MRE statement.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>13</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 1-8: Summary of the 2025 Inferred Mineral Resources on the Pony Creek Project <sup>(1-7)</sup>**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Resource**<br> **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Short Tons**<br> **(kst)** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(ozt/st)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;3635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;21785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;3903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;8548 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;1159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;12193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;26848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;39041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 |

---

Notes:

1. Warren Black, M.Sc., P.Geo., Senior Consultant: Mineral Resources and Geostatistics of APEX Geoscience
Ltd., who is deemed a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 is responsible for the completion of the 2025 Pony Creek mineral resource
estimation, with an effective date of September 30, 2025.

2. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

3. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

4. There are no known legal, political, environmental or other risks that could materially affect the potential
development.

5. 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 (2014) and Best Practices Guidelines (2019) prepared by
the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by the CIM Council.

6. The reported open-pit resources utilize a cutoff of 0.103 Au g/t Au for heap leach and 0.17 Au g/t for
vat leach material.

7. Economic assumptions used include US$2,800/oz Au, process recoveries of 75% for Au in heap leach material
and 85% for Au in vat leach material, a processing cost of US$1.90/t for heap leach and US$6.70/t for vat leach material, and a G&A
cost of US$0.56/t.

8. The constraining pit optimization parameters included a mining cost of US$2.49/t for both mineralized
and waste material and assumed pit slope angles of 45°.

9. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

**1.8.2** **Mineral Reserve Estimate** 

Measured and Indicated mineral resources were used as the basis to define mineral reserves for both the Dark Star and Pinion deposits. Mineral reserve definition was done by first identifying ultimate pit limits using economic parameters and applying pit optimization techniques. The resulting optimized pit shells were then used for guidance in pit design to allow access for equipment and personnel. Modifying factors including mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors have been applied in the estimate of mineral reserves.

RESPEC provided the final production schedule to M3 who developed the final cash-flow model which demonstrates that the Pinion and Dark Star deposits make a positive cash flow and are reasonable with respect to statement of mineral reserves for these deposits.

The total Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves reported for this FSU are shown in Table 1-9. Within the designed pits there are a total of 294 million tons of waste associated with the in-pit mineral reserves. This results in an overall project strip ratio of 4.00 tons of waste for each ton of material processed.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 27 February 2026 Revision 0<sub>14</sub> |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 1-9: Total Dark Star and Pinion Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Proven | &nbsp;&nbsp;9339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;304 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;22326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;456 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P&P | &nbsp;&nbsp;31665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;761 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Proven | &nbsp;&nbsp;2329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;39440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5749 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P&P | &nbsp;&nbsp;41769 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;756 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6195 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star & Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Proven | &nbsp;&nbsp;11669 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;354 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;61765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1162 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P&P | &nbsp;&nbsp;73434 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1516 |  |  |

---

*Notes:*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*1.* *The estimate of mineral reserves was done by Thomas L. Dyer, PE of RESPEC.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*2.* *Mineral reserves are classified in accordance with CIM Standards and are recognized at the point process feed.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*3.* *Mineral reserves are reported based on gross metal value (GMV) cutoff grades (See section 15.2.3) based on gold prices of $1,900 per ounce Au and silver prices of $23.00 per ounce Ag. The reserve effective date is September 30, 2025.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*4.* *Economic parameters and recoveries are described in Sections 15.2.1.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*5.* *As reserves were defined using lower metal prices compared to the economic analysis that supports them, resulting mineral proven and probable reserves are justified.* 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*6.* *Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.* 

Note*: Cutoff grades are applied by material type as described in Section 15.2.3;*

*Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Pinion include silver as reported above; and*

*Due to lack of silver at Dark Star, consolidated gold reserves are reported without silver to avoid reporting erroneous average silver grade.*

**1.9** **Mining Methods** 

The FSU includes mining at both the Dark Star and Pinion deposits; both are planned as open-pit, truck and shovel operations. The truck and shovel method provides reasonable costs and selectivity for these deposits.

The production schedule considers the processing of material by ROM (Run-of-Mine). All ROM material will be dumped in place directly on the ROM leach pad. Monthly periods were used to create the production schedule with pre-stripping starting in Dark Star at month -2. Start of ROM processing is assumed to be month 8, while crushed processing is expected to begin in month 9.

The total Dark Star mining rate would ramp up from 18,900 tons per day to about 102,300 tons per day over a period of 7 months during pre-production. The maximum mining rate required in Pinion is 129,400 tons per day.

The FSU has assumed owner mining to keep the cost lower than it would be with contract mining. The production schedule was used along with additional efficiency factors, cycle times, and productivity rates to develop the first principle hours required for primary mining equipment to achieve the production schedule. Primary mining equipment includes drills, loaders, hydraulic shovels, and 200-ton capacity haul trucks.

Waste storage facility designs were created for the FSU to contain the material that is not processed. A 1.3 swell factor was assumed which provides for both swell when mined and re-compaction when placed into the facility.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 15 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**1.10** **Infrastructure** 

**1.11** **Environment and Permitting** 

Orla and Gold Standard have been conducting environmental baseline studies over the past several years as part of their ongoing permitting efforts and in preparation for the submittal of permit applications for conduct mining operations. The main portion for the project area has been surveyed for surface water resources, including Waters of the United States (WOTUS), biological resources, and cultural resources. The project access road, and the water management area remain to be surveyed. In 2018, Gold Standard commenced material characterization testing of the mineralized material and waste rock to determine the metal leaching and acid generation potential. Additionally, an evaluation of the groundwater resources was commenced to determine groundwater supply potential, as well as the potential impacts from groundwater pumping and pit lake development.

Within and adjacent to the project area there are Greater Sage Grouse and Golden Eagles. These species will have an effect on how the project is permitted and what mitigation is required or proposed. Orla is working with the BLM on the management of these species.

The review and approval process for the Plan Application by the BLM constitutes a federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM regulations. Thus, for the BLM to process the Plan Application the BLM is required to comply with the NEPA and prepare either an Environmental Assessment (EA), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The BLM has determined that this process requires an EIS, due to the mine dewatering and potential pit lake. Preparation of the EIS is currently underway, with the Project accepted into the FAST-41 permitting process and now benefitting from a predictable and transparent Coordinated Project Plan that outlines a Record of Decision in mid-2026. Orla will also need an Individual Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and this agency will be a cooperating agency on the NEPA documents.

There are a number of environmental permits issued by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) that are necessary to develop the project and which Orla needs to permit the project. The NDEP issues permits that address water and air pollution, as well as land reclamation. The Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) issues water rights for the use and management of water.

The SRMP (as defined below) is a previously explored minerals property with exploration related disturbance. However, there have been very long periods of non-operation. There are no known ongoing environmental issues with any of the regulatory agencies. Gold Standard and Orla have been conducting baseline data collection for a couple of years for environmental studies required to support the Plan Application and permitting process. The waste and mineralized material characterization and the hydrogeologic evaluation are currently in their latter stages of development. Material characterization indicates the need to manage a significant portion of the waste rock as potentially acid generating in engineered facilities. Additional results to date indicate limited cultural issues, air quality impacts appear to be within State of Nevada standards, traffic and noise issues are present but at low levels, and socioeconomic impacts are positive.

Social and community impacts have been and are being considered and evaluated for the Plan Amendment and Plan Application performed for the project in accordance with the NEPA and other federal laws. Potentially affected Native American tribes, tribal organizations and/or individuals are consulted during the preparation of all plan amendments to advise on the proposed projects that may have an effect on cultural sites, resources, and traditional activities.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 16 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Potential community impacts to existing population and demographics, income, employment, economy, public finance, housing, community facilities and community services are evaluated for potential impacts as part of the NEPA process. There are no known social or community issues that would have a material impact on the project's ability to extract mineral resources. Identified socioeconomic issues (employment, payroll, services and supply purchases, and state and local tax payments) are anticipated to be positive.

A Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure (TPPC) for the project would be submitted to the NEDP with the Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) application. In the TPPC, the proposed heap leach closure approach would consist of fluid management through evaporation, covering the heap leach pad and waste rock facilities with growth media, and then revegetating. The design of the process components is not sufficiently advanced to determine the closure costs. Any residual heap leach or waste rock facilities drainage will be managed with evaporation cells.

**1.12** **Water Management** 

Orla developed a Water Management Plan for South Railroad in support of the FSU. The Water Management Plan formed the basis for evaluating the infrastructure and associated cost to manage water through the life cycle of the mine. The purpose of the Water Management Plan is to present the water management strategies that focus on water as an asset and allow Orla to proactively plan and manage water from development to post-closure such that operational and stakeholder water needs are met, and that human health and the environment are protected.

To support the development of water management strategies for the project, the following pre-design studies/activities were completed:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Analytical and numerical groundwater model to
estimate pit dewatering requirements and potential impacts for the Dark Star North pit and the Pinion Phase 4/5 expansion;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Evaluation and modeling of long-term climate
records and 24-hour design storms used as input for event-based stormwater modeling, continuous water balance modeling, and infiltration
modeling;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Stormwater modeling and calculations for locating
and sizing stormwater management infrastructure;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Infiltration modeling to predict the amount of
seepage from the Water Rock Disposal Facility (WRDF) that will require management during operation, closure, and post-closure periods;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Water balance modeling to evaluate the supplies
of and demands of site water over the LOM; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Closure and 404 mitigation cost evaluation.

The water management strategy and technical investigations to support the Water Management Plan resulted in the following FSU level infrastructure:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Stormwater management and seepage collection
facilities, such as channels, ponds, culverts, attenuation structures, down drains, and other related open-channel stormwater controls;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A groundwater dewatering system needed to mine
ore below the groundwater table in the Dark Star pits and the Pinion Phase 4/5 expansion; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A site-wide water conveyance system.

**1.13** **Capital Cost Summary** 

The capital expenditure schedule for the LOM is shown in Table 1-10.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 17 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 1-10: Capital Expenditure Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Capital<br> Expenditure, ($000)** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** |
| **Capital<br> Expenditure, ($000)** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | **Year 5** | **Year 6** | **Year 7** | **Year 8** | **Year 9** | **Year 10** | **Total** |
| Mine Pre-Production | $31719 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $31719 |
| Mine Capital | $28047 | $30906 | $37058 | $25700 | $10390 | $7178 | $7336 | $799 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $147414 |
| Process | $324138 | $45460 | $5028 | $15051 | $13148 | $4201 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $407025 |
| Owner's Cost | $10837 | $6861 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | $17697 |
| Total | $394741 | $83226 | $42085 | $40751 | 23538 | $11379 | $7336 | $799 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $603855 |

---

**1.14** **Operating Cost Summary** 

The total production cost includes mine operations, process plant operations, general and administration, reclamation and closure, and government fees. Table 1-11 below shows the operating costs over the LOM by area.

**Table 1-11: LOM Operating Costs**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM Operating Cost ($000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM Operating Cost ($000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$816007 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302204 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$80678 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2308 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Operating Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1201197 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;$97464 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Production Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1311435 |

---

**1.15** **Conclusions and Recommendations** 

The results of this study indicate that South Railroad is both technically and economically feasible and demonstrates robust returns, even at moderate metal prices. The authors recommend that the South Railroad project be advanced to detailed engineering, with a list of specific recommendations to achieve that goal (see Section 26).

Presently there are 1.60 million proven and probable ounces of gold and 6.1 million ounces of silver in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits estimated mineral reserves combined, 1.94 million measured and indicated ounces of gold in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits estimated mineral resources combined inclusive of mineral reserves, and 0.76 million inferred ounces of gold in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits estimated mineral resources combined. There are also 7.4 million measured and indicated and 0.11 million inferred ounces of silver in the Pinion resource, inclusive of mineral reserves. For the combined Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion mineral resources, there are 0.51 million ounces of gold classified as measured and indicated and 0.42 million ounces of gold classified as inferred. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

The FSU indicates an average gold production over the estimated 10-year LOM of about 104,000 ounces per year, with peak production in Year 1 and Year 5 of 149,000 ounces of gold. Cash costs are estimated to be $1,207 per ounce of gold after by-product credit, and AISC are estimated to be $1,505 per ounce of gold. The resulting after-tax cash flow is $1.09 billion, for an after-tax NPV (5%) of $782.7 million and an estimated payback period of 2.0 years. A summary of the pre-tax and after-tax FSU economic indicators is shown in Table 1-12.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 18 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 1-12: Economic Analysis Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Before-Tax** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**After-Tax** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LOM Cash Flow ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1010583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$782677 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$733940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$564747 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 |

---

Note: Gold price at $3,100 per ounce; silver price at $36.50 per ounce.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 19 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **2** | **Introduction** |

---

**2.1** **Purpose of Report** 

This NI 43-101 Technical Report was prepared by Qualified Persons from M3 with contribution by several QP's for Orla of Vancouver, British Columbia, a corporation that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: OLA) and the NYSE American (NYSE American: ORLA).

Orla owns the South Carlin Complex project in the southern Carlin trend, in Elko County, Nevada, USA.

This Technical Report for the South Carlin Complex project describes the feasibility of extracting and processing the oxide mineral reserve at the South Railroad project, which includes the Dark Star and Pinion gold deposits. This study incorporates new design-work, scheduling, and projected costs since the 2022 Feasibility Study.

This update is based on the resource estimates and the reporting gold and silver prices chosen as of September 30, 2025. This includes the updated 2025 mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the Dark Star and Pinion gold deposits, and updated mineral resource estimates for the Jasperoid Wash and the North Bullion deposits.

Orla has drilled, or received assays, for seven new holes since the effective dates of the databases for the respective deposits on the South Carlin Complex. Five holes were drilled in the North Bullion deposit, of which three tested the gold domain model, one did not reach the depth of mineralization, and one had no assays. The remaining two holes were drilled in or outside the South Lodes area. The new drilling in the North Bullion area was evaluated with respect to the resource models. Any changes resulting from the 2024 and 2025 drilling would manifest as local increases or decreases in the block model and would cause minor changes, likely small increases, to the reported resources. Further discussion is given in Section 14.

The North Railroad property includes the POD (formerly Railroad deposit), Sweet Hollow, South Lodes, and North Bullion cluster of gold deposits. Together these four deposits are referred to as the North Bullion deposits or North Bullion area. The first-time estimates of POD, Sweet Hollow, and North Bullion gold mineral resources were originally reported by Dufresne and Nicholls (2017b). The POD, Sweet Hollow, South Lodes, and North Bullion deposits were remodeled by RESPEC Company LLC. (RESPEC) in 2022, and mineral resources updated with new pit and stope optimizations are presented herein.

Other targets mentioned in this Technical Report include Bald Mountain, in the North Railroad property, and JR Buttes, Dixie, Irene, Sentinel, Ski Track, and East Jasperoid in the South Railroad property.

References to Tomera Formation equivalent stratigraphy have been noted historically. However, recent work suggests these units in the Railroad-Pinion area may not be of equivalent age, so all usage of Tomera Formation equivalent in this Technical Report refer to units that are Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated.

This Technical Report has been prepared in accordance with the disclosure and reporting requirements set forth in the Companion Policy to NI 43-101 (NI 43-101CP), and Form 43-101F1 – Technical Report (43-101), as well as with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum's "CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines" (CIM Standards) adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2014.

**2.2** **Sources of Information** 

In compiling the background information for this Technical Report, the authors relied on information provided by Orla and on other references as cited in Section 3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 20 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits mineral resource estimates presented in this Technical Report were estimated and classified under the supervision of Mr. Michael S. Lindholm, C.P.G. and Senior Geologist for RESPEC, Mr. Thomas L. Dyer, P.E., Senior Engineer for RESPEC, prepared the mining and economic studies for the FSU.

Table 2-1 is a list of qualified persons who prepared this Technical Report.

**Table 2-1: List of Qualified Persons**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **QP Name** | **Company** | **Qualification** | **Site Visit Date** | **Area of Responsibility** |
| Matthew Sletten | M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, Chandler, AZ | P.E. | October 30, 2025<br>| Sections 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.10, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 21 (except 21.1 and 21.4), 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 |
| Benjamin Bermudez | M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, Chandler, AZ | P.E. | No site visit | Sections 1.7 and 17 |
| Michael S. Lindholm | RESPEC Company LLC, Reno, NV | CPG | Aug 21, 2025 | Sections 1.3-1.5, 1.8.1, 1.15, 6 (except 6.3, 6.4.4, and 6.5.3), 7 (except 7.2.3 and 7.2.5), 8, 9 (except 9.2), 10 (except 10.5 and 10.8), 11 (except 11.1.3, 11.4.2, 11.5.6, and 11.6.2), 12 (except 12.5), and 14 (except 14.6). |
| Thomas Dyer | RESPEC Company LLC, Reno, NV | P.E. | November 18, 2016 | Sections 1.8.2, and 15 |
| Gary (Joe) Petersen | RESPEC Company LLC, Reno, NV | SME-RM, QP | No site visit | Sections 1.9, 16, 21.1, and 21.4 |
| Ray Walton | Ray Walton Consulting | P.E. | No site visit | Sections 1.6 and 13 |
| Richard DeLong | Westland Engineering | QP-MMSA, RG, PG | No site visit | Sections 1.11 and 20 |
| Warren Black | APEX Geoscience Ltd. | M.Sc., P.Geo. | No site visit | Section 1.8.1.2 and 14.6 |
| Michael Dufresne | APEX Geoscience Ltd. | M.Sc., P.Geo. | Jan 26-27 2022 | Sections 6.3, 6.4.4, 6.5.3, 7.2.3, 7.2.5, 10.8.3, 10.10.2, 11.1.3, 11.3, 11.4.2, 11.6.2, and 12.5. |

---

**2.3** **Project Scope and Terms of Reference** 

Orla and Gold Standard have been actively exploring the North Railroad property since 2010 and the South Railroad property since 2014 (Koehler *et al.*, 2014; Turner *et al.*, 2015).

The scope of this study includes a review of pertinent technical reports and data provided to RESPEC by Gold Standard relative to the general setting, geology, project history, exploration activities and results, methodology, quality assurance, interpretations, drilling programs, metallurgy, and estimated mineral resources.

The effective date of this Technical Report is September 30, 2025, and the issue date of the Technical Report is February 27, 2026. The effective dates of the Pinion and Dark Star databases on which the mineral resources described in this Technical Report are estimated on are February 19, 2025 and February 20, 2025, respectively. The effective date of the Jasperoid Wash database is January 29, 2025, and the effective date of the North Bullion deposits database is December 22, 2023. The effective dates of the Pony Creek database is May 20, 2025. New optimized pits and underground shells were generated using current mining costs in 2025, so the effective dates of the reported mineral resource estimates for all deposits is September 30, 2025, when the new reporting gold price was established.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 21 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**2.4** **Frequently Used Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions, and Units of Measure** 

In this Technical Report, measurements are generally reported in metric units. Where information was originally reported in imperial units, RESPEC has made the conversions as shown below. In the case of metallurgical test data and historical mineral resource estimates the units are as originally reported in order to preserve historical accuracy and avoid errors that can result from rounding converted data.

Currency, units of measure, and conversion factors used in this Technical Report include:

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**<u>Linear Measure</u>** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 inch | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 2.54 centimeter |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 foot | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 0.3048 meter | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 0.3333 yard |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 mile | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 1.6093 kilometer |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**<u>Area Measure</u>** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 acre | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 0.40469 hectares | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 0.001562 square mile |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**<u>Capacity Measure (liquid)</u>** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 gallon | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 3.7846 liters |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**<u>Weight</u>** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 1 imperial short ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;=2,000 pounds |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 tonne | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 1.1023 short tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 2,205 pounds or <br> = 1,000 kilograms |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 kilogram | &nbsp;&nbsp;= 2.205 pounds |  |

---

Regarding currency, unless otherwise indicated, all references to dollars ($, US$ or USD) in this Technical Report refer to currency of the United States.

Frequently used acronyms and abbreviations are as shown in Table 2-2.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 22 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 2-2: Acronyms and Abbreviations**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2SD | &nbsp;&nbsp;two times the standard deviation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3SD | &nbsp;&nbsp;three times the standard deviation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AA | &nbsp;&nbsp;atomic absorption spectrometry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ABA | &nbsp;&nbsp;acid-base accounting |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;silver |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag<sub>CN</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;cyanide-soluble silver |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag<sub>FA</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;silver analysis by fire assay, total silver content |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AISC | &nbsp;&nbsp;All-in Sustaining Costs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au<sub>CN</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;cyanide-soluble gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au<sub>FA</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;gold analysis by fire assay, total gold content |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Calc, calc | &nbsp;&nbsp;calculated |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CINO | &nbsp;&nbsp;inorganic carbon |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;cm | &nbsp;&nbsp;centimeters |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;core | &nbsp;&nbsp;diamond core-drilling method |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;<sup>°</sup>C | &nbsp;&nbsp;degrees Celsius |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ext | &nbsp;&nbsp;extracted |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;°F | &nbsp;&nbsp;degrees Fahrenheit |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FA | &nbsp;&nbsp;fire assay |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ft | &nbsp;&nbsp;foot or feet |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ft<sup>2</sup>, sf | &nbsp;&nbsp;square feet |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;gal | &nbsp;&nbsp;gallon(s) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;g | &nbsp;&nbsp;gram |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;gpl | &nbsp;&nbsp;grams per liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;GPM, gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp;gallons per minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;g/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;grams per metric tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ha | &nbsp;&nbsp;hectares |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;hd | &nbsp;&nbsp;head |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HP | &nbsp;&nbsp;horsepower |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hr., hr., hrs | &nbsp;&nbsp;hour, hours |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ICP | &nbsp;&nbsp;inductively-coupled plasma-emission spectrometric method |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ICP-MS | &nbsp;&nbsp;inductively-coupled plasma-emission and mass spectrometry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;in | &nbsp;&nbsp;inch or inches |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kg | &nbsp;&nbsp;kilograms |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;km | &nbsp;&nbsp;kilometers |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kW | &nbsp;&nbsp;kilowatts |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kWh/m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;kilowatt-hours per cubic meter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kWh/yr | &nbsp;&nbsp;kilowatt-hours per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;l | &nbsp;&nbsp;liter (L in metallurgical use) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;lb or lbs. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pounds |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;m | &nbsp;&nbsp;Meters |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ma | &nbsp;&nbsp;million years |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mi | &nbsp;&nbsp;mile or miles |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mm | &nbsp;&nbsp;millimeters |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 23 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;µm | &nbsp;&nbsp;micron or 10<sup>-6</sup> meters |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NAG | &nbsp;&nbsp;non-acid generating, (neutralizing potential) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NSR | &nbsp;&nbsp;net smelter return |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Opt, oz/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;troy ounce per short ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;org | &nbsp;&nbsp;Organic |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;oz | &nbsp;&nbsp;troy ounce |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P<sub>80</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;the theoretical square screen-opening, through which 80 weight percent of the particles will pass. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PAG | &nbsp;&nbsp;potential acid generating |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ppm | &nbsp;&nbsp;parts per million |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ppb | &nbsp;&nbsp;parts per billion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;QA/QC | &nbsp;&nbsp;quality assurance and quality control |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;reverse-circulation drilling method |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD | &nbsp;&nbsp;rock-quality designation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SO<sub>4</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfate |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;st | &nbsp;&nbsp;Imperial short ton (2,000 pounds) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL | &nbsp;&nbsp;sulfide sulfur |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;t | &nbsp;&nbsp;metric tonne or tonnes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;tot | &nbsp;&nbsp;total |

---

Note: AISC represents a non-GAAP (non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) metric used in the gold mining industry to provide a comprehensive, standardized measure of the full cost of producing an ounce of gold.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 24 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**2.5** **Forward-looking information** 

This report contains certain "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation and within the meaning of Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21E of the United States Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, or in releases made by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, all as may be amended from time to time, including, without limitation, statements regarding the mineral resource estimates and mineral reserve estimates; the development and production plans for the project and timing thereof; permitting; future resource expansion; and other goals and objectives. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts which address events, results, outcomes or developments are or may be expected to occur. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the authors of this report on the date the statements are made and they involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Certain material assumptions regarding such forward-looking statements were made, including without limitation, assumptions regarding: the future prices of gold and silver; anticipated costs and the ability to fund programs; the ability to carry on exploration, development, and mining activities; tonnage of ore to be mined and processed; ore grades and recoveries; decommissioning and reclamation estimates; currency exchange rates remaining as estimated; prices for energy inputs, labour, materials, supplies and services remaining as estimated; the ability to secure and to meet obligations under agreements relevant to the project; the timing and results of drilling programs; mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates and the assumptions on which they are based; the discovery of mineral resources and mineral reserves; that political and legal developments will be consistent with current expectations; the timely receipt of required approvals and permits, including those approvals and permits required for successful project permitting, construction, and operation of projects; the timing of cash flows; the costs of operating and exploration expenditures; the ability to operate in a safe, efficient, and effective manner; the ability to obtain financing as and when required and on reasonable terms; that activities will be in accordance with public statements and stated goals; and that there will be no material adverse change or disruptions affecting the Project. Consequently, there can be no assurances that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Forward-looking statements involve significant known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. These risks include, but are not limited to: uncertainty and variations in the estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves; risks related to exploration, development, and operation activities; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations; tailings risks; reclamation costs; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; environmental and other regulatory requirements; loss of, delays in, or failure to get access from surface rights owners; uncertainties related to title to mineral properties; water rights; risks related to natural disasters, terrorist acts, health crises, and other disruptions and dislocations; financing risks and access to additional capital; risks related to guidance estimates and uncertainties inherent in the preparation of economic studies; uncertainty in estimates of production, capital, and operating costs and potential production and cost overruns; the fluctuating price of gold and silver; risks related to the project; unknown labilities in connection with acquisitions; global financial conditions; uninsured risks; climate change risks; competition from other companies and individuals; conflicts of interest; risks related to compliance with anti-corruption laws; assessments by taxation authorities in multiple jurisdictions; foreign currency fluctuations; litigation risks; intervention by non-governmental organizations; outside contractor risks; risks related to historical data; risks related to foreign subsidiaries; risks related to the accounting policies and internal controls; enforcement of civil liabilities; gold industry concentration; shareholder activism; other risks associated with executing the objectives and strategies; as well as those risk factors discussed in Orla's most recently filed management's discussion and analysis, as well as its annual information form dated March 18, 2025, which are available on www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov. Except as required by the securities disclosure laws and regulations, the QPs and Orla undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 25 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **3** | **Reliance on Other Experts** |

---

Mr. Ekins, who is an independent registered professional landman (RPL#32306) and president of GIS Land Services in Reno, Nevada, assisted with the preparation of the summary land description and property maps discussed below. Mr. Ekins and Orla have relied upon title opinions prepared by Mr. Jeff N. Faillers of Erwin Thompson Faillers, of Reno, Nevada, Mr. Richard Thompson of Harris & Thompson, of Reno, Nevada, and Ms. Tracy Guinand, an independent registered professional landman of Tracy Guinand Land LLC, of Reno, Nevada. The opinions provided on surface ownership and subsurface mineral ownership, along with royalty information, are current as of the effective date of this Technical Report. Additional details with respect to the surface and subsurface ownership are provided in Orla's most recent Annual Information Form (AIF), which can be found on the SEDAR+ website at www.sedarplus.ca.

The sample collection, security, transportation, preparation, and analytical procedures are judged by the authors to be acceptable and to have produced data suitable for use in the estimation of the mineral resources reported in Section 11, subject to those exclusions or modifications discussed in Section 14. The authors consider the procedures utilized by Orla and the assay laboratories to be appropriate for use as described.

The QPs of this report relied upon contributions from other consultants as well as Orla. The QPs have reviewed the work of the other contributors and find that this work has been performed to normal and acceptable industry and professional standards. The authors are not aware of any reason why the information provided by these contributors cannot be relied upon and do not disclaim any reliability in respect thereof.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 26 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **4** | **Property Description and Location** |

---

**4.1** **Location and Land Area** 

The property that is the subject of this Technical Report comprises three contiguous areas of mineral tenure held by Orla (Figure 4-1) that straddle the Piñon Range in the Railroad mining district at the southeast end of the Carlin trend, a northwest-southeast trending belt of prolific gold endowment in northern Nevada. In previous Technical Reports, the northern portion of the land holdings, now referred to as the North Railroad property (Figure 4-1), has been referred to as the Railroad project and the Railroad property (Dufresne et al., 2017). The southern portion of the Railroad-Pinion property, now referred to as the South Railroad property (Figure 4-1), was referred to as the Pinion project and the Pinion property in previous technical reports (Dufresne *et al*., 2017). In November 2017, Gold Standard published a technical report on the Railroad-Pinion property, which included a mineral resource estimate for the North Bullion, POD, and Sweet Hollow gold deposits (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b), located in the North Railroad property, approximately six miles north of the Dark Star and Pinion deposits. Based on available information, North Bullion, POD, and Sweet Hollow would not likely share a common mining infrastructure with Dark Star and Pinion.

The South Carlin Complex properties in the Piñon Range is accessed primarily from the four-lane transcontinental U.S. Interstate 80 (I-80), approximately 275 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah, and 290 miles east of Reno, Nevada (Figure 4-1). The project is located between 8 and 29 miles south of I-80 and can be reached by a series of paved and gravel roads from Elko, Nevada (population 20,800). The property is centered approximately at UTM NAD27 Zone 11 coordinates of 585,000E and 4,480,000N.

The South Carlin Complex properties combined constitute a land position totaling 66,507 acres, and with partial interests taken into consideration, 50,600 acres net acres of land in Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada. The properties are located within Sections 13 and 24 in Township (T) 28N, Range (R) 52E; Sections 1 to 4, 10 to 14, 16, to 21, 23, and 24 in T28N, R53E; Sections 4 to 9 and 16 to 21 in T28N, R54E; Sections 1 to 31, 33, 35, and 36 in T29N, R53E; Sections 18, 19, and 30 in T29N, R54E; Section 12 in T30N, R52E; Sections 1 to 36 in T30N, R53E; Sections 24 and 36 in T31N, R52E; Sections 8, 10, 14 to 22, 24, 26 to 36 in T31N, R53E; and Sections 8, 18, and 30 in T31N, R54E, as shown in Figure 4-2. Orla owns or otherwise controls 100% of the subsurface mineral rights on a total of 29,942 acres of land held as patented and unpatented lode claims. This includes 1,455 621 unpatented claims owned by Gold Standard and, 207 unpatented claims held under lease, and 789 unpatented claims owned by Clover Nevada II LLC. Gold Standard also owns or leases 30 patented claims (Appendix B).

There is also a total of 23,628 gross acres of private lands of which Gold Standard's ownership of the subsurface mineral rights varies from 49.2% to 100% (Figure 4-2), for a net position of approximately 20,658 gross acres.

The Pony Creek Property lies in the Piñon Mountain range in the Railroad Mining District at the southeast end of the Carlin Trend and the south end of the South Railroad Property. The Pony Creek Property is located within section 1 in Township 27N, Range 53E; sections 3-10, 15-16 in Township 27N, Range 54E; sections 1-4, 11-14, 23-25, 36 in Township 28N, Range 53E; sections 4-9, 16-21, 28-34 in Township 28N, Range 54E; sections 10, 14, 16, 20-22, 25-28, 33-36 in Township 29N, Range 53E; Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The approximate center of the Property is at UTM NAD27 Zone 11 coordinates 590,500E and 4,462,300N.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 27 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp2img002.jpg) | ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp2img003.jpg) |
| Source: Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b | Source: Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b |
| **Figure 4-1: Location Map for the South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek)** | **Figure 4-2: South Carlin Complex (Excluding Pony Creek) with Ownership Percentages, Elko County, Nevada** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 28 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Private surface and private mineral property are wholly owned and subject to lease agreement payments (see Section 4.2) and property taxes (paid on an annual basis) as determined by Elko County. Unpatented lode mining claims grant the holder 100% of the locatable mineral rights and access to the surface for exploration activities which cause insignificant surface disturbance. Ownership of the unpatented mining claims is in the name of the holder (locator), subject to the paramount title of the United States of America, under the administration of the BLM. Under the Mining Law of 1872, which governs the location of unpatented mining claims on federal lands, the locator has the right to explore, develop, and mine minerals on unpatented mining claims without payments of production royalties to the U.S. government, subject to the surface management regulation of the BLM. Currently, annual claim-maintenance fees are the only federal payments related to unpatented mining claims. The mineral rights do not expire if the unpatented claims are maintained by paying an annual fee of $200 per claim to the U.S. Department of Interior, BLM prior to the end of the business day on August 31 every year. A notice of intent to hold must also be filed with the Elko or Eureka County Recorder on or before November 1 annually, along with a filing fee of $12.00 per claim, plus a $12.00 document fee.

Orla has completed its federal claim maintenance fee obligations for the owned and leased unpatented claims for 2025-2026 assessment year. The federal claim maintenance fees for the claims for the 2026-2027 assessment year are due on or before September 1, 2026. Orla's estimated claim maintenance fee cost for the owned and leased unpatented claims is $713,902 per annum, and the company's total estimated annual cost to maintain its property package is $2,387,774.

**4.2** **Agreements and Encumbrances** 

Portions of the unpatented and private lands are encumbered with royalties predominantly in the form of standard Net (or Gross) Smelter Return (NSR or GSR) and Mineral Production (MP) royalty agreements, or Net Profit Interest (NPI) agreements. The locations and aerial distribution of the currently relevant royalty encumbrances for the South Carlin Complex (excluding Pony Creek) are shown in Figure 4-3 and South Carlin Complex property – Pony Creek are shown in Figure 4-4. These are summarized as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 1% NSR royalty to Franco-Nevada U.S. Corporation,
as successor-in-interest to Royal Standard Minerals, Inc. and Manhattan Mining Co. on the portion of the property acquired by statutory
plan of arrangement;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 1.5% MP royalty to Kennecott Holdings Corporation
on claims noted as the Selco Group;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 5% NSR royalty to the owners of the undivided
private mineral interests;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gold Standard owns an approximate 99.2% mineral
interest in Sections 21 and 27 by way of several lease agreements. Pursuant to the terms of the relevant lease agreements, Sections 21
and 27 are subject to a 5% NSR royalty to the lessors of the leased property;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Section 22 is comprised of the TC 1 through
39, and TC 37R and 38R unpatented lode mining claims owned by Gold Standard. The TC claims are subject to an unknown/unspecified NSR royalty
to "GSI, Inc., of Virginia";

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 1% NSR royalty to Aladdin Sweepstake Consolidated
Mining Company on the portion of the property acquired by statutory plan of arrangement, including the PIN#1 to PIN#12 lode mining claims;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 4% NSR royalty to ANG Pony LLC for mining claims
leased by Gold Standard in Sections 34 and 36 in T30N, R53E, and Sections 2 and 4 in T29, R53E;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 3% NSR royalty to Peter Maciulaitis
for certain mining claims in Sections 24 and 26 in T30N, R53E;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 3% NSR royalty (relative to mineral interest)
to Linda Zunino and Tony Zunino, Trustees of the Delbert J. Zunino and Linda Zunino Family Trusts dated October 11, 1994, and a 3%
NSR royalty (relative to mineral interest) to John C. Carpenter and Roseann Carpenter, husband and wife, on Section 23 in T29N, R53E;

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 29 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 2% NSR royalty to Maverix Metals Inc., a successor-in-interest
to Amax Gold Inc., on certain patented and unpatented mining claims owned by the company;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 3% NSR royalty to Nevada Sunrise LLC on the
14 WMH claims situated in Sections 1, 2, 3, and 11 in T29N, R53E;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 3.5% NSR royalty (relative to mineral interest)
to Dominek Pieretti and the heirs of Tosca Sullivan on Sections 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 21, 29, 31, and 33 in T29N, R53E, and Section 33
in T30N, R53E; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 3% NSR royalty to Royal Gold, Inc. on
claims related to Pony Creek;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 2.0% NSR royalty to Royal Gold, Inc. on
claims related to Dixie Flats; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 3.0% NSR royalty to Royal Gold, Inc. on
claims related to North Star.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 30 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img001.jpg)

**Figure** 4-3: South Carlin Complex Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances (Excluding Pony Creek)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 31 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img002.jpg)

**Figure** 4-4: South Carlin Complex – Pony Creek Property Map with Royalty Encumbrances**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 32 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**4.3** **Environmental Permits** 

As of the effective date of this Technical Report, the authors are not aware of any significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property. Gold Standard controls sufficient ground and has sufficient permitting in place to access the project and continue future exploration programs. Details on permitting are provided below.

**<u>South Railroad Mine Project</u>**

A Plan of Operations for the South Railroad Mining Project was submitted to the BLM in November 2020, and BLM issued a letter of completeness in December 2020. Due to the scope of the project, BLM determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act prior to approval. Preparation of the EIS is currently underway, and the BLM issued the Notice of Intent in August 2025. The Project was accepted into the FAST-41 permitting process in late 2025 and now benefits from a predictable and transparent Coordinated Project Plan that outlines a Record of Decision in August 2026. State and Federal permitting is being advanced concurrently with the EIS process. The Water Pollution Control Permit, Jurisdictional Water (404) permit, and Groundwater Discharge (NPDES) permit are currently under review. Air Operating Permits have been received, and other state permits are in process.

<u>Exploration at South Carlin Complex</u>

Orla currently has three Plans of Operations (PoO) in place with the BLM and four Nevada Reclamation Permits with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) within the South Carlin Complex, along with two Notices of Intent (Figure 4-4).

The Railroad Exploration Project was permitted by GSV in 2012 with an Environmental Assessment. The PoO covers 3,169 acres (2,620 acres public, 549 acres private) in Sections 28, 32-34, T31N, R53E and Sections 3 and 4, T30N, R53E. It is permitted for a total of 150 acres of disturbance. As of 2025, the project is fully bonded in the amount of $1,239,033, posted with the BLM. (Plan of Operations NVN-089543. Nevada Reclamation Permit No. 0340).

The South Railroad Exploration Project was first permitted by GSV with an Environmental Assessment in 2017 and was expanded in 2020 with a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA). The PoO covers 15,327 acres (274 acres public, 226 acres private) in Sections 13-16, 20-28, and 34-36 in T30N, R53E and Sections 2-5, 8-11, and 15-17 T29N, R53E. It is permitted for a total of 500 acres of exploration-related surface disturbance. As of 2025, the project is bonded for up to 425 acres of disturbance, in the amount of $2,175,390, posted with the BLM. (Plan of Operations NVN-094861. Nevada Reclamation Permit No. 0365).

The Pony Creek Exploration Project was permitted by Clover in 2020 with an Environmental Assessment. The PoO covers 5,267 acres of public land in Sections 10, 14, 16, 22, 26-28, and 33-35, T29N, R53E, and Sections 2-4, and 11, T28N, R53E. It is permitted for a total of 150 acres of disturbance. As of 2025, the project is bonded for up to 44.7 acres of surface disturbance, and in March of 2026 Orla is requesting to fully bond the project for 150 acres of disturbance. The BLM holds a bond for $351,385, and the full bond for 150 acres will be approximately $1,000,000. (Plan of Operations NVN-098040/NVNV106202012. Nevada Reclamation Permit No. 0403).

The North Bullion Exploration Project is entirely on private land (640 acres) in Section 27 T31N R53E and has a Nevada Reclamation Permit for up to 60 acres of disturbance. As of 2025, it is fully bonded in the amount of $869,809, held by NDEP. (Nevada Reclamation Permit No. 0329).

Notices of Intent cover exploration at LT and Section 22. LT is located in Section 16 T30N R53E (Notice NVN-97647), and Section 22 is located in Section 22 T31N R53E (Notice NVN-094667).

**<u>Other Exploration</u>**

The Green Springs Exploration Project is permitted to Clover with an Environmental Assessment through the US Forest Service. The project is permitted for 75 acres of disturbance on 801 acres of forest service land approximately 40 miles southwest of Ely, Nevada. It is located in Sections 14, 15, 22, 26, 27, and 34, T15N R57E. (Plans #09-14-01 & #09-22-02).

The Lewis Notice of Intent with the BLM is near Battle Mountain, Nevada, in Sections 9, 16, 20, and 21 T31N, R43E. (Notice NVN 094850).

The East Camp Douglas Notice of Intent with the BLM is in Mineral County, Nevada, in Sections 27, 28, 34, and 35 T6N R34E, and Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12 T5N R34E. (Notice NVN-90716).

**4.3.1** **Other Permits** 

Surface Area Disturbance (SAD) Permits through NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control are held for the South Railroad Exploration, Railroad Exploration, Pony Creek Exploration, and North Bullion Exploration Projects.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 33 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img003.jpg)

**Figure 4-5: Property Map with Property and Permit Boundaries (excluding Pony Creek)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 34 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **5** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** |

---

**5.1** **Access to Property** 

The primary site access for South Railroad will be from Elko, NV using a 41.7-mile access route. This 41.7-mile route begins from its intersection with 12<sup>th</sup> Street in Elko, NV and continues approximately 5.5 miles along the existing paved State Route (SR) 227 (i.e., Lamoille Highway) to the intersection with SR 228 (i.e., Jiggs Highway). The route continues south along paved SR 228 for another 5.5 miles to the paved Elko County Road 715 (i.e., South Fork Road). The route follows southward along County Road 715 approximately 5.7 miles to the intersection with County Road 715B (i.e., Lucky Nugget Road/Grant Avenue). From this intersection, the route follows County Road 715B approximately 3.1 miles along the west shore of South Fork Reservoir through a semi-rural residential area to the intersection with BLM Road 1119, which continues southwest approximately 6 miles to its intersection with Elko County Road 720 (i.e., Bullion Road). The route follows the Bullion Road southwest approximately 10 miles to the intersection with the un-improved BLM Road 1053, then continues southward following the approximate alignment of BLM Road 1053 along the eastern flank of the Pinion Range approximately 6 miles to the South Railroad Project. Travel within the project area is currently via a network of historical and recently constructed direct roads and four-wheel drive tracks.

Access to the Pony Creek Property from Elko is provided by traveling southeast on State Highway NV-227 E for 9 km (5.6 miles) and then south along State Highway NV-228 S for 53.3 km (33.1 miles) past the town of Jiggs, Nevada, to the intersection with the Red Rock Ranch gravel county road. Travel west along the Red Rock Ranch gravel road for approximately 4.8 km (3 miles), continue south for 4.5 km (2.8 miles) and follow the gravel road in a westward direction for 17.9 km (11.1 miles) to the eastern edge of the Property. From this location, several unmaintained two-track roads transect the Property and provide access to the northern and southern portions of the Property. Alternately, the Property can be accessed from Carlin, NV, by travelling south along State Highway NV-278 S for 45 km (28 miles) and 0.3 km (0.2 miles) along an unnamed gravel road to Indian Pony Road, which provides access to the western edge of the Property.

**5.2** **Climate** 

The project area has a relatively dry and cool, high-desert climate. Weather records from the Newmont Mining Corporation (Newmont) Carlin mine, 34 miles to the north, indicate that from 1966 through 2002, the average January maximum and minimum temperatures were 34°F and 20°F, respectively. July average maximum and minimum temperatures were 83°F and 58°F, respectively.

Rainfall in the region is generally light and infrequent between May and October. At Emigrant Pass, 10 miles west of the town of Carlin, Nevada and 12 miles northwest of the property, average annual precipitation has been 12.9 inches with average precipitation on January and July of 1.5 inches and 24 inches, respectively (US Climate Data). Much of the annual precipitation occurs as snowfall during the winter months.

Precipitation can vary dramatically with changes in elevation and season. Moist airflow from the south brings summer thunderstorms from July through September. A small number of these storms may carry heavy rains that can cause localized flooding in creeks and drainages. Winter snow and spring runoff may temporarily limit local access with respect to drilling and other geological fieldwork activities between November and April each year but are not considered to be significant issues. Mining and exploration can be conducted year-round with adequate snow removal and maintenance of access roads.

**5.3** **Physiography** 

Northern Nevada is within the Basin and Range physiographic province, an area characterized by gently sloping valleys bounded by generally north-south-trending mountain ranges. The project area is located within and adjacent to the Piñon Range at elevations ranging from 5,807 feet to nearly 8,694 feet above sea level. Lower elevations consist of gentle, rolling hills with little to no bedrock exposure. Higher elevations are characterized by steeper slopes, deeply incised drainages, and an increase in bedrock exposure.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 35 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Vegetation largely consists of sagebrush, rabbit brush, small cacti, and bunch grass communities, consistent with a high-desert climate. Cottonwood trees are present in canyon and creek bottoms, and near springs. Pinyon pine, juniper, mountain mahogany, and aspen trees are present in some areas at higher elevations.

**5.4** **Local Resources and Infrastructure** 

Elko, Nevada is a small, full-service city based on mining, ranching, and transportation that has served as the center for northern Nevada mining and exploration for more than half a century. Housing, hotels, groceries, restaurants, clinics, and a hospital, industrial supplies, a regional airport with daily flights to and from Salt Lake City, Utah, interstate highway and railway, local, state and federal government offices, fuel, telecommunications, engineering services, light and heavy equipment sales and services, and a community college are all present.

In this part of Nevada, there are local, regional, and international exploration and mining service companies, including assay laboratories, surveyors, suppliers, drilling contractors, and heavy equipment vendors supporting the exploration and mining industry. These companies are served by a skilled and experienced local labor force accustomed to the mining and exploration industries.

The North Railroad and South Railroad portions of the property are within 40 miles of several large, active open-pit and underground mines operated by Newmont and Barrick Gold Corp. (Barrick) along the Carlin trend. These mine sites also include fully operational mill complexes designed to treat sulfide and/or carbon-sulfide refractory gold ores.

Water for drilling at Pinion, Dark Star, and Jasperoid Wash is available at the project site. For communications, a commercial cellular telephone and data network is available in select locations. There are sufficient and appropriate sites within the property to accommodate exploration and potential mining facilities, including waste rock disposal, heap-leach pads, and processing infrastructure. Surface rights controlled by Gold Standard are sufficient for potential mining operations.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 36 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **6** | **History** |

---

Historical exploration conducted at the North Railroad and South Railroad properties is summarized below (Section 6.1 and 6.2) and is largely derived from Dufresne and Nicholls (2016), Dufresne *et al*. (2017), Dufresne and Nicholls (2017b), Dufresne and Nicholls (2018), and other sources as cited. The location of the primary deposit and exploration areas are shown in Figure 6-1. Mr. Lindholm has reviewed this information and believes it accurately represents the history of the property as presently understood. RESPEC has added details of drilling types, footage, and number of holes based on Orla's project-wide database.

Historical exploration conducted at the Pony Creek property is summarized below (Section 6.3) and has been sourced from previous technical reports and studies by Russell (2004; 2006), Gustin (2017), Spalding (2018), and Dufresne and Clarke (2022).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 37 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img004.jpg)

**Figure 6-1: Deposit and Prospect Areas in the South Carlin Complex** 

*(Colored dots are depictions of drill holes in deposit and prospect areas indicated by adjacent labels)*

**6.1** **South Railroad Property** 

Parts of the current South Railroad property, shown in Figure 6-1, have been held by at least 15 different successive operators at various times. The summaries in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 provide a timeline of the historical operators that held ownership of various parts and conducted historical exploration work. In some cases, historical project and property names, and boundaries have been applied in different forms than have been in use by Gold Standard, and then by Orla following the acquisition of Gold Standard in 2022. Drilling by historical operators is summarized in Section 10.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 38 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**6.1.1** **Dark Star Deposit** 

The Dark Star deposit is located approximately 2 mi (~3 km) east of the Pinion Main zone (Figure 6-1). In 1990, a surface gold anomaly was identified through rock and soil sampling at what became the Dark Star deposit by Crown Resources (Crown). Historical exploration work was conducted in the Dark Star area from 1990 through 1999 by Crown, Westmont Resources Inc. (Westmont), Cyprus Exploration Corporation (Cyprus), Cameco, Royal Standard Minerals (RSM), Mirandor Exploration (U.S.A.) Inc. (Mirandor), and Kinross Gold U.S.A, Inc. (Kinross), as summarized in Table 6-1. Drilling in 1991 confirmed the presence of subsurface gold mineralization at Dark Star. Further historical drilling identified an approximately north-south-trending mineralized zone that became known as the Dark Star Corridor. Ultimately, the exploration activities conducted by the historical companies partly delineated a zone of gold-silver mineralization at the Dark Star prospect in Township 30 North, Range 53 East, Section 25. Historical drilling at Dark Star is summarized in Section 10.

**Table 6-1: Summary of Historical Exploration in the Dark Star Deposit Area**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Exploration** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus/AMAX | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 rotary holes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown | &nbsp;&nbsp;Discovery and definition of Dark Star surface mineralization with rock chip and soil samples. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown, | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 holes; detailed rock and soil sampling; geologic mapping; 6 reconnaissance holes peripheral to the Dark Star deposit.<br>|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;Westmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 holes north of the Dark Star mineralized zone. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 holes; detailed CSAMT survey; detailed palynology studies to better define Dark Star stratigraphy;<br>|
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;Estimated mineral resource in Section 25 (Calloway, 1992, see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown | &nbsp;&nbsp;updated estimated mineral resource of Pan Antilles Resources (McCusker and Drobeck, 2012, see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 holes north of the Dark Star mineralized zone (not in Orla's database);<br>|
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;Estimated mineral resource (see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cameco, RSM | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gradient IP/Resistivity survey between Dark Star and Dixie |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mirandor | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 holes north and west of Dark Star mineralized zone. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kinross, Mirandor | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 holes just north of mineralized zone. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kinross, Mirandor | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 holes northwest of mineralized zone. |

---

**6.1.2** **Pinion Deposit** 

Exploration activity at the Pinion area dates to the discovery of the Pinion prospect in 1980 by Newmont, who referred to the prospect as Trout Creek. The majority of the historical work was conducted in the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s and overlaps somewhat with that of the adjacent North Railroad property. Historical exploration work conducted in the Pinion area is summarized in Table 6-2. This work identified a Carlin-type gold deposit at the Pinion prospect in Township 30 North, Range 53 East, Sections 22 and 27 which for a time was known as the South Bullion deposit.

Historical RC drilling began in 1980 and is summarized in Section 10. Exploration efforts identified two discrete zones of mineralization (Main and North) with most of the historical drilling focused at the Main zone, including the testing of jasperoid breccia outcrops located near the southern boundary of Section 22 in T30N and R53E. Historical drilling extended the Main zone gold mineralization well into Section 27 to the southeast. The north zone is located approximately ~1,000 ft (~305 m) northeast of the Jasperoid outcrops of the Main zone.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 39 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2014, Gold Standard acquired a large part of the Pinion and surrounding area mineral rights from Scorpio Gold Corporation (Scorpio). Exploration activities conducted by Scorpio prior to the acquisition by Gold Standard are unknown. Subsequently, Gold Standard expanded their land position to include all of South Railroad.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 40 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 6-2: Summary of Historical Exploration, Pinion Area**

(modified from DeMatties, 2003; Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017; and with data from Gold Standard, 2018 and 2019)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | **Exploration Work Performed** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | Regional stream sediment survey within the Piñon Range, which revealed a geochemical anomaly along Trout Creek.<br>|
|  |  | Further prospecting and discovery of the baritic jasperoid, Pinion Main zone. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1980-1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus/AMOCO | 31 RC drill holes in Au-bearing jasperoid outcrops and soil geochemical anomalies. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport-McMoRan (Freeport) | 8 RC holes; each intersected gold. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Fe Mining (Santa Fe) | 14 RC holes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | 61 RC holes, estimation of historical mineral resource known as South Bullion (see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Battle Mountain Gold (Battle Mountain) | 12 holes of unknown type. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Teck Resources (Teck) | 39 RC drill holes, geological mapping, and performed a soil geochemical survey. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1989-1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Westmont | 11 holes of unknown type. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1990-1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown | 130 RC holes, metallurgical testing, detailed mapping, rock chip sampling, 800 soil samples, controlled-source audio-magnetotelluric (CSAMT), and an airborne magnetic-electromagnetic-radiometric survey.<br>|
|  |  | Defined two small and shallow mineralized zones: Pinion Main and "Central" zone, also known as Pinion North zone; estimated historical mineral resource (see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus | 914 rock samples, compiled geochemical results of previous exploration, identified Au anomalies defining the Ridge zone and Northern Extension.<br>|
|  |  | 74 RC holes in the South Bullion mineral resource area, expanded the historical mineral resource (see discussion below in Section 6.3). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown/RSM | 225 rock chip samples along 100 ft spaced lines; conducted geologic mapping, 7 diamond-core holes at the Main zone and North (Pod) zone that are not in the Orla database; historical mineral resource and preliminary scoping study. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1997-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown/RSM/Cameco | Geologic mapping, CSAMT surveys, rock chip sampling. Cameco drilled 18 RC holes and 8 core holes; some may have started with RC. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1998-1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kinross | 1 RC hole and 1 hole of unknown type were drilled. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2002-2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RSM | 2003 10 RC holes, metallurgy work with samples from drilling and trenches; density measurements indicating historical mineral resources could have been understated.<br>|
|  |  | 2007 5 core holes to determine depth of water table and to characterize the neutralization and acid generating potential of the mineralized and waste rocks. |
|  |  | Proposed leach pad drill testing was completed in 2007, holes not in database. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2012-2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Scorpio | Acquired Pinion property from RSM December 2012 and sold to Gold Standard in March 2014. Any exploration activities that may have been undertaken are unknown. |

---

**6.1.3** **Jasperoid Wash Deposit** 

The Jasperoid Wash prospect is located 4.7 mi (7.6 km) southwest of the Dark Star deposit (Figure 6-1). In 1988, Westmont conducted geologic mapping, and rock and soil sampling over the Jasperoid Wash and Black Creek regional area. The geochemical sampling identified a large anomalous mineralized system and a 13-hole RC drilling program followed in 1989. Nine of the 13 holes drilled in 1989 intersected intervals of 0.01 to 0.03 oz Au/ton (0.34 to 1.03 g Au/t). Follow-up drill programs were conducted in 1990, 1991, and 1992, consisting of 34 RC and three core holes. Low-grade gold mineralization was intersected in 22 of the holes (Jones and Postlethwaite, 1992). This historical Jasperoid Wash drilling is summarized in Section 10.1.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 41 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 1997, Cameco collected 35 rock-chip samples to test the anomaly within the hydrothermally altered Diamond Peak (now called the Tonka formation) and Chainman formations of the Jasperoid Wash prospect. Four RC holes were drilled targeting structural intersections, totalling 1,825 ft (556 m). Significant gold mineralization was not intersected in the 1997 drilling at Jasperoid Wash, although two of the holes intersected low-grade, anomalous mineralization (Parr, 1998).

In 1998, Cameco completed gradient IP/Resistivity geophysical surveys over the Jasperoid Wash area and identified a large zone of low chargeability and high resistivity in the western part of the survey area. This was reportedly tested in 1998 by four RC holes totalling 2,220 ft (677 m). Significant gold mineralization was not intersected in the drilling, although two of the drill holes intersected low-grade anomalous gold (Parr, 1999).

**6.1.4** **Other Prospects in the South Railroad Property** 

Historical exploration has taken place intermittently since 1980 at several locations approximately 2.2 to 4.7 mi (3.5 to 7.6 km) southwest and south of the Dark Star and Pinion deposits as summarized below, and at the Irene prospect west of the Pinion deposit.

6.1.4.1 Dixie Prospect

The Dixie or Dixie Creek area, which is located 2.2 mi (3.5 km) south of the Dark Star deposit (Figure 6-1), has been explored intermittently since 1980 by various operators. Most of the historical exploration work was reconnaissance-level to semi-detailed in nature. In 1997, Cameco conducted rock sampling at the Pinion, Dark Star, and Dixie areas. The 1997 rock sampling at the Dixie area was intended to examine the nature of surface mineralization, in greater detail, and to compare this data with results from drilling at the prospect. At the main Dixie area, a group of 32 rock samples defined a distinct, >1,500 ppb Hg anomaly with elevated Au, As, Sb, and Ag (Parr, 1999). This anomaly was found to roughly correspond with gold mineralization in the subsurface. Immediately to the north, a North Dixie anomaly was identified that was characterized by similar chemistry (elevated Hg, Au, As, and Sb). Farther north, a group of 15 rock samples collected between the Pinion and Dark Star areas defined a similar zone at the "CISS" area where six samples contained 20-135 ppb Au, including As values up to 940 ppm, Sb up to 161 ppm, and Hg up to 15 ppm.

In addition to the rock sampling, Cameco completed limited induced potential and resistivity (IP/Resistivity) geophysical surveys at several prospects including the Dixie area in 1997 and 1998. The IP/Resistivity surveys at Dixie identified broad zones of contrasting high and low resistivity, and corresponding zones of high chargeability (Parr, 1999).

The first documented drill program at the Dixie prospect was conducted by Freeport in 1988 and 1989, during which 26 holes were drilled in a joint venture with Crown. In 1991, Crown completed seven RC holes and later Cameco drilled 11 RC holes at the Dixie prospect. This historical Dixie prospect drilling is summarized in Section 10. The drilling identified a zone of low-grade gold mineralization within Pennsylvanian siliciclastic and carbonate rocks above the contact between the Webb Formation and the underlying Devils Gate Limestone. This important contact between the Webb Formation and the underlying Devils Gate Limestone was not intersected by any of the historical Dixie Creek drilling (Redfern, 2002). The mineralization intersected at Dixie Creek is hosted in rocks that are similar in nature to the host rocks for the Dark Star gold mineralization (see Section 7.2.2.2).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 42 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

6.1.4.2 JR Buttes

The JR Buttes prospect is located 2.8 mi (4.5 km) southwest of the Dark Star deposit (Figure 6-1). Geological mapping was completed over the JR Buttes area by an unknown company in 1977. This work outlined a zone of intense silicification over an interpreted graben structure (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017a). In 1992, Westmount conducted rock-chip and reconnaissance soil sampling, and detailed mapping, followed by a 19-hole RC drill program of 8,365 ft (2,550 m). The drilling was designed to test for gold mineralization adjacent to the graben structural zone. Mineralization defined by silicification, arsenic, and gold concentrations was intersected along the western boundary fault of the graben. No gold mineralization was intersected along the eastern side of the graben (Jones and Postlethwaite, 1992). In 1994, Cyprus drilled three RC holes, and Cameco drilled one RC hole in 1998. The JR Buttes drilling is summarized in Section 10.3.

6.1.4.3 Irene

The Irene prospect is shown on Figure 6-1. Newmont carried out drilling in the Irene area during 1981-1982 and 1987-1989. Altogether, a total of 42 holes were drilled as summarized in Section 10.3.2 and Section 10.3.6.

**6.2** **North Railroad Property** 

This part of the report is extracted and modified from Dufresne and Nicholls (2018) who provided the most recent summary of historical exploration in the North Railroad property using information taken largely from Hunsaker (2010, 2012a, 2012b), Shaddrick (2012), Koehler *et al.* (2014), and sources as cited. Details of types and amounts of drilling were derived from Orla's project-wide drill database.

The earliest prospecting and mineral exploration in the North Railroad property likely dates to the mid-1860s. In 1869, the Railroad mining district was established in the area of Bunker Hill and the district was also known as the Bullion or Empire City district (LaPointe *et al.*, 1991). Initially silver, lead, and copper ore was shipped to Chicago and San Francisco. A smelter was built in 1872 at the nearby town of Bullion. Beginning in 1905, shipments from operating mines, old dumps, and slag were sent to Salt Lake City (Ketner and Smith, 1963).

Early production in the district was mainly silver, lead, and copper extracted from numerous underground mines on the northern flank of Bunker Hill. Emmons (1910) reported that the mines were reopened in 1906 and at the time of his review the Standing Elk, Tripoli, Red Bird, Copper Belle, and Delmas mines were accessible. The most important mines exploited replacement and skarn-type deposits in marbleized and dolomitized rocks in the vicinity of the Bullion stock (see Section 7.2). There were also minor, undeveloped gold veins in intrusive rocks.

Beginning in 1910, and until the mines ceased production in the 1960s, zinc became the prominent metal mined (LaPointe *et al.*, 1991). In 1905, the Davis tunnel was started from a location approximately 4,400 ft northeast and 1,000 ft below the 600 level of the Standing Elk mine. Many lessors worked at extending the tunnel, which was driven southwest to reach a zone beneath the Standing Elk. In 1959, the zone was reached but no ore was found. Numerous oxidized faults and oxidized zones of base-metal mineralization were crossed.

Modern-era exploration began in 1967 when American Selco optioned claims from Aladdin Sweepstake Consolidated Mining, launching a period of surface sampling, geophysics, geological mapping, and surface drilling in the Railroad district and the North Railroad property, which has continued to the date of this Technical Report. Records are incomplete but historical exploration was likely conducted in various areas at various times by 15 companies. These companies collected 6,260 soil samples, 3,508 rock samples, and drilled 382 holes, according to Dufresne and Nicholls (2018). Drilling in the North Railroad property by these operators is discussed in Section 10.2.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 43 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

American Selco, Placer Amex, and El Paso Natural Gas Company with Louisiana Land and Exploration Company explored for porphyry copper and molybdenum in the Bullion stock and Grey Eagle intrusive rocks. They also looked for replacement sulfide "lenses" in limestone and "unknown replacement or disseminated" mineralization west of the Bullion stock (American Selco, 1970). American Selco completed an induced potential (IP) and magnetic geophysical surveys and drilled seven core holes and seven holes of unknown type. Subsequent core holes, and several of the rotary holes completed to the desired depths, intersected up to 50% sulfides as well as molybdenum, copper, silver, and gold.

Placer Amex drilled a single 1,200 ft (365 m) hole in 1972. In 1974, El Paso Natural Gas Company drilled 2,203 ft (671 m) in five holes of unknown type with the Louisiana Land and Exploration Company. In 1975, AMAX Inc. (AMAX) optioned the claims and explored for tungsten, molybdenum, and base metals until 1980. Detailed mapping was completed in Sections 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34 in T31N, R53E, and in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 in T30N, R53E (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b). AMAX also conducted surface dump and rock chip sampling, soil sampling, a vegetation geochemical survey, a ground magnetometer survey and drilled two core holes and 13 holes of unknown type in 1977 through 1980.

In 1980, Homestake Mining Company (Homestake) entered a joint venture arrangement with AMAX and exploration was focused on gold in the North Railroad area, particularly after Newmont discovered the Rain gold deposit about 6.2 mi (10 km) north of Bunker Hill. Homestake drilled 22 holes (Galey, 1983) and collected rock and soil samples. The Homestake work identified what later became known as the POD deposit.

NICOR Mineral Ventures, Inc. (NICOR) became AMAX's joint venture partner in 1983. As operator, NICOR continued the geologic mapping, soil geochemistry, and drilling initiated by Homestake. NICOR drilled 102 rotary and reverse-circulation holes (RC) in 1983 through 1986, expanding the drill coverage at the POD deposit and estimating a mineral resource (see Section 6.4.3).

In 1986, Westmont took over NICOR's interests and operated until 1993. Some of NICOR's rock and soil sample data are recorded as Westmont data. Westmont drilled 42 RC holes and 31 holes of unknown type in the POD, North Bullion, Bald Mountain, and north of North Bullion areas during 1987-1992 and collected rock and soil samples. They developed a detailed stratigraphic interpretation for the late Paleozoic sedimentary units and also began to recognize low-angle reverse and low-angle normal faults, as well as prominent north-south-trending and northwest-trending high-angle normal and reverse faults. The interplay of the Webb-Devils Gate contact and complex faulting as controls to the mineralization were also identified late in the Westmont tenure.

At some time prior to 1993, Corona Gold (Corona) reported on land held jointly with Pezgold mineral resource Corporation (Pezgold) in Township 21 North, Range 53 East, Sections 16 and 20, and which later became part of the South Railroad property. Available data indicate that six holes were drilled and geologic mapping, soil and rock sampling, and geophysics were conducted. Orla's drilling database does not contain drill holes attributed to Corona or Pezgold because drill-hole collar locations are not known. However, down-hole geology data is available for the drilling and indicates all the holes remained in the Mississippian Webb Formation above the target horizons. A northeast-trending corridor of subtle Carlin or Rain-type alteration with low levels of precious-metal and trace-element geochemistry was noted.

The Corona holdings were acquired by Newmont in 1993. According to Dufresne and Nicholls (2017b), two holes were drilled, and additional geophysical surveys were conducted. The drilling reached as deep as 1,400 ft (427 m) but did not reach the target horizon in those locations. These holes are not in Orla's drilling database. Gravity data outlined the northeast-trending zone and indicated a significant fault in the northeast corridor.

Ramrod Gold (Ramrod) became operator in 1993 and drilled ten RC holes in the POD-North Bullion area in 1994. Newmont drilled one hole north of the POD-North Bullion deposit in 1995.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 44 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Mirandor operated the project in 1996-1997 and drilled 42 RC holes in the POD-North Bullion, Bald Mountain, and north of North Bullion areas (Figure 6-1). The exploration for Ramrod and Mirandor was carried out by geologists who were previously employed by Westmont.

The Ramrod and Mirandor drilling tested greater depths than their predecessors and showed encouraging results along the northwest-trending POD zone. Elsewhere, the EMRR series of drill holes returned favorable results adjacent to the historic Sylvania mine which had historic production from replacement/skarn mineralization. Ramrod and Mirandor's deeper drilling and drill hole placement encountered higher gold values than earlier drilling.

Kinross took over the project during 1998 and 1999 under the terms of an earn-in agreement with Mirandor. Kinross drilled 64 RC holes and one core hole in the POD-North Bullion and Bald Mountain areas, according to the Orla database and collected 871 rock and 2,531 soil samples according to Dufresne and Nicholls (2017b). The soil samples were collected using a uniform collection process and the analysis of both soils and rocks was consistent in analytical laboratory and procedures.

The Kinross surface-sample results were consistent with known mineralization geology across most of the historical project area. Gold in soil anomalies from the Kinross samples generally coincides with the known historical drilling. Ag, As, Sb, and Hg also gave a similar pattern and highlight the known areas. Cu, Pb, Zn, and Mo highlight the historical skarn and replacement area (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b). The Kinross drilling tested within the areas of historical estimates, on the extensions of those zones, as well as newer target areas. The results in the areas of known gold returned similar results (Bartels, 1999). Step-out drilling appeared to be encouraging. Kinross drilled deeper holes, and in many cases, tested more of the stratigraphy than had been tested by previous operators.

Mr. Lindholm has no information on historical exploration, if any, carried out in the North Railroad property from 1999 until 2007.

In 2007 and 2008, RSM drilled four core holes in the Bald Mountain area. RSM, or its North Railroad property, was acquired by Scorpio. In 2009, Scorpio and various private investors sold their holdings in the North Railroad property to Gold Standard. Mr. Lindholm is not aware if the transactions involved the entire North Railroad property, or if parts of the current North Railroad area were acquired subsequent to 2009.

Gold Standard commenced exploration in the North Railroad property in 2009 (see Section 9.1 and Section 9.3) and began drilling in the North Bullion area in 2010 (see Section 10.6.1.1). Orla acquired Gold Standard, and consequently the North Railroad property, in 2022.

**6.3** **Pony Creek Area Exploration History** 

The first record of modern exploration conducted at Pony Creek dates to 1980, with a regional stream sediment sampling program conducted by Newmont. The stream sediment sampling program identified anomalous gold and arsenic in exposures of hydrothermally altered rhyolite within Pony Creek (Spalding, 2018). Following this, several historical exploration programs have been conducted at the Property by numerous companies, including Newmont (1980-1985, 1987-1989, 1997-1998), NERCO (1987), Westmont - Newmont Joint Venture (1990-1992), Uranerz U.S.A. Inc. (Uranerz) (1994-1995), Quest International Management Services Inc. (Quest) (1996-1997), Barrick Gold Exploration Inc. (Barrick) - Quest Joint Venture (1997-1998), Homestake (1999-2000), Nevada Contact Inc. (2001-2003), Mill City International Corp. (Mill City) (2003), and Grandview Gold Inc. (Grandview) (2004-2007).

Previous operators completed geological mapping, rock and soil geochemical sampling programs, geophysical surveying and drill programs at Pony Creek. The authors reviewed a database containing a total of 452 historical rock grab samples and 2,721 historical soil samples that were collected at Pony Creek within the Property boundary. Geochemical results of the historical surface exploration programs contained in Orla's database are illustrated in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3. Historical drill collar locations are presented in Figure 6-4. Historical drilling programs are mentioned briefly in Section 6.3.1 with a full summary and drill results provided in Section 6.3.2.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 45 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The following information summarizing the historical ownership and exploration history of Pony Creek has been sourced from previous technical reports and studies by Russell (2004; 2006), Gustin (2017), Spalding (2018), and Dufresne and Clarke (2022).

**6.3.1** **Historical Ownership (1980 – 2024) and Exploration Summary (1980 – 2017)** 

Newmont located 180 claims at Pony Creek in the early 1980's and conducted drilling programs intermittently on the Property from 1981 through to 1989. Newmont's drilling intersected significant gold mineralization in the south lobe of a rhyolitic intrusive body and in sedimentary rocks beneath the rhyolite, in what is currently known as the Bowl Zone. In addition to the drilling, Newmont conducted geological mapping, soil sampling, and completed an aeromagnetic geophysical survey, a photogeological study and structural analysis of the northern portion of the current Property area.

In 1987, NERCO drilled 6 RC holes, but it is not known if this was done under an agreement with Newmont or on ground not controlled by Newmont.

In 1990, Newmont optioned Pony Creek to Westmont. Exploration conducted by Westmont included soil sampling, an induced polarization (IP) geophysical survey and an RC drill program. In April of 1993, Quest acquired Westmont and in 1994 formed a joint venture with Uranerz. Uranerz conducted geological mapping, soil sampling, induced polarization, ground magnetics geophysical surveys and RC drilling with focus on the northern portion of the current Property. In 1995, the Uranerz joint venture was terminated.

In 1997, Quest and Barrick formed a joint venture. Quest and Barrick recompiled and interpreted historical drilling and geophysical data and completed a controlled-source audio-magnetotelluric (CSAMT) survey in the northern part of the claim block (Russell, 1999). In addition, the joint venture completed geochemical rock sampling and drilled 4 RC holes in the northern part of Pony Creek.

In 1999, Quest was acquired by Standard Mining Co. who subsequently abandoned Pony Creek. Later that year, Mr. Carl Pescio located new claims over the mineralized rhyolite area and leased the Property to Homestake. In 2000, Homestake drilled 5 RC holes at Pony Creek and later terminated their agreement with Mr. Pescio (Russell, 2006).

In 2001, Nevada Contact optioned Pony Creek from Mr. Pescio. Nevada Contact drilled 8 RC holes in 2002 before terminating the agreement in early 2003. In addition to the drilling, Nevada Contact re-logged drillholes completed by previous operators and conducted a CSAMT geophysical survey.

In July 2003, Mill City purchased Pony Creek from Mr. Pescio, who became an officer of Mill City. In 2004, Grandview entered into a letter Option Agreement with Mill City. Grandview conducted geological mapping, surface sampling, RC and diamond drilling in the northern Pony Creek area in 2005 and 2006. By 2006, ownership of Pony Creek had been transferred from Mill City to the Pescio Group. In mid-2006, Vista Gold Corp. acquired Pony Creek from the Pescio Group. Following a series of transactions, control of the Property was assigned to Allied Nevada Gold Corp. in May 2007. Neither Vista Gold Corp. nor Allied Nevada Gold Corp. conducted physical exploration of the Pony Creek property; however, the claims were maintained.

From 2005 to 2007, Grandview Gold Inc. drilled 23 RC and core drillholes at the Pony Creek property. It is suggested by Spalding (2018) that Grandview's option with Mill City survived through the change in ownership to Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Allied Nevada Gold Corp. entered bankruptcy in March 2015. In June of 2015, a subsidiary of Waterton acquired Pony Creek, along with other exploration assets, and Mr. Lindholm is not aware of any exploration work having been completed at that time.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 46 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Winwell, Carlin, Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC (then, the sole member of Clover Nevada II LLC) and Clover Nevada entered into the Securities Exchange Agreement dated December 8, 2016, as amended on January 31, 2017 (the Securities Exchange Agreement). Following the completion of the Securities Exchange Agreement in June 2017, and concurrently with closing of the Reverse Takeover (RTO) of Winwell by Carlin to form Contact Gold and its continuance into the State of Nevada, Contact Gold immediately acquired all issued and outstanding membership interests of Clover Nevada, which was the holder of Pony Creek. On April 29, 2024, Orla Mining Ltd. announced the complete acquisition of Contact Gold, and Contact Gold became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Orla Mining and Exploration work and drilling completed at Pony Creek by Contact Gold is discussed in Sections 9.2 and 10.8, respectively.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 47 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img005.jpg)

**Figure 6-2: Historical rock geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 48 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img006.jpg)

**Figure 6-3: Historical soil geochemistry (Au) for the Pony Creek Area**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 49 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp3img007.jpg)

**Figure 6-4: Historical drilling completed by previous operators from 1981-2017 at Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 50 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**6.3.2** **Pony Creek Historical Drilling (1981-2017)** 

A total of 249 historical RC (149,245 ft, 45,490 m) and 12 historical core drillholes (16,913 ft, 5,155 m) are reported to have been completed in the Pony Creek area within the Property boundaries by various operators from 1981 to 2007 (Table 6-3). Most of the historical drilling has been completed in in proximity to the Bowl, Appaloosa and Stallion deposits. Drilling at Pony Creek has been completed by a several companies, including Newmont, NERCO, Westmont, Uranerz, Barrick, Nevada Contact Inc., Homestake, and Grandview.

Of the 216 historical drillholes, 61.6% were drilled vertically (n=133), the inclination of the remainder of the holes ranged from -45 to -80°. The historical RC hole depths ranged from 35 to 2,000 ft (10.7 to 609.6 m) and averaged 547 ft (166.9 m). The diamond drillhole depths ranged from 630 to 2,970 ft (192 to 905 m) and averaged 1,345 ft (410 m).

Historical drill collar locations are shown above in Figure 6-4. Significant gold intercepts from historical drilling programs completed in the northern portion of the Property are listed in Table 6-4.

Historical drilling at Pony Creek began in 1981, with Newmont conducting drill programs through to 1989. As expected, there is limited information on the drilling contractors, drill types and sampling methods used in the historical drill programs. There is no information available regarding the sample preparation procedures used prior to 2000. Lab certificates indicate that samples were processed at Monitor Labs, American Assayers Laboratories, Chemex Labs Inc. and Geochemical Services Inc.

Newmont carried out drill programs on the Property from 1981 to 1989. Newmont's drill programs were focused on the Bowl Zone, the Appaloosa Zone and Pony Spur. Newmont's drilling intersected significant gold mineralization in the south lobe of a rhyolitic intrusive body and in sedimentary rocks beneath the rhyolite, in what is currently known as the Bowl Zone. Newmont's early drilling at the Bowl Zone covered an area measuring approximately 0.8 mi (1.3 km) by 2,165 ft (660 m).

Nerco executed a single drill program in 1987, consisting of 6 RC holes totaling 1,690 ft (515 m) in the Pony Spur prospect area.

In 1991-1992, Westmont in a joint venture with Newmont, completed 34 RC holes totalling 16,575 ft (5,052 m). The drilling focused on the Appaloosa Zone, and a few drillholes completed at Palomino and to the west of the Stallion Zone. The 1991 drilling was completed by Hackworth Drilling of Elko, Nevada, using an Ingersol-Rand PH600 truck mounted RC drill and an MPD 1000 track-mounted drill. In 1992, a Schramm C650 track-mounted RC drill was used. Samples were collected at 5 ft (1.524-m) intervals and split with a Gilson splitter when dry, or a rotating cone splitter when wet.

In 1994-1995, Uranerz completed 15 RC holes totalling 12,530 ft (3,819 m) in the Appaloosa Zone.

In 1998, Barrick completed 4 RC holes totalling 3,215 ft (979 m) at the Stallion Zone.

Homestake completed 5 RC holes on the Property in 2000, totalling 5,980 ft (1,823 m), at the Bowl Zone, North Zone and to the east of Pony Spur. Samples were collected every 5 ft (1.524 m), there is no information on the condition of samples (wet or dry), or what collection method was used. Eklund Drilling of Elko, Nevada, conducted the Homestake RC drilling using a track-mounted MPD 1500 drill rig.

Nevada Contact Inc. completed 8 RC holes in 2002, totalling 7,840 ft (2,389 m) at Pony Creek. Four holes were completed at the Bowl Zone, three at the Appaloosa Zone and one was drilled at Palomino. A track-mounted RC rig was used by Nevada Contact for most of their 2002 holes, with a truck-mounted TH-75 RC rig used for hole PCK02-06A.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 51 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2005 and 2006, Grandview completed 10 HQ-diameter diamond core drillholes, totaling 15,059 ft (4,590 m). In 2007, Grandview completed 13 RC holes, totaling 12,835 ft (3,912 m). Most of Grandview's drilling was conducted at Bowl Zone, the Appaloosa Zone, and to the east of Pony Spur. The diamond drilling was completed by Boart Longyear, there is no available information for the RC drill contractor, drill types or drilling methods used. Parts of Grandview's 10 diamond core holes were stored in the Waterton storage facility in Lovelock, Nevada, and were recovered by Contact Gold.

No drilling was completed on the property from 2007 to 2017, until its acquisition by Contact Gold.

**Table 6-3: Historical drilling at Pony Creek (1981-2017)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;1981-1985, 1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1834 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56119 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NERCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Westmont-Newmont JV | &nbsp;&nbsp;1991-1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16575 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16575 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Barrick | &nbsp;&nbsp;1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Contact Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grandview-Mill City | &nbsp;&nbsp;2005-2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3912 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27894 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**249** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**45490** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**149245** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5155** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**16913** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**261** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**50645** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**166158** |

---

**Table 6-4: Historical drilling significant gold intercepts, Pony Creek area (modified from Russell, 2006)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(m) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(opt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ppm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPC-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCD-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.64 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.73 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.43 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.83 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 52 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(m) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(opt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ppm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.98 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.98 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;including | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.77 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.30 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.79 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;760 | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.96 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 53 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Interval\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drillhole ID | &nbsp;&nbsp; From<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; To<br>(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(m) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(opt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(ppm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.049 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.68 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;760 | &nbsp;&nbsp;780 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HPCR-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HPCR_5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;750 | &nbsp;&nbsp;765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCK-207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;770 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 |

---

\*The true width of mineralized intercepts is not known but is estimated to generally be at least 70% of drilled thickness in areas of flat lying mineralization. True width is highly variable in areas of high angle gold mineralization.

**6.4** **Historical Mineral Resource Estimates** 

Several historical mineral resource estimates have been estimated by a variety of companies for the Pinion and Dark Star deposits prior to the implementation of NI 43-101. The reader is advised that the historical mineral resource estimates are not in accordance with NI 43-101, and the reader is cautioned not to treat them, or any part of them, as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical mineral resources as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. Historical mineral resources at Dark Star, Pinion, and the POD deposit at North Bullion are superseded by the current mineral resources estimated by Mr. Lindholm, while historical mineral resources at the Pony Creek property are superseded by the current mineral resources estimated by Mr. Black and presented in Section 14 of this Technical Report. The historical mineral resources described below are relevant only for historical completeness and are not being treated as current mineral resources or mineral reserves by Orla.

**6.4.1** **Dark Star Deposit Historical Estimates** 

Based upon the 1991 to 1993 drilling results, Crown and Cyprus estimated mineral resources in 1992 and 1994, prior to the 1997 to 1999 drill holes completed by Mirandor and Kinross.

Calloway (1992) described the 1992 Crown estimate for the Dark Star deposit as follows:

*"Crown Resources has delineated a geologic resource in the Dark Star discovery area of approximately 7.0 MT @ 0.022 opt Au, or 154,000 oz of contained gold. Mineralization remains open in three directions. Calculations of the Dark Star geological resource utilized nearest neighbor and ordinary kriging methods, with a 0.010 opt cutoff, minimal 15 ft benches, and a 13.5 ft<sup>3</sup>/st density factor."*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 54 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

There are no other details provided for the 1992 Crown estimate by Calloway (1992). The estimate is considered historical, and the reader is cautioned not to treat them, or any part of them, as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Orla is not treating these historical estimates as current estimates. These historical mineral resource estimates are superseded by the current mineral resource estimate described in Section 14.2 and are relevant only for historical completeness.

In 1994, a consultant on behalf of Crown constructed a polygonal mineral resource estimate for the Dark Star deposit (Table 6-5) using GEO-MODEL and PC-XPLOR modules of GEMCOM (Peek, 1994; McCusker and Drobeck, 2012). The estimated mineral resource was based upon a polygonal methodology using composited drill-hole intervals and cross sections at 100 ft (30 m) intervals. Tonnages, grade, and total ounces were calculated using polygons of 50 ft (15 m) width on either side of each cross-section. The 1994 estimate did not include any geostatistics on variability or capping, no geologic constraints, no down-hole surveys, no QA/QC data evaluation, and no mention of density measurements. Peek (1994) utilized an assumed tonnage factor of 13.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.375 g/cm<sup>3</sup>) for the estimate. No economic constraints other than a lower-grade cutoff were applied to the mineral resource estimate. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates in Table 6-5 as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Orla is not treating these historical estimates as current estimates. These historical mineral resource estimates are superseded by the current mineral resource estimate described in Section 14.2, are relevant only for historical completeness, and the reader is cautioned not to treat them, or any part of them, as current mineral resources or mineral reserves.

**Table 6-5: 1994 Dark Star Historical Crown Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Resource<br> (Reference)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tons**<br>**(x 10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnes**<br>**(x 10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Grade (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Gold<br> Grade**<br>**(g Au/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cut-off Grade<br> (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cut-off <br> Grade**<br>**(g Au/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained <br> Au (oz)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Polygonal (Peek, 1994)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.576 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193709 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Polygonal (Peek, 1994)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.689 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151481 |

---

In December 1995 to January 1996, Cyprus personnel estimated a polygonal mineral resource estimate for the Dark Star deposit with data from ~81 drill holes, utilizing a lower-grade cutoff, a pit shell, internal dilution, and a stripping ratio of 1.5:1, in a manner that was consistent with industry standards at that time (DeMatties, 2003). Polygons were constructed on cross sections using drill-hole information and were classified as "proven" in areas where drill density was 100 ft (30 m) and polygons were projected 50 ft (15 m) on either side of a section. Polygons with drill-hole spacing between 100 ft (30 m) and 200 ft (61 m) were classified as "probable" and those with spacing >200 ft (>61 m) were classified as "inferred." The Dark Star mineral resource was estimated by summing all polygons with an average grade 0.001 oz Au/ton (0.34 g Au/t). A tonnage factor of 12.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.563 g/cm<sup>3</sup>) was used. Very few density measurements and little or no QA/QC data were incorporated (DeMatties, 2003).

The 1995-1996 Cyprus estimate for Dark Star is summarized in Table 6-6. It represents a global historical "geological" mineral resource as of January 1996 and does not include drilling by Mirandor and Kinross in Section 24. Although the Dufresne and Nicholls (2016) review established a high quality for the data used in the 1995-1996 estimate, there is insufficient information available to properly assess all of the estimation parameters and the standards by which the estimate for Dark Star was categorized. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Orla is not treating these historical estimates as current estimates. The reader is cautioned not to treat any part of the historical mineral resource estimate for Dark Star given in Table 6-6 as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, it is relevant only for historical completeness, and it is superseded by the current mineral resource estimate presented in Section 14.2 of this Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 55 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 6-6: Dark Star Deposit 1995-1996 Cyprus Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Resource** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonne** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cut-off Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cut-off Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**(Reference)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(x 10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(x 10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(opt) oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(g Au/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(opt) oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(g/t Au)/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (oz)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Polygonal**<br> DeMatties 2003; Cyprus 1995-1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151365 |

---

**6.4.2** **Pinion Deposit Historical Estimates** 

The first documented historical mineral resource estimate for the Pinion deposit was completed by Crown in 1991 (Calloway, 1992). The 1991 estimate included information from 194 drill holes in the Main zone and North zone. The estimate used a cross-sectional polygonal method, a gold cutoff grade of 0.001 oz Au/ton (0.34 g Au/t), and a tonnage factor of 13.0 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.464 g/cm<sup>3</sup>). A "geologic" mineral resource of 8.11 tons (7.36 million tonnes) of material averaging 0.026 oz Au/ton (0.89 g Au/t) was calculated, containing approximately 210,000 troy ounces of gold (Table 6-7). A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Orla is not treating the historical estimates in Table 6-7 as current estimates. These historical mineral resource estimates are superseded by the current mineral resource estimate described in Section 14.3 and are relevant only for historical completeness.

**Table 6-7: Historical Pinion Deposit Estimated Mineral Resources**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Resource** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons (x10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnes (x10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cut-off Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cut-off Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained Ounces** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Resource** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons (x10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnes (x10<sup>6</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**g Au/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**g Au/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown (Calloway, 1992) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.891 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;210860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Polygonal (Wood,1995) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;796640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MIK (Wells, 1995) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;491194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bharti (Bharti Eng., 1996) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.857 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.383 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;270000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1695600 |

---

Historical mineral resource estimates were updated for the Pinion deposit in 1995 by Cyprus (Table 6-7). They comprise a polygonal estimate (Wood, 1995) and a Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) estimate that used Mintec's MED System software (Wells, 1995). The polygonal estimate incorporated high-density and low-density drilling at, and surrounding, the two zones of mineralization and utilized a tonnage factor of 12.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.563 g/cm<sup>3</sup>). Polygons were constructed using cross-sectional drill-hole information and were classified as "proven" in areas where drill density was 100 ft (30 m), and where polygons were projected 50 ft (15 m) on either side of a section. Polygons with drill-hole spacing between 100 ft (30 m) and 200 ft (61 m) were classified as "probable" and those with drill hole spacing over 200 ft (60 m), were classified as "inferred." The mineral resource was calculated by summing all polygons with an average grade above a cutoff of 0.001 oz Au/ton (0.34 g Au/t). The original classification of the 1995 polygonal Pinion mineral resource is not consistent with CIM standards. The summary provided in Table 6-7 is taken from the original report and represents a summation of all three of the historical mineral resource categories into a global historical mineral resource.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 56 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The 1995 Cyprus polygonal mineral resource (Table 6-7) was calculated using ~350 drill holes, but the estimate incorporated very few density measurements and a very limited amount of quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) data were available. The Cyprus historical mineral resources included drill-hole data and estimates for mineral resources in Section 27. Cyprus also produced an MIK estimate for the Pinion deposit in 1995 utilizing a similar database to that of the 1995 Cyprus polygonal mineral resource described above. The same tonnage factor of 12.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.563 g/cm<sup>3</sup>) as the polygonal mineral resource was used and grade was applied to a 50 ft x 50 ft x 20 ft (15 m x 15 m x 6 m) block model using Mintec's MED System software and an MIK grade-estimation algorithm. Following the estimation process, Lerchs-Grossman pit models were run for $400/oz and $700/oz gold price scenarios using various parameters including: a) 45<sup>°</sup> maximum pit slopes; b) a $2.51/short ton crushed ore cost (crushing processing, pad construction, and G&A); c) 48% recovery for ROM material; and d) 62% recovery for crushed material. A lower cutoff grade of 0.008 oz Au/ton (0.274 g Au/t) was employed for the ROM material and 0.014 oz Au/ton (0.49 g Au/t) was utilized for the crushed material for the $700/oz scenario. A lower cutoff of 0.009 oz Au/ton (0.31 g Au/t) was utilized for the combined ROM/crush material for the $400/oz scenario. In a mineral resource summary document by Wells (1995), it is clearly stated that the mineral resource work relied on estimations for key factors such as density, recovery, and optimal crush size due to limited test work. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical mineral resources as current mineral resources or mineral reserves and the historical mineral resources are superseded by the current mineral resource estimates presented in Section 14.3 of this Technical Report. The historical mineral resources described above are relevant only for historical completeness and are not being treated as current mineral resources or mineral reserves by Orla.

In 1996, RSM contracted Bharti Engineering (Bharti) of Toronto, Canada, to conduct mineral resource estimation on the Pinion Main and North zones within Section 22 in T30N, R53E and excluded data within Section 27 (Table 6-7; Bharti Engineering, 1996). The mineral resource estimate utilized GEMCOM mining software and although not clearly stated, it is thought that the Inverse Distance Squared (ID<sup>2</sup>) grade-estimation algorithm was used to apply grade to a 50 ft x 50 ft x 20 ft (15 m x 15 m x 6 m) block model. Samples (5 ft (1.5 m) average length) were uncapped and composited to 20 ft (6 m), with a minimum of two and a maximum of 12 data points required for modeling. The Bharti estimate (Table 6-7) comprised a "global resource," without cutoff grade, of 9.8 million tonnes at 0.025 oz Au/ton (0.86 g Au/t), representing a total of 273,800 contained ounces of gold. This estimate incorporated more data but is otherwise comparable to the 1991 Crown polygonal estimate discussed above. A Whittle pit was run for the 1996 mineral resource estimate using a gold price of $390/oz, a recovery of 67%, total operating costs of $5.75/ton, a 4% Royalty, 50<sup>°</sup> maximum pit slope and dilution estimated at 10%. Using these values, two potential pits were generated for the Main zone and North zone totaling only 2.99 million tonnes and averaging 0.026 oz Au/ton (0.89 g Au/t), which represented approximately 85,750 ounces of gold. Of that, 57,400 ounces was considered recoverable. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical mineral resources as current mineral resources ore mineral reserves and the historical mineral resources are superseded by the current mineral resource estimates presented in Section 14.3 of this Technical Report. The historical mineral resources described above are relevant only for historical completeness and are not being treated as current mineral resources or mineral reserves by Orla. As with the previously discussed historical mineral resource estimates, this 1996 estimate incorporated limited density, QA/QC and recovery information and its geographic limitation to section 22 in turn limited the applicability of the mineral resource estimate as it excluded a significant amount of drill data in the northern part of township section 27.

**6.4.3** **POD (North Bullion Area) Deposit Historical Mineral Resources 1985 - 2003** 

The first estimate of gold mineral resources at the POD deposit was made by Kuhl (1985) using the data from NICOR's drilling (Table 6-8). A rectangular-block polygonal estimate was used with the following parameters:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Data projected halfway to the adjoining drill
hole or 100 ft (30 m);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Inclusion of intercepts less than 0.030 oz Au/ton
(1.03 g Au/t) if the outlying intervals brought the overall average to equal 0.030 oz Au/ton (1.03 g Au/t);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Minimum 10 ft (3 m) intercept in the drill hole;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· All calculations made using fire assay intervals;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· No stripping ratio calculated; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· No metallurgical recovery information utilized.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 57 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Bartels (1999) re-estimated the gold mineral resource at the POD (Railroad) deposit (Table 6-8) with a cross-sectional method based on 58 holes on 27 cross sections spaced 100 ft (30 m) apart using the following assumptions:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Tonnages were calculated using a tonnage factor
of 12.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.563 g/cm<sup>3</sup>);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Assay values include silver credits at a 60:1
ratio;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Compositing of assay values was done according
to the following conventions:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Intervals of low grade (<0.030 oz Au/ton,
or <1.030 g Au/t) up to 15 ft (4.5 m) thick, bound on both sides by >0.030 oz Au/ton (>1.030 g Au/t) values were included
within the "ore" envelope only if the average of the low grade and the upper- and lower-bounding values were ≥0.030 oz
Au/ton (≥1.030 g Au/t);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· No capping of high-grade assay values was done;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Volumes were determined by projecting the contoured
 "ore" areas 50 ft (15 m) on either side of the section plane;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· An average grade was assigned to each area by
determining the weighted average grade of all drill intercepts within the "ore" envelope; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Average grade was assigned to the respective
volume and contained ounces were calculated.

Masters (2003a) re-estimated the gold contained within the POD (a.k.a. Railroad) zone (Table 6-8) utilizing a cross-sectional polygonal method with 71 holes on 15 cross sections approximately spaced 100 ft (30 m) apart using the following methodology and assumptions:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Tonnages were calculated using a tonnage factor
of 12.50 ft<sup>3</sup>/ton (density of 2.563 g/cm<sup>3</sup>);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Mineralization was categorized as oxidized (cyanide
soluble gold within the Webb siltstone) and refractory gold (primarily within carbonaceous, sulfidic, unoxidized Webb siltstone);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The oxidized and refractory gold categories were
sub-divided into grade shells of 0.001 oz Au/ton to 0.20 oz Au/ton and >0.20 oz Au/ton (0.34 g Au/t to 0.69 g Au/t and >0.69 g Au/t),
and an additional category of mineralization for refractory gold at depths above 300 ft (91 m) depth was also considered; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Each mineralization category was estimated separately
for tons, ounces and grade.

Masters (2003b) also presented the first estimation for gold contained within the East Jasperoid zone (Table 6-8) located immediately to the east of the POD zone. Estimation was completed utilizing a cross-sectional method on four sections spaced 100 ft (30 m) apart.

All historical mineral resource estimates summarized in Table 6-8 using various parameters as described above were performed prior to the implementation of the standards set forth in NI 43-101 and CIM standards, and are relevant only for historical completeness. There is insufficient information available to properly assess the estimation parameters and the standards used. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify these as current mineral resources, and Orla is not treating them as current mineral resources and they have been superseded by the current resources presented in Section 14. The reader is cautioned not to treat any part of these historical mineral resources as current mineral resources or mineral reserves.

**Table 6-8: POD Deposit Historical Mineral Resource Estimates 1985 - 2003**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Resource**<br> **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained**<br> **Ounces Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average Au Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average Au Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff Au Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff Au Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Reference** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Resource**<br> **Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnes** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained**<br> **Ounces Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(opt) oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(g Au/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(opt) oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**(g Au/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Reference** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;1197400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1086280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107766 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kuhl, 1985 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;1400000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1270080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kuhl, 1985 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;1006665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;913250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bartels, 1999 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;2654112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2407810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Masters, 2003a |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Jasperoid | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;919727 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31742 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Masters, 2003b |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 58 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**6.4.4** **Pony Creek Deposits Historical Estimates 2004-2006** 

Historical mineral resource estimates provide background information related to the extent of mineralization identified by previous operators at the Property. The QPs have not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates as current mineral resources, and therefore, the historical estimates are not being treated as current resources.

6.4.4.1 Historical Resources Prior to CIM Definition Standards and Guidelines

Previous technical reports on Pony Creek by Russell (2004; 2006), Gustin (2017) and Spalding (2018) include a limited discussion on a historical resource estimate calculated by Newmont in the Upper and Lower Bowl areas of Pony Creek. Newmont's historical Indicated Resource estimate totalled 1,034,281 tonnes (1,140,100 tons) of 0.057 opt Au (1.95 g/t Au) and was calculated in the fall of 1983 (Russell 2004; 2006). Spalding (2018) estimates that the resource was based upon the first 40 drillholes completed by Newmont; however, the authors are unaware of the number of drillholes used nor any other technical details with respect to how this resource estimate was calculated. The authors have not viewed the source document containing the Newmont historical resource estimate for Pony Creek.

The authors have reviewed the discussion in Russell (2004) and Spalding (2018) and have determined that it is suitable to reference the work in the context of this Technical Report as it has been publicly disclosed. However, this and other historical resources discussed in this section contain limited information and are not compliant with CIM Definition Standards and Guidelines (2014, 2019).

6.4.4.2 Historical 2004 – 2006 Resource

In 2004, a technical report on the Property written by R. H. Russell, on behalf of Mill City International Corp., calculated historical mineral estimates for gold mineralization over an area measuring 2.4 miles (3.9 km) long by 2,000 ft to 4,800 ft (610 m to 1,460 m) wide, extending northeast from the Bowl area mineralized zone (Russell, 2004). The historical mineral resource estimate was prepared in accordance with CSA, NI 43-101 and the then current, "CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves" (CIM Definition Standards) dated August 20, 2000.

The Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for Pony Creek calculated by Russell (2004) is 29,401,041 tonnes (32,409,100 tons) at a grade of 0.044 opt Au (1.51 g/t Au) for 1,426,000 ounces of gold. The estimate was based on 151 drillholes within the resource area and used a polygonal estimation methodology. Russell (2004) assumed the geological and grade continuity at Pony Creek, based on the documented geological and grade continuity at the other deposits situated in the Carlin Trend. The methodology employed to calculate the MRE is not acceptable today.

"The area used in the Inferred Mineral Resource reflects the proximal relationship of known gold mineralization to the rhyolite intrusive. Both the rhyolite- and sediment-hosted mineralization is documented and assumed. The two estimates do not consider mineralization more distal to the intrusive, including potential mineralization at the Mississippian/Devonian contact; however, such distal mineralization will likely occur, based on the size and strength of the known mineralizing system at Pony Creek. As stated earlier, the available data are not complete enough to determine the relationship between the true thickness of the gold intercepts and the length of the intercept in the drillholes, and in most cases, the orientation of the mineralization is unknown (Russell, 2004; 2006)."

In 2006, R. H. Russell re-calculated the MRE for the Pony Creek property on behalf of Vista Gold Corp. and Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Russell (2006) re-stated the previous historical MRE for Pony Creek of 29,401,041 tonnes (32,409,100 tons) at a grade of 0.044 opt Au (1.51 g/t Au) for 1,426,000 ounces of gold and listed the same methodologies for the resource estimate calculation. The methodology employed to calculate the MRE is not acceptable today.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 59 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**6.5** **Historical Mine Production** 

**6.5.1** **South Railroad Property** 

There has been no mineral production reported for the South Railroad property.

**6.5.2** **North Railroad Property** 

The North Railroad property covers the historic Railroad district. Ketner and Smith (1963) suggested that historic production records for the district are not very reliable for the period between 1869 and 1905. Only the total volumes of tons mined, and commodities produced were reported, if they were reported. They estimated the total value of production through 1956 to be worth $2 million using the value of the commodity produced for the year it was produced. Ketner and Smith (1963) reported that 43,940 total tons of ore were extracted from historical mines in the North Railroad area with mineral production distributed as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gold - 6,918 ounces

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Silver - 382,000 ounces

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Copper - 2,850,000 pounds

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Lead - 4,340,000 pounds

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Zinc - 372,000 pounds

**6.5.3** **Pony Creek Property** 

No recorded mineral production has been attributed to Pony Creek and no workings larger than a few small prospect pits are known to exist at Pony Creek.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 60 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **7** | **Geological Setting and Mineralization** |

---

This section summarizes the geologic setting and mineralization of the South Railroad property, which includes the Dark Star, Pinion, and Jasperoid Wash deposits, the North Railroad property, which includes the North Bullion area (North Bullion, POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes), and the Pony Creek property, which includes the Bowl, Appaloosa, and Stallion deposits. The information for all areas, with the exception of the Pony Creek area, is based on the descriptions and information provided by Dufresne and Nicholls (2016), Hunsaker (2010; 2012a; 2012b), Koehler *et al.* (2014), Shaddrick (2012), and sources cited therein. Mr. Lindholm has reviewed this information and believes it accurately represents the geology and mineralization as currently understood.

Information on the Pony Creek area geology and mineralization is sourced from previous technical reports and studies by Jones and Postlethwaite (1993), Russell (1999), Abbott (2003), Russell (2006), Dufresne and Schoeman (2014), Gustin (2017), and Spalding (2018), and references therein. The authors of this Technical Report have reviewed these sources and consider them to contain all the relevant geological information regarding the Pony Creek area of the Property.

References to Tomera Formation equivalent stratigraphy have been noted historically. However, recent work suggests these units in the South Railroad property may not be of equivalent age, so all usage of Tomera Formation equivalent in this Technical Report refers to units that are Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated.

**7.1** **Regional Geologic Setting** 

The South Carlin Complex is located in the southern part of the Carlin trend, a northwest-southeast alignment of sedimentary-rock hosted gold deposits and mineralization, as shown in Figure 7-1 (see Figure 7-2 for key to lithologies shown in Figure 7-1). The property is centered on the Railroad dome, or "window" in the Piñon Range (Mathewson, 2002) as shown in Figure 7-3. Such domes or "windows" consist of upright folds in horsts of Paleozoic rocks of the Roberts Mountains autochthon, exposed by erosion, that were favorable for the formation of Carlin-style gold deposits (Jackson and Koehler, 2014). In the case of the Railroad and other "windows" within the Carlin trend, pulses of Mesozoic and Cenozoic magmatism intruded the folds and related faults (Figure 7-1).

The Carlin trend was within the passive, western continental margin of North America during the early and middle Paleozoic, which is the time of deposition of the oldest rocks observed in the area (Stewart, 1980). A westward-thickening wedge of sediments was deposited at and west of the continental margin. The eastern depositional facies within the sedimentary wedge tend to be coarser and carbonate-rich (shelf and slope deposits, carbonate platform deposits) while the western facies are primarily fine-grained siliciclastic sediments (deeper basin deposits). The Carlin trend is proximal to the shelf-slope break, although this break was not static over time.

In the Late Devonian through Middle Mississippian, east-west compression during the Antler Orogeny produced folds and thrust faults, including the Roberts Mountain Thrust. This regional, low-angle fault placed western facies siliciclastic rocks over eastern facies carbonate rocks across the region. In this Technical Report the western facies are referred to as allochthonous and the eastern facies autochthonous. As a result of this tectonism, the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian overlap assemblage of clastic rocks was deposited across the region (Smith and Ketner, 1975). Late Paleozoic sedimentary rocks in the Piñon Range are interpreted as structurally interleaved allochthonous and autochthonous sequences (Longo *et al.*, 2002; Mathewson, 2002; Rayias, 1999; Smith and Ketner, 1975).

Multiple igneous intrusions occur along the Carlin trend. The oldest igneous rocks are Late Triassic in age (Teal and Jackson, 2002).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 61 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img001.jpg)

**Figure 7-1: Regional Geology of the South Carlin Complex**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 62 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img002.jpg)

**Figure 7-2: Key to Lithology in Figure 7-1**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 63 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img003.jpg)

**Figure 7-3: Long Section through the Carlin Trend**

Other igneous rocks include: a Late Jurassic dioritic intrusion documented at the Goldstrike gold deposit (Bettles, 2002); intermediate to mafic dikes of Jurassic and Cretaceous age; the Cretaceous quartz monzonite Richmond stock; and the Eocene age Welches Canyon stock and hydrothermally altered and locally gold-bearing felsic to mafic dikes (Ressel, 2000). The Eocene-age Bullion stock (Henry *et al.*, 2015) is situated between the North Bullion and Pinion gold deposits within the South Railroad property (Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2).

Late Eocene and Miocene volcanic rocks erupted over large areas of the region. These predominantly consist of ash-flow tuffs and lava flows, mainly of rhyolitic compositions, as well as volumetrically smaller amounts of andesitic and basaltic lavas. Sequences of lacustrine sedimentary and volcanic-sedimentary rocks, as young as Pliocene in age, interfinger with and overlie the Cenozoic volcanic cover rocks.

Major regional east-west directed extension began in mid-Miocene time and has continued to the present, resulting in Basin and Range topography that extends beyond the state of Nevada. Extensional faulting varies from normal-displacement block faulting to listric-style faulting with progressively greater extension. The significant consequence of extensional faulting has been the dismemberment and tilting of pre-existing rocks, and development of range-scale horsts and grabens.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 64 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**7.2** **Local and Property Geology** 

The Piñon Range is located within the property and consists of a structurally domed uplift that was partially eroded to expose Mississippian, Devonian, Ordovician, and Permian sedimentary rocks. Younger horst and graben structures associated with mid-Miocene and younger extension developed within a framework of overprinted high-angle faults are prominent features of the range. Tertiary sedimentary rocks deposited in shallow, freshwater lakes and overlying intermediate to felsic Tertiary volcanic rocks are present on the flanks of the range and within adjacent grabens (Figure 7-4). At the south end of the project, the most distinctive geological feature is a Jurassic intrusion of felsic composition that forms a laccolith. It was possible to identify the sub-horizontal (sill) and sub-vertical (dike) parts of the intrusive (Figure 7-3) with drilling. In the northern property area, the largest of the intrusions is the Eocene Bullion Stock which is located at the center of the dome structure that uplifted the Piñon Range and was later affected by normal faults.

Four prominent, predominantly high-angle fault orientations have been identified. From oldest to youngest, these include west-northwest-, northwest-, northeast-, and north-south-striking faults. Northwest- and west-northwest-striking faults occur across the project area and include the South and Main faults at Pinion and the Saddle and Outcrop faults at Dark Star. The north-south-striking Bullion fault corridor separates Tertiary volcanic rocks in the basin to the east from Paleozoic sedimentary units in the range. Drilling also indicates juxtaposition of Mississippian sandstones over Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks in the Dark Star area, possibly through low-angle thrust faulting.

A complex of Eocene igneous rocks, referred to as the Bullion Stock, centered south of Bald Mountain, have intruded the Paleozoic sedimentary units in the core and east flank of the range (Figure 7-1). Twenty-four samples of intrusive and volcanic rocks from the project area have been studied by Dr. Christopher Henry of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Petrography, chemical analyses, and <sup>40</sup>Ar/<sup>39</sup>Ar and U-Pb zircon age dates have led to an interpretation that at least ten distinct igneous rock types at the project were emplaced during at least four distinct episodes between 38.9 and 37.5 Ma, associated with the Indian Well volcanic field (Henry *et al.*, 2015).

The South Carlin Complex area geology is summarized in three parts that correspond to the North Railroad, South Railroad, and Pony Creek properties.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 65 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img004.jpg)

**Figure 7-4: Geologic Map of the South Carlin Complex**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 66 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**7.2.1** **South Railroad Property** 

The South Railroad property includes the Dark Star, Pinion and Jasperoid Wash resource areas. In addition, there are multiple exploration targets that include Dixie, Elliot Dome, Robinson, JR Buttes, Ski Track, and Irene.

The local geologic units from oldest to youngest are Devonian limestones, Mississippian sandstones and siltstones, Pennsylvanian-Permian sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and limestones and post-mineral Tertiary conglomerates and Tertiary age Indian Well Formation tuffs (Figure 7-4). Gold mineralization at Dark Star and Jasperoid Wash is hosted primarily in Pennsylvanian-Permian conglomerate and to a lesser degree, the overlying and/or underlying siltstones. Gold and silver mineralization at Pinion is hosted within a breccia zone developed along the upper contact of the Devils Gate limestone. The sedimentary units in the South Railroad property were first affected by folding and northeast-verging thrust faults in response to compressive deformational events. Brittle extension and the development of Basin & Range normal faults then occurred in an extensional tectonic environment that has persisted to the present day.

7.2.1.1 Dark Star Geology

The Dark Star deposit is located east of the Pinion deposit (Figure 7-4) and occurs in a 1,300- to 2,000 ft-wide (400 to 600 m-wide) structural block of Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks (*Harp et al.*, 2016) known as the Dark Star fault corridor. A generalized stratigraphic column for the Dark Star area is illustrated in Figure 7-5.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img005.jpg)

**Figure 7-5: Stratigraphic Column for the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposit Areas**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 67 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The Dark Star fault corridor may have developed initially as an open-folded anticline. The folded sediments were subsequently affected by basin & range normal faulting that formed distinctive geological blocks that represent a major horst structure. The Dark Star fault corridor has a surface expression of greater than 7.5 mi (12 km) in length and is a prominent north-south-trending high-angle normal fault system that consists of, from west to east, the West, Splay of the West, IDK, East and Dark Star faults. The three structures between the West and Dark Star faults have 300 to 400 ft (90 to 120 m) of normal offset. The West fault, which is a moderately west-dipping fault with significant displacement (greater than 3,000 ft (1,000 m)) of the Chainman Formation over the Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks, may be a continuation of or be age equivalent to the Pinion thrust fault. There is at least 700 ft (200 m) of normal offset to the east on the Dark Star fault, which juxtaposes Tertiary Indian Well Formation over Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks.

Orla has identified four primary fault-bounded blocks at Dark Star (Figure 7-6). The westernmost block is bounded on the east side by the West fault. Tertiary conglomerates thought to be part of the Elko Formation overlay fine-grained sediments of the Mississippian Chainman Formation in this block. The horst block is defined by the West fault and the Dark Star fault. Two structural blocks are defined within the horst separated by the east-dipping East fault. With the exception of a small amount of Indian Well Formation near the surface between the East and Dark Star faults, Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated sedimentary units are the only lithologies encountered to the limit of drilling at depth within the horst structure. Gold mineralization is hosted almost entirely in Pennsylvanian-Permian sediments between the West and East faults. The east-dipping IDK fault and west-dipping Splay of the West fault offset Pennsylvanian-Permian units between the West and East faults. East of the Dark Star fault, tuffs of the Tertiary Indian Well Formation have been encountered to depths of 1,000 ft (300 m) in drilling.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img006.jpg)

**Figure 7-6: Dark Star Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14698399**

The Saddle and Outcrop structures appear to be an older set of planar structures trending northwest at N40°W to N60°W. The structures do not offset lithology, however, the mineralization at Dark Star North does appear to be bound by the structures.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 68 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Alteration at Dark Star is dominated by decalcification and silicification of the Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks. Clay alteration occurs in association with faults, along localized barite veins and with widespread disseminated barite (Harp *et al.*, 2016). Quartz veinlets, drusy-quartz lining fractures, and banded-quartz occur in the silicified rocks. Several stages of tectonic, collapse, and hydrothermal breccia are recognized throughout the mineralized zone. Alteration of the upper and lower siltstone units is characterized by decalcification, overprinted by argillic and weak silicic alteration.

7.2.1.2 Pinion Deposit Area Geology

The geological setting, stratigraphic units and the overall tectonic history of the Pinion area is the same as described for the adjacent deposit areas by Hunsaker (2010, 2012a, 2012b), Shaddrick (2012), Koehler *et al.* (2014), Turner *et al.* (2015), Dufresne and Koehler (2016), and Dufresne and Nicholls (2018). The project area geology is illustrated in Figure 7-9, and a stratigraphic column is presented in Figure 7-5.

The Pinion deposit area encompasses a sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks exposed within large horst blocks in which the sedimentary rocks have been broadly folded into an asymmetric anticline. The axis of the Pinion anticline can be traced for approximately 2 mi (3.2 km), with a trend of N20°W, and plunge of 25° to 30° to the south-southeast (DeMatties, 2003). The western fold limb dips from 10° to 35° to the west-southwest and the steeper eastern limb dips 25º to 50º to the east. Devils Gate Limestone forms the core of the anticline with siliceous clastic units of the Tripon Pass, Webb, Chainman, and Tonka formations along the limbs and crest (Calloway, 1992).

The contact between the Devils Gate and Tripon Pass (Figure 7-5) is characterized by a multi-lithic dissolution-collapse breccia (mlbx) that ranges from 10 to 400 ft (3 to 120 m) in thickness. The mlbx is characterized by multi-lithic clasts of surrounding rock formations and barite in a clay matrix with a silica overprint, and infrequent banded quartz veins. The breccia is thickest on the east limb of the fold and thins along the crest and along the west limb. Intrusives of quartz-feldspar composition are common proximal to the mineralized zone but are generally unmineralized.

The Pinion deposit is contained within a northwest-trending horst. Faults on the northeast horst margin are linking structures to the more northerly striking, range-bounding Bullion fault corridor (Norby *et al.*, 2015) and include the locally named Bullion, Linkage, and Tonka faults. Older N50°W- to N60°W-striking faults (South and Main faults) transect the Pinion deposit and offset the anticline.

At depth, the Devils Gate, Tripon Pass, and Webb formations are overlain by Mississippian-aged Chainman Formation. This contact was defined by Norby *et al.* (2015) as gently west-dipping Pinion thrust fault between the overlying Devils Gate to Chainman sequence and the underlying Chainman sequence. On the east limb of the fold, additional localized thrust faults occur above the Pinion thrust fault, resulting in locally repeated sections of Chainman, Webb, and Tripon Pass.

Alteration associated with gold-silver mineralization is primarily silicification of the breccia. There are also zones of abundant disseminated and vein barite, with up to 75% barium determined from x-ray fluorescence analysis. Decalcification of the Tripon Pass and Devils Gate formations along the margins of the breccia have also been observed. Minor clay alteration can be seen along the Main, South, and Bullion faults. Elements associated with gold are silver, antimony, arsenic, barium, and mercury. Banded fine-grained to fine-cockscomb silica also occurs throughout the Pinion deposit, locally with stibnite (or oxidized to stibiconite) and elevated silver to 70 ppm. These vein textures and mineralization styles are more typically associated with epithermal systems.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 69 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Gold and silver mineralization at the Pinion deposit is strongly controlled by the dissolution-collapse breccia at the contact between calcarenite of the Devils Gate Limestone and the overlying silty micrite of the Tripon Pass Formation (Norby *et al.*, 2015). Approximately 90% of the mineralization is hosted within the breccia and is defined locally as the Main zone. Lithologies and gold mineralization have been offset downward to the west along the South fault, which is part of the Bullion fault corridor. Down-to-the-east offset also occurs across the Bullion fault on the east side of the deposit. The Pinion gold mineralization extends northwards to an area referred to as the North zone. The mineralization is confined to a much narrower area along the east limb of the anticline, and the eastward dip progressively steepens to as much as 75° northward along the zone. This part of the Pinion deposit has also been offset downward to the east by the Bullion fault, where low-grade gold mineralization is hosted in part by the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img007.jpg)

**Figure 7-7: Pinion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N14695611**

7.2.1.3 Jasperoid Wash Geology

The Jasperoid Wash deposit is located south of the Pinion deposit in a structurally bound block of Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks (Figure 7-1, Figure 7-9). The host rocks are similar to those at the Dark Star deposit as illustrated in Figure 7-5.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 70 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The Jasperoid Wash deposit is located within a north-south-striking structural corridor which is bound to the west by a major offsetting reverse fault, and on the east side by a normal fault with minor offset. Both bounding faults have down-to-the-west offset. The west-bounding fault juxtaposes Mississippian Tonka Formation in the footwall against the Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks to the east. Pennsylvanian-Permian conglomerate and clastic units are faulted and fractured between the two main faults. The Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks are informally assigned to an upper unit of silty limestone, a middle unit of calcareous sandstone and conglomerate, a lower unit of calcareous siltstone, and an underlying conglomerate composed of chert pebbles and a sandstone matrix. The stratigraphic package dips shallowly to the west at 10 º to 35º on the east and west sides of the structural corridor but is sub-horizontal to very shallow east-dipping within the structural zone.

At Jasperoid Wash, the middle sandstone and conglomerate unit outcrops at the surface in small crags that are resistant to weathering. This unit is mostly composed of thick beds of debris-flow conglomerate containing clasts of chert and cherty bio-micrite in a silicified, sandy calcarenite to silty-micrite matrix. The lower calcareous siltstone unit is composed of varying thicknesses of interbedded calcisiltite, calcarenite, bioclastic limestone, calcareous sandstone, and minor beds of conglomerate. Outcrops of the lower unit tend to be less resistant to weathering and are smooth and low-lying.

Dikes of "quartz-eye" rhyolite and feldspar porphyry, inferred to be of Tertiary age, occur within the Jasperoid Wash structural corridor and at fault intersections. A third type of dike, an intensely silicified quartz-feldspar porphyry, crops out north of the deposit. At a fault intersection within the deposit, some outcrops consist of a multi-phased, hydrothermally altered breccia consisting of younger quartz-feldspar porphyry matrix and clasts of dacite and rhyolite. Strongly argillic-altered and gold-mineralized dacite porphyries with very fine-grained pyrite have also been intersected in drilling.

Alteration of the middle conglomerate and lower siltstone units includes moderate to strong silicification, decalcification, and argillization. Quartz veinlets and drusy quartz on fractures are common features associated with the silicification. Small pods of unoxidized pyrite are preserved within the sedimentary rocks where oxidizing fluids did not permeate the rock. Vugs formed by decalcification of limestone and dolostone are present. Hydrothermal alteration observed in the feldspar porphyry, calcisiltite, calcarenite, calcareous sandstone, and bioclastic limestone units is characterized by strong clay development and/or disseminated pyrite grains. The lower siltstone unit is commonly decalcified, becoming more calcareous with depth.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 71 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img008.jpg)

**Figure 7-8: Jasperoid Wash Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section N146696822**

**7.2.2** **North Railroad Property** 

7.2.2.1 North Railroad Property Geology

The North Railroad property includes the North Bullion, POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes deposits, and multiple exploration targets that include the Bald Mountain, Bunker Hill, Central Bullion, Railroad Fault, Big Skarn, Spike, GE, and Old District that have been partially explored and tested.

The local geologic units from oldest to youngest are Devonian limestones, dolomites and calcareous sandstones, Mississippian sandstones, siltstones and conglomerates, and post-mineral Tertiary Elko conglomerates (Figure 7-4). The Tertiary Indian Well Formation tuffs partially cover Elko conglomerates and older units, with increasing thickness eastward into the valley. The Tertiary Bullion stock is present along the west side of the North Railroad area.

Similar to the South Railroad property, the sedimentary units in the North Railroad property were first affected by folding and northeast-verging thrust faults in response to compressive deformational events. Brittle extension and the development of Basin & Range normal faults then occurred in an extensional tectonic environment that has persisted to the present day.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 72 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Structure plays an important role in the emplacement of gold mineralization in the North Railroad property. Structural orientations within the North Railroad property are the same as those previously described both regionally and locally in the South Railroad properties. The northwest trends to mineralization that are present at the Rain Mine (Williams et al., 2000) (Figure 7-1) are also evident throughout the South Carlin Complex, and are apparent in the North Railroad property as the progression from southeast to northwest of the South Lodes, POD/Sweet Hollow, and North Bullion deposits. Another regional structural feature in the area is the north-striking, steep east-dipping Bullion fault corridor. This structural zone is up to 985 ft (300 m) in width with apparent east-side-down normal displacement of greater than 1,970 ft (600 m) (Jackson et al, 2015).

The two primary favorable lithological horizons that host gold mineralization are:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The upper contact of the Devil's Gate limestone,
where dissolution-collapse forms the multi-lithic brecciation, creating secondary porosity that allowed access for mineral-rich solutions;
and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The micrite unit interbedded within the lower
portion of the Mississippian sediments that also hosts mineralization.

7.2.2.2 North Bullion Deposit Area Geology

The deepest drill holes at North Bullion bottomed in thin- to thick-bedded dolomite of the Devonian Beacon Peak Dolomite (Figure 7-9). Overlying the dolomite rocks are cross-bedded clastic sediments of the Oxyoke Formation (Oxyoke Sandstone in Figure 7-9), which are approximately 400 ft (120 m) thick. The sandstones consist of well-rounded quartz grains, and can be matrix- or grain-supported. The Oxyoke Formation transitions upward to calcareous sandstone of the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite, which has an average thickness of 500 ft (150 m).

The contact between the top of the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and overlying Devils Gate Limestone is gradational. The Devils Gate Limestone is composed of grey, thick-bedded calcarenite and minor micrite, and is up to 800 ft (250 m) in thickness in the North Bullion deposit area. The youngest pre-Tertiary unit in the North Bullion area consists of thick-bedded and upward-fining conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and mudstone of the Mississippian Chainman Formation. The unit is intruded by dacite sills that are 3 to 30 ft (1 to 7 m) thick and 330 to 650 ft (100 to 200 m) below the surface. Dacite dikes occur along steep east-dipping faults (Jackson *et al.*, 2015). At the North Bullion deposit, there are two beds of carbonate rocks within the Chainman Formation that were previously interpreted to be thrust slices of the Tripon Pass formation (Longo et al., 2002; Matthewson, 2002; Oversby, 1973). However, the carbonate units are now believed to be stratigraphic interbeds within the predominantly siliciclastic sequence of the Chainman Formation. These carbonate units are commonly decalcified and brecciated, and host an upper gold zone in the North Bullion deposit.

The contact between the Devils Gate Limestone and the overlying Chainman Formation in the North Railroad area is characterized by a dissolution-collapse breccia (the mlbx) (Figure 7-10). The mlbx contains clasts of sandstone, mudstone, silty mudstone and conglomerate from adjacent units, that were subsequently altered and mineralized to form the main mineralized zone of the North Bullion deposit (Jackson *et al.*, 2015). The mlbx can be traced from North Bullion to the POD and Sweet Hollow deposits.

The Eocene-age Elko Formation overlies Paleozoic sedimentary rocks and consists of thick-to thin-bedded mudstone, sandstone, chert pebble conglomerate, freshwater limestone, and tuffaceous sediments (Stewart, 1980; Smith and Ketner, 1975). It is separated from the overlying Indian Well Formation, the youngest unit in the North Bullion deposit area, by an angular unconformity in the eastern hanging wall of the Bullion fault corridor. The volcanic rocks are generally flat lying, dacitic to rhyolitic tuffs (Figure 7-1; Henry et al., 2015), and contain phenocrysts of quartz, sanidine, hornblende, and biotite within a pink to grey groundmass. The post-mineral unit deepens eastward, infilling the down-dropped hanging wall of the Bullion Fault Corridor.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 73 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img009.jpg)

**Figure 7-9: North Bullion Stratigraphic Column**

The Bullion fault corridor in the North Bullion deposit area is essentially a horst block that plunges shallowly to the north-northeast. The horst block is exposed in the Sweet Hollow area but is covered by post-mineral conglomerates and volcanic tuffs to the north and east. As explained by Jackson *et al.* (2015), the Chainman Formation sandstone occupies the center of the horst, and the variable strikes and dips at the surface indicate an open-folded anticline is centered on the horst.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 74 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Jackson *et al.* (2015) also described the relationship between structures and intrusive rocks with respect to hydrothermal activity and gold mineralization in the North Bullion deposit area as follows:

"*Intrusive relationships and tilting of units indicate the deposit formed during an Eocene event with synchronous intrusion, hydrothermal activity and extensional movement on graben-bounding faults. Dacite sills, dated at 38.8–38.2 Ma, intruded steeply dipping faults within the NBFZ* [North Bullion Fault Zone] *and low angle, bedding parallel faults, capping the gold system. The margins of dacite dikes and sills are commonly sheared and some dacite occurs as clasts within mineralized dissolution-collapse breccia, indicating continued movement along faults and hydrothermal activity after emplacement of the dacite. In fault steps within the NBFZ, the Eocene Elko Formation has the same moderate eastward dip as the underlying Paleozoic rocks. The collapse breccia generally exhibits a flat-tabular textural fabric subparallel to today's surface. All of this evidence supports the Formation of North Bullion during a very dynamic, focused Eocene event with synchronous extension, intrusion and Carlin-style mineralization.*"

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img010.jpg)

**Figure 7-10: North Bullion Deposit Geology and Mineralized Zone Cross Section NW3447.5**

**7.2.3** **Pony Creek Property** 

Middle to Upper Devonian through Permian carbonate, possible Jurassic clastic sedimentary rocks and Jurassic felsic (rhyolite) intrusive rocks are exposed at the Pony Creek Project, with the principal resource zones hosted within rocks interpreted as Pennsylvanian-Permian in age. A detailed geological map of Pony Creek is illustrated in Figure 7-11 (with a legend in Figure 7-12) and a stratigraphic section of Pony Creek geology is presented in Figure 7-13. The Devils Gate Limestone is the oldest unit at Pony Creek, outcropping on the western edge of the area. The Devils Gate Limestone is comprised of medium to thick bedded, light and dark grey, fine-grained limestone.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 75 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Above the Devils Gate is the Webb Formation, characterized by siliceous mudstone and claystone and was defined by Smith and Ketner (1968) for exposures near Webb Creek in the northern Piñon Range. This unit is overlain by Chainman Formation shale, sandstone with conglomerate lenses, limestone and calcareous sandstones. The Chainman and Webb Formations are commonly silicified with alteration increasing with proximity to the Devils Gate Limestone contact (Jennings, 2001).

The Chainman Formation at Pony Creek is overlain by a sequence of conglomerates, sandstones and shales that are assigned to the Upper Mississippian to Lower Pennsylvanian Diamond Peak Formation of Smith and Ketner (1975; 1978). Chert and quartzite are the most common clast types in the conglomerates. In the northern Piñon Range, the Diamond Peak Formation was previously referred to as the Tonka Formation by Dott (1955) for those rocks that were deposited across the Roberts Mountains Thrust Fault.

The Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian Moleen Formation, composed of gray, medium-bedded, silty limestone with banded, nodular chert and conglomerate interbeds overlies the Diamond Peak Formation and is in turn overlain by unnamed upper Pennsylvanian to Permian sedimentary rocks (Smith and Ketner, 1975; 1978), some of which have been assigned to the Strathearn Formation during geological mapping by Contact Gold. Calcareous sandstone and conglomerate with interbedded limestone make up this unnamed "Penn-Perm" unit.

The Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks at Pony Creek are chaotic and laterally discontinuous in nature. The coarse clastic strata formed by being shed off from the Antler highlands to the west of Pony Creek during multiple orogenic pulses of the Antler Orogeny which began in Mississippian time.

A porphyritic rhyolite intrusive body of Jurassic age is present as a north-south elongated body. The rhyolite body pinches out to the northwest as it encroaches on the Stallion-Bowl Trend area. The porphyritic rhyolite has been variously described as rhyolite, felsite or felsic porphyry. Four felsic lithologies have been described, including: 1) white- to cream-colored, fine-grained feldspar porphyry, 2) white- to cream-colored, fine-grained quartz porphyry, 3) fragmental rhyolite, and 4) dark-colored to nearly black, aphanitic felsite. These rock types are hydrothermally altered and locally mineralized along the contact of the underlying sedimentary units and within the margins of the intrusive, which may may have served as a trap for auriferous fluids (e.g. Bowl and Appaloosa zones).

Volcanic tuffs, flows, and volcaniclastic rocks previously assigned to the Eocene Indian Well Formation by Abbott (2003) crop out on the east side of the Property and are at least 800 ft (243.8 m) thick. The base of these rocks is not observed within the Property, and they occur only in fault contact with the Paleozoic rocks described above.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 76 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img011.jpg)

**Figure 7-11: Geological map of Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 77 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img012.jpg)

**Figure 7-12: Continued, Legend for geological map of Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 78 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img013.jpg)

**Figure 7-13: Detailed stratigraphic section, Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018).**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 79 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**7.2.4** **Mineralization** 

The South Railroad property includes Carlin-type gold mineralization in at least six deposit areas: Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, Bowl and Stallion. These deposits are similar in setting and style to that of other deposits in the region, including Rain and Emigrant (Koehler *et al.*, 2014; Norby *et al.*, 2015; Turner *et al.*, 2015; Dufresne and Koehler, 2016). Mineralization occurs mainly as finely disseminated, submicroscopic gold in largely stratiform bodies in Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian-Permian rocks. The following subsections describe the mineralization for deposits that are located within one of the three parts of the property. The descriptions of the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Pony Creek mineralization are modified from Dufresne and Nicholls (2016; 2017a; 2017b; and 2018).

7.2.4.1 South Railroad Property

7.2.4.1.1 Dark Star Deposit

The Dark Star deposit is hosted primarily within Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated units, with minor amounts of gold mineralization found in the Chainman Formation. The deposit is centered along the north-south-striking Dark Star fault corridor and anticline. As presently defined by drilling, the deposit consists of the Dark Star Main and Dark Star North zones and is approximately 4,900 ft (1,500 m) in length with a maximum width of 3,000 ft (900 m). The deepest known mineralization is 1,900 ft (600 m) below surface. A representative geologic cross section is shown in Figure 7-6.

The Dark Star deposit is hosted in an open-folded anticline with a steep west-dipping axial plane and shallow north-plunging fold axis. The strongest mineralization occupies the west and east limbs at Dark Star Main and North, respectively. Near the surface in both deposit areas, bedding and mineralization is sub-horizontal in the crest of the anticline, and dips shallowly to the east and west within the anticline limbs. At Dark Star Main the mineralization dips moderately at 40° to 65° to the west, and shallows to about 20° at depth. At Dark Star North the mineralization dips 45° to 55° to the east.

Gold mineralization at Dark Star is submicroscopic and disseminated within a north- to north-northeast-striking zone of silicification within the middle coarse conglomeratic and bioclastic limestone-bearing unit. This unit is between the upper and lower silty limestone and calcisiltite units (Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6).

Oxidation is pervasive at Dark Star Main to a depth of 1,500 ft (450 m) in the middle conglomeratic unit. At Dark Star North, oxidation is pervasive to a depth of 1,100 ft (330 m) in the middle conglomeratic and lower silty limestone and calcisiltite units. Oxidation products are primarily limonite with lesser hematite. However, thin zones of unoxidized sulfide minerals are present; pyrite is the principal sulfide mineral.

7.2.4.1.2 Pinion Deposit

The Pinion gold deposit is located along the northwest-trending Pinion anticline and proximal to the Bullion fault, which follows the east side of the deposit and down drops the mlbx and mineralization to the east in the North zone and part of the Main zone. The Main zone trends approximately N50°W to N60°W, is approximately 6,300 ft long by 4,000 ft wide (1,900 m by 1,200 m) and vertical thickness between ~50 to 500 ft (~15 to 150 m). Mineralization at the Main zone has been intersected to a depth of 1,500 ft (450 m) below surface where it plunges to the southeast. Mineralization is hosted primarily within a multi-lithic dissolution-collapse breccia at the Devils Gate-Tripon Pass contact. The mlbx is best developed along the crest of the Pinion anticline but also extends downward along the east and west limbs. Minor gold mineralization is associated with decalcified limestone and dolostone above and below the breccia.

The North zone is approximately 3,600 ft (1,100 m) long along a north-northwest trend, varies from 150 to 330 ft (45 to 100 m) in thickness, and ranges from 115 to 440 ft (35 to 135 m) in vertical extent from the surface. Lateral continuity of mineralization is shown in a representative cross section (Figure 7-7). North zone mineralization is hosted primarily in mlbx and appears to be a continuation of the deposit along the east limb of the anticline.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 80 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The deposit remains open in all directions with the exception of the northwest. Gold mineralization has been encountered in the furthest step out drilling to the west, south and east that intercepted the upper contact of the Devil's Gate limestone.

Gold mineralization at Pinion occurs mainly as submicroscopic disseminated gold in the largely stratiform mlbx. Free gold in 2 to 20 micron-size grains was noted in the 2018 mineral liberation studies (AMTEL, 2018). Silver mineralization is associated with banded fine-grained to fine-cockscomb silica textures and is interpreted to be related to a late epithermal hydrothermal event that overprints Carlin-type mineralization. A later phase of massive and disseminated barite overprinting occurred after development of both breccia and silicified textures.

7.2.4.1.3 Jasperoid Wash Deposit

The Jasperoid Wash deposit has an approximate extent of 6,200 ft (1,900 m) in a north direction and a width of about 2,300 ft (700 m). Drilling shows the deposit consists of low-grade (0.003 to 0.012 oz Au/ton (0.1 to 0.4 ppm Au)) bedding-controlled mineralization, and steep east-dipping structurally-controlled mineralization that extends to at least 1,300 ft (400 m) below the surface. Gold is disseminated within altered feldspar porphyry dikes and adjacent conglomeratic rocks, possibly the same sedimentary units that host mineralization at Dark Star. The gold is inferred to be submicroscopic, though no petrographic studies have been completed. Higher-gold grades from 0.03 to 0.44 oz Au/ton (1 – 15 g Au/t) are associated with drusy quartz in fractures, which have a varnish of limonite and/or hematite, and with zones of very fine-grained disseminated sulfide minerals that have a sooty appearance in the argillized feldspar porphyry. A representative cross section is shown in Figure 7-8.

7.2.4.2 North Railroad Property

The North Bullion deposits in the North Railroad property, which include the North Bullion, POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes deposits, are characterized as Carlin-type disseminated-gold mineralization. Only POD and Sweet Hollow are exposed at surface. The bulk of the geological understanding and interpretations of the North Bullion deposits has come from core drilling that was guided by interpretations of gravity and CSAMT data. Gold mineralization is focused on the footwall of the Bullion fault corridor, a north-south-striking zone of normal faults with an overall down-to-the-east displacement. North-south-, northwest- and west-northwest-striking faults appear to be important controls on mineralization. In general, gold-silver mineralization is localized in Webb and Tripon Pass formation rocks, and dissolution-collapse breccia developed above and within silty micrite of the Tripon Pass Formation and calcarenite of the Devils Gate Limestone (Jackson and Koehler, 2014; Jackson *et al.*, 2015).

7.2.4.2.1 North Bullion Deposit

Gold mineralization in the core of the North Bullion deposit is hosted in mlbx at the upper Devils Gate contact and within or directly below a silty micrite unit interbedded with sandstones and conglomerates of the Chainman Formation. The upper limit of mineralization varies from 250 to 1,300 ft (75 to 400 m) in depth. Auriferous material dips gently to the southeast. Gold is associated with sooty, very fine-grained sulfide minerals, silica, carbon, clay, barite, realgar, and orpiment, and with elevated arsenic, mercury, antimony, and thallium.

The North Bullion deposit, as currently defined, is approximately 2,900 ft (900 m) in length, 2,300 ft (700 m) in width and up to 1,650 ft (500 m) in vertical extent.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 81 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

7.2.4.2.2 POD, Sweet Hollow, and South Lodes Deposits

The northeastern-most limit of the Sweet Hollow deposit is situated about 500 ft (150 m) southwest of the North Bullion deposit. Mineralization is potentially traceable along the uppermost mineralization horizon identified at North Bullion, although additional drilling will be required to demonstrate the continuity. As currently defined, the zone is approximately 4,000 ft (1,200 m) in length, 900 ft (275 m) in width, and up to 600 ft (180 m) in vertical extent. Mineralization at the Sweet Hollow deposit is associated with pyrite and hosted primarily by the Webb and Tripon Pass Formations. Alteration is characterized by decalcification and silicification of the sedimentary host rocks.

Mineralization at the POD deposit is restricted to a steep northeast-dipping shear zone (Hunsaker, 2012b; Masters, 2003a) located adjacent to and northwest of Sweet Hollow mineralization. As currently defined, the POD deposit is approximately 2,600 ft (800 m) in length, 400 ft (120 m) in width, and up to 750 ft (230 m) in vertical extent. The Chainman, Webb and Tripon Pass Formations are the primary hosts of gold mineralization, with a small amount of gold mineralization hosted in the uppermost Devils Gate Limestone. The center of the mineralized body contains carbon and fine-grained, disseminated pyrite, and accounts for approximately 15% of the deposit. This is surrounded by strongly oxidized, lower-grade mineralization. Gold mineralization at POD is associated with various alteration types, including silicification, Jasperoid development, argillization, pyritization, baritization and minor dolomite replacement of calcite (Hunsaker, 2012b). Gold grains range from 5 to 20 microns, and are associated with oxidized pyrite, stibnite, and arsenopyrite (Masters, 2003a).

South Lodes mineralization is also potentially contiguous along stratigraphic horizons that host mineralization at the Sweet Hollow deposit, located to the northeast. Gold grades are generally lower than at North Bullion, Sweet Hollow and POD, and only minor mineralization occurs at the surface.

**7.2.5** **Pony Creek** 

The primary zones of gold mineralization at Pony Creek, are the Bowl, Stallion, Appaloosa and Pony Spur Zones. Additional target areas include Stallion-Bowl Trend, Palamino, Willow, Mustang, Elliott Dome, and Robinson.

The gold mineralization discovered to date at Pony Creek is principally hosted within the Tertiary (or Jurassic) rhyolite, or within altered and silicified calcareous clastic rocks of the Pennsylvanian – Permian (Penn-Perm) Moleen Formation. Known stratigraphic controls of mineralization include: the pre-mineral rhyolite intrusion acting as a barrier to focus auriferous fluids along its lower margin and within it at structural intersections. Other lithologies to host mineralization include permeable calcareous conglomerates and sandstones, and fossil hash limestone beds.

Interpreted structural controls on gold mineralization at Pony Creek include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· North striking folds and thrust faults and northwest
striking transverse faults formed during Mesozoic compressional deformation events;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· North-south striking tension faults formed between
the northwest transverse faults, as first order controls on mineralization; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Intersections of northwest and northeast striking
faults as secondary controls.

7.2.5.1 Bowl Zone

The Bowl Zone consists of a sandstone, conglomerate and limestone package with a rhyolite plug in the center which spreads laterally capping the sedimentary units. Mineralization at the Bowl Zone primarily follows the orientation of the contact between the rhyolite cap and the adjacent sedimentary units, although lithology also plays a role in mineralization intensity and oxidation. Mineralization is associated with oxidized and unoxidized fine-grained marcasite, pyrite, and minor realgar and stibnite, which occur along fractures and as disseminations in and beneath the rhyolite intrusion, as well as in the matrix of breccias in the intrusion (Jones and Postlethwaite, 1993).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 82 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Hydrothermal alteration at the Bowl Zone is characterized by a quartz-sericite-pyrite assemblage within the rhyolite intrusive body in, and near, north-trending and northeast-trending faults. The fault zones are fragmental and/or brecciated, and contain very fine-grained quartz, sericite, and pyrite or limonite. Pyrite occurs both as disseminated grains and on fracture surfaces while limonite occurs after pyrite or is secondary in fractures. Away from the faults the intrusion becomes less altered, grading outward from a rock with relict feldspar ghosts to a distinct porphyritic texture. In the center of the intrusion, a granular texture is present where the feldspars have undergone argillic alteration, leaving open or clay-filled vugs. The intrusion locally contains 3% to 5% pyritized and chloritized hornblende crystals (Spalding, 2018).

Newmont geologists used the terms "sanded rhyolite" and "rhyolite sand" to describe the texture of the rhyolite intrusion in some of the altered and mineralized areas. They reported that sanded rhyolite consists of medium-grained, rounded clasts of glassy rhyolite breccia commonly occurring near the margins and at the base of the intrusion, and locally as narrow stockwork zones within the intrusion. The distribution and texture of the sanded rhyolite suggest that it formed in vitric chill margins and was affected by subsequent hydrothermal activity.

Sedimentary rocks along the margins of the intrusion and immediately beneath it are decalcified, silicified, sulphidized, and variably oxidized near gold mineralized zones (Spalding, 2018).

7.2.5.2 Stallion-Bowl Trend and Stallion Zone

The Stallion-Bowl Trend is primarily defined by a large silicified, north-striking ridge of Pennsylvanian-Permian aged calcareous conglomerate. The ridge is interpreted by Spalding (2018) as the same host lithology as the Dark Star deposit to the north of the Pony Creek area. A layered sandstone and limestone package on the west side of the conglomerate ridge dips away from the ridge to the west. The east side of the conglomerate ridge is overlain by the east dipping rhyolite unit. Gold mineralization is concentrated along the contacts where these lithologies meet the conglomerate ridge, but locally diverges, dispersing into adjacent geological formations.

At Stallion Zone, gold mineralization is tabular, stratigraphically controlled, and moderately dips to the west. The rocks hosting oxide gold mineralization at Stallion Zone show strong silicification and oxidation of calcareous sandstone and conglomerate in drilling and in sparse, recessive outcrops at surface.

7.2.5.3 Appaloosa and Mustang Zones

The Appaloosa Zone consists of a sub-horizontal to moderately east-dipping mineralization hosted within the Jurassic intrusion and along its contact with the underlying formations, similar to Bowl Zone.

The Mustang Zone extends northwest from Appaloosa and northeast from the Stallion Zone. It was initially defined by west-northwest trending structurally controlled gravity and Au-in-soil anomalies extending over a length of 2 km (1.2 miles). The geophysical and Au-in-soil anomalies crosscut Penn-Perm Moleen and Strathearn formation clastic and carbonate rocks with local Au-in-soil values of up to 0.54 g/t Au. Orla drill tested these anomalies in 2024 resulting in moderately northeast-dipping tabular mineralization along the limestone-conglomerate ridge contact, analogous to the west-dipping mineralization along the western arm conglomerate ridge at Stallion Zone.

7.2.5.4 Pony Spur Zone

The top of the Devils Gate Limestone is strongly silicified. Previous drilling has identified anomalous gold mineralization in collapse breccia at the Pony Spur prospect. Soil sampling at Pony Spur has delineated an Au-in-soil anomaly measuring 656 x 1,968 ft (200 x 600 m) with gold values of up to 1.18 g/t Au. Contact Gold tested the Au-in-soil anomaly and drilled three holes in 2018, which intersected gold mineralization at the upper contact between the Devils Gate Limestone and the Webb Formation. Additionally, strong silicification with high barite and hematite content is associated with the gold mineralization that occurs within the Mississippian Chainman sandstone at Pony Spur.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 83 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**7.2.6** **Dark Star, Pinion and North Bullion Petrography** 

Petrographic analysis systematically describes mineralogical and textural details of rock samples, commonly using thin- or thick-section optical microscopy. McComb Petrographics performed a petrographic analysis in 2014 for Gold Standard, using samples from the POD/Sweet Hollow/Railroad/Webb area (core drill hole RRB13-01), a rock outcrop sample from Pinion (RRCD-6), and a RC drill hole sample from Pinion (hole SB-137). McComb Petrographics also performed a petrographic analysis in 2016 using 14 samples from the Dark Star area drill hole DS15-13. McComb (2016) summarized the findings as follows:

*"Rock types found in this suite of samples generally include silicified biomicrite, silicified silty to sandy biomicrite, silicified siltstone and sandstone, and decalcified siltstone and sandstone. Gold grades are the highest in samples that contain the most decalcified siltstone and sandstone and were logged as debris flow. Debris flow samples often contain clasts of silicified silty to sandy biomicrite in a decalcified siltstone/sandstone matrix. Decalcified siltstone/sandstone usually has wispy stylolaminated texture attesting to the removal of carbonate and generally comprises detrital quartz in a matrix of low birefringent clay that is often iron stained and contains extremely fine-grained iron oxides. Low birefringent clay appears to be kaolinite, where it is not highly iron stained. Gold mineralization is interpreted to occur in iron oxides, which are interpreted to be oxidized arsenian pyrite. Silica-locked extremely fine-grained pyrite can still be observed locally. Mineralized debris flow samples are similar to what is described in the Roberts Mountain DSr3 unit in the northern Carlin Trend." (pp.1).*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 84 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8** | **Deposit Types** |

---

Gold deposits known and predominantly being explored for on the South Carlin Complex are sedimentary-rock hosted, disseminated, Carlin-type gold deposits, although epithermal- and skarn-type mineralization styles have also been found. When Carlin-type gold deposits were first recognized in Northern Nevada and Utah in the 1960s, the deposits were often informally referred to as "no-see-um" gold deposits or "micron" gold deposits because the gold is rarely visible to the naked eye and cannot be recovered by panning. Since then, over 100 geologically similar deposits, containing approximately 200 million ounces of gold, have been discovered in northern Nevada, making it one of the most significant gold regions in the world (Hofstra and Cline, 2000).

Carlin-type deposits are associated with relatively shallow level hydrothermal systems and have characteristics sufficiently different from typical epithermal precious-metal systems to represent a distinctive deposit type. Carlin-type deposits are replacement bodies with structural and stratigraphic controls, and contain primary gold that is restricted to ionic substitution and sub-micron-sized grains in arsenian pyrite. Alteration is visually subtle and dominated by carbonate dissolution of calcareous host rocks (Cline, 2004). Gold does not precipitate in response to boiling or fluid cooling, but instead precipitates in response to sulfidation of iron in the host rock or in a second iron-bearing fluid (Muntean *et al.*, 2011). Host rocks for Carlin-type deposits in Nevada are primarily Paleozoic carbonate rocks. Other host rocks include calcsilicate hornfels, chert, argillite, and igneous dikes.

The geochemistry of Carlin-type deposits is characterized by a distinctive suite of gold, arsenic, antimony, thallium, and mercury ± tungsten (Hofstra and Cline, 2000). These elements are frequently used as pathfinder elements for surface geochemical surveys and as vectors toward mineralization in drill-hole geochemical studies.

Most Carlin-type systems exhibit a main stage of alteration and mineralization characterized by acid dissolution and replacement of the calcareous host rock. If the host rock is composed of relatively pure carbonate without quartz silt or sand-grain support, dissolution of the carbonate can result in the formation of open space, leading to collapse and breccia formation. Main-stage decarbonatization of carbonate host rocks is typically accompanied by clay alteration (argillization) of silicate minerals, sulfidation of available reactive iron, and silicification of limestone. Alteration is characterized by an assemblage of quartz, illite, and dolomite with the edges of the system marked by an increase in calcite (Kuehn and Rose, 1992). Pervasive silica replacement (silicification) of the various host rocks is also common.

In gold-enriched zones, dissolution of carbonates, and argillization of silicate minerals is accompanied by sulfidation of iron released by mineral alteration, resulting in precipitation of disseminated auriferous- and arsenian-pyrite, marcasite, or arsenopyrite. These iron sulfide minerals commonly occur as rims on preexisting pyrite. The most important consequence of the pyrite-forming sulfidation reaction is the coupled precipitation of gold with this pyrite (Hofstra and Cline, 2000). It is well-documented that most of the gold in Carlin-type deposits initially resides in arsenian pyrite, arsenian marcasite, and arsenopyrite, occurring as sub-micron inclusions of native gold or as structurally bound gold (Hofstra and Cline, 2000).

A distinctive suite of late-stage minerals is commonly present in open cavities and fractures. Textural relationships demonstrate that these minerals precipitated after the main-stage alteration and mineralization. In proximal zones, open cavities and fractures may be filled with orpiment and/or realgar, in places accompanied by quartz, barite, fluorite, pyrite, marcasite, cinnabar, or thallium and antimony sulfides. More distal veins are dominantly calcite ± orpiment and realgar.

Carlin-type deposits vary greatly in size and contained gold. Areal footprints of district deposit clusters range from about 8 to 46 miles squared (21 to 120 km<sup>2</sup>). Mineralization within a deposit can extend laterally more than 5,000 ft (1.5 km) and over vertical intervals greater than 3,300 ft (1 km). The larger deposits in Nevada occur within linear districts, or "trends" extending up to more than 12.5 mi (20 km) and are often controlled by regional structures. Some of these structures probably resulted from reactivation of much older basement normal faults that originated during Proterozoic rifting of western North America (Lund, 2008). These old faults are inferred to have served as conduits for deep-crustal hydrothermal fluids responsible for formation of Carlin deposits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 85 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The varied forms of individual deposits reflect local zones of high porosity and permeability that result from favorable lithologic and structural features. Permeable features frequently associated with orebodies include high-angle faults, thrust faults, low-angle normal faults, hinge zones of anticlines, lithologic contacts, reactive carbonate units, debris-flow facies carbonate rocks, lithologic facies changes, breccia zones of all types, and contacts of sedimentary rock with metamorphic aureoles (Cline *et al.*, 2005).

Common features of Carlin-type deposits typically include (Muntean *et al.*, 2011):

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Middle to late Eocene ages (42 and 36 Ma.) (Cline,
2004), a period that corresponds to a change from tectonic compression to extension and renewed felsic to intermediate magmatism;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Occurrence in linear clusters along reactivated
structures likely linked to deep crustal-scale Proterozoic basement rift structures;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Preferential hosting by carbonate rocks within
or adjacent to structures in the lower plate of a regional thrust fault;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Paragenesis characterized by decarbonatization,
argillization, silicification, and sulfidation that results in the formation of gold-bearing arsenian pyrite, which initially hosts the
majority of the gold in the deposits. This replacement mineralization is followed first by open-space deposition of minor amounts of drusy
quartz with pyrite, followed by orpiment, realgar, stibnite, and other sulfides. Oxidation often removes the initial sulfide formed in
the deposit;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Low concentrations of silver and base metals,
and an elemental signature of predominantly Au-Tl-As-Hg-Sb;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Formation by non-boiling ore-forming fluids ranging
from 180°C to 240°C during mineralization, with low to moderate salinity (mostly ≤6 wt% NaCl equivalent), and CO<sub>2</sub>-bearing
(<4 mol%); the occurrence of kaolinite and illite indicates that fluids were acidic;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Lack of mineral or elemental zoning at the district
scale that suggests minor temperature gradients. There are no coeval associated porphyry copper, skarn, or distal Au-Pb-Zn-Mn zones; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Deposit formation by largely fracture-controlled
fluid flow from multiple upwelling zones with little evidence for significant lateral fluid flow or spaced convection cells.

A schematic regional deposit model cross-section is shown in Figure 8-1 from Muntean and Cline (2018).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 86 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img014.jpg)

**Figure 8-1: Regional-Scale Carlin-Type Deposit Model**

The Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Pony Creek gold deposits in the South Carlin Complex present characteristics similar to other Carlin-type gold deposits of the Carlin trend. Specific geologic features of these deposits include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Occurrence in relatively close proximity to a
multi-phase Eocene igneous center with associated igneous stocks, dikes and sills; gold mineralization is inferred to be associated with
the Eocene age intrusives;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Hosted in or adjacent to carbonate rocks;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Strong structural control, localized in areas
with greater fault density; proximal to high-angle faults;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Alteration characterized by decalcification,
dolomitization, argillization, silicification, baritization and sulfidation with distal calcite veining;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Initial occurrence of gold as micron-size particles
of arsenian pyrite. Late oxidation has generally removed most sulfides at Dark Star, Pinion, and Jasperoid Wash.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Epithermal textures have been observed at Pinion
in addition to Carlin-style mineralization, although the relationship between silicification and precious-metal deposition is not understood
at this time.

There is a large Eocene intrusive, the Bullion stock, that may represent the source of metal-rich magmatic fluids that formed a continuum of deposit types, as shown in the Muntean and Cline (2018) model. Within the intrusion, possible porphyry-style Cu-Mo mineralization occurs. Adjacent to the intrusive is Cu-Ag-Zn skarn mineralization, which appears to have been preferentially developed in the Devils Gate limestone. Farther from the intrusive are Zn-Pb-Ag carbonate-replacement deposits emplaced along structures. Outboard of the base-metal mineralization are distal Carlin-type precious metal deposits, which are the subject of this technical report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 87 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **9** | **Exploration** |

---

In August 2022, Orla Mining acquired Gold Standard and assumed control of the South Railroad Project. In April 2024, Orla Mining acquired Contact Gold and their wholly owned Pony Creek property, a 4,500-hectare exploration land package located adjacent to and directly south of the South Railroad property. Contact Gold then became a wholly owned subsidiary of Orla. Orla has continued to conduct exploration activities at the combined properties (renamed the South Carlin Complex) under the name Gold Standard Ventures (U.S.) Inc.

Exploration activities conducted by Gold Standard prior to the acquisition dates are summarized in Section 9.1 and exploration activities subsequent to the acquisitions are described in Section 9.2. All drilling activities are described in Section 10.

**9.1** **Gold Standard Exploration – 2009 – 2022** 

For the North and South Railroad properties, this section of the report was largely drawn from Dufresne and Nicholls (2016), Dufresne et al. (2017), Dufresne and Nicholls (2017a), Dufresne and Nicholls (2018), and Ibrado et al. (2020). Mr. Lindholm has reviewed this information and believes it accurately represents the exploration work done by Gold Standard.

Beginning in 2009 and continuing to 2021, Gold Standard explored the North and South Railroad properties using geological mapping, geochemical and geophysical surveying, and drilling. From the end of 2021 to the acquisition of GSV's properties by Orla in August 2022, no exploration work was conducted.

Prior to 2015, exploration activities by Gold Standard were focused on the North Railroad property. Work completed in 2015 was largely focused on the Pinion area in the South Railroad property, after its acquisition in 2014. A thorough discussion of these work programs and their results and interpretations is available in previous Technical Reports by Hunsaker (2010, 2012a, 2012b); Shaddrick (2012); Koehler et al. (2014); Turner et al. (2015); Dufresne and Koehler (2016); and Dufresne et al. (2017).

Exploration work by Gold Standard resulted in the identification of 17 prospect areas or zones of mineralization within the overall property position, including the Bald Mountain area and North Bullion deposits in the North Railroad property, the Pinion, Dark Star, and Jasperoid Wash deposits, and other areas of the South Railroad property. Drilling conducted by Gold Standard is summarized in Section 10.

**9.1.1** **Geophysics** 

Geophysical information for the North and South Railroad properties included gravity, controlled-source audio magneto-telluric (CSAMT), and ground magnetic surveys (Figure 9-1). These surveys were employed to identify geological structures, key lithologies, and zones of hydrothermal alteration related to mineralization. Additionally, the geophysical surveys aided in drill-hole targeting and assisted in the definition of multiple exploration targets.

A ground magnetic survey was completed over the Bullion stock area in 2014 (Figure 9-1). A total of 122 line-miles (197 line-km) was surveyed with total magnetic intensity recorded in continuous mode at 2-second intervals on lines 328 ft (100 m) apart. The lines were oriented east-west.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 88 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Gold Standard completed six gravity surveys from 2009 to 2015, collecting measurements from 3,991 stations covering a large portion of the North and South Railroad properties, as shown in Figure 9-1. The gravity surveys were designed to delineate structures, particularly those in areas lacking bedrock exposures, and/or those areas under cover, and to identify rock types and alteration related to sedimentary-rock hosted and skarn-type mineralization (Wright, 2013). During 2017, gravity measurements were collected at an additional 1,027 stations, covering 8.88 mi<sup>2</sup> (23 km<sup>2</sup>) in the North and South Railroad properties. The 2017 gravity survey was conducted by Magee Geophysical Services LLC and was interpreted by Wright Geophysics.

Gold Standard completed seven CSAMT surveys between 2012 and 2016, covering the Bullion fault corridor, the North Bullion, Pinion, and Dark Star deposits, and the Dark Star fault corridor (Figure 9-1). A total of 52.8 line-miles (85 line-km) of CSAMT data were collected. The 2016 CSAMT survey involved 13.2 line-miles (21.2 line-km) focused on the Dark Star fault corridor, with nine east-west lines at variable spacing from 656 to 1,640 ft (200 to 500 m), that were oriented perpendicular to the main fault trends.

James Wright of Wright Geophysics designed, supervised, and interpreted the 2016 CSAMT survey. According to Wright's (2016a) interpretations, a major north-south-oriented structural zone, the Dark Star fault corridor, was delineated, and the primary feature of the structural zone is a horst bounded by two major faults. A north-northeast-trending fault truncates the north end of the horst, and a major, cross-cutting west-northwest-trending fault separates the Dark Star Main and Dark Star North deposits.

In 2016, Gold Standard purchased a portion of an airborne magnetic survey from EDCON-PRJ that covered the entire Piñon Range including the North Railroad and South Railroad properties and their surroundings. The Bullion stock forms a strong and large magnetic high, and several of the major structures were extended by the airborne interpretation of Wright (2016b).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 89 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp04img015.jpg)

**Figure 9-1: Ground-based Geophysical Surveys by Gold Standard 2009 to 2022**

During 2017, another 42.3 line-miles (68 line-km) of CSAMT were surveyed with 21 lines across the Dark Star fault corridor, Ski Track and Bullion to East Pine Mountain areas (Figure 9-1). The data were acquired by Zonge International Inc. and interpreted by Wright Geophysics.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 90 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Seismic surveys were performed in 2017 and 2018 at Pinion, Dark Star, and North Bullion. In total, three east-west-oriented lines for 23.1 line-miles (37 line-km) were surveyed. In 2019, three additional seismic lines, totaling 13 line-miles (21 line-km), were surveyed directly over and to the north of the North Bullion deposit. The seismic data were acquired by Bird Seismic Services and processed and interpreted by Columbia Geophysical, Sterling Seismic Services Ltd., and Wright Geophysics.

In 2021, a seismic survey of approximately three line-miles was conducted northwest of Dark Star. The survey was carried out by hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc.

**9.1.2** **Rock Chip and Soil Sampling** 

Historical data and subsequent work by Gold Standard indicated a positive correlation between anomalous gold and arsenic concentrations in soil samples, and near-surface gold mineralization confirmed by drilling. Gold Standard collected approximately 7,450 soil samples from 2010 to 2015 (Figure 9-2). These were collected over grids in six areas with lines 164 to 328 ft (500 to 100 m) apart and samples taken at spacings of 164 ft (50 m). During 2017 and 2018, a total of 7,823 soil samples were collected from the South Railroad property in the Ski Track, Dixie, and Jasperoid Wash areas, and near the southern limit of the property. Samples were taken at intervals of 164 ft (100 m) along lines spaced 328 ft (100 m) apart.

To expand the rock geochemistry database in areas that lacked historical sampling, Gold Standard collected approximately 3,500 rock samples throughout the Dark Star, Pinion, and North Bullion deposit areas from 2010 to 2015 (Figure 9-2). Samples were collected from outcrops, road cuts, and field traverses parallel with topography. Most of these rock samples were "grab" samples, but chip, channel and scoop sampling techniques were also used.

Gold Standard did not collect any rock, soil, or scoop samples in 2016. During 2017 and 2018, a total of 1,550 rock samples were collected from the Ski Track, Dixie, and Jasperoid Wash areas of the property.

During 2019 through 2021, Gold Standard collected 22 soil samples and 497 rock samples in the Dark Star area, and 252 rock samples in the LT area in 2020. At the South Dome area, 78 rock samples and 459 soil samples were collected in 2020. A total of 93 rock samples were collected in the Pinion area during 2020 and 2021. (Samples collected from 2019 – 2021 are not shown in Figure 9-2).

Mr. Lindholm has not analyzed the sampling methods, quality, and representativity of surface sampling at the South Railroad property because only assays from drilling were used for the mineral resource estimates described in Section 14. However, rock samples were used for gold and silver domain modeling.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 91 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img01.jpg)

**Figure** 9-2: Rock Sample and Soil Survey Grid Locations by Gold Standard 2010 to 2018**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 92 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**9.1.3** **Geologic Mapping** 

From 2009 through 2016, Gold Standard performed Anaconda-style, layer-based geological mapping covering a total of 58 mi<sup>2</sup> (150 km<sup>2</sup>) within and adjacent to the North and South Railroad properties. The mapping was done at scales of 1:6,000 to 1:2,000. The cumulative results of that mapping, combined with published mapping by the U.S.G.S. and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, as well as mapping by historical operators, are shown in Figure 7-4. During 2016-2018, approximately 21 mi<sup>2</sup> (54 km<sup>2</sup>) were mapped in the Dark Star, Dixie, Jasperoid Wash, Ski Track, Elliot Dome, and east Pine Mountain areas. Additional mapping was conducted at a scale of 1:2,000 in the Ski Track and LT areas during 2018.

During 2019 through 2021, Gold Standard personnel conducted geological mapping in the LT, South Dome, Jasperoid Wash, and central Railroad district areas.

**9.2** **C ontact G old E xploration – 2017 –** 2019

Contact Gold (a wholly owned subsidiary of Orla Mining) completed exploration work from 2017 - 2019 within the Pony Creek area of the Property, including geological mapping, rock and soil geochemical sampling, a ground gravity survey with processing and interpretation, and a controlled-source audio-frequency magneto-tellurics (CSAMT) geophysics program.

From 2020 until the acquisition by Orla in April 2024, no exploration work was conducted by Contact Gold within the Pony Creek area of the South Carlin Complex.

**9.2.1** **Geological Mapping** 

Geological mapping programs started in Pony Creek in 2017 and continued throughout 2018. The mapping program was focused on the northwestern portions of Pony Creek between the Elliott Dome target area and Bowl Zone. The mapping program was conducted by Paul Hohbach and Jamie Robinson and focused on formational stratigraphy, favorable host rocks, structural paragenesis and gold occurrences in the Pennsylvanian-Permian clastic and carbonate rocks. Mapping areas were also targeted using available geophysics and geochemistry data. The program completed 13 mapping areas covering 20 mi<sup>2</sup> (52 km<sup>2</sup>) at 1:2,400 (1 inch:200 ft) and covered mineralized zones in the northwest including the Elliott Dome, DNZ, Mustang, Stallion, Pony Spur, Palomino, Bowl Zone and the Appaloosa Zone. Structural analysis from the geological mapping at Pony Creek identified 10 different fault types and provided information on the mineralization controls of the Property. The results from the mapping program are shown below in Figure 9-3 and the mapping legend is presented in Table 9-1. Detailed descriptions of mapped geological units are found in Spalding (2018).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 93 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img02.jpg)

**Figure** 9-3: Geological interpretation map of the Pony Creek area showing blocks, relative fault movements and target areas for the 2017-2018 mapping programs (adapted from Spalding, 2018).**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 94 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 9-1: Geological legend for Figure 9-2 (from Spalding, 2018).**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 95 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Outcrop and core samples were collected during the geological mapping program for gold and multi-element geochemical assay, as well as geochronology, petrography and micropaleontology analysis. Petrographic and geochronological studies on rocks from Pony Creek are mentioned in Spalding (2018) and Hibdon (2019a) but the results were not available to the authors.

A total of 12 outcrop samples and 9 drill core samples were submitted for micropaleontology analysis. The analysis identified radiolaria, conodonts and fusulinids that range from the Mississippian to the Late Permian in age. A summary table and a sample location map are found below (Table 9-2 and Figure 9-4).

**Table** 9-2: Micropaleontology analysis results from Pony Creek (from Spalding, 2018).**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID Outcrops** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Analyses selected** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Best age results** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian to earliest Permian |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts + radiolaria | &nbsp;&nbsp;Late Middle Permian to Late Permian, Guadalupian? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Radiolaria | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mississippian to Permian, or younger |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Fusulinids | &nbsp;&nbsp;Missourian (Late Pennsylvanian) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts + fusulinids | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leonardian (Early Permian) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Undetermined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cores | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cores | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cores |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC06-06 650' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Atokan?, Morrowan to Atokan |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC06-06 666' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Not analyzed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC06-06 667' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Not analyzed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC06-06 776' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian to earliest Permian |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC06-06 849' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Undetermined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-11 848' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Undetermined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-11 850' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conodonts | &nbsp;&nbsp;Not analyzed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Outcrop samples ID* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Age (narrowest age result listed)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Age (narrowest age result listed)* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Permian (Desmoinesian to Asselian) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Permian (Desmoinesian to Asselian) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian to Permian | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian to Permian |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian (Morrowan to Virgilian) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pennsylvanian (Morrowan to Virgilian) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early Permian, Early Guadalupian (Wordian-Roadian) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early Permian, Early Guadalupian (Wordian-Roadian) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early-Middle Pennsylvanian; Morrowan-Atokan | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early-Middle Pennsylvanian; Morrowan-Atokan |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early Pennsylvanian (Morrowan) to earliest Permian? | &nbsp;&nbsp;Early Pennsylvanian (Morrowan) to earliest Permian? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Core Samples* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Core Samples* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Core Samples* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-27 2777' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Late Early Permian; Early Leonardian to possibly middle Leonardian | &nbsp;&nbsp;Late Early Permian; Early Leonardian to possibly middle Leonardian |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-27 2854.5' | &nbsp;&nbsp;Late Early Permian; Late Wolfcampian or younger | &nbsp;&nbsp;Late Early Permian; Late Wolfcampian or younger |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 96 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img04.jpg)

**Figure** 9-4: Location map of samples taken for micropaleontology analysis (from Spalding, 2018).**

Note: The corresponding geological legend fo*r Figure 9-4 is* presented above in *Table 9-1.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 97 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**9.2.2** **Surface Geochemistry** 

Surface geochemical sampling at Pony Creek by Contact Gold consisted of rock and soil sampling from 2017 to 2019. A total of 5,257 soil samples and 371 rock grab and channel samples were collected and assayed in the Pony Creek area within the boundaries of the South Carlin Complex.

9.2.2.1 Soil Sampling

In 2017, soil samples were collected at 164 ft (50 m) spacings along east-west oriented lines spaced 328 ft (100 m) apart in priority target areas and at 328 ft (100 m) spacings along areas with less potential. The tighter soil grids focused on priority areas including Bowl Zone, Appaloosa Zone, Stallion Zone, Palomino, and Elliot Dome target. The 2018 soil program added 50 m (164 ft) infills to the best gold intercepts from the 2017 sampling campaign, and completed 328 ft (100 m) sampling on the rest of Pony Creek interests (Spalding, 2018; Hibdon, 2019a). Samples were submitted for conventional soil geochemical analysis.

The Au-in-soil geochemical results from the 2017-2018 programs highlighted several anomalous areas in the known mineralized zones of Bowl, Appaloosa and Stallion, and delineated anomalous target areas, including Elliott Dome, Mustang, Pony Spur, and Palomino. Au-in-soil results range from less than detection (<1 ppb Au) to maximum values of 1.21 ppm Au and 1.19 ppm Au at the Bowl Zone and Pony Spur, respectively. Strong correlations are noted between Au and arsenic (As), thallium (Tl), antimony (Sb), caesium (Cs), and tellurium (Te) in many areas (Hibdon, 2019a). Soil geochemistry was then used to target potential gold mineralization in drilling programs at Pony Creek. Gold assay results from the soil surveys completed at Pony Creek are presented in Figure 9-5.

Soil samples comprise between 500 and 1,100 grams of surficial material (soil) and were generally collected at a depth of 10 to 20 inches (25 to 51 cm). The soil profile in the Pony Creek area is poorly developed and variable, ranging from silty clay in valley bottoms to rocky soil material on ridges. The organic "A" horizon is generally absent to poorly developed in Nevada, and the soil samples were generally collected from the lower "B" horizon. Detailed sampling and analytical procedures for the soil sampling programs are available in Section 11 of this Technical Report.

9.2.2.2 Rock Sampling

Surface rock sampling programs were completed at Pony Creek from 2017-2019. Rock sampling programs were completed over areas with anomalous gold results from the soil sampling programs. Almost all anomalous rock grab samples were collected in the northwestern portion of Pony Creek in proximity to the Au-in-soil anomalies. The highest grab samples from Pony Creek include 2.71 g/t Au, 0.58 g/t Au, and 0.54 g/t Au from the Appaloosa Zone. Gold assay results from grab samples are noted to be substantially lower than subsurface drilling intercepts below soil anomalies. Most surface outcrops are resistive silicified material, which is lower gold grade than the more recessive high-grade material that is decalcified during weathering (Spalding, 2018). Gold assay results from Contact Gold's rock sampling programs at Pony Creek are shown in Figure 9-6. Rock grab samples collected at Pony Creek were generally between approximately 1-2 kg in size and collected using a rock hammer. Detailed sampling and analytical procedures for the rock sampling programs at Pony Creek are available in Section 11 of this Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 98 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img05.jpg)

**Figure** **9-5: Contact Gold Soil Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 99 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img06.jpg)

**Figure** 9-6: Contact Gold Rock Sampling Geochemistry (Au) at Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 100 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**9.2.3** **Geophysics** 

Contact Gold conducted surface gravity and CSAMT geophysical surveys at Pony Creek from 2017-2018. The gravity surveys were completed by McGee Geophysical Services and processed by JL Wright Geophysics in 2017, and consisted of a 0.25 mi (400 m) square grid of gravity stations with regional lines that extended along roads at 0.62 mi (1 km) spacing outside of the Property. The goal of the program was to delineate structures, lithologies and alteration potentially related to gold mineralization.

The newly acquired gravity data and historical gravity stations collected from 2001-2006 were merged and processed by J.L. Wright. Several areas of potential alteration were highlighted, and major and minor structures were identified from the processed data as shown in Figure 9-7 (Wright, 2017a).

Later in 2017, the processed gravity data was used to plan a CSAMT survey across the major structures at Pony Creek. The objective of the geophysical program was to define structures, alteration and lithologies potentially related to gold mineralization. The survey was conducted by Zonge International Inc. and the data was processed by JL Wright Geophysics. Several projects had already conducted CSAMT surveys in the area and the historical data was combined with the newly acquired CSAMT data to create a composite interpretation. The 2017 survey consisted of 11 lines with 36.57 line-mi (58.85 line-km). The survey produced 11 inverted resistivity sections, 8 target areas that aligned with known geological controls at the time and two potential mineralization trends (Wright, 2017b). A compilation of the inverted resistivity sections in Figure 9-8.

In 2018, GSV accidentally completed a CSAMT survey across the Elliott Dome, DNZ and Mustang target areas within Pony Creek. The data from the survey was provided to Contact Gold, added to the 2017 and historical CSAMT database, and processed by JL Wright Geophysics. The 2018 survey is 7 lines with approximately 4.60 line-mi (7.4 line-km) and had the same objectives as the previous CSAMT survey. Processing produced 7 inverted sections that highlight the extension of the Dark Star structural corridor and one potential area of alteration (Wright, 2018). Figure 9-8 shows the inverted sections for Pony Creek.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 101 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img07.jpg)

**Figure** 9-7: Contact Gold Processed first vertical derivative gravity map compilation for Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 102 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1ex99-1sp05img08.jpg)

**Figure** 9-8: Contact Gold CSAMT Survey Compilation for Pony Creek**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 103 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**9.3** **O rla E xploration – 2022 – 2024** 

**9.3.1** **Geophysical Surveys** 

No new geophysical surveys have been completed since Orla's acquisition of the North and South Railroad properties (GSV property in 2022 and Contact Gold property in 2024). However, various geophysical data sets have been compiled, reprocessed and reinterpreted by Orla.

**9.3.2** **Rock Chip and Soil Sampling** 

A total of 502 soil samples were collected in 2022 and 2023 in the LT-Pinion Range area north of the Pinion resource area. This filled a gap in soil data south of the Bullion and north of the LT prospects. Samples were collected by Rangefront contractors, and analyses were done by independent laboratories American Assay Laboratories (AAL) and Bureau Veritas Minerals (BV) Laboratories.

65 rock samples were collected from the Skarn, Willow, and Robinson areas by Orla geologists between 2022 and 2024. Analyses were done by AAL and BV. The samples were random grab samples.

**9.3.3** **Geologic Mapping** 

Alteration mapping was performed in the Skarn area in 2023. Various road cuts and outcrops were mapped across the property between 2022 and 2024. Orla also drilled 30 RC drill holes on the Pony Creek property in 2024. Results are provided in Section 10.8.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 104 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10** | **Drilling** |

---

In August 2022, Orla Mining acquired Gold Standard and assumed control of the North and South Railroad properties. In April 2024, Orla Mining acquired Contact Gold and their wholly-owned Pony Creek property, a land package located directly south of the South Railroad property. Orla has continued to conduct drilling at the combined properties under the name Gold Standard Ventures, and as mentioned previously the three properties have been collectively renamed the 'South Carlin Complex'.

For the North and South Railroad properties, this section of the report was largely drawn from Dufresne and Nicholls (2016), Dufresne et al. (2017), Dufresne and Nicholls (2017a), Dufresne and Nicholls (2018), Ibrado et al. (2020), and Sletten et al. (2022). Mr. Lindholm has reviewed this information and believes it accurately represents the drilling work done by Gold Standard, Orla and historical operators.

**10.1** **S ummary** 

RESPEC received from Gold Standard/Orla a summary database of all drilling conducted within the North Railroad, South Railroad and Pony Creek properties through 2024. This data was used to update the property-wide drilling information summarized in Ibrado et. al. (2020). In total, there are records for 1,815,115 ft (553,247 m) drilled in 2,752 holes since drilling commenced in 1969 (Table 10-1). These totals exclude two holes for which RESPEC has collar locations, but no depths drilled, hole type, company or assays. Twenty-five different historical operators are known to have drilled 1,300 holes, for a total of 632,387 ft (192,889 m), from 1969 through 2008. As of May 2025, Gold Standard and Orla have drilled 1,300 holes for a total of 1,075,690 ft (327,870 m) (Table 10-1) on the North and South Railroad properties. This includes five holes for 4,017 ft (1,224 m) drilled in the North Bullion and POD areas after the December 22, 2023 effective date of the North Bullion resource database. As of May 2025, Contact Gold and Orla have drilled 152 holes for a total of 107,039 ft (32,625 m) (Table 10-1) on the Pony Creek Railroad property.

**Table** 10-1: All Drilling - South Carlin Complex 1969 – 2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Period** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary <br> & RC<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary &<br> RC (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC + <br> Core Tail <br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC +<br> Core Tail (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown<br> Type<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown<br> Type (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Historical Drilling 1969 - 2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;541561 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57468 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;632387 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard/Orla 2010 - 2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;760183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;236445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75837 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1072465 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact Gold/Orla 2017-2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9139 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110264 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Totals | &nbsp;&nbsp;2278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1402869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;303052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2752 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1815115 |

---

The drilling was done using Imperial units of measure. Figure 10-1 shows the distribution of all known drill collar locations in the property.

Approximately 82% of the holes have records to indicate they were drilled with RC methods. Approximately 14% of the holes were drilled with core methods or RC with core tails. There is a total of 33,357 ft (10,167 m) drilled in 88 historical holes for which RESPEC has no reliable information on the type of hole or drilling methods used. The authors believe the amount of RC drilling may be understated because the historical holes with no hole-type attribute were drilled in the late 1980s and 1990s when RC drilling was common in Nevada.

A summary of historical drilling by operator, area and year is presented in Table 10-2. Unless given in the report, the authors are not aware of information on the drilling contractors, rig makes, bit diameters, or specific drilling, logging, and sampling methods and procedures used during any of the historical drilling from 1969 through 2008.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 105 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp05img09.jpg)

**Figure** 10-1: Drill-Hole Map - North and South Railroad Properties (1969 – 2024)**

*Note: For more detailed depictions of drill holes and mine ral resource outlines, see Figure 14-1, Figure 14-9, Figure 14-21, and Figure 14-28 in Mineral Resource Estimates, Section 14.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 106 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 10-2: Historical Drilling Summary of the South Carlin Complex**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area Drilled** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary**<br> **Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** <br> **Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core** <br> **Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **Type Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **Type Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** <br> **Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1969-1970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;American Selco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3955 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12548 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Placer Amex | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1200 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1200 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;El Paso-LLE | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain, Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2030 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2864 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1977-1980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;AMAX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6212 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6212 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1980-1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;AMOCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9505 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9505 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1980-1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion, Bald Mountain |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5788 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5788 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1981-1982 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;Irene |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1250 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7867 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1981-1985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1834 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37599 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2695 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2695 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NICOR | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion, Bald Mountain |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38605 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38605 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus-AMAX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3700 |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3700 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Fe Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5065 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5065 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1985-1986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NICOR | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion, Bald Mountain |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6170 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6170 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nerco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;Irene, Pinion, Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55642 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57477 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Teck | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12490 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12490 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Westmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion, Bald Mountain, Jasperoid Wash, Pinion, LT, Dark Star, JR Buttes |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;967 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3775 | &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64940 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Battle Mountain | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3805 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1988-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12240 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12240 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1990-1993 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crown Resources | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion, Dark Star, Dixie |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82046 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82046 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1991-1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Westmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16575 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16575 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1993 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1240 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ramrod | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion, LT |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9290 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9290 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyprus | &nbsp;&nbsp;JR Buttes, Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42987 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42987 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;N of N.Bullion |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1395 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Royal Standard | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1175 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1175 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1996-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mirandor | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain, Pinion, Dark Star, POD-N.Bullion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25375 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26305 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 107 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area Drilled** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotary** **<br> Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** **Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core**<br> **Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **Type Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **Type Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** <br> **Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Barrick | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1997-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cameco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie, Jasperoid Wash, Pinion, JR Buttes |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9863 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37859 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1998-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kinross | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star, Pinion, POD-N.Bullion, Bald Mountain |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55155 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Contact | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Royal Standard | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4380 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion, POD-N.Bullion |  |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2005-2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grandview | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15059 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27894 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2007-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Royal Standard | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion, Bald Mountain |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3617 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3617 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3700** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1128** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**537861** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**75** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**57468** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**88** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**33357** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1300** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**632387.1** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 108 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.2** **I nterval L engths v ersus T rue W idth o f M ineralization** 

In exploration and delineation drilling, there is generally an attempt to drill perpendicular to mineralization in order to intersect the true width of zones. However, in practice, this is not always possible or practical. As a result, the drilled interval lengths are commonly exaggerated relative to the true widths.

The Dark Star deposit is hosted in an anticline, with the strongest mineralization occupying the west and east limbs at Dark Star Main and North, respectively. Near the surface in both deposit areas, bedding and mineralization is sub-horizontal in the crest of the anticline, and dips shallowly to the east and west. At Dark Star Main the mineralization dips steeply to the west 40° to 65°, and shallows to about 20° at depth. At Dark Star North the mineralization is steeply east-dipping at about 45° to 55°. The true widths of mineralization are generally represented in vertical holes, which make up half or more of the drilling at Dark Star, along the crest of the anticline. On the limbs, the interval lengths are longer by about 1.5 to 2.5-times the true width. The relationship between drilled and true widths in the 45° to 70° angle holes, drilled predominantly to the east and west roughly perpendicular to the axis of the anticline, can vary greatly depending on location of the hole and the part of the anticline intercepted.

The Pinion deposit is hosted in an anticline, the crest of which is relatively close to the surface and plunges 0° to 20° to the southeast. The east and west limbs dip about 20° and 35°, respectively. Mineralization follows bedding closely. The true widths of mineralization intercepted by the predominantly vertical or steeply dipping drill holes are generally represented within 5% along the crest of the anticline. On the limbs, the interval lengths are longer by about 5% to 25% of the true width. Angle holes were generally drilled at 60° or steeper, and drilling direction was not consistent. The relationship between drilled and true widths, therefore, can vary greatly depending on location of the hole and the part of the anticline intercepted.

Mineralization is primarily stratigraphically controlled and dips about 20° to the west in the eastern part of the deposit and is predominantly structurally controlled and dips 75° to 80° to the west on the west side. Drilling in the structural zone was consistently east-directed at about 45° to 60° perpendicular to mineralization. The true widths of mineralization are about 15% to 55% shorter than the drilled interval lengths. Angle holes drilled at variable dips were generally easterly-directed in the shallow-dipping mineralization and drilled interval lengths are about 0% to 15% longer than true widths.

Stratigraphically controlled mineralization in nearly all North Bullion deposits (South Lodes, Sweet Hollow, North and Main North Bullion) generally dips 15° to the northeast, with local areas that are steeper or shallower by a few tens of degrees. Since most drilling in the North Bullion deposits is vertical, the true lengths of the mineralized intercepts discussed in the following sections are about 2% to 6% shorter than the drill-interval lengths. The steepest commonly-drilled angle holes are about 60° to the east or west. The true interval length would be about 15% to 40% shorter than the drilled length, depending on the relationship between stratigraphic dip and drilling directions. At POD, mineralization is more steeply dipping at 45° (shallow depths) to 65° (deeper depths) to the northeast. About half of the drill holes at POD are vertical, and drilled interval lengths would be about 1.5 to 2.5-times longer than true widths. However, there are a significant number of angle holes drilled 45° to 60° perpendicular to the strike of mineralization. The range of exaggerated interval lengths relative to true length in these cases would be about 5% to 30%.

**10.3** **H istorical N orth R ailroad P roperty D rilling** 

**10.3.1** **1969-1974 American Selco, Placer Amex and El Paso Gas Company** 

American Selco drilled 7 core holes and 7 holes of unknown type, for a total of 12,548 ft (3,824 m), exploring for porphyry copper and molybdenum in the general Bald Mountain area in 1969-1970.

In 1972, Placer Amex drilled a single RC hole to a down-hole depth of 1,200 ft (366 m) in the Bald Mountain area exploring for porphyry-type mineralization.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 109 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The El Paso Natural Gas Company and Louisiana Land and Cattle Company drilled one RC hole and four core holes for 2,865 ft (873 m) in the Bald Mountain and Pinion areas in 1974.

**10.3.2** **1977-1980 AMAX** 

AMAX drilled 15 core holes in the Bald Mountain area in 1977-1980 for a total of 6,212 ft (1,893 m) (Table 10-2). Drill hole AR-7 intersected 98 ft (30 m) that averaged 0.11 oz Au//ton from 37 to 135 ft (11 to 41 m) near the historical replacement and skarn mines.

**10.3.3** **1980-1981 Homestake** 

Homestake drilled 5,788 ft (1,764 m) in 22 RC holes in 1980 and 1981 (Table 10-2). Four of these were drilled in the Bald Mountain area and 18 holes were drilled in the POD-North Bullion area. Homestake's drilling produced the first significant results in the North Bullion area when hole BDH05 returned 43 ft (13 m) with an average of 0.046 oz Au//ton starting at a down-hole depth of 6.9 ft (2.1 m).

**10.3.4** **1983 and 1985-1986 NICOR** 

From 1983 through 1986, NICOR drilled a total of 110 RC holes for 44,775 ft (13,647 m). This included 21 RC holes in the Bald Mountain area for 6,655 ft (2,028 m). During this period, NICOR also drilled 99 RC holes for 38,120 ft (11,619 m) in the North Bullion area and north of North Bullion. This drilling expanded the drill coverage at North Bullion and resulted in the first historical mineral resource estimate for the POD deposit in the North Bullion area.

**10.3.5** **1987-1992 Westmont** 

Westmont drilled 58 RC holes for 21,708 ft (6,617 m) in the POD-North Bullion area from 1987 through 1992. Three RC holes for 1,085 ft (330 m) were drilled north of the North Bullion deposit area in 1987 and 1990. A total of 5,230 ft (1,594 m) were drilled in 12 RC holes in the Bald Mountain area in 1987-1992.

**10.3.6** **1994 Ramrod** 

Ramrod Gold drilled 13 RC holes in the POD-North Bullion area in 1994 for a total of 9,290 ft (2,832 m).

**10.3.7** **1995 Newmont** 

One hole of unknown type was drilled by Newmont north of the deposits in 1995 for 1,395 ft (425 m).

**10.3.8** **1996-1997 Mirandor** 

During 1996 and 1997, Mirandor drilled 28 RC holes in the POD-North Bullion and north of North Bullion areas for a total of 13,640 ft (4,157 m). Fourteen RC holes were drilled in 1997 in the Bald Mountain area. Hole EMRR-9722 penetrated 70 ft (21 m) that averaged 0.111 oz Au//ton from 15 to 85 ft (4.5 to 26 m), including 45 ft (14 m) at a grade of 0.164 oz Au//ton from 35 to 70 ft (11 to 21 m), and 20 ft (6 m) at 0.236 oz Au//ton from 55 to 75 ft (17 to 23 m). This hole was drilled near AMAX hole AR-7, adjacent to the historical Sylvania mine, which had historic production from replacement and/or skarn mineralization.

**10.3.9** **1998-1999 Kinross** 

Kinross drilled 37 RC holes and one core hole for 21,825 ft (6,652 m) in the POD-North Bullion deposit area in 1998 and 1999. During this period, 27 RC holes were drilled in the Bald Mountain area for 20,750 ft (6,324 m). Hole K98-49 intersected 70 ft (21 m) with a grade of 0.108 oz Au//ton at 855 to 925 ft (260 to 281 m), including 5 ft (1.5 m) at 0.387 oz Au//ton from 880 ft (268 m). Hole K99-19 returned a significant interval well away from any previously targeted areas with 10 ft (3 m) at 0.026 oz Au//ton from 610 ft (186 m) and 10 ft (3 m) at a grade of 0.018 oz Au//ton from 1,205 ft (367 m).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 110 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.3.10** **2005-2008 Royal Standard Minerals** 

In 2005, RSM drilled a total of 1,760 ft (536 m) in four core holes and three holes of unknown type in the POD-North Bullion area. At the Bald Mountain area, RSM drilled three core holes in 2007 and one core in 2008 for 2,272 ft (693 m).

**10.4** **H istorical S outh R ailroad P roperty D rilling** 

**10.4.1** **1980-1981 AMOCO Minerals** 

AMOCO drilled 31 RC holes for 9,505 ft (2,897 m) in the Pinion area in 1980 and 1981.

**10.4.2** **1981-1982 Newmont** 

The Irene prospect was tested by Newmont in 1981 and 1982 when six RC holes and 21 holes of unknown type were drilled for 7,867 ft (2,398 m).

**10.4.3** **1983 Freeport** 

In 1983, Freeport drilled eight RC holes for 2,695 ft (821 m) in the Pinion deposit area.

**10.4.4** **1984 Cyprus-AMAX** 

The Dark Star area was first tested by Cyprus-AMAX with nine rotary holes for 3,700 ft (1,128 m) in 1984.

**10.4.5** **1985 Santa Fe Mining** 

Santa Fe Mining drilled 14 RC holes for 5,065 ft (1,544 m) in the Pinion deposit in 1985.

**10.4.6** **1987-1989 Newmont** 

Newmont drilled four RC holes and 11 holes of unknown type for 4,500 ft (1,372 m) in the Irene prospect during 1987 through 1989. During this same time period, Newmont drilled 61 RC holes in the Pinion deposit and vicinity.

**10.4.7** **1987-1989 Teck Resources** 

Teck drilled 39 RC holes for 12,490 ft (3,807 m) in the Pinion deposit.

**10.4.8** **1988 Battle Mountain** 

A total of 12 holes of unknown type and 3,805 ft (1,160 m) were drilled at the Pinion area by Battle Mountain Gold Corp. (BMGC) or Battle Mountain Exploration Co. (BMEC) in 1988.

**10.4.9** **1989-1992 Westmont** 

Westmont first drilled in the Jasperoid Wash area with 48 RC holes and two core holes for 22,311 ft (6,800 m) in 1989 through 1992. The Pinion area was drilled by Westmont in 1989 with nine holes of unknown type for 3,775 ft (1,151 m). In 1991, Westmont drilled two RC holes at Pinion for 680 ft (207 m). Three RC holes for 1,785 ft (544 m) were drilled at Dark Star by Westmont in 1991. Westmont tested the JR Buttes prospect in 1992 with 19 RC holes for 8,365 ft (2,550 m).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 111 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.4.10** **1988-1989 Freeport** 

The Dixie prospect was tested by Freeport with 26 RC holes for 12,240 ft (3,731 m) drilled.

**10.4.11** **1990-1993 Crown Resources** 

In 1990, Crown began drilling in the Pinion deposit and by 1993 had drilled 40,345 ft (12,297 m) in 130 RC holes. Crown also drilled 36,860 ft (11,235 m) in 69 RC holes at the Dark Star deposit in 1991 through 1993. A total of 5,100 ft (1,555 m) in seven RC holes were also drilled by Crown at the Dixie prospect in 1991, following up on the drilling done there by Freeport.

**10.4.12** **1994-1995 Cyprus Mining** 

During 1994 and 1995, Cyprus drilled at total of 40,817 ft (12,441 m) in 73 RC holes in the Pinion deposit area. Cyprus also drilled three RC holes for a total of 1,525 ft (465 m) at the JR Buttes prospect.

**10.4.13** **1997 Mirandor** 

Mirandor drilled a total of 7,230 ft (2,204 m) in 11 RC holes at the Dark Star deposit in 1997. A total of 930 ft (283 m) in four holes of unknown type were also drilled in the Pinion deposit area.

**10.4.14** **1997-1999 Cameco** 

Cameco's drilling during this period was focused on the Pinion deposit area with a total of 20 RC holes and eight core holes. A total of 8,810 ft (2,685 m) in 11 RC holes were drilled by Cameco in the Dixie prospect in 1997 and 1998, and one RC hole for 725 ft (221 m) was drilled in 1998 at JR Buttes. In 1997, Cameco also drilled 1,825 ft (556 m) in four RC holes at the Jasperoid Wash area.

**10.4.15** **1998-1999 Kinross** 

Kinross focused their 1998 and 1999 drilling in the South Railroad property at Dark Star with one core hole, three RC holes and 11 holes of unknown type for a total of 11,085 ft (3,379 m). A total of 1,495 ft (456 m) was also drilled in two RC holes in the Pinion deposit area.

**10.4.16** **2003 and 2007 Royal Standard Minerals** 

In 2003, RSM drilled a total of 2,620 ft (799 m) in ten RC holes in the Pinion deposit area. RSM subsequently drilled five core holes at the Pinion deposit area in 2007, for a total of 1,345 ft (410 m).

**10.5** **H istorical P ony C reek D rilling** 

A total of 199 RC and 17 diamond drillholes totaling 131,843 ft (40,186 m) have been completed at Pony Creek from 1981 to 2007. The majority of these drillholes focus on the Bowl, Appaloosa, Stallion and Pony Spur zones. The drillholes and metreage contained in Gold Standard's database for the Pony Creek area of Property is presented in Table 10-3. Details pertaining to these historical drilling programs are discussed in Section 6.3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 112 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 10-3: Historical Drill-Hole Summary - Pony Creek Property**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont | &nbsp;&nbsp;1981-1985, 1987-1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1834 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56119 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NERCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;1985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Uranerz | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12530 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Barrick | &nbsp;&nbsp;1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3215 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5980 |
| Nevada Contact Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7840 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grandview-Mill City | &nbsp;&nbsp;2005-2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3912 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27894 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;108970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22873 | &nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131843 |

---

**10.6** **G old S tandard a nd O rla D rilling , N orth R ailroad P roperty , 2010 -** 2024

Gold Standard's drilling in the North Railroad property commenced in 2010, and Orla began drilling beginning in 2022 following the acquisition of Gold Standard. As summarized in Table 10-4, a total of 302,679 ft (92,257 m) has been drilled in 244 holes as of the effective date of the database of this Technical Report. Orla's most recent drilling in the North Railroad property was conducted in 2024. Approximately 38% of the footage and 50% of the holes were drilled with RC methods. Diamond-core drilling accounts for 39% of the footage and 34% of the holes, and the remainder was done using RC followed by core tails.

Gold Standard's and Orla's RC holes were drilled wet; water was always injected. Face-return bits were only used when interchanges were not effective. Tri-cone bits were used when increasing formation water rendered the percussion bits non-functional.

For core drilling, Gold Standard and Orla geologists completed paper or digital logs on the whole core. The logs captured and illustrated core recovery, sample intervals, lithologic data, hydrothermal alteration, mineralogy, and structural features. Structures were measured with respect to the core axis. When available, structural features were measured on core oriented using a Reflex Act 2 device. Photographs were taken of all drill core, labeled with drill-hole footages and sample intervals. RC drill chips were also logged on paper or digital logs by Gold Standard and Orla geologists. The data from the paper drill logs were later captured in electronic spreadsheets for both core and RC drill holes.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 113 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 10-4: Summary of Gold Standard, Contact Gold and Orla Drilling in the South Railroad Property 2010 – 2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC\*<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core\*\*<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core\*\*<br> Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC + Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC + Core<br> Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*North Railroad* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22766 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N of N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28394 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4868 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N of N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8712 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43528 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54096 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5810 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26911 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34486 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13187 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6220 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5467 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16440 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19427 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5315 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;POD-N.Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18804 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N. Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3140 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow/POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12409 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N. Bullion/POD/Sweet Hollow | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10220 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N. Bullion/POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21922 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N. Bullion/POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4017 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023-2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exploration N | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4978 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***2010-2023*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***N. Railroad Totals*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***121*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**115799** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***82*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***119061*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***41*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***67818*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***244*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***302679*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*South Railroad* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9930 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42949 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30870 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16562 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24888 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26453 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58540 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3905 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1380 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7670 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50661 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14262 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26699 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11892 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51267 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92851 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2923 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33593 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40181 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 114 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC\*<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core\*\*<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core\*\*<br> Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC + Core<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC + Core<br> Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3524 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4986 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49838 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7722 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9215 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2018-2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exploration South | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63279 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15584 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12540 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1220.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6930 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9435 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2880 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2880 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9930 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exploration South | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2696 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4992 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5531 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3042 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exploration South | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8980 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion & Vicinity | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4986 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jasperoid Wash | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7800 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15825 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exploration South | &nbsp;&nbsp;*4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;2080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2080 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2012-2024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***S. Railroad Totals*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***869*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***644383*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***175*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***117384*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***8*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***8019*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***1052*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***769786*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Pony Creek* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2017-2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75735 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84874 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa, Mustang, Bowl, Pony Spur, Stallion, Stallion Bowl, Robinson, Elliot Dome | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25390 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1987-2024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pony Creek Totals** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**151** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**101125** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**9139** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**156** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**110264** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Grand Totals*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***1141*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***861308*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***262*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***245584*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***49*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***75837*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***1452*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***1182728*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* includes sonic holes; \*\* includes geotechnical holes |

---

**10.6.1** **North Bullion Deposits Drilling** 

10.6.1.1 2010 to 2013

From 2010 through 2013, Gold Standard drilled 101 holes totalling 174,321 ft (53,133 m) in the North Bullion area (Table 10-4; Figure 10-2; Hunsaker, 2012a, b; Shaddrick, 2012; Koehler *et al*., 2014). In 2010, Gold Standard utilized gravity data and geological models to identify a new target. Drilling into that previously untested target produced intercepts of 105 ft (32 m) of 0.041 oz Au//ton and 143 ft (43.5 m) of 0.035 oz Au//ton in hole RR10-8 at the North Bullion deposit (Jackson *et al.*, 2015). This discovery of sedimentary-rock hosted, Carlin-style gold mineralization concealed by post-mineral rocks was followed up with additional drilling conducted from 2010 to 2024 within the North Bullion deposit area, which formed the basis for the estimated gold mineral resources presented in Section 14.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 115 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Gold Standard's 2010 and 2013 RC drilling was conducted by Hard Rock Exploration Inc. (Hardrock) and National Exploration Wells and Pumps (National), using a TH75 and 685 Schramm, respectively. Bit sizes were 5 ¼ to 6 ½ in (13.3 to 16.5 cm) diameter bits. The rig was operated on one or two 12 hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. A drilling technician placed a few ounces of each 5 ft (1.5 m) interval in plastic chip trays for logging.

Core drilling in 2010 to 2013 was done by Redcor Drilling Inc. with an LF-230 rig. Core sizes were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3.

10.6.1.2 2015

No drilling was conducted in 2014. In 2015, Gold Standard drilled two core holes and two RC holes with core tail holes totalling 5,467 ft (1,666 m) (Table 10-4; Figure 10-2; Turner *et al*., 2015; Dufresne and Koehler, 2016). The RC drilling was conducted by National using a 685 Schramm. Bit sizes were 5 ¼ to 6 ½ in (13.3 to 16.5 cm) diameter bits. The rig was operated on one or two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. A drilling technician placed a few ounces ft (1.5 m) interval in plastic chip trays for logging.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 116 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp05img10.jpg)

**Figure** 10-2: Drill-Collar Location Map - North Railroad Property**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 117 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The 2015 core drilling was performed by Timberline Drilling (Timberline) of Elko, NV using an LF90 drill rig. Core sizes were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3. Core was also drilled by TonaTec Exploration LLC (TonaTec) of Utah. The rig may have been a CS2000. Core sizes were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3.

10.6.1.3 2016 to 2017

A total of 59,985 ft (18,283 m) was drilled in 34 holes in 2016 and 2017 (Table 10-4; Figure 10-2). Most of the RC drilling was conducted by National using a 685 Schramm. Bit sizes were 5 to 6 ½ in (13.3 to 16.5 cm) in diameter. The rig was operated on one or two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. A drilling technician placed a few ounces of each 5 ft (1.5 m) interval in plastic chip trays for logging.

Boart Longyear of Elko, NV was the contractor for four RC holes drilled in 2017. A track-mounted drill of unknown type was used; specific methods and procedures are not reported.

The 2015 core drilling was performed by Timberline of Elko, NV using an LF90 drill rig. Core sizes were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3. Core was also drilled by First Drilling of Elko, NV. The rig was an LF90. Core sizes were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3.

10.6.1.4 2019 to 2020

Gold Standard drilled a total of 15,549 ft (4,739 m) in 29 RC holes and 11 core holes at the North Bullion, POD and Sweet Hollow during 2019 and 2020. National and Major Drilling Group International Inc. (Major) of Salt Lake City, UT, were the drilling contractors.

10.6.1.5 2022 to 2024

Gold Standard drilled a total of 23,895 ft (7,283 m) in 40 RC holes, 5,576 ft (1,700 m) in eight core holes, and 6,688 ft (2,039 m) in seven RC holes with core tails by Orla at the North Bullion deposits between 2022 and 2024. National and Major were the drilling contractors.

The results from drilling completed prior to December 22, 2023 were used to estimate the current gold mineral resources presented in Section 14.3.3 of this Technical Report. A total of seven holes for 6,860 ft (2,091 m) were drilled in the North Bullion and South Lodes areas after the December 22, 2023, effective date of the North Bullion database.

**10.6.2** **Exploration Drilling** in
the North Railroad Property

A total of 51,850 ft (15,804 m) was drilled by Gold Standard in 22 RC and ten core holes in the Bald Mountain area from 2011 through 2017 (Table 10-4; Figure 10-2). Drilling contractors, rig types and hole diameters for the Bald Mountain area drilling are summarized in Table 10-5.

All 2011-2017 core drilling was done with two 12-hr shifts per day. The RC drills operated for one or two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 118 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 10-5: Drilling Contractors and Methods - Bald Mountain**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Drill Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Diameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Drill Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Diameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2011 to 2013** | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Redcor | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF-230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2014** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hardrock | &nbsp;&nbsp;TH75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2016** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2017** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;MPD 1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA | &nbsp;&nbsp;NA |

---

In 2023 and 2024, Orla drilled five RC holes totaling 4,978 ft (1,517 m) in two exploration areas known as the Skarn and Webb prospects, which are located to the west and northwest of Bunker Hill. Drilling was completed by Major.

**10.7** **G old S tandard a nd O rla D rilling , S outh R ailroad P roperty , 2012 -** 2024

Drilling in the South Railroad property by Gold Standard commenced in 2012. As summarized in Table 10-4 and shown in Figure 10-3, a total of 773,011 ft (235,614 m) has been drilled in 1,056 holes. Approximately 84% of the footage and 82% of the holes were drilled with RC methods. Diamond-core drilling accounts for about 15% of the footage and 17% of the holes; the balance of the drilling was done using RC followed by core tails. Both angle and vertical drilling was conducted.

A Gold Standard or Orla representative checked each drill rig at least once per day during drilling to monitor sample collection. For core drilling, Gold Standard and Orla geologists completed paper or digital logs on the whole core. The logs captured and illustrated core recovery, sample intervals, lithologic data, hydrothermal alteration, mineralogy, and structural features. Structures were measured with respect to the core axis. When available, structural features were measured on core oriented using a Reflex Act 2 orienting device. Photographs were taken of all drill core, labeled with drill-hole footages and sample intervals. RC drill chips were also logged on paper or digital logs by Gold Standard and Orla geologists. The data from the paper drill logs were later captured in electronic spreadsheets for both core and RC drill holes.

Gold Standard's and Orla's RC holes were drilled wet; water was always injected. Face-return bits were only used when interchanges were not effective. Tri-cone bits were used when increasing formation water rendered the percussion bits non-functional.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 119 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp05img11.jpg)

**Figure** 10-3: Drill-Collar Location Map - South Railroad Property**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 120 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.7.1** **Dark Star Area Drilling** 

In 2015, Gold Standard began drilling in the Dark Star deposit area to extend historically known shallow oxidized gold mineralization and to test other exploration targets. In 2015 through 2021, Gold Standard drilled a total of 290,966 ft (88,686 m) in 401 holes (Table 10-4). An additional 17 RC holes totaling 16,405 ft (5,000 m), and six core holes totaling 7,831 ft (2,387 m) were drilled between 2022 and 2024 by Orla. Total modern drilling through 2024 for the site is 315,201 ft (96,073 m) in 424 holes. RC drilling accounts for about 81% of the holes and 76% of the footage drilled by Gold Standard and Orla. Collar locations for all drilling at Dark Star are shown in Figure 10-3 and in greater detail in Figure 14-1.

Drilling contractors, rig types and hole diameters for the Dark Star area drilling are summarized in Table 10-6. All 2015-2024 core drilling was done with two 12-hr shifts per day. The RC drills operated for one or two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone.

**Table 10-6: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods – Dark Star**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** <br> **Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Drill Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Diameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Drill <br> Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core<br> Diameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2015** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;T450GT, 685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2016** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Timberline | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT14; LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2017** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm, T450GT; MPD1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling; National | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90; CT14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2018** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm, T450GT, EDM95; MPD1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling; National; Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90; CT14; LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2019** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T450GT, Schramm 455GT, EDM95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2020** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T450GT, Schramm 455GT, EDM95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling; National; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90; EDM45K | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2021** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T450GT | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SQ, PQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2022** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ingersol Rand RD10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2023** | &nbsp;&nbsp;HD | &nbsp;&nbsp;DrillRite | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in | &nbsp;&nbsp;NISS, Timberline | &nbsp;&nbsp;Multipower Discovery HD Track; Christensen CS3000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm 450, Schramm 455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SQ, PQ3 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 121 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Highlights from the 2016 drill program at Dark Star and an updated mineral resource estimate were presented by Dufresne and Nicholls (2017a). In 2019, the mineral resource estimate was updated in the Pre-Feasibility Study by Ibrado et. al. (2020), and again in the Feasibility Study by Sletten et al. (2022). The current estimate of mineral resources for Dark Star is presented in Section 14.2 of this Technical Report.

**10.7.2** **Pinion Area Drilling** 

Gold Standard's drilling in the Pinion deposit area has totalled 252,292 ft (76,898 m) in 402 holes drilled from 2012 through 2021 (Table 10-4). A total of 20 RC holes for 14,768 ft (4,501 m) were drilled in 2022 through 2024 by Orla. Approximately 86% of the footage drilled was done with RC methods. Contractors, rig types, and hole diameters for the Pinion area drilling by Gold Standard and Orla are summarized in Table 10-7.

Following acquisition of the Pinion deposit in 2014 with the South Railroad property, Gold Standard focused drilling on expansion and infill of various known gold mineralized zones. The 2014 drilling (Table 10-4) produced significant gold intervals at the Pinion deposit that indicated gold mineralization was associated with multi-lithic breccia. Further drilling of 23 holes in 2015 also provided significant gold intercepts, and the mineralized system was still open in a number of directions.

**Table 10-7: Gold Standard and Orla Drilling Contractors and Methods - Pinion**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC<br> Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC Drill Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** **<br> Diameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core Drill** **<br> Rig** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Core** **<br> Diameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2014** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hard Rock; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;TH75; T450GT | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2015** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hard Rock; National | &nbsp;&nbsp;TH75; T450GT, 685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2016** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Timberline | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT14; LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2017** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 Schramm, MPD1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;National | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2018** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;450 Schramm; 685 Schramm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling; Boart Longyear | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90; LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2019** | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2020** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T450GT, Schramm T455GT, EDM95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;First Drilling; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF100; CT20; LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2021** | &nbsp;&nbsp;National; Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T450GT, Schramm T130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 14½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2022** | &nbsp;&nbsp;HD; New Frontier | &nbsp;&nbsp;DrillRite | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2023** | &nbsp;&nbsp;HD; Timberline | &nbsp;&nbsp;DrillRite | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Timberline | &nbsp;&nbsp;Christensen CS3000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm 455; Schramm 450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5¼ in. to 6½ in. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Major | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ3, HQ3 |

---

In 2016, Gold Standard drilled a total of 25 holes in the Pinion deposit area for a total of 26,452.5 ft (8,063 m). This drilling was designed to extend known zones of mineralization, provide infill data for specific zones, and provide material for metallurgical testing. Several holes were drilled to test the Irene geological and geochemical target 1.2 mi (1.9 km) west of the Pinion deposit (Figure 10-3) and at the Sentinel target to the north of the Pinion deposit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 122 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The 2016 Pinion drilling resulted in several gold intersections averaging greater than 0.004 oz Au//ton (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2016). Most significantly, the 2016 drilling identified mineralization in new stratigraphic horizons below the multi-lithic breccia at the Sentinel target. The gold mineralization is hosted within the Sentinel Mountain dolomite and the top of the underlying Oxyoke sandstone (now called the Sentinel zone), below the Devils Gate Limestone. The Sentinel gold mineralization is shallow, oxidized, and open to the north and west.

Gold Standard's 2014 through 2024 RC drilling was conducted on one or two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. The splitter reduced the samples to approximately 5 to 20 lb (~2 to 9 kg), which were collected in pre-numbered sample bags. A few ounces of each 5 ft (1.5 m) interval were placed in chip trays for logging.

Results from the 2014 through 2024 Gold Standard drilling were used with data from historical drilling to estimate the current gold mineral resources presented in Section 14.3 of this Technical Report.

**10.7.3** **Jasperoid Wash Area Drilling** 

Gold Standard's drilling at the Jasperoid Wash deposit area was conducted from 2017 to 2021. A total of 55,577 ft (25,209 m) was drilled in 71 holes (Table 10-4). Following acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla added 16,802 ft (7,621 m) in 36 holes. RC drilling accounts for about 90% of the holes and 89% of the footage drilled by both companies. Collar locations for the Gold Standard drilling at Jasperoid Wash are shown in Figure 10-3 (see Figure 14-20 in Section 14.4 for a detailed map).

The 2017 and 2018 RC drilling was conducted by National using 450 Schramm, 685 Schramm, and an EDM 95 drill rigs. Major also drilled at Jasperoid Wash and used a 455 Schramm. From 2022 to 2024 RC drilling was conducted by HD Drilling (Foremost MPD1500), Major (Schramm 450), and Layne Minerals (Schramm 450). Bit sizes were 5¼ to 6½ in (13.3 to 16.5 cm) in diameter. The rig was operated on two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. A drilling technician placed a few ounces of each 5 ft (1.5 m) interval in plastic chip trays for logging.

Core drilling in 2017 and 2018 was carried out by National and First Drilling using a CT14 and an LF90, respectively. Core sizes drilled were PQ3, HQ3, and NQ3. RC drilling in 2019 was done by Major and National. In 2023, core drilling was conducted by Timberline Drilling using a Christensen CS3000 drill rig, utilizing PQ3 core size.

The results of the Gold Standard and Orla drilling, together with historical drill data from Jasperoid Wash, have been used to estimate the current gold mineral resources presented in Section 14.4 of this Technical Report.

**10.7.4** **Drilling in South Railroad Part of Property** 

Gold Standard and Orla conducted exploration drilling at various targets, including Dixie, Irene, Ski Track, Elliot Dome, Porter, Hidden Star, LT, LTS and CC (Figure 10-3). Dixie is the most advanced target and is located south of Dark Star and northeast of Jasperoid Wash. The other prospects are located southwest, west and north of the Pinion deposit and are collectively referred to the Southern Exploration Areas. Most holes outside the Dixie deposit were drilled in the Irene and Ski Track zones. From 2018 through 2024, Gold Standard and Orla drilled 91,509.5 ft (27,892 m) in 71 holes at Dixie and 25,400 ft (7,742 m) in 31 holes in the Southern Exploration Areas.

In 2018 and 2019 Gold Standard drilled eight RC holes for a total of 8,650 ft (2,637 m) at the Ski Track prospect and two holes totaling 1,365 ft (416 m) at the LT prospect. Drilling was completed by Major and National. Major used a 685 Schramm. Bit sizes were 5¼ to 6½ in (13.3 to 16.5 cm) in diameter. The rigs operated on two 12-hr shifts per day. RC samples were collected continuously over 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a rotating wet splitter located beneath the cyclone. A drilling technician placed a few ounces of each 5 ft (1.5) interval in plastic chip trays for logging.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 123 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2022, two RC holes totaling 1,100 ft (335 ft), were drilled at the LT prospect. In 2023, nine RC holes totalling 8,980 ft (2,737 m) were drilled at the LTS, Hidden Star and CC sites by HD. In 2024, four RC holes totaling 2,080 ft (634 m) were drilled at the Porter site by Major. Drilling and sampling procedures for all exploration drilling conducted from 2022 to 2024 were similar to those described above and employed in previous programs for the deposit areas in the South Railroad property.

**10.8** **Contact Gold And Orla Drilling, Pony Creek Property, 2017-2024** 

A total of 156 drillholes totaling 110,264 ft (33,608 m) have been completed in the Pony Creek Property by the Issuer from 2017 to 2024. Of these 156 drillholes, Contact Gold (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Orla Mining) completed 113 RC and 5 DDH, totaling 84,874 ft (25,869 m), from 2017 to 2019. Orla Mining has completed 38 RC totaling 25,390 ft (7,739 m) in 2024. These drill programs have mainly targeted the Appaloosa, Bowl, Pony Spur, and Stallion Zones. A summary of drilling in the Pony Creek Property is presented in Table 10-8 and collar locations are illustrated in Figure 10-4.

**Table 10-8: Drillholes completed at Pony Creek from 2017 - 2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**DDH** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**DDH** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**DDH** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> No.<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> TD** **<br> (ft)** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No.<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No.<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> No.<br> Holes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> TD** **<br> (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact Gold Corp | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24950 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34089 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact Gold Corp | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35495 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact Gold Corp | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15290 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Orla Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25390 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2785** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**9139** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**151** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**30823** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**101125** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**156** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**33608** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**110264** |

---

**10.8.1** **Contact Gold Drilling Summary (2017-2019)** 

Drilling conducted by Contact Gold (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Orla Mining) at Pony Creek from 2017 to 2019 focused on the Bowl Zone, with additional drilling completed at the Appaloosa Zone, Stallion Zone, and Mustang and Pony Spur target areas. From 2017-2019, Contact Gold completed 113 RC drillholes and 5 DDH totalling 84,874 ft (25,869 m) at Pony Creek (Table 10-9). Of Contact Gold's 118 drillholes, 27% were drilled vertically (n=32), the inclination of the remaining holes ranged from -45 to -80°. Contact Gold's RC hole depths ranged from 120 to 1,440 ft (37 to 439 m) and averaged 670 ft (204 m). The DDH depths ranged from 721 to 3,207 ft (220 to 977 m) and averaged 1,828 ft (557 m).

The objectives of the drill programs were to confirm the extents of known mineralization, validate historical drilling intercepts, expand areas of interest, understand the controls on mineralization and test new geophysical and geochemical targets within the Pony Creek area. These drill programs identified five zones of mineralization at shallow depths primarily hosted within altered and silicified calcareous clastic rocks of the Penn-Perm Moleen Formation and at the Bowl Zone within a Tertiary (or Jurassic) rhyolite.

The 2017 drilling was conducted by Major Drilling of Salt Lake City, Utah, on behalf of Contact Gold, using a Schramm 455 track mounted RC. All RC drilling was wet and utilized a rotary, 16 section pie splitter for sample collection. Pie plates were installed to avoid overfilling and losing sample material, with only one or two left open for sample collection at a time. Major Drilling of Salt Lake City utilized a LF 90 core drill for the core holes. The core drilling was HQ in diameter, with only one hole reduced to NQ due to pullback limitations of the drill. All drill cores were photographed and then sawn in half by Rangefront Consulting in their Elko, NV warehouse with half of the core submitted to ALS Chemex (ALS) for analysis, and the other half of the core kept in storage at Contact Gold's Elko warehouse.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 124 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A map of a geolocation AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp6img.jpg)

**Figure 10-4: 2017-2024 Pony Creek area drillhole collar locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 125 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img01.jpg)

The 2018 and 2019 RC drilling was conducted by Major Drilling of Salt Lake City, Utah, on behalf of Contact Gold utilizing a Schramm 455 track mounted drill. All RC drilling was wet and utilized a rotary, 16 section pie splitter for sample collection. Pie plates were installed to avoid overfilling and losing sample material, with only one or two left open for sample collection at a time.

All 2017-2019 Contact Gold's RC and core samples were assayed by ALS using standard preparation. The samples were crushed to 70% passing 2 mm. The crushed material was riffle split to obtain a 1 kg split, which was then ring-pulverized to 85% passing 75 microns. These pulps were then shipped to ALS in either Reno, NV, or in North Vancouver, BC, for assaying.

ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 126 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 10-9: 2017-2019 Pony Creek drillhole collar descriptions**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing <br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924609.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655619.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7180.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924617.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655619.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7178.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924570.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655625.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7180.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924476.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654920.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7140.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;725 | &nbsp;&nbsp;221.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924479.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654920.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7140.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924973.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654228.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7295.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924537.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655412.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7144.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923326.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656309.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7106.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924644.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655160.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7171.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924645.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655156.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7172.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923588.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654664.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;701.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923590.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654667.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7098.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;770 | &nbsp;&nbsp;234.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923589.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654671.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7096.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923756.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655524.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923766.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655524.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923713.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656098.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924793.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654690.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7241.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925784.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665292.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7215.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925784.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665292.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7215.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926052.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665343.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7287.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926037.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665353.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7287.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926030.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665343.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7287.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925750.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665291.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7214.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923309.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656305.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7120.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924058.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655320.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7154.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924293.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654402.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7147.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926435.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662505.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7147.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926998.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663247.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7044.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;745 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925693.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664697.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7328.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925693.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664697.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7328.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924841.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654369.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7252.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923290.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656787.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7054.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924344.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14653916.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7209.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923447.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654973.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7040.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923437.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654973.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7040.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923453.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654973.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7040.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1927278.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662440.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6993.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DD | &nbsp;&nbsp;2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;611.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924466.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654910.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7141.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DD | &nbsp;&nbsp;2399 | &nbsp;&nbsp;731.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923600.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654654.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7098.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DD | &nbsp;&nbsp;721 | &nbsp;&nbsp;219.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924483.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654917.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7148.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DD | &nbsp;&nbsp;3206.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;977.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923591.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654651.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7099.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DD | &nbsp;&nbsp;805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923319.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656311.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7106.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923437.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654975.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7066.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923429.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654962.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7067.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923440.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654966.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7040.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923460.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654963.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7068.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923446.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654949.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7070.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;263.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924523.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655404.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7145.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;306.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923726.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656095.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;318.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923320.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656316.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7110.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923314.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656309.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7107.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;725 | &nbsp;&nbsp;221.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923329.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656311.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7111.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924250.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656080.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7319.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924477.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656216.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7318.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;176.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925081.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655483.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7265.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 | &nbsp;&nbsp;208.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925088.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655484.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7264.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922198.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664057.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6979.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;945 | &nbsp;&nbsp;288.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922416.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662066.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7331.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922406.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662062.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7327.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 127 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing <br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;239.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922309.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662750.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7295.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922299.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662750.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7295.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922276.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662750.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7293.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922233.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663260.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7251.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922223.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663262.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7252.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;297.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922544.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664878.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7002.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;184.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922533.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664878.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7002.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919084.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661323.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6681.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919073.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661321.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6679.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919049.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661333.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6679.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;403.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923704.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655736.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923673.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655735.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7160.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;355.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924969.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656120.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7351.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;438.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924464.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656222.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7314.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;265.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924482.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656214.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7312.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;361.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923582.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655360.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7155.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;242.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923576.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655360.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7153.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;361.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923558.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655363.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7155.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;192.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922997.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662646.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7590.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923009.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662647.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7586.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;201.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923026.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662647.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7588.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923136.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662130.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7659.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;173.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923123.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662130.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7659.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;318.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923142.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662106.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7660.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923166.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661086.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7571.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923381.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14660729.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7507.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924076.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14659786.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7421.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924865.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14653986.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7301.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924997.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654260.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7296.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;214.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924808.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654474.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7248.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922422.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665714.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7245.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922421.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665680.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7245.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922227.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665822.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7213.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922480.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665048.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7058.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923442.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654984.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7068.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923459.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654978.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7068.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923454.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654968.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7068.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923457.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14654974.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7068.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923756.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655521.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923757.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655524.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7161.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;403.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923558.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655364.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7154.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-72 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923557.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655363.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7154.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923700.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655747.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7162.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923708.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656083.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7164.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924592.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655638.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7179.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924580.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655637.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7179.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924470.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656236.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7283.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924469.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14656241.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7314.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926160.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662470.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7213.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;196.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926163.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662480.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7214.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926154.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662463.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7213.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;263.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926152.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662456.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7213.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925838.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665671.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7255.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-80 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922374.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665392.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7139.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922196.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665846.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7215.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922220.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665837.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7215.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922476.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665041.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7062.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922475.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665064.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7062.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922443.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665054.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7061.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 128 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.8.2** **Orla Drilling Summary (2024)** 

Drilling conducted by Orla Mining at Pony Creek in 2024 was completed in the Appaloosa, Bowl, Elliot Dome, Mustang, Pony Spur, Robinson and Stallion zones. A total of 38 RC drillholes were completed totaling 25,390 ft (7,739 m). Figure 10-4 shows the locations of the 2024 drill collar locations. The inclination of Orla Mining's 38 drillholes ranged from -45 to -70°. Drillhole depths ranged from 215 to 1,070 ft (66 to 326 m), with an average of 668 ft (204 m). Collar summary descriptions are presented below in Table 10-10.

Major Drilling (Major) of Salt Lake City, Utah, was contracted on behalf of Orla Mining to conduct the 2024 RC drilling. Major used a Schramm 455 track mounted RC. All RC drilling was wet and utilized a rotary, 16 section pie splitter for sample collection. Pie plates were installed to avoid overfilling and losing sample material, with only one or two left open for sample collection at a time.

The 2024 drilling program at Pony Creek focused on gold-bearing structural trends identified by geochemical anomalies, resulting in shallow oxide mineralization identified at multiple targets. Strong Au-in-soil anomalies in the Pony Creek area were also drill tested in 2024. Shallow oxide zones were intersected at the Robinson, Stallion-Bowl Trend, Mustang, and Appaloosa targets, which coincide with auriferous structures and gold-in soil anomalies. Summaries of drilling results at Pony Creek exploration targets are presented below in Section 10.3.

For Orla Mining's 2024 program, all drill collar surveys were collected in the field by Kevin Haskew, P.L.S. of Advanced Surveying. Downhole surveys were partially conducted by International Directional Services (IDS) of Elko, NV, using a single shot REFLEX tool. Drill Operators from Major were trained on proper survey techniques and conducted the remaining downhole surveys with a Gyro tool. Measurements were collected every 50 ft (15.2 m) during all downhole surveys.

All 2024 Orla Mining RC samples were analyzed by Bureau Veritas Minerals (BV) laboratories. The samples were crushed to better than 70% passing 2 mm, then a 250 g portion was separated with a riffle and pulverized to better than 85% passing 75 microns. Gold fire assay technique, FA430, with AAS finish, was then performed at the BV facility in Reno, NV. Samples that returned a significant Au assay with FA430 were tested again with technique CN403 at the BV facility in Hermosillo, Mexico.

BV laboratories maintain ISO 9001:2015 certification and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation and are independent of Orla Mining and the authors of this Report.

**Table 10-10: 2024 Pony Creek drillhole collar descriptions**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926271.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14659929.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7100.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;880 | &nbsp;&nbsp;268.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925905.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663099.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7268.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926545.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14660297.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7063.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925618.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14662431.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7266.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925912.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663105.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7268.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925890.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663093.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7268.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BW24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;750 | &nbsp;&nbsp;228.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923545.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14655361.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7153.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ELT24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elliot Dome | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;780 | &nbsp;&nbsp;237.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922608.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14677754.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8588.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ELT24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elliot Dome | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;254.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923126.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14677336.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8564.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ELT24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elliot Dome | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;313.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923183.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14675026.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8563.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ELT24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elliot Dome | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;176.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923391.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14678623.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8518.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 129 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAD27 / UTM zone 11N BLM Feet** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TD** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** <br> **(°)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (°)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MU24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;298.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1926210.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665680.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7358.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MU24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1924769.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14667019.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7744.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MU24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1925382.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14666279.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7510.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1918508.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661345.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6653.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1918858.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14659819.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6716.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917134.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661487.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6669.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917913.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661944.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6504.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1920226.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670863.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7227.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;301.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1920240.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670867.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7227.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922008.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670009.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7431.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-03B | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;1070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;326.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922008.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670009.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7431.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922035.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670005.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7429.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1921190.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14669439.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7233.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1921228.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14669450.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7237.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919579.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670403.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7071.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919596.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14670417.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7072.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922115.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14663613.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7148.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;249.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922190.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664067.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6990.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1921903.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665765.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7124.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;173.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922675.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14666235.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7557.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922726.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665581.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7334.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-68 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922783.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665163.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7144.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1921923.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14665304.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6989.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1922034.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14664785.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6895.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923169.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14658303.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7248.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923477.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14658895.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7419.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1923217.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14661044.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7580.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 |

---

**10.8.3** **Pony Creek Drilling Targets** 

10.8.3.1 Bowl
 Zone

The Bowl Zone has been the primary focus of exploration at Pony Creek, with 71 holes totalling 56,340 ft (17,175 m) drilled by the Issuer from 2017-2024. The drillholes were designed to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Confirm
 and expand areas of mineralization intersected in historical holes.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gather
 cyanide solubility data to eventually develop an oxide model to target higher grade and better
 oxidized portions of the Bowl mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gather
 additional information on ore controls and to test the underlying contacts of sedimentary
 units situated below the rhyolite intrusion.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Refine
 geological interpretation of the rhyolite intrusion and further develop understanding of
 its role in mineralization.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 130 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2017, Contact Gold completed 31 drillholes, totalling 25,944 ft (7,908 m) at the Bowl Zone. The drillholes were designed as infill to confirm mineralized areas in historic drilling, and as step outs, generally within 164 ft (50 m) of historical holes. Two holes, PC17-007 and PC17-017, had step out distances of 328.1 ft (100 m).

In 2018, Contact Gold completed 25 drillholes, totalling 19,905 ft (6,067 m) at the Bowl Zone. The drillholes were designed to add oxide mineralization to the Bowl Zone and referenced new information on mapped geological structures, three-dimensional modelling of gravity and CSAMT data and Au-in-soil anomalies of up to 0.284 g/t Au from Contact Gold's 2017 exploration program (Hibdon, 2018).

In 2019, Contact Gold completed 14 drillholes, totalling 9,750 ft (2,972 m) at the Bowl Zone. The objective of the 2019 drill program was to extend the high-grade mineralized oxide zone identified at the Bowl Zone in 2018 and to expand the mineralized footprint to the north toward the Stallion Zone. Two of the 14 holes drilled at the Bowl Zone did not intersect their target depth due to poor ground conditions.

In 2024, Orla Mining drilled a single RC hole at the Bowl Zone, to a depth of 750 ft (229 m). The drilling was conducted to gain deeper understanding into the geology, level of oxidation, and mineralization controls. Result highlights include an intersection of 65.5 m at 1.16 g/t Au, including 10.7 m at 2.60 g/t Au and 7.6 m at 2.13 g/t (Orla Mining, 2025).

Mineralization at the Bowl Zone is interpreted to be Eocene in age and is associated with a rhyolite intrusion that acted as the primary conduit for mineralizing fluids. The vertical rhyolite pipe served as the main pathway, with fluids migrating upward along its contact with surrounding sedimentary units before dispersing laterally and sub-horizontally, parallel to bedding planes. Mineralization is hosted within both the rhyolite intrusion and the adjacent sedimentary units. Potential open extensions to the northwest and southeast exist at Bowl Zone as possible targets for future drill testing.

Select significant results of Contact Gold's and Orla's drilling at the Bowl Zone are presented in Table 10-11. A plan map and cross sections of the Bowl Zone are illustrated in Figure 10-5 and Figure 10-6.

**Table 10-11: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Bowl Zone, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au.**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole <br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** **<br> (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BW24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BW24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BW24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.94 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.87 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.64 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;380 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.26 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.79 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 131 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole <br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** **<br> (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;298.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;925 | &nbsp;&nbsp;940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;281.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;286.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;950 | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;289.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;297.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.85 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;438 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;133.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCC17-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;139.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;730 | &nbsp;&nbsp;745 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;222.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;196.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;201.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.80 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.85 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.72 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.76 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.76 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.08 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.81 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.64 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-07-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;164.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;158.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.67 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.89 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 132 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole <br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** **<br> (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-06-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.82 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC05-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC05-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;146.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.95 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.76 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;156.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC-011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPC-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.93 |

---

\*Note: Intervals represent core length. True width can vary from 50% up to 100% of core length depending upon drill hole intersection angles.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 133 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img02.jpg)

**Figure 10-5: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Bowl Zone.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 134 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A close-up of a map AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img03.jpg)

**Figure 10-6: Cross section of Bowl Zone looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 135 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

10.8.3.2 Stallion-Bowl
 Trend and Stallion Zone

Thirty-nine drillholes, totalling 22,500 ft (6,858 m) along the Stallion-Bowl Trend have been completed by the Issuer from 2018 to 2024 and is inclusive of drillholes in the Stallion Zone. The Stallion-Bowl Trend is a ~1.55 mi (~2.5 km) long target area located between the Stallion and Bowl Zones, striking slightly to the northwest. The Stallion Zone was formerly known by Contact Gold as the West Target and encompasses the northern-most portion of the Stallion-Bowl Trend.

The Stallion-Bowl Trend was initially identified by Contact Gold in 2017 based on a 1.24 mi (2-km) trend of north-south structurally controlled gravity and CSAMT geophysical anomalies and Au-in-soil anomalies cutting Penn-Perm Strathearn Formation clastic and carbonate rocks. Gold mineralization here is associated with a large silicified, north-striking rib of Penn-Perm aged calcareous conglomerate, interpreted by Spalding (2018) as the same host as the North Dark Star deposit. A north and northwest striking structural zone is west of and runs parallel to Stallion-Bowl Trend (and east of Pony Spur Zone) through the length of the Pony Creek area of the Property.

In 2018, Contact Gold completed 22 drillholes, totalling 13,265 ft (4,043 m) at the Stallion Zone and Stallion-Bowl Trend. Shallow oxide gold mineralization was intersected with discovery RC drillhole PC18-18 returning 0.42 g/t Au over 110 ft (33.53 m) length from 15 ft (4.57 m) depth.

In 2019, Contact Gold was unable to build any new roads and was only able to drill 6 additional holes, totalling 2,415 ft (736 m) at the Stallion Zone. Low-grade gold mineralization was intersected in all 6 drillholes and the 2019 drill program extended oxide gold mineralization 164 ft (50 m) to the north (Hibdon, 2019b).

In 2024, Orla Mining completed 6 RC drillholes at Stallion Zone for a total depth of 3,400 ft (1,036 m) and 5 RC drillholes to test the Stallion-Bowl Trend for a total depth of 3,420 ft (1,042 m). In the north at the Stallion Zone, shallow low grade oxide gold mineralization was intersected in 3 of the 6 drillholes, and drillhole ST24-03 returned results of 0.19 g/t Au (Ox) over an interval of 47.2 m from 9.14 m to 56.39 m drillhole length (Orla Mining, 2025).

Testing of the Stallion-Bowl Trend was designed to assess the southern extent of mineralization towards Bowl and to bridge the gap between the central area of the Stallion-Bowl Trend and the northern Stallion Zone. This resulted in 4 of the 5 drillholes reported to have intersected low grade oxide mineralization at depths above 100 m (Orla Mining, 2025). Drillhole ST24-10 returned 0.28 g/t Au (ox) over an interval of 25.9 m from 16.76 m to 42.67 m drillhole length (Orla Mining, 2025).

As presently defined by drilling, mineralization along the Stallion-Bowl Trend has been intersected over a north-south strike length of approximately 1.55 mi (2.5 km), with maximum east-west extents of approximately 2,297 ft (700 m).

Select significant assay results of 2017 to 2024 drilling at the Stallion Zone and Stallion-Bowl Trend are listed in Table 10-12. A plan map and cross section of the Stallion Zone are illustrated in Figure 10-7 and Figure 10-8. A plan map and cross section of the Stallion-Bowl Trend are illustrated in Figure 10-9 and Figure 10-10.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 136 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 10-12: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Stallion Zone and Stallion-Bowl Trend, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au.**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** **<br> (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.92 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.71 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.57 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.73 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.68 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.68 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.72 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.91 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.67 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.98 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ST24-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 |

---

\*Note: Intervals represent core length. True width can vary from 50% up to 100% of core length depending upon drill hole intersection angles.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 137 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img05.jpg)

**Figure 10-7: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Stallion Zone.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 138 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A screenshot of a computer AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img06.jpg)

**Figure 10-8: Cross section of Stallion Zone looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 139 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img07.jpg)

**Figure 10-9: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results across Stallion-Bowl Trend.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 140 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A screenshot of a computer AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img08.jpg)

**Figure 10-10: Cross section of the Stallion-Bowl Trend looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 141 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

10.8.3.3 Appaloosa
 and Mustang Zones

From 2017 to 2024, a total of 23 drillholes, totalling 16,415 ft (5,003 m), have been completed at the Appaloosa Zone by the Issuer. The Appaloosa Zone is situated approximately 0.75 mi (1.2 km) northeast of the Bowl Zone and trends north along the eastern flank of the Pony Creek area of the Property. The Appaloosa Zone was formerly known by Contact Gold as the North Zone.

In 2017, Contact Gold drilled 11 RC holes, totalling 8,145 ft (2,483 m) at the Appaloosa Zone. The 2017 drillholes were designed as offsets of historical mineralized holes, particularly Westmont's drillholes PC-129, PC-111 and PC-120. Contact Gold's 2017 drill program encountered significant near surface oxidized and partially oxidized gold mineralization over a 0.6 mi (1 km) strike length.

In 2019, Contact Gold drilled 5 RC holes, totalling 3,130 ft (954 m) at the Appaloosa Zone. Four of the drillholes were designed as offsets to target the extension of two historical high-grade gold intercepts: 125 ft (38.1 m) of 0.91 g/t (0.027 opt) Au in drillhole PC-06-03 and 120 ft (36.5 m) of 0.92 g/t (0.027 opt) Au in drillhole 95-08 (Hibdon, 2019a). The 2019 drill program extended gold mineralization to the north and south of known mineralization intersected in historical drilling with a near surface oxide gold corridor extending over 1 mi (1.6 km) in length (Hibdon, 2019a). Drillhole PC19-19 was lost above target depth due to poor ground conditions.

In 2024, Orla Mining completed 6 RC drillholes at Appaloosa Zone for a total depth of 4,245 ft (1,293 m). These drillholes, in part, were a continuation of the 2019 testing ideology and were westward step outs of historical mineralization in drillholes PC-121 (1.92 g/t over 45 ft) and PC-128 (1.64 g/t Au over 20 ft). Drillhole AP24-02 returned results of 0.25 g/t Au (Ox) over an interval of 18.3 m from 146.30 m to 164.59 m drillhole length (Orla Mining, 2025). Drillhole AP24-06 returned 0.71 g/t Au over 30 ft from 430 to 460 ft drillhole length. The 2024 drilling also contributed to the refinement of the rhyolite unit within the 3D geological model and improved the understanding of its relationship to mineralization.

Gold mineralization at Appaloosa Zone is interpreted to be a continuation of the sub-horizontal mineralization emplaced at the rhyolite-sedimentary rock contact that characterizes Bowl Zone.

The Mustang Zone is located directly north of the Appaloosa Zone and was initially delineated by anomalous gold-in-soil results. In 2024, Orla Mining drill-tested the gold-in-soil anomaly at the Mustang target with 3 RC drillholes that totalled 1,995 ft (608 m). Mineralization in the Mustang Zone appears to be largely confined to the conglomerate and sandstone units of the Moleen Formation and dips eastward along the contact of the conglomerate and sandstone units. A similar mineralization trend is observed in the northernmost portion of the Appaloosa Zone, suggesting a possible continuation of the same mineralized system

Select significant results of 2024 drilling at the Appaloosa and Mustang Zones are listed in Table 10-13. A plan map and cross section of the Appaloosa Zone and Mustang Zone are illustrated in Figure 10-11 to Figure 10-13.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 142 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 10-13: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Appaloosa and Mustang Zones, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.50 g/t Au.**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** <br> **(g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.59 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;192.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;137.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AP24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC17-43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.21 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR19-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MU24-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.58 |

---

\*Note: Intervals represent core length. True width can vary from 50% up to 100% of core length depending upon drill hole intersection angles.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 143 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img09.jpg)

**Figure 10-11: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Appaloosa and Mustang Zones.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 144 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 10-12: Cross section of Appaloosa Zone looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 145 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A screenshot of a computer screen AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img11.jpg)

**Figure 10-13: Cross section of Mustang Zone looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 146 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

10.8.3.4 Pony
 Spur Zone

Contact Gold acquired the Pony Spur target as part of a land expansion of the Pony Creek Property in 2017. The Pony Spur target is located 1.2 mi (2 km) northwest of the Bowl Zone and 0.6 mi (1 km) to the west of the Stallion-Bowl Trend.

In 2018, Contact Gold completed 3 RC drillholes (PC18-25 to 27), totalling 1,430.5 ft (436 m) at Pony Spur. The three holes were collared within 10 m of each other: PC18-25 was oriented at 80° azimuth and -45° inclination, PC18-26 was drilled vertically and PC18-27 was oriented at 280° azimuth and -45° inclination (Figure 10-13). All three drillholes intersected low-grade gold mineralization with mineralization occurring at the contact of the Devil's Gate Formation with the Webb Formation. Two of the three intercepts were well oxidized with good gold recoveries in cyanide assays. Select significant results at the Pony Spur target are listed in Table 10-14.

Mineralization at the Pony Spur Zone is characterized by sub-horizontal "pancake-like" bodies in the western portion of the zone. Toward the east, these horizons begin to dip moderately eastward, broadly following the trend of the contact between the Devil's Gate and Webb formations. A plan map and schematic cross section of Pony Spur are illustrated in Figure 10-14 and Figure 10-15, respectively.

**Table 10-14: Select significant assay results from 2017-2024 drilling at Pony Spur Zone, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.30 g/t Au.**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** <br> **(g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.37 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCR18-27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PS24-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Spur | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 |

---

\*Note: Intervals represent core length. True width can vary from 50% up to 100% of core length depending upon drill hole intersection angles.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 147 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A map of a mountain AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img12.jpg)

**Figure 10-14: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Pony Spur.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 148 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![A map of a geolocation AI-generated content may be incorrect.](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp06img13.jpg)

**Figure 10-15: Cross section of Pony Spur Zone looking north.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 149 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

10.8.3.5 Elliot
 Dome and Robinson Exploration Zones

The Elliot Dome exploration target is located immediately east of Jasperoid Wash, and the Robinson target is located approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) southeast of Jasperoid Wash. In 2024, Orla Mining completed RC drill programs at both Elliot Dome and Robinson to test gold-in-soil anomalies identified by Contact Gold's 2017-2018 soil sampling programs. A total of 9 RC drillholes were completed at Robinson totalling 6,630 ft (2,021 m), and a total of 4 RC drillholes were completed at Elliot Dome totalling 3,225 ft (983 m).

Select significant assay results for the Elliot Dome and Robinson targets areas is presented below in Table 10-15. A plan map of drillholes completed at Elliot Dome and Robinson is presented in Figure 10-16.

**Table 10-15: Select significant assay results from 2024 drilling at Elliot Dome and Robinson exploration zones, Pony Creek. Cutoff grade 0.30 g/t Au.**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** **<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** **<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval** <br> **(m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** **<br> (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Including | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RBN24-05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Robinson | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.38 |

---

\*Note: Intervals represent core length. True width can vary from 50% up to 100% of core length depending upon drill hole intersection angles.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 150 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp07img01.jpg)

**Figure 10-16: Plan map showing drillhole traces and gold assay results at Elliot Dome and Robinson Exploration Zones.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 151 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.9** **Drill-Hole Collar Surveys** 

**10.9.1** **Historical Collar Surveys** 

Mr. Lindholm has no information on the methods used to survey the locations of the historical drill collar locations in the North Railroad property. APEX stated that collar locations were rectified to a satellite orthophoto with one-meter contours (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b). Elevations for all the remaining holes were adjusted to a topographic surface created from the orthophoto.

Mr. Lindholm has no information on the methods used to survey the locations of the historical drill collar locations in the South Railroad property. Coordinates for historical drill holes at the Pinion, Dark Star, and Jasperoid Wash deposits were obtained from old records, resurveying in the field, and taken from historical maps. Much work was done by Gold Standard and APEX to resolve collar location issues. However, a few holes with contradictory or improbable geology and assay data were eliminated from use in modeling and estimation.

**10.9.2** **Gold Standard Collar Surveys** 

After the holes drilled from 2010 to 2024 by Gold Standard and Orla were abandoned, the collars were marked by wooden or metal lath with the hole name on a wire and aluminum or bronze tag embedded in the cement collar plug. Apex Surveying, LLC, of Spring Creek, Nevada or Advanced Surveying and Professional Services of Fallon, Nevada then professionally surveyed the drill collars at the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits, as well as in outside exploration areas, using a Trimble Differential Global Positioning System (GPS).

Where possible, the locations of historical drill collars were also surveyed. During Apex Surveying's site visits, some historical and older Gold Standard drill collars were located using a hand-held GPS in order to check the collar coordinates. Although historical holes were commonly unmarked in the field, some drill collars were ascertained using knowledge of drill-rig configurations on probable drill roads and pads, which were found to be consistent with historically recorded location information.

The most significant issue noted for historical drill locations are collar elevations which are well above or below topography. Once accurate real-world coordinates were obtained for the historical collars, elevations were adjusted by projecting the collars to a digital topographic surface that was generated by Pacific Geomatics from ortho-rectified satellite imagery with ~1 m elevation and horizontal resolution.

All of Contact Gold's 2017 to 2019 Pony Creek drill collars were surveyed in the field using a high accuracy Trimble GEOXH 6000 handheld GPS unit, with a stated post processing accuracy of 3.9 to 19.7 inches (10 to 50 cm). Contact Gold employees were trained in proper usage of the Trimble GPS and data processing by Elevation Technical Services in Ely, NV.

**10.10** **Down-Hole Surveys** 

**10.10.1** **Historical Down-Hole Surveys, North and South Railroad Properties** 

APEX reported that most of the deeper historical drill holes in the South Railroad property were down-hole surveyed (Dufresne and Nicholls, 2017b). Survey equipment used is unknown. During 1999, at least a portion of the Kinross drill holes in various areas of the property were surveyed down-hole by Silver State Surveys of Elko, Nevada (Jones *et al.*, 1999), but the type of instrument and methods and procedures are not known.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 152 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**10.10.2** **Gold Standard, Contact Gold and Orla Down-Hole Surveys, North and South Railroad Properties** 

Gold Standard and Orla contracted International Directional Services (IDS), which used Stockholm Precision Tools with a continuous-read, north-seeking gyro down-hole surveying tool known as a Memory North Seeking Gyroscopic Inclinometer. IDS has also measured down-hole orientations using an Axis Champ Navigator, supplied by Axis Mine Tech. In 2017, Gold Standard contracted Minex, which used a MEMS continuous-read, north-seeking gyro down-hole surveying tool. All holes longer than ~300 ft were down-hole surveyed.

For Contact Gold's 2017 drill program, IDS of Elko, NV, completed downhole surveys on all drillholes using a REFLEX north-seeking gyro down-hole surveying tool. Single shot REFLEX surveys were taken on the core holes as a check to the IDS gyro surveys, and they compared very well. For the 2018-2019 drill programs, a north seeking gyro was rented from REFLEX and the Major drillers were trained on proper usage at the start of the program. Survey data was collected every 50 ft (15.2 m). IDS conducted check surveys on two of the holes, which showed nearly identical results for downhole deviation to the REFLEX gyro surveys.

**10.11** **Summary Statement** 

For the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion resources, Mr. Lindholm believes that Gold Standard's and Orla's drilling, sampling, and logging methods and procedures provided samples that are representative and of sufficient quality for use in mineral resource estimations. Less information is known regarding drilling and sampling procedures for historical drilling. Consequently, Mr. Lindholm downgraded classification to Inferred for block grades that were estimated predominantly using data from historical drilling (Section 14). Mr. Lindholm is aware of sampling or recovery factors that impact the reliability of the samples for use in a mineral resource estimate, and has removed suspect assays from use in estimation (Section 14).

Mr. Dufresne has reviewed the available geological, geochemical, and drillhole data pertaining to the Pony Creek area of the Property, including collar surveys, downhole surveys, assay results, and geology logs and determined they are appropriate for the purpose of supporting geological interpretations and mineral resource estimation.

Verification of sampling, assay quality control procedures, and data management systems indicates that the data are sufficiently reliable and of adequate quality for use in this Technical Report. Mr. Dufresne is of the opinion that the available data is adequate to support the geological interpretations, mineralization modelling, and the classification of the Pony Creek Mineral Resource Estimate presented herein.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 153 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **11** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** |

---

The information presented in Section 11 is derived by RESPEC and APEX from Dufresne et al., 2017, Dufresne and Nicholls (2017b), data received directly from Gold Standard, Ibrado et al. (2020), Sletten et al. (2022), and other sources, as cited. Mr. Lindholm and Mr. Dufresne have reviewed this information and believe this summary accurately represents the methods, procedures and analyses used for the exploration and drilling samples on which the estimated mineral resources presented in Section 14 of this Technical Report are based.

Documentation of the methods and procedures used for historical surface and drilling sample collection, preparation, analyses, and sample security at the North and South Railroad properties is incomplete and in many cases is not available. RESPEC recommends that Orla compile and evaluate the information contained in records that are available.

Methods and procedures used for the security, preparation, and analysis of surface samples collected by historical operators and Gold Standard at the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits have not been evaluated for this Technical Report because the results have not been used in the estimation of the mineral resources presented in Section 14. While useful for identifying drilling targets and planning exploration drilling, the results and representativity of the Gold Standard surface sampling are not of material importance to the interpretations and conclusions of this Technical Report. The reader is referred to Koehler et al. (2014), Dufresne et al. (2014; 2015; 2017) and references cited in those reports for information on Gold Standard's soil- and rock-sample collection, security, preparation, and analyses.

Additional confirmation of the project data's reliability is based on Mr. Lindholm's and Mr. Dufresne's evaluations of the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, North Bullion, and Pony Creek exploration and drilling quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures and results, as described below in Sections 11.3.2, 11.5, and 11.6, and in general working with the data. No separate evaluations of QA/QC procedures and results were done on data from drilling outside the mineral resource areas.

**11.1** **Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security - Historical Operators** 

**11.1.1** **Drilling Samples - South Railroad Property** 

AMOCO and Cyprus' drilling samples from the Pinion area in 1980 and 1981 were mainly analyzed at Barringer Resources, Inc. (Barringer) in Sparks, Nevada (NV). Gold and silver were determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. Some samples were also analyzed for arsenic and mercury, but no other information is available. In 1980, some of AMOCO's samples were analyzed for silver and gold at Monitor, but the methods of analysis are not available. Barringer and Monitor were independent of AMOCO and Cyprus. RESPEC is not aware of any certifications that may have been held by these laboratories at that time.

In 1981, Newmont's drilling samples from the Irene area were analyzed at Monitor in Elko. Gold and silver were determined by fire-assay fusion, but RESPEC has no other information on the methods and procedures used. Newmont's 1982 drilling samples from the Pinion area were analyzed at Skyline Labs Inc. (Skyline), in Tucson, Arizona (AZ). Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion, but no other information is available. Skyline and Monitor were independent of Newmont, but RESPEC is not aware of any certifications that may have been held by these laboratories at that time.

Santa Fe's samples from their 1985 drilling in the Pinion area were analyzed by Monitor in Elko. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots, but no other information is available. Monitor was independent of Santa Fe, but RESPEC is not aware of any certifications that may have been held by Monitor at that time.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 154 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Samples from Teck Resource's drilling in the Pinion area in 1987 and 1989 were analyzed by Chemex in Sparks, NV. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion with an Atomic Absorption (AA) finish. Some samples were analyzed for silver using AA after an aqua regia digestion. In 1988, Teck's samples from Pinion were analyzed at American Assay Laboratories (AAL) in Sparks. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Silver was determined by AA following aqua regia digestion. Some samples were analyzed for gold by fire-assay fusion of 60 g aliquots. Chemex and AAL were independent of Teck, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by these laboratories at that time.

Newmont's 1987 and 1988 drilling samples from the Pinion area, and some of their 1989 Pinion samples, were analyzed at Geochemical Services, Inc. (GSI). RESPEC is not aware of the location(s) of the GSI laboratory. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with both gravimetric and AA finish. Samples were also analyzed for silver, arsenic and antimony by ICP. In 1989, Newmont also sent drilling samples from the Pinion area to be analyzed at Bondar-Clegg in Sparks. Following crushing, a subsample was pulverized to -150 mesh. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with and AA finish. Silver, arsenic, antimony, molybdenum, and thallium were analyzed by direct-current plasma emission (DCP) and mercury was determined by cold-vapor AA (CVAA). Bondar-Clegg and GSI were independent of Newmont, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by these laboratories at that time.

In 1989, Westmont's drilling samples from the Pinion area were analyzed at Universal in Elko, NV. Gold and silver were analyzed by fire-assay fusion, but RESPEC has no further information on the methods and procedures used. Westmont's 1991 and 1992 drill samples from the JR Buttes, Jasperoid Wash, and Black Rock (historical target located 4.8 km southwest of the Dark Star deposit) areas were analyzed by Cone in Lakewood, Colorado. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with a gravimetric finish. Silver, arsenic, antimony, and mercury were determined by AA. Universal and Cone were independent of Westmont, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by these laboratories at that time.

Crown Resources' samples from their 1991 drilling at Pinion, Dixie, and Dark Star were in part analyzed for gold at AAL in Sparks using fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. Arsenic and antimony were also analyzed, but RESPEC has no information on the methods and procedures used. Some of the samples from Crown's drilling at Dark Star in 1991 were analyzed at Activation Laboratories Ltd (ActLabs). Composited pulps from prior assays were analyzed for gold, silver and 34 other elements. RESPEC is not aware of the location of the ActLabs laboratory or the methods and procedures used for the analyses. Samples from Crown's drilling at the Dark Star and Pinion areas in 1993 were analyzed for gold at AAL in Sparks using fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. AAL and ActLabs were independent of Crown, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by these laboratories at that time.

In 1995, samples from the Cyprus drilling in the Pinion area were analyzed at Chemex in Sparks. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some 5 ft (1.5 m) samples and composited pulps of up to 50 ft (15.24 m) lengths were analyzed for silver, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and barium by AA following digestion in aqua regia. Chemex was independent of Cyprus, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by Chemex at that time.

RSM's 1996 drill samples from the Pinion area were analyzed at Chemex in Sparks. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Silver was determined by AA following digestion in aqua regia. In 2014, pulps from some of these 1996 RSM Pinion area samples were re-analyzed by ALS Minerals (ALS) in North Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). At ALS, gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Separate aliquots of 30 g were analyzed for silver and 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Portions of remaining drill core from RSM's 1996 drilling at Pinion were also analyzed at ALS in 2014. These samples were crushed in their entirety to 70% at less than 0.079 in (0.2 cm). The crushed samples were riffle-split to obtain 8 oz (~226 g) subsamples that were pulverized to 85% at less than 75 microns. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Separate aliquots of 0.5 g were analyzed for silver and 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Chemex was independent of RSM, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by Chemex at that time.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 155 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 1997, Mirandor's drilling samples from the Pinion and Dark Star areas were analyzed at Intertek Testing Services (ITS) in North Vancouver, BC. At that time, ITS was a division of Bondar-Clegg. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some samples were analyzed for gold by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with a gravimetric finish. Arsenic, antimony, and barium were determined in some of the samples by AA. Mercury was determined by CVAA. ITS and Bondar-Clegg were independent of Mirandor, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by ITS or Bondar-Clegg at that time.

Cameco's 1997 drill samples from the Pinion and Dixie areas were analyzed at Chemex and AAL, both in Sparks. At both laboratories, gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. At Chemex these fire assays were finished with AA. Copies of the AAL assay records do not indicate the type of finish. The samples assayed at AAL were also analyzed for silver and 29 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. In 1999, Cameco's drill samples from the Pinion area were analyzed for gold at AAL by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. Chemex and AAL were independent of Cameco, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by Chemex or AAL at that time.

In 1998 and 1999, the Kinross drill samples from Dark Star and Pinion were analyzed at Chemex in Sparks. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Composited pulps representing 25 ft (7.62 m) drill intervals were analyzed for 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP. Chemex was independent of Kinross, but RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by Chemex at that time.

RSM's 2003 drill samples from the Pinion area were analyzed by ALS Chemex in North Vancouver, BC. The samples were prepared in the ALS Chemex laboratory in Elko, NV, where they were crushed in their entirety to 70% at less than 0.079 in (0.2 cm). The crushed samples were riffle-split to obtain 8 oz (~226 g) subsamples that were pulverized to 85% at less than 75 microns. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. In 2007, RSM's drill samples from the Pinion area were also analyzed by ALS Chemex. RESPEC is not aware of how or where these samples were prepared, but silver plus 34 major, minor and trace elements were assayed by ICP following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. Pulps from the 2007 RSM drilling at Pinion were re-analyzed in 2014 at ALS in North Vancouver for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish.

**11.1.2** **Drilling Samples - North Railroad Property** 

Historical drill logs and reports in the possession of Gold Standard have not been evaluated. RESPEC recommends that Gold Standard extract and compile information from available documents regarding logging methods, and where available, information on core diameters, RC-bit diameters, and sample splitting prior to shipment to the analytical laboratories.

Mr. Lindholm and Gold Standard are not aware of the methods and procedures used by American Selco, Placer Amex, El Paso, AMAX, Homestake, and NICOR for historical drill-sample collection, splitting, preparation, analyses, and sample security during drilling at Bald Mountain and North Bullion from 1969 through 1986.

Samples from the Westmont drilling in the North Bullion area in 1987 were analyzed for gold and silver by fire assay methods at Universal Laboratory, Inc. (Universal), in Elko, NV. It is not known if this laboratory was independent of Westmont, or if any certifications were held. Samples from Westmont's drilling at North Bullion in 1990 and 1992 were analyzed at Cone Geochemical Inc. (Cone), in Lakewood, Colorado. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots. Cone was independent of Westmont, but RESPEC is not aware if any certifications were held by Cone at that time. RESPEC is not aware of sample security measures taken or the details of transport from the drill sites to the laboratories.

Samples from Ramrod's drilling in the North Bullion area in 1994 were assayed at Cone and at Monitor Geochemical Laboratory Inc. (Monitor), in Elko, NV. At Cone, gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 25 g and 1 g aliquots with an AA finish. At Monitor, Ramrod's samples were analyzed for gold and silver by 30 g fire-assay fusion and some were analyzed by cyanide-leach with an AA finish. Some composited pulps representing 25 ft (7.62 m) lengths were analyzed for arsenic, antimony and mercury by unspecified method(s). Monitor and Cone were independent of Ramrod. It is not known if any certifications were held by these laboratories at the time. RESPEC is not aware of sample-security measures taken or the details of transport from the drill sites to the laboratories.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 156 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 1997, Mirandor's drill samples from north of North Bullion and the Bald Mountain areas were analyzed by Interteck Testing Services, a division of Bondar-Clegg & Company Ltd. (Bondar-Clegg), in North Vancouver, BC. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some samples were re-analyzed for gold by 30 g fire assay with a gravimetric finish. Silver was determined by AA and inductively-coupled plasma-emission spectrometry (ICP). Some samples were analyzed for copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, arsenic, and antimony by AA, and for mercury by CVAA. Bondar-Clegg was independent of Mirandor. RESPEC is not aware if any certifications were held by Bondar-Clegg at that time. RESPEC is not aware of sample-security measures taken or the details of transport from the drill sites to the laboratory.

Samples from Kinross' drilling in 1998 and 1999 at North Bullion and Bald Mountain were analyzed at Chemex Labs, Inc. (Chemex), in Sparks, NV. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some samples were re-analyzed for gold by 30 g fire assay with a gravimetric finish. Composited pulps representing 25 ft (7.62 m) sample lengths were analyzed ICP for 35 minor, major, and trace elements, including silver. Chemex was independent of Kinross. RESPEC is not aware if any certifications were held by Chemex at that time. RESPEC is not aware of sample-security measures taken and the details of transport from the drill sites to the laboratory.

**11.1.3** **Pony Creek Property Exploration** 

11.1.3.1 Drilling Programs

A portion of the information presented in following sub-sections has been summarized by previous technical reports on the Property by Dufresne and Schoeman (2014), Gustin (2017), Spalding (2018), and Dufresne and Clarke (2022). This information has been reviewed and verified and is not relied upon by Mr. Dufresne.

Several extensive drill programs have been conducted on the South Railroad Property by previous operators including Newmont, NERCO, Westmont, Uranerz, Barrick, Nevada Contact Inc., Homestake, and Grandview from 1981 to 2007. A total of 208 historical holes were utilized in the estimation of the Pony Creek Mineral Resource Estimate discussed in Section 14. This included 117 holes completed on behalf of Newmont in 1981 to 1989, five holes completed on behalf of NERCO, 34 holes completed in the Westmont-Newmont Joint Venture in 1991 and 1992, 15 holes completed on behalf of Uranerz in 1994 and 1995, four holes completed on behalf of Barrick in 1998, five holes completed on behalf of Homestake in 2000, seven holes completed on behalf of Nevada Contact in 2002 and 21 holes completed on behalf of Grandview in 2006 and 2007.

Limited information is available regarding historical drill programs completed at Pony Creek in the South Railroad Property. The following information has been derived by Mr. Dufresne using previous technical reports on the Property by Gustin (2017) and Spalding (2018), and historical information and drill logs provided by the Issuer:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Very limited to no information is available concerning
the drilling contractors, drill rig models and drilling methods used during the Newmont and NERCO drill programs from 1981 through 1989.
The Newmont drill logs indicate O'Keefe as the drill contractor. Mr. Dufresne reviewed scans of original handwritten logs for
Newmont's RC drill programs conducted from 1982-1989. Log headers include drill types, hole number, hole size, casing depth, bearing,
inclination, collar elevation, final depth and start and completion dates. In addition, the logs include fields for rock type, mineralization
and alteration.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Drilling completed on behalf of the Westmont-Newmont
Joint Venture in 1991 and 1992 was conducted by Hackworth Drilling of Elko, NV. In 1991, an Ingersoll-Rand PH600 truck-mounted RC drill
was used and an MPD 1000 track-mounted drill was used. In 1992, a Schramm C650 track-mounted RC drill was used. No other information is
available.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 157 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Mr. Dufresne has been unable to obtain any
information on the drilling contractors, drill rig types and drilling methods used during the Uranerz drilling in 1994 and 1995, or the
drilling done by Barrick in July 1998. Mr. R.H. Russell, QP and author of the previous technical reports on the Pony Creek Property
(Russell, 2004; 2006), observed the drilling and sampling practices of Barrick in 1998 and "found their practices did conform to
industry standards" at the time. No further information is available.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Database files indicate that the Homestake RC
drilling was completed in 2000 by Eklund Drilling of Elko, NV, using a track mounted MPD 1,500 drill rig. Mr. Dufresne reviewed original
handwritten logs for drillholes completed by Homestake. The drill logs include fields for depth, geological unit, lithology, color, alteration,
oxide, sulphide, oxidation-reduction and a column for gold assay (opt).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Drilling on behalf of Nevada Contact was completed
using a track-mounted RC rig for most of their 2002 holes, with a truck-mounted TH-75 RC rig used for hole PCK02-06A. Mr. Dufresne
reviewed summary logs for drill holes completed by Nevada Contact. The summary logs included sample intervals, lithology description and
assays.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· In 2006, Grandview's HQ-diamond core drilling
was completed by Boart Longyear. The remaining core from Grandview's drill program was stored in the Waterton storage facility in
Lovelock, NV, and has been recovered by Contact Gold. Mr. Dufresne has reviewed original handwritten logs from Grandview's
2006-2007 drill programs. The logs include fields for depth, recovery, rock quality designation (RQD), lithology, alteration, mineralization,
veining and a column for gold assay.

11.1.3.2 Sample Collection, Preparation and Security

Limited information is available from drill programs regarding dry versus wet RC drilling, potential RC contamination issues or how RC samples were collected and split. Most samples in the drillhole database were collected in 5 ft (1.5 m) down-hole sample lengths; however, in some drill holes long intervals were not sampled and analysed. In 1991, Westmont's RC samples were collected at 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals and split with a Gilson splitter when dry, or a rotating cone splitter when wet. Drill holes completed by Nevada Contact Inc. were collected at 10 ft (3.0 m) intervals. For core holes drilled by Grandview in 2006, the core was sawed in half on 5 ft (1.5 m) sample intervals after being logged and photographed. In the opinion of Mr. Dufresne, based on the current understanding of the Pony Creek mineralization, these sample lengths are appropriate.

11.1.3.3 Analytical Procedures

Although hard copy assay certificates exist for most of the pre-2000 drill holes, limited information is available regarding laboratory sample preparation methods and attributes such as assay charge or aliquot size. The assay records do provide basic information on the assay type i.e., fire assay or acid roast.

Early drill programs by Newmont utilized Monitor Geochemical Laboratory of Elko, NV, Geochemical Services Inc., Bondar-Clegg and Barringer Labs. The Uranerz program in 1995 used Assayers Laboratories, and as a check they sent one hole of duplicate material to the precursor to ALS in Elko, NV. Samples collected by Barrick in 1998 used American Assay Laboratories. The assays certificates for both programs provide only basic information about the assay type.

In 2000, Homestake's RC samples were sent to the Bondar Clegg laboratory in Sparks, NV. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish. Mercury was determined by cold-vapor AAS, and silver plus 35 major, minor and trace elements were determined by inductively coupled plasma-emission spectrometry (ICP) following an aqua regia digestion. It is not known how the samples were prepared for assay.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 158 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2003, Nevada Contact's RC drill samples were sent to ALS in Elko, NV, for sample preparation. The samples were oven dried, then crushed in their entirety to 70% at -2 mm. The crushed material was riffle split to obtain a 250 g split, which was then ring-pulverized to 85% at -75 μm. These pulps were then shipped to the ALS analytical laboratory in Sparks, NV, or in North Vancouver, BC, for analysis. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion with an AAS finish using 30 g aliquots.

The following excerpt from Russell (2006) summarizes the sample procedures and analytical practices of the laboratories employed by Newmont, Westmont, Uranerz, Barrick, Homestake, and Nevada Contact:

*"All the former operators, Newmont, Westmont, Uranerz, Barrick, Homestake, and Nevada Contact used well known commercial assay laboratories. The laboratories did conduct their sample procedures and assay practices according to accepted industry practices. Throughout the years between 1981 and 1993, the same period of time that holes NPC-1 through PC-134 were drilled at Pony Creek, Gold Fields Mining Corporation conducted a comprehensive commercial laboratory check assay program as well as checking selected mining company laboratories, including Newmont Mining. R.H. Russell was employed by Gold Fields during that time and was aware of the results of that check assaying program. Based on the results of that check assay program, all the commercial laboratories in North America used accepted practices for sample security, sample preparation, fire and AA assaying and sample reject and pulp storage."*

In 2005 and 2006, Grandview's core samples were sent to ALS in Elko, NV, for sample preparation. The samples were crushed to 70% at -2 mm. The crushed material was riffle split to obtain a 1 kg split, which was then ring-pulverized to 85% at -75 μm. These pulps were then shipped to ALS in Sparks, NV, or in North Vancouver, BC, for analysis. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion with an AAS finish using 30 g aliquots. Multi-element analysis of 34 major, minor and trace elements was determined by ICP following an aqua regia digestion.

In 2006, Grandview's rock samples were also prepared at the ALS facility in Elko, NV, using the preparation methods described for the 2005-2006 core samples. The rock sample pulps were analysed at ALS in North Vancouver, BC, for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AAS finish. Multi-element analysis was completed on separate 1 g aliquots for 47 major, minor and trace elements using a combination of ICP and mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Mercury was determined by cold-vapor AA.

In 2007, Grandview's RC drill samples were submitted to ALS in Elko, NV. Following sample preparation, the pulps were then shipped to ALS in either Sparks, NV, or in North Vancouver, BC, for analysis. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion with an AAS finish using 30 g aliquots.

ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

**11.2** **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security – Gold Standard and Orla** 

**11.2.1** **South Railroad Property Drill Samples** 

Mr. Lindholm has not reviewed and evaluated the methods and procedures used for the collection and analysis of surface samples by Gold Standard as these samples were not used to prepare the mineral resource estimates and mineral reserve estimates presented in later sections of this Technical Report.

Commencing in 2012, Gold Standard's RC samples were transported from the drill sites by representatives of ALS or Bureau Veritas Mineral Laboratories USA (Bureau Veritas) via truck to their respective laboratories in Elko, NV. Excessively wet samples were kept at the drill sites for a few days to drain and dry prior to collection by the laboratory staff.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 159 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Core samples were transported daily from the drill sites to Gold Standard's logging and core cutting facility in Elko by Gold Standard personnel. After logging and marking core-sample intervals by Gold Standard geologists, the core was photographed prior to being sawed lengthwise by contractor technicians. Whole HQ-size core was sawed in half. Whole PQ-size core was sawed in quarters. One half of the HQ core, and three quarters of the PQ core, were returned to the core boxes and the remainder was placed in pre-numbered sample bags that were closed with ties. Following insertion of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) blanks and certified reference materials (CRMs), the core samples were transported by representatives of ALS or Bureau Veritas to their respective laboratories for preparation and analysis.

11.2.1.1 Dark Star Deposit Area Drill Samples

Gold Standard's 2015 drilling samples from the Dark Star area were mostly analyzed by Bureau Veritas after preparation in the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Elko, NV. The samples were crushed in their entirety and riffle-split to obtain 8 oz subsample. These subsamples were pulverized to 200-mesh size. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish in Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Sparks, NV. Composited pulps were analyzed in Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Vancouver, BC, for gold, silver and 35 major, minor and trace elements by ICP-MS following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. Some of the 2015 pulps were re-analyzed by ALS in in North Vancouver, BC, for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish.

The 2016 and 2017 drilling samples from the Dark Star area were analyzed by Bureau Veritas and ALS, with sample preparation in their respective laboratories in Elko, NV. The samples at ALS were dried and crushed in their entirety to 70% at less than 0.079 in. The crushed samples were riffle-split to obtain 8 oz subsamples that were pulverized to 85% at less than 75 microns. The pulps were analyzed in their Reno facility or shipped via air freight by ALS to their laboratory in North Vancouver, BC for analysis. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish (method code Au-AA23). Samples assayed at ≥0.292 oz/ton were re-analyzed with a second 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish (method code Au-GRA21). At the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Sparks, NV, samples were crushed in their entirety and riffle-split to obtain 8 oz subsamples. These subsamples were pulverized to 200-mesh size. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish, and overlimits were assayed by fire-assay with a gravimetric finish. At both laboratories, silver and 34 major, minor, and trace elements were assayed by ICP following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots.

ALS and Bureau Veritas were, and continue to be, commercial laboratories independent of Gold Standard, Orla Mining and the authors of this Technical Report. ALS is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for specific analytical procedures, while most of their laboratories have attained ISO 9001:2008 certification. Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Sparks, NV is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2017, RG- MINERAL:2017. The Bureau Veritas laboratory in Vancouver, BC is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and ISO 9001:2008.

The Bureau Veritas assays of the 2016 and 2017 Dark Star drilling samples were performed in Bureau Veritas' laboratories in Sparks, NV, and Vancouver, BC. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish and in some cases with a gravimetric finish. Some samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach and an AA finish, and some samples were analyzed for gold with a screen-fire assay procedure. Gold, silver, and 35 major, minor, and trace elements were assayed in the Vancouver laboratory by ICP-MS following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots.

The 2018 and 2019 drilling samples from the Dark Star area were prepared in either Bureau Veritas' Elko or Sparks, NV, laboratories and analyzed in their Sparks and Vancouver laboratories. Gold and multi-element assays were carried out with the same methods and procedures used for the 2016-2017 samples. In addition, some samples were analyzed for carbon species, sulfur species and CO2 by induction-furnace infrared (LECO) methods.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 160 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Bureau Veritas was the principal laboratory for the analysis of the 2020 and 2021 Dark Star drilling samples. Silver was analyzed by AA following a four-acid digestion, as well as by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Gold was also analyzed by 30 g cyanide leach with an AA finish. Thirty-seven major, minor and trace elements, including gold and silver, were analyzed by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Carbon species, sulfur species and CO2 were determined with LECO methods.

ALS analyzed some of the 2020 Dark Star samples for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish and 30 g cyanide leach with an AA finish. Samples that assayed ≥0.292 oz Au/ton were re-analyzed with a second 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish.

AAL analyzed gold in some of the 2021 Dark Star drilling samples by 30 g cyanide leach with an AA finish. Samples were also analyzed for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion followed by an ICP finish. Samples that assayed ≥0.292 oz Au/ton were re-analyzed with a second 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish. AAL was also the principal laboratory for the 2022 drilling, using the same analytical methods as in 2021. Paragon Geochemical (Paragon) performed some of the analytical work in later 2020 and early 2021, analyzing for gold by 30 g fire assay with an ICP finish, and obtaining silver analyses by 30 g four-acid digestion with an AA finish. Paragon is an independent commercial analytical laboratory in Sparks, NV with ISO/IEC 17025 certification.

For the 2023 to 2024 drilling, Bureau Veritas was again the principal laboratory, by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Samples over 0.292 oz Au/ton were re-analyzed by 30 g fire assay with a gravimetric finish.

11.2.1.2 Pinion Deposit Area Drill Samples

Samples from Gold Standard's drilling in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 were analyzed by ALS. The samples were prepared at the ALS laboratory in Elko, NV, using the same procedures that were used for the Dark Star area samples as summarized in Section 11.2.1.1. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Samples assayed at ≥0.292 oz/ton were re-analyzed with a second 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish. Separate aliquots of 0.5 g were analyzed for silver and 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. In some cases, the ICP analyses were conducted on pulps from 5 ft (1.5 m) drill samples. In other cases, ICP analyses were conducted on composited pulps representing 20 ft (6.1 m) drill intervals. Some samples in 2014 were analyzed for silver by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with a gravimetric finish. In 2014, some samples were also assayed for 48 major, minor and trace elements by ICP-MS after four-acid digestions. During 2017, samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach with an AA finish.

In 2018, Pinion area drill samples were analyzed at Bureau Veritas and AAL. At the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Sparks, NV, samples were crushed in their entirety and riffle-split to obtain 8 oz subsamples. These subsamples were pulverized to 200-mesh size. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Some samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach with an AA finish. The pulps were shipped to the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Vancouver, British Columbia. Carbon, CO2 and sulfur were determined by induction-furnace infrared absorption and thermal conductivity (LECO) analyses of 0.1 g aliquots. Gold, silver and 35 major, minor and trace elements were assayed by ICP following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. Additional silver assays were completed in 2019 at Bureau Veritas using drill-sample pulps from previous analyses. Silver was determined by AA following four-acid digestion of 1 g aliquots.

At AAL in Sparks, NV, composited pulps of 2018 Pinion area drill samples were analyzed for gold by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish, and in some cases, with a gravimetric finish. Some of the samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach with an AA finish. Gold, silver and 49 major, minor and trace elements were determined in some samples by ICP-MS following digestion in aqua regia.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 161 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

AAL also analyzed selected, previously assayed drill-sample pulps for elemental barium using an energy-dispersive, x-ray fluorescence (XRF-ED) procedure. Pressed-powder pellets made from 2 g aliquots of sample pulps were used for the XRF-ED analyses, which were performed in 2018 and 2019. Other selected sample pulps were analyzed for barium using XRF-ED with 2 g pressed-powder pellets. Some of these were also analyzed for barite using wave-length dispersive x-ray fluorescence (XRF-WD) following lithium metaborate fusion of 0.5 g aliquots. Other sample pulps were analyzed for elemental barium by a NITON hand-held XRF on both loose-powder aliquots. These were also analyzed by x-ray diffraction (XRD) for barite, witherite and calcite, as well as sulfur and carbon by LECO.

Gold Standard also performed assays of elemental barium together with 39 major, minor and trace elements using hand-held NITON XRF analyzers. These samples were assayed in 2018 in Elko, NV by independent contractor Rangefront Mining Services (Rangefront) using selected drill-sample pulps in loose powder form.

In 2019, the Pinion drilling samples were analyzed at Bureau Veritas. Gold was determined by ICP following an aqua regia digestion and by cyanide leach followed by an AA finish. Silver was analyzed by AA following a four-acid digestion and by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Thirty-seven major, minor and trace elements were analyzed by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Carbon species, sulfur species and CO2 were determined by LECO methods.

The 2020 drilling samples from Pinion were analyzed at Paragon. Thirty-four major, minor and trace elements were analyzed by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Some of the samples were analyzed by ICP following a four-acid digestion. Silver was analyzed by AA and by ICP following a four-acid digestion. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an ICP finish. Gold was also analyzed by cyanide leach of a 30 g aliquot with an AA finish.

In 2021, Pinion drilling samples were analyzed at AAL, Bureau Veritas and Paragon. The same methods of analysis used at each of these three laboratories in prior years were also used for the 2021 drilling samples. Gold Standard obtained XRF barium assays in-house using NITON and Olympus units, and through AAL and Paragon Laboratories.

Samples from the 2022 drill program were sent to AAL to be analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with an ICP finish. At Gold Standard's request, second analyses with a gravimetric finish were performed when assays exceeded 0.292 oz Au/ton. Cyanide leach analyses were also routinely run using a 30-gram aliquot. The 2023 to 2024 drilling samples were sent to Bureau Veritas to be analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with an AA finish, and assays over 0.292 oz Au/ton were re-assayed with a gravimetric finish. A few samples were analyzed by AAL in 2023.

11.2.1.3 Jasperoid Wash Area Drill Samples

The 2017 drilling samples from the Jasperoid Wash area were analyzed by Bureau Veritas and ALS following preparation at their respective laboratories in Elko, NV. Gold and multi-element analyses were performed at their laboratories in Sparks, NV, Vancouver and North Vancouver, BC, using the same methods and procedures used for the 2016-2017 Dark Star samples as summarized in Section 11.2.1.1.

All the 2018 drill samples from Jasperoid Wash were prepared and analyzed by Bureau Veritas in Sparks, NV and Vancouver, BC, using the same methods and procedures used for the 2016-2017 Dark Star samples as summarized in Section 11.2.1.1.

The 2019 drill samples from Jasperoid Wash were analyzed at Bureau Veritas. Thirty-seven major, minor and trace elements, including gold and silver, were analyzed by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. Gold was also analyzed by cyanide leach. Carbon species, sulfur species and CO2 were determined with LECO methods. In 2020, some of the earlier Jasperoid Wash drilling samples were analyzed for silver using AA following a four-acid digestion. Samples from the 2022 and 2023 drill programs were sent to AAL to be analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with an ICP finish. At Gold Standard's request, second analyses with a gravimetric finish were performed when assays exceeded 0.292 oz Au/ton. Cyanide leach analyses were also routinely run using a 30-gram aliquot. Most of the 2024 drill samples were sent to Bureau Veritas to be analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with an AA finish, and assays over 0.292 oz Au/ton were re-assayed with a gravimetric finish. A few samples in early 2024 were analyzed at AAL.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 162 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.2.1.4 Dixie Area Drill Samples

Gold Standard's 2017 and 2018 drilling samples from the Dixie area were prepared by Bureau Veritas in Sparks, NV and Elko, NV. Analyses were conducted in the Bureau Veritas Sparks and Vancouver laboratories. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach and an AA finish. Gold, silver and 35 major, minor and trace elements were assayed in the Vancouver laboratory by ICP-MS following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. Composited pulps from the 2018 drilling were analyzed for carbon species, sulfur species and CO2 by LECO methods in the Vancouver laboratory.

11.2.1.5 Ski Track Area Drill Samples

Most RC samples from Gold Standard's 2018 drilling in the Ski Track area were prepared by Bureau Veritas in Sparks, NV and Elko, NV. Analyses were conducted in the Bureau Veritas Sparks and Vancouver laboratories. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. Some samples were analyzed for gold by cyanide leach and an AA finish. Gold, silver, and 35 major, minor and trace elements were assayed in the Vancouver laboratory by ICP-MS following aqua regia digestion of 0.5 g aliquots. Composited pulps from the 2018 drilling were analyzed for carbon species, sulfur species, and CO2 by LECO methods in the Vancouver laboratory.

**11.2.2** **North Railroad Property Drill Samples** 

Commencing in 2010, Gold Standard's RC samples were transported via truck from the drill sites by representatives of ALS or Inspectorate America Corporation (Inspectorate), a division of Bureau Veritas to their respective laboratories in Elko or Reno, NV (ALS) or Elko (Bureau Veritas). Excessively wet samples were kept at the drill sites for a few days to drain and dry prior to collection by the laboratory staff.

ALS and Bureau Veritas were, and continue to be, commercial laboratories independent of Gold Standard, Orla Mining and the authors of this Technical Report. ALS is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for specific analytical procedures, while most of their laboratories have attained ISO 9001:2008 certification. Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Sparks, NV is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2017, RG- MINERAL:2017. The Bureau Veritas laboratory in Vancouver, BC is accredited to the standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and ISO 9001:2008.

Core samples were transported daily from the drill sites to Gold Standard's logging and core-cutting facility in Elko by Gold Standard personnel. After logging and marking core-sample intervals by Gold Standard geologists, the core was photographed prior to being sawed lengthwise by contractor technicians. Whole HQ-size core was sawed in half. Whole PQ-size core was sawed in quarters. One half of the HQ core, and three quarters of the PQ core, were returned to the core boxes and the remainder was placed in pre-numbered sample bags that were closed with ties. Following insertion of QA/QC blanks and CRMs, the core samples were transported by representatives of ALS or Bureau Veritas to their respective laboratories for preparation and analysis.

Samples from Gold Standard's RC and core drilling at North Bullion in 2010 through 2014, and at the Bald Mountain prospect in 2014, were prepared at the ALS laboratories in Elko and Reno, NV. The samples were dried and crushed in their entirety to 70% at less than 0.079 in. The crushed samples were riffle-split to obtain 8.82 oz subsamples that were pulverized to 85% less than 75 microns. The pulps were shipped by air freight by ALS to the ALS laboratory in North Vancouver, BC, for analysis. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish (method code Au-AA23). Samples assayed at ≥0.292 oz Au/ton were re-analyzed with a second 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish (method code Au-GRA21). Separate aliquots of 0.5 g were analyzed for silver and 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. In some cases, the ICP analyses were conducted on pulps from 5 ft (1.5 m) drill samples. In other cases, ICP analyses were conducted on composited pulps representing 20 ft (6.1 m) drill intervals for silver or zinc by ICP. Silver for samples that assayed >292 oz Au/ton was also re-analyzed using AA following aqua regia digestion of 0.1 g aliquots.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 163 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

A minority of the 2010 through 2012 drill samples were analyzed by SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) of Vancouver, British Columbia. The assay certificates do not indicate how or where the samples were prepared for analysis. At the SGS laboratory in Burnaby, BC, gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish and separate aliquots were analyzed by ICP for 35 major, minor and trace elements. SGS was a commercial laboratory independent of Gold Standard. RESPEC is not aware of certifications held by SGS at that time.

In 2013, pulps from previously prepared samples from North Bullion were analyzed by Bureau Veritas in Sparks, NV. Gold was determined by 30 g fire-assay fusion with an AA finish. Some of the samples were analyzed using a 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion and gravimetric finish. In 2014, some of the Bald Mountain drill sample pulps were re-analyzed at Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Vancouver, BC for copper by cyanide-H2SO4 leach. Other pulps were analyzed for 45 major, minor and trace elements by a combination of ICP and mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after four-acid digestion.

Samples from 2015, 2016. and 2017 drilling at North Bullion and Bald Mountain were analyzed at ALS and Bureau Veritas. At ALS the methods and procedures of preparation were the same as those used in 2010 through 2014. Gold was determined using ALS method code Au-AA23 and Au-GRA21 principally in the ALS laboratory in North Vancouver. Most gold assays on 2017 North Bullion samples were performed in the ALS laboratory in Reno with the same methods (Au-AA23; Au-GRA21). Separate aliquots of 0.5 g were analyzed for silver and 34 major, minor and trace elements by ICP following an aqua regia digestion in the North Vancouver laboratory. In some cases, these were composited pulps representing 20 ft (6.1 m) drill intervals.

A significant portion of the samples from the 2016 North Bullion drilling, and the majority of the 2017 North Bullion samples, were prepared and analyzed by Bureau Veritas. These samples were prepared in the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Elko. After crushing, an 8 oz riffle-split subsample was obtained from each drill sample. These subsamples were pulverized to 200-mesh size and the pulps were shipped to the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Sparks, NV. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion of 30 g aliquots with an AA finish. The pulps were shipped via air freight by Bureau Veritas to their analytical laboratory in Vancouver where they were analyzed for 45 major, minor and trace elements by ICP-MS after four-acid digestion.

Samples from Gold Standard's 2019 North Bullion drilling were analyzed at Bureau Veritas. A total of 40 major, minor and trace elements, including gold, were analyzed by ICP following an aqua regia digestion. The 2020 North Bullion drilling samples were analyzed at ALS for gold using a 30 g aliquot by fire-assay fusion followed by an AA finish. The 2021 drill samples were analyzed at Bureau Veritas by 30-gram fire assay with an AA finish. Both the 2022 and 2023 drill programs used AAL as the primary laboratory, using a 30 g fire assay with an AA finish. At Gold Standard's request, second analyses with a gravimetric finish were performed when assays exceeded specified grades. The 2024 drilling used Bureau Veritas again, with a 30 g fire assay with an AA finish, failing over to a gravimetric finish as needed. Thirty-foot composites were also created at the laboratory and analyzed using an ICP-MS method with a four-acid digestion for forty-five elements.

**11.3** **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security - Contact Gold and Orla - Pony Creek Property** 

**11.3.1** **Surface Exploration** 

11.3.1.1 Sample Collection, Preparation and Security

From 2017 to 2019, Contact Gold (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Orla Mining) collected and assayed 5,257 soil samples and 371 rock grab/channel samples at Pony Creek within the Property. All surface soil and rock sampling was conducted under the supervision of the Contact Gold's geologists and the chain of sample custody from the field to the sample preparation facility was continuously monitored.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 164 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2017, soils were collected at 164 ft (50 m) spacings along east-west oriented lines spaced 328 ft (100 m) apart in priority target areas and at 328 ft (100 m) spacings along areas with less potential. Soils in 2018 consisted of infill soils collected at 164 ft (50 m) spacings in anomalous areas delineated from the 2017 soil sampling campaign, as well as 328 ft (100 m) spaced samples collected on the rest of the Pony Creek area.

Soils samplers are trained before collecting samples at Pony Creek. They are instructed to not wear rings, and to work safely. Individual soil samples comprise between 500 and 1,100 g of surficial material (soil), generally collected at a depth of 10 to 20 in (25 to 51 cm). The soil profile at Pony Creek is poorly developed and variable, ranging from silty clay in valley bottoms to rocky soil material on ridges. The organic "A" horizon is generally absent to poorly developed in Nevada, and the soil sample is generally collected from the lower "B" horizon. The sample is scooped into a 1/4 in (1 cm) wire mesh sieve to remove all the coarse material, and sieved onto paper plates, and then poured directly into permeable 5 by 8.5-inch Sentry brand synthetic, breathable bags. Soil samples are located using handheld Garmin GPS units - generally with a 10 - 13 ft (3 - 4 m) accuracy, catalogued and placed in rice sacks that were sealed and shipped to ALS in Elko, NV, or Reno, NV, for geochemical analysis.

Rock grab samples collected at Pony Creek were approximately 1-2 kg in size and collected using a rock hammer. Samplers are instructed not to wear rings, and to work safely. The sample location is marked with a Garmin handheld GPS unit - generally with a 10 - 13 ft (3 - 4 m) accuracy, and a very detailed description entered into a waterproof field notebook including, sample type (i.e., outcrop, subcrop, float, grab, select, high-grade, channel, panel, etc.), color, lithology, alteration and all other pertinent information. All samples were placed in a Sentry brand synthetic, breathable bag with a unique sample number written on them with a permanent felt tip pen and tied closed. The location of the sample was flagged with the unique number on flagging tape and an aluminum tag. The sample site was occasionally photographed with the poly bag and sample in view. Individual rock grab samples were placed into a large rice bag weighing approximately 15 kg. The larger rice bags were secured with zip ties and a security tag and shipped to ALS in Elko, NV, for preparation.

11.3.1.2 Analytical Procedures

At ALS in Elko, NV, the 2017 - 2019 soil samples were received and weighed. The samples were then shipped to ALS in Reno, NV, where the raw samples were logged into ALS' global tracking system and then screened to 180 μm. Analysis for gold was completed via fire assay with an inductively coupled plasma – atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish on a 30 g aliquot (ALS lab code Au-ICP21). Sample pulps were shipped to ALS in North Vancouver, BC, for multielement geochemical analysis using 0.5 g aliquot of the pulp that is analyzed by wet chemical methods that comprise aqua regia acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish (ALS lab code ME-MS41).

At ALS in Elko, NV, the 2017 rock samples were weighed, crushed, screened, split and pulverized. The samples were then shipped to ALS in Reno, NV, or North Vancouver, BC, for geochemical analysis. Samples were crushed and pulverized. 30 g aliquots were analysed for gold via fire assay with an AAS finish (ALS lab code Au-AA23). Multielement geochemical analysis was completed using four acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish (ALS lab code ME-MS61). Select samples were analysed using cyanide solubility assays (ALS lab code Au-AA13) to identify oxide versus sulphide mineralization.

At ALS in Elko, NV, the 2018 and 2019 rock samples were weighed, crushed, screened, split and pulverized. The samples were shipped to ALS, in Reno, NV, or North Vancouver, BC, for geochemical analysis. The rock samples were crushed and pulverized, and 30 g aliquots were analysed for gold using fire assay with either AAS (ALS lab code Au-AA23) or AES finish (ALS lab code Au-ICP21). Multielement geochemical analysis was completed using either four acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish (ALS lab code ME-MS61) or aqua regia with an ICP-MS finish (ALS lab code ME-MS41). Mercury analysis on select samples is completed using aqua regia and an ICP-MS finish (ALS lab code Hg-MS42). Select samples were analysed using cyanide solubility assays (ALS lab code Au-AA13) to identify oxide versus sulphide mineralization.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 165 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Contact Gold, Orla Mining and the authors of this Technical Report.

**11.3.2** **Drilling Programs** 

11.3.2.1 Sample Collection, Preparation and Security

From 2017-2019, Contact Gold completed 113 RC drill holes and five DDH totalling 85,043 ft (25,921 m) at Pony Creek. Major Drilling of Salt Lake City, Utah (UT), conducted the drilling on behalf of Contact Gold utilizing a Shramm 455 track mounted RC drill and an LF 90 core drill. In 2024, Orla Mining completed 25 RC drill holes totalling 15,535 ft (4,735 m) at Pony Creek. Major Drilling of Salt Lake City, UT, also conducted the RC drilling on behalf of the Orla Mining with a Shramm 455 track mounted RC drill. Orla Mining did not conduct any core drilling on the Pony Creek property in 2024.

RC drilling conducted by both Contact Gold and Orla Mining was wet and utilized a rotary 16 section pie plate splitter for sample collection on 5 ft (1.5 m) intervals, with great care taken to make sure enough pie plates were installed to avoid overfilling and losing sample. Predominately, only one pie plate was left open for sample collection, and occasionally two pie plates were left open. RC samples were bagged during the drilling and were sent to the lab in bags using sample numbers.

Contact Gold provided ALS with sample sequence sheets to ensure the check samples would be run in sequence with the surrounding footages of the drill hole. Additionally, discrete sample numbers were given to each submitted sample in sequence to further disguise the insertion of check samples, hole names and footages of the samples. Contact Gold's 2017 - 2019 RC samples were transported to ALS in Elko, NV, either by Contact Gold personnel or picked up by ALS trucks and taken directly to the Elko laboratory for sample preparation.

Almost all of Contact Gold's core drilling was HQ size, although one hole was reduced to NQ due to pullback limitations of the drill. The Contact Gold geologist determined the sample intervals while logging core. Core samples were collected using core runs as sample breaks where possible, although occasionally geological breaks such as alteration, fault zones and intrusive-sedimentary contacts were used. All the drill core was photographed and then sawn in half by Rangefront Consulting (Rangefront) in their Elko, NV, warehouse using sample interval sheets supplied by the Contact Gold geologist.

The core collected by Contact Gold was split using a core saw with water to create wet sampling conditions. Half of the core was submitted to ALS Reno, NV for analysis. The other half was put back in the core box and retained in a warehouse in Elko, NV. Standard and blank material samples were filled by the Rangefront employees and inserted into their relevant sample bins upon submittal to the laboratory. Field duplicates were created using the two halves of sawn core, consuming the entire interval to ensure that sample volumes were identical. For the 2017 drilling, the average rate of check sample insertion was one sample per every 25 samples. Samples were collected by ALS from the Rangefront warehouse in Elko, NV and submitted to ALS in Reno, NV, for sample assay.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 166 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2024, Orla Mining provided Bureau Veritas with sample sequence sheets to ensure the check samples would be ran in sequence with the surrounding footages of the drillhole. Additionally, discrete sample numbers were given to each submitted sample in sequence to further disguise the insertion of check samples, hole names and footages of the samples. Orla Mining's 2024 RC samples were transported to Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Elko, NV for sample preparation and shipped to Bureau Veritas' laboratory in Reno, NV or Hermosillo, Mexico for geochemical analysis.

11.3.2.2 Analytical Procedures

Contact Gold's 2017-2019 RC and drill core samples were submitted to ALS in Elko, NV. Preparation of the samples was completed at ALS in Elko, NV, or ALS in North Vancouver, BC. The raw samples were logged into ALS' global tracking system, weighed, dried, then crushed to 70% at – 2 mm. The crushed material was then riffle split to obtain a 1 kg split, which was then ring-pulverized to 85% at -75 μm. Analysis of the pulps occurred in either Reno, NV, or in North Vancouver, BC. Gold was determined by fire-assay fusion with an AAS finish at a 5-ppb detection limit using 30 g aliquots (ALS lab code Au-AA23). Composite samples measuring 20 ft (6.09 m) were prepared from four 5 ft (1.5 m) samples on RC holes and multielement analysis of the composites was completed via four-acid digestion for all elements except mercury which was analyzed by cold vapor (ALS lab codes ME-MS61 and Hg-MS42). Multielement analysis was completed on the core samples using ME-MS61.

Overlimit samples for fire assay AAS values exceeding 4 ppm Au (0.117 oz Au/ton) were analysed using fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS lab code AU-GRA21). Fire assay AAS values exceeding 0.14 ppm Au (0.004 oz Au/ton) in 2017 and 0.10 ppm Au (0.003 oz Au/ton) in 2018 and 2019, were analysed using cyanide solubility assays (ALS lab code Au-AA13) to identify oxide versus sulphide mineralization.

ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Orla Mining and the authors of this Technical Report.

Orla Mining's 2024 RC samples were analysed by Bureau Veritas. The samples were received by the Bureau Veritas in Elko, NV, which conducted drying, weighing and crushing of samples. In Elko, samples underwent laboratory preparation technique PRP70-500 (crush to better than 70% passing 2 mm, riffle split off 250 g and pulverize the split to better than 85% passing 75 microns). Gold assay technique, FA430 (30 g fire assay with an AAS finish), was then performed to each sample at the Bureau Veritas facility in Reno, NV. Samples that returned a significant Au assay with FA430 were tested again with technique CN403 at the Bureau Veritas facility in Hermosillo, Mexico. In CN403, a 30 g sample is shaken for one hour in a 60mL cyanide solution, then analyzed with AAS.

Bureau Veritas Minerals laboratories maintain ISO 9001:2015 certification and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation and are independent of Orla Mining and the authors of this Report.

**11.4** **Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) – Historical Operators** 

Limited quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) information was available to Mr. Lindholm and Mr. Dufresne for review. Some QA/QC procedures and data were reviewed for historical work at Dark Star and Pony Creek, but none was available for the Pinion, Jasperoid Wash or North Bullion historical exploration and drilling.

**11.4.1** **Dark Star Drill Programs QA/QC** 

RESPEC reviewed historical CRM, duplicate and blank data from 1997 drilling, and external check assay data from 1991. Table 11-1 summarizes the quantities of each type of data by year. Some of the QA/QC in the table were part of the laboratory's internal QA/QC program.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 167 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-1: Summary Counts of Historical Dark Star QA/QC Analyses**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**QA/QC Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1991** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1997** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Certified Reference Materials |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number in Use |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Analyses |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Failures |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;"D" Duplicates |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coarse (Preparation) Duplicates |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Duplicates or Replicates |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;248 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;External Check Assays | &nbsp;&nbsp;133 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Blanks |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coarse Blanks |  |  |

---

11.4.1.1 Dark Star QA/QC - 1991

Check assays from MBA Lab and Actlabs analyzed in 1991 were compared to original assays of composited intervals from AAL. The original composites were made from material from ten of the 63 holes known to have been drilled that year. AAL and MBA used variations of fire assay and atomic absorption analytical methods, and the results compare well. Actlabs used the instrumental neutron activation method, and obtained results biased significantly high relative to the other two labs (Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2). Thus, for a small subset of the 1991 drill holes there is some validation of the assay results, based on the AAL versus MBA comparison. The AAL analyses in the database were used for resource estimation.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 168 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp07img02.jpg)

**Figure 11-1: Dark Star Assay Comparison - AAL vs. MBA - 1991 CDS Holes**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp07img03.jpg)

**Figure 11-2: Dark Star Assay Comparison - AAL vs Actlabs - 1991 CDS Holes**

11.4.1.2 Dark Star QA/QC - 1997

11.4.1.2.1 Certified Reference Materials

In total, 300 CRMs were analyzed with drill samples in 1997, although much of the data was from the laboratory's internal QA/QC. Only two failures were noted but are from holes excluded from use in the Dark Star mineral resource estimate. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-2, and the two failed analyses are detailed in Table 11-3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 169 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-2: Summary of Dark Star Certified Reference Material Analyses Results, 1997**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates Used** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates Used** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failure<br> Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failure<br> Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bias<br> pct** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**First** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Last** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bias<br> pct** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0563 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0534 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value not known; too few samples to chart |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-2.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_394 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known; too few samples to chart |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_1585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0398 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_1050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_2450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0715 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0701 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0756 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Aug-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_9900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3-Oct-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gannet_13800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9-Nov-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known; too few samples to chart |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BCC_Gold_STD_90-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1843 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25-Sep-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Oct-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value known, spec. limits not known; too few samples to chart |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FA_Synthetic | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Oct-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Oct-97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;target value not known; too few samples to chart |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Count or Sum | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Percent |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 170 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-3: List of Dark Star Failed Certified Reference Materials, 1997**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Drill Hole ID** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| **CRM ID** | **Drill Hole ID** | **Target for Std** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** | **Comment** |
| Gannet_192 | EMRR-9714 | 0.0056 High | 0.0076 | 0.0076 | This drill hole is not in RESPEC's data set. |
| Gannet_1050 | EMRR-9713 | 0.0306 High | 0.0338 | 0.0346 | This drill hole is not in RESPEC's data set. |

---

Available records do not include specifications for the CRMs used by Mirandor. The expected values for the ten CRMs used by Intertek are known, but the expected standard deviations are not. RESPEC used standard deviations derived from the gold assays set to evaluate the data.

11.4.1.2.2 Duplicates

The 1997 assay certificates available to RESPEC include results for 56 samples with a suffix "D." It is assumed that these are duplicates, but specific information including the type of duplicate is lacking. Based on relative differences, at grades below about 0.001 oz Au/ton, the "D" duplicates are on average biased 26% high relative to the presumed original samples. At higher grades, the bias of the duplicates averages only about 3.8% high, within the range of biases that RESPEC typically finds in such data sets.

The 1997 assay certificates contain results for 105 samples described as "Prep Duplicate". RESPEC interprets that these samples are preparation or coarse-crush duplicates. RESPEC's evaluation of these samples revealed no significant issues.

The 1997 assay certificates contain results for 58 pulp duplicates analyzed using a gravimetric finish and 190 pulp duplicates analyzed using an atomic absorption finish. RESPEC's evaluation of these assays showed the results to be acceptable.

Two subsets of gold grade ranges were recognized and evaluated for each of the "D" duplicates, preparation duplicates and pulp duplicates that were analyzed using an AA finish in 1997. The subsets were selected based on visual inspection of relative difference graphs. Notably, the division between lower- and higher-grade subsets is between 0.0010 and 0.0012 oz Au/ton. It appears that the variance was substantially lower at grades higher than approximately 0.0011 oz Au/ton than at lower grades. This result is generally expected, and any likely mining cutoff would be at a grade higher where the analyses show less variability.

11.4.1.2.3 Blanks

In 1997, Mirandor inserted blanks into the sample stream at intervals of approximately 250 ft (76.2 m), for 62 insertions. The results indicate there are no issues with respect to contamination. However, the type of blank material is not known, so it is also not known whether contamination during the analytical phase or during sample preparation was tested.

The Intertek assay certificates from 1997 contain results for 238 analyses of material that Intertek labelled "Analytical Blank." RESPEC reviewed these assays and found no high values that would indicate contamination.

**11.4.2** **Pony Creek Exploration QA/QC** 

Mr. Dufresne is unaware of any available information regarding the QA/QC procedures used by explorers prior to 2000.

During the 2000 RC drilling by Homestake, a total of 54 duplicate RC samples were analyzed at Bondar Clegg in Sparks, Nevada. The nature of these duplicate samples is not presently known, and further investigation is needed before meaningful analyses of the data can be completed. Bondar Clegg utilized quality control measures throughout the sample preparation and analysis process, including the insertion of laboratory duplicates and several different CRMs and blanks.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 171 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

During Grandview's 2006-2007 drilling program, a total of six core duplicate samples and 38 RC duplicate samples were analyzed by ALS. ALS utilized quality control measures throughout the sample preparation and analysis process, including the insertion of laboratory duplicates and several different certified reference materials (standards) and blanks during the analyses of Grandview's drilling and rock samples from 2005-2007.

ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

It is not known if QA/QC programs were instituted by the other historical operators during exploration at Pony Creek.

**11.5** **QA/QC – Gold Standard and Orla** 

**11.5.1** **QA/QC Procedures** 

The analytical portion of the QA/QC program employed by Gold Standard and Orla aimed to provide a means by which the accuracy and precision of the assaying that was performed on the North and South Railroad property drilling samples (core and RC chip) can be assessed to ensure the highest possible data quality. To achieve this goal, Gold Standard/Orla personnel inserted samples of certified reference materials (also known as standards), which are commercially available pulverized materials certified to contain a known concentration of an element (or elements) - in this case gold and silver. The Gold Standard/Orla protocol was to use several CRMs of varying gold concentration during a drilling campaign and randomly insert one CRM sample pulp into the stream of actual drill samples at a rate of approximately one in ten. These were alternately inserted with blank material with gold or silver below detectable limits. In the opinion of Mr. Lindholm, the analytical QA/QC measures employed by Gold Standard/Orla on the North and South Railroad properties are sufficient to properly monitor analytical accuracy and precision, and possible in-lab contamination.

CRMs used in mineral exploration are usually powders comprised of rock-forming minerals, including the metal of interest in known concentrations. They are analyzed along with batches of samples, and the resulting analyses are evaluated using criteria for passing or failing. CRMs are usually obtained from commercial suppliers. The suppliers provide specifications including the average of many analyses by multiple labs, and the standard deviation of the analyses. In the years 2014 through 2023 Gold Standard and Orla have used CRMs obtained from Minerals Exploration & Environmental Geochemistry, Inc. (MEG) of Reno, Nevada.

A typical criterion for accepting the analyses of CRMs in the mineral industry is that they should fall within a range determined by the average or expected value ± three standard deviations. Gold Standard/Orla uses a stricter criterion, the expected value ± two standard deviations. In the evaluation described here, RESPEC has used the expected value ± three standard deviations.

Blanks are samples known or thought to contain little or no gold. They are inserted into the sample stream and the results are monitored to be sure that the lab does not report significant gold values when little or no gold should be present. Coarse blanks generally test for contamination during sample preparation, where it predominantly occurs, whereas pulp blanks test for contamination during the analytical phase, which is much less common.

**11.5.2** **Dark Star Drill Programs - QA/QC** 

RESPEC has Gold Standard/Orla QA/QC data for the years 2015 through 2024. The types of QA/QC data vary from year to year, but in general there is a substantial suite of QA/QC data available to support the assays used in the Dark Star mineral resource estimate. Table 11-4 summarizes the quantities of each type of data by year. In addition to the project operator's QA/QC data, the summary in Table 11-4 also includes data from the laboratory's internal QA/QC programs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 172 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-4: Summary Counts of Dark Star QA/QC Analyses**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**QA/QC Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2015** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2016** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2017** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2018** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2019 –<br> 2020 Q1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2020 Q3<br> - 2024** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CRMs |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number in Use | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Analyses | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;708\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;319 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Failures | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Field Duplicates |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;688 | &nbsp;&nbsp;366 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coarse (Preparation) Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Duplicate or Replicates | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;External Checks | &nbsp;&nbsp;443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coarse Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;181 |

---

*Notes: \* A single analysis of a sixth standard is not included in the counts for 2016.*

11.5.2.1 Drill Programs - CRMs

11.5.2.1.1 CRMs - 2015

Gold Standard used Bureau Veritas as its primary laboratory in 2015. In total, 150 CRMs were analyzed with drill samples sent to Bureau Veritas, with only one failure recorded. The data associated with the single failure is not material to the mineral resource estimate. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-5, and the failed analysis is detailed in Table 11-6.

**Table 11-5: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2015**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure<br> Counts** | **Failure<br> Counts** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0016 | 0.0007 | 31 | Jun-15 | Nov-15 | 1 | 0 | -2.86 |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0028 | 0.0018 | 24 | Jun-15 | Nov-15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | 0.1080 | 0.1215 | 0.1014 | 16 | Jun-15 | Nov-15 | 0 | 0 | 0.35 |
| MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0220 | 0.0237 | 0.0203 | 31 | Jun-15 | Nov-15 | 0 | 0 | 0.94 |
| MEG-S107007X | 0.0445 | 0.0455 | 0.0486 | 0.0430 | 27 | Jun-15 | Nov-15 | 0 | 0 | 2.23 |
| MEG-Au.11.17 | 0.0785 | 0.0794 | 0.0885 | 0.0732 | 21 | Jun-15 | Oct-15 | 0 | 0 | 1.11 |
| Totals | 6 |  |  |  | 150 |  |  | 1 | 0 |  |

---

**Table 11-6: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2015**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target for Std** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fail Limit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failed Value** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;EMRR-9714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0010 &nbsp;&nbsp;High | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0016 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 173 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2017, "A comprehensive assay check (umpire) program was completed by ALS on original sample pulps from the Gold Standard's 2015 and 2016 drilling at the Dark Star deposit which had reported values at or above the 0.0041 oz Au/ton cut-off grade". Gold Standard elected to use the assays from ALS for the 2015 and 2016 samples. Consequently, most of the assays in RESPEC's database for the 2015 drill holes are the original Bureau Veritas assays, however, the majority of the assays at or above 0.0041 oz Au/ton are those from ALS. There are 376 such assays, out of a total of 3,426 from the 2015 drill holes. RESPEC's review of standards for 2015 applies only to the Bureau Veritas assays. RESPEC has no QA/QC data for the 2015 assays from ALS, so there is no QA/QC data applying to most of the mineral resource-grade samples from 2015.

11.5.2.1.2 CRMs - 2016

In total, 709 CRMs were analyzed with drill samples in 2016. The data associated with the two failures occurred but are not material with respect to the mineral resource estimate. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-7, and the two failed analyses are given in Table 11-8.

**Table 11-7: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2016**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0012 | 0.0008 | 156 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0012 | 0.0009 | 11 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 2.86 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0027 | 0.0017 | 142 |  |  | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0024 | 0.0023 | 8 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 5.13 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0218 | 0.0234 | 0.0204 | 141 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 0.40 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0221 | 0.0224 | 0.0216 | 6 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 1.74 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-S107007X | 0.0445 | 0.0454 | 0.0493 | 0.0402 | 114 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 2.03 |
| ALS | MEG-S107007X | 0.0445 | 0.0438 | 0.0452 | 0.0430 | 7 |  |  | 0 | 0 | -1.51 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.11.17 | 0.0785 | 0.0809 | 0.0880 | 0.0742 | 110 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 2.97 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.11.17 | 0.0785 | 0.0824 | 0.0855 | 0.0790 | 13 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 4.86 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | 0.1206 | 0.1206 | 0.1206 | 1 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 12.09 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0 |  |  | 0 | 0 | n/a |
| Inspectorate |  |  |  |  |  | 664 |  |  |  |  |  |
| ALS |  |  |  |  |  | 45 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Totals | 6 |  |  |  |  | 709 |  |  | 0 | 2 |  |

---

**Table 11-8: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2016**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Values in oz Au/ton** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target for Std** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fail Type<br> High/Low** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fail Limit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failed Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inspectorate | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 651A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inspectorate | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-38 1650A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 |

---

In addition to the analyses of CRMs by Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), a small number of CRM analyses were also analyzed by ALS in 2016. It is noteworthy that there was an overall high bias in the ALS data relative to the expected values for four of five CRMs, whereas the magnitude of bias associated with Bureau Veritas assays was considerably smaller. Bureau Veritas' assays were, on average, more accurate with respect to the expected values for the CRMs. Also, in 2016 some ALS check assays have been substituted for the original Bureau Veritas assays, but no CRMs were submitted with these samples.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 174 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.2.1.3 CRMs - 2017

Of 310 CRM assays in 2017, 180 were analyzed at ALS and the remaining 130 were analyzed at Bureau Veritas. Both ALS and Bureau Veritas analyses of the lowest-grade CRM, which has an expected value of 0.0023 oz Au/ton, were biased high by more than 6%, and three of ALS's analyses were high-side failures. Because the expected value and the highest grade of the failures are below a potential mining cutoff grade, the failures and the high bias associated with the lowest grade standard do not adversely affect confidence in the mineral resource estimate. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-9, and the three failed analyses are detailed in Table 11-10.

**Table 11-9: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2017**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure<br> Counts** | **Failure<br> Counts** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias<br> pct** |
| ALS | MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0029 | 0.0021 | 135 | 16-Jul-17 | 27-Oct-17 | 3 | 0 | 6.41 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0028 | 0.0021 | 64 | 8-Aug-17 | 2-Nov-17 | 0 | 0 | 7.69 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0219 | 0.0223 | 0.0216 | 8 | 2-Aug-17 | 10-Jan-18 | 0 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0218 | 0.0224 | 0.0211 | 6 | 12-Jan-18 | 27-Feb-18 | 0 | 0 | 0.4 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.0427 | 0.0443 | 0.0446 | 0.0436 | 3 | 30-Jul-17 | 30-Jul-17 | 0 | 0 | 3.62 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.0427 | 0.0428 | 0.0450 | 0.0393 | 11 | 19-Jan-18 | 27-Feb-18 | 0 | 0 | 0.27 |
| ALS | MEG-Au.12.21 | 0.0042 | 0.0040 | 0.0043 | 0.0037 | 34 | 30-Dec-17 | 15-Jan-18 | 0 | 0 | -3.5 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.12.21 | 0.0042 | 0.0041 | 0.0045 | 0.0035 | 44 | 27-Nov-17 | 27-Feb-18 | 0 | 0 | -2.8 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0035 | 0.0036 | 0.0033 | 5 | 27-Feb-18 | 27-Feb-18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ALS | 4 |  |  |  |  | 180 |  |  | 3 | 0 | 1.80 |
| Inspectorate | 5 |  |  |  |  | 130 |  |  | 0 | 0 | 1.11 |
| Totals | 9 |  |  |  |  | 310 |  |  | 3 | 0 |  |

---

**Table 11-10: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2017**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Target for Std** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** | **Comment** |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | ALS | DS17-15 2045-2050-A2 | 0.0023 high | 0.0028 | 0.0029 | no follow-up |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | ALS | DS17-15 1045-1050-A2 | 0.0023 high | 0.0028 | 0.0028 | no follow-up |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | ALS | DS17-15 1245-1250-A2 | 0.0023 high | 0.0028 | 0.0029 | no follow-up |

---

For three of four CRMs that were used, Bureau Veritas' assays are more precise on average to the expected values than the ALS CRM assays. The opposite was the case for the 2016 analysis of CRMs, when ALS CRM assays were biased low compared to Bureau Veritas.

11.5.2.1.4 CRMs - 2018

Five certified CRMs were used, and 594 CRM samples were analyzed in 2018. Three total failures occurred, two high and one low. The below detection value of the latter suggests an incorrectly labeled pulp blank rather than a failure, although this cannot be determined conclusively. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-11, and the three failed analyses are detailed in Table 11-12.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 175 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-11: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2018**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0034 | 0.0041 | 0.0027 | 76 | 14-Mar-18 | 16-Apr-18 | 0 | 0 | -4.17 |
| AAL | MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0029 | 0.0031 | 0.0001 | 16 | 24-Apr-18 | 30-Apr-18 | 0 | 1 | -17.5 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0029 | 0.0030 | 0.0036 | 0.0024 | 376 | 26-Jun-18 | 14-Feb-19 | 1 | 0 | 4.08 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0219 | 0.0230 | 0.0212 | 10 | 17-Aug-18 | 06-Sep-18 | 0 | 0 | 0.54 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.0427 | 0.0433 | 0.0465 | 0.0396 | 66 | 17-Aug-18 | 14-Feb-19 | 0 | 0 | 1.43 |
| Inspectorate | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0059 | 0.0066 | 0.0054 | 50 | 06-Sep-18 | 14-Feb-19 | 1 | 0 | 6.91 |
| Inspectorate | 5 |  |  |  |  | 578 |  |  | 2 | 0 | 0.47 |
| AAL | 1 |  |  |  |  | 16 |  |  | 0 | 1 | -17.5 |
| Totals | 6 |  |  |  |  | 594 |  |  | 2 | 1 |  |

---

**Table 11-12: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2018**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Target for <br> Std** | **Fail<br> Type** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** | **Comment** |
| MEG-Au.11.19 | AAL | DR18-25 545-550 A9 | 0.0035 | low | 0.0024 | <0.0001 | blank? |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | Insp. | DS18-02 1845-1850-L1 | 0.0029 | high | 0.0035 | 0.0036 | insufficient sample |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | Insp. | DC18-04 490-495-A12 | 0.0055 | high | 0.0064 | 0.0066 | deemed OK <br> by Gold Standard\* |

---

*Note: \* Failure occurs in an unmineralized geotechnical drill hole outside the gold model.*

Most of the analyses in 2018 were performed by Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), but there are sixteen CRM analyses associated with AAL assays with an expected value of 0.0035 oz Au/ton. The average of AAL's analyses of this CRM is biased 17.5% low, the magnitude of which is considered significant. Only one of the AAL analyses was a failure, which represents a 6.3% failure rate for the lab. Although this sample is suspected to be a mis-labeled blank, the failure and low bias merits investigation.

Insufficient sample material may have contributed to one of the two high failures that occurred in Bureau Veritas' analyses of CRMs in 2018. Both analyses were 0.0001 oz Au/ton above the upper failure limit, which barely qualify as failures. Gold Standard did not initiate any corrective action for any standard failure.

11.5.2.1.5 CRMs - 2019 to March 2020

Three certified CRMs were used, and 440 CRM samples were analyzed in 2019 to March 2020 by Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate) and to a lesser extent, AAL. Only two high-side failures occurred, one barely exceeded the three-standard deviation threshold, and another is most likely a mislabeled sample, although this cannot be confirmed. Results for one CRM were on average biased over 7% above the expected value. The bias associated with the same standard in 2018 was similar. Although the results for the CRM are within acceptable limits, Mr. Lindholm recommends investigating the bias by performing pulp check analyses of the CRM at another laboratory, if any of the CRM material is still available. The high positive bias of MEG-Au.17.07 from Bureau Veritas is largely the result of a single high value that skews the average of the CRM assays. Removing the single high sample decreases the bias to 6.35%. Results for CRM analyses are summarized in Table 11-13, with the two failures listed in Table 11-14.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 176 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-13: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| BV | MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0028 | 0.0029 | 0.0033 | 0.0026 | 177 | 07-Jan-19 | 04-Feb-20 | 0 | 0 | 3.90 |
| AAL | MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0028 | 0.0030 | 0.0031 | 0.0029 | 3 | 12-Mar-20 | 12-Mar-20 | 0 | 0 | 7.22 |
| BV | MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.0427 | 0.0435 | 0.0474 | 0.0404 | 138 | 07-Jan-19 | 04-Feb-20 | 0 | 0 | 1.85 |
| BV | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0062 | 0.0445 | 0.0053 | 119 | 07-Jan-19 | 04-Feb-20 | 2 | 0 | 12.25 |
| AAL | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0058 | 0.0060 | 0.0056 | 3 | 12-Mar-20 | 12-Mar-20 | 0 | 0 | 5.14 |
| Totals | 3 |  |  |  |  | 440 |  |  | 2 | 0 |  |

---

**Table 11-14: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Target<br> for Std** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** | **Comment** |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV | DR19-29 1045-1050-A12 | 0.00548 High | 0.0065 | 0.0445 | Mislabeled sample? |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DR19-81 45-50-A12 | 0.00548 High | 0.0065 | 0.0065 |  |

---

11.5.2.1.6 CRMs - September 2020 to 2024

Three CRMs were used during the September 2020 to December 2024 drilling program, and 317 CRM samples were submitted for assay. Most of the samples (75%) were sent to Bureau Veritas, with 13% going to AAL and the remainder to Paragon Labs. Results for these analyses are shown in Table 11-15.

**Table 11-15: Summary of Results of Dark Star CRM Analyses, 2020-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **Laboratory** | **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| All | MEG-Au.17.05 | 0.0015 | 0.0016 | 0.0018 | 0.0010 | 111 | 18-Sep-20 | 31-Dec-24 | 0 | 1 | 2.58 |
| BV | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0056 | 0.0064 | 0.0040 | 107 | 15-Nov-20 | 31-Dec-24 | 0 | 6 | 1.90 |
| AAL | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0054 | 0.0060 | 0.0019 | 18 | 03-Mar-20 | 24-Jan-24 | 0 | 0 | 4.55 |
| PGN | MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0056 | 0.0060 | 0.0052 | 17 | 18-Sep-20 | 15-Apr-21 | 0 | 0 | 2.25 |
| All | MEG-Au.19.11 | 0.0368 | 0.0362 | 0.0395 | 0.0016 | 64 | 18-Sep-20 | 08-Sep-23 | 1 | 3 | -1.71 |
| Totals | 3 |  |  |  |  | 317 |  |  | 1 | 10 |  |

---

All failures occurred at Bureau Veritas. Table 11-16 details the single high-side and ten low-side CRM assays that exceeded the three standard deviation thresholds from the drilling programs between 2020 and 2024. The variability in CRM assays was high for the early samples sent to BV around November of 2020. Nine of the 11 CRM assay failures occurred during this time period and were from in DS20-02. All but one were low failures, and the CRM assay values exceeded the three standard deviation limits by only small amounts, usually in the fourth decimal place. A passing or failed test could be determined by the decimal place for rounding applied to the original assay or a converted value between g Au/t and oz Au/ton.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 177 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-16: List of Dark Star Failed CRM Assays, 2020-2024**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** | **Values in oz Au/ton** |
| **CRM ID** | **Lab** | **Sample ID** | **Target <br> for Std** | **Fail<br> Type** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | BV | DS20-02 839.5-844-A11 | 0.0015 | Low | 0.0012 | 0.0010 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 1070-1075-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0065 | 0.0065 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 1160-1163-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0045 | 0.0043 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 120-125-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0045 | 0.0041 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 366-372-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0045 | 0.0041 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 765-770-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0045 | 0.0044 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV. | DS20-02 910-913-A12 | 0.0055 | Low | 0.0045 | 0.0045 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | BV | DC21-05 71.5-76-A13 | 0.0368 | Low | 0.0343 | 0.0336 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | BV | DR20-21 45-50-A13 | 0.0368 | Low | 0.0343 | 0.0016 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | BV | DS20-02 606.5-612-A13 | 0.0368 | Low | 0.0343 | 0.0342 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | BV | DS20-02 606.5-612-A13 | 0.0368 | High | 0.0394 | 0.0395 |

---

Gold Standard evaluated CRM data during and after drilling and generally followed up on CRM failures within a year of receipt of the assays. The degree to which a CRM assay exceeded the three standard deviation threshold was considered, and if the magnitude of the failure was sufficiently low, the associated assays were accepted. The location of the samples relative to mineralization was also considered. If the gold grades in the vicinity of the failed CRM assay were ≤0.003 oz Au/ton, which is within the outer shell domain at Dark Star, or outside optimized pits, then no action was taken. If CRM assay failures were significant and were within mineralized zones, further investigation was undertaken. Gold Standard would re-assay either the failed CRM only, five samples above and below the CRM, or the entire hole. Treatment of the data was then determined. No assay substitutions were indicated in Gold Standard's or Orla's documentation.

Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla modified some of the QA/QC follow up procedures. Response time was shortened, and action was generally taken within one month of receipt of assay data. Five samples above and below the failed CRM were re-assayed rather than the CRM only, regardless of location with respect to mineralization. If results were still consistently high or low, more samples were re-assayed.

11.5.2.2 Drill Programs - Duplicates

One of two Excel files provided to MDA with QA/QC data for 2015 contains a compilation of analytical results for Bureau Veritas' (Inspectorate) internal-preparation and pulp duplicates, which are from holes DS15-06 through DS15-12. There is no other duplicate data available for other holes drilled in 2015. Mr. Lindholm evaluated the results for these duplicates and found the inherent variability in the assays to be within expected limits. However, there was a negative bias in pulp duplicates with respect to the original analyses. The average difference of pulp duplicates at grades exceeding 0.0012 oz Au/ton relative to the originals is lower by 5.5%.

MDA was provided with QA/QC data for 2016 containing a compilation of Bureau Veritas' internal preparation duplicate and replicate data, comprised of 185 preparation duplicate pairs and 198 pulp duplicate or replicate pairs. Evaluation of these revealed no significant issues.

Evaluation of the charts of 322 and 714 field duplicates analyzed in the 2017 and 2018 QA/QC data sets, respectively, revealed no significant issues.

Variability between 1,271 original samples and field duplicates in the 2019 to March 2020 data was reasonable, although two outliers were excluded. Less variability was evident in the 336 September 2020 to 2024 field duplicates. Variability in duplicate analyses compared to the originals generally reflects the natural heterogeneity inherent in gold deposits, although unequal sample splitting could be indicated as well.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 178 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.2.3 Drill Programs - Blanks

In 2015, Gold Standard used pulp blanks obtained from a vendor of standard reference materials. No issues with respect to contamination were indicated by the 148 analyses of the blank material.

In 2016, 572 commercial pulp blanks obtained from a vendor of CRMs were analyzed. No issues with respect to contamination were revealed by these analyses. Additionally, the data package for 2016 contains 535 analyses of a pulp blank used by Bureau Veritas as part of their internal QA/QC program. MDA evaluated these and found no values that would suggest contamination issues. Gold Standard compiled results from 205 coarse blanks analyzed by Bureau Veritas as part of their internal QA/QC protocol. The location with respect to mineralized samples within the analytical sequence of the blanks is not known, so some of the data may not be testing for contamination during sample preparation. Regardless, the blank analyses were within reasonable limits.

In 2017, Gold Standard included 170 pulp blanks obtained from a supplier of CRMs with drill samples. The analyses of these results revealed no significant issues with respect to contamination. Gold Standard inserted 111 samples of a coarse marble blank into the sample stream in 2017. In blanks from three holes analyzed in October and November 2017, there is a significant correlation between analyses of blanks that reported detectable gold and high gold values in preceding samples. Some contamination during sample preparation is suggested, however, the highest gold assay of a marble blank is 0.0006 oz Au/ton, which is well below potential mining cutoff grades. The occurrence of low levels of detectable gold in coarse blanks following relatively high-grade samples is not unusual and does not necessarily a systematic issue with respect to sample preparation. However, continued monitoring of coarse blank assays is warranted, and should be brought to the attention of the assaying lab if higher blank assay grades are received.

During the 2018 drill program, Gold Standard inserted pulp blanks into the RC sample stream, however, none were submitted with samples from core drilling. Most of the 364 blank analyses were within acceptable limits. Gold Standard re-analyzed part of the sample batch associated with one pulp blank gold assay of 0.0008 opt Au. It is not known if the re-analyses replaced the original assays. The 158 analyses of coarse marble blanks in 2018 indicate possible contamination during sample preparation between mid-July and mid-October. There was a correlation between detectable gold in the coarse blanks and the preceding relatively high-grade samples, similar to that which occurred in the 2017 drill program. The same conclusion applies in 2018, in that contamination during sample preparation is suggested, however, the blank assay values well below potential mining cutoff grades and a systematic, problematic contamination issue is not indicated. As always, continued monitoring of coarse blank assays is warranted, and should be brought to the attention of the assaying lab if higher blank assay grades are received.

The results for both the coarse and pulp blanks analysed from 2019 to the first quarter of 2020 were acceptable. No significant issue with respect to contamination was revealed. Eighty analyses of coarse blanks were analysed in a shipment of samples from four core holes. The results did indicate minor contamination in two of the samples during sample preparation, however the contamination is still below threshold of five-times the detection limits in use, and well below potential mining cut-off grades.

There was one significant failure associated with coarse (preparation) blanks analysed for the 2021 drill program. The blank assay of 0.0018 oz Au/ton followed a relatively high assay grade of 0.2 oz Au/ton. This failure was sample DC21-03 137-142.5-B2 in the Bureau Veritas certificate EKO21000183. The steps taken to follow up on this blank failure is not known, however, the blank assay value is well below a potential mining cutoff grade and indicates no systematic contamination issue. The eighty-eight pulp blanks analysed during the same period were within an acceptable range.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 179 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.2.4 Drill Programs - External Check Assays

11.5.2.4.1 ALS vs. Bureau Veritas Pulp Checks - 2015

In 2017, Gold Standard obtained re-analyses of pulps from the 2015 samples at ALS, for comparison with the original Bureau Veritas assays. MDA evaluated these check assays, as shown in Figure 11-3. In all, there are 443 sample pairs. ALS' analyses are biased higher on average by about 4.7% relative to Bureau Veritas. Although the bias is not significant and the ALS assays compare reasonably well to the Bureau Veritas check assays, Gold Standard substituted some check assays by ALS for the original Bureau Veritas assays.

11.5.2.4.2 ALS vs. Bureau Veritas Pulp Checks - 2016

In 2017, Gold Standard obtained re-analyses of the 2016 samples at ALS, for comparison with the original Bureau Veritas assays. MDA evaluated these check assays, as shown in Figure 11-4. There are 1,376 sample pairs. ALS' analyses are biased on average about 3.8% high relative to Bureau Veritas. Although the bias is not significant and the ALS assays compare reasonably well to the Bureau Veritas check assays, Gold Standard substituted some check assays by ALS for the original Bureau Veritas assays.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp07img04.jpg)

**Figure 11-3: Dark Star Check Assays – ALS Assay vs. Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), 2015**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 180 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8001.jpg)

**Figure 11-4**: Dark Star Check Assays - ALS Assay vs. Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), 2016**

11.5.2.4.3 ALS vs. Bureau Veritas Pulp Checks
 - 2017

In April and August 2018, Gold Standard submitted select pulps from three holes drilled in 2017 to outside labs as check assays. Pulps from one hole originally assayed by ALS were sent to Bureau Veritas (Inspectorate), and pulps from the other two holes originally assayed by Bureau Veritas were sent to ALS. In total, 175 check assay pairs were evaluated.

At grades up to about 0.0875 oz Au/ton, both sets of lab results compare well with little bias. Between about 0.0875 oz Au/ton and 0.2917 oz Au/ton, which is near the upper limit for ALS' Au-AA23 analytical method, ALS is biased low by about 6.8% relative to Bureau Veritas based on relative differences of 14 sample pairs. Conversely, at grades above 0.2917 oz Au/ton, for which both labs used a gravimetric finish, ALS is biased on average about 4.6% high relative to Bureau Veritas, based on relative differences of five sample pairs. Although the biases demonstrated were low, no conclusive determination can be made due to the small number of sample pairs.

11.5.2.4.4 Bureau Veritas vs. ALS Pulp
 Checks - 2019

In March of 2020, 312 pulps from the 2019 drilling were submitted to American Assay as check assays. The relative difference plot shows an average mean of the pair of 4.69%, with original greater than check assays. The check assays were submitted for 30 g fire assay with an atomic absorption finish. Half (156) of the pulps were originally analysed by 30 g fire assay with an atomic absorption finish, while the other half were analysed by ICP "ultratrace" methods (diluted for lower detection limits). As expected, comparing the fire assay methods from the two labs gave a nearly perfect regression equation of:

y = 0.9597x - 0.0003,

The slope in the regression equation for the fire assay compared to the ICP "Ultra" method indicated more bias:

y = 0.7857x + 0.0018

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 181 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The ICP ultra method at AAL consistently tends to produce lower duplicate values and is noticeable in a scatter plot where original values are greater than 0.050 opt. Figure 11-5 shows the simple scatter plot with the original from Bureau Veritas (fire assay) and the duplicate from American Assay (ICP Ultra).

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8002.jpg)

**Figure 11-5**: External Check Assays – BV (ICP Ultra Method) vs. AAL (Fire Assay), 2020**

11.5.2.5 Twin Hole Analysis - 2018

Gold Standard drilled one core hole twin (DC18-09) of a RC drill hole (DR18-44). The holes were collared 18.7 ft (5.7 m) apart and intersected a significant amount of low- and high-grade mineralization. Core intervals were composited to 10 ft (3 m) to match the RC intervals to facilitate a more direct comparison of the data. The overall higher-grade intercepts are longer in the core hole, although the relative positions of mineralization are similar in the two holes. Average gold grade is higher in the core hole at 0.0569 oz Au/ton, compared to 0.0437 oz Au/ton in the RC hole (Figure 11-6). The core hole roughly confirms the data in the RC hole, but the results from a single pair of twinned holes do not necessarily apply to the drill campaign(s) as a whole. The single twin-hole comparison does suggest that grade of mineralization can vary greatly over short distances within the Dark Star deposit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 182 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8003.jpg)

**Figure 11-6**: Scatter Plot of Twin-Hole Analysis – DC18-09 (core) vs DR18-44 (RC)**

11.5.3 Pinion Drill Programs - QA/QC

During the period 2014 through 2016, Gold Standard's QA/QC program involved the use of pulp blanks and CRMs. No coarse blanks or duplicates were collected or analyzed during those years. In 2017 and 2024, Gold Standard's QA/QC program was similar to the previous program, but with the addition of coarse blanks and RC rig (field) duplicates. Check assays were sent to referee laboratories from 2017 to 2021.

11.5.3.1 Drill Programs - CRMs

11.5.3.1.1 CRMs - 2014 – 2015

For drilling during 2014 and 2015, Gold Standard supplied MDA with the analyses of 773 CRMs. MDA prepared control charts to evaluate the combined 2014 and 2015 data for each of the eight CRMs used during the campaign. The results are summarized in Table 11-17. Details of the 11 failures are listed in Table 11-18.

**Table 11-17**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2014–2015**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0023 | 0.0006 | 180 | Apr 2014 | Dec 2015 | 1 | **1** | -2.86 |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0026 | 0.0019 | 123 | Apr 2014 | Dec 2015 | 0 | 0 | 1.28 |
| MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0034 | 0.0040 | 0.0028 | 20 | Apr 2014 | July 2014 | 0 | 0 | -2.50 |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | 0.1088 | 0.1304 | 0.0925 | 86 | Apr 2014 | Dec 2015 | 0 | 0 | 1.11 |
| MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0221 | 0.0241 | 0.0198 | 164 | July 2014 | Dec 2015 | 0 | 0 | 1.74 |
| MEG-S107007X | 0.0445 | 0.0448 | 0.0484 | 0.0346 | 112 | Apr 2014 | Dec 2015 | 0 | **3** | 0.58 |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | 0.0617 | 0.0671 | 0.1578 | 0.0537 | 52 | July 2014 | Dec 2014 | **6** | 0 | -0.94 |
| MEG-Au.11.17 | 0.0785 | 0.0816 | 0.0872 | 0.0767 | 36 | June 2015 | Dec 2015 | 0 | 0 | 3.90 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 773 |  |  | 7 | 4 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 183 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-18**: List of Pinion Failed CRM Analyses, 2014–2015**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Sample ID** | **Cert. Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Fail Type**<br> **High/Low** | **Fail Limit**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Failed Value**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | PIN14-20 650A | 0.0010 | Low | 0.0007 | 0.0006 |  |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | PIN14-44 100B | 0.0010 | High | 0.0014 | 0.0023 | misidentification? |
| MEG-S107007X | PIN14-06 302A | 0.0445 | Low | 0.0386 | 0.0382 |  |
| MEG-S107007X | PIN14-09 350A | 0.0445 | Low | 0.0386 | 0.0382 |  |
| MEG-S107007X | PIN14-11 150A | 0.0445 | Low | 0.0386 | 0.0346 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-11 450A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.0831 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-18 250A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.0965 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-34 250A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.0811 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-38 250A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.1578 | misidentification? |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-52 250A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.1557 | misidentification? |
| MEG-Au.11.34 | PIN14-56 250A | 0.0617 | High | 0.0767 | 0.1047 |  |

---

Six high failures occurred for one CRM, MEG-Au.11.34, which represents a nearly 12% failure rate. The control chart for this CRM is shown in Figure 11-7, and explanations for the control charts are in Table 11-19. Some of the more extreme high failures listed in Table 11-18 could be mislabeled standards rather than actual failures, although this cannot be confirmed.

**Table 11-19**: Explanations for Control Charts**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations** **Obtained from Certificate for CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations** **Obtained from Certificate for CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations** **Obtained from Certificate for CRM** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;USL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Upper Specification Limit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Target + 3 Std Dev |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Target | &nbsp;&nbsp;Target Value |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LSL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lower Specification Limit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Target - 3 Std Dev |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations Calculated Using Assays of CRMs** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations Calculated Using Assays of CRMs** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean and Standard Deviations Calculated Using Assays of CRMs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;UCL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Upper Control Limit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Avg + 3 Std Dev |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Avg | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mean Value |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LCL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lower Control Limit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Avg - 3 Std Dev |

---

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8004.jpg)

**Figure 11-7**: Control Chart for MEG-Au.11.34, Pinion, 2014–2015**

Note: data points shown as hollow squares were not used in calculating the average and bias listed in *Table 11-14*.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 184 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Another control chart, for MEG-S107007X, is shown in Figure 11-8. The first ten analyses highlighted in red, three of which are analytical failures, are biased conspicuously low. Possible causes for these low analyses include mis-labeled CRMs or, for that period in 2014, the laboratory was producing analyses that were significantly low, after which the instruments were adjusted. However, the latter is less likely because similar consistently low bias was not apparent in analyses of other CRMs during the same period. Regardless, there are no records to document an investigation by Gold Standard for these consistently low CRM assays, and confidence is lower for the assays associated with the respective sample batches.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8005.jpg)

**Figure 11-8**: Control Chart for MEG-S107007X, Pinion, 2014–2015**

11.5.3.1.2 CRMs - 2016 – 2018

Gold Standard provided MDA with sets of control charts for CRMs used during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 drilling campaigns. The results are summarized in Table 11-20, Table 11-21, and Table 11-22.

No failures were identified in the data for CRMs in 2016, and only one occurred in 2017. Three high failures occurred in 2018, as indicated in Table 11-22 and listed in Table 11-23. One plotted at the three standard deviation threshold and was not considered problematic by Gold Standard and MDA. The assays associated with the other two high failures do not impact the gold model and mineral resources.

The magnitude of bias given in Table 11-20 and Table 11-21 are within the range that is expected for gold assays. However, the low bias observed for analyses of CRM MEG-Au.11.19 in 2018 (Table 11-22) is excessive. The first thirteen assays of the CRM have a reasonably low average bias of 2.3%. However, the last seven CRMs assays, analyzed from April 10 through April 29, 2018, are biased ~18.5% low, well outside a reasonable range. Possible explanations include an abrupt change in the physical character of the CRM or a change in the laboratory's analytical instrumentation or process. Although none of the seven low-biased analyses is technically a failure according to the usual criteria, the demonstrated bias could indicate a systematic analytical issue that reduces confidence in associated assays. Another set of CRM samples with a similar order of magnitude gold grade, MEG-Au.17.06, was analyzed during the period April 11 through June 13, 2018, and show only a slight positive bias, suggesting the laboratory was not consistently producing analyses with a strong low bias during the period. Ultimately, the cause for the excessive bias is not known.

The number of CRMs in use has varied with each drilling program and fewer CRMs were employed in more recent years. Still, Gold Standard typically used one or more of each low-grade, mid-grade, and high-grade CRMs to represent the range of mineralized grades encountered at Pinion. However, except for a short period in mid-April, Gold Standard used only two low-grade CRMs in 2018, both with certified grades below a potential mining cutoff (Table 11-22). This is depicted graphically in Figure 11-10, which plots all assays of the three CRMs and associated samples. The grades tested by the low-grade CRMs clearly are not representative of the grade range of the sample assays.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 185 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-20**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2016**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0011 | 0.0008 | 73 | June 2016 | Jan 2017 | 0 | 0 | -2.86 |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0023 | 0.0026 | 0.0020 | 68 | June 2016 | Jan 2017 | 0 | 0 | 2.32 |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | 0.1081 | 0.1202 | 0.1027 | 15 | June 2016 | July 2016 | 0 | 0 | 0.52 |
| MEG-Au.13.02 | 0.0218 | 0.0221 | 0.0228 | 0.0213 | 25 | June 2016 | Jan 2017 | 0 | 0 | 1.73 |
| MEG-S107007X | 0.0445 | 0.0445 | 0.0475 | 0.0414 | 39 | June 2016 | Oct 2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.11.17 | 0.0785 | 0.0813 | 0.0875 | 0.0709 | 43 | June 2016 | Jan 2017 | 0 | 0 | 3.44 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 263 |  |  | 0 | 0 |  |

---

**Table 11-21**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2017**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.10.02 | 0.0010 | 0.0010 | 0.0012 | 0.0002 | 11 | Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | 0 | 1 | -2.86 |
| MEG-Au.10.04 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0025 | 0.0022 | 8 | Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | 0 | 0 | 3.85 |
| MEG-Au.12.21 | 0.0042 | 0.0040 | 0.0044 | 0.0036 | 31 | Nov 2017 | Dec 2017 | 0 | 0 | -4.90 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 50 |  |  | 0 | 1 |  |

---

**Table 11-22**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2018**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0029 | 0.0029 | 0.0037 | 0.0024 | 258 | 11 Apr 2018 | 6 Jul 2018 | 3 | 0 | 2.32 |
| MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0034 | 0.0040 | 0.0028 | 13 | 29 Mar 2018 | 9 Apr 2018 | 0 | 0 | -2.31 |
| MEG-Au.11.19 | 0.0035 | 0.0029 | 0.0030 | 0.0027 | 7 | 10 April 2018 | 29 Apr 2018 | 0 | 0 | -18.45 |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.1076 | 0.1123 | 0.1268 | 0.0989 | 16 | 5 April 2018 | 20 Apr 2018 | 0 | 0 | 5.41 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 294 |  |  | 3 | 0 |  |

---

**Table 11-23**: List of Failed Pinion CRM Assays, 2018**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Sample ID** | **Target for Std**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Fail Limit**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Failed<br> Value**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Comment** |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | PR18-78 245-250-L1 | 0.0029 High | 0.0035 | 0.0035 | accepted by Gold Standard |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | PR18-89 45-50-L1 | 0.0029 High | 0.0035 | 0.0037 | does not affect any mineral resource blocks |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | PC18-03 32-34.5-L1 | 0.0029 High | 0.0035 | 0.0036 | samples re-run by Gold Standard; original assays replaced by re-runs in mineral resource estimate |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 186 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8005.gif)

**Figure 11-9: Control Chart for MEG-Au.11.19, Pinion, 2018**

Note: Target, Average, USL, LSL, UCL, and LCL are determined from analyses of the CRM as explained in *Table 11-19*.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8006.jpg)

**Figure 11-10**: Grade and Date Ranges of 2018 Pinion CRMs**

11.5.3.1.3 CRMs for Gold and Gold Cyanide
 Analyses - 2019 – 2020

Five CRMs were used during the 2019 and 2020 drill campaigns, and a total of 469 CRM analyses were obtained. With an insertion rate of about 1.2% for CRMs, 1.8% for blanks, and 0.8% for duplicates, a total insertion rate of 3.8% was maintained throughout the two drill campaigns. The laboratories used were Bureau Veritas, from January 2019 to October 2020, and Paragon Geochemical, from September 2020 to December 2020, with little overlap. For this reason, all standards were plotted across labs. A summary of the results of CRM analyses is shown in Table 11-24. There were 11 failures in the gold standards as shown in Table 11-25. It is not known if any action was taken to follow up on the failures.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 187 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-24**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Gold Analyses, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Max** | **Min** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.0427 | 0.0434 | 0.0462 | 0.0400 | 18 | 12-Dec-18 | 10-Dec-19 | 0 | 0 | 1.60 |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | 0.0015 | 0.0015 | 0.0020 | 0.0010 | 130 | 18-Feb-20 | 1-Mar-21 | 1 | 4 | 0.0 |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0028 | 0.0030 | 0.0034 | 0.0027 | 22 | 12-Dec-18 | 10-Dec-20 | 1 | 0 | 7.10 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.0057 | 0.0067 | 0.0048 | 167 | 12-Dec-18 | 1-Mar-21 | 2 | 0 | 3.60 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | 0.0368 | 0.0370 | 0.0398 | 0.0347 | 132 | 9-Jul-20 | 1-Mar-21 | 3 | 0 | 0.50 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 469 |  |  | 7 | 4 |  |

---

**Table 11-25**: List of Pinion Failed CRM Gold Assays, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** |
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Target** | **Fail Type**<br> **High/Low** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Paragon | PC20-10 107-112-A11 | 0.00152 | low | 0.00117 | 0.0011 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PR20-31 245-250-A11 | 0.00152 | low | 0.00117 | 0.0010 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Paragon | PR20-54 45-50-A11 | 0.00152 | low | 0.00117 | 0.0008 |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | Bureau Veritas | PC19-12 367-372-L1 | 0.00283 | high | 0.00344 | 0.0034 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | Bureau Veritas | PC18-29 218-223-A12 | 0.00548 | high | 0.00645 | 0.0065 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | Bureau Veritas | PC19-07 37-42-A12 | 0.00548 | high | 0.00645 | 0.0067 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Paragon | LT20-10 245-250-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03938 | 0.0397 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PR20-22 445-450-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03938 | 0.0398 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PR20-24 45-50-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03938 | 0.0397 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Paragon | PR20-58 445-450-A13 | 0.03684 | High | 0.03938 | 0.0398 |

---

Gold cyanide (AuCN) shaker-test analyses were performed on selected samples throughout the 2019-20 drilling programs. Both Bureau Veritas and Paragon Geochemical provided the analyses. Since no certified AuCN CRMs were obtained (and may not exist), the data was evaluated using means and standard deviations derived from the analyses. Using the mean grade for comparison, a measure of the consistency of the assaying is provided, but the accuracy of the analyses is not tested. CRM assay results are presented in Table 11-26. As expected with the applied methodology, only three samples exceeded the mean ±3 standard deviations limits. The three failures, two from Paragon and one from Bureau Veritas, are listed in Table 11-27.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 188 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-26**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM AuCN Analyses, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** **ID** | **AuCN Grades in oz Au/ton** | **AuCN Grades in oz Au/ton** | **AuCN Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** |
| **CRM** **ID** | **Target** | **Max** | **Min** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** |
| MEG-Au.12.11 | 0.034 | 0.0403 | 0.0283 | 18 | 19-Dec-18 | 10-Dec-19 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.0024 | 0.0032 | 0.0012 | 12 | 24-Dec-18 | 10-Dec-19 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0024 | 0.0056 | 0.0009 | 149 | 19-Dec-18 | 01-Mar-21 | 2 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | 0.0357 | 0.0403 | 0.0143 | 117 | 9-Jul-20 | 01-Mar-21 | 0 | 1 |
| Totals |  |  |  | 296 |  |  | 2 | 1 |

---

**Table 11-27**: List of Pinion Failed CRM AuCN Assays, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **AuCN Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **AuCN Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **AuCN Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **AuCN Values in** **oz Au/ton** |
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Target** | **Fail Type**<br> **High/Low** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | Paragon | LT20-03 45-50-A12 | 0.00548 | high | 0.00516 | 0.00530 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | Paragon | LT20-05 45-50-A12 | 0.00548 | high | 0.00516 | 0.00560 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-03 408.1-410-A13 | 0.03684 | low | 0.0357 | 0.0143 |

---

11.5.3.1.4 CRMs for Silver Re-Analyses
 of Pulps – 2019

In order to more accurately model silver domains, silver analyses were performed on pulps at original five-foot intervals from the 2014 to 2018 drilling campaigns to replace assays run on 20 to 30 ft (6.1 to 9.1 m) composited intervals. The re-runs were performed in March and April of 2019, and Gold Standard submitted 765 CRMs with the pulps using three different CRMs certified for silver. The properties of the three CRMs as well as the results of the 765 analyses of standards for silver are summarized in Table 11-28. The failures are listed in Table 11-29.

**Table 11-28**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Silver Analyses, 2019**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** **ID** | **Grades in oz Ag/ton** | **Grades in oz Ag/ton** | **Grades in oz Ag/ton** | **Grades in oz Ag/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM** **ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-LWA-34 | 0.0554 | 0.0379 | 0.0875 | 0.0146 | 331 | 20-Mar-19 | 10-Apr-19 | 0 | 33\* | -31.6 |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.3908 | 0.4025 | 0.5833 | 0.0583 | 336 | 20-Mar-19 | 15-Apr-19 | 7 | 1 | 3.0 |
| MEG-Au.13.03 | 0.1312 | 0.1400 | 0.1750 | 0.0583 | 98 | 18-Apr-19 | 27-Apr-19 | 0 | 1 | 6.7 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 765 |  |  | 7 | 2\* |  |

---

*Note:* *\* the 33 failures of MEG-LWA-34 are not included in the calculation of the failure rate.*

*MEG-LWA-34 and MEG-Au.11.29 were used with samples from holes drilled in 2014 through 2018.*

*MEG-Au.13.03 was used with samples from holes drilled in 2014 through 2016.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 189 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-29**: List of Pinion Failed CRM Silver Assays**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** **ID** | **Sample ID** | **Target for Std<br> (** **oz Ag/ton)** | **Fail Type** | **Fail Limit<br> (** **oz Ag/ton)** | **Failed Value<br> (** **oz Ag/ton)** | **Comment** |
| MEG-LWA-34 | 33 samples | 0.0554 | low | 0.0204 | <0.0292 | below detection limit; not material |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PR18-52 245-250-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5833 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PR18-01 245-250-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.4958 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PR18-80 245-250-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5833 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PIN16-19 245-250-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5833 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PIN15-09 1845-1850-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5250 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PIN15-19 245-250-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5833 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PIN14-07 645-650-S2 | 0.3908 | high | 0.4696 | 0.5542 |  |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | PR18-74 645-650-S2 | 0.3908 | low | 0.3121 | 0.0583 | sample mix-up? |
| MEG-Au.13.03 | PIN14-27 45-50-S3 | 0.1312 | low | 0.0787 | 0.0583 |  |

---

MEG-LWA-34 is a low-grade standard with an expected value of approximately 0.0292 oz Ag/ton, which is near the lower detection limit of the analytical method. The 33 low failures are not material given the low precision of the analytical method and are not considered in the overall failure rate for silver CRMs.

The seven high failures of MEG-Au.11.33 were considered in context with silver assays of adjacent samples and location relative to mineral domains. The failures are not considered to be material with respect to the silver modeling and estimation.

The QA/QC data includes another 17 silver analyses of a CRM certified for gold but not for silver. The certificate characterizing the CRM notes an expected silver value of 0.0020 oz Ag/ton. The 17 analyses, reported in ppb silver and converted to oz Ag/ton, are within the range 0.0004 to 0.0009 oz Ag/ton. Given the low silver grades and the lack of certification for silver, Mr. Lindholm does not consider the results to be significant or material.

The overall contribution of silver to the project economics is small. Therefore, Gold Standard did not re-analyze any of the samples in analytical batches associated with the failed silver standard analyses.

11.5.3.1.5 CRMs - 2021 – 2024

Five different CRMs were in use throughout the 2021-2024 drilling campaigns by Gold Standard and Orla at Pinion. At least two were in use at any given time. The specifications for the CRMs used and the details of the 22 failures are summarized in Table 11-30 and Table 11-31, respectively.

**Table 11-30**: Summary of Results of Pinion CRM Analyses, 2021-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM** **ID** | **Au Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Au Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Au Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Au Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** |
| **CRM** **ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Max** | **Min** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** |
| MEG-Au.11.29 | 0.10649 | 0.10744 | 0.11074 | 0.10561 | 7 | 7/15/2024 | 11/28/2024 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | 0.00152 | 0.00157 | 0.00257 | 0.00111 | 148 | 1/11/2021 | 1/2/2025 | 8 | 1 |
| MEG-Au.17.06 | 0.00283 | 0.00299 | 0.00306 | 0.00289 | 7 | 5/25/2021 | 5/25/2021 | 0 | 0 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | 0.03684 | 0.03615 | 0.04080 | 0.00047 | 95 | 1/11/2021 | 9/8/2023 | 5 | 4 |
| MEG-Au.22.03 | 0.01992 | 0.01365 | 0.02021 | 0.00884 | 7 | 7/15/2024 | 11/28/2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 13 | 9 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 190 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-31**: List of Pinion Failed CRM Assays, 2021-2024**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Au Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **Au Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **Au Values in** **oz Au/ton** | **Au Values in** **oz Au/ton** |
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Target** | **Fail Type**<br> **High/Low** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-09 367-372-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00213 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-10 107-112-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00242 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-13 732-735.8-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00230 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-13 732-735.8-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00257 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-14 386-390.5-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00210 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-15 244.5-249-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00201 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PR21-05 45-50-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00198 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Bureau Veritas | PR21-06 445-450-A11 | 0.00152 | high | 0.00187 | 0.00190 |
| MEG Au.17.05 | Paragon Labs | PC20-10 107-112-A11 | 0.00152 | low | 0.00117 | 0.00111 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-09 110.5-113.8-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03937 | 0.04080 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-10 182-185.5-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03937 | 0.03972 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-11 143-148-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03937 | 0.03946 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-11 410.5-411.5-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03937 | 0.03970 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | Bureau Veritas | PC20-13 698.5-700-A13 | 0.03684 | high | 0.03937 | 0.04016 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | American Assay | PR22-01 45-50-A13 | 0.03684 | low | 0.03430 | 0.00963 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | American Assay | PR22-02 45-50-A13 | 0.03684 | low | 0.03430 | 0.00933 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | American Assay | PR22-05 45-50-A13 | 0.03684 | low | 0.03430 | 0.00919 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | American Assay | PR22-06 45-50-A13 | 0.03684 | low | 0.03430 | 0.00047 |
| MEG-Au.22.03 | Bureau Veritas | PR24-01 245-250A6 | 0.01992 | low | 0.01835 | 0.00884 |
| MEG-Au.22.03 | Bureau Veritas | PR24-01 45-50A6 | 0.01992 | low | 0.01835 | 0.00890 |
| MEG-Au.22.03 | Bureau Veritas | PR24-02 245-250A25 | 0.01992 | low | 0.01835 | 0.00928 |
| MEG-Au.22.03 | Bureau Veritas | PR24-02 45-50A25 | 0.01992 | low | 0.01835 | 0.00898 |

---

Of particular interest are the four low failures for MEG-Au.22.03, which occurred at Bureau Veritas within a two-day period. There were no failures associated with the only other CRM used (MEG-Au.11.29) during this time at Bureau Veritas. The manufacturer of the CRM was contacted, and it was determined that mislabeled CRMs were shipped to Orla. It was noted in Gold Standard reports that some CRM failures could be attributed to mislabeled CRMs, although this cannot be confirmed.

Gold Standard evaluated CRM data during and after drilling and generally followed up on CRM failures within a year of receipt of the assays. The degree to which a CRM assay exceeded the three standard deviation threshold was considered, and if the magnitude of the failure was sufficiently low, the associated assays were accepted. The location of the samples relative to mineralization was also considered. If the gold grades in the vicinity of the failed CRM assay were ≤0.003 oz Au/ton, which is within the outer shell domain at Dark Star, or outside optimized pits, then no action was taken. If CRM assay failures were significant and were within mineralized zones, further investigation was undertaken. Gold Standard would re-assay either the failed CRM only, five samples above and below the CRM, or the entire hole. Treatment of the data was then determined. No assay substitutions were indicated in Gold Standard's or Orla's documentation.

Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla modified some of the QA/QC follow up procedures. Response time was shortened, and action was generally taken within one month of receipt of assay data. Five samples above and below the failed CRM were re-assayed rather than the CRM only, regardless of location with respect to mineralization. If results were still consistently high or low, more samples were re-assayed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 191 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.3.2 Drill Programs - Field Duplicates

11.5.3.2.1 Field Duplicates - 2017 –
 2018

In 2017 and 2018, Gold Standard collected field duplicates at approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) intervals, which is two or three duplicates per hole for the generally shallow drilling. Duplicates were obtained by collecting two samples simultaneously from a rotating wet splitter. Gold Standard did not collect duplicate samples in prior years.

MDA/RESPEC prepared three types of charts from the duplicate data:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Scatterplots
 showing an RMA regression;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Quantile/quantile
 plots; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Relative
 difference plots (see explanation, below).

MDA/RESPEC calculated the relative percent differences as a percentage for each duplicate pair relative to the lesser value of the original or duplicate assay as follows:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Equation 1** | ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8017.jpg) |

---

This equation produces the largest possible relative percent difference values and is reported in all tables and charts produced for evaluation of duplicate and check assay analyses in this report. MDA/RESPEC also performed an alternative calculation as part of the evaluation of duplicates using the following:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Equation 2** | ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8018.jpg) |

---

Table 11-32 summarizes the results for the evaluation of the field duplicate analyses. The average relative percent difference is an indication of the bias between the duplicate and the original assays. When duplicate grades are overall greater than original sample grades, the average relative differences and bias are positive. The average of the absolute values of the relative percent differences is an indication of the magnitude of variability between the duplicate and original assays.

**Table 11-32**: Summary of Results for Pinion Field Duplicates, 2017-2018**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | **Period** | **Corr.**<br> **Coeff.\*** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | **Period** | **Corr.**<br> **Coeff.\*** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Dif** |
| Field Duplicate | 2017 - 2018 | 0.95 | 331 | 277 | 2 | y = 1.059x - 0.010 | -4.8 | 27.6 |

---

The difference between the total number of pairs in the data set (All) and the number of pairs used (Used) in the evaluation reflects the number of sample pairs excluded because one or both analyses are below the analytical detection limit. Two outlier pairs were also excluded because the relative percent differences excessively skewed the statistical analysis of the data set. Therefore, the averages reported in the table are for all grades above the detection limit and excluding outlier sample pairs. Because a single average for the entire set of duplicates data does not provide context with respect to grade ranges or higher sample pairs that might still skew the data, the relative difference chart is presented in Figure 11-11.

The average relative percent differences given in Table 11-32, and the moving average line (in red) in Figure 11-11 indicate there is a tendency for the field duplicate samples to have slightly lower grades than the originals (when duplicate grades are greater than original sample grades, the moving average line plots above the 0% line). The bias is most pronounced at mean grades below about 0.0058 oz Au/ton. Bias is almost absent at higher grades.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 192 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

There is no information on which to base any opinion as to the cause of the low bias in the duplicates at lower grades. RESPEC suggests that Gold Standard review procedures used for sampling, sample preparation, and analysis to determine if a cause can be identified and take corrective action if necessary.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8007.jpg)

**Figure 11-11**: Relative Percent Difference Plot of Gold in Pinion Field Duplicates, 2017-2018**

The 2019 silver assays of pulps from earlier Gold Standard drill-hole samples included 309 samples with the suffix "dup." MDA/RESPEC matched these to the original sample assays and evaluated the resulting duplicate pairs. A summary of the evaluation is given in Table 11-33.

The silver duplicate assay data includes 12 and 202 pairs for which one or both, respectively, of the analyses were below the lower detection limit of the analytical method. These 214 sample pairs excluded from the statistical analyses in Table 11-33, so that only 95 pairs with detectable silver in both assays were used in the evaluation. The results do not indicate excessive bias or variability.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 193 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-33**: Summary of Results for Pinion Silver Pulp Re-Assays, 2017-2018**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | **Comment** | **Corr.**<br> **Coeff.** | **Ag Grade Averages<br> (** **oz Au/ton)** | **Ag Grade Averages<br> (** **oz Au/ton)** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA<br> Regression**<br> **(y = dup, x =<br> orig)** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | **Comment** | **Corr.**<br> **Coeff.** | **Mean<br> of Pair** | **Dup –<br> Original** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **RMA<br> Regression**<br> **(y = dup, x =<br> orig)** | **Rel Pct<br> Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct<br> Dif** |
| Pulp Re-Assay | all available excluding outliers | 0.93 | 0.178 | -0.006 | 309 | 95 | 0 | y = 0.987x – 0.219 | -3.2 | 30.3 |

---

11.5.3.2.2 Gold Analyses of Field Duplicates
 - 2019 – 2020

In both 2019 and 2020, Gold Standard collected field duplicates at intervals of 100 ft (30.5 m), which resulted in an average of about six duplicates per hole. A total of 713 field duplicates were taken, the results of which are summarized in Table 11-34. All original and duplicate samples in 2019 and 2020 were analyzed by the same lab. After excluding two outlier pairs where the absolute relative percent difference was greater than 2,000 percent, the regression line nearly coincides with the y=x line (Figure 11-12). Visually, there appears to be some bias with more original values greater than duplicate assays. However, the bias and variability noted is not excessive.

**Table 11-34**: Summary of Results for Pinion Field Duplicate Gold Analyses, 2019-2020**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | **Period** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | **Period** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Diff** |
| Field Duplicate | 2019 - 2020 | 713 | 711 | 2 | y = 0.989x - 0.0002 | -2.05 | 21.8 |

---

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8008.jpg)

**Figure 11-12**: Plot of Pinion Gold Field Duplicates, 2019-2020**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 194 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.3.2.3 Field Duplicates - 2023 –
 2024

Field duplicates were submitted in 2023 and 2024 for assays to Bureau Veritas with original samples. The summary statistics for all the duplicate types are provided in Table 11-35. Of the 209 field duplicate pairs, there are nine outliers above a relative percent difference of 200%, and of these, three are above 600%. The bias and variability indicated for the remaining sample pairs is minimal.

The 114 preparation duplicates were analyzed by AAL in 2022 and 2023 in a single batch. No outlier sample pairs were removed. There was almost no bias associated with the data, and the variability was low with all but three relative differences within 100% and the highest at 150%.

**Table 11-35**: Summary of Results for Pinion Gold Field and Preparation Duplicates, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | **Laboratory** | **Period** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | **Laboratory** | **Period** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Diff** |
| Field Duplicate | BV | 2023-24 | 218 | 209 | 9 | y = 1.0746x + 0.0000 | -1.48 | 7.63 |
| Prep Duplicate | AAL | 2022-23 | 114 | 114 | 0 | y = 1.0745x - 0.0001 | -0.09 | 15.5 |

---

11.5.3.3 Drill Programs - Blanks

11.5.3.3.1 Gold Analyses of Pulp Blanks
 - 2014 – 2016

During the period 2014 to 2018, Gold Standard used certified pulp blanks obtained from a supplier of CRMs. Pulp blanks test for contamination during the analytical phase in the laboratory, but not the sample preparation process where the large majority of contamination occurs.

There were 422 pulp blanks analyzed in 2014. The blanks were inserted into the sample stream every 100 ft (30.5 m). Five blanks in drill hole PIN14-44, were marked in the database as "labelled wrong," and were disregarded in the current evaluation. Among the remaining 417 blank analyses, six reported detectable gold. The maximum value of 0.0005 oz Au/ton detected in the pulp blanks is considered negligible and does not exceed the warning limit of five times the detection limit.

In 2015, a total of 296 samples of pulp blanks were assayed at down-hole intervals of 100 ft (30.5 m). A chart of the blank analyses plotted with assays of the preceding samples is presented in Figure 11-13. Some detectable gold was reported in 19 of the 296 analyses of the 2015 pulp blanks. In nine of these cases, the values were low at 0.0001 to 0.0002 oz Au/ton and did not exceed the warning limit. However, ten of the samples, all from drill hole PIN15-14, were assayed for gold in the range of 0.0009 to 0.0024 oz Au/ton. Most of these are considered blank failures, and the cluster of high blank assays do not correlate with mineralized samples as shown on Figure 11-13. Gold Standard obtained re-analyses of fourteen mineralized samples associated with the blank assay failures. Table 11-36 compares the averages of the original gold analyses and the re-run assays. Re-run assays for the interval 710 to 765 ft (216.4 to 233.2 m) are on average lower than the original assays, but still exceed the blank analysis warning limit. The re-run assays were substituted for original assays in the Pinion database.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 195 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8009.jpg)

**Figure 11-13**: Pinion Blank and Preceding Sample Gold Assays, 2015**

**Table 11-36**: Comparison of Original and Re-Assays from PIN15-14**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**From-To in ft** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Length in ft** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average grade original**<br> **(Au-AA23?)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average grade re-runs**<br> **(Au-AA23)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;710 – 765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 ft | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0121 oz Au/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0102 oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;800 – 815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 ft | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 oz Au/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 oz Au/ton |

---

During the 2016 drilling campaign Gold Standard used a pulp blank with a certified value of "<0.003 ppm Au" (0.0029 oz Au/ton). In all, 255 pulp blanks were inserted into the analytical stream every 100 ft (30.5 m). Only one blank assay had a detectable gold value (0.0002 oz Au/ton), which did not exceed the warning limit.

11.5.3.3.2 Gold Analyses of Pulp and Coarse
 Blanks - 2017 – 2018

In 2017 and 2018, Gold Standard used both coarse and pulp blanks. The certified pulp blank was obtained from a commercial supplier (MEG-Blank.14.03), and the coarse blank is designated as "Gold Standard marble". Coarse blanks undergo the full sample preparation and analytical process and provide a test for contamination during the sample preparation process.

MDA prepared charts for both blank types separately. Only four of 159 pulp blank analyses exceeded the detection limit. The highest grade reported was 0.0003 oz Au/ton, which is below the warning limit. Similarly, 11 of the 58 analyses of coarse blanks were above the detection limit, with a high value of 0.0003 oz Au/ton. The correlation coefficient between the blanks and the preceding samples is a statistically significant 0.5. This suggests minor contamination during the crushing and grinding process in the laboratory. The degree of contamination, however, is insignificant, because all analyses were below the warning limit.

11.5.3.3.3 Silver Analyses of Pulp and
 Coarse Blanks - 2014 – 2018

The QA/QC data for silver include 646 analyses of pulp blanks, analysed with batches of samples from the 2014 through 2018 drill campaigns. Only one blank assay was greater than the detection limit as shown in Table 11-37, and the single assay did not exceed the warning limit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 196 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-37**: Results of Pinion Silver Analyses of Pulp Blanks**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Analytical Result** | **Count of Analyses** |
| below detection limit of 0.0292 oz Ag/ton | 632 |
| at detection limit of 0.0292 oz Ag/ton | 13 |
| 0.0583 oz Ag/ton | 1 |

---

One silver analysis of a coarse blank submitted to Bureau Veritas with samples in a 2014 drill hole was below detection. Another 14 coarse blanks were submitted with 2018 core hole samples. The detection limit for the analytical method used at Bureau Veritas was low at 0.0001 oz Ag/ton. All samples returned results above the detection limit in the range 0.0001 to 0.0008 oz Ag/ton. The warning limit of 0.0005 oz Ag/ton was exceeded by some of the blank assays, however, the highest value is too low to suggest contamination during sample preparation. There was no statistically meaningful correlation between the blank and preceding sample analyses.

11.5.3.3.4 Gold Analyses of Pulp and Coarse
 Blanks - 2019 – 2020

During the 2019 to 2020 drill campaign, three certified pulp blanks from MEG were used. The detection limits for gold were <0.00029 oz Au/ton at Bureau Veritas and 0.000146 oz Au/ton at Paragon. Of the 214 blanks analyzed for gold, only one value was above the warning limit (five times the detection limit). The pulp blank analysis failure occurred at Bureau Veritas and is depicted in Figure 11-14. Gold Standard documentation attributes the blank failure to a mislabeled sample, however, this cannot be confirmed. Regardless, a single blank assay exceeding the warning limit does not indicate systematic analytical contamination.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8010.jpg)

**Figure 11-14**: Pinion Pulp Blank MEG-SiBLANK.17.10 and Preceding Sample Gold Assays, 2019-2020**

The gold coarse blank material used by Gold Standard was identified as "GSV Marble Blank". Little or no detectable gold was returned for the 114 samples analyzed, and none exceeded the warning limit. There was no apparent relationship with detectable gold and preceding sample grade.

11.5.3.3.5 Silver Analyses of Pulp Blanks
 - 2019

The detection limit for the 2019 silver pulp re-runs is unusually high at 0.0292 oz Ag/ton. The warning limit of five times the detection limit (0.146 oz Ag/ton) is correspondingly high and was not exceeded by the blank assays. There were 15 analyses of 668 total silver pulp blanks that returned anomalous detectable silver, which are listed in Table 11-38. Although the anomalous silver blank grades are notable given the high detection limit assays, the values are below levels that would impact silver domain modeling and project economics.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 197 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-38**: Anomalous Blank Sample Silver Assays for Pinion CRM MEG-SiBlank.17.10**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Certificate** | **Preceding** | **Preceding** | **Blank CRM (MEG-SiBlank.17.10)** | **Blank CRM (MEG-SiBlank.17.10)** |
| **Certificate** | **Sample** | **Value (oz Ag/ton)** | **Sample** | **Value (oz Ag/ton)** |
| EKO19000099 AA | PIN17-18 145-150 | 0.05833 | PIN17-18 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000104 AA | PIN16-03 745-750 | 0.05833 | PIN16-03 745-750-B3 | 0.05833 |
| EKO19000125 AA | PIN16-22 145-150 | 0.01458 | PIN16-22 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000129 AA | PIN15-02 145-150 | 0.02917 | PIN15-02 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000129 AA | PIN15-02 745-750 | 0.02917 | PIN15-02 745-750-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000166 AA | PIN14-03 145-150 | 0.01458 | PIN14-03 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000154 AA | PIN15-23 545-550 | 0.01458 | PIN15-23 545-550-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000156 AA | PIN15-24 145-150 | 0.02917 | PIN15-24 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000203 AA | PIN14-40 545-550 | 0.05833 | PIN14-40 545-550-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000203 AA | PIN14-40 745-750 | 0.02917 | PIN14-40 745-750-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000209 AA | PIN14-46 545-550 | 0.01458 | PIN14-46 545-550-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000206 AA | PIN14-43 145-150 | 0.02917 | PIN14-43 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000191 AA | PIN14-28 145-150 | 0.01458 | PIN14-28 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000216 AA | PIN14-53 145-150 | 0.02917 | PIN14-53 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |
| EKO19000218 AA | PIN14-55 490-495 | 0.01458 | PIN14-55 145-150-B3 | 0.02917 |

---

11.5.3.3.6 Gold Analyses of Pulp and Coarse
 Blanks - 2021 – 2024

The "GSV Marble Blank" coarse blank was used throughout the 2021 to 2024 drill programs. In 2021 and 2023, 64 and 13 coarse blanks were submitted to the Paragon and AAL, respectively. A total of 186 coarse blanks were sent to Bureau Veritas in late 2021 and 2024. A chart of all 263 coarse blanks is shown in Figure 11-15. No blank assays exceeded the warning limit, however, there were numerous values above detection that can be associated with relatively high grades of preceding samples.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 198 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8011.jpg)

**Figure 11-15**: Results of Pinion Coarse Blank Analyses of Gold, 2021-2024**

The commercially available pulp blanks MEG-Blank.14.03 (2023) and MEG-SiBlank.17.11 (2021 and 2024) were also used. A single failure occurred which does not indicate a systemic issue with contamination during sample preparation during this period. Gold Standard did not follow up on the single failure because the drill hole was located at the LT prospect outside the Pinion deposit area, and was not associated with mineralized samples.

11.5.3.3.7 Silver Analyses Pulp and Coarse
 Blanks - 2021 – 2024

The coarse blank "GSV Marble" was also analyzed for silver using four-Acid ICP and AA methods, with detection limits of 0.00583 opt Ag and 0.01458 opt Ag, respectively. Five samples were assayed by AAL, one by Bureau Veritas, and 128 by Paragon Labs in the 2021 to 2024 period. No samples exceeded the warning limits. A pulp blank, MEG-SiBlank.1711, was also analyzed at Paragon Labs. None of the 28 pulp blank analyses exceeded the warning limit.

11.5.3.4 Drill Programs - External Check
 Assays

11.5.3.4.1 External Check Assays - 2017
 – 2018

In April and August 2018, Gold Standard pulps from two holes drilled in 2017 that were originally assayed by ALS were sent to Bureau Veritas for check assays. In total, 95 original and check assay pairs were produced. MDA evaluated the data with the same types of charts, calculations and statistics used to evaluate other field, preparation and pulp duplicates in previous and subsequent parts of Section 11. Differences were calculated so that when an ALS assay was higher than the Bureau Veritas assay, the difference is positive, and vice versa.

The results of MDA's evaluation are summarized in Table 11-39, and the relative percent differences by mean grade are illustrated in Figure 11-16. Thirteen pairs with a mean grade less than 0.0010 oz Au/ton were excluded from the comparison because at the lowest grades, small differences are magnified, and statistics are skewed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 199 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-39**: Summary of Results for 2018 Check Assays of 2017 Pinion Samples**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Corr.**<br> **Coeff.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade Averages (** **oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade Averages (** **oz Au/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Corr.**<br> **Coeff.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean of Pair** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dup – Original** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;all available excluding Au < 0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;all available excluding Au < 0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;all available excluding Au < 0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.0001 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange 0.0012 ≤ mop < 0.0058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange 0.0012 ≤ mop < 0.0058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange 0.0012 ≤ mop < 0.0058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange mop > 0.0058 opt | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange mop > 0.0058 opt | &nbsp;&nbsp;subrange mop > 0.0058 opt | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.0003 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RMA Regression**<br> **(y = ALS, x = bv)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Averages as Percent** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Averages as Percent** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Used** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outliers** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RMA Regression**<br> **(y = ALS, x = bv)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rel Pct Diff** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abs Rel Pct Dif** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 0.976x + 0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 1.136x – 0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Check** | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 0.971x + 0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Notes: | The differences between the number of duplicate pairs available (All) and those "Used" occurs because very low-grade pairs were excluded from statistical calculations, as were outliers. "mop" indicates mean of pair. Pairs in which one or both assays are below detection limit are not used in statistical calculations. Relative differences in these tables are those calculated using Equation 1 in Section 11.5.3.2.1. |

---

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8012.jpg)

**Figure 11-16**: Gold Relative Percent Difference –ALS vs. Bureau Veritas, Pinion Pulps, 2017**

The bias in the data is different for two grade subranges on the chart (Figure 11-16). For sample pairs with mean grades between 0.0010 oz Au/ton and 0.0058 oz Au/ton, ALS was on average biased higher than Bureau Veritas by an average relative percent difference of 4.7%. The bias appears to be due to three relatively high relative differences. For pairs with mean grades greater than 0.0058 oz Au/ton, which comprises about 60% of the data, there was effectively no overall bias. Excepting the three high relative difference sample pairs, the variability is low at less than 10%. Overall, the demonstrated bias and variability is not excessive.

11.5.3.4.2 External Check Assays - 2021

In March of 2021, 1,878 pulp duplicates originally analyzed by Paragon were submitted to Bureau Veritas for check assay analyses. A total of 703 sample pairs with one or both assays at/or below the laboratory's respective detection limits were not considered in the analysis. One outlier sample pair with a relative percent difference greater than 2,000% was also excluded. A scatterplot of the data and the RMA regression equation in Table 11-40 demonstrate reasonable correlation between original and duplicate assays. However, the average relative percent difference is high, indicating a moderate bias with Bureau Veritas check assay grades higher than the Paragon original assays. There is not enough information to determine which laboratory is providing more accurate assays, although there were several high CRM failures associated with the Bureau Veritas analyses.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 200 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-40**: Summary of Results for Pinion Gold Check Assays, 2021**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | <br> **Laboratory** | **Period** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | <br> **Laboratory** | **Period** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Diff** |
| Check Assay (pulp) | PGN vs BV | 2021 | 1175 | 1174 | 1 | y = 1.0068x + 0.0002 | 19.27 | 44.4 |

---

11.5.3.5 Twin Hole Analyses

In 2018, four core holes were drilled into the Pinion deposit to obtain material for metallurgical testing. These holes were twins of previously drilled RC holes. The length and grade of the intersected mineralization was compared between these four sets of twin holes. For the 564 ft (171.9 m) of drilling in the mineralized zones, the average grade was 21% higher in the core holes (Table 11-41). A histogram of the two sets of data indicates more low-grade samples in the four RC holes (Figure 11-17).

**Table 11-41**: Summary of Pinion Twin Hole Results**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **RC Holes** | **Diff.** | **Core Holes** | **Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Count | 185 |  | 120 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | 564 | 0% | 566 | ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grade | 0.014 | 21% | 0.017 | oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Metal | 8.1 | 21% | 9.8 | ft *x* (oz Au/ton) |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 201 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8013.jpg)

**Figure 11-17**: Histogram of Pinion 2018 Twin Drill-Hole Samples**

11.5.3.6 QA/QC on Barium Assays

Because metallurgical investigations indicated that the quantity of barite could potentially affect gold recovery, Gold Standard obtained substantial barium analyses from drill samples. Initial barium analyses by ICP methods with two-acid digestion have been shown to be incorrect at grades above ~0.1% to ~0.2%. Barium was subsequently analyzed at AAL on existing pulps using a pressed-powder XRF-ED analysis (method Ba ED-XRF E5 with a lower detection limit of 0.003% Ba). There were 938 barium assays performed at AAL using this method. In addition, 21,747 loose-powder NITON XRF measurements of barium were performed on drill-sample pulps by independent contractor Rangefront Geological.

A total of 4,235 duplicate readings of barium content by the NITON XRF instrument were also taken by independent contractor Rangefront Geological. MDA compared 4,091 of these duplicate loose-powder NITON XRF readings to determine variability of results. Seventeen pairs were determined to be extreme outliers and removed from the calculations. No significant biases were noted, and reproducibility was shown to be just over 10%.

For comparison to the Gold Standard loose-powder NITON XRF data, only 32 sample pulps were analyzed at AAL by a) ICP following a two-acid digestion, b) ICP following a five-acid digestion, c) loose-powder NITON-XRF, d) pressed-powder XRF-ED, and e) XRF-WD (lithium metaborate fusion). The two-acid ICP analyses were 95% lower than the loose-powder NITON-XRF measurements, and the five-acid ICP analyses were 91% lower. The pressed-powder XRF-ED and XRF-WD analyses were 86% and 87% higher than the corresponding loose-powder NITON-XRF measurements, respectively. While thirty-two samples are not a statistically significant data set, the results do indicate good correlation with the XRF-ED analyses with a slope to the regression line of 0.55. The XRF-ED analyses are being applied in the metallurgical test work (see Section 13.1).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 202 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.4 Jasperoid Wash Drill Programs
 - QA/QC

The only QA/QC data available for Jasperoid Wash work prior to 2022 was from Gold Standard's drilling campaigns in 2017 and 2018. Table 11-42 summarizes the quantities and results of QA/QC data.

**Table 11-42**: Summary Counts of Jasperoid Wash QA/QC Analyses**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**QA/QC Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2017** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2018** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number CRMs in Use | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of CRM Analyses | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of CRM Failures | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Field Duplicates | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coarse Blanks | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 |

---

11.5.4.1 Drill Programs - CRMs

11.5.4.1.1 CRMs - 2017 – 2018

In 2017 and 2018, although three CRMs were used, only one was in use at Jasperoid Wash at any given time. The expected values for all three CRMs were either below or very close to a potential mining cutoff grade. Only one CRM failure occurred in each of the 2017 and 2018 drilling programs, yielding a failure rate of 1.1% for each year. Gold Standard reports indicate that there were no mineralized samples associated with the 2017 CRM failure, so no remedial action was performed. A mislabeled sample was a possible cause of the 2018 failure, although this could not be confirmed. For future drilling, it is recommended to use more than one CRM simultaneously, and to use CRMs with a range of target values that represent grades of economic importance.

11.5.4.1.2 CRMs - 2022 – 2024

Two CRMs were used during the Jasperoid Wash 2022-2024 drill programs. Results are summarized in Table 11-43, and no CRM failures were reported. As in the 2017-2018 drilling programs, the CRMs were either at or below a potential mining cutoff grade. It is recommended to use CRMs that represent the range of gold grades in the Jasperoid Wash deposit.

**Table 11-43**: Summary of Results of Jasperoid Wash CRM Analyses, 2022 – 2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | **Target** | **Average** | **Maximum** | **Minimum** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | 0.0015 | 0.00155 | 0.00178 | 0.00131 | 50 | Nov 2022 | Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 | 2.15 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | 0.0055 | 0.00564 | 0.00615 | 0.00540 | 46 | Nov 2022 | Jan 2025 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  | 97 |  |  | 0 | 0 |  |

---

11.5.4.2 Drill Programs - Field Duplicates

11.5.4.2.1 Field Duplicates - 2017 –
 2018

Field duplicates were evaluated with the same types of charts, calculations and statistics used to evaluate other field, preparation and pulp duplicates in previous and subsequent parts of Section 11. The average relative percent differences and relative percent difference charts for the 2017 duplicates revealed minimal bias, and the variability was low at about 20%.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 203 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Some low to moderate bias was observed in the 2018 field duplicate data. Below 0.0025 oz Au/ton, the duplicate grades are biased low relative to the originals by ~5%, whereas the duplicates are biased high at ~8% at higher grades. Variability is high at 41% and low at 15% in the low- and high-grade ranges, respectively. The cause for the moderate biases is unknown. Variability tends to be relatively high for field duplicates, particularly at lower grades, and generally reflects the natural heterogeneity in the distribution of gold in the deposit.

In addition to field duplicates, preparation and pulp duplicates are useful, and should be collected, analyzed and evaluated in future drill programs. Check assay pulp splits analyzed at a referee laboratory are also important for testing the accuracy of the original analyses.

11.5.4.2.2 Field and Preparation Duplicates
 - 2022 – 2024

A total of 74 field duplicates and 86 preparation duplicates were analyzed during the 2022-2024 drilling programs. Summary statistics for both duplicate sets are provided in Table 11-44. There is only one sample pair in the field duplicate data with a relative percent difference of around 200%. All other relative percent differences are ≤100%. One outlier sample pair was removed from the preparation duplicate set, and only two sample pairs have relative percent differences above 100%. Bias in both duplicate sets is minimal, and variability is low. As expected, the average bias and variability is lower in the preparation duplicate data than for field duplicates.

**Table 11-44**: Summary of Results for Jasperoid Wash Field and Preparation Duplicates, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | <br> **Laboratory** | **Period** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | <br> **Laboratory** | **Period** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Diff** |
| Field Duplicate | BV | 2022-24 | 74 | 74 | 0 | y = 1.16x - 0.0001 | 2.09 | 17.7 |
| Preparation Dup | AAL | 2022-24 | 86 | 86 | 1 | y = 0.942x - 0.0001 | -1.54 | 13.8 |

---

11.5.4.3 Drill Programs - Blanks

11.5.4.3.1 Blanks - 2017 – 2018

Nearly all blank material submitted with Jasperoid Wash samples in 2017 and 2018 were pulps that were obtained from a certified CRM supplier. Pulp blanks were inserted at a rate of one every 200 ft (61 m), and 66 and 75 were analyzed in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Ten coarse blanks were also submitted in 2018 only with samples from one drill hole, JW18-01. All but four of the pulp blanks and none of the coarse blanks were above the detection limit of 0.00015 oz Au/ton. The highest blank analysis was 0.00018 oz Au/ton, well below the warning limit.

11.5.4.3.2 Blanks - 2022 – 2024

During the 2022-2024 drill programs, coarse blanks (GSV Marble Blank) and commercially available pulp blanks (MEG-SiBlank.17.11) were submitted with drill-hole samples. Twenty-eight and 24 coarse blanks were sent to Bureau Veritas and AAL, respectively. Sixteen pulp blanks were sent to AAL in November and December of 2022. No assays of either blank type exceeded the warning limit of five times the detection limit.

11.5.5 North Bullion Deposits Drill
 Programs - QA/QC

All QA/QC data for exploration and delineation drilling from the North Bullion deposits, which includes North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes, were evaluated together. All of the QA/QC data evaluated was from modern drilling by Gold Standard and Orla that have been utilized in part to validate the assay database. There was some QA/QC data associated with historical drilling in paper laboratory reports and certificates. However, none were in digital format, and the origin and quality of much of the information was unknown and was not evaluated. Mr. Lindholm recommends that any historical QA/QC data be compiled and evaluated, to the extent practical.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 204 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Gold Standard incorporated a substantial number of blanks, CRMs and duplicates with assays for exploration and delineation drilling between 2010 and 2020 at the North Bullion deposit. Until recently, most of the drilling at Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes was pre-Gold Standard. For all drilling campaigns prior to 2021, the steps taken to follow up on QA/QC failures are not known.

11.5.5.1 Drill Programs - CRMs

11.5.5.1.1 CRMs - 2010 - 2020

MDA/RESPEC reviewed the CRM assay results from 2010 to 2020 Gold Standard drilling as a single data set. During the period, 22 different CRMs were submitted with drill samples, and all were obtained from MEG. Most individual CRMs were in use for one to four years, but some were used for the entire 11-year period. The target grades for the CRMs range from a low of 0.0011 oz Au/ton to a high of 0.1065 oz Au/ton. The target values and standard deviations from the CRM certificates were expressed as ppm Au and converted to oz Au/ton for the current evaluation. Full sets of charts and statistics have been prepared using both grade units and checked for conversion errors.

The target grades in context with modeled mineral domains and the number of CRMs used are summarized in Figure 11-18. The certified target grades of the CRMs are well-distributed across the three mineral domain grade ranges, whereas the number of analyses for the CRMs is unevenly distributed.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8014.jpg)

**Figure 11-18**: Counts of North Bullion CRM Analyses by Mineral Domain**

In Figure 11-19, the CRM assays are plotted by time and certified target grades and colored by mineral domain. For most of the Gold Standard drilling from 2010 to 2020, the grades of the CRMs in use are well distributed and are representative of the mineralization in the North Bullion deposits. During some periods, however, one or more of the grade domains were not represented. For example:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• In
 campaigns before April 2012, high-grade CRMs were absent.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Between
 April 2012 and December 2013, mid-grade CRMs were not in use.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• During
 the 2017 campaign, only low-grade CRMs were in use.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 205 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8015.jpg)

**Figure 11-19**: Timeline of North Bullion CRMs in Use**

Control charts were prepared for each of the 22 CRMs, using Excel™ with the add-in "SPC" (Statistical Process Control) for Excel™". An example chart for MEG-Au.11.19 is shown in Figure 11-20. An explanation of the control lines is provided in Table 11-19 (Section 11.5.3.1.1) for similar CRM charts for other deposits in Section 11.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1imgs8016.jpg)

**Figure 11-20**: Gold in North Bullion CRM MEG-Au.11.19**

There are three CRM failures evident, two high and one low on the chart in Figure 11-20. RESPEC speculates but cannot prove that the low failure may be due to a mis-labeled CRM. The chart highlights two short time periods, one in September-October 2012 and the other in September 2013, during which the laboratory was consistently reporting CRM assay grades below the certified target grade for this CRM. The overall average value obtained for analyses of this CRM is near the target value, which indicates minimal bias for all CRMs assayed from 2010 to 2020. Overall, the performance of the laboratory analyses of this CRM was acceptable, with a 1.4% failure rate.

Overall, 11 high and seven low failures are indicated in Table 11-45, yielding a total calculated failure rate of about 1% for Gold Standard CRM analyses from 2010 to 2020. Details of the failures are listed in Table 11-46. No information regarding actions that Gold Standard may have taken in response to these failures is available. RESPEC speculates that some of the failures may be due to mis-labeled CRMs, although this possibility cannot be investigated or confirmed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 206 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

With the exception of the 10.5% low bias obtained for MEG-S107022X, for which there are only nine CRM analyses, the biases listed in Table 11-45 are within a range that is typical for analyses of CRMs. In general, the higher biases tend to be associated with CRMs with relatively few analyses.

Two CRMs, MEG-Au.10.04 and MEG-S107007X, were submitted with samples to both ALS (EL certificates) and Bureau Veritas (EKO certificates). A cursory comparison of the results might suggest that Bureau Veritas' performance was the better of the two laboratories, based on the total number of failures for the two CRMs (0 vs 4) (Table 11-45). There was no bias in Bureau Veritas' CRM assays of MEG-Au.10.04 compared to 2.5% for ALS, although Bureau Veritas' bias was about 2% higher than ALS for MEG-S107007X. However, between the two CRMs, ALS performed six-times more CRM analyses than Bureau Veritas, providing more opportunities for failures. The average bias for the larger sample set is statistically more reliable as well. Regardless, in the opinion of Mr. Lindholm, the performance of both laboratories is acceptable given the low biases and CRM failure rates.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 207 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-45**: Summary of Results Obtained for North Bullion CRMs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grades (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failure Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Failure Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bias pct** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Start** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**End** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bias pct** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.09.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8-Sep-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4-Mar-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-5.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.09.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31-Oct-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-4.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.09.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0963 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Apr-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31-Oct-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Jul-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-2.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 EL | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31-Oct-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Jul-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 EKO | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Aug-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23-Oct-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-May-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Oct-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0880 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Dec-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-May-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Dec-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0750 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6-Sep-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3-Aug-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1943 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Oct-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.12.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.12.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4-Jan-18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-4.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.13.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Jul-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.17.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.17.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107005X | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0396 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Apr-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107007X EL | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Jul-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107007X EKO | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5-Aug-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107020X | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8-Sep-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-2.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107022X | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8-Sep-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Nov-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-10.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Totals |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1685 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 208 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-46**: List of Failed Analyses of North Bullion CRMs**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target for<br> CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fail Type** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed<br> Value** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**CRM ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Target for<br> CRM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High/Low** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed<br> Value** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.09.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-05 1524A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.1169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.1234 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR11-13 1645A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;mix-up with MEG-Au.11.19? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-19 1808A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.10.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR17-02 1090-1100-A2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;rounding issue? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-05 1072A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.127 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-04 1332A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.087 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-08 1015A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.118 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-09 1187A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.113 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-08 1845A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.116 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-10 694A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00478 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-30 1092A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;sample mix-up? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RRB13-03 116A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00467 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR13-01 1840A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;mix-up with MEG-Au.11.17? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RRB14-01 850A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0767 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;mix-up with MEG-Au.11.15? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-Au.11.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RRB14-01 250A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;high | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0767 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.1943 | &nbsp;&nbsp;sample mix-up? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107005X | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR12-07 936.5A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.03173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.02806 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107005X | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR10-15 1698A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.03173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.00044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;sample mix-up? |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-S107007X | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR16-05 700A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;low | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.03857 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;mix-up with MEG-S107005X? |

---

11.5.5.1.2 CRMs - 2022 - 2024

During the 2022-2024 drill programs five different CRMs were used. At any given time, three CRMs were in use that represented the expected grade ranges of mineralization in the North Bullion deposits. Table 11-47 provides a summary of the certified target grades and standard deviations for the five CRMs. Summaries of results are provided by laboratory. Overall, there the four low failures yielding a failure rate of 1.8%. Two of the CRM failures may have been mislabeled samples, although this cannot be confirmed.

**Table 11-47**: Summary of North Bullion Results for Gold CRMs, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | <br> **Lab(s)** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Grades in oz Au/ton** | **Count** | **Dates Used** | **Dates Used** | **Failure Counts** | **Failure Counts** | **Bias pct** |
| **CRM ID** | <br> **Lab(s)** | **Target** | **Average** | **Max** | **Min** | **Count** | **First** | **Last** | **High** | **Low** | **Bias pct** |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | BV | 0.00152 | 0.00149 | 0.00158 | 0.00140 | 7 | 03-Jun-24 | 01-Nov-24 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-1.7 |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | AAL | 0.00152 | 0.00161 | 0.00187 | 0.00114 | 76 | 12-Aug-22 | 20-Dec-23 | 0 | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.2 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | BV | 0.00548 | 0.00556 | 0.00592 | 0.00496 | 9 | 03-Jun-24 | 01-Nov-24 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 |
| MEG-Au.17.07 | AAL | 0.00548 | 0.00580 | 0.00621 | 0.00525 | 94 | 12-Aug-22 | 20-Dec-23 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.7 |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | BV, AAL | 0.03684 | 0.02290 | 0.03733 | 0.00971 | 4 | 12-Aug-22 | 03-Jun-24 | 0 | 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-37.8 |
| OREAS 232b | BV | 0.02759 | 0.02769 | 0.02893 | 0.02651 | 12 | 23-Sep-24 | 07-Nov-24 | 0 | 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 |
| OREAS 625 | BV | 0.01945 | 0.01875 | 0.02030 | 0.01712 | 15 | 23-Sep-24 | 07-Nov-24 | 0 | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-3.6 |
| Totals |  |  |  |  |  | 217 |  |  | 0 | 4 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 209 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-48**: List of North Bullion Failed Gold CRM Assays, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** | **Values in opt Au** | **Comments** |
| **CRM ID** | **Laboratory** | **Sample ID** | **Target** | **Fail Type**<br> **High/Low** | **Fail Limit** | **Failed Value** | **Comments** |
| MEG-Au.17.05 | AAL | RR23-08_845-850-A11 | 0.00152 | low | 0.00117 | 0.00114 |  |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | AAL | RR22-01 45-50 - A13 | 0.03683 | low | 0.03430 | 0.00971 | Mis-labeled? |
| MEG-Au.19.11 | AAL | RR22-01 845-850 - A13 | 0.03683 | low | 0.03430 | 0.01000 | Mis-labeled? |
| OREAS 625 | BV | RRB24-02 445-450A26 | 0.01945 | Low | 0.01770 | 0.01712 |  |

---

Orla evaluated CRM data during and after drilling and generally followed up on CRM failures within a month of receipt of the assays. The degree to which a CRM assay exceeded the three standard deviation threshold was considered, and if the magnitude of the failure was sufficiently low, the associated assays were accepted. If CRM assay failures were significant, further investigation was undertaken. Five samples above and below the failed CRM were re-assayed rather than the CRM only, regardless of location with respect to mineralization. If results were still consistently high or low, more samples were re-assayed. Treatment of the data was then determined. No assay substitutions were indicated in Gold Standard's or Orla's documentation.

11.5.5.2 Drill Programs - Duplicates

11.5.5.2.1 Duplicates - 2010 - 2019

Gold Standard routinely collects field duplicates and provided MDA with analytical results for the various campaigns in the period 2010 to 2019. No other types of duplicate data from Gold Standard were available. However, assay certificates from Bureau Veritas contained data from the laboratory's internal QA/QC programs, including preparation and pulp duplicates. The internal lab QA/QC data associated with assays performed by Bureau Veritas in 2016, 2017 and a few in 2019 were compiled and evaluated by MDA.

MDA evaluated the data with the same types of charts, calculations and statistics used to evaluate other field, preparation and pulp duplicates in previous and subsequent parts of Section 11. When duplicate grades are overall greater than original sample grades, the average relative differences and bias are positive, and vice versa.

Figure 11-21 is an example of a relative percent difference plot used to evaluate duplicate data. It plots gold in laboratory preparation duplicates. Negative values that plot below the "0" line on the charts indicated the original assay grade is greater than the duplicate grade. Ten outliers with relative percent differences greater than 200% were removed from the plot. The cause for large numbers of outlier sample pairs could indicate excessive variability in assay values produced by the laboratory or an inherent nugget effect in the deposit. Without the outliers, the chart indicates variability of about 50% at lower grades which decreases with increasing grade. This magnitude of variability is not unexpected for comparison of preparation duplicate pairs. No bias is indicated on the chart.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 210 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img001.jpg)

**Figure 11-21: Relative Percent Difference Plot for Gold in North Bullion Preparation Duplicates, 2010-2019**

Table 11-49 summarizes the results for the field, preparation and pulp duplicate analyses. The statistics are based on data sets with outliers removed. The variability in field and preparation duplicates is similar at about 13% to 32%, and the variability is lower in pulp duplicates, as expected, at about 8% to 20%. All statistically indicated bias is low, with the field duplicates exhibiting the highest bias at 5%. Bias in preparation and pulp duplicates is considered negligible at 2.1% or less.

In Table 11-49 there are three rows for each of the preparation and pulp duplicates, one for the full data set and two representing grade ranges above and below 0.0007 oz Au/ton. Variability is statistically higher in the lower grade ranges for both pulp and preparation duplicates. The biases between the grade ranges are within 1%.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 211 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 11-49: Summary of Results for North Bullion Duplicates, 2010-2020**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type of Duplicate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Period** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Period** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **RMA Regression**<br> **(y = dup, x = orig)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade Avgs. oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grade Avgs. oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Averages as Percent** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Averages as Percent** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Correlation**<br> **Coefficients** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type of Duplicate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Start Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**End Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Used** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outliers** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **RMA Regression**<br> **(y = dup, x = orig)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Originals** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Duplicates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rel Pct Diff** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abs Rel Pct Dif** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Correlation**<br> **Coefficients** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Field Dup | &nbsp;&nbsp;8-Sep-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 1.043x - 0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Preparation Dup | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 0.951x + 0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.95 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Preparation Dup < 0.0007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 0.833x + 0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Preparation Dup ≥ 0.0007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 0.946x + 0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Dup | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 1.02x + 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.79 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Dup < 0.0007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 1x + 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pulp Dup ≥ 0.0007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Jul-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;y = 1.02x + 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 212 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

11.5.5.2.2 Duplicates - 2022 - 2024

Field and preparation duplicates were analyzed for the 2022 to 2024 drill programs at North Bullion. Table 11-50 summarizes the results of the evaluation of duplicate data. In both sets of duplicate analyses, bias was minimal, and variability was low.

**Table 11-50: Summary of Results for North Bullion Gold Duplicates, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Type** | **Laboratory** | **Period** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **Counts** | **RMA Regression** | **Averages as Percent** | **Averages as Percent** |
| **Type** | **Laboratory** | **Period** | **All** | **Used** | **Outliers** | **(y = dup, x = orig)** | **Rel Pct Diff** | **Abs Rel Pct Diff** |
| Field Duplicate | BV | 2024 | 69 | 69 | 0 | y = 1.000x + 0.0001 | -1.44 | 9.34 |
| Preparation Dup | AAL | 2022-2023 | 297 | 297 | 0 | y = 1.027x - 0.0002 | -1.71 | 13.67 |

---

11.5.5.3 Drill Programs - Blanks

11.5.5.3.1 Blanks - 2010 - 2020

Gold Standard provided blank analyses for North Bullion drilling programs starting in 2010. Since then, eight different blank materials have been used over various periods of time. Six commercial pulp blanks were supplied by MEG, and a coarse blank consisted of unmineralized marble obtained from a home improvement store. The material type and source for one of the blanks is unknown. The number of each blank submitted and results are summarized in Table 11-51.

**Table 11-51: Summary of Results for North Bullion Blanks, 2010-2020**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blank ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates of Analyses** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates of Analyses** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blank ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Above Warning <br> Limit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum**<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Start** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**End** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard Marble | &nbsp;&nbsp;coarse | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Jul-17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4-Jan-18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.11.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3-Dec-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.12.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;431 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4-Jan-12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9-Nov-13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.12.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9-Oct-13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Oct-14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.14.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Aug-11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Jul-20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.14.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6-Oct-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Nov-16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-BLANK.14.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Nov-16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown Blank | &nbsp;&nbsp;unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8-Sep-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5-Dec-12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Totals |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: The warning limit is five times the detection limit of a given assay method.* |

---

The results summarized in Table 11-51 indicate that the laboratory performance on pulp blank material is generally acceptable with one exception. More than a quarter of the results for MEG-BLANK.14.02 are above the warning limit, and more significantly, above 0.02 oz Au/ton. Because the high gold values in blank assays are consistent as a group, Mr. Lindholm suspects that a CRM was mislabeled as the blank, although this cannot be verified. For CRM analyses during the same period, there is no evidence to suggest that analytical errors of a similarly large magnitude occurred. Otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest systematic contamination issues during the analytical phase of the assay process.

Excluding the aberrant MEG-BLANK.14.02 analyses discussed above, there were five blank assay failures, which yields an acceptable rate of about 0.5%. Of those, one analysis of an unknown blank type was extremely high. The blank assay grade is similar to the high values returned for MEG-BLANK.14.02, suggesting it is also a mislabeled CRM.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 213 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Analyses of 51 coarse blanks (red) are plotted with the assays from preceding samples (blue) in Figure 11-22. There are two cases on the graph where a detectable blank assay follows a high-grade assay, which suggests some contamination during sample preparation from the preceding sample. However, the values of the blank assays do not exceed the warning limit, indicating the potential contamination was minimal and would not adversely impact the reliability of the associated assay data. Overall, no systematic contamination issue during sample preparation was indicated by the blank assay data for 2017 and 2018.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img002.jpg)

**Figure 11-22: Gold Standard Coarse Blank and Preceding Sample Analyses, North Bullion, 2017-2018**

11.5.5.3.2 Blanks - 2022 - 2024

One coarse and two pulp blank materials were submitted with samples to AAL and Bureau Veritas during the 2022 to 2024 drilling programs at North Bullion. Two of the blanks included in Table 11-52 are summarized by laboratory to accommodate the different detection limits. No blank assays exceeded the warning limit, which indicates no systematic contamination issues during the sample preparation and analytical phases of the assay process.

**Table 11-52: Summary of Results for North Bullion Blanks, 2022-2024**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blank ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> **Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Counts** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Maximum**<br> **oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates of Analyses** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates of Analyses** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blank ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br> **Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Above Warning** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Maximum**<br> **oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Start** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**End** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard Marble | &nbsp;&nbsp;BV | &nbsp;&nbsp;coarse | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Jul-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Nov-24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard Marble | &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;coarse | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Dec-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Dec-23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-SiBLANK.17.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;BV | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;03-Jun-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;03-Jun-24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-SiBLANK.17.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Aug-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31-Jan-23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MEG-SiBLANK.21.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;pulp | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Dec-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Aug-23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Totals |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |  |  |  |

---

**11.5.6** **Contact Gold's Pony Creek QA/QC** 

11.5.6.1 Surface Exploration

No standard reference materials or duplicate samples were inserted into the soil or rock sample sequences during Contact Gold's surface exploration programs due to the extremely low detection limits in elements of interest at the Pony Creek Property.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 214 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Mr. Dufresne notes that ALS utilizes quality control measures throughout the sample preparation and analysis process, including the insertion of laboratory duplicates and several different certified reference materials and blanks.

11.5.6.2 Drilling Programs

The QA/QC program employed by Contact Gold and Orla Mining aims to provide a means to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the geochemical assaying that is performed on its drilling samples and to ensure the highest possible data quality. QA/QC procedures Pony Creek drill program consisted of the inserting a certified reference material (standard), field duplicate, or coarse blank into the sample stream using the sequential sample numbers, and no footage or meters noted on samples. During the 2017 drilling program, the QA/QC samples were inserted every 10 to 25 drill samples within zones of visible mineralization as denoted by geological logging and up to 40 samples in unmineralized zones. During the 2018, 2019 and 2024 drill program, QA/QC samples were inserted every 10 drill samples.

Analytical standards (or certified reference materials, CRMs) were inserted into the sample stream to verify the overall analytical precision and accuracy of geochemical laboratory results. CRM samples comprise pulverized and homogenized materials that have been suitably tested, generally through a multi-lab, round-robin analysis, to establish an accepted (certified) value for the standard. Statistical analysis is undertaken to define and support the "acceptable range" (i.e., variance), by which subsequent analyses of the material may be judged. Generally, this involves examination of assay results relative to inter-lab standard deviation (SD), resulting from round-robin testing data for each standard, whereby individual assay results may be examined relative to 2SD and 3SD ranges. CRMs were considered to be within "pass" tolerance if the assay value falls within 3SD of the certified value.

CRM samples were obtained from reputable commercial suppliers that specialize in preparing verified and certified reference standards as pulp material, typically prepackaged in individual sample portions of between 50 and 100 g. The CRMs used in Contact Gold's drilling programs were prepared by accredited laboratory Rocklabs of Scott Technology Ltd (Rocklabs). In 2024, Orla Mining used CRMs prepared by independent reputable laboratory Moment Exploration Geochemistry LLC. (MEG). CRMs selected covered a range of expected oxide gold grades associated with the historical drill values.

Coarse blank samples provide a means by which the sample preparation procedures at laboratories can be tested for potential issues related to sample-to-sample contamination, usually due to poor procedures related to incomplete clearing/cleaning of crushing and pulverizing machines between samples. The blank material used in Contact Gold's 2017-2019 drilling programs was prepared with a carbonate matrix from Shea Clark Smith/MEG LLC. Sample weights for blanks averaged 0.59 kg per sample. In 2024, Orla Mining used marble chips with an average sample weight of 1.35 kg.

The RC field duplicate samples comprised the collection of a second sample of RC chips representing the same depth interval, with both the "parent" and the "duplicate" samples submitted for separate individual assays. The RC field duplicates are used to assess the quality of homogenization achieved by the cyclone splitter. Significant differences between original and duplicate sample assay results could indicate sample bias during the splitting process or could be due to heterogeneity inherent to the rock samples. Most duplicate samples for the RC drilling were collected concurrently as the interval being duplicated using the second slot in the cyclone. At the beginning of 2018 there were several RC sample duplicate failures. After re-running failed duplicate sample rejects and pulps it became obvious that the problem was occurring in the initial sample collection and not at the laboratory. A procedure for collecting a duplicate RC sample using a riffle splitter was then implemented and there were no other failed duplicates in 2018 after the use of a riffle splitter was implemented.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 215 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The core field duplicates help evaluate the rock's heterogeneity (nugget effect) and assist in detecting carry-over contamination during the initial stage of laboratory sample preparation, which lends to ensuring accuracy and reproducibility of assay results.

QA/QC failures were addressed by re-assaying batches in which they occur prior to finalizing assay results. QA/QC summary reports (Hibdon, 2018; 2019b; 2019c) for each drill program were prepared yearly by Contact Gold geologist Zachery Hibdon. The summary reports document all failures and follow up measures taken by the Company to address any identified issues, and include charts of field duplicates, CRMs and blanks. Mr. Dufresne has reviewed these summary reports, and they have been used to supplement the information in the following sub-sections.

11.5.6.3 2017 Drill Program

In 2017, a total of 6,615 samples were sent to ALS for gold analysis, along with 280 randomly inserted (but at specified intervals) QA/QC samples. The QA/QC samples included 90 field duplicate samples (67 RC, 23 core), 100 coarse blank samples and 90 CRMs.

Field duplicates were inserted into the sample stream regularly but randomly for the 2017 drill program. A total of 90 duplicates were analyzed via fire assay with an AAS finish (ALS lab code Au-AA23), Figure 11-23 and Figure 11-24.

There were issues with 3 samples (2 RC and 1 core) that warranted follow-up actions. In the case of the two RC samples, the duplicate sample had a higher gold value. Samples 1707031/1707032 and samples 1710031/1710032 were the parent/daughter sample pairs to be duplicated. Once their Au assay values were finalized, Contact Gold requested a re-run of the failed RC duplicate pairs and the surrounding samples for verification of the reported assay values (Table 11-53). The original assays were shown to be correct, indicating an issue with the Y splitter attached to the RC drill rig. This investigation lead Contact Gold to implement a riffle splitter going forward for RC sampling. The RC field duplicate data shows good correlation (ρ = 0.937) and a failure rate of 8.96% (n=6).

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img003.jpg)

**Figure 11-23: 2017 RC field duplicate fire assay results for Au**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 216 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The single duplicate failure for the core sampling was recognized upon the finalization of the assay certificates. The duplicated interval in question had been sawn in half and then the other half was quarter cut and that comprised the original and duplicate samples, 1724106 and 1724107. To solve for the variance between the quartered duplicate core samples, the remaining interval of half core was collected and submitted as a new sample number 1724106A. The resulting Au value of 1724106A matched well the average Au value of the quartered core samples. The failure was attributed to the smaller sample volume of the quarter-core, which increased the likelihood of variance between the parent and duplicate samples. As a result, the procedure was updated so that all subsequent core duplicates utilize both halves of the core for each the original and duplicate samples.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img004.jpg)

**Figure 11-24: 2017 core field duplicate fire assay results for Au**

**Table 11-53: Summary of 2017 RC field duplicate ALS re-runs (modified from Hibdon, 2018)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17182169**<br> **WEI-21**<br> **Recvd Wt.**<br> **kg** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17182169**<br> **Au-AA13**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17182169**<br> **Au-AA13**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17182169**<br> **Au-AA23**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17182169**<br> **Au-AA23**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** |
| <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Re-run** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Re-run** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1710029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1710030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.074 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1710031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.114 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1710032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.213 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1710033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.672 |
|  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17179891**<br> **WEI-21**<br> **Recvd Wt.**<br> **kg** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17179891**<br> **Au-AA13**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17179891**<br> **Au-AA13**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17179891**<br> **Au-AA23**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **EL17179891**<br> **Au-AA23**<br> **Au**<br> **ppm** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Re-run** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Re-run** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1707029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1707030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1707031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1707032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1707033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Percussion | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.38 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 217 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

A total of 100 coarse blanks were inserted in the sample stream in 2017. The blanks largely (96.00%) returned assay results within an allowable threshold (within 3x the lower detection limit), with the majority (n = 92) returning values below the Au-AA23 detection limit of 0.005 ppm Au (Figure 11-25).

Standards were inserted into the sample stream randomly but at specified intervals for the 2017 Pony Creek RC drill holes. A total of 90 CRMs were recorded as inserted and analyzed using fire assay with AAS finish (ALS lab code Au-AA23). Standards used include three different certified reference materials from ROCKLABS: OxB130 (Au = 0.125 ppm, n = 49), OxE126 (Au = 0.623 ppm, n = 21), and OxJ120 (Au = 2.365 ppm, n = 20). In addition, 1 sample was not received at ALS and 2 samples indicated as standards, but the reference identifier was not recorded.

The results of the fire assay analyses for all standards are illustrated in Figure 11-26 to Figure 11-28. One of the OXB130 standards failed falling greater than 3 standard deviations below its known value. Two OxE126 standards failed, falling just below 3 standard deviations of its certified value. No failures were determined for the OxJ120 standards.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img005.jpg)

**Figure 11-25: Coarse blank fire assay results for Au**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 218 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img006.jpg)

**Figure 11-26: 2017 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img007.jpg)

**Figure 11-27: 2017 Standard reference material (OxE126 Rock Labs) fire assay results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 219 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img008.jpg)

**Figure 11-28: 2017 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results**

Contact Gold submitted 103 ALS pulps to Bureau Veritas Laboratory (BV) in Reno, NV, as umpire checks to verify the performance of ALS and the reproducibility of the gold assays. A variety of samples from 2017 were submitted to Bureau Veritas, including various grades of mineralization, both oxide and refractory, and field duplicates, CRMs and blanks from the 2017 QA/QC program. Gold analysis was completed via fire assay with an AAS finish (BV lab code FA430). Overlimit samples for gold were analysed by fire assay with a gravimetric finish (BV lab code FA530-Au. Results were compared to the original gold analyses from ALS (ALS lab code Au-AA23 and Au-GRA21, respectively). Bureau Veritas is an internationally accredited analytical company with ISO9001:2008 certification and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

The AAS finish fire assay (Figure 11-29 and Figure 11-30) results (n = 94) show high correlation (ρ = 0.998) and analytical precision with a near 1:1 relationship and no systemic bias observed between laboratories. Four samples (4.26%) did not meet the precision criteria (failed).

The gravimetric finish fire assay (Figure 11-31 and Figure 11-32) results (n = 9) show moderate agreement, with a correlation of 0.979 and a moderately high mean squared error (0.923). The scatterplot suggests that BV values tend to be lower than ALS at higher grades, reinforced by the Q-Q plot showing an increased spread at higher quantiles (SoR = 0.820). Two samples (22.22%) did not meet the precision criteria (failed), indicating some inconsistency in this dataset. Due to the limited number of samples, the results of the gravimetric assay comparison are more sensitive to individual discrepancies and should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 220 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img009.jpg)

**Figure 11-29: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with AAS finish results, Q-Q plot**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img010.jpg)

**Figure 11-30: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with AAS finish results, scatterplot**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 221 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img011.jpg)

**Figure 11-31: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with gravimetric finish results, Q-Q plot**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img012.jpg)

**Figure 11-32: 2017 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay with gravimetric finish results, scatterplot**

11.5.6.4 2018 Drill Program

In 2018, a total of 7,092 samples were sent to ALS for gold analysis, along with 766 randomly inserted (but at specified intervals) QA/QC samples. A single RC sample was recorded as not received by ALS, the base of 18-16, sample ID 1816199. The QA/QC samples included 235 field duplicate samples, 272 blank samples and 259 CRMs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 222 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Field duplicates were inserted into the sample stream randomly for the 2018 RC drill program. A total of 235 duplicates were analyzed via fire assay with AAS finish (ALS lab code Au-AA23). The results of the fire assay analyses are illustrated in Figure 11-33. The data show excellent correlation (ρ = 0.987) and a failure rate of 5.53% (n=13). ALS re-run analyses were conducted on 7 samples and the re-run analyses were consistent with the original assay results (Hibdon, 2019b). Contact Gold determined that there was an issue with the Y splitter on the drill rig cyclone and introduced a riffle splitter into the sampling procedure following drillhole PC18-08 to reduce field duplicate failures.

A total of 272 coarse blanks were inserted in the sample stream in 2018. The blanks largely (98.53%) returned assay results within an allowable threshold (within 3x the lower detection limit), with the majority returned values below the Au-AA23 detection limit of 0.005 ppm Au (Figure 11-34). The results are considered acceptable. Sample 1824010 had the highest returned value for a blank in 2018 at 0.065 ppm Au. The sample's remaining reject was re-assayed with ALS. The second assay was also high, and it was concluded that the blank failure was due to contamination from the interval prior to the sample.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img013.jpg)

**Figure 11-33: 2018 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img014.jpg)

**Figure 11-34: 2018 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 223 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Standards were inserted into the sample stream randomly but at specified intervals for the 2018 RC drill holes. A total of 259 CRMs were recorded as inserted and received by ALS, where they were analyzed using fire assay (ALS lab code Au-AA23). Standards used include four different certified reference materials from ROCKLABS: OxB130 (Au = 0.125 ppm, n = 99), OxE126 (Au = 0.623 ppm, n = 63), OxE143 (Au = 0.621 ppm, n = 21), and OxJ120 (Au = 2.365 ppm, n = 76).

The results of the fire assay analyses for all standards are illustrated in Figure 11-35 to Figure 11-38. The majority of the standards returned assay results within acceptable limits. There were no issues for the OxB130 standard. OxE126, OxE143, and OxJ120 standards were consistently lower than the certified values for fire assays. In the opinion of Mr. Dufresne, the results are considered acceptable and there are no significant issues to report regarding the 2018 Pony Creek standard reference material analyses.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img015.jpg)

**Figure 11-35: 2018 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 224 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img016.jpg)

**Figure 11-36: 2018 Standard reference material (OxE126 Rock Labs) fire assay results**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img017.jpg)

**Figure 11-37: 2018 Standard reference material (OxE143 Rock Labs) fire assay results.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 225 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img018.jpg)

**Figure 11-38: 2018 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results.**

Contact Gold submitted 31 ALS pulps from the 2018 Pony Creek drill program to Bureau Veritas Laboratory in Reno, NV, to verify the performance of ALS and the reproducibility of the gold assays. The pulps contained samples of low to high grade oxide and oxide transitional gold mineralization. Gold analysis was completed via fire assay with an AAS finish (BV lab code FA430) and compared to the original gold assay results from ALS (ALS lab code Au-AA23) demonstrated in Figure 11-39 and Figure 11-40. Bureau Veritas is an internationally accredited analytical company with ISO9001:2008 certification and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

Strong analytical precision, negligible bias, and a near 1:1 relationship is observed between laboratories. Three samples did not meet the precisions criteria (failed) of relative error >10%, absolute difference >0.01 ppm, and a minimum value >0.025 ppm between the labs. Gold values from 65% of the ALS Au-AA23 analyses (n=20) were higher by an average 0.024 ppm Au relative to the Bureau Veritas FA430 analyses. The gold values from 32% (n=10) of the Bureau Veritas FA430 analyses returned higher gold grades by an average 0.054 ppm Au in comparison to ALS Au-AA23 analyses. A single sample returned the same value at both labs. These results support the validity and reproducibility of the assay data for resource estimation purposes.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 226 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img019.jpg)

**Figure 11-39: 2018 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot.**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img020.jpg)

**Figure 11-40: 2018 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot.**

11.5.6.5 2019 Drill Program

In 2019 a total of 2,928 samples were sent to ALS for gold analysis, along with 247 QA/QC samples. The QA/QC samples included 79 field duplicate samples, 85 blank samples, and 83 standards.

Field duplicates were inserted into the sample stream randomly for the 2019 RC drill program, at specific intervals. A total of 79 duplicates were analyzed via fire assay (ALS lab code Au-AA23). The results of the fire assay analyses are illustrated in Figure 11-41. The data show excellent correlation (ρ = 0.999) with a 1.27% (n=1) failure rate.

A total of 85 coarse blanks were inserted in the sample stream in 2019. The blanks largely (97.65%) returned assay results within an allowable threshold (within 3x the lower detection limit), with the majority returned values below the Au-AA23 detection limit of 0.005 ppm Au (Figure 11-42).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 227 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Standards were inserted into the sample stream randomly but at specified intervals for the 2019 RC drill holes. A total of 83 standards were recorded as inserted and received by ALS, where they were analyzed using fire assay (ALS lab code Au-AA23). Standards used include three different certified reference materials from ROCKLABS: OxB130 (Au = 0.125 ppm, n = 40), OxE143 (Au = 0.621 ppm, n = 28), and OxJ120 (Au = 2.365 ppm, n = 15). All samples passed for all certified reference materials. The results of the fire assay analyses for all CRMs are illustrated in Figure 11-43 to Figure 11-45.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img021.jpg)

**Figure 11-41: 2019 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au.**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img022.jpg)

**Figure 11-42: 2019 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 228 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img023.jpg)

**Figure 11-43: 2019 Standard reference material (OxB130 Rock Labs) fire assay results.**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img024.jpg)

**Figure 11-44: 2019 Standard reference material (OxE143 Rock Labs) fire assay results.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 229 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img025.jpg)

**Figure 11-45: 2019 Standard reference material (OxJ120 Rock Labs) fire assay results.**

Contact Gold submitted 18 ALS pulps from the 2019 Pony Creek drill program to Bureau Veritas Laboratory in Reno, NV, to verify the performance of ALS and the reproducibility of the gold assays. The pulps contained samples of oxide and oxide transitional gold mineralization. Gold analysis was completed via fire assay with an AAS finish (BV lab code FA430) and compared to the original gold assay results from ALS (ALS lab code Au-AA23) demonstrated in Figure 11-46 and Figure 11-47. Bureau Veritas is an internationally accredited analytical company with ISO9001:2008 certification and is independent of Contact Gold and the authors of this Technical Report.

The Q-Q plot confirms distributional alignment between the ALS and Bureau Veritas datasets (SoR = 0.933). A slight bias to

BV is observed in the 1–2.5 ppm range but no evidence of systematic bias across quantiles. The scatterplot shows strong overall reproducibility, with high correlation (ρ = 0.995). Three samples (16.67%) did not meet the precisions criteria (failed) of relative error >10%, absolute difference >0.01 ppm, and a minimum value >0.025 ppm between the labs. In the opinion of the QP, these results support the validity and reproducibility of the assay data for resource estimation purposes.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 230 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img026.jpg)

**Figure 11-46: 2019 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot.**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img027.jpg)

**Figure 11-47: 2019 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot.**

11.5.6.6 2024 Drill Program

In 2024, 5,047 samples were sent to ALS Global for gold analysis, along with 303 QA/QC samples were submitted as part of the 2024 drilling program. These included 89 certified reference materials (standards), 72 coarse blanks, and 142 field duplicates. QA/QC samples were routinely inserted into the sample stream at regular intervals, with field duplicates submitted at a frequency of approximately 1 in 20, and both blanks and standards at a frequency of approximately 1 in 40.

The field duplicates show an overall good agreement between original and duplicate assays, with a strong correlation coefficient of 0.903. Of the 142 sample pairs, however, 16 (11.27%) are classified as failures (Figure 11-48).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 231 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

While a small number of coarse blanks show results slightly above the lower detection limit, all 72 samples remain within acceptable limits for coarse blank performance (Figure 11-49). No failures are noted, indicating that sample preparation and laboratory procedures did not introduce significant contamination.

Two standards, MEG-Au.17.05 (Au = 0.052 ppm, n = 49) and MEG-Au.17.07 (Au = 0.188, n = 40), were included in the QA/QC program to assess analytical accuracy (Figure 11-50 and Figure 11-51). All results for both standards fall within their respective acceptable tolerance limits; however, the MEG-Au.17.07 results are consistently above the expected value, suggesting a positive bias.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img028.jpg)

**Figure 11-48: 2024 Field duplicate fire assay results for Au**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img029.jpg)

**Figure 11-49: 2024 Coarse blank fire assay results for Au**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 232 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img030.jpg)

**Figure 11-50: 2019 Standard reference material (MEG-Au.17.05) fire assay results**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img031.jpg)

**Figure 11-51: 2019 Standard reference material (MEG-Au.17.7) fire assay results**

Contact Gold submitted 12 pulps from the 2024 Pony Creek drill program to ALS in Reno, NV to assess inter-laboratory precision and evaluate potential analytical bias. Gold analysis was completed via fire assay with an AAS finish (ALS lab code Au-AA23) and compared to the original gold assay results from BV (BV lab code FA430) demonstrated in Figure 11-52 and Figure 11-53. ALS is an ISO 9001:2015 certified and ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited geoanalytical laboratory and is independent of Orla Mining and the authors of this Technical Report.

The field duplicate scatterplot shows a near-perfect correlation (ρ = 0.999), indicating excellent precision and no meaningful bias between labs. The Q-Q plot further supports this, showing a strong linear relationship with most points closely following the 1:1 line. The slope of regression (SoR = 1.018) confirms strong agreement between datasets, with only a slight divergence at higher values suggesting a minor bias towards BV.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 233 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img032.jpg)

**Figure 11-52: 2024 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, Q-Q plot.**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp09img033.jpg)

**Figure 11-53: 2024 Pulp check (umpire) sample fire assay results, scatterplot.**

**11.6** **Authors' Opinions** 

**11.6.1** **North and South Railroad Properties** 

The known sample collection, security, transportation, preparation, and analytical procedures for the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits drilling programs are judged by Mr. Lindholm to be acceptable and to have produced data suitable for use in the estimation of the mineral resources reported in Section 14, subject to the exclusions or modifications discussed in Section 14. Mr. Lindholm considers the procedures utilized by Gold Standard and the assay laboratories to be appropriate for use as described.

Documentation of the methods and procedures used for historical surface and drilling sample collection, preparation, analyses, and sample security at the North and South Railroad properties is incomplete and in many cases not available. Mr. Lindholm recommends that Orla compile and evaluate the information contained in records that are available. The lack of information for historical drilling and assaying is reflected in classification of resources in Section 14.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 234 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Based on the results of data verification and QA/QC evaluations, it is Mr. Lindholm's opinion that the Dark Star, Pinion, and Jasperoid Wash analytical data are adequate for the purposes used in this Technical Report, subject to the samples removed and issues described above. The issues described above have been considered in assigning levels of confidence and the classification of the mineral resources estimate in Section 14.

Data for QA/QC programs applied to drilling campaigns prior to the first work by Gold Standard in 2014 is sparse or absent for Pinion and the North Bullion deposit on the North Bullion property. Prior to 2020, available QA/QC data for Jasperoid Wash is limited to 2017 and 2018, and very limited overall for the Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes deposits at North Bullion. However, relatively significant quantities of QA/QC data from 1991 and 1997 were evaluated for historical drilling at Dark Star. As a result, confidence in historical data is lower than for Gold Standard drill-hole data and has been accounted for by reducing resource classification when estimated grades in the block model rely primarily on historical assays.

For drilling programs from 2020 to 2024, Gold Standard implemented sample collection, security, transportation, preparation, analytical and QA/QC procedures similar to those in years prior. Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla improved upon some of the procedures. For example, response time for QA/QC failures was shortened to within one month of receipt of assay data. Samples associated with failed CRMs and blanks were re-assayed regardless of location with respect to mineralization. If results were still consistently high or low, more samples were re-assayed.

Most sample collection, security, transportation, preparation, analytical and QA/QC procedural issues identified by RESPEC are not of sufficient magnitude to preclude the use of Gold Standard's gold assays in a mineral resource estimate. The exceptions are specific cases as described above where data has been removed from use in resource estimation. The use of some data with lesser confidence, due to specific issues with respect to sample treatment or QA/QC results, would not substantially affect the metal domain modelling and estimation. However, any potential issues are remediated by decreasing mineral resource classification for parts of the block model that rely heavily on the low-confidence data.

Mr. Lindholm recommends that Orla/Gold Standard consistently implement the following in future QA/QC programs:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Use coarse rather than pulp blanks to test for
contamination during sample preparation;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Submit pulp splits to referee laboratories for
check assays;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Place blanks and duplicate samples in mineralized
zones. Blanks following and duplicates of unmineralized material provide no useful test or information;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Continue to evaluate QA/QC data immediately upon
receipt, and follow up on CRM and blank failures, or any other substantial issues found, as soon as possible; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Continue to document all steps taken to follow
up on QA/QC issues and failures.

**11.6.2** **Pony Creek Property** 

In the opinion of Mr. Dufresne, there were no issues with respect to the sample collection methodology, sample security, sample preparation or sample analyses in any of the exploration programs completed at the Pony Creek Property by Contact Gold 2017-2019 and Orla Mining 2024. In addition, there were no indications that there were any significant issues with respect to sample bias.

Given the age of historical drilling done by operators prior to 2000, the limited amount or lack of information regarding sampling and analytical procedures, security, and QA/QC procedures is not unusual. Historical drilling on the Property pre-2000 was conducted before implementing modern, industry-standard sampling, analytical, and QA/QC methods.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 235 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The 2017 to 2019 and 2024 sample collection, sample preparation, security and analytical procedures used at the Pony Creek Project are appropriate for the type of mineralization that is being evaluated and the stage of the project. The QA/QC measures including the insertion rates and performance of blanks, standards, and field duplicates for the 2017-2019 and 2024 drill programs indicate the observed failure rates are within expected ranges and no significant assay biases were apparent. Based upon the evaluation of the drilling, sampling and QA/QC programs completed by Contact Gold, it is Mr. Dufresne's opinion that the Pony Creek drill and assay data are appropriate for use in the resource modeling and estimation work discussed in Section 14 of this Technical Report.

Mr. Dufresne notes that no standard reference samples were inserted into Contact Gold's soil sampling stream; however, a surface soil geochemical program is generally used to delineate relative anomalies, and/or percentiles, and absolute elemental concentrations for soil and rock samples are not as significant in comparison with other types of samples (i.e., drilling samples for resource estimation). In addition, no standard reference materials were inserted into the rock sample stream. Due to the inherent nature of rock sampling, rock grab samples are biased to some degree with respect to selective sampling of obviously mineralized material to the exclusion of weakly or unmineralized material that may occur in the same area. Therefore, in Mr. Dufresne's opinion, it is suitable that no QA/QC samples were inserted into the rock grab samples as there was no need to test analytical precision and accuracy because the data is not intended for use in any potential future quantitative analyses (i.e., resource estimation) and is simply used as an indicator of the nature and tenor of potential mineralization in a given area.

In conclusion, the data within the Project's exploration databases is considered suitable for use in the further evaluation of the Property and for it intended use here in including mineral resource estimation.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 236 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **12** | **Data Verification** |

---

Data verification, as defined in NI 43-101, is the process of confirming that data has been generated with proper procedures, has been accurately transcribed from the original source and is suitable to be used. The South Carlin Complex database has been verified to the extent possible given the availability of supporting documentation.

**12.1** **Dark Star Database Audit** 

**12.1.1** **Historical and Gold Standard Drill-Hole Data - 2014-2018** 

Beginning in March 2018, MDA (prior to acquisition by RESPEC) conducted verification of Gold Standard's (prior to acquisition by Orla) North and South Railroad projects drilling databases. The databases consisted of Excel spreadsheets, exported by Gold Standard from Micromine's GeoBank secure database software, with collar, survey, assay, and geologic information. MDA imported the data into a SQL database (GeoSequel®) and used data validation routines to evaluate. Collar, survey, assay, geologic and geotechnical data were imported into GeoSequel® directly from the spreadsheets provided by Gold Standard for all deposits. The following validation tests were performed:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Collars:

- missing depths, <br> - missing coordinates, and <br> - switched or duplicated coordinates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Surveys:

---

| |
|:---|
| survey depths greater than total depth, |
| missing azimuth or dip values, |
| azimuth readings above or below 0° to 360°, |
| positive or flat dip angles (< ~ -45°), and |
| dips outside -90° to +90° (for surface drilling). |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Assays:

---

| |
|:---|
| illogical or incorrect 'from' and 'to' intervals, |
| excessively large or small assay intervals, |
| assay intervals that are greater than hole total depth, |
| gaps and overlaps in assay intervals, and |
| drill holes without assay intervals and/or intervals without assays. |

---

Errors found during these tests were iteratively corrected in the database by Gold Standard staff, or by MDA with input from Gold Standard.

The database was verified against any physical or scanned data that Gold Standard provided. Collar information and collar coordinate data were largely validated in their entirety, while the assay data was validated using a representative subset of the data. Collar data were found to be reasonably accurate.

Down-hole survey data from original sources were available for the Gold Standard core holes and some of the historical drill holes and were loaded into GeoSequel® for comparison. Eight core holes were evaluated and had expected and reasonable rates of change of azimuth and dip in down-hole surveys.

Assay data was compared to original assay certificates, which included electronic copies provided by Gold Standard for their own drilling and scans of historical certificates for the pre-Gold Standard holes. About 73.5% of the Dark Star assay data could be tracked back to scanned copies of physical certificates.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 237 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

An initial verification of the assay data involved comparison the database to a random sampling of 10% of the certificate-backed assays. For the Dark Star database, MDA randomly selected fourteen certificates with 2,391 sample intervals and compared these to the database. These database entries compared well, with no significant errors. Insignificant discrepancies in assays were found, including below detection assays entered as half the detection limit that were rounded, inconsistent rounding of converted data (*i.e.,* oz Au/ton to g Au/t), and data in original reported units not maintained in the database (in addition to converted units). A second 10% random group of drill holes from each deposit were selected for further comparison of database entries and available certificate or other documents in the Gold Standard files. Eleven holes with 887 sample intervals were compared. No significant assay errors were found.

MDA found omitted assay values for Ag, As, and other geochemical analyses, and numerous inconsistencies with rounding. These were not restored or modified, but various other insignificant errors in the gold data were corrected.

Additional data evaluation was accomplished during cross sectional modeling. Suspect data included samples with no gold detected within mineralized intervals, assay values where no sample was indicated, and potential down-hole contamination. The sample assays that were potentially contaminated were evaluated, and some were considered to be unreliable and removed from use in estimation. MDA also found significant discrepancies between some TCX-series holes (drilled by Amoco) and more recent surrounding drill holes. As a result, all TCX holes were not used in domain modeling or estimation.

The above issues were discussed with Gold Standard, who applied corrections to their databases. MDA noted that subsequent databases received from Gold Standard contained the modifications as discussed, and that a few additional minor corrections were made.

For non-analytical field data, Gold Standard instituted protocols to ensure data integrity. For example, during surface geochemical sampling (rock grab and soil sampling), samplers entered sample locations and descriptive information into spreadsheets daily and locations were checked to eliminate data input errors. For non-analytical drill-hole information, Gold Standard employed a similar protocol of continuous data checking to ensure accurate recording into the project drilling database, which included all geological and geotechnical information from both core and RC chip logging. The procedures employed are considered reasonable and adequate with respect to insuring data integrity.

**12.1.2** **Drill-Hole Data – 2021-2024** 

In March of 2025, assay data from holes drilled by Gold Standard in 2021 and Orla in 2024 were verified. All certificate data were retrieved directly from the web portals of three laboratories, ALS, AAL and Bureau Veritas, and compiled into GeoSequel®. Essentially 100% of the 2021 and 2024 Dark Star assay database, which consisted of 26 new holes with 4,568 assay intervals (6,877 m), was compared to the laboratory certificates. Only minor discrepancies were found, generally in the prioritization of the gold and silver analyses (i.e. FA-AA vs FA-Grav), none of which were significant.

All down-hole surveys for new holes were checked for significant variations in azimuth and dip. All survey intervals demonstrated reasonable rates of change.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 238 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**12.1.3** **2019 Audit of Carbon, CO<sub>2</sub> and Sulfur Data** 

Gold Standard provided MDA with assay tables containing 7,081 records of analyses and calculated values for carbon and sulfur species from Dark Star in the chemical forms listed in Table 12-1. Most of the analyses were performed by Bureau Veritas in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). A smaller number were analyzed by AAL in Sparks, Nevada.

**Table 12-1: Dark Star Carbon and Sulfur Records Checked and Analytical Procedures**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of<br> Records** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C Total %<br> Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CO<sub>2 </sub>%<br> Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C InOrganic %<br> Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C Organic %<br> Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S Total %<br> Method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S Sulfide %<br> Method** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bureau Veritas | &nbsp;&nbsp;7062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;Calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| *Note:* | *n/a indicates "not applicable" and were not analyzed or calculated; TC003 and TC006 are Bureau Veritas method codes for LECO analyses. ELTRA C is the AAL method code for LECO-type analyses. On the Bureau Veritas certificates, the TC00x codes on the data listings and cover pages are not the same. The codes listed in the table above are from the cover pages.* |

---

MDA compared the measured values in the assay tables from Gold Standard to copies of the laboratory certificates. Gold Standard's calculated values were checked using equations as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· When C Inorganic was not directly assayed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o C Inorganic = CO<sub>2</sub> Percent / 3.666

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o or

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o C Inorganic = C Total – C Organic

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· C Organic = C Total – C Inorganic

MDA determined that all measured values from the assay tables matched those in the laboratory certificates, and all calculations were performed correctly. The only errors found were 36 assay intervals from hole DS18-07 for which the starting and/or ending depths had been entered incorrectly. MDA corrected these in consultation with Gold Standard.

**12.1.4** **GPS Collar Checks** 

During the Dark Star site visit in September 2018, Gold Standard, with MDA present, took GPS measurements of seven drill collars on six drill pads in the field to spot-check coordinates in Gold Standard's collar tables (Table 12-2). A Garmin - Rino 530 non-differential GPS was used to measure coordinates at the drill collars. The Garmin website indicates the unit is accurate to within 9.8 to 16.4 ft (3 to 5 m). Only one easting measurement exceeded the maximum range of accuracy of the GPS, and that was by less than 3 feet (0.9 m); all other readings were within acceptable limits.

**Table 12-2: MDA Verification GPS Checks of Dark Star Drill Collars (NAD27 UTM 11N feet)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**MDA GPS Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**MDA GPS Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**MDA GPS Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Surveyed Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Surveyed Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Surveyed Location** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference (GPS - <br> Survey)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference (GPS - <br> Survey)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference (GPS - <br> Survey)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drill Hole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**East** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**East** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**East** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elev.** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DR18-71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929133.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14699179.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6781.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929131.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14699170.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6783.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-2.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929336.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14698474.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6722.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929342.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14698482.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6720.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-6.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-7.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DR18-68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929179.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14697628.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6610.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929178.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14697621.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6602.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DC18-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928867.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696840.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6797.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928872.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696838.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6801.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-4.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-3.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DR18-58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928418.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696414.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6817.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928437.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696403.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6815.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-19.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DR18-95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928687.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696036.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6916.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928689.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14696034.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6925.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-2.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-9.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DR18-96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928674.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14695931.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6922.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1928675.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14695928.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6927.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-5.2 |

---

**12.2** **Pinion Database Audit** 

**12.2.1** **Historical and Gold Standard Drill-Hole Data - 2014-2018** 

The database was verified against any physical or scanned data that Gold Standard provided. Collar information and collar coordinate data were largely validated in their entirety, while the assay data was validated using a representative subset of the data. Collar data were found to be reasonably accurate. Validation tests in GeoSequel® similar to those applied to the Dark Star collar, down-hole survey and assay data described above were performed for the Pinion data. Errors found during these tests were iteratively corrected in the database by Gold Standard staff, or by MDA with input from Gold Standard.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 239 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Down-hole survey data from original sources were available for the Gold Standard core holes and some of the historical drill holes and were loaded into GeoSequel® for comparison. Eight core holes were evaluated and did not have improbable rates of change of azimuth and dip in down-hole surveys.

Assay data was compared to original assay certificates, which included electronic copies provided by Gold Standard for their own drilling and scans of historical certificates for the pre-Gold Standard holes. In all, about 58.9% of Pinion drilling assays were backed by certificates.

An initial verification of the assay data involved comparison of the database to a random sampling of 10% of the certificate-backed assays. For the Pinion database, thirty certificates with 3,120 sample intervals were randomly selected and checked against the database. The database entries largely compared well, with only three significant errors, all of which were in silver values. Insignificant discrepancies were found, including below detection assays entered as half the detection limit that were rounded, inconsistent rounding of converted data (*i.e.,* oz Au/ton to g Au/t), and data in original reported units not maintained in the database (in addition to converted units). A second 10% random group of drill holes from each deposit were selected for further comparison of database entries and available certificate or other documents in the Gold Standard files. This involved 35 drill holes with 2,756 sample intervals. No significant assay errors were found.

MDA found omitted assay values for Ag, As, and other geochemical analyses, and numerous inconsistencies with rounding. These were not restored or modified, but various other insignificant errors in the gold data were corrected.

In May of 2019, MDA received a database containing 47,550 silver values for the Pinion project. Using digital certificates supplied by Gold Standard, evaluation of 24,523 silver records (51.6%) produced an error rate of less than 0.01%. Of these, all were due to rounding, were insignificant, and were corrected in the database used for modeling. Of the remaining records, MDA randomly selected a group of certificates, most of which were supplied by Gold Standard as pdf files, to manually audit. Over five percent of these were audited with an error rate of 1.1%, of which only a small number were significant and corrected. Most of the discrepancies were due to rounding or removal of the detection limit negative sign.

Additional data evaluation was accomplished during cross sectional modeling. Suspect data included samples with no gold detected within mineralized intervals, assay values where no sample was indicated, and potential down-hole contamination. The sample assays that were potentially contaminated were evaluated, and some were considered to be unreliable and removed from use in estimation. MDA also found significant discrepancies between some TCX-series holes (drilled by Amoco) and more recent surrounding drill holes. As a result, all TCX holes were not used in domain modeling or estimation.

The above issues were discussed with Gold Standard, who applied corrections to their databases. MDA noted that subsequent databases received from Gold Standard contained the modifications as discussed, and that a few additional minor corrections were made.

For non-analytical field data, Gold Standard instituted protocols to ensure data integrity. For example, during surface geochemical sampling (rock grab and soil sampling), samplers entered sample locations and descriptive information into spreadsheets daily and locations were checked to eliminate data input errors. For non-analytical drill-hole information, Gold Standard employed a similar protocol of continuous data checking to ensure accurate recording into the project drilling database, which included all geological and geotechnical information from both core and RC chip logging. The procedures employed are considered reasonable and adequate with respect to insuring data integrity.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 240 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**2.2.2** Drill-Hole Data - 2019-2020

An audit of all 2019-2020 Pinion drilling data was completed by MDA staff in April of 2021. Since all data was available digitally in original certificate form, the audit process for the newer Gold Standard data was identical to the March 2018 Pinion audit. Gold Standard supplied collar-coordinate survey data in the original APEX Survey files, and down-hole survey data was supplied as both the original IDS Survey .csv and .pdf files. Only two assay labs were used in the 2019-20 drill programs, Bureau Veritas and Paragon Geochemical. All Bureau Veritas certificates were downloaded directly from the laboratory website, and all Paragon Geochemical certificates were supplied in both .pdf and .csv file formats by Gold Standard personnel.

Data from Gold Standard prior to 2019 was compared to MDA's previously audited database as an extra check to confirm that no changes had been made since the audit. Except for five historical holes included in the Gold Standard Pinion database that were previously in the Dark Star database (EMRR_9701 to EMRR_9704, and hole K99C_1), the holes in the Pinion database were the same. There were 76 holes with differences in collar coordinates in either the northing and/or easting, of which 16 also had discrepancies in elevation. Fourteen of these differences were minor (within 0.1 ft), however, the remainder were considerable, and were ultimately resolved in conjunction with Gold Standard. The PFS down-hole surveys in the database received from Gold Standard matched those in MDA's database. Similarly, the PFS assay data sent by Gold Standard was unchanged, although there are discrepancies in rounding that resulted from conversion from metric to Imperial units, as described below.

Depending on the operator and drill campaign, assay data was analyzed in g Au/t or oz Au/ton. Commonly, measured values in Gold Standard's Pinion and Dark Star databases had been converted to one unit, and converted back to the original unit. Discrepancies due to inconsistently applied conversion factors and rounding were consequently created in the database. MDA evaluated assay procedures in order to determine the original analytical units for respective data sets, and assays in the database were changed where required to honor the most original data. In summary, Gold Standard holes were initially assayed in g Au/t and were restored and converted to oz Au/ton (oz Au/ton = g Au/ton ÷ 34.285714). Historical samples were originally assayed in oz Au/ton and were restored. Consistent conversion factors were applied when needed.

All new digital data was imported into GeoSequel® and compared to the database from Gold Standard through a series of comparison queries. New collar surveys from certificates matched exactly the coordinates in the Gold Standard collar file. The azimuths and dips of 19 of the new holes were switched, and the planned orientation data was used at the top of eight holes, producing radical deviations with down-hole survey measurements. Slight discrepancies were noted in nine down-hole survey records. All errors and discrepancies in collar and survey data were modified in agreement with Gold Standard. There were 38 errors noted in the gold data that apparently occurred during conversion to oz Au/ton from g Au/t, which were corrected. Similarly, conversion errors were found in the silver assays and corrected. After all validations were completed, and necessary corrections applied, 105 new drill holes from the 2019-20 campaign were added to the MDA database.

1**2.2.3** Drill-Hole Data - 2023-2024

In March of 2025, assay data from holes drilled by Orla in 2023 and 2024 were verified. All certificate data were retrieved directly from the web portals of the laboratories and compiled into GeoSequel®. Essentially 100% of the 2023-2024 Pinion assays, which consisted of 11 new holes with 1,568 assay intervals (2,341 m), was compared to the laboratory certificates. Only minor discrepancies were found, generally in the prioritization of the gold and silver analyses (i.e. FA-AA vs FA-Grav), none of which were significant.

All down-hole surveys for new holes were checked for significant variations in azimuth and dip. All survey intervals demonstrated reasonable rates of change.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 241 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**2.2.4** 2019 Audit of Carbon, CO<sub>2</sub> and Sulfur Data

The assay tables for Pinion contained 4,050 records of analyses and calculated values for carbon and sulfur species as summarized in Table 12-3. Most of the analyses were performed by Bureau Veritas in Vancouver, BC. A smaller number were analyzed by AAL in Sparks, Nevada.

**Table 12-3**: Pinion Carbon and Sulfur Records Checked and Analytical Procedures**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Laboratory** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of Records** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C Total %<br> method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CO<sub>2 </sub>%<br> method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C InOrganic<br> % method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C Organic<br> % method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S Total %<br> method** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S Sulfide<br> % method** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bureau Veritas | &nbsp;&nbsp;3941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TC009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AAL | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;n/a | &nbsp;&nbsp;calculated | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C | &nbsp;&nbsp;ELTRA C |

---

*Note: n/a indicates "not applicable" and were not analyzed or calculated; TC003, TC006 and TC009 are Bureau Veritas method codes for LECO analyses. ELTRA C is the AAL method code for LECO-type analyses. On the Bureau Veritas certificates, the TC00x codes on the data listings and cover pages are not the same. The codes listed in the table above are from the cover pages.*

MDA compared the measured values in the assay tables from Gold Standard to copies of the laboratory certificates and checked calculated values with the same equations used for Dark Star above. MDA determined that all measured values from the assay tables matched those in the laboratory certificates, and all calculations were performed correctly.

1**2.3** Jasperoid Wash Database Audit

1**2.3.1** Drill-Hole Data - 2017-2018

The drilling database for Jasperoid Wash in 2018 contained 10,147 assay intervals in 97 drill holes. Documentation was available for the for the 40 holes drilled by Gold Standard, although 14 of the holes did not have assay data. MDA compared the database against digital certificates supplied by Gold Standard and found no significant issues or discrepancies.

Since no original assay certificates were available, data for the 43 historical holes was verified using secondary sources, which primarily consisted of written reports, database printouts and previous database compilations. MDA compared the older drill data in the database received from Gold Standard to two Westmont annual reports, a Cameco assay compilation, and an assay compilation in a digital text file (PHOLASAY.txt) of unknown origin which contained the JW-8910, JW-8911, and JW-9001 to JW-9014. Only one minor typographical error, as well as insignificant issues due to rounding, were found and corrected. The verification demonstrated the database properly reflects the secondary data sources; however, the historical drill-hole data cannot be fully verified without comparison to original certificates.

The drill-hole survey data for the 2017 and 2018 Gold Standard holes were verified against original down-hole survey instrument files obtained from Gold Standard. No discrepancies were found between the compiled data set and the source survey data.

1**2.3.2** Drill-Hole Data - 2023-2024

In March of 2025, assay data from holes drilled by Orla in 2023 and 2024 were verified. All certificate data were retrieved directly from the web portals of the laboratories and compiled into GeoSequel®. Essentially 100% of the 2023-2024 Jasperoid Wash assay database, which consisted of 30 new holes with 2,441 assay intervals (3,660 m), was compared to the laboratory certificates. Only minor discrepancies were found, generally in the prioritization of the gold and silver analyses (i.e. FA-AA vs FA-Grav), none of which were significant.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 242 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

All down-hole surveys for new holes were checked for significant variations in azimuth and dip. All survey intervals demonstrated reasonable rates of change.

1**2.4** North Bullion Deposits Database Audit

1**2.4.1** Historical and Gold Standard Drill Data - 2010-2020

In June of 2020, Gold Standard provided MDA with a database that contained all historical and Gold Standard drill-hole data. Although APEX had performed substantial verification of the drill-hole data, MDA conducted an audit of the North Bullion database in its entirety. The database received from Gold Standard consisted of Excel spreadsheets exported from Micromine's GeoBank secure database software, and contained collar, survey, assay and geologic information. Collar, survey, assays, geologic logging and geotechnical data were imported into a GeoSequel® directly from the spreadsheets. Logic tests were conducted on the data as described for Dark Star in Section 12.1.1. Errors found during these tests were iteratively corrected by MDA in conjunction with Gold Standard.

The digital database was verified against any physical documentation that Gold Standard possessed. Collar coordinate data were largely validated in their entirety and found to be accurate. Down-hole survey data from original sources were available for all Gold Standard core holes and 42 holes drilled by Kinross. In all, down-hole surveys for 176 holes were evaluated for abrupt and radical changes in azimuth and dip, during which only one survey record was determined to be improbable and was invalidated by both MDA and Gold Standard.

Based on availability of original laboratory certificates, the assay data was verified in two groups. Since digital certificates were accessible for all Gold Standard drilling from 2010 to present, which represented 28% of drill holes and 57% of assay intervals at the time, a full audit of the Gold Standard assays was possible. Original certificates were downloaded directly from the analytical laboratories, and the comparison to Gold Standard's database revealed no errors or discrepancies.

Since about 43% of the 2010-2020 assay intervals were obtained from historical drilling sources and were not generally available from the laboratories in digital form, a 20% randomized manual audit of these data was performed. Of the 368 historical drill holes with 33,692 assay intervals, 6,738 intervals in 78 holes were randomly selected for verification. Values in the database were checked against the paper copies of certificates for both gold and silver. The resulting error rate was well under 1%, and the minor issues detected were corrected by MDA and Gold Standard. The issues found included transcriptional errors and some missing data that were added into the database. Analytical procedures and their respective detection limits by operator and drill campaigns were evaluated in order to validate and properly apply values below detection limits. In general, positive values of half detection limit for the gold and silver were assigned.

Collar coordinates for historical drill holes were checked in a general sense against topography and identifiable drill sites on photos. Paper copies of down-hole survey data were manually compared with the database. Only minor discrepancies in collar and down-hole survey data were found and were corrected in conjunction with Gold Standard. Geologic logging was verified during the modeling process in Section 12.1.1. Conflicts were noted, particularly due to inconsistent logging of formations, but were interpreted with the help of Gold Standard staff to produce a reasonably consistent geologic model.

Depending on the operator and drill campaign, assay data was analyzed in g Au/t or oz Au/ton. Commonly, measured values in Gold Standard's North Bullion database had been converted to one unit, and converted back to the original unit. Discrepancies due to inconsistently applied conversion factors and rounding were consequently created in the database. MDA evaluated assay procedures in order to determine the original analytical units for respective data sets, and assays in the database were changed where required to honor the most original data. In summary, Gold Standard samples that were initially assayed in g Au/t were restored and converted to oz Au/ton (oz Au/ton = g Au/t ÷ 34.285714).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 243 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Historical samples were originally assayed in oz Au/ton and were restored. Consistent conversion factors were applied when needed.

1**2.4.2** Drill-Hole Data - 2023

In March of 2025, assay data from holes drilled by Orla in 2023 were verified. All certificate data were retrieved directly from the web portals of the laboratories and compiled into GeoSequel®. Essentially 100% of the 2023 North Bullion assay database, which consisted of 21 new holes with 4,760 assay intervals (7,058 m), was compared to the laboratory certificates. Only minor discrepancies were found, generally in the prioritization of the gold and silver analyses (i.e. FA-AA vs FA-Grav), none of which were significant.

All down-hole surveys for new holes were checked for significant variations in azimuth and dip. All survey intervals demonstrated reasonable rates of change.

1**2.4.3** North Bullion GPS Collar Checks

During the North Bullion site visit in July 2020, Gold Standard, with MDA present, took GPS measurements on five drill-hole collars (first five rows in Table 12-4) and five drill pads with indirect evidence of drill holes in the field to spot-check coordinates in Gold Standard's collar tables. A Garmin - Rino 530 non-differential GPS was used to measure coordinates at the drill collars. The Garmin website indicates the unit is accurate to within 9.8 to 16.4 ft (3 to 5 m). Seven northings and/or eastings exceeded the maximum range of accuracy of the GPS. However, the actual drill-hole location was not apparent on the pads for all but two of the northings, and these exceeded the maximum accuracy by 6 ft (1.8 m) or less. All other readings were within acceptable limits.

**Table 12-4**: MDA Verification GPS Checks of North Bullion Drill Collars (NAD27 UTM 11N feet)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area** | **Indicated<br> or Nearest<br> Drill Hole** | **MDA GPS Location** | **MDA GPS Location** | **MDA GPS Location** | **Gold Standard Collar Location** | **Gold Standard Collar Location** | **Gold Standard Collar Location** | **Difference <br> (GPS vs Survey)** | **Difference <br> (GPS vs Survey)** | **Difference <br> (GPS vs Survey)** |
| **Area** | **Indicated<br> or Nearest<br> Drill Hole** | **Easting** | **Northing** | **Elev.** | **Easting** | **Northing** | **Elev.** | **Easting** | **Northing** | **Elev.** |
| North Bullion | RR13-15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1918539.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14726971.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6584.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1918552.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14726985.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6570.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-14.6 |
| North Bullion | RR17-03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919038.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14727513.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6519.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919053.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14727495.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6462.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-18.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-56.6 |
| North Bullion | RR13-02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919490.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14726693.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6538.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919494.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14726715.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6531.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-7.6 |
| North Bullion | RR13-04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919490.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14726693.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6538.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1919490.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14726681.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6533.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-11.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-4.8 |
| Sweet Hollow | RRB17-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917479.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14721479.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6879.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917493.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14721467.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6871.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-8.1 |
| Sweet Hollow | RR12-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917988.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14722690.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6870.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1918033.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14722633.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6880.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-57.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.7 |
| Sweet Hollow | RR10-01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917588.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14721939.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6991.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1917568.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14721991.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6996.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-19.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.6 |
| POD | NR-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916347.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14722509.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7244.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916336.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14722525.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7233.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-11.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-11.1 |
| POD | BDH-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916866.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14722290.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7076.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916854.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14722281.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7087.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-8.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.2 |
| POD | NR-032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916964.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14722342.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7086.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1916924.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14722329.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7086.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-40.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-13.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.6 |

---

1**2.5** Pony Creek Data Verification Procedures

Pony Creek has been the site of numerous exploration programs since the 1980's as a result, a substantial volume of geological data has been generated, some of which is historical and was collected prior to the adoption of NI 43-101.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 244 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**2.5.1** 2022 Data Verification

In 2022, APEX Geoscience Ltd. completed a thorough data verification program that investigated the following historical information and data:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Historical and Contact Gold surface sampling locations and assay analytical results.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Historical and Contact Gold drill-hole data, including drill logs, assay analytical results and laboratory
certificates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Contact Gold metallurgical test work data and laboratory certificates.

The 2022 data verification procedures included compiling all digital drilling data into excel spreadsheets and importing the data into Micromine to create a drill-hole database (DHDB). This was a combination of historical data compilations conducted by Mine Development Associates (MDA; Gustin, 2017), as well as original logs and assay certificates from Contact Gold drilling in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The compilation included collar coordinates, down-hole survey information, geological interval data and assay information. Once verified, data were compiled into the Micromine drill-hole database. A total of 373 drill holes, with collar and assay data, were compiled into the database.

Once compiled, a brief and concise validation program was completed comparing the original drill logs, assay certificates and collar coordinates to the compiled database. Checks were conducted to confirm that drilling data (including the pre-2017 drilling data) was correctly digitized and properly imported into the Micromine database. Approximately 10% of the historical (pre-2018) drill-hole data, including collars, down-hole surveys (if present), geology intervals and assays were compared against original paper logs and assay certificates to verify the digitized historical data. Minor typos, precision errors, conversion errors and columns mismatches were found and rectified. Overall, in the opinion of the QP, the database is considered accurate and acceptable for resource estimation and mining given the current data at hand.

The Micromine software platform comes with DHDB verification tools, that were also employed to assist in the data verification.

All the Contact Gold drilling data for 2017-2019 was compiled from original data provided by the Company into the Micromine database and was reviewed by the Mr. Black. The 2017-2019 drilling data contained adequate QA/QC data, as summarized in Section 11. The geological logs were compared to the original paper copies for digitizing errors, and no errors were found.

1**2.5.2** 2025 Data Verification

In 2025, additional verification was undertaken to assess drilling completed at Pony Creek since 2022. The verification covered all 25 drill holes from 2024, distributed across Appaloosa, Bowl, Mustang, Pony Spur, and Stallion prospects. The results of this investigation are summarized below.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The collar locations of the 2024 drill holes were compared to coordinates in the collar survey database.
The collar locations were accurate, and no errors were discovered.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The total depth (TD) of each drill-hole was tested by comparing end of hole (EOH) data in the: collar,
lithology, assay interval, and survey databases. All the drill-hole TDs were determined to be accurate, without any conflicts.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Collar elevations were checked by comparing the digital terrain model (DTM) surface with the elevation
surveyed at each collar location. Elevation differences between these datasets ranged from 2 to 18 ft (0.6 to 5.5 m), with an absolute
average of 9.4 ft (2.86 m), this is considered reasonable and within acceptable limits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Drill-hole sample assays were verified by comparing the assay database with official certificates provided
directly from the Bureau Veritas laboratory web portal. Every sample collected from the 25 drill-holes in the MRE area was checked, 3,105
samples in total. All assays were identical, without any contradictions.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Down-hole surveys were selected for validation by choosing approximately 10% of the MRE relevant drill
holes with the highest total Au content. 72 survey points were selected from a total of 526 (13.7%). The selected points were validated
against raw data collected at the time of survey. A single rounding error was discovered in one survey point; and another survey point
was not collected because of issues encountered while drilling. 97.2% of the selected surveys (13.3% of all down-hole surveys) were determined
to be accurate without any errors.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 245 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In addition to verifying the database against source data, APEX conducted logical validation checks in Leapfrog Geo, specifically for overlapping intervals and maximum depth exceedances. No errors were identified, indicating internal consistency of the drill hole data.

Overall, in the opinion of the QP, the 2024 drilling data is considered accurate and acceptable for resource estimation and mining.

1**2.6** Qualified Person Site Inspection

MDA/RESPEC geologists and engineers first visited the South Railroad property site on November 18, 2016, when Mr. Dyer and Mr. Steve Ristorcelli visited the Pinion and Dark Star deposits. This site visit included reviews of core, examination of drill-hole cross sections with the geologic model, and investigations of representative exposures in road cuts and outcrops. Mr. Ristorcelli also visited the Gold Standard office in Elko, Nevada on June 21, 2018.

Mr. Lindholm, a Senior Geologist with MDA at the time, and an associate visited the Dark Star and Jasperoid Wash areas on September 18 and 19, 2018. The work included review of core, GPS collar checks, and visits to the sites to inspect geology. On July 14 through July 16, 2020, Mr. Lindholm visited the project office in Elko, as well as the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD and Pinion deposit areas. Mr. Lindholm verified drill-collar locations at the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow and POD deposits, and observed the drilling and sample handling methods and procedures being used at two core drills and one RC drill that were in operation at Pinion. The site visit also included reviews of drill core, examination of drill-hole cross sections and discussions of the geologic model with Gold Standard personnel.

The site was subsequently visited by Mr. Lindholm during an exploration workshop hosted by Orla/Gold Standard from August 16 to 18, 2022. Project work to date, including the current status of resources, was reviewed and discussed with Orla/Gold Standard staff in the Elko office. Representative core was reviewed in the core logging facility, and the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash, Dixie, North Bullion, POD, and Sweet Hollow deposits were visited in the field.

The most recent site visit conducted by Mr. Lindholm occurred on August 21, 2025 in support of the current Feasibility Study Update. New drill roads and pads were observed at the Pinion, Dark Star, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits. A drill rig and support vehicles were active at Jasperoid Wash, but sampling procedures were not observed because the rig was moving between sites. The sample processing and storage facility was toured at Orla's office in Elko, where recently drilled core was being logged. New equipment (automated core saw), and sampling, assaying (Photon assays) and QA/QC procedures were reviewed. All new procedures and protocols were implemented after the effective dates of the South Railroad project resources and supporting databases.

Mr. Michael Dufresne, M.Sc., P.Geol., P.Geo., a QP and principal of APEX Geoscience Ltd. conducted a site inspection of the Pony Creek area of the Property on January 26-27, 2022. The objectives of the site visit included:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Verification of the geology of the Pony Creek Deposit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Verification of selected drillhole collar locations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Observation and sampling of potential mineralization in outcrop.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Examination of drill core and observation of mineralized intercepts.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Collection of verification samples, including pulps from drillhole PC-18-03.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 246 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Mr. Dufresne travelled to Contact Gold's office in Elko, NV, on January 26, 2022. On the afternoon of January 26, 2022, the author reviewed historical and Contact Gold drill core, RC chip trays and RC drill logs from recent drill programs completed by Contact Gold. He collected pulp samples from drillhole PC-18-05 for verification analysis. The lithology, mineralization and structural orientations observed in the drill core were consistent with the original drill logs. As an example, Mr. Dufresne compared the geological logs from several historical and Contact Gold holes to core at the core facility. Figure 12-1 shows drill core reviewed by Mr. Dufresne from hole PC06-06, drilled by Grandview in 2006 at the Bowl Zone. Geology and assays results were as depicted in the geological log.

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img1.jpg)

**Figure 12-1**: Core from drillhole PC06-06 drilled in 2006 at the Bowl Zone showing the porphyritic rhyolite geological unit and a brecciated interval of intense faulting.**

Mr. Dufresne flew by helicopter on January 27, 2022 to the Pony Creek area of the Property. The tour focused on the northern part of the Pony Creek area near the Stallion and Pony Spur zones. During his visit to the Property, 4 drill collar coordinates were recorded using a handheld GPS (Figure 12-2). These coordinates were compared against original collar coordinates in Contact Gold's database to validate the drilling data. Overall, the comparison of selected field-verified drill collars with database values did not yield any significant discrepancies (Table 12-5). In addition, Mr. Dufresne collected 3 composite rock grab samples from the Stallion Zone and 15 pulp samples from mineralized intervals in drillhole PC18-03. The three grab samples were collected in proximity to recent Contact Gold drill collar locations: PC18-48, PC19-20, and PC19-21 (Figure 12-3).

**Table 12-5**: Drill collar coordinate comparison table. All coordinates are in UTM Nad83 Zone 11.**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drillhole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation<br> (masl)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original<br> Easting<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original<br> Northing<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original<br> Elevation<br> (masl)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference<br> Easting <br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference<br> Northing<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference<br> Elevation<br> (m)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585855 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC19-21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585877 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PC18-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4468976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4468973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 247 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img2.jpg)

**Figure 12-2**: Mr. Dufresne's verification of Contact Gold drill collar PC19-21.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 248 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 12-3**: QP site visit drill collar coordinate verification and grab sample locations.**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 249 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The rock grab and pulp samples were delivered by APEX personnel to ALS in North Vancouver and Langley, BC, respectively. At ALS in North Vancouver, the rock grab samples were crushed and pulverized, and 30 g aliquots were analyzed for gold using fire assay with AES finish (ALS code Au-ICP21). Multielement geochemical analysis was completed using four acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish (ALS code ME-MS61). The pulp samples were received at ALS in Langley and sent to ALS in North Vancouver for analysis. The pulps were analyzed for gold using fire assay with AAS finish (ALS code Au-AA25). Multielement geochemical analysis was completed using four acid digestion with an ICP-MS finish (ALS code ME-MS61). The results of the verification of rock grab and pulp sampling are presented in Table 12-6 and Table 12-7, respectively. ALS is an International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 certified laboratory and is independent of the Company and the authors of this Technical Report.

**Table 12-6**: Pony Creek QP site visit verification rock grab sample locations and results, ALS code Au-ICP21 and ME-MS61. All coordinates are in UTM Nad83 Zone 11.**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Easting<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Northing<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Elevation<br> (masl)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**As<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ba<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mo<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sb<br> ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zn<br> ppm** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22MDP001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585851 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22MDP002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22MDP003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;585868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4470323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;276 |

---

**Table 12-7**: QP site visit verification pulp sample results.**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample<br> ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hole ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample-<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Interval<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au ppm<br> (AA23<br> 2018)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au ppm<br> (AA25<br> 2022)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Difference<br> (ppm)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803064** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**285** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**290** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**86.87** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**88.39** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.19** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.23** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.04** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803065** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**290** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**295** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**88.39** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**89.92** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.495** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.53** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.035** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803066** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**295** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**300** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**89.92** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.44** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.71** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.75** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.04** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803067** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**300** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**305** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**91.44** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**92.96** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.66** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.71** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.05** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803068** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**305** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**310** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**92.96** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**94.49** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4.75** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.17** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803069** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**310** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**315** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**94.49** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**96.01** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4.76** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4.68** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-0.08** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803070** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blank** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.02** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803071** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**315** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**320** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**96.01** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**97.54** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3.69** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3.73** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.04** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803072** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**320** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**325** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**97.54** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**99.06** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.56** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.48** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-0.08** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803073** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**325** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**330** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**99.06** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**100.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.25** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.25** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803074** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**330** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**335** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**100.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**102.11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.744** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.74** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-0.004** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803075** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**335** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**340** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**102.11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**103.63** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.435** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.42** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-0.015** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803076** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**340** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**345** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**103.63** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**105.16** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.815** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.85** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.035** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803077** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**345** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**350** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**105.16** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**106.68** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.51** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.58** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.07** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803078** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**350** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**355** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**106.68** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**108.20** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.765** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.77** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.005** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**1803079** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PC18-03** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pulp** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**355** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**360** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**108.20** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**109.73** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.89** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.88** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-0.01** |

---

The composite rock grab samples collected from the Stallion Zone contained low grade gold mineralization with 0.269 ppm Au in 22MDP003 and 0.167 ppm Au in 22MDP002, as well as elevated levels of pathfinder elements including Ag, As, Ba, Mo, Sb, and Zn (Table 12-6). The site visit rock grab sample mineralization is consistent with the style and tenor of mineralization previously described at the Pony Creek area of the Property.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 250 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The pulp samples from the mineralized intervals in drillhole PC-18-03 correlate reasonably well with the original 2018 assays (Table 12-7). On average, the gold values from the QP verification pulps (AA25 2022) were higher in comparison to the original analyses (AA23 2018), 60% (n=9) of the samples returned higher gold grades compared to the original, and 1 sample returned the same value. For multielement geochemical analysis, all of the pulps contained pathfinder elements, including Ag, As, Ba, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Zn.

Based on independent verification sampling of rock grab and pulp samples, as well as a review of the outcrop exposure, drill core and drill chips, Mr. Dufresne verified the geological observations, results and conclusions of the exploration work carried out by Contact Gold at Pony Creek.

1**2.7** Summary Statement on Data Verification

Based on the observations during site visits, and results of the data verification and QA/QC evaluations, it is Mr. Lindholm's opinion that the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits analytical data are adequate for the purposes used in this Technical Report, subject to those samples removed, and any issues described above in this section and for the QA/QC evaluation described in Section 11.5. All issues described in this section and Section 11.5 have been considered in assigning levels of confidence and the classification of the mineral resources estimated in Section 14. Mr. Lindholm experienced no limitations with respect to data verification activities conducted for the North and South Railroad properties.

Mr. Dufresne has reviewed the adequacy of the exploration and mining information for the Pony Creek area of the Property, and has inspected the physical, visual, and geological characteristics. No significant issues or inconsistencies were discovered that would call into question the validity of the data. In the opinion of Mr. Dufresne, the Pony Creek area of the Property data is adequate and suitable for use in this Report.

Mr. Dufresne notes that the known QA/QC data from historical drill programs at Pony Creek is limited to only duplicate data from the Homestake and Grandview drilling programs in 2000 and 2005-2007, respectively. However, based on the Property inspection, verification sampling and data review, Mr. Dufresne has no reason to doubt the geology exploration results of the Ponk Creek area of the Property.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 251 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| 1**3** | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing |

---

Detailed summaries of the test reports completed to date are included in the following two sections. Work carried out prior to these programs is not included as it was carried out on surface samples.

1**3.1** Pinon Overview

For Pinion, two fixed recoveries and a single algorithm can be used to predict the recovery from ore crushed to 80% < 1". The algorithm predicts the recovery from the Barium content for ores above 2.7% Barium. For ores below 2.7% Barium, a fixed recovery of 63% can be used.

That is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· For Pinion ores in the North Pit < 2.7% Ba,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o Crushed ore recovery (%) = 70

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· For all other Pinion ores < 2.7% Ba,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o Crushed ore recovery (%) = 63

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· For Pinion ores > 2.7% Ba,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o Crushed ore recovery (%) = -(1.8 x Ba (%)) + 68

Recovery from Pinion RoM ore is estimated by deducting 10% from the crushed ore recovery.

Using the median result from the 25 mm column tests, the silver recovery from crushed and RoM ore is estimated at 15% and 5% respectively. The previous FS estimated the silver recovery from RoM ore at 10.6%.

The two box plots, Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2, show that Pinion East has both the lowest average recovery and the highest average Barium grade. The North zone has the highest recovery. When the data from all Pinion Testing Phases is analyzed, a trend is apparent between particle size and recovery, see Figure 13-3. This trend also exists in the individual data sets grouped by testing phase. Figure 13-4 shows that recovery is only slightly dependent on gold grade. Overall, only a weak trend exists between barium content and recovery. However, ores with high barium content show a strong trend exists between barium content and recovery. The recovery drops by approximately 2% for every 1% increase in Barium content above 2.7% Ba, see Figure 13-5, Figure 13-6, and Figure 13-7. No trend exists between silica content and recovery, see Figure 13-8.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 252 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img9.jpg)

**Figure 13-1**: Pinion Zone vs. Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img10.jpg)

**Figure 13-2**: Pinion, all data, Ba vs. Zone**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 253 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img11.jpg)

**Figure 13-3**: Pinion all data, Particle Size vs. Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img12.jpg)

**Figure 13-4**: Pinion all data, Grade vs. Recovery**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 254 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img13.jpg)

**Figure 13-5**: Pinion all data, Barium vs. Column Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img14.jpg)

**Figure 13-6**: Pinion, Low Barium vs. Column Recovery**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 255 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img15.jpg)

**Figure 13-7**: Pinion, High Barium vs. Column Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img16.jpg)

**Figure 13-8**: Pinion all data, Si vs. Recovery**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 256 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**3.1.1** Pinion Test Phases

Each set of test data is briefly discussed below. Additional graphs were generated from each individual data set.

13.1.1.1 Phase 1

In 2016 and 2017, a total of thirty-three composites were made from intervals selected from ten core holes, on two cross-sections, located in the Pinion North and NW Pinion Main zones (KCA, 2017a).

Twenty-four of the thirty-three drill core composites were subjected to bottle-roll leach testing at target P<sub>80</sub> sizes of 75 μm and 1,700 μm, and to column-leach testing at either 12.5 mm or 25 mm crush sizes. The remaining nine composites were only bottle-roll leached at target P<sub>80</sub> sizes of 75 μm and 1,700 μm.

Twenty-seven columns were prepared, thirteen from Pinion North and fourteen from Pinion Main. All were crushed to ½" except one from Pinion North and three from Pinion Main which were crushed to 1". Recoveries were variable and a fairly strong trend exists between particle size and recovery. An approximate decrease in recovery of 10% can be expected between crush sizes of 80% passing ½" and 1", see Figure 13-9.

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img17.jpg)

**Figure 13-9**: Pinion North and Main data, particle size vs. recovery**

The column results are summarized in Table 13-1.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 257 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 13-1**: Pinion Phase 1 - Summary of Column Leach Test Work**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> Size,<br> mm** | **Calculated<br> Head,<br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Calculated<br> Tail P<sub>80<br> </sub> Size, mm** | **Days<br> of <br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN,<br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub>,<br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |
| 77101 A | PN #1 | 19 | 0.259 | 73 | 12.2 | 90 | 0.93 | 0.76 | 0.00 |
| 77102 B | PN #2 | 19 | 1.329 | 78 | 12 | 121 | 1.23 | 0.76 | 0.00 |
| 77103 A | PN #3 | 19 | 0.880 | 62 | 12.6 | 90 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| 77105 B | PN #5 | 37.5 | 0.663 | 66 | 21.2 | 121 | 1.00 | 0.76 | 0.00 |
| 77105 C | PN #5 | 19 | 0.739 | 70 | 12 | 90 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.00 |
| 77107 A | PN #7 | 19 | 1.878 | 79 | 11.8 | 90 | 1.05 | 0.76 | 0.00 |
| 77108 A | PN #8 | 19 | 1.174 | 82 | 12.2 | 90 | 0.95 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77109 A | PN #9 | 19 | 0.470 | 90 | 10.7 | 60 | 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77110 B | PN #10 | 19 | 0.443 | 73 | 12 | 60 | 0.35 | 0.50 | 4.97 |
| 77112 B | PN #12 | 19 | 0.547 | 77 | 12.1 | 121 | 1.15 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77116 A | PN #16 | 19 | 0.446 | 64 | 12.5 | 90 | 0.86 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77117 A | PN #17 | 19 | 0.427 | 76 | 13.3 | 90 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 77118 A | PN #18 | 19 | 0.933 | 63 | 12.1 | 121 | 1.53 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77120 B | PN #20 | 19 | 0.628 | 66 | 12.3 | 90 | 1.10 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77121 B | PM #21 | 19 | 1.389 | 62 | 12.5 | 90 | 1.04 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| 77122 B | PM #22 | 37.5 | 0.662 | 51 | 24.4 | 121 | 0.96 | 0.48 | 0.00 |
| 77122 C | PM #22 | 19 | 0.680 | 59 | 12.3 | 90 | 0.69 | 0.50 | 5.00 |
| 77124 A | PM #24 | 19 | 0.283 | 83 | 11.9 | 60 | 0.29 | 0.50 | 5.00 |
| 77125 B | PM #25 | 19 | 0.300 | 72 | 12 | 90 | 0.94 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77126 B | PM #26 | 37.5 | 0.902 | 54 | 26.1 | 121 | 1.17 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77126 C | PM #26 | 19 | 0.966 | 62 | 12.1 | 90 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77127 A | PM #27 | 19 | 0.470 | 70 | 12.2 | 90 | 1.41 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| 77129 A | PM #29 | 19 | 0.279 | 56 | 11.9 | 90 | 1.01 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77130 B | PM #30 | 19 | 1.883 | 67 | 12.3 | 90 | 1.08 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77132 B | PM #32 | 37.5 | 0.436 | 54 | 24.7 | 90 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77132 C | PM #32 | 19 | 0.426 | 62 | 12.4 | 90 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 |
| 77133 A | PM #33 | 19 | 0.330 | 56 | 12.7 | 90 | 1.19 | 0.50 | 0.00 |

---

For column leach tests, gold extractions ranged from 51% to 90% and averaged 68%, based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.26 to 1.88 g/t. The sodium cyanide consumption ranged from 0.29 to 1.53 kg/t. The average particle size was 80% passing 14 mm. The material utilized in leaching was blended with 0.48 to 1.01 kg/t hydrated lime. Three columns, 10, 22, and 24, were also agglomerated with 5 kg/t cement.

A portion of tailing material from each column-leach test was utilized for load permeability test work. The purpose of the load permeability test work was to examine the permeability of the crushed material under compaction loading equivalent to heap heights of 25 m, 50 m, 75 m, and 100 m. All tests passed the permeability and slump criteria utilized by KCA.

For bottle roll leach tests on 1.70 mm material, gold extractions ranged from 49% to 86% based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.064 to 1.781 g/t. The sodium cyanide consumptions ranged from 0.06 to 0.48 kg/t. The material utilized in leaching was blended with 0.50 to 4.25 kg/t hydrated lime. Most column tests were still leaching at a rate of approximately 1% every 10 days when the columns were terminated at 90 or 120 days.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 258 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img18.jpg)

**Figure 13-10: Pinon Project Gold Extraction versus Days of Leach**

Fourteen drill core samples were selected for comminution test work at Hazen Research. They were subjected to the modified SMC Test. The Dwi ranged from 2.13 to 8.02 kWh/m<sup>3</sup>, indicating soft to medium-hard material. The A x b and D<sub>wi</sub> values can be categorized as soft to moderate in comparison to the SMC worldwide database values. A<sub>i</sub> values ranged from a low of 0.46 g to a high of 1.55 g, average 0.98 g, indicating moderate to very high abrasiveness of the materials tested, due to the silica content. M<sub>ic</sub>, the SMC crusher component value, with an average of 5.9 kWh/t, would be ranked in the lower mid-range of the SMC worldwide database.

13.1.1.2 Phase 2

KCA carried out bottle roll, conventional-crush column-leach and HPGR-crush column-leach testing on a drill core composite sample from the Pinion Main zone (KCA, 2019). Only one column test was completed on material crushed conventionally. The Phase 2 columns were filled with material fine crushed by HPGR and compared with material crushed conventionally to ½". The results are not considered relevant to the current flow sheet.

13.1.1.3 Phase 3

GSV drilled additional metallurgical core holes in the Pinion North and Main zones in 2017-2018, that were first tested in 2019 (KCA, 2019a). A total of twenty-six composites were made from intervals selected from twenty-two core holes. The twenty-six drill core composites were subjected to bottle-roll leach testing at target P<sub>80</sub> sizes of 75 μm and 1,700 μm, and to column-leach testing at 12.5 mm or 25 mm crush sizes. Twenty-four columns were prepared, four from Pinion North and twenty from Pinion Main. All were crushed to either ½" or 1". Recoveries were variable, but unlike the Phase 1 and 6 test results, only a weak trend exists between particle size and recovery.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 259 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Three results yielded recoveries below 40%. In the report, KCA gave no reason for this, however, analysis shows that two of the low recovery results were due to the samples 38 and 39 having a high sulfide content of 0.15 and 0.67% respectively.

Only samples crushed by HPGR failed the permeability tests at simulated heap heights up to 100 m.

**Table 13-2: Pinion Phase 3 - Summary of Column Test**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> Size,<br> mm** | **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Calculated<br> Tail P<sub>80<br> </sub> Size, mm** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN, <br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime, kg/t** | **Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83301 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PN#35-mlbx-mix/MedBa | 37.5 | 0.968 | 81 | 21.5 | 130 | 1.19 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83302 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PN#36-mlbx-mix/LowBa | 19 | 0.626 | 77 | 12.1 | 130 | 1.07 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83303 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#37-mlbx-mix/HiBa | 37.5 | 0.466 | 60 | 24.4 | 73 | 0.66 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84133 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#37-mlbx-mix/HiBa | HPGR | 0.467 | 76 | 5.26 | 65 | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83304 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#38-mlbx-mix/HiBa | 37.5 | 1.648 | 31 | 25.1 | 130 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83305 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#39-Mtp-stmic,mic/LowBa | 19 | 0.260 | 45 | 13 | 94 | 0.89 | 1.51 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83306 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#40-Ddg-car/Low Ba | 19 | 0.198 | 63 | 12.2 | 94 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83307 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#41-mlbx-stls/HiBa | 19 | 0.855 | 65 | 12.2 | 130 | 1.15 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83308 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#42-mlbx-stmic/LowBa | 19 | 0.360 | 71 | 12.9 | 94 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83309 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#43-mlbx-mic=stls/MedBa | 19 | 0.666 | 74 | 13.1 | 94 | 0.66 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83310 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#44-mlbx-mix/HiBa | 19 | 1.015 | 80 | 12.6 | 94 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83311 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#45-mlbx-mix/LowBa | 19 | 3.187 | 36 | 12.9 | 130 | 1.36 | 1.30 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83312 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PN#46-mlbx-mix/LowBa | 19 | 2.103 | 71 | 11.6 | 94 | 0.82 | 1.02 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83313 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#47-mlbx-mix/LowBa | 19 | 0.971 | 79 | 12.8 | 95 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83314 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PN#48-mlbx-mix/LowBa | 19 | 0.509 | 65 | 12.3 | 94 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83315 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#49-mlbx-ls/LowBa | 37.5 | 0.600 | 65 | 24.9 | 94 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83316 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PN#50-mlbx-ls/LowBa | 19 | 0.479 | 71 | 13.3 | 94 | 0.74 | 0.99 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83317 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#51-mlbx-ls/HiBa | 37.5 | 0.504 | 46 | 22.3 | 94 | 0.72 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84134 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#51-mlbx-ls/HiBa | HPGR | 0.518 | 57 | 5.5 | 65 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 2.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83318 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#52-mlbx-ls/MedBa | 19 | 0.748 | 30 | 17.2 | 94 | 0.71 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83319 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#53-mlbx-stls/HiBa | 37.5 | 0.831 | 69 | 24.2 | 73 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84135 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#53-mlbx-stls/HiBa | HPGR | 0.891 | 78 | 5.20 | 65 | 0.89 | 0.51 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83320 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#54-mlbx-st/HiBa | 19 | 1.207 | 41 | 12.2 | 94 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83321 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#55-mlbx-st/HiBa | 37.5 | 0.507 | 59 | 25.2 | 94 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83322 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#56-mlbx-stmic/LowBa | 37.5 | 0.794 | 52 | 24.8 | 73 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84136 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#56-mlbx-stmic/LowBa | HPGR | 0.842 | 66 | 5.67 | 65 | 0.84 | 0.52 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83323 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#57-mlbx-stmic,st/HiBa | 37.5 | 0.313 | 72 | 24.5 | 94 | 0.70 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83324 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#58-mlbx-cly,mic/LowBa | 19 | 1.607 | 70 | 12.2 | 94 | 0.93 | 1.01 | 0.00 |
| 82325 A<sup>1</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#59-MTP=stmic, stls/LowBa | 37.5 | 0.576 | 63 | 25 | 94 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 84137 A<sup>1</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#59-MTP=stmic, stls/LowBa | HPGR | 0.515 | 75 | 4.92 | 65 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 6.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83326 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PM#60-Dgd_mix/LowBa | 19 | 0.471 | 70 | 10.2 | 94 | 0.87 | 1.01 | 0.00 |

---

Note (1): Composite #59 has low level sulfides and is considered transitional. Note (1): Composite #38 and 39 have higher level sulfides and are considered sulfide.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 260 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Five samples (PM#37, PM#51, PM#53, PM#56, and PM#59) were crushed via conventional means as well as via high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR).

Conventional crushing yielded an average gold extraction of 58% with a range of 46% to 69% and an average silver extraction of 15% with a range of 9% to 25%. Column leach tests utilizing conventionally crushed material leached for an average of 81 days with an average NaCN consumption of 0.73 kg/t. HPGR crushing yielded an average gold extraction of 70% with a range of 57% to 78% and an average silver extraction of 40% with a range of 28% to 58%. Column leach tests utilizing HPGR crushed material leached for an average of 65 days with an average NaCN consumption of 0.73 kg/t.

All five samples produced better gold extractions (+11%) when crushed via HPGR. Although KCA recommended HPGR crushing, the increased recovery was due to the fine particle size produced rather than the crushing method.

Most column tests were still leaching at a rate of approximately 1% to 2% every 10 days when the columns were terminated at between 65 to 130 days.

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img19.jpg)

**Figure 13-11: Pinion Project Gold Extraction versus Days of Leach**

Nine drill core samples were selected for comminution test work at Hazen Research. The Dw<sub>i</sub> ranged from 5.34 to 7.30 kWh/m<sup>3</sup>, indicating soft to medium-hard material. The A x b and Dw<sub>i</sub> values can be categorized as moderate in comparison to the SMC worldwide database values. M<sub>ic</sub>, the SMC crusher component value, with an average of 6.8 kWh/t, would be ranked in the mid-range of the SMC worldwide database. A<sub>i</sub> values ranged from a low of 0.40 g to a high of 0.85 g, averaging 0.69 g, indicating moderate to above average abrasiveness of the materials tested, due to the silica content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 261 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

13.1.1.4 Phase 4

In 2020, three variability composites, labelled 61, 62, and 63, targeting ***<u>Transition</u>*** ore from the Pinion deposit, were made from intervals selected from five core holes (KCA, 2020). One sample, 61, was labelled Pinion West and the other two, 62 and 63 were labelled Pinion East. The recoveries were 51, 64, and 25%, while sulfide contents are 0.03, 0.20, and 0.97% and barium contents were 10.3, 4.5, and 14.2 % respectively. The low recovery on some samples is explained by either the high sulfide or high barium.

**Table 13-3: Pinion Phase 4 – Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test Type** | **Calculated<br> Tail P<sub>80</sub> Size,<br> mm** | **Calculated<br> Head,<br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN, <br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime, kg/t** | **Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84851 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PW#61-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - Conv. | 12.3 | 0.343 | 51 | 94 | 1.39 | 0.98 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;89008 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;PW#61-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - HPGR | 6.1 | 0.377 | 64 | 94 | 1.53 | 0.00 | 2.13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84851 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PW#61-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Coarse | 1.56 | 0.354 | 62 | 6 | 0.20 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84851 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PW#61-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Milled | 0.062 | 0.379 | 76 | 3 | 0.24 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84852 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#62-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - Conv. | 11.8 | 0.910 | 64 | 94 | 1.43 | 0.99 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;89009 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#62-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - HPGR | 6.2 | 0.939 | 69 | 94 | 1.18 | 0.00 | 2.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84852 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#62-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Coarse | 1.44 | 0.925 | 66 | 6 | 0.19 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84852 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#62-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Milled | 0.066 | 0.891 | 71 | 3 | 0.53 | 0.75 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84853 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#63-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - Conv. | 12.1 | 1.363 | 25 | 94 | 1.35 | 0.99 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;89010 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#63-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;CT - HPGR | 5.2 | 1.326 | 33 | 94 | 1.25 | 0.00 | 2.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84853 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#63-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Coarse | 1.66 | 1.381 | 28 | 6 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84853 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;PE#63-Trans | &nbsp;&nbsp;BRT - Milled | 0.063 | 1.300 | 32 | 3 | 0.66 | 1.00 | 0.00 |

---

Recoveries were variable, but unlike the Phase 1 and 6 test results, only a weak trend exists between particle size and recovery, similar to Phase 3.

13.1.1.5 Phase 5

In 2021, GSV commissioned KCA and Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solutions to perform feasibility level conventional crushing and HPGR testing on two composites from the Pinion deposit (labelled East and West) and two from the Dark Star Deposit (KCA, 2021).

The material was then combined into four samples. A portion from each separate sample was conventionally crushed utilizing laboratory scale jaw crushers. Additionally, a portion of each sample was crushed utilizing a High-Pressure Grinding Roll. Splits of the four samples were also shipped to Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solution's (TKIS) laboratory facility in Germany for HPGR crushing (MAGRO HPGR) and ATWAL abrasion testing.

The recoveries on the conventionally crushed samples, at 80% passing 1", were 67.6% from Pinion West and 58% from Pinion East.

13.1.1.6 Phase 6

In 2020, thirty variability composites, targeting the Pinion deposit Phase 4 mine expansion area, were made from intervals selected from fifteen core holes (KCA, 2022). All thirty composites were subjected to bottle roll and conventional column-leach testing and ten of the thirty composites were also subjected to medium pressure HPGR column-leach testing. The conventional crush column results are tabulated below.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 262 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 13-4: Pinion Phase 6 – Summary of Conv. Crush Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Au<br> Extracted,<br> %** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Calculated<br> P<sub>80</sub> Size, mm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Leach<br> Time,<br> days** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption<br> NaCN,** <br>**kg/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Addition<br> Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub>,<br> kg/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91701 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#70, Mtp | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.738 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91702 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#71, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91703 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#72, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91704 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#73, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91705 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#74, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.501 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91706 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#75, Mtp | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91707 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#76, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91708 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#77, Ddg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91709 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#78, Ddg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91710 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#79, Mtp | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91711 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#80, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91712 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#81, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91713 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#82, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.958 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91714 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#83, Ddg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91715 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#84, Mtp | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.889 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91716 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#85, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91717 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#86, Ddg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91718 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#87, Mtp | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91719 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#88, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91720 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#89, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91721 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#90, Ddg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91722 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#91, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91723 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#92, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91724 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#93, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91725 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#94, Ti | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91726 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#95, Ti,mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91727 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#96, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91728 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#97, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.531 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91729 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;#98, mlbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |

---

Overall gold extractions for all tests ranged from 25% to 89% based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.15 to 2.89 g/t. The average was 64%. Silver extractions ranged from 6% to 49% based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.51 to 46.94 g/t. The sodium cyanide consumption ranged from 0.67 to 1.42 kg/t. The material utilized in leaching was blended with 0 to 1.52 kg/t hydrated lime or agglomerated with 0 to 4.51 kg/t cement.

Most column tests were still leaching at a rate of at least 1% every 10 days when the columns were terminated at 99 or 106 days. Column 73 was terminated prematurely at 64 days which explains its low recovery.

Recoveries were variable and a strong trend exists between particle size and recovery. An approximate decrease in recovery of 10 to 15% can be expected between crush sizes of 80% passing ½" and 1", see Figure 13-12.

Only samples crushed by HPGR failed the permeability tests at simulated heap heights up to 100 m. None of the conventionally crushed samples failed the permeability test, although a few of the samples failed the solution clarity test. This is not considered to be problematic for two reasons. The continued percolation through the heap acts as a solution filter and these samples will be blended with other ores as part of the mining process, thus minimizing the effect.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 263 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img20.jpg)

**Figure 13-12**: Pinion East and West Data, Particle Size vs. Recovery**

13.1.1.7 TKK

In January 2020, the laboratory facility of KCA in Reno, Nevada received fourteen pallets of material from the Dark Star and Pinion projects containing intervals of whole, split and broken PQ core as well as surface hammer samples (TKIS, 2020). In 2021, GSV commissioned KCA and Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solutions to perform feasibility level conventional crushing and HPGR testing on two composites from the Pinion deposit (labelled East and West) and two from the Dark Star Deposit.

The material was then combined into four samples. A portion from each separate sample was conventionally crushed utilizing laboratory scale jaw crushers. Additionally, a portion of each sample was crushed utilizing a High-Pressure Grinding Roll. Splits of the four samples were also shipped to Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solution's laboratory facility in Germany for HPGR crushing and abrasion testing.

The recoveries on the conventionally crushed samples, at 80% passing 1", were 58% from Pinion East and 67.6% from Pinion West.

13.1.1.8 2023/2024 Testing

GSV identified the Pinion samples as coming from a zone to the East of the Main Pit which had not been previously tested. The hole was drilled in 2023-2024 (KCA, 2024).

There is a relationship between sulfide grade and column test gold recovery.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 264 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img21.jpg)

**Figure 13-13: 2024 Testing, Sulfide Grade vs. Recovery**

Gold extractions for the column tests ranged from 38% to 72% and averaged 50% after 64 days of leaching. Cyanide consumption ranged from 0.67 to 1.03 kg/t and hydrated lime consumption ranged from 1.25 to 5.5 kg/t.

The columns were still leaching slowly after 64 days. All samples passed the KCA test criteria for slump and flow rate at all the cement addition levels. The subsequent column leach tests were not agglomerated.

The metal extractions are summarized in Table 13-5.

**Table 13-5**: 2023-2024 Testing – Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA Sample<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush<br> Size, mm** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sulfide<br> %** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Extracted, <br> % Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Days of<br> Leach** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Consumption<br> NaCN, <br> kg/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Addition<br> Hydrated Lime, <br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97976 A | &nbsp;&nbsp; PC23-01<br> Column Group 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97977 A | &nbsp;&nbsp; PC23-01<br> Column Group 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97978 A | &nbsp;&nbsp; PC23-01<br> Column Group 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97979 A | &nbsp;&nbsp; PC23-01<br> Column Group 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 265 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**3.2** Dark Star Overview

For Dark Star, it is concluded that a single fixed recovery and a single algorithm can be used to predict the recovery from material crushed to 80% < 1". The algorithm predicts the recovery from the Sulfide content for ores below 0.10% Sulfide. For ores over 0.10% Sulfide, a fixed recovery of 70% for crushed ore is used.

That is:

For Dark Star ores < 0.10% Sulfide,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o Crushed ore recovery (%) = -(211 x S<sup>2-</sup>) + 90.8%

For Dark Star ores > 0.10% Sulfide,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;o Crushed ore recovery (%) = 70%

Recovery from Dark Star RoM ore is estimated by deducting 5% from the crushed ore recovery.

Due to the low silver grade, no significant recovery of silver is expected from Dark Star ores.

Figure 13-14 and Figure 13-15 show the variation of recovery with sulfide grade. It can be seen from Figure 13-16, that the recovery at Dark Star is much less sensitive to particle size, compared with Pinion. Only a minor trend is apparent, at least in the range tested.

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img22.jpg)

**Figure 13-14**: Dark Star Columns, Low Sulfide vs. Secondary Crushed Recovery**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 266 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img23.jpg)

**Figure 13-15**: Dark Star Columns, High Sulfide vs. Secondary Crushed Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img24.jpg)

**Figure 13-16**: Dark Star all data, particle size vs. recovery**

Unlike Pinion, the Dark Star test results show a significant trend between silica vs. recovery, as well as gold grade vs. recovery, see Figure 13-17 and Figure 13-18.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 267 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img25.jpg)

**Figure 13-17**: Dark Star, Si vs. Recovery**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp10img26.jpg)

**Figure 13-18**: Dark Star all data grade vs. Recovery**

*Note: As RoM leaching is recommended for Dark Star, no slump, permeability or agglomeration data is summarized in the following sections.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 268 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**3.2.1** Dark Star Test Phases

13.2.1.1 Phase 1

On March 9, 2017, KCA received two hundred forty-one buckets of ½ split broken HQ core material from the Dark Star Project (KCA, 2017b). The buckets contained material comprising sixty-eight individual samples. These samples were utilized for head analyses and bottle roll leach test work. Additionally, forty-one samples were utilized for head screen analyses with assays by size fraction and column leach test work.

**Table 13-6: Dark Star Phase 1 - Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush size,<br> mm** | **Calc. P<sub>80<br> </sub> Size, mm** | **Calculated<br> Head,**<br>**g/t Au** | **Extracted,**<br>**% Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN,<br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime,<br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78001 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-17 #1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78002 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-17 #2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.950 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78003 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-17 #3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66% | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78004 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-17 #4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78005 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-17 #5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.925 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95% | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78009 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-18 #9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.966 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78009 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-18 #9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.843 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78011 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-18 #11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78012 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-20 #12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78013 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-20 #13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78016 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-31 #16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87% | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78018 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-33 #18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87% | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78019 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-33 #19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78020 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-33 #20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78020 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-33 #20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78021 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-33 #21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78022 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-03B #22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95% | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78024 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-03B #24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78030 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-03B #30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.776 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86% | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78031 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-27 #31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94% | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78033 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-27 #33 & #35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.826 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78036 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.528 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.28 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78037 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #38 & #39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.883 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78038 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78040 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78042 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78043 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.386 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78044 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-08 #46 & #47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.26 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78046 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-21 #49 & #51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81% | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78046 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-21 #49 & #51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83% | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78047 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-21 #50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78051 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #55 & #57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78053 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78055 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 269 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> size, mm** | **Calc. P<sub>80<br> </sub> Size, mm** | **Calculated<br> Head,<br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN,<br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime,**<br> **kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78056 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78057 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #62 & #64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15% | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78057 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-24 #62 & #64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78059 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-05 #65, #66, #67 & #68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56% | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78059 C | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-05 #65, #66, #67 & #68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78060 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-05 #70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78062 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-05 #69 & DS15-13 #72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81% | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78063 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS15-13 #73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86% | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78064 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS15-13 #74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.793 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75% | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78065 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS15-13 #75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80% | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78067 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-02 #78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76% | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78068 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS16-02 #79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58% | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 |

---

Two anomalously low results were removed from the analysis. The gold extractions in the remaining 44 columns ranged from 58% to 95%, and averaged 81%, based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.18 to 6.39 g/t. The sodium cyanide consumptions ranged from 0.59 to 1.69 kg/t. The material utilized in leaching was blended with 0.99 to 3.12 kg/t hydrated lime.

In this program, four samples were tested at two different crush sizes and two different bottle roll sizes (80% passing 25 and 13 mm and 90% passing 200# and 10#). An additional thirty-four samples were tested at one crush size and two different bottle roll sizes (80% passing 13 mm and 90% passing 200# and 10#), see Table 13-7. This data supports the conclusion that for the Dark Star deposit, only a minor trend is apparent between particle size and recovery, at least in this size range.

**Table 13-7**: "Twinned" Results Dark Star Phase 1 – Summary of Bottle Roll/Column Test**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sample no. and 80%<br> passing size** | **200#** | **10#** | **19 mm** | **37 mm** |
| DS16-18 #9 | 87 | 84 | 85 | 85 |
| DS16-33 #20 | 81 | 60 | 61 | 61 |
| DS16-21 #49&51 | 92 | 87 | 83 | 81 |
| DS16-05 #65-68 | 76 | 67 | 68 | 56 |
| DS16-17 #1 | 82 | 82 | 80 | - |
| DS16-17 #2 | 94 | 91 | 91 | - |
| DS16-17 #3 | 84 | 73 | 66 | - |
| DS16-17 #4 | 84 | 70 | 70 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 270 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sample no. and 80%<br> passing size** | **200#** | **10#** | **19 mm** | **37 mm** |
| DS16-17 #5 | 90 | 92 | 95 | - |
| DS16-18 #1 | 91 | 87 | 90 | - |
| DS16-20 #12 | 75 | 68 | 72 | - |
| DS16-20 #13 | 91 | 91 | 90 | - |
| DS16-31 #16 | 92 | 89 | 87 | - |
| DS16-33 #18 | 88 | 87 | 88 | - |
| DS16-33 #19 | 91 | 72 | 70 | - |
| DS16-33 #21 | 89 | 72 | 68 | - |
| DS16-03B #22 | 95 | 97 | 95 | - |
| DS16-03B #24 | 93 | 92 | 90 | - |
| DS16-03B #30 | 89 | 89 | 86 | - |
| DS16-27 #31 | 91 | 95 | 94 | - |
| DS16-03B #33-35 | 89 | 95 | 93 | - |
| DS16-06 #37 | 87 | 84 | 77 | - |
| DS16-06 #38-39 | 91 | 58 | 86 | - |
| DS16-06 #42 | 96 | 92 | 94 | - |
| DS16-06 #44 | 95 | 87 | 90 | - |
| DS16-06 #45 | 91 | 77 | 74 | - |
| DS16-06 #46-47 | 84 | 84 | 90 | - |
| DS16-21 #50 | 93 | 91 | 92 | - |
| DS16-24 #55-57 | 86 | 87 | 86 | - |
| DS16-24 #58 | 88 | 89 | 84 | - |
| DS16-24 #60 | 92 | 91 | 95 | - |
| DS16-24 #61 | 89 | 90 | 89 | - |
| DS16-05 #70 | 95 | 87 | 76 | - |
| DS16-05 #69 | 92 | 84 | 81 | - |
| DS15-13 #73 | 87 | 85 | 86 | - |
| DS15-13 #74 | 84 | 72 | 75 | - |
| DS15-13 #75 | 84 | 75 | 80 | - |
| DS16-02 #78 | 82 | 69 | 76 | - |

---

Twelve Dark Star drill core samples were selected for comminution test work at Hazen Research. The drop weight index ranged from 2.57 to 8.53 kWh/m<sup>3</sup>, indicating soft to medium-hard material. The range of A x b for the 12 composites spanned a low of 30.7 (moderately hard) to a high of 99.4 (soft) and averaged 49.6. A<sub>i</sub> values ranged from a low of 0.24 g to a high of 1.24 g, and average 0.79 g indicating moderate to high abrasiveness of the materials tested due to the high silica content. M<sub>ic</sub>, the SMC crusher-component value (average = 6.8 kWh/t), would be ranked in the mid-range of the SMC worldwide database.

13.2.1.2 Phase 2

On March 9, 2017, KCA received two hundred forty-one buckets of ½" split broken HQ core material from the Dark Star Project (2018b). The buckets contained material comprising sixty-eight individual samples. These samples were utilized for metallurgical test work, reported in DKST_01, see previous section.

On September 26, 2017, portions of reject material from sixteen samples were utilized in the generation of two individual composites. These composites were utilized for conventional crushing as well as high pressure grinding roll (HPGR) crushing. The material generated from these two crushing methods was utilized for metallurgical test work.

The gold recoveries from the conventionally crushed samples at approximately 13 mm, Main and North, were 81 and 86% respectively. There is only an approximate 4 to 5% difference in recovery between crush sizes of 4 to 5 mm and 13 to 14 mm.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 271 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 13-8: Dark Star Phase 2 - Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**KCA Sample <br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | **Crush Size,<br> mm** | **Calc. P<sub>80<br> </sub> Size, <br> mm** | **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN, <br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79254 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSMain-HPGRMaster Comp #1 | Conventional | 12.80 | 0.709 | 81% | 80 | 0.78 | 1.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79256 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSMain-HPGRMaster Comp #1 | HPGR- Low | 5.90 | 0.727 | 86% | 80 | 0.77 | 1.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79257 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSMain-HPGRMaster Comp #1 | HPGR- Med | 5.30 | 0.736 | 86% | 80 | 0.76 | 1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79258 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSMain-HPGRMaster Comp #1 | HPGR - High | 4.90 | 0.716 | 86% | 80 | 0.84 | 1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79259 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSNorth-HPGRMaster Comp #2 | HPGR- Low | 5.60 | 1.618 | 87% | 80 | 0.63 | 1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79260 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSNorth-HPGRMaster Comp #2 | HPGR- Med | 4.70 | 1.603 | 90% | 80 | 0.67 | 1.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79261 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSNorth-HPGRMaster Comp #2 | HPGR - High | 4.00 | 1.699 | 91% | 80 | 0.89 | 1.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79255 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSNorth-HPGRMaster Comp #2 | Conventional | 13.90 | 1.208 | 86% | 80 | 0.59 | 1.00 |

---

13.2.1.3 Phase 3

On November 30, 2018, KCA received two hundred ninety-three bags of sample material from the Dark Star Project (KCA, 2019b). This material was combined into fifty individual samples.

The samples were combined into fifty composites. These samples were conventionally crushed, prepared, and utilized for head analyses, head screen analyses with assays by size fraction, bottle roll leach test work, preliminary agglomeration test work, compacted permeability test work, and column leach test work.

In addition to test work performed on conventionally crushed material, portions of material from seven individual samples were utilized for high pressure grinding roll (HPGR) crushing. The HPGR crushed material was utilized for head screen analyses with assays by size fraction, compacted permeability test work and column leach test work.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 272 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

This data supports the conclusion that for the Dark Star deposit, only a minor trend is apparent between particle size and recovery, at least in this size range, see Figure 13-19. Although KCA recommended HPGR crushing, the increased recovery was due to the fine particle size produced rather than the crushing method.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img001.jpg)

**Figure 13-19**: Dark Star Phase 3, Particle Size vs. Recovery**

**Table 13-9: Dark Star Phase 3 – Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> Size, <br> mm** | **Calc. P<sub>80<br> </sub> size, mm** | **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption <br> NaCN, kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime, <br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84001 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-20 #80 | 37.5 | 2.013 | 24.6 | 95% | 66 | 0.55 | 0 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84002 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-20 #81 | 37.5 | 4.605 | 25 | 93% | 66 | 0.46 | 0 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84003 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-20 #82 | 37.5 | 0.731 | 24.6 | 73% | 66 | 0.94 | 1.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84004 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-20 #83 | 37.5 | 3.731 | 24.8 | 92% | 66 | 0.99 | 1 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84005 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #84 | 19 | 0.376 | 12.3 | 70% | 98 | 1.49 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84006 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #85 | 37.5 | 0.233 | 23.5 | 68% | 98 | 0.83 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84007 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #86 | 37.5 | 0.301 | 24.1 | 75% | 66 | 0.69 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84008 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #87 | 37.5 | 0.213 | 23.2 | 88% | 66 | 0.58 | 0 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84009 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #88 | 37.5 | 5.399 | 26.2 | 85% | 66 | 0.59 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84010 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-28 #89 | 37.5 | 1.8 | 22.2 | 65% | 99 | 1.31 | 1.76 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84011 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-36 #90 | 37.5 | 1.415 | 24.1 | 93% | 66 | 0.59 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84012 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-36 #91 | 37.5 | 0.281 | 21.5 | 80% | 66 | 0.82 | 1.03 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84013 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-05 #92 | 37.5 | 0.453 | 23.9 | 60% | 99 | 1.22 | 1.26 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84014 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-07 #93 | 37.5 | 0.762 | 25.2 | 70% | 66 | 0.76 | 1.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84015 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-07 #94 | 37.5 | 0.235 | 21 | 94% | 66 | 1.27 | 2.03 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84016 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-09 #95 | 37.5 | 0.23 | 24.5 | 71% | 66 | 0.65 | 1 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84017 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-09 #96 | 37.5 | 0.366 | 25 | 29% | 66 | 0.62 | 0.76 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84018 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-09 #97 | 37.5 | 0.326 | 23.5 | 40% | 66 | 1.09 | 3.01 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84019 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-09 #98 | 37.5 | 0.858 | 24.1 | 93% | 66 | 0.83 | 2.64 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84020 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-32 #99 | 19 | 0.807 | 15.3 | 37% | 66 | 1.27 | 1.76 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84021 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-34 #100 | 37.5 | 0.19 | 27.2 | 68% | 95 | 0.87 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84022 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-34 #101 | 37.5 | 0.474 | 22.7 | 77% | 95 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 273 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **KCA<br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> Size, <br> mm** | **Calc. P<sub>80<br> </sub> size, mm** | **Calculated<br> Head, <br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Days of<br> Leach** | **Consumption <br> NaCN, kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated<br> Lime, <br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Cement,<br> kg/t** |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84023 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-34 #102 | 37.5 | 0.753 | 24.6 | 91% | 95 | 0.96 | 1.26 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84024 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-22 #103 | 37.5 | 0.503 | 24.3 | 85% | 95 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84025 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-22 #104 | 37.5 | 1.131 | 24.3 | 77% | 95 | 1.04 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84026 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS17-22 #105 | 19 | 0.28 | 12.5 | 80% | 95 | 1.46 | 3.01 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84027 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-01 #106 | 37.5 | 0.419 | 23.3 | 73% | 95 | 0.68 | 0 | 2.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84028 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-03 #107 | 19 | 1.145 | 12.2 | 68% | 95 | 0.98 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84029 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-03 #108 | 37.5 | 0.467 | 23.9 | 84% | 95 | 0.78 | 0 | 2.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84030 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-03 #109 | 37.5 | 3.237 | 24.1 | 91% | 95 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84031 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-03 #110 | 19 | 3.721 | 12.7 | 72% | 95 | 1.2 | 1 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84032 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-05 #111 | 37.5 | 2.557 | 23.8 | 85% | 95 | 0.87 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84033 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-05 #112 | 37.5 | 2.266 | 24 | 68% | 95 | 0.82 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84034 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-05 #113 | 37.5 | 1.03 | 23.3 | 86% | 95 | 0.93 | 0 | 2.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84035 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-05 #114 | 19 | 1.126 | 11.9 | 95% | 96 | 1.19 | 0.51 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84036 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-05 #115 | 37.5 | 4.378 | 24.3 | 72% | 95 | 1.17 | 1.51 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84037 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-07 #116 | 37.5 | 0.924 | 22.9 | 63% | 95 | 0.79 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84038 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-09 #117 | 37.5 | 0.713 | 24.8 | 68% | 95 | 0.82 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84039 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-09 #118 | 37.5 | 1.149 | 25.2 | 54% | 95 | 0.74 | 1 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84040 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-09 #119 | 37.5 | 2.728 | 22.4 | 56% | 95 | 1.21 | 1.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84041 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-09 #120 | 37.5 | 4.832 | 24.2 | 82% | 95 | 0.83 | 0.5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84042 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-09 #121 | 37.5 | 1.656 | 22.6 | 86% | 95 | 0.87 | 0 | 2.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84043 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-13 #122 | 19 | 0.217 | 12.6 | 87% | 95 | 1.3 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84044 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-13&15 #123 | 19 | 0.322 | 12.5 | 48% | 95 | 1.04 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84045 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-15 #124 | 37.5 | 0.677 | 23.4 | 75% | 95 | 0.91 | 1.25 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84046 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-17 #125 | 19 | 0.538 | 13.4 | 92% | 95 | 1.24 | 1.04 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84047 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-17 #126 | 37.5 | 0.448 | 26.2 | 50% | 95 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84048 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-18 #127 | 19 | 0.226 | 13.2 | 57% | 95 | 1.13 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84049 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-23 #128 | 37.5 | 0.955 | 24 | 90% | 95 | 0.99 | 0.75 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84050 A | &nbsp;&nbsp;DS18-23 #129 | 19 | 1.727 | 11.8 | 80% | 95 | 1.51 | 1.28 | 0 |

---

For the 50 conventionally crushed columns, that is with HPGR removed, the gold extractions ranged from 37% to 95% and averaged 75%, based on calculated heads which ranged from 0.19 to 5.40 g/t. The sodium cyanide consumptions ranged from 0.27 to 1.51 kg/t. The material utilized in leaching was blended with 0.50 to 3.01 kg/t hydrated lime or agglomerated with 2 to 6.19 kg/t cement.

Average recoveries for the ½" and 1" column tests are given in Table 13-10. Dark Star Main tends to have a lower recovery than Dark Star North, but this can be explained by the lower gold and higher sulfide grades.

**Table 13-10**: Dark Star Phase 3 – Column Test Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Au Rec. %<br> ½"** | **Au Rec. <br> % 1"** | **Au g/t** | **S<sup>2-</sup> %** | **Si %** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Main | 68.6 | 71.2 | 0.60 | 0.18 | 1.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star North | 76.3 | 78.1 | 2.00 | 0.12 | 2.0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 274 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

13.2.1.4 TKK

In January 2020, the laboratory facility of KCA in Reno, Nevada received fourteen (14) pallets of material from the Dark Star and Pinion projects containing intervals of whole, split and broken PQ core as well as surface hammer samples (TKIS, 2020). In 2021, GSV commissioned KCA and Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solutions to perform feasibility level conventional crushing and HPGR testing on two composites from the Pinion deposit (labelled East and West) and two from the Dark Star Deposit.

The material was then combined into four samples. A portion from each separate sample was conventionally crushed utilizing laboratory scale jaw crushers. Additionally, a portion of each sample was crushed utilizing a High-Pressure Grinding Roll. Splits of the four samples were also shipped to Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solution's laboratory facility in Germany for HPGR crushing and abrasion testing.

The recoveries on the conventionally crushed samples, at 80% passing 1", were 82.4% from Dark Star Main and 86% from Dark Star North.

13.2.1.5 Forte

Forte received three large drums of bulk ore sample each from Dark Star North and Dark Star Main, in 2020 (Forte Analytical, 2022). An additional four drums of bulk ore samples each from Pinion, Dark Star North and Dark Star Main, were received in 2021. The samples were prepared for diffusion leach testing, head assay analysis, and bottle roll leach testing. Samples from Pinion were not utilized for testing.

In addition, drill core was received from metallurgical core holes DC21-01 through DC21-05. Specific intervals from these holes were utilized to generate four composites for column leach testing.

Column leach testing samples were blended and split from core and composited according to the proposed scheme. Ultimately, the composites were composed of only sample from Dark Star, varying in either silica content and/or grade. The four selected composites were labelled as Main High Silica (#1), Main Low Silica (#2), North High Silica High grade (#3), and North High Silica Low Grade (#4). The particle sizes were P<sub>80</sub> of 1.25".

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Final gold extractions from the two North samples, (Composites 3 and 4) over the 90- day leach period,
were 74.3% for high grade and 74.2% for low grade.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Final gold extractions for the Main samples (Composites 1 and 2) were 83.9% for high silica and 94.1%
for low silica.

The column results were notably higher than the diffusion leach testing results.

13.2.1.6 2023-2024 Testing

The Dark Star sample originates from the North Pit. The hole was drilled in 2023-2024 (KCA, 2024).

Gold extractions for the column tests ranged from 70% to 87% and averaged 74% after 64 hours of leaching. Cyanide consumption ranged from 0.87 to 0.94 kg/t and hydrated lime consumption was 1.25 kg/t. The columns were still leaching slowly after 60 days.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 275 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The metal extractions are summarized in Table 13-11.

**Table 13-11**: Dark Star 2023/2024 Testing – Summary of Column Tests**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **KCA <br> Sample<br> No.** | **Description** | **Crush<br> Size, <br> mm** | **Calculated<br> Head<br> g/t Au** | **Extracted,<br> % Au** | **Sulfide<br> %** | **Days<br> of <br> Leach** | **Consumption<br> NaCN,<br> kg/t** | **Addition<br> Hydrated <br> Lime, kg/t** |
| 97980 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSC23-02 Column Group 1 | 19 | 0.57 | 70 | 0.3 | 64 | 0.87 | 1.25 |
| 97981 B | &nbsp;&nbsp;DSC23-02 Column Group 2 | 19 | 2.71 | 87 | 0.17 | 64 | 0.94 | 1.25 |

---

1**3.3** **Process Design** 

The following sections describe how the test data was used as a basis for process design.

1**3.4** **Trade-off Studies** 

A Trade-off Study (ToS) for the processing of Pinion ore was conducted to assess the relative value of each of five process options, that is:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. ROM leaching

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Open-circuit secondary crushing at 80% passing 1.5 inch.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Closed-circuit secondary crushing at 80% passing 1 inch

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tertiary crushing at 80% passing ½ inch.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tertiary crushing using HPGR to 80% passing ¼ inch.

Option 1, ROM leaching had the highest NPV but was considered high risk. The next highest NPV was Option 3, Closed-circuit secondary crushing at 80% passing 1", followed by the two tertiary crushing options 4 and 5. It was concluded that the two tertiary crushing options would incur high capex, high operating cost due to wear and high-power consumption. The fine particles generated in a tertiary crusher may also require agglomeration to avoid percolation problems during heap leaching. Therefore option 3, Closed-circuit secondary crushing at 80% passing 1" was selected.

The process selected in this FS for recovery of gold and silver from the Pinion and Dark Star ore is a conventional heap leach. Leaching of both Pinion and Dark Star ores carried out at two particle sizes, that is 80% passing 1" and RoM particle sizes, without crushing. The decision is made based on economics, which generally selects higher grade ores for crushing and lower grade ores for RoM leaching.

The original version of the ToS was prepared by KCA entitled Crushing Trade-off Study, Pinion – Dark Star Project, and dated May 13, 2019. It was subsequently modified during the Due Diligence Review in 2022 by Ray Walton with input from Qualified Persons from M3.

A trade-off study was also completed comparing heap building by stacker or trucks.

1**3.5** **Blast Dynamics** 

The following paragraph, in italics, is taken from the Blast Dynamics report, summarizing rock properties and their effect on as-blasted particle sizes.

*There was limited unconfined compressive strength (UCS) data available for the initial blast design process. The UCS for the 21 Pinion samples ranged between 80 and 13,710 psi with an average of 5,906 psi (40.7 MPa). Whereas the 15 Dark Star samples ranged between 1669 and 22901 psi with an average of 10,693 psi (73.7 MPa). **Based on this data, it will be more difficult to achieve a P<sub>80</sub> of 6 inches at the Dark Star project.** The initial designs will take this into account.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 276 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Orla geological personnel maintain a data base of SG and RQD. It is summarized in Table 13-12. Higher RQD values indicate a more continuous and intact rock mass, suggesting better quality, while lower values indicate a more fragmented and discontinuous rock mass. The lower RQD for Pinion North may explain its higher recovery compared with Pinion Main. Similarly, the lower RQD for Dark Star North may explain its higher recovery compared with Dark Star Main.

**Table 13-12**: SG and RQD Averages**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S.G.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RQD %** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star North | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star Main | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion North | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion Main | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 |

---

1**3.6** **Rom Recovery** 

This section lists relevant RoM Benchmarks for comparable gold operations.

It is the QP's opinion that while bottle-roll tests at 200# and 10# yield useful information on metallurgy, they cannot be used to confidently estimate heap leach recoveries at ½", 1" and up to 6". It is preferable that heap leach recoveries in the range ½" to 1½" are demonstrated in column tests, using HQ core. If necessary, recoveries at 6" and coarser can be estimated by comparing rock properties to RoM leaching benchmarks. For ores that cannot be physically accessed, columns prepared from PQ core at 3.4" can be tested.

The Pinion and Dark Star RoM recoveries are estimated by applying a fixed difference of 10 and 5%, respectively to the 1" recovery, based on similar benchmarks. It is an estimate only as no coarse column test results, except the Forte Dark Star diffusion testing on coarse samples, are available. The properties of the rocks in each of the two deposits, Dark Star and Pinion are compared in the Blast Dynamics section. Rocks from both deposits are hard and abrasive with a variable RQD, however Dark Star has a lower density which appears to be due to its porosity.

In this section, the difference between RoM recovery and secondary crush recovery is reviewed for a large number of actual projects. It concludes that typically, a recovery range of 2 to 15% exists. The lower end would apply to friable, low RQD ores. The higher end of the range would apply to hard, silicified, competent ores like Pinion, with a high RQD. Based on this, and in consideration of the rock properties, a reduction of 5% has been applied to the secondary crush, closed-circuit recovery demonstrated in column tests to arrive at RoM recovery for Dark Star. A reduction of 10% was used to estimate RoM recovery from Pinion ore. Due to the reasons outlined above, these are estimates only.

To reduce risk, projects considering RoM leaching will typically carry out large-scale crib or column leach tests containing coarse particle sizes of at least 6 inches. However, the Pinion and Dark Star deposits are overlain with a significant depth of overburden and do not have mineralized outcrops. This makes it very difficult and expensive to obtain bulk samples of mineralized material for testing.

The largest particle size tested in column leach tests to date has been HQ core which has a maximum diameter of 2.5 inches. However, larger particle sizes from a surface excavation were tested by Forte in their submerged diffusion test.

A literature search of gold and copper leaching publications was carried out to identify any mathematical or other models that could be used to predict, or estimate, RoM recoveries from tests carried out on smaller particle sizes. No practical, or widely used method, or model, was identified. While certain mining companies and their consultants have used a presumed linear logarithmic recovery/particle size relationship, no operational data was identified confirming this relationship.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 277 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

RoM recoveries for Pinion and Dark Star have been estimated based on a 10 and 5% deduction from Crushed ore recoveries. These deductions are supported by benchmarking against projects with similar ores. As the deduction is an estimate, the sensitivity of the overall project economics to changes in RoM recovery has been estimated in the trade-off studies.

The review of available data and literature, describing relevant similar projects, revealed a range of differences between Crush and RoM heap leach recoveries. Although variations occur, the particle sizes were typically 80% passing 1 inch for crushed ore and 80% passing 6 inches for RoM ore. The three sources were: (i) Personal experience, (ii) Data in the Public Domain, and (iii) published Technical Reports.

**Personal Experience:** Six examples comparing heap leaching of crushed ore to RoM leaching were obtained from personal experience.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Previous heap leach studies for a project near Winnemucca, by the owner proposed a factor of 0.86 to estimate
RoM recoveries from crushed ore tests carried out at 100% passing 1 inch. This is equivalent to an approximate 10% difference.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Comparable gold recoveries on paired RoM columns versus crushed column leach tests have been documented
by another Nevada operation. The small difference of 6% was explained by the fine size distribution of the as-blasted ore. The operation
also recognized that the leaching kinetics for RoM ore would be slower

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Nevada Mine Data: In actual operations at a large local mine in north-eastern Nevada, differences of between
2.5 and 10% were found to exist between heap-leached ore and RoM leached ore.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Confidential South American Gold Project: This large project (at the feasibility level) experienced similar
difficulties obtaining samples to estimate RoM recoveries. Bulk surface samples were tested, but these were not considered representative
of all ores as they were fully oxidized. Attempts were also made to leach large-particle-size rocks under submerged conditions, but the
results were not considered applicable. Following a review of other operations and a calculation of gold recovery by particle size, the
owner decided to discount oxide ore recoveries by 15% (from 65% for 100% passing 2 inch to 50% for RoM) and sulfide ore recoveries by
14.5% (from 62% for 100% passing 2 inch to 47.5% for RoM).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Peruvian project: A paper presented at the 2000 Canadian Mineral Processors conference indicated that
recoveries should be discounted by almost 6%, that is from 82% for crushed ore at 100% passing 1.5 inch to 76% for 100% passing 6 inches.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Large Nevada operation: Test work for the design of the heap leach project indicated that recoveries should
be discounted by 9% (from 71% for crushed leach at 100% passing 1 inch to 62% for 100% passing 6 inches).

**Data in the Public Domain**. Further examples were found comparing heap leaching of crushed ore to RoM leaching in the public domain. These PEA level reports, or in some cases magazine articles, claim generally low differential recoveries between RoM and crushed ore heap leaching.

Two articles were found, one in Mining Engineering (Haldane, 1990) on the **Mesquite** mine indicated a 15% lower recovery for the same grade of material for RoM leaching, compared with heap leaching of less than 2.6-inch crushed material. Another article in 1989 Mining Engineering (Maki, 1989) on the **Paradise Peak** mine claimed 12% lower recovery (58% versus 70%) for RoM leaching compared with heap leaching of a less than 1.25 inch crushed and agglomerated material.

**Published Technical Reports.** Six other projects were identified with relevant information, five of these had published Technical Reports.

The 2011 PEA, for the **Cerro Jumil** project describes sampling an outcrop and claimed a recovery of 64% compared with a 75% recovery on material crushed to less than 2 inches, an 11% reduction.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 278 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Equinox, Castle Mountain.** The 2018 Technical Report contained a description of paired column leach tests on RoM at less than 18 inch versus crushed samples at less than 0.37 inch. It showed absolute recovery differences ranging from 1% to 4%, with slower kinetics for the RoM samples. It was noted that gold extraction was still progressing at a slow rate, and gold recoveries would eventually reach crushed ore recoveries over longer periods. A lower-grade composite showed a recovery difference of 8% from paired tests at less than 2 inches and 0.37 inch.

This report was updated in 2021, it showed that further column leach test results, indicated no significant difference between gold recovery and particle size. The RoM material is predicted to have an 80% passing value of between 6 and 8 inches.

**Rio2Gold, Fenix:** The 2021 Technical Report shows there is a weak, almost linear relationship, between metal recovery and particle size. Over the 80% passing range of ¾ inch to 6 inches, the gold recovery falls approximately 7%.

Of this group of seven projects, three were found where the linear logarithmic recovery/particle size relationship had been used. Of these three, two had published Technical Reports.

**GSV (Railroad/Pinion):** The 2019 and 2022 Technical Reports lack a clear statement of estimated recoveries and instead present numerous equations and graphs assuming a linear logarithmic recovery/particle size relationship. These curves, and the predicted RoM recoveries, were derived by extrapolation of bottle roll and smaller particle size column tests. The differences in the predicted recovery between RoM and crushed ore are low at less than 5%. GSV are currently considering reducing the amount of material to be leached at RoM particle sizes by installing a crushing plant.

**Liberty Gold, Black Pine:** The 2021 Technical Report uses the same linear logarithmic recovery/particle size relationship referred to in the GSV report. As with GSV, many equations are included in the report. The predicted difference in recoveries between ore crushed to 80% passing 1 inch compared with RoM at 80% passing 6 inches, varies by ore type, and is in the range 0 to 7%.

**Liberty Gold, Goldstrike:** There is no Technical Report, but a recent press release contains tables of actual and predicted recoveries. Similar to the Black Pine project, referred to above, the press release uses the same linear logarithmic recovery/particle size relationship used for that project. The predicted difference in recoveries between ore crushed to 80% passing 1 inch compared with RoM at 80% passing 6 inches, varies by ore type, and also lies in a similar range, that is 0 to 6%.

1**3.7** **Process design criteria** 

The recommended Process Design Criteria (PDC) are discussed in the following sections.

1**3.7.1** **Cycle Time** 

The leach time used in testing to achieve the predicted recoveries in the laboratory varies, but averages approximately 100 days. The irrigation rate used in the laboratory was typically 100 L/h/m<sup>2</sup>, whereas in the PDC, it is 8 L/h/m<sup>2</sup>. The difference will increase the leach time from 100 days, to approximately 120 days.

The overall cycle time to achieve the Design Recovery on crushed ore in the field is estimated at 150 days. Various methods are used to infer the field cycle time from the laboratory cycle time. In this study, an increase of 30 days has been applied to the laboratory cycle time of 120 days to arrive at the estimated field cycle time.

Due to the absence of direct metallurgical data on coarse particle sizes, the overall cycle time to achieve the Design Recovery on ROM ore under commercial operating conditions has been estimated at 210 days. This was arrived at by estimating it would be approximately 40% longer than the crushed ore cycle time.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 279 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The proposed cycle time in the PDC is 100 days. This means that the Design Recovery will not be achieved in the first lift, but rather in subsequent lifts. Also, as leach cycle times increase during the approximate 10-year mine life, it is reasonable to expect additional incremental recovery. An Ultimate Recovery is therefore predicted and summarized in Table 13-13.

**Table 13-13**: Leach Cycle/Recovery Calculations**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Lift** | **Total Field Days** | **Crush Ore Field-Days** | **ROM Ore Field-Days** |
| - | - | 150 | 210 |
| 1 | 100 | ~85% of Design recovery | ~75% of Design recovery |
| 2 | 200 | ~15% of Design recovery | ~20% of Design recovery |
| 3 | 300 | - | ~5% of Design recovery |
| 4 | 400 | - | - |
| 5 | 500 | - | - |
| 6 | 600 | - | - |
| 7 | 700 | - | - |
| 8 | 800 | - | - |
| 9 | 900 | - | - |
| 10 | 1000 | Ultimate recovery (Design Recovery + 2%) | Ultimate recovery (Design Recovery + 2%) |

---

The following definitions are proposed for Design and Ultimate recoveries:

**Design recoveries:** These were conservatively estimated using standard industry methods, over a reasonable leaching period, and supported by test data. As shown in Table 13-15, it is estimated that the Design recovery will be achieved after completion of irrigation of lifts two and three, for crushed and ROM ore respectively.

**Ultimate recoveries:** These are 2% higher than the estimated design recoveries and can be expected to be achieved over a much longer leaching period, during the mine life. This is supported by test data and data from similar operations and is referred to as residual leaching

1**3.7.2** **Cyanide Consumption** 

Available data on the cyanide consumption were interpreted from test work, including column leach and bottle roll tests. In summary, although variable, the average consumption during bottle rolls tests was very low, reflecting the clean nature of the ore. The column tests experienced a higher average consumption of 0.87 kg/ton NaCN for Pinion and 0.96 kg/ton NaCN for Dark Star after approximately 120 days of continuous leaching. A widely used rule of thumb, recommended by the test laboratories and others, is to reduce this value by a factor of 3 or 4 when predicting commercial-scale cyanide consumption.

Cyanide consumption in these column tests was not due to the presence of cyanicides such as copper, zinc and iron, but rather to a gradual loss over time. There is a strong linear relationship between the cyanide consumption and cycle time. Therefore, it was concluded that most cyanide consumption was due to volatilization in the column test, which is not typically observed in commercial-scale operations. This volatilization was exacerbated by the slightly low pH of 10 to 10.3 experienced later in some of the tests. According to good operational practice, the commercial operation will maintain a slightly higher pH of 10.5 to 11, providing the protective alkalinity needed to limit volatilization.

The cyanide consumption for the commercial operation, for both crushed and RoM leaching, is therefore estimated at 0.35 kg/ton NaCN.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 280 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**3.7.3** **Lime Consumption** 

As mentioned in the previous section, according to good operational practice, the commercial operation will maintain a slightly higher pH than that of most of the column tests, to maintain the protective alkalinity required to limit volatilization. The column tests experienced an average consumption of 0.40 kg/ton as Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> for Pinion and 0.90 kg/ton for Dark Star as Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> after approximately 120 days of continuous leaching.

Lime consumption is conservatively estimated at 0.5 kg/ton as Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> for Pinion and 1 kg/ton as Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> for Dark Star which is 0.4 and 0.8 kg/t respectively as 100% available CaO. These values are slightly higher than the average consumption in the column tests.

1**3.8** **Deleterious Elements** 

Copper values are low, but still significant. At less than 10 ppm, cyanide-soluble copper is lower than total copper and is not a significant source of cyanide consumption. Mercury values are low, but they are significant again in the range 1 to 10 ppm. Testing in Phase 3 showed a high ratio of absorbed mercury to gold on loaded carbon. For this reason, a mercury retort is recommended.

Organic carbon values are low at less than 0.3% and there is no indication of significant preg-robbing. Almost all samples had a low sulfide sulfur content.

1**3.9** **Geometallurgy** 

**13.9.1** Sample Locations Pinion

The metallurgical sample locations are shown on the following 3-D model and plan.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img002.jpg)

**Figure 13-20: Pinion Isometric Views of Sample Locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 281 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 13-21: Pinion Sectional Views of Sample Locations**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img004.jpg)

**Figure 13-22: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 282 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 13-23: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations and Zones**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img019.jpg)

**Figure 13-24: Pinion Plan Views of Sample Locations 2023/24 Testing**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 283 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

1**3.9.2** Sample Locations Dark Star

**Figure 13-25: Dark Star Isometric Views of Sample Locations (Main Pit)**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img008.jpg)

**Figure 13-26: Dark Star Isometric Views of Sample Locations (North Pit)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 284 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 13-27: Dark Star Plan Views of Sample Locations 2023/24 Testing**

1**3.9.3** Geometallurgy

The geometallurgy of the Pinion and Dark Star deposits is discussed in the next two sections.

13.9.3.1 Pinion

Pinion can be considered to consist of two main geo-metallurgical zones: Pinion Main and North, each with its own pit. Pinion Main has three zones, Main, East, and West. Silicification tends to increase with Barium content which is more prevalent in Pinion East.

Within the pit, the ore is almost all oxide, with only small areas of transition and sulfide material.

Three rock types have been identified, Mlbx East and West, Mtp and Ddg. The following is a summary of the four gold and silver recovery zones in the Pinion Deposit:

- Mtp (Tripon Pass) – Tripon Pass mineralization is a formation unit that sits on top of the multi- lithic breccia (mlbx) which hosts the majority of the Au mineralization at Pinion.

Mlbx Pinion East (Ba > 4%, Hi SiO<sub>2</sub>) – The Pinion East Zone is carved out of a larger mlbx zone that is characterized by high barium (Ba) > 4% and high quartz (SiO<sub>2</sub>) > 65%.

- Mlbx Pinion West – The Pinion West Zone captures all the remaining Pinion mlbx zone of mineralization that is not contained within the Pinion East.

- Ddg (Devils Gate) – Devils Gate mineralization is stratigraphically positioned underneath the Pinion mlbx.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 285 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Various conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the column leach data:

- Recovery from Ddg is similar to Mtp.

Recovery from Mlbx is 6 to 10% lower than Ddg and Mtp.

- On average, Mlbx is higher in silica than Ddg or Mtp, however at Pinion, a trend in recovery does not exist between Silica and recovery.

- On average, Mlbx, particularly mlbx East is higher in Barium than Ddg or Mtp, which explains the lower recovery.

- Average recoveries by zone are fairly similar, although Pinion North is slightly higher and Pinion East is lower due to its higher barium content.

The current Pinion database contains 76 relevant column tests as shown in Table 13-14.

**Table 13-14**: Pinion column database**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Particle Size** | **Total** | **Mlbx** | **Mtp** | **Ddg** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;No. of 1" columns | 23 | 20 | 2 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average recovery % | 62 | 60 | 69 | 70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;No. of ½" columns | 53 | 37 | 8 | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average recovery % | 68 | 66 | 75 | 72 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 286 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img010.jpg)

**Figure 13-28: Pinion all data, Zone vs. Recovery**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img011.jpg)

**Figure 13-29: Pinion all data, Rock Type vs. Recovery (1" columns)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 287 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 13-30: Pinion all data, Rock Type vs. Recovery (1/2" columns)**

13.9.3.2 Dark Star

Dark Star can be considered to consist of two main zones: Main and North, each with its own pit. Within the pit, the ore is almost all oxide, with only small areas of transition and sulfide material. Five rock types have been identified. However, no meaningful relationships regarding rock type and recovery can be drawn from an analysis of the column leach data.

**Table 13-15: Dark Star Rock Types**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Code** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stms | &nbsp;&nbsp;silty mudstone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stmic | &nbsp;&nbsp;silty micrite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;cst | &nbsp;&nbsp;calcareous siltstone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stls | &nbsp;&nbsp;silty limestone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;st | &nbsp;&nbsp;Siltstone |

---

Dark Star North is higher grade than Dark Star Main and contains more transitional mineralization. Within both deposits, gold mineralization is mainly contained within three formation units: ST-U (upper siltstone), CGL (middle conglomerate), and ST-L (lower siltstone). Geo-metallurgical evaluations did not detect significant variation in gold recovery based upon the host formation but did identify a trend between gold recovery and silica content. The minor variations in recovery by zone are likely due to variations in silica content, gold and sulfide grade and possibly RQD.

Recovery estimates for silver were not developed for Dark Star due to the low silver content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 288 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img013.jpg)

**Figure 13-31: Dark Star, Recovery vs. Zone**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img014.jpg)

**Figure 13-32: Dark Star, all data, Si vs. Zone**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 289 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img015.jpg)

**Figure 13-33: Dark Star, all data, Si vs. Recovery**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 290 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **14** | Mineral Resource Estimates |

---

**14.1** Introduction – Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion Deposits

The statistical analysis, geological modeling, and mineral resource estimation for the Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash, and North Bullion deposits were performed under the supervision of Mr. Lindholm. These estimated mineral resources were classified in order of increasing geological and quantitative confidence into inferred, indicated, and measured mineral resource categories to be in accordance with the "CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" (2014) and therefore NI 43-101. CIM mineral resource definitions are given below, with CIM's explanatory material shown in italics:

**Mineral Resource**

*Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource.*

Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

A Mineral Resource is 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.

*Material of economic interest refers to diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals.*

*The term Mineral Resource covers mineralization and natural material of intrinsic economic interest which has been identified and estimated through exploration and sampling and within which Mineral Reserves may subsequently be defined by the consideration and application of Modifying Factors. The phrase 'reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction' implies a judgment by the Qualified Person in respect of the technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. The Qualified Person should consider and clearly state the basis for determining that the material has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Assumptions should include estimates of cutoff grade and geological continuity at the selected cut-off, metallurgical recovery, smelter payments, commodity price or product value, mining and processing method and mining, processing and general and administrative costs. The Qualified Person should state if the assessment is based on any direct evidence and testing.*

*Interpretation of the word 'eventual' in this context may vary depending on the commodity or mineral involved. For example, for some coal, iron, potash deposits and other bulk minerals or commodities, it may be reasonable to envisage 'eventual economic extraction' as covering time periods in excess of 50 years. However, for many gold deposits, application of the concept would normally be restricted to perhaps 10 to 15 years, and frequently to much shorter periods of time.*

**Inferred Mineral Resource**

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 291 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

*An Inferred Mineral Resource is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Inferred Mineral Resources must not be included in the economic analysis, production schedules, or estimated mine life in publicly disclosed Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Studies, or in the Life of Mine plans and cash flow models of developed mines. Inferred Mineral Resources can only be used in economic studies as provided under NI 43-101.*

*There may be circumstances, where appropriate sampling, testing, and other measurements are sufficient to demonstrate data integrity, geological and grade/quality continuity of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource, however, quality assurance and quality control, or other information may not meet all industry norms for the disclosure of an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. Under these circumstances, it may be reasonable for the Qualified Person to report an Inferred Mineral Resource if the Qualified Person has taken steps to verify the information meets the requirements of an Inferred Mineral Resource.*

**Indicated Mineral Resource**

An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.

An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

*Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.*

**Measured Mineral Resource**

A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.

A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 292 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

*Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade or quality of the mineralization can be estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate would not significantly affect potential economic viability of the deposit. This category requires a high level of confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of the mineral deposit.*

 

**Modifying Factors**

Modifying Factors are considerations used to convert Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors.

Mr. Lindholm reports mineral resource estimates at cutoffs that are reasonable for deposits of this nature given anticipated mining methods and plant processing costs, while also considering economic conditions, because of the regulatory requirements that a mineral resource exists "in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction." The combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion deposits mineral resource estimates are presented in Table 14-1.

**Table 14-1**: Combined Dark Star, Pinion, Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion Deposits Estimated Mineral Resources**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Classification** | | | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** | **Contained Metal** |
| **Classification** | **Tonnage**<br>**(kton)** | **Grades**<br>**Au (oz Au/ton)** | **Ag (oz Au/ton)** | **Gold (koz)** | **Silver (koz)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured | 15001 | 0.027 | \*0.176 | 401 | 509 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | 101739 | 0.020 | \*0.131 | 2058 | 6915 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured + Indicated | 116740 | 0.021 | \*0.133 | 2459 | 7424 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | 22375 | 0.023 | \*0.077 | 519 | 111 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Silver resource from Pinion only, silver grade is based on Pinion tons |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The base cases for all mineral resources are reported at a gold price of $2,800 oz Au, and have an effective
date of September 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades for oxide/transitional and sulfide materials
within the $2,800 optimized pits or within a 0.075 oz Au/ton grade shell for underground. Pit optimizations vary by deposit and used throughput
rates of 12,200 tons/day and 20,000 tons/day; waste mining costs of US$2.12/ton to $2.20/ton mined; crushing, stacking and heap leaching
costs of US$3.64/ton to US$4.48/ton; and general and administrative costs of $1.14/ton. At North Bullion, transportation costs of $40/ton
are applied for shipping refractory material off-site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Recoveries are calculated within each block model, and vary by deposit, ore-type, redox state, sulfide-sulfur
and inorganic-carbon content, and gold and silver grade. At Dark Star, assumed minimum metallurgical recoveries of 65% and 70% for gold
for ROM and crushed ore, respectively, are applied; At Pinion, assumed variable metallurgical recoveries with base cases at 53% and 70%
for gold for ROM and crushed ore, respectively, and base cases at 5% and 15% for silver for ROM and crushed ore, respectively.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within
the optimized pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

**14.2** Dark Star Mineral Resources

The Dark Star gold mineral resource estimate was completed on April 2, 2025, based on data derived from drilling completed in 2024 through drill holes DS24-12 and DSC24-04. The drill-hole database has an effective date of February 20, 2025, when the latest LECO data was received. The Dark Star mineral resource estimate has an effective date of September 30, 2025, when the reporting gold and silver prices were chosen and new pit optimizations were started.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 293 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

References to Tomera Formation equivalent stratigraphy at the Dark Star and Jasperoid Wash deposits have been noted historically. However, recent work suggests these units in the South Railroad property may not be of equivalent age, so all usage of Tomera Formation equivalent in this Technical Report refer to units that are Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated.

Following the Pre-Feasibility study of Ibrado et al. (2020), Gold Standard made a decision to convert all project data from metric to Imperial units. RESPEC (MDA at the time) converted all length data, including collar northings and eastings, from meters to feet (1 m = 3.280833333 ft), and assay grades from g/tonne to oz/ton (1 oz/ton = 34.285714 g/tonne). Section plane spacing, block model block sizes, and other modeling dimensions were changed. Specifics and ramifications of the conversions are discussed in various sections below.

**14.2.1** Dark Star Database

Seven companies have conducted exploration drilling programs in the Dark Star deposit area since 1984, including Gold Standard, which began drilling in 2015, and Orla, which acquired Gold Standard in 2022. In all, 535 holes totaling 375,431.5 ft have been drilled (Table 14-2). These drill holes, as well as Orla's property limits and the Dark Star mineral resource outlines, are shown in Figure 14-1. The figure also shows the two separate subdivisions, referred to as the Dark Star North and Dark Star Main areas, of the Dark Star deposit. RC and core drill holes account for 79.3% and 18.8% of the footage drilled, respectively.

**Table 14-2**: Summary of Drilling at Dark Star**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type of hole** | **Count** | **Drilled Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core | 85 | 70706.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | 439 | 297883.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC/Core Tail | 3 | 6097.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sonic | 8 | 745.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | 535 | 375431.5 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 294 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img016.jpg)

**Figure 14-1**: Dark Star Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 295 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-3 presents descriptive statistics of all Dark Star drill-hole analytical sample data audited and imported into MinePlan by RESPEC. Measured density and core geotechnical data are also summarized. Rejected sample assay data have been excluded from the table. Trace elements and whole-rock geochemical data have also been provided by Orla but are not shown in Table 14-3.

**Table 14-3**: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in Dark Star Drill-Hole Database**

(accepted sample data only)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Valid** | **Median** | **Mean** | **Std Dev** | **CV** | **Minimum** | **Maximum** | **Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;71916 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;71916 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;71916 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.134 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;730.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;69350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00698 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.66427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;28452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.3622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;14899 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.04099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.93117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;14898 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;1137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;6238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;6238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. |

---

The Dark Star database contains 69,350 accepted gold assay records (Table 14-3). The total number of rejected gold assays is 425. These records from five Dark Star North RC drill holes were rejected due to suspected down-hole contamination as demonstrated by cyclicity of assay grades relative to depths of drill-rod changes.

Only 28,452 (41%) of the accepted gold assay samples were analyzed for silver, and 14,899 samples (21.5%) were analyzed for gold by cyanide extraction (Au<sub>CN</sub>). Of the silver assays, 21,403 (75%) are repeated values. A few of these could be individual assays with coincidentally the same assay value, but nearly all represent assays of composited samples for which the silver assay was assigned to multiple individual sample intervals. The composites with a single silver value are generally about 20 ft long and composed of four samples.

Collar locations, down-hole survey data, and gold, silver, Au<sub>CN, </sub>and Ag<sub>CN</sub> analyses were audited for verification purposes. Logged core recovery and RQD were loaded into the database but were not verified. A few RQD values greater than 100% were noted, but not investigated. The database also contains logged geologic features, including rock types, formations, faults, vein type, silicification, clay, dolomite, barite, limonite, hematite, carbonate, sulfide percent, and percent reduced (unoxidized), all of which were imported. The logged geology was reviewed and used in modeling the gold domains.

Analyses of various carbon and sulfur species were also provided by Orla, verified, and loaded into the mineral resource database. Metallurgical bottle-roll, column-leach, comminution, density, and flotation test results were compiled and loaded, but not verified.

**14.2.2** Dark Star Geologic Model

Orla provided geologic interpretations as surfaces and solids for faults, formation, silicification, and metallurgically refractive material. The major formations included the Chainman Formation (Mississippian), undifferentiated section of Pennsylvanian-Permian units, and Tertiary conglomerates and Indian Well Formation tuffs and sediments. The Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated is further divided into lower siltstone, middle conglomerate (which is the primary host for Dark Star mineralization), and upper siltstone units. All formational units and faults are summarized in Section 7 of this Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 296 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In 2025, RESPEC received the newest formational model as solids. The solids for the Tertiary and Quaternary units were received after the pre-Tertiary units. There was overlap between the two sets, so the Tertiary and Quaternary solids were used to clip the overlapping portions from the pre-Tertiary solids.

Orla's new geology model differed significantly from previous versions received from Gold Standard. Several faults that had been previously modeled were removed, and only five faults with significant offset, the Dark Star, East, IDK, West and a splay of the West fault, were retained. East of the Dark Star and East faults, the Indian Well Tuff, which previously extended to the bottom of the block model, was now shown to be underlain by Pennsylvanian-Permian sediments. Also, the Quaternary, Tertiary and pre-Tertiary contacts were changed. The most significant change that caused changes to the gold domain model was a reinterpretation of the orientation of basement rock contacts, particularly in context with the modeled anticline. The most drastic change was at the north end of Dark Star North, where formerly steeply west-dipping Pennsylvanian-Permian sediment contacts are now interpreted to be steeply east-dipping.

For prior models, Mr. Lindholm reviewed silicification solids provided by Gold Standard. The solids compared well with logged silicification values of '2' and '3' (3' representing the strongest silicification). Continuity in the modeled solids was broadly established by default as a function of the logged data, although continuity was lacking somewhat between sections where silicification was more localized. RESPEC modified the prior version of the silicification solid, as well as the refractory solid (see Section 14.2.5), to new drill-hole logging and assay data.

All geologic interpretations, in combination with assays and logged data, were used to guide metal domain modeling and to define metallurgical domains.

**14.2.3** Dark Star Gold Domains and Estimation

14.2.3.1 Gold Domain Model

Gold domains defined from sample assay ranges were explicitly modeled on sections spaced 98.5 ft apart, oriented east-west and looking north. This spacing was originally 30 m. Domains were defined based on population breaks on the cumulative probability plot (CPP) for all gold data (Figure 14-2). The domain grade ranges were originally determined using assay data in g Au/t and converted to oz Au/ton. The CPP was remade to reflect Imperial units, however, some of the grade breaks apparent on the metric chart were not as readily apparent on the Imperial chart. The lower limit of the outer shell gold domains does not plot well on the CPP because the level of precision of the statistical package used is only three decimal places. Grade ranges converted from those originally determined in metric units were retained, and used for modeling gold domains as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Outer shell domain: ~0.0012 oz Au/ton to ~0.009 oz Au/ton;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Low-grade domain: ~0.009 oz Au/ton to ~0.102 oz Au/ton; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· High-grade domain: >~0.102 oz Au/ton.

A Quaternary colluvium (Qc) gold domain was modeled at the request of Orla, because a significant quantity of mineralized colluvium was encountered in drilling east of Dark Star Main. Essentially, all grades greater than 0.001 oz Au/ton were included in the modeled Qc domains, which are entirely above the gold domains in bedrock material. The Qc domains are not included in the mineral resource estimate.

A higher-grade domain >~0.03 oz Au/ton was considered, but there was insufficient continuity for modeling, and it would contain less than 0.5% of the assays. Descriptive statistics of assays by the modeled domains are presented in Table 14-4.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 297 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp11img017.jpg)

**Figure 14-2**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Dark Star Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 298 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-4**: Dark Star Descriptive Assay Statistics by Domain**

(accepted sample data only)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Valid** | **Median** | **Mean** | **Std Dev** | **CV** | **Minimum** | **Maximum** | **Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;13537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;13344 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;13412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;13412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;4929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;4929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core Recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;9440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.1 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;9189 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;9388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5862 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;9388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5862 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;7430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;7430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core Recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;1781 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;1677 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;1775 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0942 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;1775 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0942 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0758 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0943 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0778 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core Recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;46653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.2 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;730.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;46090 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;44270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.1968 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;44270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.2088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.8354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;718 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core Recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;3324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;3324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Type | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 299 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Valid** | **Median** | **Mean** | **Std Dev** | **CV** | **Minimum** | **Maximum** | **Units** |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core Recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. |

---

Mr. Lindholm reviewed core from DC18-05, DC18-07, and DC18-09 during a site visit on September 18 and 19, 2018 in an effort to determine the geologic characteristics of each domain. Gold Standard staff geologists during the visit provided guidance and expertise with respect to the geology of the deposits and the nature of gold mineralization. The following characteristics were observed with respect to gold domains, and mineralization in general:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The middle conglomerate of the Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated (or Tomera Formation age equivalent)
is the primary host for mineralization. The upper and lower siltstone units are mineralized as well, but to a lesser degree;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One of the primary characteristics associated with gold grade is the presence and quantity of limonite
on fractures;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gold grade increases with increased fracture permeability (structural preparation);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· More porous, coarser-grained sedimentary lithologies tend to be better hosts. Some porous zones were created
by decalcification of calcareous sedimentary rocks;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gold mineralization is commonly confined between less permeable lithologies, such as argillized fault
gouges or stratigraphic horizons;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Grade decreases from relatively coarse-grained rocks in the low-grade domain, to more fine-grained micritic
lithologies in the outer-shell domains;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Barite, scorodite, and jarosite were observed at moderate to higher grades, greater than ~0.029 oz Au/ton.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Degree of silicification does not seem to be associated with strong gold mineralization. Where rocks are
silicified, grades of ~0.029 to 0.175 oz Au/ton were found in zones of increased limonite on fractures; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Some pervasive, very fine-grained pyrite was observed with moderate gold grades, particularly in gouge
zones.

To summarize, gold mineralization increases with increasing limonite on fractures, and increasing porosity. More favorable porosity is inherent in coarser-grained sedimentary lithologies or developed by structural preparation and/or decalcification. Structural preparation ranges from localized fractures to wider gouge zones, and to broad zones of fractures and stockwork breccias. Silicification and argillic alteration may be indirectly associated with gold grade, *i.e.,* clay can be abundant in structurally deformed zones, but may or may not be related to gold deposition.

As noted in the previous section, geologic logging and interpretations, along with observations of core directly or in photos, were used to guide mineral-domain modeling. Mineral domains were generally drawn parallel to stratigraphic contacts, per guidance from Orla. Gold domains were offset across faults according to sense-of-movement indicated by Orla interpretations. Schematic cross sections in the Dark Star Main zone and Dark Star North zone are given in Figure 14-3 and Figure 14-4, respectively.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 300 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img01.jpg)

**Figure 14-3**: Dark Star Main Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14696823**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 301 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img02.jpg)

**Figure 14-4**: Dark Star North Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14698399**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 302 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The relationship between gold mineralization and major faults mapped on the surface or interpreted on section is not well understood. The primary bounding structures of the major horst block are the West and Dark Star faults, although some mineralization does cross the West Fault into the Chainman Formation and appears to terminate against an unrecognized barrier somewhere to the west of the East fault. The IDK fault is located within the deposits, and gold grades appear to be strongest and more widespread in the vicinity of the structure.

Some significant gold grades have been intercepted in multiple drill holes extending downward in the vicinity of the IDK fault in the Dark Star North zone (Figure 14-4). Gold Standard has described and interpreted the mineralization in this area as follows:

"*The zone between the Ridgeline* [removed from the Dark Star model by Orla] *and IDK faults appears to be* [a] *highly brecciated structural corridor. The gold zone follows down between these two faults, but generally has a floor at/near the Conglomerate and underlying ST-L* [lower Tomera Formation equivalent siltstone] *contact. The contact is likely a chemistry change from high to low carbonate, causing mineralization above the contact, and much weaker below. We suspect both faults are feeders and long term might see a small breccia pipe or feeder along one or both faults to some depth".*

The unusual occurrence and precise geometry of mineralization in this deeper area had not been fully understood at the time, however, new drilling below and to the east of the zone indicated that mineralization continues downward and is steeply east-dipping. Orla has now correctly modeled the stratigraphic dip of the Tomera Formation-equivalent units to be part of the steeply east-dipping limb of the anticline rather than the previous interpretation by Gold Standard, which was moderately to steeply west-dipping in the area.

Gold grade decreases in intensity and thickness down-dip and up-dip along stratigraphy in the vicinity of the IDK fault. It does not appear to be a barrier to mineralization as significantly as other faults in Dark Star North, so domains were generally drawn continuously across it.

After gold domain interpretations were completed on 98.5 ft spaced cross sections oriented east-west, the domain interpretations were snapped to drill holes in three dimensions and sliced for modeling on mid-bench level plans. The modeled level plans are spaced at 30 ft and are located at the midpoint of each bench. Because there were significant changes to the geologic model, significant modifications to previously modeled gold domain sections and plans were required. Silver was not modeled or estimated.

14.2.3.2 Gold Sample and Composite Statistics

The modeled gold mineral domains were used to assign codes to drill-hole samples. Quantile plots were made of the coded assays. Potential capping levels for each domain were assessed by identifying the grade above which outlier values occur. Applied capping grades (Table 14-5) were then determined after reviewing the outlier samples on screen with respect to grade and proximity of surrounding samples, geology, general location, and materiality. Descriptive statistics of sample assays by domain were also considered to evaluate the necessity for capping of assays (Table 14-5).

**Table 14-5**: Dark Star Capping Levels for Gold by Domain**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capping Grade (oz Au/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Outer Shell | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Quaternary Colluvium | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 303 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

After the capping was completed, the drill holes were down-hole composited to 10 ft intervals honoring domain boundaries. The composite length was chosen to avoid de-compositing small fractions of the original drilled sample intervals. Descriptive statistics by domain of the composited database are given in Table 14-6.

**Table 14-6**: Dark Star Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;7214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.26 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;7118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0966 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;7118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;3264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7781 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;3264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;5154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.28 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;5113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;5113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;3919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;3919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.15 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5921 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5921 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0789 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0938 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4840 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;24124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.07 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;22318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.6735 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;22318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.9820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0348 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.9018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3871 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3871 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

Correlograms were generated from the composited gold grades to evaluate grade continuity. Correlogram parameters were determined and applied to the kriged estimate, against which the reported inverse distance estimate was compared. The evaluated continuity of grade also contributed to classification of mineral resources. The correlogram results by domain are summarized as follows:

<u>Outer shell gold domain</u> – The nugget is 45% of the total sill. The first sill is 30% of the total sill with a range of 33 to 130 ft depending on direction. The remaining 25% of the total sill has a range of 360 to 755 ft depending on direction.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 304 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

<u>Low-grade gold domain</u> – The nugget is 50% of the total sill. The first sill is 35% of the total sill with a range of 65 to 100 ft depending on direction. The remaining 15% of the total sill has a range of 525 to 920 ft depending on direction.

<u>High-grade gold domain</u> – The nugget is 40% of the total sill. The first sill is 40% of the total sill with a range of 33 to 150 ft depending on direction. The remaining 20% of the total sill has a range of 100 to 195 ft depending on direction.

14.2.3.3 Gold Estimation

The mineral resource block model is not rotated, and the blocks are 30 ft north-south by 30 ft vertical by 30 ft east-west. Four gold estimates were completed: a polygonal, nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and kriged, with the inverse-distance estimate being reported. All the estimates, excluding the polygonal, were run several times in order to determine sensitivity to estimation parameters, and to evaluate and optimize results. The inverse distance power for estimation in modeled bedrock domains was three (ID<sup>3</sup>). The model was divided into 12 estimation areas (ESTAR) to control search anisotropy, orientation, and distances according to the differing geometries of mineralization in each modeled bedrock area during estimation. Table 14-7 summarizes the estimation areas and associated search orientations and maximum search distances by domain. Figure 14-5 depicts the spatial relationship of the estimation areas to the drilling and the gold domains.

**Table 14-7**: Dark Star Estimation Areas, Search-Ellipse Orientations and Maximum Search Distances by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer<br> Shell** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;840 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;890 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-27.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-52.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-77.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Qc | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance ÷ 1, 1.5 or 2, and the vertical search distance = major search distance ÷ 4* |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 305 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img03.jpg)

**Figure 14-5**: Dark Star Spatial Relationship Between Estimation Areas, Gold Domains and Drill Holes**

One estimation pass was run for each domain, up to a maximum anisotropic search distance of 890 ft along the major axis. Search ellipse anisotropy varies from 1:1:4 to 1:2:4 (major versus semi-major versus minor axes). Composite-length weighting was applied to all estimation runs. Estimation parameters for each domain are given in Table 14-8.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 306 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-8**: Dark Star Estimation Parameters**

(for search orientations and maximum distances, see Table 14-6)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outer Shell Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / varies 0.5 to 1 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / varies 0.5 to 0.67\* / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.079 / half max search |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5\* / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.292 / 245 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 / 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Qc Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 9 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 / 60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* - Exception, ESTAR 5 major to semi-major axis search anisotropy is 1* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* - Exception, ESTAR 5 major to semi-major axis search anisotropy is 1* |

---

**14.2.4** Dark Star Gold Mineral Resources

Mr. Lindholm classified the Dark Star mineral resources giving consideration to confidence in the underlying database, sample integrity, analytical precision/reliability, QA/QC results, and confidence in geologic interpretations. The classification parameters are given in Table 14-9.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 307 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-9**: Dark Star Classification Parameters**

---

| |
|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain, and |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Drill-hole confidence code ≥ 0.9, and |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of holes ≥ 3, and average distance ≤ 115 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of samples ≥ 3, and closest distance ≤ 50 ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain and Main area, and |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 7 and isotropic distance ≤ 195 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 4 and isotropic distance ≤ 80 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 2 and closest distance ≤ 50 ft, Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modelled domain and North area, and |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 7 and isotropic distance ≤ 165 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 4 and isotropic distance ≤ 65 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 2 and isotropic distance ≤ 35 ft, Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured Reduced to Indicated if:** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Metallurgy code indicates refractory or uncategorized material (METC = 100-199) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured and Indicated Reduced to Inferred if: |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inside reduced classification solid and closest distance ≥ 50 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain and closest distance ≥ 100 ft and drill-hole confidence code ≤ 0.5\*; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In Tertiary Conglomerates and modeled domain, and closest distance ≥ 100 ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain that is not Measured or Indicated; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All estimated blocks outside modeled domains, and isotropic distance ≤ 65 ft\*\*, Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In Qc gold domain |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; \*Confidence code of '1' assigned to holes drilled by Gold Standard/Orla with collar surveys, '0.5' to Gold Standard/Orla holes with no collar surveys, and '0' to historical drill holes<br> \*\*A strong search restriction on composites ≥0.003oz Au/ton within this distance (at 30 ft) was applied |

---

As described in Table 14-9, the amount of influence that historical data has on a given block decreases confidence in the estimated grade and consequently the classification. For a block to be classified as Measured mineral resources, 90% or more of the estimating composite grades must be derived from Gold Standard or Orla data. Similarly, block grades estimated with all composites beyond 100 ft based on 50% or more historical data are classified as Inferred mineral resources.

The results of the QA/QC evaluation revealed a project risk that warrants additional comment. There is no historical QA/QC except for 11 Mirandor drill holes. Consequently, the reliability of pre-Gold Standard data, and therefore model block grades derived predominantly from historical data, is diminished and contributes to the reduction in classification. Gold Standard and Orla did infill drill areas where historical drilling dominated, so the risk is mitigated in these areas.

Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla evaluated and made significant revisions to the Dark Star geologic model. The most significant modification that caused changes to the gold domain model was a reinterpretation of the orientation of basement rock contacts, particularly in context with the modeled anticline. Also, several faults that had been previously modeled were removed, and only five faults with significant offset were retained.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 308 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Since the June 15, 2021 effective date of the database for Dark Star used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 25, 8, and 12 additional holes were drilled in 2021, 2023, and 2024, respectively. Data for these holes were received with finalized assays from Orla by the effective date of the current database of February 20, 2025, and have been incorporated into the current resource model. Gold domains were updated with the newer information, although the most significant changes were made as a result of the newly interpreted geological model.

The veracity of the previous gold domain model could not be evaluated with respect to the new drill data because the geologic model was significantly reinterpreted as noted above. Overall, the geologic reinterpretation was not triggered by the new drilling, with one exception. Drilling below and to the east of the deep relatively high-grade zone in the vicinity of the IDK fault at Dark Star North provided insight into the orientation of stratigraphy and mineralization, which was not well understood in previous models. As a result of the new interpretation, the downgrade to Inferred classification that had been applied in the previous model was removed. No other changes in classification were warranted for the current resources since the previous model was generally not tested by new drilling due to reinterpretation of the geology. Still, essentially all of the Dark Star North mineralization in the optimized pit is classified as Measured or Indicated, and the primary cause for Inferred classification in the Dark Star Main pit is the heavier reliance on historical drilling.

Due to excessive snow conditions following the 2019 drilling program, many of the 2018-2019 drill collars were not surveyed. In all, 18 drill holes in the Dark Star database did not have surveyed collars. The assays associated with these holes were assigned confidence codes of 0.5. The net effect for classification is that Measured and Indicated mineral resources beyond 100 ft from a composite were reduced to Inferred status if the block was estimated using a combination of unsurveyed Gold Standard and historical drill holes.

Greater restrictions were applied to Measured and Indicated mineral resource material in specific areas of the gold domain block model due to locally limited understanding of geology and/or gold mineralization or suspected (but not proven) down-hole contamination. For example, classification was restricted for mineralization associated with deep, isolated intercepts on the West fault.

A small amount of mineralization has been intercepted in drilling near the surface in Tertiary conglomerates at the southwest end of Dark Star Main. Although the mineralization is present in rocks younger than the bulk of the Dark Star deposit, Orla has observed similar occurrences in Tertiary rocks in other areas of the district. No metallurgical test work has been performed on this material, although there are cyanide-soluble assays that provide a measure of gold recovery. The existence and shape of this mineralization has been confirmed in numerous drill holes, but because the exact nature of gold mineralization in Tertiary conglomerates is not understood, Indicated material was limited to within 100 ft of a composite.

Mr. Lindholm reports the Dark Star mineral resources at cutoffs that are reasonable for Carlin-type deposits of comparable size and grade. Technical and economic factors likely to influence the requirement "in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" were evaluated using the best judgement of Mr. Lindholm. For evaluating the open-pit potential, RESPEC modeled a series of optimized pits using variable gold prices, mining costs, processing costs, and anticipated metallurgical recoveries. Mr. Lindholm used costs appropriate for open-pit mining in Nevada, estimated processing costs and metallurgical recoveries related to heap leaching, and G&A costs (Table 14-10). The factors used in defining cutoff grades are based on a gold price of $2,800/oz.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 309 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-10**: Dark Star Pit Optimization Parameters**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Roaster** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost - Waste | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Incremental Ore Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Stacking | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leaching | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;tons-per-day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum Gold Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

The Dark Star mineral resource estimate is the fully block diluted ID3 estimate and is reported at variable cutoffs for open-pit mining. The cutoff for oxidized and transitional material is 0.003 oz Au/ton, whereas the cutoff for sulfide material is 0.017 oz Au/ton. No reported sulfide material is classified as Measured mineral resources. Table 14-11 through Table 14-14 presents the estimates of the Measured, Indicated, combined Measured, and Indicated and Inferred gold mineral resources within the $2,800/oz Au pits. The cutoff grade for the bolded base case resources is variable because the resources in the tables contain a mixture of oxide/transitional and sulfide materials. The breakdown of mineral resources by oxidation state is given in Appendix C. The base case reported resources at cutoff grades of 0.003 oz Au/ton (oxide/transitional) and 0.017 oz Au/ton (sulfide) are in bold print in all tables. Representative cross sections of the gold block model in the Dark Star Main and North zones are given in Figure 14-6 and Figure 14-7, respectively. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The metal prices used for resource reporting, pit optimizations and determination of the gold cutoff grade are derived from consensus commodity price forecasts as of September 2025 as provided by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), and prices used to report resources recently filed on SEDAR+. When this current technical report was completed, several filed technical reports provided resources at gold prices between $2,500 and $3,000/oz Au. The spot price was over $4,000/oz Au, and the three-year moving-average price was about $2,385/oz Au and rising.

Table 14-11 through Table 14-14, as well as the tables in Appendix C, present the Dark Star mineral resources in pits optimized at $2,800/oz Au at cutoff grades both lower and higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton. The analysis is presented to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices. All tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton represent subsets of the current mineral resources. All tabulations at cutoff grades lower than the base case reflect the potential for increased resources at Dark Star, although Orla is not relying on increases in gold prices or decreases in mining costs in the future.

Underground mineral resources outside the $2,800/oz Au pit shell are reported in Table 14-15. Underground resources were ultimately reported within a 0.075 oz Au/ton grade shell extracted from the block model, from which open pit material and isolated blocks unlikely to be mined were removed. The material is classified entirely as Inferred because a block size more appropriate for potential underground mining was not used, and the block dilution is unrealistically high in the 30 ft x 30 ft x 30 ft blocks.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 310 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-11**: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Measured**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14678000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;346000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12117000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10539000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;334000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9597000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8987000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;327000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8531000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;324000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8182000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;321000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7827000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;318000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7451000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5732000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;294000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4540000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;273000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3645000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3074000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;237000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2678000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2333000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;212000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2104000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1929000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;194000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1287000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;154000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;775000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109000 |

---

**Table 14-12: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Indicated**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40194000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;687000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34197000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;672000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;33675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;665000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29621000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;657000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26448000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;641000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24128000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;628000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22449000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;617000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21074000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;606000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19737000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;594000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18467000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;583000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12677000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8845000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;444000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6598000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;394000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5121000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;353000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4202000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;323000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3629000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;303000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3231000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;286000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2885000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;269000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1729000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;199000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;999000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 311 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-13: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resource - Measured and Indicated**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54872000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1033000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46314000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1012000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;45792000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1005000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40160000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;991000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36045000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;971000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33115000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;955000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30980000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;941000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29256000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;927000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27564000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;912000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25918000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;898000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18409000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;804000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13385000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;717000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10243000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;647000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8195000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;590000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6880000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5962000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5335000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;488000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2885000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;269000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1729000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;199000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;999000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135000 |

---

**Table 14-14**: Dark Star Total In $2,800 Pit Gold Mineral Resources – Inferred**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1944000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1463000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;1450000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1303000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1191000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1046000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;955000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;893000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;825000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;763000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;439000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;568000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 312 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-15**: Dark Star Total Gold Mineral Resources in 0.075 oz Au/ton Underground Shell – Inferred**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;380000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The base case reported mineral resources at a gold price of $2,800/oz Au is shown in bold, and has an
effective date of September 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations at higher and lower cutoff grades than the base cases are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades within the $2,800/oz Au optimized pits.
Pit optimizations used a throughput rate of 20,000 and 12,200 tons/day for ROM and crushed ore, respectively; assumed minimum metallurgical
recoveries of 65% and 70% for gold for ROM and crushed ore, respectively; waste mining costs of US$2.12/ton mined; crushing and stacking
costs of $0.84/ton, heap leaching costs of US$3.64/ton; and general and administrative costs of $1.14/ton.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base cases of 0.003 oz Au/ton for oxide/transitional and
0.017 oz Au/ton for sulfide material represent subsets of the current mineral resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base cases reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from decreased mining costs or increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within
the optimized pits. Quaternary alluvium materials is not included in the tabulations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 313 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img04.jpg)

**Figure 14-6**: Dark Star Main Zone Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14696823**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 314 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img05.jpg)

**Figure 14-7**: Dark Star North Zone Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14698399**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 315 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-16 presents tabulations from the Dark Star block model at a constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton at gold prices higher and lower than the base case of $2,800/oz Au for reported resources in Table 14-11 through Table 14-14. Pits for each case were optimized using the parameters given in Table 14-10 at variable gold prices. All oxide, transitional and sulfide material at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations for all sensitivity cases, and the different cutoff grades that would be applied to each redox type for reported resources are not taken into account. As a result, none of the tabulations in Table 14-16, including the sensitivity case at $2,800/oz Au, can be directly compared to the tabulations at variable cutoff grades in Table 14-11 through Table 14-14. Also, the potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc.costs is not factored into the sensitivity cases. The analysis is presented solely to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating gold prices. All tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within the optimized pit within which current mineral resources are reported in Table 14-11 through Table 14-14. All tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources at Dark Star, although Orla is not relying on these increases in gold prices in the future.

**Table 14-16**: Dark Star Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Sensitivity Case**<br> **Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Tonnage**<br> **Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Gold Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Contained Gold**<br> **oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43598000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;910000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1499000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47916000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;974000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1516000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46314000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1005000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1463000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48521000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;990000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1585000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48810000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;994000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1606000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Measured & Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51086000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;999000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1802000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of resource sensitivity cases was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial
tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. All sensitivity cases were derived from the block model from which Dark Star mineral resources were reported
and are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. All sensitivity cases were tabulated within pits optimized using the parameters in Table 14-10 at variable
gold prices. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc. Costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. All oxide, transitional and sulfide material at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations
for all sensitivity cases, and the different cutoff grades that would be applied to each redox type for reported resources are not taken
into account.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. None of the tabulations in Table 14-16, including the sensitivity case at $2,800/oz Au, can be directly
compared to the tabulations at variable cutoff grades in Table 14-11 through Table 14-14.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at higher and lower gold prices than $2,800/oz Au are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
to fluctuating gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within
the optimized pit within which current Dark Star mineral resources are reported.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 316 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Although Mr. Lindholm is not an expert with respect to environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, or political matters, Mr. Lindholm is not aware of any unusual factors relating to these matters that may materially affect the Dark Star mineral resources as of the effective date of this Technical Report.

**14.2.5** Dark Star Cyanide-Soluble Gold and Geo-Metallurgical Models

A cyanide-soluble gold block model was produced to characterize the spatial variability of cyanide solubility of gold at Dark Star. The model was estimated using the ratio of cyanide-soluble gold assays to fire-assay gold contents (Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub>). These ratios are graphically depicted in the cumulative probability plot in Figure 14-8 and were capped at 110% in samples because using data capped at 100% would introduce a low bias in the estimated ratio values. Composites were also not modified, but all estimated values in the block model were capped at 100%. Two distinct Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio populations, separated by a broad gradational zone from 65% to 90% cyanide-solubility, are apparent in the plot.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img06.jpg)

**Figure 14-8**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Dark Star Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au Ratios**

Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios were estimated by rock units separately within the Chainman Formation, within each of the lower siltstone, middle conglomerate, and upper siltstone units of the Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated, and within the Tertiary conglomerates. Ratios were not estimated in the post-mineralization Tertiary Indian Well Formation and Quaternary rocks, which contain no reportable gold. ID<sup>3</sup> methodology was used, and only Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios with fire-assay gold grades >0.0015 oz Au/ton were included in the estimate. Maximum major and semi-major search distances applied were 1,150 ft, with strong anisotropy of 4:1 relative to the minor search axis. Estimated block Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios were capped at 100%.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 317 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Refractory solids were modeled, initially by Gold Standard and updated by RESPEC in 2025, to segregate zones in the deposit for which less gold will be extractable by cyanide heap-leach methods. Mr. Lindholm evaluated the solids and determined that they appear reasonable compared to Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios, assayed sulfide-sulfur percent, and logged redox and sulfide percentages. Assayed total-sulfur percent correlates moderately well, but there is relatively high total sulfur with correspondingly low sulfide sulfur percent (presumably representing sulfate minerals) outside the refractory solid. The correlation between refractory solids and logged oxide minerals in drill holes is not as good, because there are zones of mixed iron oxide and sulfide material outside the solids that do not represent completely non-refractory material. In summary, the refractory solids represent material that contains little or no oxidation, whereas the areas outside the solids are mixed oxide and sulfide, or predominantly oxidized rock.

As per metallurgical guidance provided in Section 13, unique metallurgical codes were assigned to the block model based on estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios, refractory zones, rock units, and silicification solids (discussed in Section 14.2.2). Cyanide solubilities and refractory zones were used to define the base metallurgical code group, whereas rock units and silicification were used to further sub-divide those groups of codes. Metallurgical codes were assigned as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Sulfide, low gold recovery: AuCN/AuFA ratios less than 60% or greater than 50% of block is in refractory
solid; gold recovery is low;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Transitional, moderate gold recovery: AuCN/AuFA ratios between 60% and 85%, moderate gold recovery; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Oxide, high gold recovery: Au<sub>CN</sub> / Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios greater than 85%.

**14.2.6** Dark Star Acid-Base Accounting Model and Estimation

An acid-base accounting (ABA) block model was produced to characterize the spatial variability of potential acid-generating (PAG) or neutralizing (NAG) material for mine planning and handling of mined material. Mr. Lindholm estimated inorganic carbon (CINO) and sulfide sulfur (SSUL) into this block model, and designated model blocks as either PAG or NAG. All calculations and PAG/NAG designation criteria were provided by Stantec.

Orla provided LECO analyses of carbon and sulfur species for samples that varied between those on original core intervals (1 to 6 ft) to RC sample composites (10 to 35 ft). Assayed CINO values were used, or the values were converted from assayed CO<sub>2</sub>%. The relationship between total organic and inorganic carbon was applied as well where necessary. In the data received from Orla, below-detection limit values were substituted for assays below detection. RESPEC modified the below-detection assays per Stantec guidance, so that carbon species assays were equal to one-half the below-detection value, and sulfur species assays below detection were set to '0'.

Mr. Lindholm evaluated CINO and SSUL statistics by rock unit, refractory zone and silicified zone (Table 14-15 and Table 14-17). The statistics in the tables are summarized according to categories chosen for estimation into the block model.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 318 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-17**: Number of Samples and Mean Inorganic Carbon Values for Dark Star Estimation Categories**

(by rock unit, zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids, and in/out of silicified zones)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lower Siltstone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lower Siltstone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lower Siltstone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lower Siltstone** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, not silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.030 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.624 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, not silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.444 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.444 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.237 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Middle Conglomerate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Middle Conglomerate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Middle Conglomerate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Upper Siltstone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Upper Siltstone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean<br> Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean<br> Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value<br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value<br> (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Not silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;2772 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.228 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silicified | &nbsp;&nbsp;10554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All Data | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.306 |

---

**Table 14-18**: Number of Samples and Mean Sulfide Sulfur Values for Dark Star Estimation Categories**

(by rock unit, zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Tomera Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Tomera Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tertiary Conglomerates** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of <br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean<br> Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean<br> Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value <br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value<br> (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18767 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.188 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.836 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.473 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indian Wells Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Quaternary Alluvium** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All Data | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.098 |

---

CINO statistics varied systematically by rock unit in combination with silicification for the middle conglomerate, upper siltstone, and Tertiary conglomerate. This correlation is indicative of the inverse relationship between silica and carbonate contents in increasingly altered and mineralized rocks due to silicification and decarbonization. CINO in the lower siltstone showed similar trends, but statistics also indicated differences inside and outside the modeled refractory solids. In the Chainman Formation, which is only locally mineralized, the variability observed was by refractory zone only. SSUL statistics indicated strong relationships by refractory zone within each of the Chainman Shale, all units of the Tomera Formation equivalent together, and the Tertiary conglomerate. No systematic differences were observed in CINO or SSUL for the Indian Well Formation or the Quaternary colluvium, so each was estimated using all respective contained data.

CINO and SSUL were estimated independently into the block model, according to the categories described above. CPPs for each species estimated were evaluated by category for potential capping of assays, but none was warranted. Nearly half the sample composites are 30 ft in length. Given the model block dimension of 30 ft<sup>3</sup>, and the adverse effect of de-compositing to shorter interval lengths, assay data were composited to 30 ft.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 319 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

All estimates were done using the same search orientations and associated estimation areas as applied to the gold estimate (Table 14-8). The maximum search distance applied for both CINO and SSUL estimates was 985 ft. Search ellipses were moderately anisotropic, with major, semi-major and minor search distances at 985 ft, 790 ft, and 395 ft, respectively, and inverse distance squared methodology was used. Due to the relatively long composite length, the maximum number of composites, and maximum composites per hole allowed to estimate a block were limited to five and two, respectively. Review of CPP's justified search restrictions for a limited number of the estimated CINO categories, which were applied; however, none were necessary for SSUL estimates.

Correlograms were generated to evaluate continuities in the data with respect to distance. These demonstrated reasonable continuity at ranges up to 1,310 ft, depending on rock unit, refractory type, and/or silicification zones. However, the LECO data is not evenly distributed within the deposits. The data at Dark Star Main is relatively well-distributed, but at Dark Star North, data is concentrated in the central portion of the gold mineralization. As a result, there are significant volumes of rock within potentially mined areas, particularly to the east and west of Dark Star North, where data is sparse or absent. Estimated grades of CINO and SSUL in these areas are relatively far from assayed samples. To flag model blocks that are at relatively greater distances from assays, Mr. Lindholm assigned confidence codes (value of '0') to all estimated blocks with closest composite greater than 590 ft away. Because CINO and SSUL were estimated according to different criteria, these codes were assigned separately for each, and a combined code was assigned if either CINO or SSUL confidence codes was '0'.

Model blocks were designated as PAG (code of '1') or NAG (code of '2') according to criteria as defined by Stantec. First, acid-neutralizing potential (ANP), acid-generating potential (AGP), and net neutralizing potential (NNP) values were calculated from estimated CINO and SSUL values. Next, PAG/NAG designation was assigned according to criteria for three potential waste-characterization scenarios in Table 14-19. A fourth scenario was added by Stantec and Gold Standard/Orla to help with planning prior to mining but will not be considered for handling waste during mining.

**Table 14-19**: PAG/NAG Designation Criteria**

---

| |
|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG/NAG Designation - Scenario 1** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as NAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NNP ≥ 20 and ANP/AGP ≥ 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as PAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NNP < 20 or ANP/AGP < 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG/NAG Designation - Scenario 2** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as NAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL ≥ 0.1% and NNP ≥ 20 and ANP/AGP ≥ 3; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL < 0.1% and ANP/AGP ≥ 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as PAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL ≥ 0.1%, and NNP < 20 or ANP/AGP < 3; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL < 0.1% and ANP/AGP < 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG/NAG Designation - Scenario 3** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as NAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NNP ≥ 0.92 and ANP/AGP ≥ 0.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as PAG if: |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NNP < 0.92 or ANP/AGP < 0.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG/NAG Designation - Scenario 4 (not considered for mining)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as NAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL > 0.25% and NNP ≥ -20 and ANP/AGP ≥ 1.2; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL ≤ 0.25% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Designate as PAG if |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL ≥ 0.25% and ANP/AGP < 1.2; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SSUL > 0.25% and NNP < -20 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 320 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

In Dark Star North there are areas in the upper reaches of potentially mineable pits, along the east and west sides, where no CINO or SSUL composite data was within 985 ft, and either or both species remained un-estimated. As a result, designation as PAG or NAG was not possible using the above criteria. In agreement with Stantec, RESPEC assigned PAG or NAG designations for each of the four options described by rock unit, based on the PAG/NAG designation of adjacent blocks. The assignments were only necessary for blocks in Upper Siltstone, Tertiary conglomerate, and Quaternary colluvium. These assigned designations represent about one percent of the model tonnage within potential pits, nearly all of which is in Dark Star North.

**14.2.7** Dark Star Clay Model and Estimation

Orla (Gold Standard at the time) requested a clay model to determine the relative quantity of clay material that will be encountered and potentially affect crushing and grinding. A source of under-liner material for leach pads and waste dumps was also sought. According to Orla geologists, the most abundant clay alteration or weathering at Dark Star is found in post-mineral units, particularly tuffs and conglomerates. It also occurs in structural zones in a more limited in extent.

The only comprehensive clay data is subjective logging in drill holes on a scale from 0 (no clay) to 3 (strong clay alteration). RESPEC evaluated logged clay values statistically with respect to formation, gold domains, silicification and redox. Based on the statistical analysis, clay was estimated in the block model as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Chainman Formation and Tomera Formation equivalent in silicification solid within all gold domains,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Chainman Formation and Tomera Formation equivalent in silicification solid outside all gold domains,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Chainman Formation and Tomera Formation equivalent outside silicification solid within all gold domains,
and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Outside above estimated blocks by individual formations.

Because the logged clay data is subjective and the scale of the logging is broadly qualitative, the estimate is a very generalized representation of the clay content in the deposit. The values in the block model (0.00 to 3.00) provide a rough, imprecise estimation of the strength of clay alteration in a given area. The maximum search distance was limited to 150 ft, and un-estimated blocks were left as blank values.

**14.2.8** Dark Star Density

Application of density values to the block model was dependent on numerous modeled criteria that have been discussed in various prior sections. There are 1,137 density measurements in the Dark Star database. All samples were measured using the immersion method by an independent laboratory. The values assigned to the model, by rock unit (Section 14.2.2), gold domains (Section 14.2.3), and refractory zone (Section 14.2.5), are summarized in Table 14-20. Spatially, the Dark Star North zone is well represented; however, there is no density data in the northern 650 ft of the deposit. The Dark Star Main zone is moderately well-represented, although core holes are somewhat clustered locally so that there are areas with no density data.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 321 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-20**: Density Values Applied to the Dark Star Block Model**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory<br> Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number<br> of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Density<br> (g/cm** **<sup>3</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnage<br> Factor** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STL | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14.12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STL | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STL | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.98 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STL | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - CGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - CGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.72 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - CGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - CGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STU | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STU | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STU | &nbsp;&nbsp;OS and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm equivalent - STU | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG and HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Conglomerates | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Indian Well Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Quaternary Colluvium | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.87 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Formation acronyms: STL - lower siltstone, CGL - middle conglomerate, STU - upper siltstone*<br> *Gold Domain acronyms: OS - outer shell, LG - low-grade, HG - high-grade*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)*  |

---

The middle conglomerate unit of the Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated (possibly Tomera Formation equivalent), the primary host of gold at Dark Star, is well-represented with 686 density samples. There are 177 density samples within the outer shell/outside domains in the lower siltstone unit, a secondary host. However, there are only 16 samples in the low- or high-grade domains of the lower siltstone. Where a low number of density samples (<~20) were measured for a given category, the density values were evaluated and modified using data from units with similar geological characteristics that are based on more density measurements. A density value of 2.46 g/cm<sup>3</sup> was assigned to the Chainman Formation based on 32 measurements. A similar value was assigned to the same unit for the Pinion deposit, where there were more measurements.

Lower densities are associated with clay alteration. However, Orla has indicated that clay zones are not common or pervasive in the Dark Star mineralized zones. Although there are some density measurements of clay material that have been included in the statistical groupings in Table 14-19, density values that represent clay zones were not assigned locally in the block model. As a result, there are likely some inaccuracies with respect to tonnages in parts of the block model. Potentially more significant is clay alteration or weathering considered to be responsible for the variable density values observed for the Tertiary Indian Well Formation. Drilling is limited in the unit, and although Orla believes the unit consists primarily of unwelded tuffs that are weathered to clays, the clay zones and associated densities cannot be properly represented. In Gold Standard's previous geologic model, there were 21 samples measured in the unit. Ten of these density values ranged from 1.73 to 2.08 (presumably clay) and nine were between 2.23 and 2.58 (presumably unaltered). According to Orla's new geologic interpretations, there is only one density measurement in the Indian Well Formation with a value of 2.43, which was assigned to the unit. However, given the previously observed variability in densities and the current lack of measurements representing the formation, the density is not well-defined in the model. Since the rock unit is entirely waste material, there is likely to be significant uncertainty and local variability in waste tonnages mined.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 322 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**14.2.9** Discussion of Dark Star Estimated Gold Mineral Resource and Supporting Models

Dark Star has a long history of exploration drilling dating back to 1984, and consequently there are many drill holes of varying quality and reliability, and with varying amounts of supporting documentation. In all, seven companies, including Gold Standard and Orla, have performed exploration drilling on the property. About 80% of the holes were drilled by Gold Standard/Orla, for which QA/QC procedures were consistently performed. About 73.5% of the assay certificates exist for all data, and RESPEC had access to essentially 100% of the Gold Standard and Orla certificates. There is a lack of documentation for historical drilling, and QA/QC exists for only 11 holes drilled by Mirandor. As a result, classification of the mineral resources was reduced in areas relying predominantly on historical data. Overall, this reduction did not significantly affect the mineral resources because Gold Standard and Orla compensated for the lack of confidence by infill drilling in areas that are predominantly defined by historical drilling. However, there are still a few areas, *e.g.,* the southeast part of Dark Star Main, where little or no Gold Standard/Orla drilling exists, and classification is consequently lower.

Since the June 15, 2021 effective date of the database for Dark Star used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 25, 8, and 12 additional holes were drilled in 2021, 2023 and 2024, respectively. Data for these holes have been incorporated into the current resource model. Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla made significant revisions to the Dark Star geologic model, including reinterpretation of the orientation of basement rock contacts, in context with the modeled anticline, and major faults. Gold domains were updated with new assay data, however, the most significant changes were made as a result of the newly interpreted geologic model. Consequently, the veracity of the previous gold domain model could not be evaluated with respect to the new drill data.

The geologic reinterpretation was not triggered by the new drilling, with one exception. Drilling below and to the east of the deep relatively high-grade zone in the vicinity of the IDK fault at Dark Star North provided insight into the orientation of stratigraphy and mineralization, which was not well understood in previous models. As a result of the new interpretation, the downgrade to Inferred classification that had been applied in the previous model was removed. No other changes in classification were warranted for the current resources since the previous model was generally not tested by new drilling due to reinterpretation of the geology. Still, essentially all of the Dark Star North mineralization in the optimized pit is classified as Measured or Indicated, and the primary cause for Inferred classification in the Dark Star Main pit is the heavier reliance on historical drilling.

Classification as Measured mineral resource was made more restrictive in the deepest zones, where the general depth below the water table and the presence of anomalous cyanide-soluble gold ratios suggest the possibility of down-hole contamination. Because potential contamination is suspected by some geologists, it remains a risk, which warrants a slightly stricter classification criteria. However, since Measured classification is already reduced to Indicated in blocks with low-recovery metallurgical codes (which includes blocks inside the modeled refractory solid), and the oxide/transitional versus refractory boundary at depth generally corresponds to the water table, no additional reduction of classification was needed.

One obvious association between faults and mineralization is the consistent occurrence of gold along the West fault. Mineralization has been intercepted in drill holes down-dip along this fault and represents potential for additional, possibly higher-grade mineralization at depth.

The cyanide-soluble gold block model appears reasonable in areas with Gold Standard/Orla drilling. In some areas, such as where historical drilling is predominant, Au<sub>CN</sub> assays are lacking and there is less confidence in the block model estimate. Also, the Au<sub>CN</sub> data lacks QA/QC support. The refractory solids are generally sufficient for use in the block model to define refractory material, however, the redox model can be improved. It is believed that there is enough data to model transitional oxide/sulfide and predominantly oxide zones separately.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 323 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The ABA block model estimate is reasonable within data limits, although the estimate may be smoothed because of the long 30 ft composites. This was mitigated somewhat by limiting the maximum number of composites to estimate a block, which produces a more localized estimate. Distribution of LECO data in Dark Star Main is reasonable. However, there are substantial areas in Dark Star North that are at significant distances from assayed samples. To help qualify risks relative to distance from data, estimated model blocks >590 ft from the nearest LECO composite were flagged with a lower confidence code. Also, CINO and/or SSUL were not estimated in some of areas of the model, and therefore, blocks cannot be designated as PAG or NAG using the criteria applied to the rest of the model. PAG or NAG were assigned to these unclassified blocks according to the designation of the nearest groups of blocks with similar geologic characteristics where CINO and SSUL were both estimated.

For all classified material, the current mineral resource tons and ounces gold at 0.003 oz Au/ton were lower by ~2.8% and ~0.5%, respectively, compared to the 2022 Dark Star mineral resource estimate reported in the previous FS (Sletten et al, 2022). Gold grade was higher by ~2.4%. The changes are attributed primarily to the geological reinterpretation discussed above. A significant number of the new holes drilled since the 2022 FS are considered infill and delineation holes, which generally did not result in changes in gold resources but contributed to upgrades in classification. The gold price of the reported optimized pit was increased from $1,750 to the currently reported $2,800. It has been demonstrated at Dark Star that optimized pits increase in size only incrementally with changes in gold price, generally less than 1% for each $25 increase in the price of gold, so the difference between the reported pits at the same cutoff grade is relatively small. However, the 2026 resource at 0.003 (oxide/transitional) and 0.017 (sulfide) oz Au/ton cutoffs contains ~25% and ~3.8% more tonnes and gold ounces, respectively with a decrease in gold grade of ~17% compared to the 2022 resource at 0.005 and 0.020 oz Au/ton cutoffs.

There is the possibility of additional risk that has resulted from the conversion from metric to Imperial units of drill-hole collar coordinates for the 2022 FS. Gold Standard, and later Orla holes were surveyed in metric units, so the direct conversion of northings and eastings using a factor of 1 m = 3.280833333 ft maintained the spatial relationship between these drill-hole data and associated geology modeling, domains and block model, which were also converted using identical values. However, it is believed that some historical drill collars were originally surveyed in feet and later converted to metric. Comparisons of metric and Imperial coordinates in the collar tables received from Gold Standard/Orla indicate conversion factors were inconsistently applied. Because values of northings and eastings are so large, discrepancies up to 150 ft can result by application of conversion factors that differ in the fifth decimal place. The risks associated with such potential discrepancies have been accounted for in the reduced classification of mineral resources in areas relying predominantly on historical data.

The Dark Star deposit has clustered drill data, which lies primarily within the optimized-pit limits where mining would likely take place. This area also contains a large proportion of the highest-grade material, particularly in the Dark Star North zone. Gold grades from clustered data will tend to project into areas with sparse, non-clustered data during estimation, and a large number of block grades are attributed to only a small number of samples. This effect, which was noted to some extent during gold domain model checking, is mitigated somewhat by estimating with ID<sup>3</sup> rather than ID<sup>2</sup>. De-clustering of composite data was not necessary because the majority of the adverse effect in the estimate occurs outside potential open pits and is not part of the reported mineral resource. Also, new drilling since 2019 has mitigated the effects of clustered data somewhat, although it is still evident.

Significant clay alteration or weathering is likely responsible for the variable density values that have been observed for the Tertiary Indian Well Formation. Drilling is limited in the unit, and the clay zones and associated densities cannot be properly represented. In Gold Standard's previous geologic model, there were 21 samples measured in the unit. Ten of these density values ranged from 1.73 to 2.08 (presumably clay) and nine were between 2.23 and 2.58 (presumably unaltered). According to Orla's new geologic interpretations, there is only one density measurement in the Indian Well Formation with a value of 2.43, which was assigned to the unit. However, given the previously observed variability in densities and the current lack of measurements representing the formation, the density is not well-defined in the model. Since the rock unit is entirely waste material, there is likely to be significant uncertainty and local variability in waste tonnages mined.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 324 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**14.3** Pinion Deposit Mineral Resources

This Pinion estimate is based on data derived from drilling completed into 2024, through drill holes PR24-02, PC24-02 and PRMW-03A. All gold, silver, barium and LECO data were received for the 2024 drilling by February 19, 2025, which is the effective date of the database. Although the gold, silver and barium estimates, as well as the ABA model, were completed as of March 24, 2025, the effective date of the Pinion mineral resource estimate is September 30, 2025 when the reporting gold and silver prices were chosen and new pit optimizations were started. Gold and silver resources, as well as barium, Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios and ABA models are reported herein.

Following the Pre-Feasibility study of Ibrado et al. (2020), Gold Standard made a decision to convert all project data from metric to Imperial units. RESPEC (MDA at the time) converted all length data, including collar northings and eastings, from meters to feet (1 m = 3.280833333 ft), and assay grades from g/tonne to oz/ton (1 oz/ton = 34.285714 g/tonne). Section plane spacing, block model block sizes, and other modeling dimensions were changed. Specifics and ramifications of the conversions are discussed in various sections below.

**14.3.1** Pinion Database

The Pinion drilling mineral resource database received from Orla and audited by RESPEC contains 898 drill holes with 480,485.3 ft of drilling (Table 14-21). The drilling was conducted by thirteen companies since 1981, including Gold Standard, which began drilling in 2014, and Orla, which acquired Gold Standard in 2022. In all, 87.5% are RC and 12% are core. The Pinion database also contains two and 27 RC holes drilled at the Ski Track and LT targets, respectively. One sonic hole was drilled, and the remainder are of unknown type. A drill-hole map with an outline of the current reported resource is given in Figure 14-9.

**Table 14-21**: Summary of Drilling at Pinion**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type of hole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drilled Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56513.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;772 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420070.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sonic | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3805.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;898 | &nbsp;&nbsp;480485.3 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 325 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img07.jpg)

**Figure 14-9**: Pinion Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 326 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-22 presents descriptive statistics of all accepted analytical or measured Pinion drill-hole sample data that was imported into MinePlan by RESPEC. The Pinion drill database contains 82,327 accepted gold assay records. There were 658 records rejected due to suspected down-hole contamination, core recoveries of less than 50% or intervals with geology and mineralization that conflicted with surrounding holes. Only 65,270 (79%) of the accepted gold assay samples were analyzed for silver, and 10,365 samples (12.5%) were analyzed for gold by cyanide extraction (Au<sub>CN</sub>). Initially, Gold Standard had submitted composites for silver assays, however, pulps were rerun on individual assay intervals within and adjacent to gold mineralization. Barium, trace elements, cyanide-soluble silver, and carbon and sulfur species were analyzed as well as gold and silver, and densities were measured. Collar locations, down-hole survey data, and gold, silver, barium and LECO analyses, were verified as described in Section 12.

**Table 14-22**: Pinion Descriptive Statistics - Exploration and Mineral Resource Drill-Hole Database**

(accepted sample data only)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;84802 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2550.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;84802 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;84802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.3 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;187.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;82327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;65270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0386 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.6540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;10365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0503 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.3600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;3265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.2220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;3235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;3235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. |

---

Logged core recovery and RQD were loaded into the database but were not audited. A few recoveries and RQD values >100% were observed, but not investigated. Logged geologic data, including rock types, formation, faults, vein type and intensity, silicification, clay, dolomite, barite, limonite, hematite, carbon, sulfide percent, and percent reduced were imported into the database, generally reviewed, and used for geologic and domain modeling where applicable.

**14.3.2** Pinion Geologic Model

Gold Standard (prior to the acquisition by Orla) built digital, cross-sectional interpretations for faults, formations, rock units, occurrence of logged barite, silicification, and metallurgically refractive material. RESPEC combined the formation contacts and fault surfaces to produce 3D formation solids, and revised the barite solids. Silicification solids provided by Gold Standard were used to separate a moderate to strong silicified zone within the solids from weak or absent silicification outside. These geologic interpretations were used to guide the metal domain, ABA and geo-metallurgical modeling. All geology wireframes were modified to new drill-hole data by RESPEC to produce an updated geologic model for use in the current model and estimation work for this FS technical report.

RESPEC's formation solids produced from Gold Standard's geologic model define the location of multi-lithic breccia, Sentinel Mountain Dolomite, Devils Gate Limestone, and the Webb, Chainman, and Tripon Pass formations. Alluvial cover at Pinion is minimal and was not modeled. Several of the fault surfaces provided by Gold Standard were used to project offsets of formations and metal domains, and in some cases explain deeper mineralization that may be structurally controlled. The formational units and faults are summarized in Section 7 of this Technical Report.

Mr. Lindholm reviewed the silicification solids provided by Orla. The solids compare well with logged silicification values of '2' and '3' ('3' representing the strongest silicification). Continuity in the modeled solids was broadly established by default as a function of the logged data, although continuity was lacking somewhat between sections where silicification was more localized.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 327 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**14.3.3** Pinion Gold Domains and Estimation

14.3.3.1 Gold Domain Model

Gold domains based on sample assays were modeled on cross sections spaced 98.5 ft apart, oriented east-west and looking north. This spacing was originally 30 m. The geologic model guided interpretation and explicit modeling of the gold domains. These domains were defined based on population breaks on cumulative probability plots of the gold assays prior to compositing (Figure 14-10). The domain grade ranges were originally determined using assay data in g Au/t, and converted to oz Au/ton. The CPP was remade to reflect Imperial units; however, some of the grade breaks apparent on the metric chart were not as readily apparent on the Imperial chart. The lower limit of the outer shell gold domains does not plot well on the CPP because the level of precision of the statistical package used is only three decimal places. Grade ranges converted from those originally determined in metric units were retained, and used for modeling gold domains as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Low-grade gold domain: ~0.0012 oz Au/ton to ~0.009 oz Au/ton, and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· High-grade gold domain >~0.009 oz Au/ton.

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 14-23. Core photos, where available, were reviewed, and were helpful in interpretations.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp12img08.jpg)

**Figure 14-10**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Deposit Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 328 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-23**: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Gold Statistics by Domain**

(accepted sample data only)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;8200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.9 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;7991 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;8020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;7983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;2087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;2056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;11018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;10688 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;10744 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;10677 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;5089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0467 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.2600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;5003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;62886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;187.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;60213 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;60906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2728 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;60827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1954 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.1700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1911 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;157.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;396 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;1976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. |

---

On the original CPP plot in g Au/t, a prominent domain was evident beginning around 0.02 g Au/t, the low-grade domain was modeled excluding many 0.02 and 0.05 g Au/t (0.0006 to 0.0012 oz Au/ton) samples, particularly beneath the deposit where the boundary of the mineralization is not defined by abrupt grade changes. It is difficult to determine if the deep halo of low-grade mineralization is real, due to drilling conditions (*i.e.,* down-hole contamination) or both, because the grades are so low. This material deliberately left outside the modeled domains was classified as Inferred and was estimated with strong restrictions placed on the rare high-grade sample assays. The gold grades are mostly low and sub-economic under current economic conditions.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 329 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The high-grade domain greater than ~0.009 oz Au/ton lies almost exclusively within the multi-lithic breccia. It shows excellent visual continuity between drill holes, although the continuity of the higher grades within this domain is more variable. Based on variography studies (Section 14.3.3.2), the continuity ranges from 150 to 200 ft.

At Orla's request, RESPEC modeled a higher-grade domain above a cutoff grade of ~0.029 oz Au/ton within the high-grade domain. RESPEC had previously determined that the higher grades above this cutoff were not sufficiently continuous to be explicitly modeled, which proved to be the case, as the higher grades were not always distinctive from the high-grade domain assay population. Therefore, although the modeled higher-grade domains were retained in the model, the higher-grade domain blocks were estimated together with the high-grade domain (i.e. combined domain at >~0.009 oz Au/ton), using the same set of composites. Also, the statistics for all assays >~0.009 oz Au/ton are given in the high-grade domain portion of Table 14-22, and the higher-grade sub-domain is not considered separately. Because the high-grade domain has a low coefficient of variation (Table 14-22), and the higher grades are not extreme, there is little risk in combining the two assay populations in the high-grade domain. There is high confidence in this zone based on its geologic support and on analytical distributions lying within it. A typical cross section is given in Figure 14-12.

There are some zones of mineralization that seem to follow high-angle structures. The modeled fault surfaces were used to guide definition of high-angle mineralized domains. Because these are poorly defined and poorly understood, these high-angle volumes were classified as Inferred.

A number of holes have significant, often isolated intersections below the multi-lithic breccia contact and within the Devils Gate Formation. The lack of continuity of this mineralization, coupled with the lack of drill density in the Devils Gate requires that this mineralization in almost all cases be projected short distances downward and has been classified as Inferred.

After sectional interpretations were completed, the gold domains were snapped to drill holes and sliced on north-south-oriented long sections. The long sections are spaced at 30 ft, are located at each midblock in the block model, and are perpendicular to the 98.5 ft spaced cross sections.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 330 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img01.jpg)

**Figure 14-11**: Pinion Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14695611**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 331 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.3.3.2 Gold Sample and Composite Statistics

After the gold domains were defined and modeled on 98.5 ft spaced cross sections, the domains were used to assign gold-domain codes to drill-hole samples. Quantile plots were made of the coded assays. Capping for each domain was determined by first assessing the grade above which the outliers occur. Then the outlier grades were reviewed on screen to determine materiality, grade, and proximity of the closest samples and general location. Descriptive statistics were generated and considered with respect to capping levels. Capping values were determined for each of the gold domains separately. Capping levels and number of samples capped are presented in Table 14-24.

**Table 14-24**: Pinion Gold Capping Levels for Gold by Domain**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number\*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz** **Au/ton** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0379 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High grade |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0263 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* Excludes No Use samples (USEG = 1)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* Excludes No Use samples (USEG = 1)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* Excludes No Use samples (USEG = 1)* |

---

Once the capping was completed, the assays were down-hole composited to 10 ft intervals honoring domain boundaries. The composite length was chosen to avoid de-compositing small fractions of the original drilled sample intervals, which was predominantly 5 ft. Descriptive statistics of the composite database are presented in Table 14-25. The statistics for all composites >~0.009 oz Au/ton are given in the high-grade domain portion of Table 14-25, and the higher-grade sub-domain is not considered separately.

**Table 14-25**: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Gold Assay Composite Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;4426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.86 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;4379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;4379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1384 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;5705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.01 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;5630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;5630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;2651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.3071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;2642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;34640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.41 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;33349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;33349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 332 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Correlograms were built from the composited gold grades in order to evaluate grade continuity. Correlogram parameters were used in the kriged estimate, which was used as a check on the reported inverse distance estimate, and also to give guidance to the classification of mineral resources. The correlogram results by area and domain are summarized as follows:

<u>Low-grade gold domain</u> – The nugget is 40% of the total sill. The first sill is 45% of the total sill with a range of 23 to 49 ft depending on direction. The remaining sill (15%) has a range of around 82 to 131 ft depending on direction.

<u>High-grade gold domain</u> – The nugget is 55% of the total sill. The first sill is 35% of the total sill with a range of 53 to 66 ft depending on direction. The remaining sill (10%) has a range of around 148 to 197 ft depending on direction.

14.3.3.3 Gold Estimation

The block model is not rotated, and the blocks are 30 ft north-south by 30 ft vertical by 30 ft east-west.

Four estimates were completed: a polygonal, nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and kriged, with the inverse-distance estimate being reported. The nearest neighbor, inverse distance and kriged estimates were run several times in order to determine sensitivity to estimation parameters, and to evaluate and optimize results. The inverse distance power was three (ID<sup>3</sup>) for the low- and high-grade domain estimates, however, a power of four (ID<sup>4</sup>) was applied to the modeled higher-grade portion of the high-grade domain. The higher ID power is the only unique parameter applied to the >~0.029 oz Au/ton sub-domain estimate. The model was divided into 11 estimation areas (ESTAR) to control search anisotropy, orientation and distances according to the differing geometries of mineralization in each area during estimation. Table 14-26 lists these areas along with the search orientations and the maximum search per area by low-grade and high-grade domains. Figure 14-12 depicts the spatial relationship of the estimation areas to the drilling and the gold domains.

**Table 14-26**: Search Ellipse Orientation and Distances for Pinion Estimation Areas**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth**<br> **(degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation** **<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LG-Max<br> Search** **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**HG-Max<br> Search** **(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;980 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note : maximum distance is 196.85 ft for Indicated* |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 333 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img02.jpg)

**Figure 14-12**: Pinion Estimation Areas**

One estimation pass was run for each domain ranging up to 1,150 ft along the primary axis with a 4:1 anisotropy (major axis versus minor axis). Composite-length weighting was applied to all estimation runs. Estimation parameters are given in Table 14-27.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 334 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-27**: Pinion Gold Estimation Parameters**

(for all rotations/dip/tilt values, see Table 14-26)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies: major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00875 / 0.5 x max search |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3\*\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.175 / 0.66 x max search |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00292 / 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\* - Vertical search distance = 0.20 \* max search distance for ESTAR 2 and 11<br> \*\* - An ID power of 4 was applied to the modeled sub-domain >~0.029 oz Au/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* - Vertical search distance = 0.20 \* max search distance for ESTAR 2 and 11<br> \*\* - An ID power of 4 was applied to the modeled sub-domain >~0.029 oz Au/ton |

---

**14.3.4** Pinion
 Silver Modeling and Estimation

14.3.4.1 Silver
 Domain Model

Silver domains based on sample assays were modeled on cross sections spaced 98.5 ft apart, oriented east-west and looking north. The geologic model and gold domains guided the explicit modeling of the silver domains. Domains were defined based on population breaks on cumulative probability plots (Figure 14-13). The following grade ranges were identified and used for silver domains:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Low-grade silver domain: ~0.0012 oz Ag/ton to ~0.0583 oz Ag/ton, and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· High-grade silver domain >~0.0583 oz Ag/ton.

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 14-28. Core photos, where available, were reviewed, and were helpful in interpretations.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 335 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img03.jpg)

**Figure 14-13**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Deposit Silver Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 336 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-28**: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Silver Statistics by Domain**

(accepted sample data only)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;8095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;7805 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;5770 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;5697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;10218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.7 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;10027 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;7514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;7495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;66489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.5 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;63703 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;51986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.442 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;51976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core recovery\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;2156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;2156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*Core recovery and RQD data have not been audited and contain values exceeding the maximum of 100%. |

---

Prior to 2019, silver assays for the Gold Standard drilling were obtained from 20 to 30 ft composites of 5 ft pulps. For the 2019 PFS update (Ibrado et al., 2020), Gold Standard re-assayed pulps from original, un-composited intervals for all samples within the modeled deposit area. The horizontal shift in Figure 14-14 at 0.0073 oz Ag/ton represents an abundance (~19,000) of values at one-quarter of the 0.029 oz Ag/ton (1 g Ag/t) detection limit of the re-assayed samples. Original silver assays were performed using different analytical procedures at various detection limits of 0.015 oz Ag/ton (0.5 g Ag/t) or less.

Silver grades are generally similar in morphology and location to the gold and multi-lithic breccia. However, the silver domains are wider or narrower, or are less extensive in some areas, than the gold domains. Some low-grade to anomalous silver mineralization exists in the Devils Gate Limestone but is not modeled except in one area. Elsewhere, the drill-hole spacing is too wide to define silver domain continuity beneath the multi-lithic breccia. A typical cross section is given in Figure 14-16.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 337 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img04.jpg)

**Figure 14-14**: Pinion Silver Domains and Geology – Section N14695611**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 338 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.3.4.2 Silver Sample and Composite Statistics

After the silver mineral domains were defined and modeled on 98.5 ft spaced cross sections, the domains were used to assign silver-domain codes to drill-hole samples. Cumulative probability plots were made of the coded assays. Capping for each domain was determined by first assessing the grade above which the outliers occur, then the outlier grades were reviewed on screen to determine materiality, grade and proximity of the closest samples, and general location. Descriptive statistics were generated and considered with respect to capping levels, which were determined for each of the silver domains separately. Capping levels and number of samples capped are presented in Table 14-29.

**Table 14-29**: Pinion Capping Levels for Silver by Domain**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number Capped\*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.292 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.117 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Excludes No Use samples (USES = 1)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Excludes No Use samples (USES = 1)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Excludes No Use samples (USES = 1)* |

---

When the capping was completed, the silver assays were down-hole composited to 10 ft intervals honoring domain boundaries. The composite length was chosen to avoid de-compositing small fractions of the original drilled sample intervals, which was predominantly 5 ft. Descriptive statistics of the composite database are given in Table 14-30.

**Table 14-30**: Pinion Deposit Descriptive Silver Assay Composite Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;36452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.38 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;27940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.7200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;27940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;3943 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.81 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;2817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;2817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Silver Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;5451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.97 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;4030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.3370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;4030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.7500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.2520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AgCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

Correlograms were built from the composited silver grades to evaluate grade continuity, to use in the kriged estimate, and to provide a check on the reported inverse distance estimate, and also to give guidance to the classification of mineral resources. The correlogram results were similar to those for gold, so the same parameters were used and are summarized as follows:

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 339 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Low-grade
 silver domain – The nugget is 40% of the total sill. The first sill is 45% of the total
 sill with a range of 23 to 49 ft depending on direction. The remaining sill (15%) has a range
 of around 82 to 131 ft depending on direction.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· High-grade
 silver domain – The nugget is 55% of the total sill. The first sill is 35% of the total
 sill with a range of 53 to 66 ft depending on direction. The remaining sill (10%) has a range
 of around 148 to 197 ft depending on direction.

14.3.4.3 Silver Estimation

As was done for gold, four estimates were completed for silver: a polygonal, nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and kriged, with the inverse-distance estimate being reported. The nearest neighbor, inverse distance and kriged estimates were run several times in order to determine sensitivity to estimation parameters, and to evaluate and optimize results. ID<sup>3</sup> and ID<sup>4</sup> was applied to the low and high-grade domain estimates, respectively. The same 11 estimation areas used for gold to control search anisotropy, orientation and distances during estimation were used for silver (Table 14-26). One estimation pass was run for each domain ranging up to 980 ft along the primary axis with a 4:1 anisotropy (major axis versus minor axis). Composite assay values were weighted by interval lengths for all silver estimation runs. Estimation parameters are given in Table 14-31.

**Table 14-31**: Pinion Silver Estimation Parameters**

(for all rotations/dip/tilt values, see Table 14-23)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 9 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies: major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in g Ag/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0875 / 0.33 x max search |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Silver Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 9 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in g Ag/t) |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Silver Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Silver Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in g Ag/t and distance in m) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0233 / 30 |

---

14.3.5 Pinion Gold and Silver Resources

Mr. Lindholm classified the Pinion mineral resources considering the confidence in the underlying database, sample integrity, analytical precision/reliability, QA/QC results, and confidence in geologic interpretations. The gold classification was applied to the reported gold and silver mineral resources. The classification parameters for gold are given in Table 14-32. Although Mr. Lindholm is not an expert with respect to environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing or political matters, Mr. Lindholm is not aware of any unusual factors relating to these matters that may materially affect the Pinion mineral resources as of the effective date of this Technical Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 340 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-32**: Pinion Classification Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inside modeled domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum number of holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum number of composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Average anisotropic distance (ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Closest anisotropic distance (ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤35 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard drill-hole influence | &nbsp;&nbsp;≥90% | &nbsp;&nbsp;≥90% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;or | &nbsp;&nbsp;or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inside modeled domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum number of holes | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum number of composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Closest isotropic distance (ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;or |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inside modeled domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes | &nbsp;&nbsp;No\* |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum number of composites | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Closest isotropic distance (ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤65 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured and Indicated Reduced to Inferred if:** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured and Indicated Reduced to Inferred if:** | &nbsp;&nbsp;or |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Closest anisotropic distance (ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;≥100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;north area; high-angle areas |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Standard drill-hole influence | &nbsp;&nbsp;≤1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\*extreme pullbacks are applied on higher grades outside domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*extreme pullbacks are applied on higher grades outside domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*extreme pullbacks are applied on higher grades outside domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;\*extreme pullbacks are applied on higher grades outside domains |

---

As described in the table, the amount of influence that historical data has on a block affects the classification. For a block to be classified as Measured mineral resources, more than 90% of the sample influence must be derived from Gold Standard/Orla data. On the other hand, no block with the closest sample beyond 100 ft and entirely based on historical data may be classified as Measured or Indicated mineral resources. Under most circumstances the confidence of a block would be lower if it were based entirely on historical data. However, the drilling is very dense in areas dominated by historical drill holes, any suspect holes and samples have been culled, and multiple drill campaigns are mutually supportive. There are also areas where the geology and domains are more speculative, e.g., the northern area where the deposit is less well-delineated, and steep zones below the multi-lithic breccia. The classification in these areas, which were defined in the block model using 3D solids, is reduced to inferred.

The results of the QA/QC evaluation revealed a project risk that warrants additional comment. There is no QA/QC information for the historical drilling, and some of those data do not have supporting documentation. Consequently, the veracity of historical data relies on corroboration from nearby Gold Standard and Orla drilling, mutual support between drilling campaigns conducted by 11 historical exploration companies, and to a lesser degree, that most of the previous operators were reputable. As noted above, the lower confidence in historical drilling is taken into account in mineral resource classification.

Since the June 2, 2021 effective date of the database for Pinion used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 31, 12, and 11 additional holes were drilled in 2021, 2022 and 2023/2024, respectively. Data for these holes were received with finalized assays from Orla by the effective date of the current database of February 19, 2025, and have been incorporated into the current resource model. Gold, silver and barium domains were updated with the newer information. Of the 31 new holes drilled in 2021, eight were drilled at the LT target, and one was a geotechnical core hole drilled outside the modeled domains. Another three historical monitor wells were added to the database, and a new water well was drilled, all with no assays. Four new monitor wells were also drilled by Orla in 2024. Of the remaining 18 holes drilled in the Pinion modeled area in 2021, four have no assays and six are infill or twin holes that caused only localized, incremental changes to domains. Three were infill holes in areas with earlier wide-spaced drilling that generally confirmed the 2022 FS modeling, but locally widened, narrowed, and/or changed the vertical location of domains.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 341 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

There were five step-out holes drilled in 2021 that encountered mineralization to the south and southeast well outside or below the current optimized pit limits. Most of the 23 holes drilled in 2022 through 2024 effectively infilled and extended the Pinion mineralized zone to the south. Ultimately, the 2022 FS domains were extended southward, widened and/or grades were increased in the Pinion model. With the recent increases in gold prices, pit optimizations were extended southward to capture the newly delineated and classified gold mineralization.

Overall, the new holes added to the veracity of the 2022 gold domain model, and the lack of significant changes to the 2022 resource estimate where drilling was already dense adds to the level of confidence in the block model. Classification of material was elevated to Indicated and Measured with the delineation drilling to the south. No other changes in classification parameters were warranted for the current resources since essentially all of the Pinion mineralization in the optimized pit is classified as Measured or Indicated.

Mr. Lindholm reports the Pinion mineral resources at cutoffs that are reasonable for Carlin-type deposits of comparable size and grade. Technical and economic factors likely to influence the requirement "in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" were evaluated using the best judgement of Mr. Lindholm. For evaluating the open-pit potential, RESPEC modeled a series of optimized pits using variable gold and silver prices, mining costs, processing costs, and anticipated metallurgical recoveries. RESPEC used costs appropriate for open-pit mining in Nevada, estimated processing costs and metallurgical recoveries related to heap leaching, and G&A costs (Table 14-33). The factors used in defining cutoff grades are based on a gold price of $2,800/oz and a silver price of $33.00/oz.

**Table 14-33**: Pinion Pit Optimization Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost - Waste | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Incremental Ore Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Stacking | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leaching | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;tons-per-day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Variable Gold Recovery, Base Case = | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maximum Silver Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

The Pinion mineral resource estimate is the fully block diluted ID3 and ID4 estimate and is reported at variable cutoffs for open-pit mining. The cutoff for oxidized and transitional material is 0.003 oz Au/ton. There is no sulfide material reported for the Pinion deposit. Table 14-34 through Table 14-37 presents the estimates of the Measured, Indicated, combined Measured, and Indicated and Inferred gold mineral resources within the $2,300/oz Au pits. The breakdown of mineral resources by oxidation state is given in Appendix C. The base case reported resources at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton are in bold print in all tables. Representative cross sections of the gold and silver block models in the Pinion deposit are given in Figure 14-15 and Figure 14-16, respectively. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 342 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The metal prices used for resource reporting, pit optimizations and determination of the gold cutoff grade are derived from consensus commodity price forecasts as of September 2025 as provided by CIBC, and prices used to report resources recently filed on SEDAR+. When this current technical report was completed, several filed technical reports provided resources at gold prices between $2,500 and $3,000/oz Au. The spot price for gold was over $4,000/oz Au, and the three-year moving-average price was about $2,385/oz Au and rising. The spot price for silver was over $50/oz Ag, and the three-year moving-average price was about $27.75/oz Ag and rising.

Table 14-34 through Table 14-37, as well as the tables in Appendix C, present the Pinion mineral resources in pits optimized at $2,800/oz Au at cutoff grades both lower and higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton. The analysis is presented to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices. All tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton represent subsets of the current mineral resources. All tabulations at cutoff grades lower than the base case reflect the potential for increased resources at Pinion, although Orla is not relying on increases in gold prices or decreases in mining costs in the future.

**Table 14-34**: Pinion Measured Gold and Silver Resources\***

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2946000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;511000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2884000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;509000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2826000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;506000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2772000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;503000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2647000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;492000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2506000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;480000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2352000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;458000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2227000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;438000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2082000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;414000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1461000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;325000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;992000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;242000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;169000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;537000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;396000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;306000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;196000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 343 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-35: Pinion Indicated Gold and Silver Resources\***

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56350000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;881000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7015000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52979000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;871000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6915000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50262000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;862000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6791000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48158000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;854000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6675000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45564000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;841000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6522000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42937000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;823000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6330000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40175000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;802000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6089000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37264000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;779000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5799000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34596000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;752000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5533000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22363000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;601000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4014000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14033000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;457000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2777000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8851000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;342000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1903000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5760000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;257000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1308000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3921000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;199000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;919000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2648000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;655000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1859000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;470000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1322000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;335000 |

---

**Table 14-36**: Pinion Measured and Indicated Gold and Silver Resources\***

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59296000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;942000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7526000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55863000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;932000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7424000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53088000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;922000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7297000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50930000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;914000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7178000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48211000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;901000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7014000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45443000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;882000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6810000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42527000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;860000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6547000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39491000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;835000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6237000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36678000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;806000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5947000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23824000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;648000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4339000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15025000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;496000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3019000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9526000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2072000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6297000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1444000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4317000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;222000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1019000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2954000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;172000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;736000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2109000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;536000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1518000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;108000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;388000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 344 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-37**: Pinion Inferred Gold and Silver Resources**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1663000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1435000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1328000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1242000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1131000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1037000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;961000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;867000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;756000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;398000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;154000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The
 estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial
 tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ
 mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The
 base case reported mineral resources at a cutoff grade based on a gold price of $2,800/oz
 Au and a silver price of $33.00/oz Ag is shown in bold, and has an effective date of September
 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations
 at higher and lower cutoff grades than the base case are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
 to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations
 comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades within the $2,300/oz Au and $27.00/oz
 Ag optimized pits. Pit optimizations used a throughput rate of 20,000 and 12,200 tons/day
 for ROM and crushed ore, respectively; assumed variable metallurgical recoveries with base
 cases at 53% and 63% for gold for ROM and crushed ore, respectively; assumed variable metallurgical
 recoveries with base cases at 5% and 15% for silver for ROM and crushed ore, respectively;
 waste mining costs of US$2.20/ton mined; crushing, stacking and heap leaching costs of US$3.64/ton;
 and general and administrative costs of $1.14/ton.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations
 at cutoff grades higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton represent subsets of the current
 mineral resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations
 at cutoff grades higher than the base case reflect the potential for increased resources,
 although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from decreased mining costs or
 increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. The
 average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted
 grades within the optimized pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral
 Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred
 Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
 applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding
 may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 345 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img05.jpg)

**Figure 14-15**: Pinion Gold Domains and Block Model– Section N14695611**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 346 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img06.jpg)

**Figure 14-16**: Pinion Silver Domains and Block Model– Section N14695611**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 347 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-38 presents tabulations from the Pinion block model at a constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton at gold prices higher and lower than the base case for reported resources in Table 14-34 through Table 14-37. The constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is based on a gold price of $2,800/oz Au and a silver price of $33.00/oz Ag. The base case resources reported within a pit optimized at a gold price of $2,300/oz Au and a silver price of $27.00/oz Ag are the same as in Table 14-36 and Table 14-37, and are shown in bold print. Pits for each sensitivity case were optimized using the parameters given in Table 14-33 at variable gold and silver prices. Silver prices vary proportionally with gold price, and increase or decrease by $0.29/oz Ag for each $25/oz Au increment. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc. costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis. All oxide and transitional material at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations for all sensitivity cases. The analysis is presented solely to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating gold prices. All tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,300/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within the optimized pit within which current mineral resources are reported in Table 14-34 through Table 14-37. All tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,300/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources at Pinion, although Orla is not relying on these increases in gold prices in the future.

**Table 14-38**: Pinion Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sensitivity Case**<br> **Classification** | **Cutoff Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Tonnage**<br> **Tons** | **Gold Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Contained Gold**<br> **oz Au** | **Silver Grade**<br> **oz Ag/ton** | **Contained Silver**<br> **oz Ag** |
| Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $1,900/oz Gold and $22.50/oz Silver |
| Measured & Indicated | 0.003 | 26234000 | 0.017 | 453000 | 0.128 | 3345000 |
| Inferred | 0.003 | 644000 | 0.011 | 7000 | 0.055 | 35000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,100/oz Gold and $25.00/oz Silver |
| Measured & Indicated | 0.003 | 55047000 | 0.016 | 898000 | 0.131 | 7229000 |
| Inferred | 0.003 | 1016000 | 0.010 | 10000 | 0.064 | 65000 |
| **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** | **Base Case at $2,300/oz Gold and $27.00/oz Silver** |
| **Measured & Indicated** | **0.003** | **55863000** | **0.017** | **932000** | **0.133** | **7424000** |
| **Inferred** | **0.003** | **1435000** | **0.012** | **17000** | **0.077** | **111000** |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,500/oz Gold and $29.50/oz Silver |
| Measured & Indicated | 0.003 | 64620000 | 0.016 | 1017000 | 0.126 | 8155000 |
| Inferred | 0.003 | 2223000 | 0.011 | 24000 | 0.074 | 164000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver | Sensitivity Case at $2,700/oz Gold and $32.00/oz Silver |
| Measured & Indicated | 0.003 | 66531000 | 0.016 | 1040000 | 0.126 | 8359000 |
| Inferred | 0.003 | 2371000 | 0.010 | 25000 | 0.073 | 173000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The
 estimate of resource sensitivity cases was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in
 Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. All
 sensitivity cases were derived from the block model from which Pinion mineral resources were
 reported and are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. All
 sensitivity cases were tabulated within pits optimized using the parameters in Table 14-33
 at variable gold prices. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor,
 etc. costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. All
 oxide and transitional material at a constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined
 in the tabulations for all sensitivity cases.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations
 at higher and lower gold prices than the base case resources reported in pits optimized at
 $2,300/oz Au and $27.00/oz Ag, which are bolded in the table, are presented to demonstrate
 sensitivities to fluctuating gold and silver prices. All sensitivity cases are presented
 at a constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton, which is based on a gold price of $2,800/oz
 Au and silver price of $33.00/oz Ag.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations
 at gold prices lower than $2,300/oz Au and $27.00/oz Ag represent subsets of the material
 contained within the optimized pit within which current Pinion mineral resources are reported.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations
 within pits at gold prices higher than $2,300/oz Au and $27.00/oz Ag reflect the potential
 for increased resources, although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from
 increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral
 Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Inferred
 Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
 applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Rounding
 may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 348 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.3.6 Pinion Geo-Metallurgical

Four additional models, collectively called the Pinion geo-metallurgy model, were produced based on guidelines given from metallurgical test work and interpretations presented in Section 13: barium concentration (estimated within modeled domains), cyanide-soluble gold grade (estimated by rock units), refractory material (modeled 3D solids), and organic carbon grade (estimated by rock units).

14.3.6.1 Pinion
 Barium Domains and Estimation

The occurrence of barite and silicification seems to have significant impacts on gold recoveries. Consequently, a barium concentration (in lieu of barite) model was necessary for assigning gold recoveries to the deposit. The estimation of a silicification block model was also considered, but the available qualitative and logged geologic data was determined to be insufficient. There was no correlation demonstrated in a comparison of SiO<sub>2</sub> assays from metallurgical composites and the relatively larger XRF data set.

Metallurgical testing of drill samples included the ED-XRF-E5 method of analysis for barium; there are 938 analyses of this type that were performed at AAL on pressed powder pulp material. In addition, 21,747 NITON XRF analyses of barium were taken by independent contractor Rangefront Geological on loose powder pulp material. Since the PFS update (Ibrado, et al, 2020), Gold Standard obtained 16,162 new XRF assays in-house using NITON and Olympus units, and through AAL and Paragon Laboratories, including 1,209 and 884 in 2021/2022 and 2024, respectively. A significant low bias was noted in the NITON XRF compared to the ED-XRF-E5 analyses (Section 12.6.6) but since there are substantially more NITON XRF values, the larger data set was chosen for modeling and estimation. RESPEC developed a regression equation to factor the 938 ED-XRF-E5 measurements to NITON XRF equivalents and merge them with the 37,909 NITON XRF barium analyses as follows:

*NITON XRF<sub>eq</sub> = 0.5682 x ED-XRF-E5*

The R² for this equation is 0.96 but there are only 32 samples from which the relationship was built. After estimation into the geo-metallurgical block model, the estimated NITON XRF barium grades were refactored to ED-XRF-E5 equivalents to be comparable to the metallurgical data, using the following equation:

*ED-XRF-E5<sub>eq</sub> = 1.760 x NITON XRF*

There were a total of 38,847 samples analyzed for barium by either NITON XRF, ED-XRF-E5, or by both methods, which compares to 82,327 accepted gold samples. All NITON XRF barium analyses were plotted in a cumulative probability plot (Figure 14-17) and were used to define domains. No values factored from ED-XRF-E5 analyses are included on the plot. The resulting high-grade (>~6% Ba) and low-grade (~0.4 to ~6% Ba) barium domains were then modeled on 98.5 ft spaced east-west sections, as was done for gold and silver. The geologic model was the primary guide for barium domain modeling. Barium is spatially related to the multi-lithic breccia, which is generally tabular and folded into the Pinion anticline. Gold domains correlate reasonably well with the barium domains and were used as guides. The high-grade domain is spatially restricted to the north- to northwest-trending axis of the Pinion anticline within the mineral resource pit. Barium grade decreases along the crest of the anticline where it plunges downward to the south. Logged barite intensity data was used to augment the analytical barium data in supporting the domain interpretations. Sectional interpretations were then snapped to drill holes and sliced to north-south sections on every 30 ft mid-block in the block model.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 349 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img07.jpg)

**Figure 14-17**: Cumulative Probability plot of Barium (NITON XRF) Sample Grades at Pinion**

Descriptive statistics of the barium assay and composite grades by domain are given in Table 14-39 and Table 14-40, respectively. These samples were composited to 10 ft lengths. A representative cross section showing geology and barium domains is given in Figure 14-18. Estimation parameters are presented in Table 14-41.

**Table 14-39**: Pinion Barium Assay Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;17591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.83 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;8506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;8506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;1077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.78 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;66134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;187.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;29455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;29455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 350 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-40**: Pinion Barium Composite Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;4266 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.35 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;4266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;4266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;288 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.18 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Barium Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;14996 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.56 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;14996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Ba | &nbsp;&nbsp;14996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 351 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img08.jpg)

**Figure 14-18**: Pinion Barium Domains and Geology – Section N14695611**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 352 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-41**: Pinion Barium Estimation Parameters**

(for all rotations/dip/tilt values, see Table 14-23)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies: major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in %Ba/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.5 / 410 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Barium Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in %Ba/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Barium Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Barium Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 0.5 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in %Ba/distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 / 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;\* - Vertical search distance = 0.20 \* max search distance for ESTAR 2 and 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;\* - Vertical search distance = 0.20 \* max search distance for ESTAR 2 and 11 |

---

The average barium grade for the gold mineralization grading at least 0.005 oz Au/ton in potentially mineable material is ~2.65%. There are substantially fewer barium analyses than gold analyses, so the barium estimate has lower confidence than the gold estimate. If precision of barium grades is critical to the economics of the deposit, then additional samples with barium grades should be obtained.

14.3.6.2 Pinion Cyanide-Soluble Gold Model

A cyanide-soluble gold block model was produced using cyanide-recoverable gold shaker test results and fire assays of sample pulps (Figure 14-19). Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios were calculated from these two types of assays. ID<sup>3</sup> was used to estimate the Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio grades. Only Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios in which the fire-assay gold grades were greater than or equal to 0.0015 oz Au/ton were used in the estimation. There are relatively few cyanide-shaker tests compared to the number of gold assays, and where historical drilling is predominant, the data is limited to non-existent. There is also no quality control data associated with these analyses. As a result, the Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio block model is lower in confidence than the gold and silver block models. Otherwise, the estimation procedures, block dimensions, and methodology were generally the same as those used for the gold and silver models, with the exception of the items noted below in this section.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 353 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp13img09.jpg)

**Figure 14-19**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Pinion Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> Ratios**

The Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio block model augments the barite block model to further define metallurgical domains applicable to estimating gold recovery. Referencing criteria defined in Section 13, blocks with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of 65% or greater are considered to have relatively good recovery and are categorized as oxidized. Blocks with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of between 35 and 65% are categorized as transitional material and are considered to be moderately recoverable. Transitional and oxidized material are included in the reported mineral resources blocks, however, material with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of less than 35% are not sufficiently recoverable with cyanide processing to be reported. These criteria were used assign metallurgical codes into the resource block model, however, the codes were not ultimately used to apply gold and silver recoveries for pit optimizations and other engineering work.

14.3.6.3 Refractory Solids Model

The term "refractory" technically refers to material that contains sulfur and carbon species that render gold extraction difficult with cyanide processing. The 3D refractory solids were therefore modeled by RESPEC in order to provide input into metallurgical characterization and potential acid-generating properties. The refractory solids modeled at Pinion delineate unoxidized, sulfide-bearing material with carbon. Refractory zones within the solids generally correlate with material from which gold recovery is difficult as defined above using estimated barite grades and Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios. Zones outside the solids are generally consistent with the oxide and transitional metallurgical domains defined above.

Gold Standard initially modeled solids using a combination of logged data, which represents the most abundant data set, augmented by Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios. RESPEC modified these solids to include LECO sulfide-sulfur analyses. The contact of the resulting refractory solids is commonly abrupt and readily defined by the multiple data sets, which are rarely contradictory. Within the refractory solids, logged data indicates material is 30% or more refractory, Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios are generally much lower than 50%, and sulfide-sulfur grades are mostly in the tenths of a percent or higher. By far the largest volume of refractory material is deep, below the multi-lithic breccia and outside the pit defining potentially minable mineral resources. Within the volume of the potential open-pit, refractory material is mostly coincident with the Chainman and to a lesser extent the Tripon Pass Formation, but a small amount is also in the Webb Formation in the southwest part of the pit. All refractory material within a potential pit lies above the multi-lithic breccia that hosts the gold mineralization. There is some known refractory material which is not modeled within the solids below mineralization in the Devils Gate Limestone, because of the limited drilling, but that material lies below and is immaterial to the estimated mineral resources.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 354 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The refractory solids model and the data on which it is based support the inference that potentially lower-recovery material, or material with the potential for having acid producing qualities, are properly represented.

14.3.6.4 Organic
 Carbon Model

An organic carbon (CORG) block model was produced so that its potential effects on gold recovery could be investigated. Gold Standard/Orla provided LECO analyses of carbon and sulfur species for samples that varied between those on original core intervals (1 to 6 ft) to RC sample composites (10 to 35 ft). Assayed CORG values were used, or the values that were calculated from assayed inorganic carbon and total carbon. In the data received from Gold Standard/Orla, detection limit values were substituted for assays below detection. When CORG was directly assayed, RESPEC modified the below-detection assays per Stantec guidance, so that carbon species assays were equal to one-half the detection limit value. However, when CORG was calculated, no detection limit was assumed, and the resulting values were not modified unless negative values were produced (inorganic carbon calculated from CO<sub>2</sub>% > total carbon), in which case values of '0' were entered.

RESPEC evaluated CORG statistics by rock unit, refractory zone and barium zone (Table 14-42). The statistics in the tables are summarized according to categories chosen for estimation into the block model.

**Table 14-42**: Number of Samples and Mean Organic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by rock unit, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;2090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.309 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade Barium, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and<br> Devil's Gate Limestone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and<br> Devil's Gate Limestone** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All Data | &nbsp;&nbsp;1284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.653 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman and Webb Formations** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman and Webb Formations** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;2991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.292 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;1445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.601 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.631 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;730 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.930 |

---

Categories represented by only a small number of samples were evaluated on-screen with respect to location and volume of material to be estimated. If the volume in the block model to be estimated could be reasonably estimated without projecting CORG grades over extreme distances, they were estimated and are represented in Table 14-42. However, if unreasonable distances were required to estimate grades into model blocks, then values were assigned to those blocks rather than estimated. The assigned values (Table 14-43) were determined based on relationships between mean CORG values for categories that are well represented by data.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 355 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-43**: Assigned Organic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CORG** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CORG** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CORG** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CORG** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman and Webb Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman and Webb Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 |

---

The strongest correlation apparent in CORG statistics is an inverse relationship between rock unit, and refractory zone (in/out of modeled solids) and barium domain. Silica zone (in/out of modeled solids) also varies systematically in a similar manner to barium domains relative to rock unit, but not as strongly. The inverse correlations, with lower mean CORG values in more altered and oxidized rocks, are indicative of increasing baritization, silicification, and decarbonatization. Primary organic carbon associated with clastic and micritic units is essentially flushed out of the sedimentary rocks by mineralizing hydrothermal fluids and re-deposited elsewhere. In all samples, CORG values outside high-grade barium domains are triple the amount that occurs within. Similarly, mean CORG values are nearly double inside the refractory solids versus outside (oxidized). Primary controls applied to estimation for the multi-lithic breccia, the Webb Formation and Chainman formation are a combination of barium domain and refractory zone. No systematic differences were observed in CORG values for the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite or Devil's Gate Limestone, so both were estimated together using all respective contained data.

CORG contents were estimated into the Pinion block model, according to the categories described above. CPPs were evaluated by category for potential capping of assays. Only two were warranted (Table 14-44). Half the sample composites are ~3 ft in length, however, about one-quarter of the lengths are 30 ft. Given the large number of 30-ft sample lengths and the model block dimension of 30 ft<sup>3</sup>, assay sample data were composited to 30 ft.

**Table 14-44**: Organic Carbon Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Capped CORG** | **Capped CORG** | **Capped CORG** | **Capped CORG** |
| **Formation** | **Barium Domain** | **Refractory Zone** | **Capping Value (%)** |
| Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | All | All | 3.50 |
| Webb and Chainman Formations | Low-Grade and Outside | Refractory | 3.00 |

---

All estimates were done using the same search orientations and associated estimation areas as were applied to the gold and silver estimates (Table 14-26). The maximum search distance applied to most estimates for CORG was 980 ft. The maximum distance for a few runs was extended by up to 420 ft on a limited basis to fill in a small number of un-estimated blocks. Search ellipses were strongly anisotropic, with most major, minor, and vertical search distances at 980 ft, 980 ft, and 245 ft, respectively, and ID<sup>2</sup> methodology was used. Due to the relatively long composite length, the maximum number of composites, and maximum composites per hole allowed to estimate a block were limited to five and two, respectively. No search restrictions were applied to CORG, except for one in the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite/Devil's Gate Limestone (restricted >2.9% CORG within 250 ft, regardless of barium domain or refractory zone).

The LECO assays are relatively well-distributed within the deposit in potentially mineable pits at lower gold prices, but there are localized areas that lack data. Also, significant areas of pits at higher gold prices contain no LECO data. Estimated grades of CORG in these areas can be relatively far from assayed samples. To flag model blocks that are at relatively greater distances from assayed samples, Mr. Lindholm assigned a confidence code of '0' to all estimated blocks with closest composite more distant than 425 ft.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 356 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.3.7 Pinion Acid-Base Accounting
 Model and Estimation

An ABA block model was produced to characterize the acid-generating or neutralizing potential of mined waste material. RESPEC estimated CINO and SSUL into the ABA block model, and designated model blocks as either PAG or NAG. All ABA calculations and PAG/NAG designation criteria were provided by Stantec.

Gold Standard/Orla provided LECO analyses of carbon and sulfur species. The analyses were done on samples that varied from 1 to 6 ft for original core intervals, and for RC sample composites from 10 to 35 ft.

Mr. Lindholm evaluated the CINO and SSUL statistics by rock unit, barium domain and in/out of the refractory solids (Table 14-45 and Table 14-46). The statistics in the tables are summarized according to categories chosen for estimation. Because relationships between silica and barium contents relative to CINO and SSUL are similar, subsequent discussions regarding statistics and estimates in terms of barium domain also apply to the silica zones.

**Table 14-45**: Number of Samples and Mean Inorganic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by rock unit, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;2090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.242 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade Barium, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.389 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and <br> Devil's Gate Limestone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and <br> Devil's Gate Limestone** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;1275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.601 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman and Webb Formations** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman and Webb Formations** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;2990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.672 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains, Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;1445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.084 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade Barium, and Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;1606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.317 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 357 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-46**: Number of Samples and Mean Sulfide Sulfur Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by rock unit, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Multi-lithic Breccia** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;2214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.041 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All Data | &nbsp;&nbsp;1284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Webb Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Webb Formation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;573 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.200 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.211 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Chainman Formation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;2405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.087 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.677 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;844 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.334 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.384 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tripon Pass Formation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**# of Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean Value (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.068 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Outside Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.203 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory, Low- and High-Grade Barium Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.259 |

---

Categories represented by only a small number of samples were evaluated on-screen with respect to location and volume of material to be estimated. If the volume in the block model to be estimated could be reasonably estimated without projecting CINO and SSUL grades over extreme distances, they were estimated and are represented in Table 14-45 and Table 14-46. However, if unreasonable distances were required to estimate grades into model blocks, then values were assigned to those blocks rather than estimated. The assigned values (Table 14-47 and Table 14-48) were determined based on relationships between mean CINO and SSUL values for categories that are well represented by data.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 358 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-47**: Assigned Inorganic Carbon Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CINO** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CINO** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned CINO** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.57 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman and Webb Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman and Webb Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman and Webb Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.81 |

---

**Table 14-48**: Assigned Sulfide Sulfur Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned SSUL** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assigned Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade and Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Devil's Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 |

---

CINO statistics varied inversely and systematically by rock unit in combination with barium domain and silica zone (in/out of modeled solids). The inverse correlation is indicative of increasingly altered and mineralized rocks due to baritization, silicification, and decarbonatization. CINO values in the multi-lithic breccia and Webb and Chainman formations differ in each barium domain. In low-grade barium and outside the barium domains, CINO also varies by refractory zone (in/out of modeled solids). CINO contents in low-grade barium domains and outside modeled barium domains behave similarly compared to high-grade barium domains in the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite, Devil's Gate Limestone, and Tripon Pass Formation, and there is no distinction by refractory zone. SSUL statistics show strong relationships by refractory zone within the multi-lithic breccia. In the Webb, Chainman, and Tripon Pass Formations, SSUL varies by both refractory zone and barium domain. Statistics for SSUL in low- and high-grade barium domains are similar compared to outside barium domains in these units. No systematic differences were observed in SSUL values for the Sentinel Mountain Dolomite or Devil's Gate Limestone, so both were estimated together using all respective contained data.

CINO and SSUL contents were estimated independently into the ABA block model, according to the categories described above. CPPs for each species estimated were evaluated by category for potential capping of assays. Only one was warranted for CINO, and several caps were applied to the SSUL data (Table 14-49 and Table 14-50). Half the sample composites are ~3 ft in length. However, about one-quarter of the lengths are 30 ft. Given the model block dimension of 30 ft<sup>3</sup>, assay sample data were composited to 30 ft.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 359 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-49**: Inorganic Carbon Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped CINO** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped CINO** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped CINO** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped CINO** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capping Value<br> (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;High Grade | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.00 |

---

**Table 14-50**: Sulfide Sulfur Capping Values for Pinion Estimation Categories**

(by formation, barium domain, and zones inside [refractory] or outside [oxide and transitional] refractory solids)

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped SSUL** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capped SSUL** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capping Value <br> (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside Domains | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide and Transitional | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 |

---

All estimates were done using the same search orientations and associated estimation areas as were applied to the gold and silver estimates (Table 14-26). The maximum search distance applied to most estimates for both CINO and SSUL was 980 ft. The maximum distance for a few runs was extended by up to 420 ft on a limited basis to fill in a small number of un-estimated blocks. Search ellipses were strongly anisotropic, with most major, minor, and vertical search distances at 980 ft, 980 ft, and 245 ft, respectively, and ID<sup>2</sup> methodology was used. Due to the relatively long composite length, the maximum number of composites, and maximum composites per hole allowed to estimate a block were limited to five and two, respectively.

No search restrictions were applied to CINO, except for one in the high-grade barium domain of oxidized and transitional multi-lithic breccia (restricted >2.0% CINO within 500 ft). Two were applied to SSUL estimates in oxidized and transitional material outside barium domains, one in the Webb Formation (restricted >0.7% SSUL within 500 ft) and another in the Chainman Formation (restricted >1.1% SSUL within 500 ft).

Correlograms were generated to evaluate continuities in the data with respect to distance. These demonstrated reasonable continuity for CINO at ranges up to 1,210 ft in low-grade and outside the barium domains. There was not enough data to build meaningful correlograms in the high-grade barium domain.

Correlograms of SSUL data indicate continuity to a maximum of 330 ft, depending on refractory zone. As noted above, the maximum search distance applied to most estimates for CINO and SSUL was 980 ft. The maximum distance for estimation applied to SSUL was the same as applied to CINO. The relatively short continuity indicated by correlograms might preclude the application of longer search distances, but PAG/NAG designation is dependent on the estimated grades of both CINO and SSUL, and a significant portion of blocks would not be characterized as PAG or NAG. So, although there is lower confidence in the SSUL estimated values beyond distances of 330 ft, most blocks within potential open pits can be designated as PAG or NAG. This added risk was recorded as a block attribute.

The LECO assays are relatively well-distributed within the deposit in potentially mineable pits at lower gold prices, but there are localized areas that lack data. Also, significant areas of pits at higher gold prices contain no LECO data. Estimated grades of CINO and SSUL in these areas can be relatively far from assayed samples. To flag model blocks that are at relatively greater distances from assayed samples, Mr. Lindholm assigned a confidence code of '0' to all estimated blocks with closest composite more distant than 425 ft. This confidence code compensates for the shorter continuities demonstrated in correlograms for SSUL. Because CINO and SSUL were estimated according to different criteria, these codes were assigned separately for each, and a combined code was assigned if either CINO or SSUL confidence codes was '0'.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 360 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Like Dark Star, model blocks were designated as PAG (code of '1') or NAG (code of '2') according to criteria as defined by Stantec. First, ANP, AGP, and NNP values were calculated from estimated CINO and SSUL values. Next, a PAG/NAG designation was assigned according to criteria for four potential waste characterization scenarios, as shown in Table 14-19 located in Dark Star Section 14.2.6.

14.3.8 Pinion Clay Model and Estimation

Orla requested a clay model to determine the relative quantity of clay material that will be encountered and potentially affect crushing and grinding. A source of under-liner material for leach pads and waste dumps was also sought. According to Orla geologists, clay alteration or weathering at Pinion is found in in structural zones in the multi-lithic breccia but is limited in abundance and extent.

The only comprehensive clay data is subjective logging in drill holes on a scale from 0 (no clay) to 3 (strong clay alteration). Mr. Lindholm evaluated logged clay values statistically with respect to formation, gold and barium domains, silicification and redox. Based on the statistical analysis, clay was estimated in the following order:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. In high-grade barite domains,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In the silicification solid outside high-grade barium domains, and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The remainder by formation.

Because the logged clay data is subjective and the scale of the logging is broadly qualitative, the estimate is a very generalized representation of the clay content in the deposit. The values in the block model (0.00 to 3.00) provide a rough, imprecise estimation of the strength of clay alteration in a given area. The maximum search distance was limited to 150 ft, and un-estimated blocks were left as blank values.

**14.3.9** Pinion Density

All densities were measured using the immersion method by an independent laboratory. There are 654 density-sample measurements in the Pinion database within assayed intervals. Application of density values to the Pinion block model was dependent on numerous supporting modeled (formation/rock unit and silicification zone in/out of solids) and estimated (barium grade) criteria that have been discussed in various prior sections. The mean density values, and the values assigned to the units in the model, are summarized in Table 14-51.

**Table 14-51**: Density Values Applied to the Pinion Block Models**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silicification<br> Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnage Factor** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.57 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-barite | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low- and high-barium\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.72 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Multi-lithic breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-silica | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sentinel Mountain Dolomite | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.28 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low- and high-barium\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.42 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 361 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Barium Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silicification<br> Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of<br> Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnage Factor** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.68 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-silica | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.76 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.65 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low- and high-barium\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-silica |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.87 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low- and high-barium\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chainman Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-silica |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.92 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.62 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low- and high-barium\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-barium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Any |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripon Pass Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-silica | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.43 |

---

\* Both barium domains present in same block <br> Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (Density \* 62.4)

When the samples are parsed out by formation/rock unit, silicification zone and barite domains, the geologic features that most affect density, there are a reasonable number (in the tens) of samples representing each category with a few exceptions. The multi-lithic breccia, the primary host of gold at Pinion, is the best-represented unit with 192 density samples. For most combinations of formation, silicification domain and barite domain, there are least 15 density samples. Two categories, multi-lithic breccia outside barite domains and silicification solids, and Chainman Formation in the low-grade barium domain, are represented by the average of only ten and nine density measurements, respectively. Where five or fewer density samples were measured for a given category, the density values were evaluated and assigned using relationships of data from units with similar geological characteristics that are based on more density measurements.

**14.3.10** Discussion of Pinion Estimated Mineral Resources and Supporting Models

Pinion has a long history of exploration drilling dating back to 1981 and there is data from many drill holes of varying quality and reliability. Consequently, the estimators spent much time auditing, evaluating QA/QC information and sample integrity, and comparing drill campaigns through explicit modeling of domains. Overall, drilling results produced by the 11 historical operators tend to be consistent and are generally corroborated by subsequent Gold Standard/Orla drilling. The consistency between drilling campaigns adds confidence to the project assay data. However, many of the TCX holes drilled by Amoco in 1981 were eliminated from use in estimation because assay results conflicted with surrounding data.

None of the historical drilling has supporting QA/QC information and not all have supporting assay certificates. This lower-confidence data set was taken into account by downgrading classification of blocks that were entirely dependent on the historical data. However, the applied downgrade was not severe because all historical data was mutually supportive, except for the 1981 Amoco drilling.

Some contamination was noted by both RESPEC and Gold Standard/Orla, and suspect samples were eliminated from estimation. Below the main mineralized multi-lithic breccia body, it was not apparent whether low-grade sample intervals represented contamination or possible steeply-dipping extensions of grade along fracture zones below the primary mineralization. The evidence for contamination was not deemed to be definitive, so these samples were used in modeling and estimation, however, the associated blocks were classified as Inferred.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 362 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Since the June 2, 2021 effective date of the database for Pinion used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 54 additional holes were drilled from 2021 through 2024, respectively. Data for these holes have been incorporated into the current resource model, and gold, silver and barium domains were updated with the newer information. Of the 31 new holes drilled in 2021, 17 were drilled at nearby exploration targets, were geotechnical holes, monitor wells or water wells, or had no assays. Of the remaining 14 drilled into the modeled area, six are infill or twin holes that caused only localized, incremental changes to domains. Three were infill holes in areas with earlier wide-spaced drilling that generally confirmed the 2022 FS modeling, but locally widened, narrowed, and/or changed the vertical location of domains. There were five step-out holes drilled in 2021 that encountered mineralization to the south and southeast well outside or below the current optimized pit limits. Most of the 23 holes drilled in 2022 through 2024 effectively infilled and extended the Pinion mineralized zone to the south. Ultimately, the 2022 FS domains were extended southward, widened and/or grades were increased in the Pinion model. With the recent increases in gold prices, pit optimizations were extended southward to capture the newly delineated and classified gold mineralization.

Overall, the new holes added to the veracity of the 2022 gold domain model, and the lack of significant changes to the 2022 resource estimate where drilling was already dense adds to the level of confidence in the block model. Classification of material was elevated to Indicated and Measured with the delineation drilling to the south. No other changes in classification parameters were warranted for the current resources since essentially all of the Pinion mineralization in the optimized pit is classified as Measured or Indicated.

The Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios were calculated using cyanide-shaker test assays, which lack QA/QC samples, and were relatively few in number compared to standard fire assay data. The cyanide-soluble gold estimate is likely reasonable in a global sense. However, the ability to predict Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios locally is improbable. The Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio block model is therefore lower in confidence than the gold and silver block models.

Where silver was modeled, the ratio of silver grade to gold grade is around 7:1.

The Pinion deposit has clustered drill data, which can represent risk to the estimate. The clustered data lies within the open-pit limits where the highest-grade gold mineralization is present and mining will potentially take place. Inverse-distance and kriged estimation will have a tendency to project the clustered-sample distances into areas with lower sample densities. To reduce the effects of this data clustering, the inverse-distance power was increased to three for the low- and high-grade gold estimates, and a power of four was applied to the >~0.029 oz Au/ton material within the high-grade gold estimate. Still, the possibility remains that the estimated grades in areas of lower sample density, which were classified as Inferred, will be slightly lower in reality than what is presented herein.

For all classified material, RESPEC's mineral resource tons, gold ounces and silver ounces at the 0.003 oz Au/ton cutoff, which is based on a gold price of $2,300/oz Au and $27.00/ounce Ag, increased by ~2.0%, ~4.1%, and ~0.3%, respectively, compared to the resources reported for Pinion in the 2022 FS (Sletten et al, 2022). Average gold grade increased by ~2.0% whereas the silver grade decreased by ~1.7%. The increase in tons and ounces is attributed to the new infill, delineation and step-out drilling conducted at the south end of the deposit, where the gold and silver domains and optimized pit was extended southward. Also, the gold price of the reported optimized pit was increased from $1,750 to the currently reported $2,300. The decrease in gold and silver grades likely indicates that the newly added resources were of lower grade overall than the previously modeled material. The above comparison illustrates the changes in resources at a constant cutoff grade. However, the 2026 resource at a 0.003 oz Au/ton cutoff contains ~16.3%, ~7.1%, and ~3.8% more tonnes, gold ounces and silver ounces, respectively with a decrease in gold and silver grades of ~8% and ~10%, respectively, compared to the 2022 resource at 0.005 oz Au/ton cutoff.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 363 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

There is the possibility of additional risk that has resulted from the conversion from metric to Imperial units of drill-hole collar coordinates. Gold Standard, and later Orla holes were surveyed in metric units, so the direct conversion of northings and eastings using a factor of 1 m = 3.280833333 ft maintained the spatial relationship between these drill-hole data and associated geology modeling, domains and block model, which were also converted using identical values. However, it is believed that some historical drill collars were originally surveyed in feet and later converted to metric. Comparisons of metric and Imperial coordinates in the collar tables received from Gold Standard/Orla indicate conversion factors were inconsistently applied. Because values of northings and eastings are so large, discrepancies up to 150 ft can result by application of conversion factors that differ in the fifth decimal place. The risks associated with such potential discrepancies have been accounted for in the reduced classification of mineral resources in areas relying predominantly on historical data.

14.4 Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resources

This Jasperoid Wash estimate is based on data derived from drilling completed into 2024, through drill holes JW23-04, JWC23-05 and JW24-19. All gold data was received for the 2024 drilling by January 29, 2025, which is the effective date of the database. Although the gold estimate was completed as of February 26, 2025, the effective date of the Jasperoid Wash mineral resource estimate is September 30, 2025 when the reporting gold and silver prices were chosen and new pit optimizations were started. Gold resources are reported herein.

References to Tomera Formation equivalent stratigraphy have been noted historically. However, recent work suggests these units in the South Railroad property may not be of equivalent age, so all usage of Tomera Formation equivalent in this Technical Report refer to units that are Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated.

Following the Pre-Feasibility study of Ibrado et al. (2020), Gold Standard made a decision to convert all project data from metric to Imperial units. RESPEC (MDA at the time) converted all length data, including collar northings and eastings, from meters to feet (1 m = 3.280833333 ft), and assay grades from g/tonne to oz/ton (1 oz/ton = 34.285714 g/tonne). Section plane spacing, block model block sizes, and other modeling dimensions were changed. Specifics and ramifications of the conversions are discussed in various sections below.

14.4.1 Jasperoid Wash Database

The drilling was conducted by four companies since 1989, including Gold Standard, which began drilling in 2017, and Orla, which acquired Gold Standard in 2022. The Jasperoid Wash database includes holes drilled at the Dixie deposit, and consists of 150 RC holes (91% of footage) and 14 core holes (9% of footage) totaling 98,725.5 ft of drilling (Table 14-52). There are no historical QA/QC data for the historical holes, which currently represent 33% (24,136.5 ft) of the holes in the mineral resource database. A drill-hole map with an outline of the current reported resource is given in Figure 14-20.

**Table 14-52**: Summary of Drilling at Jasperoid Wash**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type of hole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drilled Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8805.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89920.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98725.5 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 364 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img01.jpg)

**Figure 14-20**: Jasperoid Wash Deposit Drill-hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline**

*Note: hachured area shows third-party inlier claims not controlled by Orla.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 365 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Descriptive statistics of all Jasperoid Wash drill-hole analytical data audited and imported into MinePlan by RESPEC are summarized in Table 14-53. There are no density measurements at Jasperoid Wash. Because there are so few core holes, core recovery and RQD data were not imported.

**Table 14-53**: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in Jasperoid Wash Mineral Resource Database**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;38539 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;38539 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;37974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00199 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;38380 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;37974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00474 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.3831 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;4679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.11782 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;4678 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

The Jasperoid Wash database contains 37,974 gold assay records (Table 14-53). No explicit determination of sample reliability was made because there was no indication of serious issues regarding sample reliability. However, three holes have long intercepts of mineralization that are anomalous relative to adjacent holes. These samples were used in the mineral resource estimate, but evaluation of these assays and/or additional drilling should be done to ensure that the results are reliable. However, if the assays prove to be unreliable, the impact on the mineral resource estimate would be insignificant.

Gold Standard's and Orla's drill-hole collar locations, downhole survey data, and gold analyses were verified as described in Section 12. There are few supporting certificates for historical drilling. The database contains logged geology, including rock types, formations, faults, vein type, silicification, clay, dolomite, barite, limonite, hematite, carbonate, sulfide percent, and percent reduced, all of which were imported. The logged geology was reviewed and used in modeling but was not audited.

14.4.2 Jasperoid Wash Geologic Model

Orla provided digital geologic interpretations as surfaces and 3D solids for faults, major sedimentary formations, intrusives and alteration. All geologic surfaces were interpreted in three-dimensional space by use of surface maps and down-hole drill data. Mr. Lindholm reviewed all sections and models provided by Orla, and when problematic areas were encountered, Mr. Lindholm worked with Orla geologists to produce a coherent, mutually acceptable geologic model.

Rock units coded into the model include: the Mississippian Tonka Formation (a conglomerate), the Pennsylvanian-Permian undifferentiated units (from oldest to youngest - lower siltstone and conglomerate), and Tertiary intrusive bodies. Mississippian Tripon Pass (oldest), Webb and Chainman Formations have been modeled beneath the Tonka Formation to fill in the block model, although drilling does not penetrate to depths necessary to define the contacts. The conglomerate of the undifferentiated Pennsylvanian-Permian units, which may correlate with units at Dark Star that are possibly Tomera Formation age equivalent rocks, is the primary host for mineralization. Mineralization is also hosted in the underlying lower siltstone of the undifferentiated Pennsylvanian-Permian units, but is less extensive. Where the deposit is structurally controlled, some mineralization penetrates downward into the Tonka Formation, and additional mineralization can be encountered within the intrusive bodies. RESPEC determined that Quaternary colluvium exists in insufficient quantities to impact mining and mineral resources, so it was not modeled. All geologic interpretations, in combination with assays and logged data, were used to guide gold domain modeling.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 366 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

There are five modeled faults within the north-south trending structural corridor at Jasperoid Wash that dip 65° to 75° to the west. Offset of geologic units was only interpreted by Orla along the two bounding faults on the east and west side of the zone. Intrusive rocks and argillic alteration follow the trend of the steeply-dipping structures, and is commonly modeled within and adjacent to interpreted faults. Outside the structural corridor to the east, intrusives and argillized zones are modeled parallel to stratigraphy. Some clay alteration is also modeled along bedding within the undifferentiated Pennsylvanian-Permian units within the structural zone. Two northwest-striking faults that dip 70° to 75° to the southwest were modeled east of the structural corridor, but no offset of formational units was interpreted.

14.4.3 Jasperoid Wash Gold Domains and Estimation

14.4.3.1 Gold Domain Model

Gold domains based on sample assay ranges were interpreted on sections spaced 98.5 ft apart, oriented east-west and looking north. The section spacing was originally 30 m. Domains were defined based on population breaks on the CPP for all gold data (Figure 14-21). The domain grade ranges were originally determined using assay data in g Au/t and converted to oz Au/ton. The CPP was remade to reflect Imperial units, however, some of the grade breaks apparent on the metric chart were not as readily apparent on the Imperial chart. The lower limit of the outer shell gold domains does not plot well on the CPP because the level of precision of the statistical package used is only three decimal places. Grade ranges converted from those originally determined in metric units were retained and used for modeling gold domains.

The lowest-grade domain limit is at about 0.0015 oz Au/ton, but its definition is unclear due to the high and variable gold-assay detection limits. A second domain was needed to control the higher-grade portion of the deposit that was evident in drilling on section. The low-grade/high-grade domain boundary is between ~0.0047 oz Au/ton to 0.0056 oz Au/ton, where a very subtle break occurs in the line on the CPP plot in Figure 14-21. There is also a higher-grade domain above ~0.0438 oz Au/ton, but these samples represent less than one percent of the data and there is no evidence of continuity.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img02.jpg)

**Figure 14-21**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Jasperoid Wash Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 367 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

During a site visit in September 2018, Mr. Lindholm reviewed core from JW17-01 and JW18-01. Gold Standard staff geologists provided guidance and expertise with respect to the geology of the deposit and the nature of gold mineralization during the visit. As is common with Carlin-type, sedimentary-rock hosted epithermal gold deposits, the relationships between gold mineralization and rock, alteration and/or mineral assemblages can be subtle and inconsistent. However, the following characteristics were commonly observed with respect to gold mineralization:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. In Carlin-type systems, higher porosity can be attributed to decarbonatization of calcareous sedimentary
rocks and coarser-grained sedimentary units. At Jasperoid Wash, the middle conglomerate is typically more decalcified than units above
and below;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Gold mineralization is commonly confined between less permeable units, such as in argillized fault gouges
or more clastic stratigraphic horizons;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Argillized areas often occur adjacent to felsic intrusive bodies and related zones of structural movement
or weakness. No visible sulfides were observed in argillized areas; however, a distinct and strong sulfur smell was noted in these zones
in JW17-01; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Mineralized areas outside argillic zones are dominated by limonite in fractures and moderate hematization
of host rock.

Descriptive statistics of assays by the modeled domains are presented in Table 14-54. No outlier grades in either domain were indicated in the data for Jasperoid Wash.

**Table 14-54**: Jasperoid Wash Descriptive Statistics by Gold Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std. Dev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Min** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Max** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;4086 |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;4086 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;4044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;4082 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;4044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;4044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;2301 |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;2301 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;2291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;2301 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;2291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;2291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;32152 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;32152 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;31639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;31997 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;31639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;31639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;1719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 368 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Geologic interpretations provided guidance for definition of gold domains. The mineralization in the eastern part of the deposit is stratiform and dips gently to the west. It becomes more steeply dipping to the west within the structural corridor where faults down-drop the stratigraphy to the west. Mineralization is commonly found along the margins and within intrusive bodies within the structural zone. Gold mineral domains were generally drawn parallel to stratigraphic contacts in the east and parallel to steeply-dipping faults, intrusions and argillic alteration to the west. The westernmost modeled fault, formerly called the MT thrust fault by Gold Standard, bounds the deposit on the west side. Silver was not modeled because the grades are too low to materially add to the resource. A cross section showing the interpreted gold domains is given in Figure 14-23.

After sectional interpretations were completed, gold domains were snapped to drill holes in three dimensions and sliced to 20 ft spaced mid-bench level plans and mid-block long sections for modeling in the structurally-controlled and stratiform mineralized zones, respectively.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 369 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img03.jpg)

**Figure 14-22**: Jasperoid Wash Zone Gold Domains and Geology – Section N14675822**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 370 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.4.3.2 Gold Composites Statistics and Capping

Jasperoid Wash gold domains were defined and modeled on 98.5 ft spaced cross sections and each domain was used to code drill-hole samples. Cumulative probability plots were made of the coded assays, which were reviewed to determine appropriate capping limits. Capping values were determined for each of the gold domains separately and were determined by first assessing the grade above which outliers occur. These outlier samples were then reviewed on screen with respect to grade and proximity of surrounding samples, geology, general location, and materiality. Assays in the Jasperoid Wash gold domains required no capping, but samples outside of modeled domains were capped to 0.0018 oz Au/ton.

After capping was completed, drill-hole samples were down-hole composited to 10 ft to respect the original 5 ft drilled intervals, which honors domain boundaries. Descriptive statistics were generated for all composites and were considered with respect to capping levels (Table 14-55).

**Table 14-55**: Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain for Jasperoid Wash**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;1220 |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1029.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;1220 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;1174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;1174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;775 |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;775 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0729 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0729 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;6899 |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1935.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;6899 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AU | &nbsp;&nbsp;6104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4899 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capped Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;6104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

Correlograms were generated from the composited gold grades in order to evaluate grade continuity. Correlogram parameters provided guidance for classification of mineral resources, and were applied to the kriged estimate, which was used as a check on the reported inverse distance estimate. The correlograms for the mineralized domains have a nugget at 30% of the total sill. The first sill is 30% of the total sill with a range of 80 to 115 ft depending on directions. The second sill is 40% of the total sill with a range of 100 to 260 ft depending on directions.

14.4.3.3 Gold Estimation

The block model is not rotated, and the blocks are 20 ft north-south by 20 ft vertical by 20 ft east-west. The block dimensions are smaller to those for Pinion and Dark Star because the deposit is both smaller and more lenticular. Only gold was estimated and is being reported.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 371 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Multiple iterations of four types of estimates were completed: polygonal, nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and kriged with the inverse-distance estimate being reported. The nearest neighbor, inverse distance and kriged estimates were run several times in order to determine the optimum estimation parameters. ID<sup>3</sup> was used for the outside and low-grade domains. ID<sup>2</sup> was used for high-grade domains.

The model was divided into three estimation areas (Figure 14-23) to control search anisotropy, orientation, and distances according to the differing geometries of mineralization in each area. The search orientations for each estimation area and the maximum search distances for gold domains are summarized in Table 14-56. Figure 14-23 shows the spatial relationship of the estimation areas to drilling and gold domains.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img04.jpg)

**Figure 14-23**: Jasperoid Wash Estimation Areas and Gold Domains in Cross Section**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 372 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-56**: Jasperoid Wash Search Ellipse Orientations and Maximum Search Distances by Estimation Area**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance** **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance** **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance** **(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth** **<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** **<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation** **<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside<br> Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: Semi-major search distance = major search distance; vertical (or minor) search distance = major search distance ÷ 2 (ESTAR 1) and ÷ 4 (ESTAR's 2 and 3)* |

---

One estimation pass of up to 1,000 ft was run for each domain. All estimation runs were weighted by the sample lengths. Estimation parameters are given in Table 14-57.

**Table 14-57**: Jasperoid Wash Estimation Parameters**

(for search orientations and maximum distances, see Table 14-7)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1/12/2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies: major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / varies 0.5 to 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1/12/2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / varies 0.5 to 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1/12/3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search (m): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 / 20 |

---

14.4.4 Jasperoid Wash Gold Mineral Resources

Mr. Lindholm classified the Jasperoid Wash mineral resources giving consideration to confidence in the underlying database, sample integrity, analytical precision/reliability, QA/QC results, and confidence in geologic interpretations. Overall, the quantity of Indicated material compared to total classified resources is relatively low at about 40%, primarily due to the wide spacing of ~350 ft between drill fences in most of the deposit. All material outside the cyanide-soluble gold solid was also classified as Inferred, due to the lack of metallurgical test work for refractory material at Jasperoid Wash. Classification parameters are given in Table 14-58.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 373 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-58**: Jasperoid Wash Classification Parameters**

---

| |
|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain, and |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 7 and isotropic distance ≤ 100 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 4 and isotropic distance ≤ 50 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 2 and isotropic distance ≤ 25 ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated Reduced to Inferred if:** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Isotropic distance ≥ 33 ft and drill-hole confidence code ≤ 0.5\*; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Isotropic distance ≥ 40 ft and outside cyanide-soluble gold domain |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain that is not Measured or Indicated; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All estimated blocks outside modeled domains, and closest distance ≤ 60 ft\*\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; *\*Confidence code of '1' assigned to holes drilled by Gold Standard with collar surveys and '0' to non-Gold Standard/Orla drill holes*<br> *\*\*A strong search restriction on composites ≥0.00. oz Au/ton within this distance (at 20 ft) was applied* |

---

As described in Table 14-58, the amount of influence that historical data has on a given block decreases confidence in the estimated grade and consequently the classification. Block grades estimated with composites beyond 60 ft based on 50% or more historical data are classified as Inferred mineral resources.

There is no historical QA/QC. Consequently, the reliability of pre-Gold Standard data, and therefore model block grades derived predominantly from historical data, is diminished and contributes to the low quantity of Indicated material in the model. Gold Standard and Orla did infill drill some areas where historical drilling dominated, so the risk is mitigated in these areas.

Upon acquisition of Gold Standard, Orla evaluated and made revisions to the Jasperoid Wash geologic model. The primary modification that caused changes to the gold domain model was a reinterpretation of the location of stratigraphic contacts and faults. However, the overall geometry of the mineralization associated with the structural corridor and the Undifferentiated Pennsylvanian-Permian stratigraphy was not significantly reinterpreted.

Since the October 6, 2018 effective date of the database for Jasperoid Wash used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 18, eight, nine and 19 additional holes were drilled in 2019, 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively. Data for these holes were received with finalized assays from Orla by the effective date of the current database of January 29, 2025, and have been incorporated into the current resource model. Gold domains were updated with the newer information. The most significant changes were made as a result of the newly interpreted fault locations in the geologic model, and in areas that had previously had very limited drilling.

Although the geologic model was modified by Orla, the veracity of the previous gold domain model could be evaluated with respect to the new drill data because the overall geometry of mineralization was not significantly changed, as noted above. The 2019 holes were drilled at the north and south ends of the deposit, and caused modest changes to gold domains in areas with minor mineralization. The 2022 drilling focused on specific targets within the primary mineralization in the structural corridor, and moderate changes were required. The four holes drilled in 2023 were exploratory. The most significant changes resulted from the 2024 drill holes, which infilled areas that previously had limited or no drilling in the relatively shallow, stratabound mineralization on the east side of the deposit. The changes to the gold domains were generally positive, and demonstrated continuity of mineralization where domains were not previously projected. Both tons and grade were generally increased in the infilled areas of the model.

Although the geologic model was modified and modest changes in the gold domains were made as a result of the 54 post-FS drill holes, an upgrade of some of the material to Indicated classification was warranted. The upgrade was justified by confirmation of the overall orientation and extent of the gold domain model within the structural corridor and parallel to bedding, and the addition of metallurgical test work on oxide material.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 374 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Infill drilling is still required to upgrade Inferred mineral resources to Indicated, particularly between the 350-ft spaced drill-hole fences. RESPEC evaluated the 2024 drilling with respect to the 2022 FS gold domains, and noted that the model was generally confirmed by new drill-holes drilled within 150 ft of older holes. Beyond 150 ft from drilling, the model was generally confirmed, but the thickness, extent and grade of low- and high-grade domains could vary significantly. Density data in sufficient numbers to properly represent the different lithologic and alteration types should be obtained. The density data should also be spatially representative.

Mr. Lindholm reports the Jasperoid Wash mineral resources at cutoffs that are reasonable for Carlin-type deposits of comparable size and grade. Technical and economic factors likely to influence the requirement "*in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction*" were evaluated using the best judgement of Mr. Lindholm. For evaluating the open-pit potential, RESPEC modeled a series of optimized pits using variable gold prices, mining costs, processing costs, and anticipated metallurgical recoveries. Mr. Lindholm used costs appropriate for open-pit mining in Nevada, estimated processing costs and metallurgical recoveries related to heap leaching, and G&A costs (Table 14-59). The factors used in defining cutoff grades are based on a gold price of $2,800/oz.

**Table 14-59**: Jasperoid Wash Pit Optimization Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost - Waste | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Incremental Ore Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Stacking | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leaching | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;tons-per-day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ oz produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

The Jasperoid Wash mineral resource estimate is the fully block diluted ID<sup>2</sup> (high-grade domains) and ID<sup>3</sup> (low-grade and outside modeled domains) estimate and is reported at variable cutoffs for open-pit mining. The cutoff for oxidized and transitional material is 0.003 oz Au/ton. Sulfide material is not included in the resources because no metallurgical test work has been done. No material is classified as Measured mineral resources. Table 14-60 and Table 14-61 present the estimates of the Indicated and Indicated and Inferred gold mineral resources within the $2,800/oz Au pits. The breakdown of mineral resources by oxidation state is given in Appendix C. The base case reported resources at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton are in bold print in all tables. A representative cross section of the gold block model at Jasperoid Wash is given in Figure 14-24. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The metal prices used for resource reporting, pit optimizations and determination of the gold cutoff grade are derived from consensus commodity price forecasts as of September 2025, as provided by CIBC, and prices used to report resources recently filed on SEDAR+. When this current technical report was completed, several filed technical reports provided resources at gold prices between $2,500 and $3,000/oz Au. The spot price was over $4,000/oz Au, and the three-year moving-average price was about $2,385/oz Au and rising.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 375 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-60 and Table 14-61, as well as the tables in Appendix C, present the Jasperoid Wash mineral resources in pits optimized at $2,800/oz Au at cutoff grades both lower and higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton. The analysis is presented to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices. All tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton represent subsets of the current mineral resources. All tabulations at cutoff grades lower than the base case reflect the potential for increased resources at Jasperoid Wash, although Orla is not relying on increases in gold prices or decreases in mining costs in the future.

**Table 14-60**: Jasperoid Wash Indicated Gold Mineral Resources**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Cutoff oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 6769000 | 0.009 | 58000 |
| **0.003** | **6211000** | **0.009** | **57000** |
| 0.004 | 5541000 | 0.010 | 54000 |
| 0.005 | 4922000 | 0.011 | 52000 |
| 0.006 | 4330000 | 0.011 | 48000 |
| 0.007 | 3596000 | 0.012 | 44000 |
| 0.008 | 2911000 | 0.013 | 38000 |
| 0.009 | 2279000 | 0.015 | 33000 |
| 0.010 | 1799000 | 0.016 | 29000 |
| 0.015 | 764000 | 0.021 | 16000 |
| 0.020 | 400000 | 0.025 | 10000 |
| 0.025 | 155000 | 0.029 | 4000 |
| 0.030 | 35000 | 0.036 | 1000 |
| 0.035 | 18000 | 0.041 | 1000 |
| 0.040 | 10000 | 0.045 | - |
| 0.045 | 3000 | 0.048 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 376 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-61**: Jasperoid Wash Inferred Gold Mineral Resources**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Cutoff oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** |
| 0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11991000 | 0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;84000 |
| **0.003** | **11086000** | **0.007** | **82000** |
| 0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9903000 | 0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;77000 |
| 0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8718000 | 0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;72000 |
| 0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7404000 | 0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;65000 |
| 0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5162000 | 0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;51000 |
| 0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2984000 | 0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;35000 |
| 0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1805000 | 0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;25000 |
| 0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1287000 | 0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20000 |
| 0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;531000 | 0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11000 |
| 0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;213000 | 0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| 0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;76000 | 0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| 0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;45000 | 0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| 0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21000 | 0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| 0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7000 | 0.042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The base case reported mineral resources at a gold price of $2,800/oz Au is shown in bold, and has an
effective date of September 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations at higher and lower cutoff grades than the base case are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades within the $2,800/oz Au optimized pits.
Pit optimizations used a throughput rate of 20,000 tons/day; assumed minimum metallurgical recoveries are variable for ROM ore; waste
mining costs of US$2.20/ton mined; heap leaching costs of US$3.64/ton; and general and administrative costs of $1.14 for ROM ore.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base case of 0.003 oz Au/ton represent subsets of the current
mineral resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base case reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from decreased mining costs or increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within
the optimized pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 377 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img1.jpg)

**Figure 14-24**: Jasperoid Wash Gold Domains and Block Model – Section N14675822**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 378 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-62 presents tabulations from the Jasperoid Wash block model at a constant cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton at gold prices higher and lower than the base case for reported resources in Table 14-60 and Table 14-61. The base case resources reported at a gold price of $2,800/oz Au and cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton are the same as in Table 14-60 and Table 14-61, and are shown in bold print. Pits for each sensitivity case were optimized using the parameters given in Table 14-59 at variable gold prices. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc.costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis. All oxide and transitional material at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations for all sensitivity cases. The analysis is presented solely to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating gold prices. All tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within the optimized pit within which current mineral resources are reported in Table 14-60 and Table 14-61. All tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources at Jasperoid Wash, although Orla is not relying on these increases in gold prices in the future.

**Table 14-62**: Jasperoid Wash Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sensitivity Case <br> Classification** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> Grade <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tonnage <br> Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold <br> Grade <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Contained <br> Gold <br> oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5246000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9394000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5833000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10419000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case at $2,800/oz Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case at $2,800/oz Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case at $2,800/oz Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case at $2,800/oz Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case at $2,800/oz Gold** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.003** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**6211000** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.009** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**57000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.003** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11086000** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.007** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**82000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7528000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13726000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8509000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15162000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9618000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17709000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of resource sensitivity cases was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial
tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. All sensitivity cases were derived from the block model from which Jasperoid Wash mineral resources were
reported and are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. All sensitivity cases were tabulated within pits optimized using the parameters in Table 14-59 at variable
gold prices. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc. Costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. All oxide and transitional material at a cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations
for all sensitivity cases.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations at higher and lower gold prices than the base case resources reported at $2,800/oz Au, which
are bolded in the table, are presented to demonstrate sensitivities to fluctuating gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within
the optimized pit within which current Jasperoid Wash mineral resources are reported.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 379 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Although Mr. Lindholm is not an expert with respect to environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, or political matters, Mr. Lindholm is not aware of any unusual factors relating to these matters that may materially affect the Jasperoid Wash mineral resources as of the effective date of this Technical Report.

14.4.5 Jasperoid Wash Geo-Metallurgical Model

A cyanide-soluble gold block model was estimated using Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios calculated from Au<sub>CN</sub> shaker test and total fire-assay gold assays. The Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios are plotted in the CCP shown in Figure 14-24. Cyanide-soluble gold domains were interpreted on east-west cross sections spaced at 98.5 ft intervals. The percent reduced attribute in logged drill-hole data was used when no Au<sub>CN</sub> values were available. A cross section showing the cyanide-soluble gold domains is given in Figure 14-25.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img06.jpg)

**Figure 14-25**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Jasperoid Wash Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> Ratios**

Only about 12% of all fire-assay gold values in the database have corresponding Au<sub>CN</sub> analyses (Table 14-53). Of the samples with Au<sub>CN</sub> assays inside modeled Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio domains, approximately 28% have Au<sub>CN</sub> analyses. Within the high-grade gold domain, which is a proxy for economic mineralization, ~72% of the gold assays have corresponding Au<sub>CN</sub> analyses (Table 14-54).

ID<sup>3</sup> was used to estimate the ratios. Only Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios for samples with fire-assay gold grades of ≥0.0015 oz Au/ton were used in the estimate. The Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratio block model is lower in confidence than the gold block model because no quality control or database auditing was done on the Au<sub>CN</sub> analyses, and due to the relatively few cyanide-shaker assays.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 380 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img07.jpg)

Note: clay zones tend to follow faults and intrusives in structural corridor

**Figure 14-26: Jasperoid Wash Geology and Metallurgical Models** – Section N14675822**

Referencing criteria defined in Section 13, blocks with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of 70% or greater are considered to have relatively good recovery and are categorized as oxidized. Blocks with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of between 50 and 70% are categorized as transitional material and are considered to be moderately recoverable. Transitional and oxidized material are included in the reported mineral resources blocks, however, material with estimated Au<sub>CN</sub>/Au<sub>FA</sub> ratios of less than 50% are not sufficiently recoverable with cyanide processing to be reported.

Search ellipses, orientations, and distances similar to those used for the Jasperoid Wash gold block model were used to estimate the cyanide-soluble gold ratios. The geo-metallurgical model can only be considered preliminary and is not sufficiently reliable to be used for mineral reserves.

14.4.6 Jasperoid Wash Clay Model

Clay contents were logged in drill holes by Orla and previous operators as intensities of 0 through 3, with 3 being the strongest. Metallurgical test work indicates that material with high clay contents may require agglomeration. Orla constructed a 3D solids model that delineates areas with a majority of samples with logged clay intensities of 2 and 3. The high-clay zones parallel the steeply dipping dikes and faults in the structural corridor. Clay zones were interpreted to follow bedding outside the structural corridor, and near the surface within the corridor.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 381 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.4.7 Jasperoid Wash Density

There were no density measurements available for Jasperoid Wash prior to 2022. Orla provided 55 density measurements from five core holes drilled in 2023 with the deposit database in 2024. However, RESPEC was unaware that these data existed until well after the effective date of the Jasperoid Wash mineral resource estimate and consequently did not evaluate and incorporate into the model. Since only five density measurements were known at the time, RESPEC considered that small quantity of density data to be insufficient for properly representing the different lithologic and alteration types at Jasperoid Wash. Mr. Lindholm, therefore, assigned density values to the gold block model based on similar rock units at Dark Star. Mr. Lindholm will evaluate and incorporate all new density measurements into future Jasperoid Wash model updates. The values assigned to the units in the block model are presented in Table 14-63.

**Table 14-63**: Density Values Applied to the Jasperoid Wash Block Model**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au<sub>CN</sub>** **/Au<sub>FA</sub> <br> Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Density**<br> **(g/cm<sup>3)</sup>** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm eq. - Siltstone | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm eq. - Siltstone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm eq. – Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tomera Fm eq. – Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusive Rocks | &nbsp;&nbsp;In | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusive Rocks | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tonka Fm – Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Out | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 |

---

Because clay alteration at Jasperoid Wash is locally strong and pervasive, the density values assigned according to Table 14-58 were reduced for blocks within the modeled high-clay zone solid. The densities of blocks at least 50% within the clay solid (Section 14.4.4) were modified by averaging the assigned value and a clay alteration density of 2.2 g/cm<sup>3</sup>.

14.4.8 Discussion of Jasperoid Wash estimated Mineral Resources

The Inferred mineral resource classification reflects the current level of geologic understanding and support for Jasperoid Wash. It is likely, however, that the estimated mineral resources are fairly estimated in the area of relatively dense drilling. The deposit is open to the south, north and east, so additional drilling could increase the resources as currently stated. Plan versus sectional volumes and cumulative-probability and quantile plots comparing polygonal, inverse-distance, kriged, and nearest neighbor estimates indicate that the mineral resource estimation is reliable. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

There are a few risks in the mineral resource estimate that should be noted. The most significant involves the geologic model. The orientations and continuity of the dikes, and consequently clay alteration, are not well known. The ramification is that there could be additional costs associated with processing material with high clay contents. Other risks include the lack of density measurements and the low number of cyanide-soluble gold assays in the deposit.

There is no historical QA/QC. Consequently, the reliability of pre-Gold Standard data, and therefore model block grades derived predominantly from historical data, is diminished and contributes to the low quantity of Indicated material in the model. Gold Standard and Orla did infill drill some areas where historical drilling dominated, so the risk is mitigated in these areas.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 382 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Although the geologic model was modified by Orla, the veracity of the previous gold domain model could be evaluated with respect to the new drill data because the overall geometry of mineralization was not significantly changed. Only the location of some lithologic contacts and offsetting faults were modified. At most, modest changes to gold domains in local areas resulted from the new 2019 to 2023 drilling. The most significant changes resulted from the 2024 drill holes, which infilled areas that previously had limited or no drilling in the relatively shallow, stratabound mineralization on the east side of the deposit. The changes to the gold domains were generally positive, and demonstrated continuity of mineralization where domains were not previously projected. Both tons and grade were generally increased in the infilled areas of the model.

Although the geologic model was modified and modest changes in the gold domains were made as a result of the 54 post-FS drill holes, an upgrade of some of the material to Indicated classification was warranted. The upgrade was justified by confirmation of the overall orientation and extent of the gold domain model within the structural corridor and parallel to bedding, and the addition of metallurgical test work on oxide material.

Infill drilling is still required to upgrade Inferred mineral resources to Indicated, particularly between the 350-ft spaced drill-hole fences. RESPEC evaluated the 2024 drilling with respect to the 2022 FS gold domains, and noted that the model was generally confirmed by new drill-holes drilled within 150 ft of older holes. Beyond 150 ft from drilling, the model was generally confirmed, but the thickness, extent and grade of low- and high-grade domains could vary significantly. Density data in sufficient numbers to properly represent the different lithologic and alteration types should be obtained. The density data should also be spatially representative.

There is the possibility of additional risk that has resulted from the conversion from metric to Imperial units of drill-hole collar coordinates. Gold Standard and Orla holes were surveyed in metric units, so the direct conversion of northings and eastings using a factor of 1 m = 3.280833333 ft maintained the spatial relationship between these drill-hole data and associated geology modeling, domains and block model, which were also converted using identical values. However, it is believed that some historical drill collars were originally surveyed in feet and later converted to metric. Comparisons of metric and Imperial coordinates in the collar tables received from Orla indicate conversion factors were inconsistently applied. Because values of northings and eastings are so large, discrepancies up to 150 ft can result by application of conversion factors that differ in the fifth decimal place. The risks associated with such potential discrepancies have been accounted for in the classification all gold mineral resources as Inferred. If higher classification is to be considered for future resource estimates at Jasperoid Wash, such potential discrepancies in areas relying predominantly on historical data should be considered.

14.5 North Bullion Deposits Mineral Resources

The North Bullion mineral resources are located within the North Railroad project, which is an extensive area that consists of several gold deposits at various stages of exploration and drilling. The terms "North Bullion deposits" and "North Bullion resources" refer to gold mineralization in the South Lodes (AREA code = 1), Sweet Hollow (AREA = 2,3), Sweet Hollow North (AREA = 4), North Bullion (AREA 5), North Bullion North (AREA = 6) and POD (AREA = 7) zones. Due to similarities in geometry of mineralization and location, South Lodes is commonly combined with the Sweet Hollow deposits for general discussion and statistics.

This North Bullion estimate is based on data derived from drilling completed into 2023, through drill holes RR23-17, RRC23-04, SH22-07, SHC22-02, POD22-17, and PODC22-02. All gold data was received for the 2023 drilling by December 22, 2023, which is the effective date of the database. Although the gold estimate was completed as of February 28, 2024, the effective date of the North Bullion mineral resource estimate is September 30, 2025 when the reporting gold and silver prices were chosen and new pit optimizations were started. Gold resources are reported herein.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 383 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Seven drill holes (6,860 ft) were drilled at the North Bullion deposit in 2024 and 2025, but were not included in the model update, and are not included in Table 14-57. No auditing or QA/QC evaluations were done on this data set. The 2024 and 2025 holes were evaluated with respect to the reported mineral resource estimate, the impacts of which are described in Section 14.5.6.

14.5.1 North Bullion Database

Since 1969, 14 companies have conducted exploration drilling at North Bullion, including Gold Standard, which began drilling in 2010, and Orla, which acquired Gold Standard in 2022. Of the known drilling types in the drill-hole database, 124 are core holes (34.5% of footage), 396 are RC holes (57% of footage), 37 are RC holes with core tails (14.5% of footage) and 45 are rotary (4% of footage), totaling 471,035.6 ft in 607 holes (Table 14-64). The drilling type for five holes (2,837 ft, 0.6% of total footage) is unknown or not documented in the database. There is no QA/QC data for the historical, pre-Gold Standard holes, which currently represent 62.5% (190,290.5 ft) of the holes in the mineral resource database. A drill-hole map with an outline of the current reported resource is given in Figure 14-27.

**Table 14-64**: Summary of Drilling at North Bullion**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** **of hole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drilled** **Feet** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Core | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;146661.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;396 | &nbsp;&nbsp;241813.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC/Core Tail | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62149.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rotary | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17575.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2837.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grand Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;471035.6 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 384 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img08.jpg)

**Figure 14-27**: North Bullion Deposit Drill-Hole Map and Mineral Resource Outline**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 385 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Descriptive statistics of all North Railroad drill-hole analytical data audited and imported into MinePlan by RESPEC are summarized in Table 14-65. In all, there are 38 drill holes with density data, which is ~7% of all drill holes. All but three of the holes are well distributed throughout the North Bullion deposit. Only two holes at Sweet Hollow and one at South Lodes have density data, and none at POD have density measurements. No core recovery and RQD data were received from Gold Standard or Orla.

**Table 14-65**: Descriptive Statistics of Sample Assays in North Bullion Mineral Resource Database**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std** **. Dev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;92128 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3623.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;92128 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3627.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;92128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.1 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;760.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;36937 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;83404 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.3717 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;73338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.6167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;291.690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Ag/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;4795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;1049 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;g/cm<sup>3</sup> |

---

The North Bullion database contains 83,404 accepted gold assay records (Table 14-65). The total number of rejected gold assays is seven. These records from four holes drilled by Royal Standard were rejected because they are composited intervals with lengths up to 135 ft.

A total of 73,338 of the accepted gold assay samples in the database have silver values, but 19,823 of these are values of "0", which could be below detection limit assays. Subtracting these zero-value assays, 53,515 (64%) have silver values that are above detection limits. Similarly, 4,795 sample intervals with gold analyses had values for Au<sub>CN</sub>. Of these, 2,835 were values of zero, leaving 1,960 (2.4 %) with values above detection in 68 holes.

Available collar locations, down-hole survey data, and gold analyses, primarily for Gold Standard/Orla data, were audited for verification purposes as described in Section 12. The database also contains logged geologic features, including rock types, formations, faults, vein type, silicification, clay, dolomite, limonite, hematite, carbonate, sulfide percent, and percent reduced (unoxidized), all of which were imported. The logged geology was reviewed and used in modeling the geology and gold domains.

14.5.2 North Bullion Geologic Model

Prior to the acquisition by Orla, Gold Standard had provided geologic interpretations of faults, formation contacts and refractory material as surfaces and solids for all North Bullion deposit areas (North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes). All geologic surfaces and solids were initially interpreted by Gold Standard on north-south cross-sections by use of surface maps and down-hole drill data. RESPEC expanded the fault and formation surfaces into areas between deposits to cover the entire block model area. To accomplish this, Gold Standard's surfaces were sliced and modeled on northwest-oriented sections, then new surfaces were made. Because the sectional polygons were snapped to drill holes in three dimensions, the proper drill-hole intercepts were honored by the surfaces. Finally, RESPEC combined the new upper and lower geologic rock unit and fault surfaces to produce geologic formation solids for coding the block model. The new sections, surfaces and solids were provided to Gold Standard for review, and when areas of disagreement were encountered, RESPEC worked with Gold Standard geologists to produce a coherent, agreed upon geologic model.

Coded formation units include the Mississippian Chainman Formation and Webb/Tripon Pass Formations, which are predominantly clastic sediments (although the Tripon Pass Formation is a silty micrite). The solid representing the Devonian Devil's Gate Limestone includes Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and upper Nevada Group rocks. Similarly, the Devonian Oxyoke Formation solid (calcareous sandstones) contains units form the lower Nevada Group. Tertiary units include the Elko Formation (conglomerate), Indian Well Formation (tuffaceous units), and Bullion stock intrusive body. Quaternary colluvium occurs locally in the model, and surfaces modeled by Gold Standard were snapped to drill holes and made into solids.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 386 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The modeled faults in the North Bullion area define a major northeast-striking, northeast-plunging horst that is part of the North Bullion Fault Zone (NBFZ). The NBFZ is about 985 ft (300 m) wide with apparent normal displacement on some structures greater than 1,970 ft (600 m) (Jackson et al, 2015). An open fold is centered on the horst. Several major offsetting horst faults were modeled by Gold Standard, including the Bullion, Massif, Carbonate High East, Carbonate High West, NE and N30E faults. Formation contacts, and consequently gold domains that follow bedding, were modeled as offsetting across these and other faults.

The refractory solid was reviewed on section with logged drill-hole data, including limonite, hematite, redox percent and sulfide percent. In general, the modeled solid was determined to be a reasonable representation of refractory material, and correlates to redox percent ≥50%. Some internal predominantly oxide material was noted within the solid, and some predominantly reduced material was outside the solid, but the majority of the data is properly honored. Solid boundaries also appear to be properly snapped to respective drill-hole intercepts in three dimensions. The only modifications made by RESPEC were to repair self-intersecting polygons resulting from verification errors, and removal of internal spikes that Gold Standard determined were introduced during solid construction.

The formation and refractory solids, as well as the fault surfaces, for the POD, Sweet Hollow, and South Lodes deposit areas were modified by RESPEC to new drilling for the current FS model. The formation and gold domain models in those deposit areas are offset along many faults in the NBFZ as originally interpreted. However, northeast of the Cherry Springs fault, Orla significantly reinterpreted the geologic model, primarily to exclude all but one offsetting fault (Bullion fault). As a result, there is a disconnect between the modeled geology on each side of the Cherry Springs fault. A significant volume of multi-lithic breccia, which was not well understood in prior models, was added to the North Bullion deposit geologic model. Gold domains at the North Bullion deposit were remodeled to reflect Orla's new geologic interpretations. Mr. Lindholm recommends that Orla normalize the geologic model across the entire North Bullion deposit area as either the previous heavily faulted horst structural corridor, or stratigraphy that is primarily folded with only a few offsetting faults.

The Webb and Tripon Pass Formations are the primary hosts for gold, although some mineralization extends upward into Chainman Formation, such as the POD deposit, and below into Devil's Gate Limestone. All geologic interpretations from both RESPEC's and Orla's models, in combination with assays and logged data, were used to guide gold domain modeling.

14.5.3 North Bullion Gold Domains and Estimation

14.5.3.1 Gold Domain Model

Gold domains based on sample assay ranges were interpreted on sections spaced 98.5 ft apart, oriented N40°E and looking northwest. The section orientation was chosen to be perpendicular to the overall strike of stratigraphy and mineralization, which are dipping ~15° to the northeast. Local dips can vary from moderately southwest to moderately northeast, however, stepped fault offsets or monoclines keep the overall dip at about 15° to the northeast. The POD mineralization is on the same strike but dips ~70° northeast. Domains were defined based on population breaks on CPP's made for gold data by deposit (Figure 14-28, Figure 14-29, and Figure 14-30). The domain grade ranges were originally determined using assay data in g Au/t and converted to oz Au/ton. The CPP's were remade to reflect Imperial units, but some of the grade breaks apparent on the metric chart were not as readily apparent on the Imperial chart. The lower limit of the low-grade gold domains does not plot on the CPP's because the level of precision of the statistical package used is only three decimal places. Grade ranges converted from those originally determined in metric units were retained (Table 14-66) and used for modeling gold domains. Descriptive statistics of assays by the modeled domains are presented in Table 14-67.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 387 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img09.jpg)

**Figure 14-28**: Cumulative Probability Plot of North Bullion Gold Assays**

**Figure 14-29**: Cumulative Probability Plot of Sweet Hollow Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 388 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp14img11.jpg)

**Figure 14-30**: Cumulative Probability Plot of POD Gold Assays**

**Table 14-66**: Modeled Gold Domain Grade Ranges, North Bullion Deposits**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Low-Grade**<br> **(oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Mid-Grade**<br> **(oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **High-Grade**<br> **(oz Au/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 to 0.0044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0044 to 0.0437 | &nbsp;&nbsp;>0.0437 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow, South Lodes | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 to 0.0073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0073 to 0.0437 | &nbsp;&nbsp;>0.0437 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 to 0.0088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0088 to 0.0277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;>0.0277 |

---

**Table 14-67**: North Bullion Descriptive Statistics by Gold Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std. Dev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;13272 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2720.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;13272 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2728.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;13272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;555.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;13272 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;12758 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.3036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;12758 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.1948 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;171.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;6520 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2232.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;6520 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2237.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;6520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.6 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;3204 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 389 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std. Dev.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;6262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7949 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;6262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7949 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;922 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;2043 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1950.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;2043 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1952.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;2043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.6 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;1154 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;1945 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;1945 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;501 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0431 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;From | &nbsp;&nbsp;70293 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3623.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;To | &nbsp;&nbsp;70293 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3627.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;70293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.2 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;760.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TYPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;26923 |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;62439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.9073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;62439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.2668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;1945 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

During a site visit in July 2020, Mr. Lindholm reviewed core from RR12-01A and RR13-08 from the North Bullion deposit, and RR10-12 from POD. As with Orla's more advanced projects, an effort was made to determine the geologic characteristics of each domain. Gold Standard staff geologists provided guidance and expertise with respect to the geology of the deposits and the nature of gold mineralization during the visit. The following characteristics were observed with respect to gold domains, and mineralization in general:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The Mississippian-age Tripon Pass and Webb formations are the primary hosts for mineralization. Overlying
Mississippian Chainman Formation and underlying Devonian Devil's Gate Limestone are mineralized as well, but to a lesser degree.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· As with Carlin-Type deposits in general, the geologic characteristics associated with grade domains are
not always readily apparent. Transitions between low-, mid- and high-grade domains can take place with no macroscopic change in alteration,
veining or mineralogy.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There is an association between higher gold grades and increased silicification, which is weak to moderate
at best. Higher gold grades are also associated with carbonaceous material, decalcification, sooty and clotty sulfides, barite, quartz
vein and breccia, crackle breccias, and especially multi-lithic breccia. Silica flooding and multi-lithic breccia development seem to
be important.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Gougy material and rubblized core often contain high to very high grades.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Sulfides are not always visible, but their presence is indicated by iron sulfates in older core.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· In RR12-01A, mid-grade domain assays are associated with non-descript mudstone and sandstone, rubbly core,
little silicification, but has locally abundant sooty and clotty pyrite in 0.5 to 2 ft intervals. Deeper mid-grade mineralization occurs
with weak to moderate silicification in siltier and sandier rock that contains almost no calcite. Crackle breccia is ubiquitous, and there
are only local concentrations of pyrite in breccias with quartz veins.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 390 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· In RR12-01A, the high-grade domain mineralization occurs as very soft black carbonaceous mudstone with
slickensides in hydrothermal graphite. It also contains abundant realgar and orpiment with calcite in veins, and silicification is weak
to absent.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· In the POD core hole, pyrite appears to be more abundant in higher-grade zones than in the North Bullion
deposit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Mid-grade domain assays in the POD hole occur in carbonaceous, soft, rubbly core that contains some sooty
pyrite. Higher grades are associated with black fine- to coarse-grained sandstone with weak and some moderate silicification. Sooty sulfides
and barite are present.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· In carbonate units, black rock with no limestone textures can be mineralized. Vuggy carbonate rocks with
calcite veins and more recognizable limestone colors and textures are generally unmineralized.

To summarize, gold mineralization increases with increasing sulfide content, breccia development and porosity. More favorable porosity is inherent in coarser-grained sedimentary lithologies or developed by structural preparation and/or decalcification. Structural preparation ranges from localized fractures to wider gouge zones, and to broad zones of fractures and stockwork breccias.

The overall geometry of the North Bullion deposits is stratiform mineralization within horst faults or antiforms. Southwest of the Cherry Springs fault, a horst block is defined on the northwest side by the northeast-striking Northeast fault, and on the southeast side by the north-striking North Bullion Corridor fault. Within the horst are the northerly-striking Massif, Carbonate High East and N30E faults, and the northwesterly-striking Carbonate High West fault. Northeast of the Cherry Springs fault, the Bullion fault defines the eastern side of the structural zone, and moderately west- to northwest-dipping stratigraphy defines the west side. The relationship between gold mineralization and major faults mapped on the surface or interpreted on section is not well understood. As at Dark Star, the primary horst-bounding faults or the limbs of antiforms appear to define the boundaries between strongly mineralized and weak to unmineralized zones, but there is no indication that mineralization occurs within faults.

The mineralization in Sweet Hollow and South Lodes is stratiform, and offset by various faults. POD mineralization is more steeply dipping, and occurs within the Chainman Formation, unlike the other deposits, which are hosted primarily by the Tripon Pass and Webb Formations. The contrary orientation and host unit is not fully understood. However, Gold Standard has modeled the POD South fault in the footwall of mineralization as a possible explanation. No offset of stratigraphy was noted across this fault by MDA/RESPEC modelers.

As noted in the previous section, geologic logging and interpretations, along with observations of core directly or in photos, were used to guide mineral-domain modeling. Mineral domains were generally drawn parallel to stratigraphic contacts, per guidance from Orla. Gold domains were offset across faults according to sense-of-movement indicated by Gold Standard/Orla or RESPEC interpretations. Schematic cross sections in the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow and POD deposits are given in Figure 14-31, Figure 14-32, and Figure 14-33 respectively. After sectional interpretations were completed, gold domains were snapped to drill holes in three dimensions and modeled to 10 ft-spaced long sections located at each mid-block plane in the block model.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 391 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img1sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-31**: North Bullion Deposit Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW3447.5**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 392 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img2sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-32**: Sweet Hollow and South Lodes Deposits Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW1773.0**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 393 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img3sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-33**: POD Deposit Gold Domains and Geology – Section NW3053.5**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 394 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.5.3.2 Gold Composites Statistics and Capping

The modeled gold mineral domains were used to assign codes to drill-hole samples. Quantile plots were made of the coded assays. Potential capping levels for each domain were assessed by identifying the grade above which outlier values occur. Applied capping grades (Table 14-68) were then determined after reviewing the outlier samples on screen with respect to grade and proximity of surrounding samples, geology, general location, and materiality. Descriptive statistics of sample assays by domain were also considered to evaluate the necessity for capping of assays (Table 14-68).

**Table 14-68**: North Bullion Capping Levels for Gold by Domain**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain Capping Grade (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain Capping Grade (oz Au/ton)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain Capping Grade (oz Au/ton)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow, South Lodes | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;POD | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 |

---

Once the capping was completed, the drill holes were down-hole composited to 10 ft intervals honoring domain boundaries. The 10 ft length was chosen to avoid de-compositing small fractions of the original 5 ft drilled sample intervals, which represent the vast majority of the sample lengths. Descriptive statistics by domain of the composited database are given in Table 14-69.

**Table 14-69**: North Bullion Descriptive Composite Statistics by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Valid** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Median** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mean** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Std Dev** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CV** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minimum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;6646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.98 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;6559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0790 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;6559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;3265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;3194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;3194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;562 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;1015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0389 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.2411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3381 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Length | &nbsp;&nbsp;36645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;33881 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.7220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au capped | &nbsp;&nbsp;33881 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN | &nbsp;&nbsp;929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.5114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;oz Au/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AuCN/AuFA ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 395 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Correlograms were generated from the composited gold grades to evaluate grade continuity. Correlogram parameters were determined and applied to the kriged estimate, against which the reported inverse distance estimate was compared. The evaluated continuity of grade also contributed to classification of mineral resources. The correlogram results by domain are summarized as in Table 14-70.

**Table 14-70**: North Bullion Kriging Parameters by Domain**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **North Bullion** | **North Bullion** | **North Bullion** | **Sweet Hollow/South Lodes** | **Sweet Hollow/South Lodes** | **Sweet Hollow/South Lodes** | **POD** | **POD** | **POD** |
| Kriging Parameter | **LG** | **MG** | **HG** | **LG** | **MG** | **HG** | **LG** | **MG** | **HG** |
| Nugget | 0.50 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.90 | 0.70 |
| First Sill | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
| First major range (ft) | 100 | 30 | 40 | 100 | 30 | 40 | 120 | 20 | 40 |
| First semi-major range (ft) | 80 | 20 | 30 | 80 | 20 | 30 | 130 | 50 | 70 |
| First minor range (ft) | 130 | 110 | 70 | 130 | 110 | 70 | 200 | 50 | 50 |
| Second sill | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 0.05 | 0.15 |
| Second major range (ft) | 1000 | 125 | 95 | 1000 | 125 | 95 | 200 | 130 | 80 |
| Second semi-major range (ft) | 1000 | 95 | 115 | 1000 | 95 | 115 | 240 | 160 | 130 |
| Second minor range (ft) | 1000 | 120 | 70 | 1000 | 120 | 70 | 210 | 170 | 80 |
| *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* | *Gold Domains: LG - Low-grade; MG - Mid-grade; HG - High-grade* |

---

14.5.3.3 Gold Estimation

The mineral resource block model is rotated to 310°, and the block dimensions are 10 ft by 10 ft by 10 ft. The small block size was utilized in order to evaluate underground-mineable potential of the resources. For open pit evaluation, the model was re-blocked using MinePlan's MSDART software to 30 ft by 30 ft by 30 ft blocks. Four gold estimates were completed for each of the three deposit areas: a polygonal, nearest neighbor, inverse distance, and kriged, with the inverse-distance estimate being reported. All the estimates, excluding the polygonal, were run several times in order to determine sensitivity to estimation parameters, and to evaluate and optimize results. The inverse distance power was three (ID<sup>3</sup>) in modeled domains. The model was divided into eight estimation areas (ESTAR) to control search anisotropy, orientation, and distances according to the differing geometries of mineralization in each area during estimation. Table 14-71 summarizes search orientations and maximum search distances associated with each ESTAR by domain. Figure 14-34 shows the spatial relationship of the estimation areas to the deposit areas, gold domains and drilling. ESTAR 4 is the background estimation area and is not shown as a solid.

**Table 14-71**: Search Ellipse Orientation and Distances for North Bullion Estimation Areas**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation <br> Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ellipse Orientation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maximum Search Distance (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation <br> Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Azimuth <br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip<br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation <br> (degrees)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-<br> Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside<br> Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*Note: ESTAR 4 is background. Semi-major search distance = major search distance. The vertical search distance in the low-grade domain = major search distance ÷ 3. The vertical search distance in the mid- and high-grade domains = major search distance ÷ 4.* |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 396 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img4sp15.jpg)

*(Non-transparent solids are estimation areas labeled with white numbers, transparent solids denote deposit areas)*

**Figure 14-34**: Spatial Relationship Between North Bullion Deposits, Estimation Areas, Gold Domains and Drill Holes**

One estimation pass was run for each domain, up to a maximum anisotropic search distance of 810 ft along the major axis. Search ellipse anisotropy varies from 1:1:3 to 1:2:4 (major versus semi-major versus minor axes). Composite-length weighting was applied to all estimation runs. Estimation parameters for each domain are given in Table 14-72.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 397 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-72**: North Bullion Estimation Parameters**

(for search orientations and maximum distances, see Table 14-71)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mid-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sweet Hollow, South Lodes - 0.080 / 50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Bullion Main and North, POD - 0.050 / 100 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High-Grade Gold Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 9 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.25\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;All except POD - 0.060 / 0.75 \* max distance |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Modeled Gold Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Samples: minimum/maximum/maximum per hole | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 / 12 / 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Search anisotropies (ft): major/semimajor/minor (vertical) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 / 1 / 0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance power | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;High-grade restrictions (grade in oz Au/ton, distance in ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 / 40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* - Exception: AREA 5, ESTAR 4 major to vertical axis search anisotropy is 0.33* | &nbsp;&nbsp;*\* - Exception: AREA 5, ESTAR 4 major to vertical axis search anisotropy is 0.33* |

---

**14.5.4** North Bullion Gold Mineral Resources

Mr. Lindholm classified the North Bullion mineral resources giving consideration to confidence in the underlying database, sample integrity, analytical precision/reliability, QA/QC results, and confidence in geologic interpretations. Orla conducted some metallurgical test work on refractory material, which allowed for upgrade of classification from the entirely Inferred mineral resources reported in the 2022 FS (Sletten et al, 2022). Additional cyanide-leach assays were performed for new drilling, but the data is still limited overall. Only six new density measurements were obtained, so the data is still limited as well. Classification parameters are given in Table 14-73.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 398 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-73**: North Bullion Classification Parameters**

---

| |
|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain; And |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 7 and isotropic distance ≤ 100 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 4 and isotropic distance ≤ 50 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Samples ≥ 2 and isotropic distance ≤ 25 ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In modeled domain; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All estimated blocks outside modeled domains, and closest distance ≤ 60 ft\* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated Reduced to Inferred if:** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Isotropic distance ≥ 33 ft and drill-hole confidence code ≤ 0.5\*\*; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Outside North Bullion Main and North, inside refractory zone, and isotropic distance ≥ 40 ft; Or |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;In North Bullion Main and North, inside refractory zone, and isotropic distance ≥ 85 ft |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; \*A strong search restriction on composites ≥0.004 oz Au/ton within 30 ft was applied<br> \*\*Confidence code of '1' assigned to holes drilled by Gold Standard and Orla and '0' to pre-Gold Standard drill holes |

---

Although adequate paper copy certificates were available to successfully audit the historical drill-hole data, there is insufficient information that would allow an evaluation of historical QA/QC data. This poses a moderate level of risk for the historical assays. Consequently, the reliability of pre-Gold Standard data, and therefore model block grades derived predominantly from historical data, is diminished and warrants a more restricted upgrade in classification from Inferred. This limitation was applied primarily to the Sweet Hollow, POD and South Lodes deposits, where the majority of drilling is historical. North Bullion drilling was predominantly done by Gold Standard and Orla.

Since the August 21, 2020 effective date of the database for North Bullion used in the 2022 FS of Sletten et al. (2022), 40 and 31 additional holes were drilled in 2020 by Gold Standard and 2022 by Orla, respectively. Data for these holes were received with finalized assays from Orla by the effective date of the current database of December 22, 2023, and have been incorporated into the current resource model. Gold domains were updated with the newer information. The most significant changes were made as a result of the newly interpreted geologic model at the North Bullion deposit, which consisted primarily of the removal of all but one offsetting fault, and the addition of a mlbx solid. Changes at POD, Sweet Hollow, and South Lodes as a result of the new drilling were not significant.

The veracity of the previous gold domain model at the North Bullion deposit could not be evaluated in detail with respect to the new drill data because the geologic model was significantly reinterpreted as noted above. Although the geologic reinterpretation was not triggered by the new drilling, the new drilling did provide a generalized confirmation of mineralization in the deposit. Also, low- to high-grade domains where mineralization was open to the southwest were extended, and in some cases widened. Despite the changed geology and the inability to verify the model in a local sense, the general confirmation of the model allowed for an upgrade of some material to Indicated classification. Also, the additional metallurgical test work, particularly on refractory material, indicated that recovery by heap leach methods is practical.

The majority of the new drilling was conducted in the POD and Sweet Hollow areas. Much of the drilling was step-out or exploratory, particularly at Sweet Hollow, and in some cases succeeded in extending gold domains. New drilling within the deposit areas generally confirmed the modeled gold domains, and caused minor, and locally moderate changes that did not significantly impact resources. A cluster of holes drilled into the core of the POD deposit not only confirmed the presence of high-grade mineralization, the domains were expanded overall. The confirmation of the POD and Sweet Hollow gold domain model, both in a general sense and locally, by the 71 post-FS drill holes allowed for upgrade of some material to Indicated classification. The addition of metallurgical test work on oxide material provided justification as well, however, only six new density measurements were added to the sparse density database at POD and Sweet Hollow, which limits further upgrades to classification for those deposits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 399 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Five drill holes were drilled at the North Bullion deposit and two in the South Lodes area in 2024 and 2025 (6,860 ft). These holes were evaluated with respect to the current gold domains, and it was determined that the estimated resources would not be changed significantly by the new data. Of the four new holes that had assays, were drilled in a model area, and reached the intended targets, any resulting changes would likely be extensions or widening of low-, mid-, and high-grade domains, and a possible increase in gold grade. No auditing or QA/QC evaluations were done on this data set, and no risk is posed by the exclusion of the new drill holes.

Mr. Lindholm reports the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD and South Lodes mineral resources at cutoffs that are reasonable for Carlin-type deposits of comparable size and grade. Technical and economic factors likely to influence the requirement "in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" were evaluated using the best judgement of Mr. Lindholm. For evaluating the open-pit and underground potential, RESPEC modeled a series of optimizations using variable gold prices, mining costs, processing costs, and anticipated metallurgical recoveries. RESPEC used costs appropriate for open-pit and underground mining in Nevada, estimated processing costs and metallurgical recoveries related to heap leaching and milling, and G&A costs (Table 14-74). The factors used in defining cutoff grades are based on a gold price of $2,800/oz. It is anticipated that refractory ore would be shipped to a processing facility off-site. Underground resources were ultimately reported within a 0.075 oz Au/ton grade shell extracted from the block model, from which open pit material and isolated blocks unlikely to be mined were removed.

**Table 14-74**: North Bullion Pit Optimization Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Roaster** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost - Waste | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Incremental Ore Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;-0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Transportation Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;40.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leaching | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;tons-per-day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ oz produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;% |

---

The North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes mineral resource estimates are the fully block diluted ID3 estimates and are reported at variable cutoffs for open-pit and underground mining. The cutoff for oxidized and transitional material in open pits is 0.003 oz Au/ton, whereas the cutoff for sulfide material is 0.017 oz Au/ton. The small amount of underground mineral resources outside open pits are Inferred and were reported at a cutoff grade of 0.075 oz Au/ton for refractory material. Table 14-75 through Table 14-83 present the estimates of the Indicated and Inferred gold mineral resources within the $2,800/oz Au pit and underground shells. The cutoff grade for the bolded base case resources is variable because the resources in the tables contain a mixture of oxide/transitional and sulfide materials. The breakdown of mineral resources by oxidation state is given in Appendix C. Representative cross sections of the gold block model in the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow/South Lodes and POD deposits are given in Figure 14-35, Figure 14-36 and Figure 14-37, respectively. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The metal prices used for resource reporting, open pit and underground optimizations and determination of the gold cutoff grade are derived from consensus commodity price forecasts as of September 2025, and prices used to report resources recently filed on SEDAR+. When this current technical report was completed, several filed technical reports provided resources at gold prices between $2,500 and $3,000/oz Au. The spot price was over $4,000/oz Au, and the three-year moving-average price was about $2,385/oz Au and rising.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 400 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 14-75 through Table 14-83, as well as the tables in Appendix C, present the North Bullion, Sweet Hollow, POD, and South Lodes mineral resources within $2,800/oz Au pit and underground shells at cutoff grades both lower and higher than the base cases of 0.003 oz Au/ton, 0.017 oz Au/ton and 0.075 oz Au/ton. The analysis is presented to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices. All tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base cases represent subsets of the current mineral resources. All tabulations at cutoff grades lower than the base cases reflect the potential for increased resources at North Bullion, although Orla is not relying on increases in gold prices or decreases in mining costs in the future.

**Table 14-75**: North Bullion Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8620000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8023000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7516000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;398000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7019000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;392000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6568000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;386000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6160000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;381000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5797000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;5657000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;371000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5498000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5239000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5010000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;361000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4799000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;357000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4218000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;344000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3894000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;336000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3667000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;328000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3462000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;321000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3250000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;312000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3011000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;914000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152000 |

---

**Table 14-76: North Bullion Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6749000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;287000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6134000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;281000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5597000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.049 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5159000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;269000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4779000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;264000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4448000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;259000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4178000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;255000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;4199000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;254000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3978000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;252000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3818000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;248000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3675000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3562000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.068 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3254000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;237000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3086000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;232000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2928000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2775000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;221000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2612000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;214000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2376000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;203000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 401 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-77: North Bullion Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Underground**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;695000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;612000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;538000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;459000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;378000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;302000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;215000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;164000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

**Table 14-78: Sweet Hollow Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2015000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1758000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;1707000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1496000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1294000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1174000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1090000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1008000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;915000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;801000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;402000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;116000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 402 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-79**: Sweet Hollow Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2338000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2099000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;2069000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1783000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1546000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1401000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1300000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1190000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1074000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;960000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;186000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

**Table 14-80: POD Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1313000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1245000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1196000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1152000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;1132000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1120000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1091000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1069000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1044000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1012000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;847000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;740000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;686000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;618000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;564000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;502000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;454000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 403 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-81: POD Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;906000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;808000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;752000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;718000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;691000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;variable | &nbsp;&nbsp;690000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;669000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;649000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;627000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;602000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;362000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;331000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;317000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;302000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;284000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;266000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 |

---

**Table 14-82: South Lodes Indicated Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;421000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;338000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;287000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;255000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;219000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;188000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 404 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-83**: South Lodes Inferred Gold Mineral Resources – Open Pit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz <br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;736000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;645000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;553000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;388000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;344000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;216000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of mineral resources was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. In-situ mineral resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The base case reported mineral resources at a gold price of $2,800/oz Au is shown in bold, and has an
effective date of September 30, 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Tabulations at higher and lower cutoff grades than the base case are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
to fluctuating mining costs and gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at variable cutoff grades within the $2,800/oz Au optimized pits.
Pit optimizations used a throughput rate of 20,000 tons/day; assumed minimum metallurgical recoveries are variable for ROM ore; waste
mining costs of US$2.20/ton mined; heap leaching costs of US$3.64/ton; transportation costs of $40.00/ton; and general and administrative
costs of $1.14 for ROM ore.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base cases of 0.003 oz Au/ton for oxide, 0.017 oz Au/ton
for open pit sulfide and 0.075 oz Au/ton for underground sulfide represent subsets of the current mineral resources.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations at cutoff grades higher than the base cases reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from decreased mining costs or increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within
the optimized pits.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 405 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img5sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-35**: North Bullion Deposit Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW3447.5**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 406 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img6sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-36**: Sweet Hollow and South Lodes Deposits Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW1773.0**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 407 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img7sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-37**: POD Deposit Gold Domains and Block Model – Section NW3053.5**

Table 14-84 presents combined tabulations from the North Bullion deposits block model at a constant cutoff grade of 0.017 oz Au/ton at gold prices higher and lower than the base case of $2,800/oz Au for reported resources in Table 14-75 through Table 14-83. Pits for each case were optimized using the parameters given in Table 14-74 at variable gold prices. All oxide, transitional and sulfide material at a cutoff grade of 0.017 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations for all sensitivity cases, and the different cutoff grades that would be applied to each redox type for reported resources are not taken into account. As a result, none of the tabulations in Table 14-84, including the sensitivity case at $2,800/oz Au, can be directly compared to the tabulations at variable cutoff grades in Table 14-75 through Table 14-83. Also, the potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc.costs is not factored into the sensitivity cases. The analysis is presented solely to provide information that allows for an assessment of the sensitivity of project mineral resources to fluctuating gold prices. All tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within the optimized pit within which current North Bullion deposits mineral resources are reported in Table 14-75 through Table 14-83. All tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources at the North Bullion deposits, although Orla is not relying on these increases in gold prices in the future.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 408 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-84**: North Bullion Deposits Sensitivity Evaluation by Gold Price at a Cutoff Grade of 0.017 oz Au/ton**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sensitivity Case**<br> **Classification** | **Cutoff Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Tonnage**<br> **Tons** | **Gold Grade**<br> **oz Au/ton** | **Contained Gold**<br> **oz Au** |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,400/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6276000 | 0.069 | 436000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 4027000 | 0.063 | 252000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,600/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6402000 | 0.069 | 439000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 4307000 | 0.062 | 268000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $2,800/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6695000 | 0.067 | 447000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 4860000 | 0.061 | 298000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,000/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6722000 | 0.067 | 448000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 4962000 | 0.061 | 304000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,200/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6814000 | 0.066 | 450000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 5179000 | 0.061 | 315000 |
| Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold | Sensitivity Case at $3,400/oz Gold |
| Indicated | 0.017 | 6850000 | 0.066 | 451000 |
| Inferred | 0.017 | 5290000 | 0.061 | 321000 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The estimate of resource sensitivity cases was done by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial
tons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. All sensitivity cases were derived from the block model from which the North Bullion deposits mineral
resources were reported and are classified in accordance with CIM Standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. All sensitivity cases were tabulated within pits optimized using the parameters in Table 14-74 at variable
gold prices. The potential for fluctuating mining, processing, materials, labor, etc. Costs is not factored into the sensitivity analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. All oxide, transitional and sulfide material at a cutoff grade of 0.017 oz Au/ton is combined in the tabulations
for all sensitivity cases, and the different cutoff grades that would be applied to each redox type for reported resources are not taken
into account.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. None of the tabulations in Table 14-84, including the sensitivity case at $2,800/oz Au, can be directly
compared to the tabulations at variable cutoff grades in Table 14-75 through Table 14-83.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Tabulations at higher and lower gold prices than $2,800/oz Au are presented to demonstrate sensitivities
to fluctuating gold prices.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Tabulations at gold prices lower than $2,800/oz Au represent subsets of the material contained within
the optimized pit within which current North Bullion deposits mineral resources are reported.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Tabulations within pits at gold prices higher than $2,800/oz Au reflect the potential for increased resources,
although Orla is not relying on increases that might result from increasing gold prices in the future.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and metal content.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 409 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**14.5.5** North Bullion Density

Application of density values to the block model is dependent on numerous modeled criteria that have been discussed in various prior sections. There are 1,048 density measurements in the North Bullion database. All samples were measured using the immersion method by an independent laboratory. The values assigned to the model, by rock unit (Section 14.5.2), gold domains (Section 14.5.3.1), and refractory zone (Section 14.5.2), are summarized in Table 14-85. Spatially, the North Bullion deposit is well represented. However, there is density data from only two core holes at Sweet Hollow and one core hole at South Lodes. There is no density data from the POD deposit.

**Table 14-85**: Density and Tonnage Factor Values Applied to the North Bullion Block Model**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Refractory<br> Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample<br> count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Density <br> applied to<br> model (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | **Tonnage <br> Factor <br> (ft<sup>3</sup>/ton)** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.83 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ddg - Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;LG, MG & HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ddg - Devils Gate Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;OD | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mtp - Tripon Pass and Mw - Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;oxide | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.08 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mtp - Tripon Pass and Mw - Webb Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;refractory | &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mc - Chainman Shale | &nbsp;&nbsp;OD & LG | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mc - Chainman Shale | &nbsp;&nbsp;MG & HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tiw - Indian Wells Tuffs and Sediments | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Te - Elko Fm | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;oxide | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bullion Stock | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.87 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Qc - Colluvium | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.87 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mlbx - Multi-Lithic Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;117\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* | &nbsp;&nbsp; *Gold Domain acronyms: LG - low-grade, MG - mid-grade, HG - high-grade, OD - outside modeled domains*<br> *Tonnage Factor = 2000 / (density \* 62.4)*<br> *\* - Multi-Lithic Breccia was previously not modeled and was included in other stratigraphic units. These samples were also used to define densities for host units in this table.* |

---

The newly modeled multi-lithic breccia at the North Bullion deposit was not well understood and was not modeled as a separate lithology for the previous FS (Sletten et al, 2022). The samples in mlbx were used to define applied density values for the host stratigraphic units for that model. Since only six density measurements were added to the database from 2022 and 2023 drilling, the applied density values were not changed for the current FS model. The number of samples shown in Table 14-79 for each stratigraphic unit includes the 117 samples also used to define the density value for the newly modeled mlbx.

In general, most formations that exist are well represented by density data. One exception is the Tertiary Elko Formation, for which there are only 12 measurements. There is no density data from the Tertiary Bullion Stock, so Gold Standard/Orla and RESPEC mutually agreed to apply a generalized average value for granodiorite. Quaternary colluvium also lacks density measurements at North Bullion, so the value used for the Pinion and Dark Star models was applied. As noted in Section 14.2.2, the Mississippian Tripon Pass Formation, which is primarily a micrite, and the Webb Formation, which consists of clastic sedimentary rocks, were modeled as a single unit. Because there are inherent differences in density for the two lithologic types, and these units are the primary host for mineralization at the North Bullion and Sweet Hollow deposits, there will be some risk associated with calculated tonnages for the units. Similarly, the Devonian Sentinel Mountain Dolomite and Upper Nevada Group rocks (also dolomite) are modeled with Devonian Devil's Gate Limestone. However, these units are below nearly all gold mineralization, and therefore pose no risk to the estimation of tonnages in the resources.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 410 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**14.5.6** Discussion of North Bullion Estimated Mineral Resources

The North Bullion deposits geology was modeled by RESPEC for the 2022 FS (Sletten et al, 2022). For the current FS model, the formation and refractory solids, as well as the fault surfaces, for the POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes deposit areas were modified by RESPEC to new drilling. The formation and gold domain models in those deposit areas are offset along many faults in the NBFZ as originally interpreted by RESPEC and Gold Standard. However, northeast of the Cherry Springs fault, Orla significantly reinterpreted the geologic model, primarily to exclude all but one offsetting fault (Bullion fault). A previously unmodeled mlbx zone was also added. As a result, there is a disconnect between the modeled geology on each side of the Cherry Springs fault. Gold domains at the North Bullion deposit were remodeled to reflect Orla's new geologic interpretations. Mr. Lindholm recommends that Orla normalize the geologic model across the entire North Bullion deposit area as either the previous heavily faulted horst structural corridor, or stratigraphy that is primarily folded with only a few offsetting faults.

The North Bullion mineral resources are fairly estimated in areas of relatively dense drilling, such as in the central cores of the North Bullion and Sweet Hollow deposits. The POD high-grade mineralization is tightly-defined along most of its strike-length. Plan versus sectional volumes and cumulative-probability and quantile plots comparing polygonal, inverse-distance, kriged, and nearest neighbor estimates indicate that the mineral resource estimation is reliable. Mr. Lindholm classified the North Bullion mineral resources giving consideration to confidence in the underlying database, sample integrity, analytical precision/reliability, QA/QC results, and confidence in geologic interpretations. Orla conducted some metallurgical test work on refractory material, which allowed for upgrade of classification from the entirely Inferred mineral resources reported in the 2022 FS (Sletten et al, 2022). Additional cyanide-leach assays were performed for new drilling, but the data is still limited overall. Only six new density measurements were obtained, so the data is still limited as well.

Optimized pits increase in size incrementally with gold price, generally less than 1%, but up to 2.5% for each $25 increase in price per ounce. A drastic increase in contained ounces of gold occurs at a $1,950/oz Au price, where the North Bullion deposit becomes viable via open pit at the applied parameters.

One of the risks in this estimate is the comparatively limited amount of metallurgical test work of the predominantly refractory mineralization. There is also limited test work characterizing the potential economic extractability of gold from oxide material. Orla has recently conducted some metallurgical test work on refractory material and obtained additional cyanide-leach assays, but further data is still required to properly characterize the recovery behavior of the North Bullion deposits.

Another risk is the absence of QA/QC data for historical drilling. Although most of the drilling in the North Bullion deposit was done by Gold Standard and Orla, a significant portion of the drilling for Sweet Hollow, POD and South Lodes was done prior to Gold Standard. Additionally, no geotechnical data was received from Orla.

There is the possibility of additional risk that has resulted from the conversion from metric to Imperial units of drill-hole collar coordinates. Direct conversion of northings and eastings using a factor of 1 m = 3.280833333 ft was applied to all collar coordinates. Gold Standard and Orla holes were surveyed in metric units; however, it is believed that some historical drill collars were originally surveyed in feet and later converted to metric. Comparisons of metric and Imperial coordinates in the collar tables received from Orla indicate conversion factors were inconsistently applied. Because values of northings and eastings are so large, discrepancies up to 150 ft can result by application of conversion factors that differ in the fifth decimal place. The risks associated with such potential discrepancies have been accounted for in the classification a significant portion of the gold mineral resources as Inferred. For higher classification to be considered for future resource estimates at North Bullion, such potential discrepancies in areas relying predominantly on historical data should be considered.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 411 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Although the North Bullion deposit is well represented, there is a minimal amount of density data in the Sweet Hollow, POD and South Lodes deposits. Most formations that exist in the block model are well represented by density data, however, only 12 measurements are available to characterize the Tertiary Elko Formation, and there is no density data from the Tertiary Bullion Stock and Quaternary colluvium. One potential risk exists because the Mississippian Tripon Pass and Webb Formations, which consist of micrite and clastic rocks, respectively, were modeled as a single unit. Because there are inherent differences in density for the two lithologic types, and these units are the primary host for mineralization at the North Bullion and Sweet Hollow deposits, there will be some risk associated with calculated tonnages for the units.

Seven holes (6,860 ft) were drilled in 2024 and 2025, but were not included in the model update. Five holes were drilled in the North Bullion deposit, of which three tested the gold domain model, one did not reach the depth of mineralization, and one had no assays. The holes that tested the model generally confirmed domains with minor to modest differences in width and depth of zones. The most significant confirmation of the model is in PR24-03, in which the width of high-grade mineralization intercepted was twice that predicted by the model. This intercept was in the current optimized pit, and could result in an overall increase in gold grade and resources in the area when incorporated into the model. The remaining two holes were drilled in or outside the South Lodes area and showed minor to modest differences, or would be inconsequential. It is important to note that any changes that would be caused by the 2024 and 2025 drilling would most likely manifest as local increases or decreases in the block model and would cause minor changes to the reported resources. The optimized pit at the North Bullion deposit could be expanded in a small area, but otherwise would not likely be affected.

The North Bullion deposit is well drilled in the central core, but infill and step-out drilling is needed in all compass directions to better delineate the mineralization and possibly increase the resources as currently stated. The shallow, high-grade core at Sweet Hollow is similarly well-drilled, although there appears to be potential for delineation and expansion of relatively lower-grade material laterally along bedding. POD is well-drilled with some areas at the northwest and southeast ends requiring some infill drilling, and the potential at South Lodes appears to be limited due to the generally low grades and depth of mineralization. Because the North Bullion deposits are generally flat-lying and restricted to specific stratigraphic units, there is no obvious target for high-grade mineralization at depth. However, a high-grade feeder structure is a reasonable conceptual exploration target.

To advance the North Bullion deposits, Mr. Lindholm's recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Acquire more density data, particularly in deposit areas where it is sparse or lacking altogether,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Compile core recovery and RQD data,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Perform further metallurgical test work, in both deeper refractory and oxide material. Test work should
be spatially, lithologically, and mineralogically representative.

**14.6** Pony
 Creek Mineral Resource Estimates

Orla Mining Ltd. (Orla) engaged APEX Geoscience Ltd. (APEX) to prepare a Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Pony Creek Gold Project (Pony Creek). This section details the 2025 Pony Creek MRE with an effective date of May 20, 2025. The MRE was completed by Warren Black, M.Sc., P.Geol., Senior Consultant: Mineral Resources and Geostatistics with APEX and Kevin Hon, B.Sc., P.Geol., Senior Geologist with APEX. Mr. Black is an independent Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101 and takes responsibility for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE and Section 14 herein. Tyler Acorn, M.Sc., Senior Geostatistician with APEX, completed a peer review.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 412 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The workflow implemented for the calculation of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE was completed using Micromine commercial resource modelling and mine planning software (v2025.0), Leapfrog Geo software package (v2024.1.3), Resource Modelling Solutions Platform (RMSP; v1.17), and Deswik CAD pit optimization (v2024.1). Supplementary data analysis was completed using the Anaconda Python distribution and a custom Python package developed by APEX.

Mineral Resource modelling was conducted in NAD27 / BLM 11N (ftUS) Coordinate System (EPSG:4411). The MRE utilized a block model with a size of 20 ft (X) by 20 ft (Y) by 10 ft (Z) to honor the mineralization wireframes for estimation. Gold (Au) grades were estimated for each block using Ordinary Kriging (OK) with locally varying anisotropy (LVA) to ensure that grade continuity in various directions is reproduced in the block model. The MRE is reported as undiluted. Details regarding the methodology used to calculate the 2025 Pony Creek MRE are provided in this section.

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE is reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators' NI 43-101 rules for disclosure and has been estimated using the CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines" dated November 29, 2019, and CIM "Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" dated May 10, 2014.

**14.6.1** Drillhole Description

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE drillhole database consists of a total of 280 drillholes that intersect the mineralization domains. The drilling inside the mineralization domains is summarized in Table 14-86. There are 48,128.30 ft of drilling within the estimation domains. Any sample intervals with explicit documentation that drilling did not return enough material to allow for analysis are classified as insufficient recovery (IR) and left blank. Portions of drillholes that were not sampled, are missing from the assay database, or are recorded with zero values are assumed to be unmineralized. These intervals are assigned a nominal waste value, set at half the detection limit of modern assay methods, as summarized in Table 14-87.

**Table 14-86**: Summary of drilling inside the mineralized estimation domains for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE drillhole database.**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Drillholes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Length<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Non-Null Assays** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11279.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2206 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28784.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5577 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;205.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Palomino | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ponyspur | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1280.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;252 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6065.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1212 |

---

**Table 14-87**: Nominal waste values assigned to unsampled intervals in the 2025 Pony Creek MRE drillhole database and inside the estimation domains.**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Nominal Au Waste<br> (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Length Not Sampled and<br> Assumed Unmineralized<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**% Not Sampled** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Zero Assays** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mustang | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Palomino | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ponyspur | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 413 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.6.1.1 Data Verification

APEX validated the Mineral Resource database by checking for inconsistencies in analytical units, duplicate entries, interval, length, or distance values less than or equal to zero, blank or zero-value assay results, out-of-sequence intervals, intervals or distances greater than the reported drillhole length, inappropriate collar locations, survey and missing interval and coordinate fields. A small number of errors were identified and corrected in the database. A detailed discussion on the verification of historical drillhole data is provided in Sections 11 and 12. The drillhole database is considered suitable for further evaluation and mineral resource estimation.

**14.6.2** Estimation Domain Interpretation

Estimation domains were interpreted with reference to geological features, which control mineralization. The subsections below describe the framework used to construct these domains.

14.6.2.1 Geological Controls on estimation Domain Modelling

The construction of estimation domains is guided by key geological controls that influence the distribution, orientation, and continuity of mineralized zones, reflecting relationships between stratigraphy, intrusive units, and structural features. These geological features, which inform the interpretation of domains, are summarized in Table 14-88.

**Table 14-88**: Summary of geological features relevant to domain interpretation.**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**MRE Importance** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sub horizontal mineralization parallel to bedding or structures hosted in sediments and the upper portion of the rhyolite intrusion. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sub-horizontal mineralized features |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Vertical feeder zones of rhyolite–sediment contact acting as a fluid flow conduit. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Feeder zones at both Appaloosa and Bowl. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Deep-central intrusion-hosted mineralization. | &nbsp;&nbsp;The main mineralized unit in structural corridors. |

---

14.6.2.2 Domain Construction

Domains were constructed using a nominal lower cutoff of 0.07 g/t Au, guided by the geological features described in Section 14.6.2.1. Estimation wireframes were developed through implicit modelling and domain coding (Figure 14-38 to Figure 14-40), ensuring each domain captured consistent mineralization styles while respecting geological controls on orientation and continuity. Intervals without mineralization were classified as waste. Table 14-89 briefly summarizes each domain.

**Table 14-89**: Estimation Domain Descriptions**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dip** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Control** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sub horizontal bedding parallel zones in intrusion and sediments. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Shallow | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stratigraphic | &nbsp;&nbsp;ap0, ap1, ap2, ap2a, ap3, ap3w, ap4a, ap4b, ap4w, ap5, ap5a, ap5b, ap5c, ap5d, ap5e, b1, b1e, b2, b2e, b2w, b3, b3e, b3w, b4, b4e, b4w, b5e, b5w, b6w, mu1, mu2, pal1, pal2, ps1, ps2, ps3, ps4, ste1, ste2, ste3, ste4, stn1, stn2, stn3, sts1, sts2, sts2a |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Feeder vertical intrusion–sediment contact zones | &nbsp;&nbsp;Steep to Shallow | &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact | &nbsp;&nbsp;apfz, bfe, bfw |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Deep central intrusion-hosted mineralization | &nbsp;&nbsp;Steep | &nbsp;&nbsp;Structural | &nbsp;&nbsp;bcenter |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 414 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img8sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-38**: Plan view of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 415 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img9sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-39: Orthogonal view of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 416 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img10sp15.jpg)

Note: Black polygons delineate cross-sectional views of the estimation domains.

**Figure 14-40**: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE estimation domains and geological model at the Bowl Zone looking north along 14,655,600N illustrating estimated grades**

14.6.2.3 Bulk Density

Density measurements were collected from 66 core samples between 2005 and 2017, and 5 core samples in 1985. Multiple measurements were collected within the conglomerate, intrusive, sandstone, and siltstone units, with only a single measurement from the other geological units. Correlation of density to gold grade was evaluated globally and within each geological unit. No significant correlation between gold grade and density was observed. The mean density value from each unit was assigned to the block model based on the majority unit within each block (Table 14-90).

**Table 14-90**: Median bulk density for each density domain**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Geological Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bulk Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bulk Density (ston/ft<sup>3</sup>)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Conglomerate, Indian Wells, Limestone, Siltstone | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07803 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sandstone | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07647 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusive | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07928 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Overburden | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05931 |

---

14.6.2.4 Raw Analytical Data

Table 14-91 presents the summary statistics for the raw (uncomposited) assays from sample intervals within the estimation domains. The assays within each estimation domain exhibit a single coherent statistical population.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 417 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-91**: Raw assay statistics for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Country <br> Rock** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Appaloosa** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Stallion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bowl** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Palomino** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ponyspur** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mustang** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Count | &nbsp;&nbsp;32893 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mean | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.438 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Standard Deviation | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.233 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coefficient of Variation | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.472 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.471 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.060 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.049 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;25 Percentile | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.087 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;50 Percentile (Median) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.129 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;75 Percentile | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.289 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maximum | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.960 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.766 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.400 |

---

**14.6.3** Compositing Methodology

The drillhole sample interval lengths within the estimation domains for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE vary from 1.50 to 47.10 ft, as illustrated in Figure 14-41. A composite length of 10 ft was chosen because 99.94% of the sample intervals are equal to or shorter than this length.

A balanced compositing method was selected, using variable composite lengths determined by the total sample length within each contiguous interval of the estimation domain. These intervals are defined as drillhole segments bounded by domain contacts. The composite length for each contiguous interval is chosen to closely match a predefined target composite length, ensuring uniformity across the unit. For instance, with a contiguous unit measuring 17 ft and a target composite length of 5 ft, the balanced method splits the contiguous unit into three composites of 5.67 ft each. In comparison, traditional compositing generates three composites with lengths of 5 ft and one with a length of 2 ft.

This method aims to maintain a consistent support volume across the estimation domain, minimizing the number of short composites and reducing their effect on grade interpolation. Of the 4,945 composites, 13 (0.26%) fall outside the ±25% tolerance of the selected composite length, are considered orphans, and are excluded from the estimation process.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 418 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img11sp15.jpg)

**Figure 14-41**: Distribution of raw interval lengths within the estimation domains, excluding missing intervals**

14.6.3.1 Grade Capping

Composites are capped at specified maximum values to prevent overestimation of metal grades due to the influence of outlier values. Log-probability plots are used to identify these outliers by highlighting composite values that deviate significantly from the expected distribution within each estimation domain. Suspect outliers are further evaluated in 3-D to assess whether they belong to a coherent high-grade trend.

If an outlier is part of a recognized high-grade trend but still warrants capping, a less stringent capping level may be applied compared to isolated high-grade composites. Grade capping is performed on a domain-by-domain basis. The capping thresholds determined from the log-probability plots are listed in Table 14-92.

Visual inspection confirmed that the identified outliers lack spatial continuity, supporting the application of uniform capping thresholds across all composites used in the 2025 Pony Creek MRE, as detailed in Table 14-92.

**Table 14-92**: Grade Capping Levels**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capping Level** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of Capped<br> Composites** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of<br> Composites** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap2a | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap3w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap4a | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap4b | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap4w | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5a | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5b | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5c | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 419 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capping Level** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of Capped<br> Composites** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of<br> Composites** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5d | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ap5e | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;apfz | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;161 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;423 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b1e | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;127 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;428 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b2e | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b2w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;383 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b3e | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b3w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b4e | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b4w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b5e | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b5w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b6w | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;bcenter | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;bfe | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;403 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;bfw | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mu1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mu2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;pal1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;pal2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ps1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ps2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ps3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ps4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ste1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ste2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ste3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ste4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stn1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;192 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stn2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stn3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;sts1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;sts2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;sts2a | &nbsp;&nbsp;No Capping Needed | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 |

---

14.6.3.2 Declustering

Data collection often focuses on high-value areas, leaving areas with sparse data collection underrepresented in the raw composite statistics and distributions. Spatially representative (declustered) statistics and distributions are necessary to achieve accurate validation. Declustering techniques assign a weight to each composite within an estimation domain, giving more weight to sparsely sampled areas and less to densely sampled regions. Cell declustering was utilized with a cell size of 250 ft for all zones.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 420 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

14.6.3.3 Final
 Composite Statistics

Summary statistics for the declustered and capped composites contained within the interpreted estimation domains are presented in Table 14-93. The composites within each estimation domain generally exhibit coherent individual statistical populations.

**Table 14-93**: Final composite statistics for the 2025 Pony Creen MRE** 

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Appaloosa** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Stallion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bowl** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Palomino** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ponyspur** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mustang** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Count | &nbsp;&nbsp;1173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2925 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mean | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.206 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Standard Deviation | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.169 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coefficient of Variation | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.890 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.819 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Minimum | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;25 Percentile | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.090 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;50 Percentile (Median) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.117 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;75 Percentile | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.246 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maximum | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.749 |

---

Note: Statistics consider declustering weights and capping.

**14.6.4** Variography
 and Grade Continuity

Experimental semi-variograms are calculated along the major, minor, and vertical principal directions of continuity, defined by three Euler angles. These angles describe the orientation of anisotropy through a series of left-hand rule rotations that are:

1) Angle 1: A rotation about the Z-axis (azimuth), where positive angles represent clockwise rotation and negative angles represent counterclockwise rotation.

2) Angle 2: A rotation about the X-axis (dip), where positive angles represent counterclockwise and negative angles represent clockwise rotation.

3) Angle 3: A rotation about the Y-axis (tilt), where positive angles represent clockwise rotation and negative angles represent counterclockwise rotation.

APEX personnel calculated standardized correlograms for each estimation domain using composite data. In domains with sufficient composites for experimental variogram calculation, the primary geological factors influencing mineralization guided the main continuity directions, forming the basis for the variogram calculations.

Figure 14-42 to Figure 14-44 illustrate the modelled variograms, and Table 14-94 outlines the variogram parameters used for kriging.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 421 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img01.jpg)

**Figure 14-42**: Modelled Gold Variogram for the b2 Domain**

**Figure 14-43: Modelled Gold Variogram for the bfe Domain**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 422 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img03.jpg)

**Figure 14-44**: Standardized Gold Variogram Parameters**

**Table 14-94**: Standardized Gold Variogram Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation Angles** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation Angles** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation Angles** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram Structures** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Structure** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ranges (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ranges (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ranges (ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Structure** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Major** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Vertical** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;bfe | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exponential | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 |
|  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Spherical | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;b2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exponential | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 |
|  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Spherical | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;stn1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exponential | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 |
|  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Spherical | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 |

---

Abbreviations: C0 – nugget effect, CC – covariance contributions.

Note: the sill and covariance contributions are standardized to 1.

**14.6.5** Block
 Model

14.6.5.1 Block
 Model Parameters

The block model used to calculate the 2025 Pony Creek MRE fully encapsulates the resource estimation domains described in Section 14.6.2. No blocks are estimated outside of the estimation domains. The grid definition used is described in Table 14-95.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 423 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

A block factor is calculated to represent the percentage of each block's volume within each estimation domain. This factor is used to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Identify
 the primary domain by volume for each block.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Determine
 the percentage of mineralized material and waste within each block.

**Table 14-95**: 2025 Pony Creek MRE Block Definition**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Axes** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Origin\*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**No. of Blocks** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Block Size (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Rotation\*\*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;X | &nbsp;&nbsp;1913010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Y | &nbsp;&nbsp;14650550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Z | &nbsp;&nbsp;4905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |

---

---

| |
|:---|
| \* In RMSP, a block model's origin represents the block's centroid coordinates with the minimum U, V, and Z. After rotation, the U and V axes correspond to the X and Y axes, respectively. |
| \*\* Rotations are applied sequentially about the Z, Y, and X axes, following the convention outlined in Section 14.6.5. |

---

14.6.5.2 Volumetric
 Checks

Wireframe and block model volumes are compared to ensure tonnages are neither significantly over- nor underestimated. Each block's volume is scaled using its calculated block factor to derive the total block model volume. The maximum percent difference in volume for any single estimation domain is -0.05%. Overall, the block model accounts for 99.9987% of the combined volume of all estimation domain wireframes.

**14.6.6** Grade
 Estimation Methodology

14.6.6.1 Grade
 Estimation of Mineralized Material

Ordinary Kriging (OK) is used to estimate metal grades for the 2025 Pony Creek MRE block model. Only blocks that intersect the estimation domains are estimated.

Estimation uses locally varying anisotropy (LVA), which employs different rotation angles to set the variogram model's principal directions and search ellipsoid for each block. Trend surface wireframes assign these angles to blocks within the estimation domain, enabling structural complexities to be captured in the estimated block model.

During grade estimation for each domain, the nugget effect and covariance contributions of the standardized variogram model are scaled to match the variance of the composites within that estimation domain. The ranges used for each mineralized zone are unchanged from the standardized variogram model.

Contact analysis of the boundaries between adjacent estimation domains shows that the metal profile at the boundary is hard or semi-hard, where the profiles trend toward each other over a very short distance. Consequently, only data from within each estimation domain can be used for grade estimation within that specific domain.

Robust experimental variogram calculation within a domain requires sufficient data to define spatial variability accurately. For domains lacking adequate data, the modelled variograms presented in Section 14.6.5 that are most representative of the mineralization are utilized, forming estimation groups. Table 14-96 provides an overview of these groups, specifying the domain used to define the variography and listing all included domains. Each group uses the same search strategy.

A multiple-pass estimation method is used to control Kriging's smoothing effect and limit the influence of high-grade samples, ensuring accurate grade and tonnage estimates at the block scale at the reporting cutoff. Table 14-97 details the restricted search parameters and limits the number of composites from each estimation pass. While these rules may introduce local bias, they improve the global accuracy of grade and tonnage estimates above the reporting cutoff.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 424 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-96**: 2025 Pony Creek Gold Estimation Group Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Group<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Variogram<br> Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation Domains** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact | &nbsp;&nbsp;bfe | &nbsp;&nbsp;apfz, bfe, bfw |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusive | &nbsp;&nbsp;b2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ap0, ap1, ap2, ap2a, ap3, ap4a, ap4b, b1, b2, b2w, b3, b4, b4e, bcenter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sediments | &nbsp;&nbsp;stn1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ap3w, ap4w, ap5, ap5a, ap5b, ap5c, ap5d, ap5e, b1e, b2e, b3e, b3w, b4w, b5e, b5w, b6w, mu1, mu2, pal1, pal2, ps1, ps2, ps3, ps4, ste1, ste2, ste3, ste4, stn1, stn2, stn3, sts1, sts2, sts2a |

---

**Table 14-97**: 2025 Pony Creek MRE Gold Interpolation Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation<br> Group** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pass** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Composites** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Composites** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number of Composites** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ranges (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ranges (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Search Ranges (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Discretization** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Discretization** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Discretization** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimation<br> Group** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pass** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Max** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Min** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Max per Drillhole** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Major** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Minor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Vertical** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**X** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Y** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Z** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contact | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusive | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sediments | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |

---

**14.6.7** Grade
 Estimation of Waste Material

Optimization processes to establish reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction integrate dilution by accounting for portions of blocks that intersect estimation domains but extend into waste. Reproducing the behaviour at the boundary between the estimation domain and the adjacent waste is essential to ensure representative dilution of the block model.

The nature of mineralization at the mineralized/waste contact is assessed to define a window for flagging composites used to condition waste estimates for blocks containing waste material. The grade profile at the mineralized/waste contact is hard, transitioning abruptly from mineralized to waste.

Blocks containing more than or equal to 0.39% waste by volume have waste values estimated using only composites outside the estimation domains. Diluted block values are then calculated as a volume-weighted summation of the estimated ore and waste values.

**14.6.8** Model
 Validation

14.6.8.1 Statistical
 Validation

Statistical checks were completed to validate that the block model accurately reflects drillhole data. Swath plots confirm directional trends, while volume-variance analysis verifies that accurate metal quantity and grades are estimated at the reporting cutoff.

14.6.8.1.1 Direction
 Trend Analysis Validation

Swath plots verify that the estimated block model honours directional trends and identifies potential areas of over- or under-estimating grade. The swath plots are generated by calculating the average metal grades of composites and the OK estimated blocks. Examples of the swath plots used to validate the 2025 Pony Creek MRE are illustrated in Figure 14-45.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 425 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Overall, the block model compares well with the composites. Some local over- and under-estimation has been observed. Due to the limited amount of conditioning data available for grade estimation in those areas, this result is expected.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img04.jpg)

**Figure 14-45**: Swath Plots of Estimated Gold Grades**

14.6.8.1.2 Volume-Variance
 Analysis Validation

Smoothing is an intrinsic property of Kriging, and it is critical to validate that the estimated model, when restricted to a specific cutoff, produces the correct grades and tonnes. Considering the selective mining unit (SMU) and the information effect, target distributions are calculated using a discrete Gaussian model, with composites and variograms as parameters. The distribution of the scaled composites illustrates the anticipated tonnes and average grades above various cutoff grades at the SMU scale. As described in Section 14.6.8, the searches used during OK are restricted to mitigate Kriging's smoothing effects and ensure the estimated model matches the target distribution. A comparison between the expected SMU distribution of grade and tonnes and the estimated model (Figure 14-46) confirms that the appropriate level of smoothing is achieved at the reporting cutoff. Further modifications to the search strategy to achieve a closer match would introduce excessive bias.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 426 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img05.jpg)

**Figure 14-46**: Comparison of target gold distribution and estimated distribution**

14.6.8.2 Visual
 Validation

The QP visually reviewed the estimated block model grades in cross-sectional views, comparing the estimated block model grades to the input composited drillhole assays and the modelled mineralization trends. The block model compares very well to the input compositing data. Local high- and low-grade zones within the Mineral Resource areas are reproduced as desired, and the locally varying anisotropy adequately maintains variable mineralization orientations. Figure 14-47 and Figure 14-48 illustrates the grade estimation blocks used for the MRE.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 427 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img06.jpg)

Note: Bold black lines illustrate the constraining open pit shell and out-of-pit mining shapes.

**Figure 14-47**: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE block model at Bowl looking north along 14,655,000N illustrating estimated grades**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 428 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Note: Bold black lines illustrate the constraining open pit shell and out-of-pit mining shapes.

**Figure 14-48**: Cross-section of the 2025 Pony Creek MRE block model at Appaloosa looking north along 14,663,000N illustrating estimated grades**

**14.6.9** Mineral
 Resource Classification

14.6.9.1 Classification
 Definitions

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE discussed in this Technical Report is classified following guidelines established by the CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines" dated November 29, 2019, and CIM "Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" dated May 14, 2014.

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

14.6.9.2 Classification
 Methodology

In accordance with the CIM definition standards, the 2025 Pony Creek MRE is classified as Inferred. The classification of the Inferred Mineral Resources is based on geological confidence, data quality and grade continuity of the data. The most relevant factors used in the classification process are the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Density
 of conditioning data.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Level
 of confidence in drilling results and collar locations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Level
 of confidence in the geological interpretation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Continuity
 of mineralization.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Level
 of confidence in the assigned densities.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 429 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Mineral Resource classification uses a single-pass strategy. Each block is assigned a classification of inferred if at least 3 drillholes fall within a search ellipsoid with a radius of 800 ft by 400 ft by 200 ft, centred on each block, and oriented as described in Section 14.6.8. This process is independent of grade estimation.

Measured and indicated resources are currently not defined. For future resource assessments, ranking historical drillholes based on confidence in their collar and downhole surveys is recommended. Only drillholes with high confidence should be considered for measured and indicated resources in conjunction with modern drilling data.

**14.6.10** Reasonable
 Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction

According to CIM guidelines, reported mineral resources must demonstrate reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE). The following section describes the parameter assumptions and methodologies used to constrain the 2025 Pony Creek MRE statement.

14.6.10.1 Open
 Pit Mineral Resource Parameters

To establish RPEEE in an open pit scenario, a dual-processing approach has been applied. Material interpreted as not heap-leachable is assumed to be processed using a conceptual Homestake-style vat leach method, which historically involved a sand/slime separation followed by static and recirculated vat leaching. This method was successfully operated for decades at the Homestake Gold Mine, achieving gold recoveries of approximately 90–94%. While this approach remains conceptual and subject to validation through comprehensive metallurgical testing, it provides a reasonable framework to establish RPEEE utilizing differentiated recovery and cost assumptions.

Interpretations of gold recoverability across lithological units are based on cyanide-soluble to fire assay (CN:FA) ratios derived from laboratory analyses. These ratios represent preliminary geochemical indicators and are not a substitute for dedicated metallurgical testing; they are used here solely as an initial proxy for relative gold recovery potential. Preliminary analysis of the CN:FA ratios, when compared against geological logging and multi-element geochemistry, indicates that variability in recovery is predominantly explained by logged sulphide content and total sulphur assays, establishing a strong inverse correlation between CN recovery and sulphur levels.

Geological units interpreted to be amenable to heap leach processing include limestone, conglomerate, siltstone, and the Indian Wells formation. In contrast, intrusive units consistently exhibit low CN:FA ratios, suggesting limited response to heap leaching and the need for alternative processing methods. Sandstone units display variable behavior, with certain zones demonstrating higher CN:FA ratios and therefore greater heap leach potential. A 3D wireframe model was developed to delineate volumes considered amenable to heap leaching versus those requiring alternative processing pathways.

The resource block model underwent several pit optimization scenarios using Deswik's Pseudoflow pit optimization. Table 14-98 outlines the parameters and mining method assumptions used to generate the pit shell that constrains the reported open pit resources and establishes the reporting cutoffs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 430 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-98**: Parameter Assumptions for Pit Optimization**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leach** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leach** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leach** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery: Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;% | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reporting Cutoff | &nbsp;&nbsp;Au g/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Vat Leach** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Vat Leach** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Vat Leach** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.70 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery: Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;% | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reporting Cutoff | &nbsp;&nbsp;Au g/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sale** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sale** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sale** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sale Price: Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;US$/ozt | &nbsp;&nbsp;2800 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 |

---

**14.6.11** Mineral
 Resource Estimate Statement

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE is reported in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators' NI 43-101 rules for disclosure and has been estimated using the CIM "Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines" dated November 29, 2019, and CIM "Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves" dated May 10, 2014.

Mineral Resource modelling was conducted in NAD27 / BLM 11N (ftUS) Coordinate System (EPSG:4411). The MRE utilized a block model with a size of 20 ft (X) by 20 ft (Y) by 10 ft (Z) to honour the mineralization wireframes for estimation. Gold (Au) grades were estimated for each block using Ordinary Kriging (OK) with locally varying anisotropy to ensure grade continuity in various directions is reproduced in the block model. The MRE is reported as undiluted.

The reported open-pit resources utilize a cutoff of 0.103 Au g/t Au for heap leach and 0.17 Au g/t for vat leach material.. The resource block model underwent pit optimization using Deswik's Pseudoflow pit optimization. The resulting pit shell is used to constrain the reported open-pit resources.

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE comprises Inferred Mineral Resources of 493 thousand troy ounces (koz) gold at a grade of 0.0126 ozt/st (0.43 g/t) Au, within 35,417 thousand short tons (kst; 39,041 thousand metric tonnes [mkt]). Table 14-99 presents the complete 2025 Pony Creek MRE statement. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 431 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-99**: Summary of the 2025 Inferred Mineral Resources on the Pony Creek Project <sup>(1-7)</sup>**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral<br> Resource<br> Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Short Tons**<br> **(kst)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metric <br> Tonnes**<br> **(kmt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au**<br> **(ozt/st)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;3635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bowl | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;21785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Appaloosa | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;3903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;8548 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stallion | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;1159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;12193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;VAT Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;26848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;All | &nbsp;&nbsp;39041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 |

---

Notes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Warren
 Black, M.Sc., P.Geo., Senior Consultant: Mineral Resources and Geostatistics of APEX Geoscience
 Ltd., who is a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 is responsible for the completion
 of the 2025 Pony Creek mineral resource estimation, with an effective date of September 30,
 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mineral
 Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Inferred
 Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations
 applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. There
 are no known legal, political, environmental or other risks that could materially affect
 the potential development.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. 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 (2014)
 and Best Practices Guidelines (2019) prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions
 and adopted by the CIM Council.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. The
 reported open-pit resources utilize a cutoff of 0.103 Au g/t Au for heap leach and 0.17 Au
 g/t for vat leach material.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Economic
 assumptions used include US$2,800/oz Au, process recoveries of 75% for Au in heap leach material
 and 85% for Au in vat leach material, a processing cost of US$1.90/t for heap leach and US$6.70/t
 for vat leach material, and a G&A cost of US$0.56/t.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. The
 constraining pit optimization parameters included a mining cost of US$2.49/t for both mineralized
 and waste material and assumed pit slope angles of 45°.

**14.6.12** Mineral
 Resource Estimate Sensitivity

Mineral Resources can be sensitive to the selection of the reporting cutoff grade. For sensitivity analyses, other cutoff grades are presented for review. Mineral Resources at cutoff grades are presented for the Pit-Constrained Mineral Resources in Table 14-100.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 432 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 14-100**: Sensitivities of the Inferred Pit-Constrained 2025 Pony Creek MRE**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff Au <br> (ozt/st)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff Au <br> (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Short <br> Tons <br> (kst)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au<br> (koz)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au<br> (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au<br> (ozt/st)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.391 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.529 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.715 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12787 | &nbsp;&nbsp;289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.775 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.686 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.037 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.857 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.511 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.044 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.938 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.057 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.371 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.062 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;937 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.071 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;727 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.078 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.939 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.115 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;0.100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.139 |

---

**14.6.13** Risk
 and Uncertainty in the Mineral Resource Estimate

The 2025 Pony Creek MRE is based on a drillhole database compiled from multiple drilling campaigns using different laboratories and QAQC protocols. While Orla has applied consistent protocols in recent work, further efforts are needed to gather documentation to audit collar locations and downhole surveys from earlier campaigns. As the project advances toward economic studies, Orla should continue to implement a rigorous QAQC program—including certified reference materials, blanks, field duplicates, and regular umpire testing—to improve data confidence and enable robust comparisons with historical drilling.

A major source of uncertainty lies in the geological and structural modelling that underpins the estimation domains. The resource model relies on early-stage interpretations derived from drillhole data and surface mapping but lacks a comprehensive subsurface structural model. These gaps introduce risk to the interpretation of domain continuity and geometry. Further geological and structural modelling is recommended to improve confidence in mineralization controls and domain boundaries.

Although Contact Gold completed initial metallurgical testing of recent drill samples from the Bowl and Stallion zones, there was not enough data to use in the MRE for Pony Creek. The metallurgical studies discussed in Section 13 indicate potential for high recovery and medium recovery material. The domain coverage of DDHs used in the metallurgical studies is limited.

Another critical uncertainty in the MRE is the reliance on assumed bulk densities by lithology, in the absence of sufficient direct measurements. Although density values appear statistically reasonable within the available dataset, there is limited coverage across key domains (Appaloosa, Bowl, North Stallion, South Stallion). Additional density data collection is recommended across both mineralized and unmineralized intervals, along with validation of field measurement techniques (e.g., wet/dry versus wax-coating) to ensure accuracy.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 433 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Variogram modelling was constrained by data spacing and the limited spatial variability within domains, which restricts the reliability of geostatistical continuity. Additional drilling—particularly in lower-density areas such as Appaloosa and Stallion—is expected to improve the definition of mineralized trends and support more robust variogram models.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 434 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **15** | Mineral Reserve Estimates |

---

15.1 Introduction

Thomas L. Dyer, PE, a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101, is the author of this section. To determine the South Railroad mineral reserves, the author classifies mineral reserves in order of increasing confidence into probable and proven categories, in accordance with the "CIM Definition Standards - for mineral resources and mineral reserves" (2014), and therefore NI 43-101.

Mineral reserves for the Pinion and Dark Star deposits were developed by applying relevant economic criteria to define the economically extractable portions of the current mineral resources. CIM standards require that modifying factors be used to convert mineral resources into mineral reserves. These standards define modifying factors, as well as proven and probable mineral reserves, with CIM's explanatory material shown in italics as follows:

**Mineral Reserve**

Mineral reserves are subdivided in order of increasing confidence into probable mineral reserves and proven mineral reserves. A probable mineral reserve has a lower level of confidence than a proven mineral reserve.

A mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured and/or indicated mineral resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted, and is defined by studies at the preliminary feasibility or feasibility level, as appropriate, that include the application of modifying factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified.

The reference point at which mineral reserves are defined, usually the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant, must be stated. It is significant that, in all situations where the reference point is different, such as for a salable product, a clarifying statement is included to ensure that the reader is fully informed as to what is being reported.

The public disclosure of a mineral reserve must be demonstrated by a preliminary feasibility study or a feasibility study.

Mineral reserves are those parts of mineral resources which, after the application of all mining factors, result in an *estimated tonnage and grade which, in the opinion of the Qualified Person(s) making the estimates, is the basis of an economically viable project after taking account of all relevant modifying factors. Mineral reserves are inclusive of diluting material that will be mined with the mineral reserves and delivered to the treatment plant or equivalent facility. The term 'mineral reserve' need not necessarily signify that extraction facilities are in place or operative or that all governmental approvals have been received. It does indicate that there are reasonable expectations of such approvals*.

*'Reference point' refers to the mining or process point at which the Qualified Person prepares the mineral reserve. For example, most metal deposits disclose mineral reserves with a "mill feed" reference point. In these cases, mineral reserves are reported as mined ore delivered to the plant and do not include reductions attributed to anticipated plant losses. In contrast, coal reserves have traditionally been reported as tonnes of "clean coal". In this coal example, mineral reserves are reported as a "salable product" reference point and include reductions for plant yield (recovery). The Qualified Person must clearly state the 'reference point' used in the mineral reserve estimate.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 435 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Probable Mineral Reserve**

A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an Indicated mineral resource, and in some circumstances, a measured mineral resource. The confidence in the modifying factors applying to a probable mineral reserve is lower than that applying to a proven mineral reserve.

*The Qualified Person(s) may elect to convert measured mineral resources to probable mineral reserves if the confidence in the modifying factors is lower than that applied to a proven mineral reserve. Probable mineral reserve estimates must be demonstrated to be economic, at the time of reporting, by at least a preliminary feasibility study.*

**Proven Mineral Reserve**

A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource. A proven mineral reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the modifying factors.

*Application of the proven mineral reserve category implies that the Qualified Person has the highest degree of confidence in the estimate, with the consequent expectation in the minds of the readers of the report. The term should be restricted to that part of the deposit where production planning is taking place and for which any variation in the estimate would not significantly affect the potential economic viability of the deposit. Proven mineral reserve estimates must be demonstrated to be economic, at the time of reporting, by at least a preliminary feasibility study. Within the CIM Definition Standards, the term proven mineral reserve is an equivalent term to a proven mineral reserve.*

**Modifying Factors**

Modifying Factors are considerations used to convert mineral resources to mineral reserves. These include, but are not restricted to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors.

The author of this section has used measured and indicated mineral resources as the basis to define mineral reserves for both the Dark Star and Pinion deposits based on open-pit mining with cyanide heap-leach processing. The mineral reserve definition was done by first identifying ultimate pit limits using economic parameters and pit optimization techniques. The resulting optimized pit shells were then used for guidance in pit design to allow access for equipment and personnel. The author then considered mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors for defining the estimated mineral reserves.

Dark Star mining has been designed using four pit phases, and Pinion mining has been designed using five pit phases. The phased pit designs for both the Dark Star and Pinion deposits were used to define the project production schedule, which was then used for cash flow analysis for the feasibility study. The final cash flow model was produced by Qualified Persons from M3 Engineering and demonstrates that the deposits make a positive cash flow and are reasonable with respect to the statement of mineral reserves for those deposits.

**15.2** Pit
 Optimization

Pit optimizations were completed by first identifying economic and geometrical parameters. This was followed by evaluating cutoff grades and then running pit optimizations and economic analysis within various optimized pit shells.

**15.2.1** Economic
 Parameters

Economic parameters were used to generate optimized pits using a Lerchs-Grossman algorithm within Whittle™ software (Version 4.7). The economic parameters include estimated mining costs, processing costs, general and administrative costs (G&A), refining costs, royalties, and metal recoveries. Mine planning is an iterative process, and initial costs and recoveries were assumed to determine how large the pits would be. The economic parameters were refined as concepts were developed on how material would be processed from the different deposits. The methods assumed for processing include run-of-mine (ROM) and crushed leach.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 436 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The economic parameters used are shown in Table 15-1. The maximum process rate is assumed to be a mixture of crushed and ROM leach material totaling 32,000 tons per day. The G&A cost is applied in the pit optimizations as a variable cost and then later applied as a fixed cost in the cash-flow model.

**Table 15-1**: South Railroad Economic Parameters**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining – Waste | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.12 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Avg. Rehandle Loading Cost | $&nbsp;&nbsp;- | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;- | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Incremental Ore Haul Cost | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Stack | $&nbsp;&nbsp;- | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;- | $&nbsp;&nbsp;0.84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Leaching | $&nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;3.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton leached |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A Cost per ton | $&nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;1.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining – Au | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz Produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining – AG | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz Produced |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area |  |

---

Royalties were applied by royalty area or region as provided by Gold Standard. These are described in Section 4.2.

Recoveries were applied in detail based on recommendations by Mr. Gary Simmons, the Qualified Person for Section 13 of this Technical Report. Most of the recoveries used are based on grade-dependent equations as shown in Sections 15.2.1.1 and 15.2.1.2.

Pit optimizations based on $2,300 per ounce gold and $25.00 per ounce silver were used for guidance of pit designs. These metal prices are lower than the final economic analysis prices used of $3,100 and $36.50 per ounce of gold and silver, respectively. The final ultimate pits are reasonable with respect to the reporting of reserves.

15.2.1.1 Dark
 Star Recoveries

Dark Star recovery equations were provided based on mineral resource model blocks classified as low- and high- silica in the deposit. Separate equations were provided for both ROM and crushed leach processing.

The recovery equations are shown in Table 15-2. The "ssuli" in the equations refers to the "sulfide sulfur" estimate that resides in the model.

**Table 15-2**: Dark Star Leach Recovery Equations for Gold**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Recoveries*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crush | &nbsp;&nbsp;IF(ssuli<0.1,(-(211\*ssuli)+90.8)/100,(70)/100) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ROM | &nbsp;&nbsp;IF(ssuli<0.1,(-(211\*ssuli)+90.8-5)/100,(70-5)/100) |

---

Material that contains more than 0.3% sulfide sulfur was considered to be sulfidic and was not processed. Additionally, the model item "ref_flg" is used to determine whether the material is fresh (1), mixed (2), or oxide (3) material. Fresh (sulfidic) material is considered to be waste.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 437 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

15 .2.1.2 Pinion Recoveries

Pinion gold recoveries are based on estimated barium intensity. Recovery formulas were provided for ROM and crushed leach for both gold, as shown in Table 15-3.

**Table 15-3**: Pinion Leach Recovery Equations for Gold**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Recoveries*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equation** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crush | &nbsp;&nbsp;if(baita<2.7,(63)/100,(-1.8\*baita+68)/100) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ROM | &nbsp;&nbsp;if(baita<2.7,(63-10)/100,(-1.8\*baita+68-10)/100) |

---

The baita variable is the barium intensity.

Silver recoveries were estimated as a constant 15% for crushed leach and 5% for ROM material. Silver recoveries only apply to Pinion as there are no silver resources estimated for Dark Star.

As with Dark Star, material that contains more than 0.3% sulfide sulfur or with a "ref_flg" of one was considered sulfidic and not processed.

**15.2.2** Geometric
 Parameters

Geometric parameters include land constraints and slope parameters. No land boundaries were used other than royalty areas which were used to apply NSR royalties to the economics.

Slope recommendations were provided by Golder Associates (Golder) (Golder, 2021). These were given using different sectors for both the Dark Star and Pinion deposits. Golder provided two sets of recommendations for each deposit based on whether best-case blasting practices are used. The QP has applied the recommendations, assuming best blasting practices will be used to protect high walls from damage.

15 .2.2.1 Dark Star Slope Recommendations

Dark Star slope sectors provided by Golder (2021) are shown in Figure 15-1. Recommended bench heights, catch bench widths, bench face angles (BFA), and inner-ramp slope angles (IRA) are shown in Table 15-4.

The slope sectors were flagged into the mineral resource block model and exported to Whittle. For pit optimizations, the slopes in Dark Star Main were flattened by 5° while Dark Star North slopes were flattened by 7°- 9° to provide a more accurate representation of the flattening because of the inclusion of ramps in the preliminary pit designs.

Table 15-4 shows the adjusted slope angles under the column "OSA".

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 438 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img08.jpg)

(From Golder, January 2021)

**Figure 15-1**: Dark Star Slope Sectors**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 439 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 15-4**: Dark Star Slope Recommendations by Sector**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sector** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Height** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Width** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BFA** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**IRA** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**OSA** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ovgl, Twi | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tcgl | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 |

---

15.2.2.2 Pinion Slope Recommendations

Pinion slope sectors provided by Golder are shown in Figure 15-2 and the recommended bench heights, catch bench widths, BFA, and IRA are shown in Table 15-5. For Whittle pit optimizations, sections 4 and 5 were flattened by 1° to account for ramps, while the IRA was applied to the remaining sections. Unlike Dark Star North, the final designs for Pinion were completed, leaving minimal ramps in the high wall. The exception is Pinion North Section 4, which contains most of that pit's ramps and was flattened by 9° to account for this.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 440 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img09.jpg)

Source: Golder, January 2021

**Figure 15-2**: Pinion Slope Sectors**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 441 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 15-5**: Pinion Slope Recommendations by Sector**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sector** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Height** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Width** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BFA** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**IRA** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**OSA** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;N4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MLBx | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 |

---

(From Golder and Associates, January 2021)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| 15 | **.2.3** | Cutoff Grades |

---

Pit optimizations were created using the economic parameters as described above. Whittle software was allowed to determine the material that would be sent to the leach pad based on the profitability of each block. This implies a variable cutoff grade based on various recoveries. While the resource was defined based on a .003 oz Au/ton, the minimum grade of 0.004 oz Au/ton was applied to the reserve optimizations and subsequent material routing.

Because of the variable gold recovery by equations stated in Table 15-2 and Table 15-3, the calculation of a gold equivalent grade is not a straightforward process and depends on estimated sulfide sulfur and barium. For this reason, a conventional cutoff grade was not used for determining material to be sent to the leach pad versus the waste dump. In place of a conventional cutoff grade, a gross metal value (GMV) was calculated, which represents the value of each block based on metal content, recovery of both gold and silver, royalty obligations, and refining costs. A $GMV/ton was calculated for both gold and silver (Pinion) and then added together to form the total GMV per ton. The resulting GMV values were used for the reporting of reserves.

Cutoff grades that are applied to the blocks are based on an internal cutoff grade. The internal cutoff grade calculation eliminates the mining cost in the calculation, assuming that the block will be mined as part of an economic pit, and the determination of the block's economic viability is made at the point where trucks exit the pit. Thus, the mining cost becomes a sunk cost.

So, the overall cutoff grade in $GMV is determined by the block's ability to pay for G&A, incremental haulage, and processing costs. The GMV equations are shown below.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img10.jpg)

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img11.jpg)

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img12.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 442 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Where:

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img13.jpg)is the recovered grade (grade times recovery) of gold for the block;

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img14.jpg)is the gold price in $/oz Au

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img16.jpg)is the refining cost in $/oz Au

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img17.jpg)is the recovered grade (grade times recovery) of silver for the block;

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img25.jpg)is the silver price in $/oz Ag

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img26.jpg)is the refining cost in $/oz Ag

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img18.jpg)is the total GMV of gold for the block in $/ton

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img27.jpg) is the total GMV of silver for the block in $/ton

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp16img28.jpg) is the total GMV for the block in $/ton

Note that Dark Star does not include silver, so the GMV for silver is simply zero.

The cutoff grade was applied to the total GMV based on the economic parameters shown in Table 15-1. Results in cutoff grades are shown in Table 15-6 for both Dark Star and Pinion. Note that in determining material types for processing, the best value is used to determine whether to process material via ROM or crushed leach. Any blocks that have negative values are considered waste. The same methodology was used for both Dark Star and Pinion.

**Table 15-6**: Pinion and Dark Star ($GMV/ton)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | $&nbsp;&nbsp;5.32 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;6.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion | $&nbsp;&nbsp;4.87 | $&nbsp;&nbsp;5.78 |

---

**15.2.4** Pit
 Optimization Methods and Results

Pit optimizations were run using Whittle™ software (version 2024). Inputs into Whittle included the mineral resource block model along with the economic and geometric parameters previously discussed. Pit optimizations used for mineral reserve definition used only measured and indicated mineral resources for processing, and all Inferred material is considered as waste. Each deposit was run separately, and ultimate pit shells were selected from the Whittle results for the final design. For Dark Star and Pinion, additional pit shells were considered for guidance of interior pit phases.

The selections of ultimate pits and pit phases were chosen based on the economics discussed in Section 15.1. The first step was to optimize a set of pit shells based on varying a revenue factor. This was done in Whittle using a Lerchs-Grossman algorithm. The revenue factor was multiplied by the recovered ounces and the metal prices, creating a nested set of pit shells based on different metal prices. Revenue factors for each of the deposits were varied from 0.50 to 3.0 in increments of 0.025. With a base price of $1,000 per ounce of gold, the resulting pit shells represent gold prices from $300 to $3,000 per ounce in increments of $25.00. 96 total pit shells were generated for this analysis.

For Pinion, silver prices were adjusted to maintain a constant silver ratio for each revenue factor. This is done by setting a silver reference price equivalent to the reference gold price by multiplying the base silver price times $1,000 divided by the base gold price, or $25.00 \* $1,000 / $2,300 = $10.87 per ounce of silver.

The second step of the process was to use the Pit by Pit (PbP) analysis tool in Whittle to generate a discounted operating cash flow (note that capital is not included). This analysis is done using the base price of metal ($2,300 per ounce of gold and $25.00 per ounce of silver). This uses a rough scheduling for each pit shell to generate the discounted value for the pit. The program develops three different discounted values: best, worst, and specified. The best-case value uses each of the pit shells as pit phases or pushbacks. For example, when evaluating pit 20, there would be 19 pushbacks mined before pit 20, and the resulting schedule takes advantage of mining more valuable material up front to improve the discounted value. Evaluating pit 21 would have 20 pushbacks; pit 22 would have 21 pushbacks, and so on. Note that this is not a realistic case as the incremental pushbacks would not have enough mining width between them to be able to mine appropriately, but this does help to define the maximum potential discounted operating cash flow.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 443 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The worst case does not use any pushbacks in determining the discounted value for each of the pit shells. Thus, each pit shell is evaluated as mining a single pit from top to bottom. This does not provide the advantage of mining more valuable material sooner, and it generally provides a lower discounted value than that of the best-case.

The specified case allows the user to specify pit shells to be used as pushbacks, and then schedules the pushbacks and calculates the discounted cash flow. This is more realistic than the base case as it allows for more mining width, though the final pit design will have to ensure that appropriate mining width is available. The specified case has been used for each mine to determine the ultimate pit limits to design to, as well as to specify guidelines for designing pit phases.

15.2.4.1 Dark
 Star Pit Optimization

The previously discussed parameters were used along with gold prices varying from $500 to $3,000 per ounce to create the pit optimization results. These results are shown in Table 15-7 using $100 gold price. Pit 73 is highlighted as the pit created using the final evaluation gold price of $2,300 per ounce, and is also the pit used to create GMV. The pit optimization used the IRA slopes provided by Golder and Associates and selected flattening to account for roads as described previously.

Table 15-8 shows the PbP results, and these are also shown graphically in Figure 15-3. Pit 71 is highlighted as having the best discounted (5%) operating cash-flow for the specified case, and Pit 73 is highlighted as the $2,300 gold price pit shell, which was chosen as the basis for pit designs. The final design was done using four pit phases, two for Dark Star North The final design is very close to pit 73 showing that the pit design is reasonable with respect to the economics.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 444 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 15-7**: Dark Star Pit Optimization Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 445 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 15-8**: Dark Star Pit by Pit Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 446 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 15-3**: Dark Star Pit by Pit Graph**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 447 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

15.2.4.2 Pinion
 Pit Optimization

The Pinion optimization parameters were used along with variable gold prices to create the pit optimization results. These results are shown in Table 15-9 using $100 gold price increments. The highlighted are pit shell is Pit 73, which is created using the project economics gold price of $2,300 per ounce of gold, and was used for the final pit design. Pit optimizations used the previously discussed Golder IRA slope criteria, flattened to represent haul roads in the design.

Table 15-10 shows the PbP results, and these are also shown graphically in Figure 15-4. This shows the total processed material as selected by Whittle. Pit 65 is highlighted as having the best discounted (5%) operating cash-flow for the specified case, and Pit 73 is highlighted as the design guidance pit optimized at a gold price of $2,300/oz. The final pit design falls within this ultimate pit shell. Note that there is a small step-in on the south side of the pit to accommodate water management in the final design.

**Table 15-9**: Pinion Pit Optimization Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 448 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 15-10**: Pinion Pit by Pit Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 449 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 15-4**: Pinion Pit by Pit Graph**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 450 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**15.3** **Pit Designs** 

Detailed pit designs were completed for Dark Star and Pinion using Surpac™ software (version 2024). Each of the designs utilizes both 30 ft benches with a catch bench installed every bench or every other bench (60 ft). Catch benches were designed with a width of 21 ft for 30 ft benches or 27 ft for 60 ft, and the BFA's used are shown in Table 15-4 and Table 15-5.

**15.3.1** **Road and Ramp Design** 

Road designs have been completed for the feasibility study to allow primary access for people, equipment, and consumables to the site. This includes haul roads between the designed pits, dumps, and the proposed leach facility. Within the pit designs, ramps have been established for haul truck and equipment access. The in pit ramps will only require a single berm. Ramps outside of the pit will require two safety berms. The design parameters for ramps and roads are shown in Table 15-11. Note that these also show parameters for one-lane traffic. One-lane traffic would be used near the bottom of pits where the strip ratio is minimal, and the traffic requirements are low.

The ramps and haul roads assume the use of 200-ton capacity haul trucks with an operating width of 25.08 ft. For two-way access, the goal of the road design is to allow a running width of 3.5 times the width of the trucks. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulations specify that safety berms be maintained with heights at least ½ of the diameter of the tires of the haul trucks that will travel on roads. The ½ height of the 200-ton haul truck's tires is 5.61 ft. An extra 10% was added to the berm height design to ensure that all berms are of sufficient height.

Safety berms assume a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. Considering that ramps in the pit only need one berm, the road width of 105 ft was determined for two-lane traffic, which allows for 3.42 times the operating width of the haul trucks. Single-lane traffic roads are estimated to require 70 ft, which allows 2.02 times the operating width of haul trucks.

Roads outside of the pit will require two berms, and widths are estimated to be 125 ft, allowing 3.45 times the width of haul trucks.

Road designs are intended to have a maximum of 10% gradient, though some may exceed this for short distances around inside turns. Where switchbacks are used, the centerline gradient is reduced to about 8%. This keeps the inside gradient approximately 12%. Switchback designs have not added the detail for super elevation through the curves, but it is assumed that this will be done when they are constructed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 451 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 15-11: Road and Ramp Design Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Two Lane In-Pit**<br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Two Lane Ex-Pit**<br> **(ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**One Lane In-Pit**<br> **(ft)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Truck Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.08 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Running / Truck Width Ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Road Running Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire Size | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.00R57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.00R57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.00R57 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire ½ Height | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Berm Height | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Berm Top Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Berm Slope | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Berm Bottom Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;#Berms | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Berm Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.27 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Overall Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;107.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Design Width** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**105.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**125.00** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**70.00** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Running Width After Berms | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.73 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Running Width / Truck Width | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.02 |

---

**15.3.2** **Dark Star Pit Designs** 

Dark Star pit designs were completed using four pit phases. Phase 1 mines an initial pit in Dark Star North, and Phase 2 mines an initial pit in Dark Star Main. Ultimate pits are mined in Phase 3 (Dark Star North) and Phase 4 (Dark Star Main). Dark Star North has generally higher grades and better value; however, it also has a higher strip ratio.

Figure 15-5 shows the ultimate Dark Star pit designs (Phases 3 and 4). Figure 15-6 shows the initial Dark Star pit designs (Phases 1 and 2).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 452 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img1.jpg)

**Figure** 15-5: Dark Star Ultimate Pit Design** 

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 453 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img2.jpg)

**Figure** 15-6: Dark Star North (Phase 1) and Main (Phase 2) Initial Pits**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 454 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img3.jpg)

**Figure** 15-7: Dark Star North (Phase 3) and Main (Phase 4)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 455 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**15.3.3** **Pinion Pit Designs** 

The Pinion ultimate pit design was achieved using five pit phases. The ultimate pit design is shown in Figure 15-8. The Pinion Phase 1 pit is in the northern part of the deposit and mines near surface oxide materials. Because of the lower strip ratio in this area, the Phase 1 pit provides a good initial value from the deposit. The Pinion Phase 1 pit design is shown in Figure 15-9.

The Pinion Phase 2 and 3 pits are located just south of Phase 1 and mines into the major portion of the upper part of the deposit from north to south. These pits were roughly designed based on the optimized pit shell number 40. The Pinion Phase 2 and 3 designs are shown in Figure 15-9 and Figure 15-10.

The Pinion 4 and 5 pits are an expansion to the south of Phase 3. Phase 4 (Figure 15-11) is designed to maximize the in-pit dumping available by mining the entire extent of the deposit in the east. Phase 5 (Figure 15-12) completes the extent of the pit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 456 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img4.jpg)

**Figure** 15-8: Pinion Ultimate Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 457 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img5.jpg)

**Figure** 15-9: Pinion Phase 1 and Phase 2 Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 458 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img6.jpg)

**Figure** 15-10: Pinion Phase 2 and Phase 3 Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 459 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img7.jpg)

**Figure** 15-11: Pinion Phase 1, Phase 3, and Phase 4 Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 460 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img8.jpg)

**Figure** 15-12: Pinion Phase 1, Phase 3, Phase 4, and Phase 5 Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 461 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**15.4** **Dilution** 

The mineral resource block models were completed for both deposits using 30 ft x 30 ft x 30 ft block sizes, which is appropriate for use as a selective mining unit. The estimates for gold (and silver at Pinion) have been block-diluted to the mineral resource block size. The author believes that this dilution is appropriate to represent the dilution and ore loss that will be experienced when the deposits are mined.

**15.5** **Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Dark Star and Pinion** 

In-pit measured and indicated mineral resources above the cutoff grades used were converted to proven and probable mineral reserves, respectively. Dark Star's proven and probable mineral reserves are shown in Table 15-12. The Dark Star pits have a total of 89.4 million tons of waste associated with the mineral reserves, and thus have an overall strip ratio of 2.82 tons of waste per ton processed. The in-pit oxide and transition mineral reserves are reported using the $5.32 GMV cutoff grade.

For the Dark Star proven and probable mineral reserves, the reference point is at the process facility, and the mineral reserves are entirely within the current measured and indicated Dark Star mineral resources.

**Table** 15-12: Dark Star In-Pit Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Proven & Probable Reserves** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crushed Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crushed Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crushed Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Processed** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Processed** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Processed** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Phase** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/t** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;268 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3859 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;289 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5692 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total | &nbsp;&nbsp;10892 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20773 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;761 |

---

Pinion's proven and probable mineral reserves are shown in Table 15-13. The Pinion mineral reserves are associated with a total of 204.6 million tons of waste, resulting in a stripping ratio of 4.90 waste tons to processed tons. Cutoff grades used for reporting are based on $4.87 GMV.

For the Pinion proven and probable mineral reserves, the reference point is at the process facility, and the mineral reserves are entirely within the current measured and indicated Pinion mineral resources.

**Table** 15-13: Pinion In-Pit Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img20.jpg)

The total proven and probable mineral reserves reported for the feasibility study update are shown in Table 15-14. Within the designed pits, there is a total of 294 million tons of waste associated with the in-pit mineral reserves. This results in an overall project strip ratio of 4.00 tons of waste for each ton of processed material.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 462 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 15-14: Total Dark Star and Pinion Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star** | **K Tons** | **oz Au/t** | **K Ozs Au** |
| Proven | 9339 | 0.033 | 304 |
| Probable | 22,326 | 0.020 | 456 |
| P&P | 31,665 | 0.024 | 761 |

---

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion** | **K Tons** | **Oz Au/t** | **K Ozs Au** | **Oz Ag/t** | **K Ozs Ag** |
| Proven | 2329 | 0.021 | 50 | 0.191 | 445 |
| Probable | 39440 | 0.018 | 706 | 0.146 | 5749 |
| P&P | 41769 | 0.018 | 756 | 0.148 | 6195 |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | ***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | ***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** | ***Consolidated Gold Reserves*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star & Pinion** | **K Tons** | **Oz Au/t** | **K Ozs Au** |
| Proven | 11669 | 0.030 | 354 |
| Probable | 61765 | 0.019 | 1162 |
| P&P | 73434 | 0.021 | 1516 |

---

*Notes:*

*1* *This estimate of mineral reserves was prepared by Thomas L. Dyer, PE of RESPEC.*

*2* *Mineral reserves are classified in accordance with CIM Standards and are recognized at the point process feed.*

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| *3* | *Mineral reserves are reported based on gross metal value (GMV) cutoff grades (See Section 15.2.3) based on gold prices of $2,300 per ounce Au and silver prices of $25.00 per ounce Ag. The reserve effective date is September 30, 2025.* |

---

*4* *Economic parameters and recoveries are described in Section 15.2.1.*

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| *5* | *As mineral reserves were defined using lower metal prices compared to the economic analysis that supports them, the resulting proven and probable mineral reserves are justified.* |

---

*6* *Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.*

*Note: cutoff grades are applied as described in Section 15.2.3.*

*Proven and probable mineral reserves for Pinion include silver as reported above; and*

*Because of the lack of silver reserves at Dark Star, consolidated gold reserves are reported without silver to avoid reporting erroneous average silver grade.*

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 463 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **16** | **Mining Methods** |

---

The Feasibility Study Update (FSU) for the South Railroad Project includes ten years of mining at the Dark Star and Pinion deposits. These operations, collectively termed the South Railroad Mine, plan to use open-pit, truck, and shovel methods that will feed Run-of-Mine (ROM) and Crushed Leach (CL) ore to a single, shared process facility for both deposits. The truck and shovel method provides reasonable costs and selectivity for these deposits.

The methodology used for mine planning to define the economics for the Feasibility Study Update includes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define
 assumptions for the economic parameters;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define
 geometric parameters and constraints;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Run
 pit optimizations;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define
 road and ramp parameters;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Create
 pit designs;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Design
 waste storage facilities (WSFs);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Produce
 mine and process production schedules;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define
 personnel and equipment requirements;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Estimate
 mining costs; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Perform
 an economic analysis.

Parameters, pit optimizations, and pit designs are discussed in Section 15.

**16.1** **Waste Rock Storage Areas** 

Waste storage facility designs were created for the Feasibility Study Update to contain mined material that is not processed. RESPEC has defined Non-Acid Generating (NAG) and Potentially Acid Generating (PAG) waste, and coded it into the mineral resource block models, based on definitions provided by Stantec. PAG waste material has been handled separately to avoid storage issues with potential acid drainage. A 1.3 swell factor was assumed, which provides for both swell when mined and compaction when placed into the facility. The total requirements for containment of waste material is shown in Table 16-1. Due to the estimation criteria for PAG and NAG material, a small portion of the material does not get sulphur estimations. This material is listed as Unknown in Table 16-1. Note that due to rounding there may be small discrepancies in Table 16-1 totals.

**Table** 16-1: Waste Containment Requirements (Thousands, Cubic Yards)**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAG**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAG%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG%** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Dark Star*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.2% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;902 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8778 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31389 | &nbsp;&nbsp;732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6968 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;9992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total | &nbsp;&nbsp;65527 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.3% | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pinion*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.3% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25726 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99.8% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Phase 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total | &nbsp;&nbsp;202378 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total Project*** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 464 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAG**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unknown**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total**<br> **(K tons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NAG%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PAG%** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star | &nbsp;&nbsp;65527 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.3% | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinion | &nbsp;&nbsp;202378 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grand Total | &nbsp;&nbsp;267906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;294056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0% |

---

**Table** 16-2: Waste Deliveries by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Total All Waste*** | **Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Tonnages*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;PAG_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | - | 137 | 670 | 885 | 312 | 680 | 70 | 8 | 2929 | 336 | - | 6027 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Tonnages*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;NAG_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | 11697 | 21721 | 30186 | 22190 | 34959 | 38909 | 34251 | 25421 | 37411 | 11084 | 77 | 267906 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Tonnages*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Un_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | 2116 | 4737 | 1667 | 3052 | 6028 | 1805 | 16 | 73 | 514 | 115 | - | 20123 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Tonnages*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Wst | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | 13813 | 26595 | 32523 | 26127 | 41299 | 41395 | 34337 | 25503 | 40853 | 11535 | 77 | 294056 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Volumes*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;PAG_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Cubic Yd | - | - | 87 | 421 | 550 | 192 | 413 | 44 | 5 | 1832 | 207 | - | 3749 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Volumes*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;NAG_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Cubic Yd | - | 7646 | 13747 | 19179 | 14242 | 22051 | 24374 | 21376 | 15849 | 23394 | 6786 | 45 | 168689 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Volumes*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Un_Wst\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Cubic Yd | - | 1357 | 3054 | 1074 | 1991 | 3880 | 1160 | 10 | 45 | 321 | 71 | - | 12955 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***All Waste Volumes*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Wst | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Cubic Yd | - | 9003 | 16879 | 20674 | 16783 | 26122 | 25947 | 21429 | 15899 | 25547 | 7063 | 45 | 185393 |

---

WSF designs were completed for both Dark Star and Pinion.

For Dark Star, it is assumed that two waste WSFs will be constructed, one on the east side and one on the west side of the deposit. These are shown in Figure 15-5 along with the ultimate pit designs. Pinion will have a single exterior WSF and will also incorporate some minimal storage as backfill in Phase 1 and the north side of the main pit. The WSF design for Pinion is shown in Figure 15-8 along with the Pinion ultimate pit.

For production scheduling, each WSF design was sequenced to reduce haulage requirements. The Dark Star West WSF was sequenced into two phases. The first phase will be placed in a single lift, dumping from the 6,540 elevation with a maximum height of 51 ft. This allows for a flat haulage profile from the pit exits to the WSF. Once placed, concurrent reclamation of the dumping face can be completed. The second phase will continue in 30 ft lifts to the 6,870 elevation.

The Dark Star East WSF will be placed in 4 different phases. The first phase is initially dumped in from the 6,510 elevation and establishes a 145 ft high dump phase. The second phase continues in 30 ft lifts to the 6,600 elevation. The third phase continues up the valley filling up to the 6,720 elevation. Phase 4 completes the dump up to the 6,870 elevation.

The Pinion WSF was sequenced using 7 Phases. Phase 1 of the Pinion WSF is to be placed in multiple 90 ft high lifts starting at the 6,660 elevation, going up to the 6,930 elevation. After the 6,930 elevation dump lifts are designed at 30 ft high in Phase 2 up to the 7,050 elevation, and Phase 3 completes this area of the dump up to the 7,110 elevation. Phase 4 is a valley fill to the south of Phases 1 through 3 at the 6,480 elevation with a maximum height of 230 ft. The fifth phase is a 90 ft lift that levels the dump at the 6,570 elevation. Phase 6 increases the dump in the west up to the 6,930 elevation, and Phase 7 raises the dump to 6,720 ft in the east area of the dump.

The Pinion backfill WSFs were sequenced in 5 phases to help limit haulage requirements through the Life-of-Mine (LOM). The first phase fills a portion of the Phase 1 pit. Phase 2 fills in an area at the 6,960 elevation near the pit exit. Phase 3 dumps over the bottom of the Phase 3 pit in a single lift at the 6780 elevation. Phase 4 continues above Phase 3 dump up to the 6,870 elevation. Phase 5 completes the backfill WSF filling in the bottom of the Phase 4 pit once it is complete.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 465 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**16.2** **Stockpiles** 

While direct feed is preferable, some stockpiling is expected for crushed leach material. Stockpile movement is detailed in Table 16-3. While Table 16-3 shows some ROM Leach being stockpiled, this is considered as material placed on the pad and not yet spayed or processed. Thus, this material will not require additional rehandle costs.

**Table** 16-3: Stockpile Movement by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;***Leach*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 627 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 151 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.01 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.02 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 225 | 402 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 151 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.01 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 2 | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.02 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 2 | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 402 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 151 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.01 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.02 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;***Crushed Leach*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 455 | 886 | 1240 | 1194 | 463 | 854 | 1091 | 420 | 127 | 89 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 21 | 46 | 35 | 24 | 9 | 60 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 1 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.08 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Added to StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 21 | 45 | 142 | 47 | 66 | 107 | 147 | 55 | 8 | 7 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | - | 618 | 865 | 512 | 2016 | 473 | 75 | 930 | 1146 | - | 185 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | - | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.01 | - | 0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | - | 23 | 38 | 28 | 41 | 11 | 7 | 54 | 15 | - | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | - | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.12 | - | 0.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Removed from StkPI | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | - | 23 | 78 | 71 | 139 | 44 | 10 | 127 | 141 | - | 19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 455 | 724 | 1099 | 1780 | 228 | 609 | 1625 | 1115 | 96 | 185 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 21 | 44 | 41 | 36 | 4 | 53 | 64 | 15 | 2 | 3 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;StkPI Balance | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | 21 | 43 | 107 | 83 | 9 | 73 | 210 | 138 | 5 | 12 | - |

---

**16.3** **Mine** Production Schedule

Production scheduling was completed using Geovia's MineSched™ (Version 2024) software. Proven and probable mineral reserves were scheduled for haulage to the process facility or stockpiles, while waste material was scheduled for WSFs or backfill locations.

The production schedule accounts for the processing of material through both ROM (Run-of-Mine) and crushed heap leach methods. Monthly intervals were used to develop the schedule with pre-stripping at Dark Star beginning in month -2. ROM processing is scheduled to start in month 8, while crushed processing is expected to begin in month 9.

The maximum combined rate for ROM and crushed leach processing will be 33,000 tons per day or 12 million tons per year on a 365-day basis. This represents the maximum assumed rate at which material can be sprayed and processed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 466 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Note that the maximum ore mined is 10.8 million tons in the third year. In all periods, the maximum spray capacity is not met mostly due to the lack of available ROM material mined.

The mining rate in Dark Star will ramp up from 17,200 tons per day to about 102,400 tons per day over a period of 8 months during pre-production, allowing for pioneering activities and training. A year after pre-production commences, Pinion mining begins. The maximum mining rate required in Pinion is 135,000 tons per day, in Dark Star is 102,400 tons per day, and the highest total mining rate is 145,000 tons per day.

The mining production for Dark Star and Pinion is summarized yearly in Table 16-4 and Table 16-5 respectively. Table 16-6 summarizes the yearly total mine production schedule.

**Table** 16-4: Dark Star Mine Production Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 867 | 3163 | 3578 | 4666 | 2451 | 1372 | - | - | 4352 | 324 | - | 20772 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.011 | - | - | 0.010 | 0.011 | - | 0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 9 | 33 | 39 | 49 | 25 | 16 | - | - | 44 | 3 | - | 0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 455 | 2952 | 1186 | 1482 | 1708 | 2091 | - | - | 928 | 89 | - | 10892 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.045 | 0.056 | 0.050 | 0.024 | 0.049 | 0.073 | - | - | 0.024 | 0.018 | - | 0.050 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 21 | 166 | 60 | 36 | 84 | 153 | - | - | 22 | 2 | - | 543 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 1322 | 6115 | 4764 | 6149 | 4159 | 3463 | - | - | 5279 | 413 | - | 31664 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.022 | 0.033 | 0.021 | 0.014 | 0.026 | 0.049 | - | - | 0.012 | 0.012 | - | 0.024 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 29 | 199 | 99 | 85 | 109 | 169 | - | - | 66 | 5 | - | 761 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total to Dumps | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 13813 | 12416 | 17641 | 17042 | 14723 | 3781 | - | - | 9609 | 383 | - | 89408 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 15135 | 18531 | 22405 | 23191 | 18882 | 7243 | - | - | 14888 | 796 | - | 121072 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Strip Ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 10.45 | 2.03 | 3.70 | 2.77 | 3.54 | 1.09 |  |  | 1.82 | 0.93 |  | 2.82 |

---

**Table** 16-5: Pinion Mine Production Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | - | 585 | 1465 | 1337 | 451 | 449 | 2335 | 2630 | 2759 | 1890 | 84 | 13984 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | - | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | - | 5 | 13 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 23 | 23 | 16 | 1 | 120 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.039 | 0.047 | 0.051 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.071 | 0.080 | 0.094 | 0.100 | 0.071 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 23 | 69 | 69 | 33 | 33 | 171 | 186 | 222 | 177 | 8 | 991 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | - | 712 | 2866 | 2853 | 1751 | 635 | 3973 | 4734 | 4439 | 4238 | 285 | 26486 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | - | 0.025 | 0.026 | 0.024 | 0.024 | 0.019 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.028 | 0.037 | 0.024 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | - | 18 | 73 | 69 | 42 | 12 | 88 | 106 | 101 | 121 | 10 | 640 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.156 | 0.177 | 0.191 | 0.184 | 0.232 | 0.184 | 0.158 | 0.218 | 0.247 | 0.224 | 0.196 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 111 | 506 | 546 | 323 | 147 | 731 | 746 | 968 | 1045 | 64 | 5187 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | - | 1297 | 4332 | 4189 | 2202 | 1084 | 6308 | 7364 | 7198 | 6128 | 368 | 40470 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | - | 0.018 | 0.020 | 0.019 | 0.021 | 0.014 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.022 | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | - | 23 | 87 | 80 | 46 | 15 | 108 | 129 | 124 | 136 | 11 | 760 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.103 | 0.133 | 0.147 | 0.161 | 0.166 | 0.143 | 0.127 | 0.165 | 0.199 | 0.196 | 0.153 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 134 | 575 | 615 | 355 | 180 | 902 | 933 | 1190 | 1222 | 72 | 6178 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total to Dumps | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | 12109 | 15397 | 10034 | 15272 | 28491 | 40957 | 37904 | 33700 | 9450 | 98 | 203412 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | - | 13406 | 19728 | 14223 | 17473 | 29575 | 47265 | 45268 | 40897 | 15578 | 467 | 243881 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Strip Ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons |  | 9.34 | 3.55 | 2.40 | 6.94 | 26.27 | 6.49 | 5.15 | 4.68 | 1.54 | 0.27 | 5.03 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 467 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 16-6: Total Project Mine Production Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 867 | 4037 | 5193 | 6130 | 2620 | 3112 | 3507 | 2622 | 6073 | 2879 | 55 | 37094 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 9 | 40 | 52 | 61 | 26 | 30 | 29 | 22 | 57 | 23 | 0 | 349 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.009 | 0.025 | 0.019 | 0.006 | 0.059 | 0.084 | 0.086 | 0.033 | 0.107 | 0.125 | 0.041 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Rom Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 36 | 129 | 114 | 16 | 185 | 295 | 224 | 200 | 307 | 7 | 1514 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 455 | 4072 | 4390 | 4696 | 2474 | 4390 | 5031 | 3505 | 2997 | 4104 | 225 | 36339 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.045 | 0.047 | 0.032 | 0.025 | 0.041 | 0.046 | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.024 | 0.029 | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 21 | 193 | 139 | 117 | 101 | 200 | 121 | 74 | 72 | 120 | 9 | 1167 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.039 | 0.121 | 0.122 | 0.051 | 0.091 | 0.161 | 0.139 | 0.202 | 0.231 | 0.185 | 0.129 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Crushed | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 159 | 533 | 571 | 127 | 399 | 810 | 487 | 605 | 948 | 42 | 4681 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ton | 1322 | 8108 | 9583 | 10827 | 5094 | 7502 | 8538 | 6128 | 9070 | 6982 | 280 | 73433 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | 0.022 | 0.029 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.025 | 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.021 | 0.033 | 0.021 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Au | 29 | 233 | 191 | 178 | 127 | 231 | 150 | 96 | 128 | 143 | 9 | 1516 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | - | 0.024 | 0.069 | 0.063 | 0.028 | 0.078 | 0.129 | 0.116 | 0.089 | 0.180 | 0.173 | 0.084 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined Above COG | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Ozs Ag | - | 196 | 662 | 685 | 143 | 584 | 1105 | 712 | 804 | 1255 | 48 | 6195 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total to Dumps | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 13813 | 26595 | 32523 | 26127 | 41299 | 41395 | 34337 | 25503 | 40853 | 11535 | 77 | 294056 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mined | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 15135 | 34703 | 42106 | 36953 | 46393 | 48897 | 42875 | 31630 | 49923 | 18517 | 357 | 367490 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Strip Ratio | &nbsp;&nbsp;K tons | 10.45 | 3.28 | 3.39 | 2.41 | 8.11 | 5.52 | 4.02 | 4.16 | 4.50 | 1.65 | 0.28 | 4.00 |

---

**16.4** **Relevant Geotechnical and Hydrological Parameters** 

Pit designs for the mining production schedule have considered the geotechnical parameters and slope recommendations from Golder (2021) as summarized in Section 15.2.2. Controlled blasting will be conducted through the use of trim blasting. Pre-splits are not anticipated but may be used where those techniques are deemed more effective. Mining of the Pinion and Dark Star open pits will require dewatering based on the studies summarized by Stantec (2022).

**16.5** **Mine Process Schedule** 

Forte Dynamics Inc. (Forte) utilized a dynamic heap leach model for the heap leach facility (HLF) for forecasting recoveries for the Feasibility Study Update for use in financial and NPV analysis by Orla. A stacking plan for the selected mine plan was developed, and recovery modeling of both gold and silver was completed.

The model Forte created is capable of evaluating various stacking configurations, mine plans, application rates, barren flow rates, leach cycles, and lift heights. Orla used the recovery and total flow information in their financial analysis and NPV calculations.

RESPEC and Orla provided Forte with the ROM and crush mine plan for loading the model with planned ore tons, and recoverable ounces by ore type as specified by Ray Walton Consulting. The recoverable gold was calculated within the mine plan, utilizing a head grade to recoverable grade relationship, and was provided in the mine plan from RESPEC with equations for the recoverable gold developed by Ray Walton Consulting.

As part of the Feasibility Study Update, Forte reviewed the recovery rates provided by Ray Walton Consulting for the Pinion and Dark Star pits to develop the extraction rate inputs for the model. The provided recovery rate data was analyzed and curve fit to produce kinetic extraction curves versus time per Equation 1 below. The parameters of these kinetic extraction curves were combined with recoverable gold and silver, as provided in the mine plan from RESPEC. This was then input to the recovery model to generate the gold and silver recovery profiles over the life of the HLF.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 468 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The recovery rates were analyzed and a curve fit following the below equation was conducted for input into the recovery model:

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img9.jpg)

Where Ext(t) is the calculated percent gold extracted as a function of time, t is time in days, and A and B are constants that are used to fit extraction to the indicated column extraction by ore type. Table 16-7 contains the calculated parameters broken down by ore type, and Figure 16-1 and Figure 16-2 shows the corresponding curves for crush and ROM.

**Table** 16-7: Column Fit Gold Recovery Kinetics Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Ore Type** | **"a"** | **"b"** |
| Dark Star Au ROM | 0.0227 | -1.196 |
| Dark Star Au Crush | 0.0405 | -1.115 |
| Pinion Au ROM | 0.0225 | -1.1832 |
| Pinion Au Crush | 0.0405 | -1.1033 |
| Pinion Ag ROM | 0.0118 | -0.8716 |
| Pinion Ag Crush | 0.0331 | -0.9252 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 469 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img10.jpg)

**Figure** 16-1: Crush Fraction Extraction Curves**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img11.jpg)

**Figure** 16-2: ROM Fraction Extraction Curves**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 470 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Forte was provided with various ore properties utilized in the FSU. Forte also analyzed various data sets provided by the Project Team. Listed in Table 16-8 are the key input parameters used for the HLF recovery model, for ROM and crushed ore properties respectively.

**Table** 16-8: Ore Properties**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Crush** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Gravimetric Moisture Content | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.80% | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.80% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Residual Moisture Content | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.53% | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.53% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Uncompacted Ore Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 lbs/ft<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 lbs/ft<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Compacted Ore Density | &nbsp;&nbsp;114.8 lbs/ft<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 lbs/ft<sup>3</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Specific Gravity | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.583 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.107 cm/sec | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.107 cm/sec |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Leaching Application Rate | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 gpm/ft<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0033 gpm/ft<sup>2</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Target Initial Leach Cycle | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 days | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 days |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lift Height | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 ft | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 ft |

---

Forte generated stacking plans for the mine plan provided, working within existing boundaries for the HLF.

While generating the stacking plan, the following constraints and parameters were assessed including input from the Orla Project Team:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Utilizing
 the designed HLF footprint and staying under the 300-foot height above liner limit

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· ROM
 & crushed segregated mine plan

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Stack
 planning and impact on haul distances, operational parameters (such as leach cycle), and
 recovery

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Liner
 expansion for the HLF

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Operational
 access points and ramp variations

The ROM and crushed stacking plan were divided into a north and south area. The north area was designated for ROM, while the south area was designated for crushed material. Segregating ROM and crushed material allows for proper solution to rock contact as additional lifts are placed. These splits were done to keep the two halves of the pad on roughly the same elevation. This split also helps optimize the lower lifts' leaching time as it exposes more area. Furthermore, the pad was divided into Phase 1 and Phase 2 to allow for placement sooner while final pad construction occurs. Phase 1 begins placement in August 2027, while Phase 2 begins placement in May 2028.

The stacking design assumes 30-foot lifts, 35.5° ROM angle of repose, 32° crushed angle of repose, with an 18.4° reclamation slope angle. The base of the ROM material sits 6 ft inside the berm toe of the pad, while the crushed material sits 6 ft inside the berm crest of the pad. Densities used for design were 112 lb/ft<sup>3</sup> for ROM and 100 lb/ft<sup>3</sup> for crushed. All ramps for ROM placement were designed at 120 ft width, while ramps for crush placement were designed at 120 ft until the 6,960 elevation, then at 80 ft until the 7,050 elevation (i.e. final three lifts) to maximize capacity.

There are three access points on to the pad – 6750 and 6900 to the north and 6690 to the south. An additional road will need to be created to connect the 6750 access to the main haul road for ROM Phase 1 and Phase 2 placement. This access will be used until the 6,870 elevation. From there, the 6900 access will be used which connects to the currently designed main haul road, and will be used for the remainder of ROM Phase 2 placement. To the south, the 6690 access connects to the currently designed main haul road and will be used for Phase 1 and Phase 2 crushed ore placement. The length up the south ramp and back across the bench is approximately 5,220 ft. This was used to calculate the total length of grasshoppers and/or conveyor belt. Assuming that each grasshopper is 100 ft long, this would require approximately 53 active grasshoppers.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 471 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img12.jpg)

**Figure** 16-3: ROM Final Stacking Design**

The recovery model utilizes first principles of hydrodynamics and kinetics to simulate recovery through time for the Orla HLF. The model utilizes discretized blocks to track tons and recoverable ounces placed, flow rate, leach cycle, application rate, extracted ounces, moisture content, solution tenor, and recovery from the HLF.

The model was developed to allow for flexibility in scenario analysis to change various input parameters to understand the overall impacts on recovery of gold. This memo focuses on the results provided for the Feasibility Study Update, although additional iterations were completed to understand the impact on recovery and project economics in the early stages of this work. The specified flowrate reflects the targeted flowrate to the HLF and is limited based on the available leach area and only reaches the targeted barren solution flow when adequate area is available based on the associated application rate. The parameters are also separated by ore designation as ROM or crush as required by the mine plan.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 472 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The model utilizes the Brooks-Corey methodology, Equation 2, for representing the flow through the pad based on leaching application rate and ore properties:

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img13.jpg)

This methodology captures micropore and macropore flow within heap leach facilities and can be calibrated to existing conditions as the Orla project moves into operations, as well as additional metallurgical and geotechnical testing. Figure 16-4 shows the channeling effect that occurs within heap leach facilities that is captured within the model.

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img14.jpg)

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img15.jpg)

**Figure** 16-4: Example of Channeling**

The results of the recovery model for the ROM mine plan resulted in 1,044,306 recovered gold ounces and 713,133 recovered silver ounces by the end of stacking. With residual leaching operations post-stacking through the end of the year 2039, the end gold recovery was 1,073,380 ounces, and the end silver recovery was 767,682 ounces. This equated to an overall 99.2% recovery of recoverable gold ounces placed and 96.8% recovery of recoverable silver ounces placed. The remaining extractable ounces were 7, 891 and 21,191 for gold and silver, respectively. Additionally, the ounces in solution inventory were 2,056 and 4,479 for gold and silver, respectively. The below accounts for a 7-day lag between placement and leaching operations, accounting for material placement, ripping as required, and placement of irrigation lines to supply barren leach solution to the fresh ore.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 473 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img16.jpg)

**Figure** 16-5: Recovered Gold Ounces by Year**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img17.jpg)

**Figure** 16-6: Recovered Gold Ounces Cumulative**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 474 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img18.jpg)

**Figure** 16-7: Recovered Silver Ounces by Year**

![](tm266607d1_ex99-1sp17img19.jpg)

**Figure** 16-8: Recovered Silver Ounces Cumulative**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 475 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 16-7 shows the recovery through time of the recoverable ounces by month for the ROM mine plan. Table 16-9 shows the yearly process production summary by process type. The rows labeled "K Au Rec" shows the thousands of recoverable ounces of gold, and the rows labeled "K Au Prod" are the thousands of ounces of gold produced. Forte has put together the resulting estimated gold production plan, but ultimately, the metallurgical and processing consultants are responsible for the final production numbers with regards to plant efficiency, which may result in differences in final production values from what is in the cash-flow model.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 476 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 16-9: South Carlin Complex Process Production Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Ore** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Yr 13** | **Total** |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;kTons | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 3941 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6864 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 10353 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 8917 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7478 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6759 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 7302 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6523 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11029 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;73433 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Au/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.2115 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.023 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1516 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Au Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 70.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 174.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 225.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 156.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 198.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 142.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 167.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 110.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 155.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 103.2 |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1062 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Au Ext Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 72.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 133.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 161.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 105.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 156.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 91.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 110.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 67.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 101.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 63.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1083 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Au Prod | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 32.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 136.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 165.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 107.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 159.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 92.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 112.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 68.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 103.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 65.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 16.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 9.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1073 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oz Ag/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 141.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 140.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 111.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 128.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 122.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 84.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 82.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 91.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.8712 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.065 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.074 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.129 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.117 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.119 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.094 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 6195 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Ag Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 311.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 669.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 656.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 871.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 857.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 777.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 1035.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 917.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 778 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Ag Ext Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 41.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 11.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 105.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 97.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 125.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 122.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 793 |
| **Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K Oz Ag Prod | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 64.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 87.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 28.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 69.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 93.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 88.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 103.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 140.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 20.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 25.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 15.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 768 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 477 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**16.6** **Equipment Selection and Productivities** 

The Feasibility Study Update has assumed owner mining to keep the mining cost lower than it would be with contract mining, though the costs reflect a leasing option for primary mining equipment. The production schedule was used along with additional efficiency factors, cycle times, and productivity rates to develop the first principal hours required for primary mining equipment to achieve the production schedule. Primary mining equipment includes drills, loader, hydraulic shovels, and 200-ton capacity haul trucks.

The South Railroad mine is anticipated to operate 24 hours per day utilizing four crews of workers, each working four days on and four days off. It is anticipated that these crews would rotate between day shift and night shift. The daily shift schedule would be 12 hours per day, reduced to account for standby time including startup/shutdown, lunch, breaks, and operational delays totaling 3 hours per day. This allows for 21 work hours in each day or an 87.5% schedule efficiency. The estimated schedule efficiency is shown in Table 16-10.

**Table** 16-10: Schedule Efficiency**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Shifts per Day | &nbsp;&nbsp;shift/day | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hours per Shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;hr/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Theoretical Hours per Day | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/day | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Shift Startup / Shutdown | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lunch | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Breaks | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Operational Standby | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Standby / shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/shift | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Standby / day | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/day | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Available Work Hours | &nbsp;&nbsp;hrs/day | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Schedule Efficiency | &nbsp;&nbsp;% | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.5% |

---

**16.7** **Equipment Requirements** 

Mine equipment is planned to be put into service over a period of five years (pre-production through Year 4). This equipment is to be used through the LOM. Table 16-11 shows the yearly schedule for mining equipment to be put into service.

To reduce capital requirements, the equipment is assumed to be acquired through a combination of leasing for most production and support equipment, rentals for pioneering drills, and the purchase of some equipment.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 478 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table** 16-11: Mine Equipment Placed into Service**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Primary Mining Equipment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Production Drill | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;28-yrd Loader | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22 cu m Hyd. Shovel | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200 ton Haul Trucks | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Equipment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;600 HP Dozer | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;850 HP Dozer | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;680 HP RTD | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18' Motor Grader | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Truck – 20,000 Gallon | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200 Ton Haul Truck (no dump body) for Lowboy | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TownHaul Lowboy | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4.7 - 7.3 cu yd backhoe | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pit Pumps (1800 gpm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;110-ton Crane | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Flatbed | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives Truck | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Skid Loader | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lube/Fuel Truck | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics Truck | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire Truck | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |

---

**16.7.1** **Drilling Equipment** 

Pioneer drills would be smaller air-track drills with contained cabs, and the production drills are anticipated to be maximum 58,000 lb-pulldown, track-mounted, rotary blast hole drills. An 83% efficiency factor was used for pioneer drilling, production, and controlled blast hole drilling. Penetration rates of 120.8, 120.8, 140.32, and 110.44 ft per hour were used along with 2.8, 2.8, 3, and 4 minutes per hole of non-drilling times for waste production, ore production, trim-rows, and pioneer drilling, respectively.

Based on the parameters used, only one pioneer drill would be required during the startup of each phase. Due to the short duration of the pioneer requirements, these drills are assumed to be rented during the periods they are needed. Four production drills are estimated to be needed. It is assumed that these drills will last through the LOM with an availability that is assumed to be 85% for the life of the drill.

Drilling patterns were adjusted by material. The adjustments were made based on studies by Blast Dynamics (2021) to create a nominal size distribution with a P<sub>80</sub> of -6 inches. Based on that work, blast patterns where ore is anticipated are estimated to use 17 ft spacing and 15 ft burden with a 3 ft sub drill. With 7.875 in diameter drill holes and stemming of 10 ft, this results in a powder factor of 0.697 lbs of explosive per ton of material blasted. This was determined to be beneficial for gold recovery.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 479 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Waste patterns are assumed to have a 19 ft hole spacing, and 17 ft burden and 0.512 lbs of explosive per ton of material blasted. Because waste is not processed, the additional breakage in the patterns is not needed. The increase in spacing and burden and the decrease in powder factors for the shot patterns reduce the overall cost of drilling and blasting while remaining reasonable for material handling with shovels, loaders, and trucks.

During pioneering operations at the start of each deposit, a smaller drill will be used due to uneven terrain. At the start of the Dark Star pushbacks, it is assumed that 20% of blasting will be done as pioneering for the first two months. At the start of Pinion Phases 1 through 5, 10% of the blasting for the first two months is assumed to be done with pioneer drilling.

Trim row shot patterns are to be used with lower powder factors and tighter spacing of drill holes near pit high walls to minimize damage to the walls. This Feasibility Study Update assumes that 5% of the waste blasted will be in the form of trim row blasting. Trim row patterns are to be drilled using the production drills. Pre-splitting is not anticipated.

**16.7.2** **Loading Equipment** 

Loading equipment is anticipated to include one 28 cubic yard type loader and two 29 cubic yard type hydraulic shovels. The theoretical productivity for the loader was estimated to be 2,398 tons per hour, or 2,000 tons per hour after an operating efficiency of 83%. The assumed availability starts at 90% and is reduced by 1% per year until it reaches 85%, and then is held constant through the life of the loader. No replacement loaders were assumed. The loader is purchased in during pre-production.

Two hydraulic shovels will be used as the primary loading tool. The initial shovel starts operating during pre-production, and the second begins operations in Year 1. The theoretical productivity was estimated to be 3,984 tons per hour or 3,320 tons per hour after applying 83% efficiency. As with the loader, the assumed availability starts at 90% and declines at 1% per year to a low of 85% and then remains the same through the LOM.

**16.7.3** **Haulage Productivity** 

Haul trucks are assumed to be 200-ton capacity, rigid-frame trucks. Haulage profiles were used within MineSched based on effective haulage gradients for empty and full routes. A rolling resistance of 3% was also used for the haulage speed calculations. In addition, bench haulage strings were created, which depict the planned haulage routes on each bench where mining occurs.

A hydraulic shovel loading time of 2.9 minutes was used, plus 0.5 minutes spotting at the shovel, and a spot and dump time of 1.5 minutes was added at the dump site. Loading time was adjusted in spreadsheets to 2.9 minutes plus approximately 0.4 minutes for spotting at the loader for trucks that would be loaded using a loader.

A capacity of 188 tons per load was used as dry tonnage to reflect the dry densities in the mineral resource block model. The number of trucks was calculated to increase over time due to further haulage with some pit phases. A total of 15 haul trucks are put into service to maintain the production schedule. This assumes a 1% per year declining availability from 90% down to 85%.

Out of the 15 life of mine trucks, seven would be purchased during pre-production, three in Year 1, two in Year 3, and 3 in Year 4.

**16.7.4** **Support and Maintenance Equipment** 

Support equipment is used to maintain the roads, pits, and dumps to enable mining equipment to operate in an efficient manner. The maintenance equipment is used on-site to maintain the mining equipment. The total number of equipment to be put into service on the site is shown in Table 16-11.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 480 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**16.8** **Mining Personnel and Staffing** 

Table 16-12 shows the estimated personnel requirements. This is based on the number of people that will be required to operate, supervise, maintain, and plan for operations to achieve the production schedule.

**Table 16-12: Personnel Requirements**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr -1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yr 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Max** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining General Personnel** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Miner Operations Manager | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Operations Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Operations Supervisor | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Operations Trainer | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chief Mine Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Engineer - 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Engineer – 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Geotech/Ore Control Engineer | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surveyor – Tech 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surveyor – Tech 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Blasting Supervisor | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Control Geologist | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dispatch/Lead Techs | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Business Assistant | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mine General | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Blasters | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Blasters Helpers | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drill Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Loader Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Haul Truck Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Support Equipment Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operators | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mechanics** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics – Drilling | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics – Loading | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics – Haulage | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics – Support | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mechanics | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Superintendent | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Foreman | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Planners | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Light Vehicle Mechanic | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Welder | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Servicemen | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire man | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Generator Technicians | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Maintenance | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Personnel – Mining Personnel | &nbsp;&nbsp;# | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 481 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **17** | **Recovery Methods** |

---

The process selected for recovery of gold and silver from the Pinion and Dark Star ore is a conventional heap-leach recovery circuit. The ore will be mined by standard open pit mining methods from two separate pits. Pinion and Dark Star ore will be truck-stacked on the heap. Approximately half of the ore will be truck-stacked as Run-of-Mine (ROM) ore directly; the other half of the ore will be truck-stacked after passing through a two-stage crushing circuit to produce a particle size of 80 percent passing (P<sub>80</sub>) equal to 1-inch.

Oxide and transition material types will be leached with a dilute cyanide solution. The leached gold and silver will be recovered from solution using a carbon adsorption circuit. Gold and silver will be stripped from carbon using a desorption process, followed by electrowinning to produce a precipitate sludge. The precipitate sludge will be processed using a retort oven for drying and mercury separation and recovery and then refined in a melting furnace to produce gold and silver doré bars.

The Pinion and Dark Star deposits have total estimated proven and probable mineral reserves of 73.4 million tons. The total estimated mine life is 10 years; solution application on the heap leach pad will continue for an additional 3 years after mining operations have ceased to recover additional solubilized metal ounces. The nominal ROM ore placement rate on the pad is an average of 5.1 million tons per annum, equivalent to 14,000 tons per day. The nominal two-stage crushed ore placement rate on the pad is an average of 4.015 million tons per annum, equivalent to 11,000 tons per day.

**17.1** **Gold and Silver Recoveries** 

The gold and silver recoveries for heap leaching of the Pinion and Dark Star ore have been taken from the recommendations detailed in Section 13 of this Technical Report.

For the Pinion and Dark Star mineral resources, the overall life-of-mine average gold recovery for the ore is estimated at 70.8 percent. For the Pinion and Dark Star mineral resources, the overall Life-of-Mine (LOM) average silver recovery for the ore is estimated at 12.4 percent. Dark Star mineral resources recovery is higher than Pinion. For Dark Star, the LOM gold recovery is estimated at 75.5 percent for ROM material and 82.1 percent for two-stage crushed material. For Pinion, the LOM gold recovery is estimated at 51.7 percent for ROM material and 61.5 percent for two-stage crushed material.

**17.2** **Reagents and Consumptions** 

The major reagent consumptions for heap leaching of Pinion and Dark Star ore have been taken from available metallurgical test results from column leach tests on crushed material. No test data exists at the ROM particle size, so the selected reagent consumptions have been estimated based on test results on the coarsest samples tests, minus 1.5 inch (-37 mm).

**17.2.1** **Sodium Cyanide** 

Sodium cyanide (NaCN) will be used in the leaching process and will be delivered in tanker trucks as a liquid at 30% concentration by weight (1.15 SG). Sodium cyanide will be stored in a 30,000 gallon steel tank at the ADR area within concrete containment and will be distributed to the process by a distribution pump with individual control valve stations at each point of use.

All cyanide distribution lines will be double-containment, either by "pipe-within-pipe" or "pipe-overliner" containment systems. Cyanide consumptions have been estimated as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Pinion ROM & Two-stage Crushed –
0.70 lb/ton (0.35 kg/tonne) ore

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 482 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Dark Star ROM & Two-stage Crushed –
0.70 lb/ton (0.35 kg/tonne) ore

**17.2.2** **Lime** 

Pebble quicklime (CaO) will be used to treat the ore prior to cyanide leaching to maintain the alkaline pH. Lime will be delivered in bulk by 20-ton trucks, which will be off-loaded pneumatically into two 60-ton storage silos, one for the ROM ore and one for the two-stage crushed ore. Each silo will be equipped with a variable speed feeder that will meter lime directly onto the ore being carried by haul trucks to the heap leach pad and will be added in proportion to the tonnage of ore in each truck.

Lime will be consumed at an estimated rate of 1.3 lb/ton (0.65 kg/tonne) ore for the Pinion and Dark Star ore.

**17.2.3** **Activated Carbon** 

Activated carbon will be used to adsorb precious metals from the leach solution in the adsorption columns. Make-up carbon will be 6 x 12 mesh and will be delivered in 2,200 lb supersacks. It is estimated that approximately 3-4% of the carbon stripped will have to be replaced due to carbon fines losses.

**17.2.4** **Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic)** 

Sodium hydroxide (caustic) will be delivered to site as a liquid at 50% caustic by weight (1.53 SG). Liquid caustic will be stored in a 15,000 gallon steel tank and metered to the strip solution tank and acid wash circuits by a distribution pump with individual control valve stations at each point of use.

**17.2.5** **Nitric Acid** 

Nitric acid (7%) will be used in the acid wash section of the elution circuit prior to desorption. Nitric acid will be delivered to site as a liquid at 57% solution strength and diluted to 7% in the dilute acid tank. Acid washing consists of circulating a dilute acid solution through the bed of carbon to dissolve and remove scale from the carbon. Carbon acid washing will be done before each desorption cycle, or as required to maintain carbon activity level.

**17.2.6** **Fluxes** 

Various fluxes will be used in the smelting process to remove impurities from the bullion in the form of a glass slag. The normal flux components are a mix of silica sand, borax, and sodium carbonate (soda ash). The flux mix composition is variable and will be adjusted to meet individual project smelting needs: fluorspar and/or potassium nitrate (niter) are sometimes added to the mix. Dry fluxes will be delivered in 50 lb bags. Average consumption of fluxes has been estimated to be 2 lb per lb of gold and silver produced.

**17.2.7** **Antiscalant** 

Antiscalant will be used to prevent the build-up of scale in the process solutions and heap irrigation lines. Antiscalant will be added directly into pipelines or tanks, and consumption will vary depending on the concentration of scale-forming species in the process stream. Delivery will be in liquid form in 264-gallon (1 m<sup>3</sup>) totes.

Antiscalant will be added directly from the supplier tote bins into the pregnant, barren, and desorption pumping systems using variable speed chemical-metering pumps. On average, antiscalant consumption is expected to be about 6 ppm for leach solutions and 10 ppm for strip solutions to be treated.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 483 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**17.3** **Process Flowsheet** 

An overall process flowsheet for the project is presented in Figure 17-1.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp18img01.jpg)

**Figure 17-1: Process Flowsheet for the South Railroad Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 484 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**17.4** **Crushing Plant** 

The South Railroad heap leach crushing plant will comprise two stages of crushing, starting with a jaw crusher for primary crushing, followed by two cone crushers for secondary crushing. The major equipment is listed in Table 17-1.

**Table 17-1: List of Main Mechanical Equipment for the Heap Leach Crushing Plant**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Installed<br> kW** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stationary Grizzly | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); 36" Spacing | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Apron Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 ft pan width x 17 ft length 654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet) | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Vibrating Grizzly Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); w/ VFD; 3 inch apertures | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Crusher | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jaw Crusher; Metso C130 o/e; 5.0" CSS (est); 392.9 dSTPH Screened Feed | &nbsp;&nbsp;187 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Discharge Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); 48 inch belt width, L = 128' 8"; Rise = 7' 4" | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Screen Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); w/ VFD | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.4, each |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Screen | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8ft x 24ft Dual Deck, Vibrating Screen; Apertures: TD - 3"; BD - 1.325", 2 Motors | &nbsp;&nbsp;38, each |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Screen Undersize Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); 36 inch belt width, L = 48'; Rise = 0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushed Ore Stockpile Feed Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 inch belt width, L=291', Rise= 23' | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Crusher | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cone Crusher; Metso HP450e o/e; 1.20" CSS (est); 327.4 dSTPH Screened Feed | &nbsp;&nbsp;336, each |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Crusher Discharge Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH (Flow Sheet); 555 ft L, 80 ft Lift | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclaim Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 ft pan width x 17 ft length 654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet) | &nbsp;&nbsp;38, each |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclaim Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;654.8 dSTPH (Flow Sheet); 36 inch belt width, L = 373' 1"; Rise = 41' 6" | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |

---

\*OSS = open-side setting; CSS = closed-side setting; o/e = or equivalent

Mine trucks deliver run-of-mine (ROM) material either directly to the heap leach pad for stacking or to the stationary grizzly for crushing, depending on the mine plan. Material reporting to the stationary grizzly is screened at 36"; oversize is handled by a rock breaker and subsequently conveyed via the apron feeder to the vibrating grizzly feeder. The vibrating grizzly feeder screens 3" minus material, bypassing the primary jaw crusher, while oversize is fed to the jaw crusher for primary reduction.

Primary crusher product is discharged onto the primary discharge conveyor and transferred to the secondary crushing system. The secondary screen feed bin splits the flow into two parallel circuits. Each circuit consists of a secondary feeder and a dual-deck vibrating screen. Screen undersize is conveyed directly to the crushed ore stockpile via the secondary screen undersize conveyor and crushed ore stockpile conveyor, while screen oversize reports to the secondary cone crushers for further reduction. The secondary crusher discharge conveyor recycles product from both secondary crushers to the screen feed bin, closing the loop until the material passes the screen aperture.

**17.5** **ROM Truck Stacking** 

Excavation, loading, hauling, and dumping of ROM material will be conducted by the mining fleet. ROM ore will be loaded into 200-ton haul trucks and transported to the active stacking face at an average rate of 14,000 tons/day. ROM production and stacking will vary based on the ore availability from the mine pits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 485 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Quicklime (CaO) will be used for pH control of the process. Pebble quicklime will be stored in a silo which will be equipped with a variable speed feed system that will feed a clam gate for lime addition to the trucks. Once the haul trucks have been loaded, the lime will be metered directly into the loaded trucks which will then deliver the ore to the active stacking area. One lime silo will be installed at the haul road for both the Pinion and Dark Star mine pits. Lime will be added in proportion to the tonnage of ore being hauled.

The ore haul trucks will operate on top of the lift being constructed. A ramp, or ramps, will be constructed to reach the top of each current lift. The trucks will direct-dump the ore on the current lift and a dozer will push the ore over the edge of the lift to form the expanding heap. The stacked ore will be deep-shank cross-ripped with the dozer prior to leaching. Ore will be stacked in 30 ft high lifts with a maximum ore heap height of 300 ft.

Prior to stacking a new lift over the top of an old one, the top of the old lift will be cross-ripped to break up any cemented/compacted sections and to redistribute any fines that may have been stratified by the irrigation solution or rainfall.

Following stacking, the ore will be drip irrigated with dilute cyanide leach solution and the resulting gold-bearing solutions collected in the pregnant solution tank. The leach pad will be a multiple-lift, single-use type pad.

**17.6** **Leaching and Solution Handling** 

After each leach cell has been stacked and dozer ripped, the irrigation system will be installed. Dripline emitters will be used to apply a dilute cyanide solution at an application rate of 0.0033 gpm/ft<sup>2</sup> for ROM ore. A leach cycle of 100 days has been selected for ROM, based on a review of the leach curves.

Barren leach pH solution will be maintained at a minimum value of 10 and will be controlled by the addition of lime on the fresh ore. Barren solution will be delivered from a barren tank located at the recovery plant, by high-flow high-head pumps at a nominal flow rate of 5,000 gpm. This solution will be carried by a steel pipeline to the base of the heap and then to a network of sub-headers and risers to the top of the heap where it is finally applied to the material by drip emitters.

Solution passing through the heap will dissolve the values contained therein and be collect in a network of perforated solution collection pipes, which feed to a common discharge point at the base of the heap. The solution will then be carried by gravity to a pregnant solution tank. Excess solution from the heap will overflow from the pregnant tank to a lined process pond. Pregnant solution is pumped from the pregnant tank to the adsorption carbon column circuit at the recovery plant.

The carbon adsorption circuit consists of two trains of cascade-style columns. Pregnant solution flows through the columns to load the soluble gold onto the carbon. Barren solution exiting the columns is directed to the barren tank where make up cyanide is added, and the solution returned to the heap for further leaching. Overflow from the barren tank is directed to a process solution pond, which overflows to the event pond.

**17.7** **Leach Pad Phasing and Construction** 

It is assumed the leach pad will be constructed in four phases.

For the initial the first year ore will be stacked with trucks in nominal 30 ft thick lifts across the entire eastern toe area of Phase 1 leach pad. Barren solution containing cyanide will be irrigated onto the ore using drip irrigation. Pregnant solution will be collected at the base of the heap by the leach pad liner and collection system, which will route the pregnant solution to the process plant for gold recovery and reagent reconditioning. Once an area has been leached for the target time or metal recovery, the next lift will be placed on top of the already leached ore and the process repeated. This will be continued until the heap is stacked to the design capacity of 73.4 million tons.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 486 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

An overliner layer will be provided to protect the geomembrane primary liner from mechanical damage during ore stacking as well as weather conditions before the geomembrane is covered with ore. The overliner will also provide drainage of leach solutions and storm water entering the system both through the permeability of the drainage gravel and a network of drainage pipes installed within the overliner. The overliner material will be 18-inch thick and consist of select, durable crushed ore screened to a P<sub>100</sub> of 1.5-inch.

The primary geosynthetic liner will be a composite liner system constructed using a robust, 80-mil thick HDPE material with the bottom side textured to provide an intimate bond with the underlying low permeability soil layer. This configuration is used on the majority of the operating leach pads in the industry. The installation specifications include a robust Quality Assurance/Quality Control program to provide assurance of a leak-free installation.

The low permeability soil layer will utilize an on-site clay source to produce a compacted clay liner with identified properties to have a maximum permeability of 10<sup>-6</sup> cm/sec.

The leak detection system for the leach pad will consist of gravel fill trenches with perforated collection pipes installed directly underneath the primary collection pipes beneath the composite liner system in each of cells for the leach pad. These leak detection pipes will be extended to and are booted through the perimeter solution collection trench liner system to discharge into the lined solution collection trench 3-feet above the trench bottom. This will enable visual monitoring and sampling of the leak detection ports as necessary.

**17.7.1** **Solution Ponds** 

Two storage ponds, the process pond and event pond, are planned for the management of solutions. The process pond will collect overflow from the pregnant solution tank and is sized to additionally contain 24 hours of pregnant solution working volume, essentially 24 hours of heap solution drain down in the event of barren pump failure or power loss. The event pond will collect overflow from the pregnant solution pond and is sized to additionally handle storm water collection from a 100 yr., 24-hr storm event, plus the accumulation from a wet year snowpack over the ultimate pad lined area. Based on preliminary assumptions and data, the process and event ponds are sized at approximately 9,600,000 gallons and 25,500,000 gallons respectively for a total storage capacity of 35,100,000 gallons including free board.

The pond lining system for the pregnant solution pond will consist of two HDPE geomembrane liners separated by an HDPE geonet for leak detection and recovery. The pond lining system for the stormwater event pond will consist of a single HDPE geomembrane liner. Solutions collected in these ponds will be pumped back to the corresponding barren or pregnant solution tanks using submersible pond pumps for distribution either to the recovery plant or to the heap.

**17.8** **ADR Plant** 

The recovery plant at South Railroad has been designed to recover gold and silver values using a carbon adsorption-desorption-regeneration (ADR) process. Pregnant leach solution from the heap leach will be pumped to the carbon in column circuit (CIC) and adsorbed onto activated carbon (adsorption). Two trains of carbon columns are included in the design, primarily to allow the diameter of the columns to be maintained within the transportation shipping envelope. Loaded carbon from the CIC circuit will be desorbed in a high-temperature elution process coupled to an electrowinning circuit (desorption), followed by retorting to remove mercury and smelting of the resulting sludge to produce doré bullion (recovery). Before elution, each batch of carbon will be acid washed to remove any scale and other inorganic contaminants that might inhibit gold adsorption on carbon. All or a portion of the carbon will be thermally reactivated using a rotary kiln.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 487 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The ADR plant General Arrangement is presented in Figure 17-2.

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp18img02.jpg)

**Figure 17-2: ADR Recovery Plant General Arrangement**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 488 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**17.8.1** **Adsorption** 

Adsorption of gold and silver onto carbon will occur in the carbon adsorption circuit. The adsorption circuit will consist of two trains of five, cascade type open-top up-flow mild-steel CICs each. Each of the carbon columns are nominally 12.5 feet in diameter and are sized to hold 6 tons of activated carbon.

The nominal flow to the adsorption circuit will be 4,500 gpm. Barren solution exiting the last carbon adsorption column in the train will flow through a vibrating screen to separate any floating carbon from the solution, then flow by gravity into the barren tank.

Antiscalant will be added at the pregnant solution tank to prevent scaling of carbon and reduction of the carbon loading capability. Magnetic flowmeters equipped with totalizers will measure solution flow to the adsorption circuit. Pregnant solution will flow by gravity through each set of five columns in series, exiting the lowest column as barren solution. Pregnant and barren solution continuous samplers will be installed at the feed and discharge end of each carbon column train, respectively. Solution samples will be used to measure pregnant and barren solution gold and silver concentrations.

Adsorption of gold and silver from pregnant leach solutions from the heap circuit will be a continuous process. Once the carbon in the lead column achieves the desired precious metal load it will be advanced to the elution (desorption) circuit using recessed impellor centrifugal pumps. Carbon in the remaining columns will be advanced counter current to the solution flow to the next column in series. New or acid washed/regenerated carbon will be added to the last column in the train.

The stripping of carbon will occur once per day, on average, once sufficient soluble metal is present on the incoming pregnant solution.

**17.8.2** **Carbon Acid Wash** 

Loaded carbon transferred from the CIC circuit will pass through a vibrating screen, which allows for the majority of the elevated pH, cyanide-bearing solution to return to the CIC circuit during carbon transfer. Dewatered carbon reports to the acid wash column. A dilute acid solution will then be prepared in the mix tank, and circulation established between the acid wash vessel and the acid mix tank. Completion of the cycle will be indicated when the pH stabilizes between 1.0 and 2.0 without acid addition for a minimum of thirty minutes of circulation.

The carbon will then be rinsed with raw water followed by rinsing with dilute caustic solution to remove any residual acid. The total time required for acid washing a batch of carbon will be approximately four hours. After acid washing has been completed, a carbon transfer pump will transfer the carbon to the desorption circuit.

**17.8.3** **Desorption** 

A pressure Zadra hot caustic desorption circuit for the stripping of metal values from carbon has been selected for South Railroad, which requires 12 hours or less to complete a cycle. During the elution cycle, gold and silver are continuously extracted by electrowinning from the pregnant eluate concurrently with desorption.

The desorption circuit is sized to strip gold and silver from carbon in 6-ton batches and will be equipped with a strip solution tank, strip solution pump, four heat exchangers, hot water heater, elution column, and elution column drain pump. After carbon has been transferred to the elution column, barren strip solution (eluant) containing sodium hydroxide and sodium cyanide will be pumped through the heat recovery and primary heat exchangers and introduced to the elution vessel at a nominal temperature of 300°F and a nominal operating pressure of approximately 100 psig for ten hours.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 489 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Under normal operating conditions, barren eluant solution from the solution storage tank will pass through the heat recovery exchanger to be preheated by hot pregnant eluate leaving the elution column. The barren eluant solution then passes through the primary heat exchanger to raise the temperature up to 300°F using pressurized hot water (~330°F) from the hot water heater system.

The elution column will contain internal stainless-steel inlet screens to hold carbon in the column and to distribute incoming stripping solution evenly in the column. Pregnant eluate leaving the elution column will pass through two external stainless-steel screens before passing through the heat recovery exchanger and the cooling heat exchanger to reduce the temperature to about 175°F (to prevent boiling). The cooled pregnant eluate solution will flow to the electrowinning cell.

After desorption is complete, the stripped carbon will be transferred to the carbon regeneration circuit by a carbon transfer pump.

**17.8.4** **Electrowinning** 

The electrowinning circuit will be operated in series with the elution circuit. Solution will be pumped continuously from the barren strip solution tank through the elution column, then through the electrowinning cells, and back to the strip solution tank in a continuous closed loop process.

The electrowinning circuit will include two electrowinning cells, each equipped with a rectifier. Gold and silver will be won from the eluate in the electrowinning cells using stainless steel cathodes using a current density of approximately 4.5 amperes per square foot of anode surface. Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) in the eluate solution will act as an electrolyte to encourage free flow of electrons and promote the precious metal winning from solution. To keep the electrical resistance of the solution low during desorption and the electrowinning cycle, make-up caustic soda may sometimes be added to the strip solution tank. Barren eluant solution leaving the electrolytic cell will discharge to the barren eluate return tank from which it will be pumped back to the strip solution tank for recycle through the elution column.

Periodically, all or part of the barren eluant will be dumped to the barren solution tank. Typically, about one-third of the barren eluant will be discarded after each elution or strip cycle. Sodium hydroxide and sodium cyanide will be added as required from the reagent handling systems to the barren eluant tank during fresh strip solution make-up.

The precious metal-laden cathodes in the electrolytic cells will be removed about once per week and processed to produce the final doré product. Loaded cathodes will be washed in place, where precipitated precious metals will be removed from the cathodes with a pressure washer. The resulting sludge will be pumped to a plate-and-frame filter press to remove water and the filter cake will be loaded into pans for retorting.

**17.8.5** **Carbon Handling & Thermal Regeneration** 

The carbon preparation and storage system will include a 1-ton agitated carbon attrition tank, a 6-ton carbon storage tank, carbon dewatering screen, carbon fines storage tank, carbon fines filter press, and carbon transfer pumps. New and acid washed/regenerated carbon will be stored in the carbon storage tank to be returned to the CIC circuit as make-up carbon. Carbon being transferred to the carbon storage tank will pass to a carbon fines/dewatering screen in order to remove any carbon fines from the system. Carbon fines will be stored in a carbon fines storage tank, which will be periodically pumped through the carbon fines filter press; carbon fines from the filter press will be stored in bulk bags for removal from the system.

Fresh carbon being added to the system will first be attritioned in the carbon attrition tank before being pumped to the carbon dewatering screen to remove carbon fines and is then transferred to the carbon storage tank.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 490 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Thermal regeneration will consist of drying the carbon thoroughly and heating it to approximately 1300ºF for ten minutes in order to maintain carbon activity levels. The carbon regeneration circuit has been designed to regenerate 100% of the carbon.

Carbon from the elution circuit to be thermally reactivated will be dewatered on a vibrating screen, transferred to the regeneration kiln feed hopper and fed to the regeneration kiln by a screw feeder. Hot, regenerated carbon leaving the kiln will pass into a water-filled quench tank for cooling before being transferred to the carbon dewatering screen and carbon storage tank.

**17.8.6** **Refining & Smelting** 

Cathode sludge from the electrolytic sludge filter press will be dried and treated in a mercury retort to remove and recover any mercury that may be present. The sludge will be placed into pans and heated in the retort for a minimum of 6 hours at 1,100ºF to volatilize mercury. A vacuum system will remove mercury vapor from the retort and pass the vapor through a condenser. Condensed mercury will be collected in a trap, and then transferred and stored in flasks. Cooled, mercury-depleted vapor leaving the trap will be passed through a sulfur-impregnated carbon scrubber to remove any residual mercury.

After mercury removal, fluxes will be mixed with the cathode sludge and then fed to an electric induction furnace. The furnace will be heated to approximately 2,200ºF. When the furnace charge is fully molten, it separates into two distinct layers: the slag (on the top) and metal (on the bottom). The slag layer, containing fused fluxes and impurities, will be poured first into conical pots. Once slag has been removed, the melted gold and silver (metal layer) will be poured into molds to form Doré bars.

17.8.6.1 Mercury Abatement System

In addition to the mercury retort, the ADR facility will be fitted with an exhaust gas handling system to treat mercury emissions from the various pieces of equipment. The exhaust system will be designed to combine mercury-containing exhaust streams and treat them in two separate sulfur-impregnated carbon beds prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

The first carbon bed will be dedicated to treat fumes from the smelting furnace. The smelting furnace will be fitted with a hood which will collect fumes and direct them to a scrubber, which will remove suspended particles from the gas and cool the gas before passing through the carbon bed. The carbon bed will collect traces of mercury vapor before exhausting the gas to the atmosphere.

The second carbon bed will treat the combined exhaust gas streams from the electrowinning cells, eluant solution storage tank, elution vessel, and carbon regeneration kiln. The kiln exhaust gas will be first treated through a wet scrubber to remove particulates and cool the gas, which will then be combined with the remaining exhaust gas streams and pass through the carbon bed.

**17.9** **ADR Reagents and Utilities** 

Recovery plant reagents will include cyanide, caustic, nitric acid, antiscalant, activated carbon, and various furnace fluxes.

**17.10** **Laboratory Facilities** 

Analytical support, including fire assays and metallurgical testing required to support the project operations, will be conducted on-site using a dedicated laboratory. It is assumed that approximately 100 samples per day will be delivered from the mine for fire assay. A small number of fire assays, solutions, and carbon assays will be required for metallurgical control for processing. A metallurgical lab area is also included for running bottle roll and column tests.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 491 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **18** | **Project Infrastructure** |

---

The infrastructure for South Railroad has been developed to support mining and heap leaching operations. This includes the access road to the facility, power supply, communication, heap leach pad, process plant and ancillary buildings. Water supply to the site including tanks, pipelines, ponds, and diversions are described in Section 18.5. Haul roads within the mining area as well as the mine waste storage facility are described in Section 16. The infrastructure envisioned is shown in Figure 18-1.

**18.1** **Access Road** 

The primary site access for South Railroad will be from Elko, NV using the 41.7-mile route shown in Figure 18-1. This 41.7-mile route begins from its intersection with 12<sup>th</sup> Street in Elko, NV and continues approximately 5.5 miles along the existing paved State Route (SR) 227 (i.e., Lamoille Highway) to the intersection with SR 228 (i.e., Jiggs Highway). The route continues south along paved SR 228 for another 5.5 miles to the paved Elko County Road 715 (i.e., South Fork Road). The route follows southward along County Road 715 approximately 5.7 miles to the intersection with County Road 715B (i.e., Lucky Nugget Road/Grant Avenue). From this intersection, the route follows County Road 715B approximately 3.1 miles along the west shore of South Fork Reservoir through a semi-rural residential area to the intersection with BLM Road 1119, which continues southwest approximately 6 miles to its intersection with Elko County Road 720 (i.e., Bullion Road). The route follows the Bullion Road southwest approximately 10 miles to the intersection with the un-improved BLM Road 1053, then continues southward following the approximate alignment of BLM Road 1053 along the eastern flank of the Pinion Range approximately 6 miles to the South Railroad Project.

Beginning at BLM Road 1119 and continuing to the site approximately 22 miles, the main access road will be improved to a standard two-way road consisting of a 4-meter-wide lane and 2-meter-wide shoulder in each direction. The shoulders will provide area for any safety and drainage structures that will be needed along the route.

The last 6 miles to the site will encounter mountainous grades and winding alignment of the existing dirt road (BLM Road 1053). This road will be improved to straighten the alignment, where possible, and reduce grades to a maximum of 8-10 percent to allow for easier access to the site and promote safety. As the access road approaches the site, all traffic will be required to check in at the security office before heading past Administration and to the site facilities located between the Pinion and Dark Star pits. Delivery of all personnel, operating equipment, consumables, and construction equipment will be along this primary access road.

**18.2** **Power Supply** 

Utility electrical service at the site is not currently available. Power will be supplied by an on-site power generation facility. For the electrical demand of the project, seven natural gas generators will be included. Each generator has a capacity of 1970 kW and the design considers operation with six generators. Each generator has a capacity of 1970 kW and the design considers operation with six generators. The seventh generator provides (N+1) reliability, which minimizes operating restraints. Natural gas will be delivered to site via truck in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG). LNG will be stored in a double-walled tank and vaporized for use in the generators. Synchronizing switchgear is included for load-sharing between operating generators.

An evaluation to arrive at the selected design for the power supply was conducted in January 2020 in a report by Qualified Persons from M3 titled "South Railroad Mine Project Electric Study". This study investigated meeting the demand by extending electric utility service to the site, as well as installing and operating on-site generation with either reciprocating engine generators or gas turbine generators. Fuel sources considered for the on-site generation included trucked diesel, a utility natural gas pipeline for gas service, and trucked Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) with on-site vaporizers. Additional factors considered in this evaluation included fuel cost including delivery, system efficiencies, air quality impacts and emissions treatment, maintenance costs, and salvage value. The capital and operating costs for six (6) suitable configurations were compared, establishing rates of return and break-even durations for each configuration pair.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 492 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The study concluded that, when considering all these factors, on-site generation utilizing reciprocating engine generators fueled by LNG delivered to the site provided the greatest value and operational flexibility to the project. This configuration produces lower emissions than diesel options with lower operating costs and lower effective cost per kWh than other on-site options. By installing multiple units operated in parallel, the system can be implementing with a unitized approach controlling initial capital costs - making infrastructure investments only when needed and avoiding the large capital investment of a utility connection. Equipment salvage value can also be realized, a savings not available by selecting a utility approach.

The costs associated with this recommendation have been captured in the Capital and Operating Cost Estimates.

**18.3** **Project Buildings** 

The proposed heap-leach facility will be located just Northeast of the Pinion pit on the west side of the valley. Pregnant Leach Solution (PLS) will flow by gravity to the PLS Pond directly east of the Heap Leach Pad. An event pond will be located adjacent to the PLS Pond to allow for passive overflow if an excessive runoff event occurs. Road access is provided just along the west edge of the heap leach facility which will allow access onto the leach pad for ROM material. An access point is also provided at the base of the pad to allow for haul truck ingress for the initial ore placement on the pad.

A truck shop is planned northwest of the Dark Star waste dump. A fuel island will be constructed just west of the truck shop. Safety and training areas will be provided within the shop building. In addition, Mine Services offices are integral to the truck shop and a laydown yard is proposed directly east of the facility. The Pinion and Dark Star pits are tied to their respective waste dumps and the leach pad by haul roads.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 493 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp18img03.jpg)

**Figure 18-1: Site Plan Drawing**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 494 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**18.3.1** **Security Building at Access Gate** 

The site Security Building is located at the top of a hill for optimal visibility, approximately 4 miles along the main access road from the west property line. The Security Building includes an entry access gate that will control all site ingress egress. From the entry gate a continuous security fence surrounds the active facilities on site.

**18.3.2** **Administration Building** 

The site Administration Building is just past the Security Building also on the main road. The building will be comprised of (12) 12' x 60' mobile units that will be assembled into a single unit divided for the variety of use. Ten of these units will be used for the Administration Building, while the remaining two will be used to house the Change House Facilities.

**18.3.3** **Truck Shop Building** 

As the road continues from the Administration Building to the northeast the Truck shop is located just past the Primary Mine Substation and Fueling Station. The Truck shop is a 260' x 100' facility that has 4 bays with 2 of them embedded rail to receive tracked vehicles or loaders with tire chains. The Mine Warehouse Facility is included within the footprint of the Truck Shop at the ground floor at the opposite of the bay side. The Mine Services Office and Training Space is designed to be included above the warehouse space.

**18.3.4** **ADR Plant** 

The ADR Plant is located directly to the north and west of the Truck Shop. PLS from the Heap Leach Pad will be processed in an ADR (adsorption, desorption and recovery) plant where gold and silver will be adsorbed onto activated carbon and recovered by stripping the carbon and eventually recovering the precipitate by electrowinning. The ADR facility includes an open CIC circuit consisting of two carbon column trains operated in parallel as well as 9,000 ft<sup>2</sup> insulated, engineered steel walled building with an overall height of 45 feet. The building will contain the desorption, acid wash, and carbon handling and regeneration circuits, as well an office, break/lunch room, and men's and women's locker/bathroom facilities. The ADR facility also includes an attached refinery building which will be a 5,000 ft<sup>2</sup> insulated, engineered steel walled building with an overall height of 25 feet and will contain the electrowinning, mercury recovery, and smelting furnace. The ADR building includes two roll-up doors for forklift and maintenance vehicle access as well as man doors around building. The Refinery includes a secure man-door access as well as access for armored trucks via a roll-up door. The facility will include all necessary eyewash/safety shower water and fire protection systems.

**18.3.5** **Laboratory** 

The Laboratory building will be comprised of site constructed permanent facility with a cast in place concrete floor system. This facility will be custom engineered and accommodate proper scrubbers, acid containment system, dust collection, and necessary sample processing equipment. Offices, restrooms, and change facilities for the Lab are incorporated into the layout.

**18.4** **Sitewide Water Management Strategy** 

This section presents the overall strategy for managing the water produced from the mine as well as meet the demands of mine processes and supporting facilities. A process flow diagram illustrating how water will be managed at the site is presented in Figure 18-2 and locations of water management infrastructure, excluding stormwater controls, is shown in Figure 18-3. Further details, as well as the supporting studies and model results used to develop the strategy and cost estimate presented herein can be found in the *Feasibility Study Mine Water Management Plan South Railroad Project* (Stantec, 2022).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 495 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**18.4.1** **Source of Mine Water** 

18.4.1.1 Groundwater Dewatering System

The main source of water generated from the mine will be from the groundwater dewatering systems required to support the mining operation of the Dark Star North Pit, followed by groundwater dewatering systems required to support mining at Pinion Phase 4/5. At Dark Star North, this system will consist of nine dewatering wells, each pumping between 100 and 300 gallons per minute (gpm) and will produce a total peak and sustained flow rate of approximately 2,300 gpm. At Pinion Phase 4/5, this system will consist of two dewatering wells, each pumping 225 gpm. Refer to Table 18-1 below for pumping rates by year. Note that the required pumping rate for Years 1 – 3 is determined by the pit dewatering schedule at Dark Star North. Year 3 also includes the use of in-pit sumps removing water to provide the final required drawdown at Dark Star North as some of the pumping wells may reduce in flow toward the end of the dewatering period. Pumping during Years 4 – 8 will be conducted to meet mine processes needs and dewatering at the Pinion Phase 4/5 area. Following Year 8, pumping would continue for several years at an estimated average rate of approximately 310 gpm to support heap leaching operations.

Water generated from the groundwater dewatering system will be beneficially used in operations. Based on the groundwater modeling conducted and water demands that have been identified, the mine should have enough water to meet all water demands throughout the life cycle of the mine.

Pit dewatering wells located around the Dark Star North Pit will be conveyed to a 350,000-gallon Mine Raw Water Tank (Tank 1). Tank 1 will be located adjacent to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Water will be pumped from Tank 1 to either the WTP or to another 350,000-gallon Mine Raw Water Tank (Tank 2), which will be used to supply water for consumptive uses. Tank 1 and Tank 2 will also be interconnected to allow transfer between the tanks, which allows additional water to be sent to the WTP as necessary. Water from the Pinion Phase 4/5 dewatering wells will be conveyed directly to Tank 2. Tank 2 will also be connected to Mine Raw Water Tank 3 (Tank 3), which will store and supply fire water. Tank 3 is only connected to Tank 2.

All tanks will be fitted with a level sensor that will control the flow to the tanks.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 496 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 18-1: Current Modeled Pumping Rates for Dark Star North and Pinion Phase 4/5 Dewatering System**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Well** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pumping Rates**<br> **(gallons per minute)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Well** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2023** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2025** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2026** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2027** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2028** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2029** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2030** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2031** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-5.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSPW-9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DSE – in-pit sump pumping | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 – 150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PPW-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PPW-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 497 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 18-2: Water Management Process Flow Diagram**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 498 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![Diagram Description automatically generated](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp18img05.jpg)

**Figure 18-3: Pipeline Plan General Arrangement**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 499 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

18.4.1.2 Stormwater Conveyance Facilities

Stormwater from the site will be managed as contact and non-contact stormwater. Non-contact stormwater are the flows that do not come in contact with ore or mine processing facilities. Non-contact flows will be collected and conveyed around the site and directly discharged to existing stream channels. Contact stormwater will be routed to the WRDF seepage ponds, the process facility ponds (east of the heap leach pad near the plant), and the ponds located near the material handling of the crusher pad, stacker pads 1 and 2, and the agglomeration pad. These last four ponds are referred to as the beneficiation ponds. Excluding the process facility ponds, contact water will be pumped and blended with other water sources in Tank 2. The operation of the WRDF collection ponds and the beneficiation ponds are discussed in the following section. The HLP operations and process facility ponds are discussed in Section 18.6.

The collection and conveyance of non-contact stormwater runoff will be managed by the construction of stormwater channels, culverts, and energy dissipation structures. Stormwater controls during operations are designed to meet the 100-year, 24-hour storm event, and stormwater controls after closure are designed to meet the 500-year, 24-hour event. The non-contact water stormwater conveyance systems and collection ponds are shown on Figure 18-4**.** Contact stormwater is primarily controlled through surface grading and use of liners to prevent off-site releases. Graded areas will route water towards collection ponds via overland flow. Contact water will be managed through closed-conduit piping systems to facilitate the transfer of water to downstream uses or towards the WTP.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 500 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 18-4: Stormwater Controls General Arrangement**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 501 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

18.4.1.3 Seepage and Stormwater Collection Facilities

During operation, the WRDFs at Pinion and Dark Star will generate a small amount of seepage water from precipitation migrating through the waste rock. Waste rock geochemical modeling indicates that seepage from Pinion will meet Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Profile I water quality standards, and thus will not require seepage containment facilities. The small amount of seepage from the Dark Star WRDFs along with stormwater that falls within the facility footprints will need to be contained and managed with stormwater collection ponds. Based on the water balance modeling conducted to date, average annual seepage/stormwater rates reporting to the Dark Star West and Dark Star East WRDFs ponds are of 79 and 120 gpm respectively. The estimated seepage and stormwater rates are influenced by the timing of the waste rock development and the anticipated concurrent reclamation of the facilities. Due to the space limitations at the site, management of the WRDF seepage/stormwater during operations by simple storage and evaporation alone is not practical. Therefore, the water collected from the ponds during operations will be blended with the groundwater in Tank 1 or Tank 2.

In addition, potential runoff from the HLP as well as the HLP-W1, HLP-W2, HLP-W3, and HLP-W4 areas will also be collected in stormwater ponds as part the zero-discharge operating requirement. The combined 100-year, 24-hour stormwater volume reporting to the four ponds is 8.9 acre-feet with individual pond sizes ranging from 1.4 to 5.1 acre-feet. Stormwater from these four ponds is routed to Tank 2 and recirculated in mine operations. The HLP water handling is discussed separately and is largely confined to the HLP and mineral processing areas in a self-contained system.

Based on feasibility level site-wide water balance modeling, there will be select periods when the combination of dewatering operations and water collected in the stormwater control ponds exceeds the combination of the WTP capacity plus consumptive use demands. These excess water periods of several days would typically occur during spring runoff and when operation water requirements are low. The projected excess water rate is dependent on several conditions during the period of operation including the actual weather conditions at the site, the closure and construction of WRDFs, and the timing of mine water needs at the HLP and other facilities. Excess water would be recirculated in the HLP during these periods with an option to temporarily reduce dewatering rates to offset the higher stormwater contributions.

**18.4.2** **Beneficial Reuse** 

The main water demands at the site are associated with heap leach make-up water demands and mine facilities such as water for dust suppression, operational drilling water/pad construction, and the truck wash.

Water from Tank 1 will be transferred at a peak rate of 1,800 gpm to Tank 2 to provide enough water for the mine facilities. Water in Tank 2 will either be conveyed to the mine facilities or pumped to Tank 3 for fire water for the ADR. A description of the principal beneficial reuses for the site are presented below.

18.4.2.1 Heap Leach Make-up Demands

Based on water balance modeling for the HLP as provided by Forte, water demands for the HLP will fluctuate significantly. For average site climate conditions, makeup rates may be on the order of 400 gpm during summer months while it is possible that no makeup water would be required during seasonal spring melt periods. The overall average makeup rate for average climate conditions is expected to be approximately 120 gpm.

18.4.2.2 Mine Facilities

The mine facilities non-potable water demands will consist of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Dust Suppression – 139 gpm in the winter
and 222 gpm in the summer with an average of 181 gpm;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Drilling and Construction – 57 gpm; and

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 502 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Vehicle Washdown – 10 gpm.

A series of distribution piping from Tank 2 will supply water to the mine facilities.

**18.4.3** **Water Disposal and Large Storm Events** 

Excess water generated from the dewatering system will be pumped from Tank 1 and then the WTP.

In the event of significant storm events that exceed the capacity of the WTP, water will be pumped and recirculated in the heap leach facility to attenuate flows to manage peaks. This additional water will be delivered from Tank 2 to the heap leach circuit.

**18.5** **Water Management Infrastructure** 

This section discusses the infrastructure required to manage mine water at the site.

**18.5.1** **Dark Star Groundwater Dewatering System** 

Infrastructure associated with the Dark Star dewatering system is described in the below section.

18.5.1.1 Wells

Groundwater modeling has indicated that nine wells installed to varying depths between 900 ft to 1,100 ft will be required to provide sufficient dewatering capacity. Well locations are shown on Figure 18-3. Typical well construction details are shown on Figure 18-5.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 503 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Figure 18-5: Typical Dewatering Well Construction Details**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 504 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

18.5.1.2 Well Pumps and In-Pit Sumps

A total of nine well pumps will be procured for the project. Based on the maximum flow rate, each well pump will be required to pump at a maximum rate between 100 to 300 gpm and will be installed to depths between 700 and 1,000 ft bgs. Additional in-pit sumps with flow rates of 80 – 150 gpm will be installed at Dark Star North in Year 3.

18.5.1.3 Pipelines

Each well at Dark Star North will be connected to an HDPE header. The header network will be divided into sections and will connect with a 12- to 18-inch pipeline that will supply water to Tank 1. Water from Tank 1 will be pumped to Tank 2 via a 14-inch pipeline for further use and the remaining water will be pumped to WTP for disposal.

18.5.1.4 Tanks

Tank 1 will serve as a buffer tank. Water from Tank 1 will be pumped to Tank 2 for further use at the mine. Tank 1 will be a carbon steel tank having capacity of 350,000 gallons.

18.5.1.5 Distribution Pump

There will be one distribution pump installed at Tank 1 that will be used to transfer water to Tank 2. The pump has been sized to provide adequate pumping capacity to meet the expected peak flow rate to Tank 2.

18.5.1.6 Instrumentation and Controls

Each well will have a level sensor installed to control the pumps that will operate the pump between high and low level to maintain the groundwater level below the bottom of the pit.

Tank 1 will be installed with a level sensor that will control the flow and operate the pumps. The pumps will maintain designated operating levels in the tank by adjusting the flow rate to the WTP with a variable frequency drive (VFD) motor on the pump. The distribution pump transferring water to the Tank 2 will be turned off at low water level in Tank 1.

18.5.1.7 Electrical

Electricity will be supplied by local transformers and consist of power distribution to the pumphouse and pumps.

**18.5.2** **Seepage and Stormwater Management System** 

Infrastructure associated with the seepage and stormwater management system is described in the below section.

18.5.2.1 Ponds

Six ponds will be used to manage contact stormwater and seepage from the two Dark Star WRDFs and the four beneficiation ponds during operations. Pumping systems will be installed in each pond to pump water when the pond levels reach a predetermined level. During operations, the water pumped from the beneficiation ponds will be discharged to the Tank 2. Water captured at the two Dark Star WRDF ponds would be initially sent to Tank 1 and mixed with dewatering water.

18.5.2.2 Pipelines

A series of 6-inch HDPE pipelines will be used to transfer water from each of the four beneficiation ponds to Tank 2 or, in the case of the Crusher Area, first to a common 8-inch HDPE pipeline and then to Tank 2. Water collected in the Dark Star East and West WRDFs would be routed via 10-inch and 6-inch HDPE pipelines, respectively.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 505 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

18.5.2.3 Pumps

Each pumping system will include one submersible pumps. The expected nominal and maximum flow rate for each system is shown in Table 18-2. Except for Dark Star East, all other pumping rates will be achieved with VFDs that will control the speeds of the pumps. The pumps were standardized to reduce the number of spares and parts required. The high maximum pumping rate at Dark Star East will require a separate dedicated pump that would only be needed during significant storm events.

**Table 18-2: Expected Pumping Rates for Contact Water Ponds**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;***Pond*** | &nbsp;&nbsp; ***Nominal***<br> ***(gpm)*** | &nbsp;&nbsp; ***Maximum***<br> ***(gpm)*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star East Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1700 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dark Star West Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;900 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HLP-W1 Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HLP-W2 Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HLP-W3 Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HLP-W4 Pond | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 |

---

18.5.2.4 Instrumentation and Controls

The pond pumping system will be controlled using level sensors that will be used to turn on and off the pumps at preset high and low levels.

18.5.2.5 Electrical

Electricity will be supplied by local transformers and consist of power distribution to the pumphouse and pumps.

**18.5.3** **Beneficial Reuse System** 

Infrastructure associated with the beneficial reuse system is described in the below section.

18.5.3.1 Pipelines

The following water distribution pipelines will be required to convey water for mining process and facilities:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A 14-inch pipeline to convey water from Tank
1 to Tank 2;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· An 8-inch pipeline from Tank 2 to Tank 3;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· An 8-inch pipeline to convey water from Tank
2 to the mine facilities; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ancillary smaller diameter distribution pipelines
for the various mine facility uses.

18.5.3.2 Tanks

Three tanks makeup the mine water management for non-potable uses. Each tank has a 350,000-gallon capacity and is made of carbon steel tank.

18.5.3.3 Pumps

One pump will be used to pump water from Tank 2 to Tank 3 at a maximum rate of 200 gpm. A second pump will be used to pump water form Tank 2 to the other mine facilities requiring make-up water.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 506 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

18.5.3.4 Instrumentation and Controls

All tanks will include low-level, high-level, and high-high level sensors. These sensors will be used to control pumps and valves downstream of the various tanks feeding each system.

18.5.3.5 Electrical

Electricity will be supplied by local transformers and consist of power distribution to the pumphouse and pumps.

**18.6** **Heap Leach Pad Facility** 

The heap leach facility (HLF) consists of a conventional lined leach pad to support a multi-lift, free-draining heap, event pond, pregnant solution pond, access roads, solution distribution piping (barren solution to the heap) and heap drainage solution collection piping (pregnant solution to the ponds and plant). The HLF will be constructed in four phases, with the process ponds, plant, and access roads constructed as part of the initial phase.

ROM ore will be stacked on the heap with trucks in nominal 30 foot thick lifts. Barren solution containing cyanide will be irrigated onto the ore using drip irrigation. Pregnant solution will be collected at the base of the heap by the leach pad liner and drainage collection system, which will route the pregnant solution to the process plant for gold recovery and reagent reconditioning. Once an area has been leached for the target time or metal recovery, the next lift will be placed on top of the already leached ore and the process repeated. This will be continued until the heap is stacked to the design elevation of 6989 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) for a total capacity of 72 million tons.

The leach pad will consist of a graded area to the west of the ADR process plant and northwest of the Dark Star open pit. The leach pad will be constructed in four phases, with each phase large enough to provide ore leaching capacity for 1 to 2 years. For each phase, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled for use in reclamation.

After removal of topsoil, the site will be graded by cutting and filling to achieve targeted slopes, elevations and grades. The HLF liner system is designed to restrict infiltration of flows through the base of the pad by providing a composite liner system consisting of a low-permeability compacted soil layer overlain with a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane layer. A system for monitoring seepage within the HLF in areas of concentrated flow will be constructed beneath the primary liner. This system will be located beneath the solution collection headers and will utilize gravel filled trenches with perforated pipes to capture any leaks through the liner layers.

A network of drainage pipes and drainage gravel will be placed on top of the primary HDPE liner to protect the liner and piping from damage, to limit the maximum hydraulic head over the liner system to an average of 12 inches, and to collect the pregnant solution and direct it to ADR facility for processing.

The process ponds will be located near and adjacent to the ADR process plant. A total of two ponds are planned for the HLF. The pregnant solution pond will be double lined with, from top to bottom, 80-mil HDPE primary geomembrane liner, a geonet leak detection layer, and 80-mil geomembrane secondary liner. A leak detection sump will be installed in the low corner of the pregnant pond. The stormwater event pond will be single lined with the primary liner consisting of 80-mil HDPE geomembrane.

Operational solution will be routed via tanks located at the process plant. There will be two tanks for pregnant solution, and one for the barren solution. The second pregnant tank is for maintenance which can also be used for maintenance of the barren tank. The solution tank sizes are included in process plant design report. The pregnant pond is designed to have the storage capacity for 24 hours of drain-down from the leach pad in the event of any issues with processing of operational solutions .The event pond will be sized for storage of the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event as well as the larger of the associated storm surge or the pond inflow from the wettest month timestep as determined from the high level deterministic water balance model for the leach pad (which would include snowmelt runoff). The ponds will have a dedicated generator and pump back system for moving solutions as needed during a "power outage."

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 507 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**18.7** **Heap Leach Facility Water Balance Analysis** 

Heap leaching involves the dissolving of precious metals contained in a low-grade ore using the application and circulation of a weak cyanide solution through the ore. An operational water balance model has been developed for the proposed HLF at the project site. The model provides output to evaluate meteoric (weather) impacts on the facility design and to predict the freshwater demand during operations and subsequent post mining freshwater circulation. The water balance model for a heap leach pad operation is essentially a water budget that tracks all of the water entering and leaving the lined containment system. Sources of water entering the system include pore water delivered with the ore, precipitation falling as rain or snow, and any fresh water (makeup water) added to the system from outside the lined limits of the pad. System losses are a bit more complicated and include three basic categories of loss.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Evaporative losses

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Losses due to surface tension

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Extraction losses

In the case of an operating heap leach pad, the area under active leach is assumed to be continuously wetted by sprinklers or emitters with a limitless supply of water. Therefore, the full potential depth of evapotranspiration is applied to that area. Outside of the area under active leach, the ore surface is assumed to be dry, except for that fraction of the month's rainfall events that coated the soil particles or infiltrated into the soil and did not run off. This volume of water is assumed to be available during that month for evapotranspiration. Any portion of the infiltrated water volume that is not lost to evapotranspiration during the same month it falls is assumed to be beyond the reach of evapotranspiration in the following month and is routed into the solution collection system along with the other applied solution. Therefore, during months where evaporation/evapotranspiration greatly exceeds rainfall, rain events add nothing to the water volume stored in the system. However, during months where rainfall greatly exceeds evaporation/ evapotranspiration, a significant volume of water may be added to storage.

Environments like the SRR Project site where snowfall is a substantial part of the precipitation regime create a special case. During much of the year, a snowpack will exist on the surface of the HLF which will significantly hinder evaporative loss but create a new opportunity for "sublimation" loss (which is a phase change where water goes directly from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through a liquid state).

Losses to surface tension involve changes in the water content of the ore during operations. The ore is not delivered to the heap leach pad in a truly dry condition, but rather contains some relatively small amount of moisture in the pore spaces that is held in place by surface tension. This delivered water content is typically less than the "specific retention" of the ore. The specific retention is a threshold moisture content that marks the position on the soil water characteristic curve where the soil begins refusing to release its water to gravity (i.e., below that moisture content it simply will not readily drain). Therefore, for ore to release the applied solution carrying the dissolved precious metals to the solution collection system, it is necessary to raise the moisture content of the soil to a level above the specific retention. The moisture content of the ore must be increased to a level that allows the water to be passed through the ore at the same rate that it is being applied so that the system is in equilibrium or in balance. Once an area is no longer actively being leached (i.e., no new solution is being applied), then the ore would drain back down to its specific retention moisture content and release the difference back into the solution collection system. The water balance model tracks these changes in moisture content in the ore and accounts for the addition and subtraction of water volume in the system. Once all additions and losses to the volume of water stored in the system have been estimated and accounted for at the end of the month, the model evaluates whether or not there is sufficient water available in storage to maintain the solution application rate for the next month. Heap leach pads are designed as fully lined containment systems that release nothing back into the environment. Solutions that are not stored within the ore itself are routed through the system and stored in the process ponds. However, should extreme events exceed the storage capacity of the system, then the excess must be extracted from the system.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 508 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Precipitation was studied by Stantec and utilized multiple regional sources of data including the site-specific Dark Star climate station. The site-specific data has a record length of only about two (2) years. Available regional meteoric records included data sets as long as 130 years. Details on the development of a representative meteoric record for the project site can be found in a report from Stantec dated April 19, 2019.

Given the location of the site in mountainous terrain at elevations well above 6,000 ft AMSL and the existence of sub-freezing temperatures from late October through April each year, a significant percentage of the precipitation at site occurs as snow. The accumulation of water as the snow water equivalent (SWE) in a growing snowpack over the winter months has an impact on the hydrology of the site by storing water from November through March or early April, then rapidly releasing that stored water over the months of April and May. The water balance model controls the accumulation of SWE in the snowpack as a function of precipitation and temperature using a monthly series of snowpack factors. The monthly snowpack factors were selected to mimic as closely as possible the behavior observed at Snotel sites in the region (the snowpack growing rapidly from November through February, leveling out from March through early April, and declining rapidly from April through May. The snowpack algorithms affect the routing and the timing of the winter precipitation and spring melt, but they have no impact on the net water balance.

Results of the deterministic modeling are as follows. In general, outside makeup water is required from startup through the end of the facility life which is anticipated to be on the order of 9 years of mining and ore stacking, followed by an additional 2 years of leaching with no new ore added to the heap. Modeling disclosed no significant trend toward accumulation of water in the system over time during normal operations.

Upon completion of active leaching operations, solution management will be required until such time as the closure cover is established and clean runoff is diverted off the facility. Once the solution draindown rate falls to a level that can be safely and passively contained in the post-closure Event Pond, active solution management can cease (i.e., no pumping). The current water balance model does not address these post-closure conditions (which will need to be addressed in a separate draindown model at some later time).

Detailed phasing and scheduling of the liner deployment is shown in Table 18-3.

**Table 18-3: Summary of Phased Liner Deployment**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Phase** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lined Surface Area (ft<sup>2</sup>)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3556782 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3182446 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2128147 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1114481 |

---

Table 18-4 summarizes results from the deterministic modeling using the typical/average range cycle of the meteoric record. The maximum, average, and minimum values reported in Table 18-4 represent the range of daily values represented over the life of each respective phase.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 509 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 18-4: Results Summary from the Simple Deterministic Model – Typical/Average Range Cycle**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Phase** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Max** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Min** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Water Stored in Process Ponds (gallons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;1303445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;399815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Water Stored in Process Ponds (gallons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;5092061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;473598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Water Stored in Process Ponds (gallons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;26807682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3419074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Water Stored in Process Ponds (gallons)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;14776718 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2633475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Makeup Water (gallons/min)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Makeup Water (gallons/min)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;947 | &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Makeup Water (gallons/min)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;1043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Outside Makeup Water (gallons/min)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;912 | &nbsp;&nbsp;157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Percent of Time Makeup Water Demand is Zero** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Percent of Time Makeup Water Demand is Zero** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Percent of Time Makeup Water Demand is Zero** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8% | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Percent of Time Makeup Water Demand is Zero** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- | &nbsp;&nbsp;30.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;--- |

---

Pond sizing is based on a hydrologic analysis and the results of the simple deterministic water balance mode. The combined capacity of the pregnant solution pond and the stormwater event pond are designed to contain the total of the solution volumes resulting from the following design criteria:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The average of the maximum pond volumes for each
phase established from the water balance model,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The immediate runoff from the 100-year 24-hour
storm event over the area of the full HLF and any additional exposed liner over the full lined footprint of the HLF,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 24 hrs. of draindown at the full barren solution
pumping rate, and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 2 ft of pond freeboard for each pond.

**18.8** **Seismic Hazard Analysis** 

The site resides in the Basin and Range physiographic province which consists of a region of crustal extension (spreading) that began approximately 17 million years ago during the Miocene Epoch. The province extends from southern Oregon and Idaho southeastward penetrating well into Mexico. Its westernmost extent is the range front fault(s) of the eastern Sierra Nevada Range and its easternmost extent the range front fault(s) of the Wasatch Range. The southern projection of the province is bounded on the west by the gulf of California and the Baja Peninsula and on the east by the Laramide aged thrust front of the Sierra Madre Occidental Range. The spreading and thinning of the crust in the Nevada portion of the province is dominated by listric normal faulting that bounds the mountain ranges and flattens out with depth, even joining opposing faults at times. This pattern has resulted in what is described as "horst and graben topography" where the horsts are the uplifted areas (mountain ranges) and the grabens are the down-dropped blocks (alluvial valley floors) between ranges.

The identification of representative seismic source zones for a project of this type requires a review of the patterns revealed in a plot of the mapped earthquake epicenter locations classed by magnitude, and a review of the patterns revealed in a plot of the mapped young, potentially active fault locations. We have identified eight (8) seismic source zones which (proceeding from southwest to northeast) are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Sierra Range-front Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Walker Lane Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Shoshone Mountains Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Southern Nevada Zone

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 510 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Nevada Great Basin Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Idaho Mountains Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Salt Lake Zone

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Wasatch Front – Hurricane Fault Zone

The purpose of identifying discrete seismic source zones is to characterize and quantify the nature of the largest earthquake that is likely to occur within the zone. This information can be utilized in either a deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) or a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Although different in approach, they probably have more in common than they have differences. Of interest is the largest earthquake that could reasonably be expected to occur within the zone, the mean rate of occurrence or recurrence interval, and the location of the earthquake. Seismic source zones come in two (2) varieties:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. An Aerial Seismic Source where earthquakes are uniformly distributed throughout the area and assumed to
be equally likely to occur anywhere within the area.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. A Linear Seismic Source where earthquakes occur along a narrow linear band (fault) but are again assumed
to be equally likely to occur anywhere along the fault line.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 511 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp19img01.jpg)

**Figure 18-6: Plot of Historic Earthquake Events and Selected Seismic Source Zones within a 500 km Radius**

Ground motion response to earthquakes depends not just on the character of the earthquake, but also the character of the subsurface conditions at the site. Of concern is the nature of the soil/rock in the upper 30 m of soil/rock profile. Test pits and drilling at the site indicate that the soil cover is of moderate thickness (typically 6 to 14 m thick) and the underlying rock moderately to highly weathered. Therefore, for the purpose of this investigation, the site was assigned to Site Class D (stiff soil) with an assumed representative shear velocity (Vs30) of 365 m/s (1,200 ft/s) consistent with the recommendations in the ASCE 7-16 design standard.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 512 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The steps involved in a DSHA analysis are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Using information derived from geologic maps, fault maps, and plots of historic earthquake events, identify
discrete seismic source zone polygons.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Extract "clipped" data sets lying within each seismic source zone that represent the nature
of the seismicity within the zone.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Estimate the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) associated with each seismic source.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Estimate the closest point of approach to the site of interest for the selected MCE in each seismic source
zone.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Estimate site specific ground motions by attenuating motions over the distance between the earthquake
epicenter and the site.

A review of the mapped USGS faults revealed a maximum surface rupture length within the Nevada Great Basin Zone on the order of 29 km at a location approximately 42.5 km south of the site. Using the criteria of Wells and Coppersmith (1994), and assuming the maximum surface fault rupture for a single event to be half of the mapped length, the maximum expected event magnitude would be 6.4. The closest location of a mapped active fault is 5.3 km from the site and the fault has a total surface rupture length of 5.55 km. Conservatively assuming this fault rupture to represent a single event, the 5.55 km length corresponds an event magnitude of 5.9. Therefore, for the Nevada Great Basin Zone containing the site, three (3) ground motion attenuation profiles were developed; one for the MCE of magnitude 6.4 at a distance of 42.5 km, one for a magnitude 5.9 event at a distance of 5.3 km, and a magnitude 4.5 event at a distance of 1 km.

Results of analyses for all seismic source zones are summarized in Table 18-5 and Table 18-6. Most building codes (including ASCE 7-16 and IBC 2018) allow for either a site-specific deterministic design approach or a probabilistic approach. For the site specific DSHA procedure the estimated spectral acceleration values at the various natural periods are used to develop a mean spectral acceleration response spectrum and an 84<sup>th</sup> percentile response spectrum. These accelerations are then used to develop design response spectra for estimating seismic loads used for structural design (which will also vary as a function of occupancy and use) and for geotechnical analysis.

The PSHA analysis can be performed using the same seismic source zones and by replacing the maximum credible earthquake with the probability distribution of earthquake events, the site distance with the probability distribution of site distances and adding a random component to the attenuated spectral acceleration values, then using a Monte Carlo type sampling model to compile a new distribution of spectral accelerations associated with an exceedance probability. However, some developed countries, including the U.S. and Canada, have their own web-based PSHA programs that use regionally based maps of seismic source zones (similar, but not the same as those used in our DSHA analysis), and compute site distances by asking you to enter a specific geographic site location using latitude and longitude.

A deterministic approach to seismic hazard analysis or DSHA and a probabilistic approach or PSHA have produced similar design pseudo-acceleration response spectra with the DSHA results being the larger of the two (see Figure 18-7). Per ASCE 7-16 guidelines, the lesser of the two or the PSHA results for a maximum considered earthquake having a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs. was selected as the Site-Specific Design Response Spectra (see Figure 18-8).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 513 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp19img02.jpg)

**Figure 18-7**: Plot of PSHA Results and Comparison with DSHA Results**

Geotechnical design procedures often involve estimates of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAm) or a reduced/scaled version of the ground acceleration referred to as the pseudostatic acceleration coefficient. The design PGAm value for the site is 0.294 g.

For seismic slope stability analyses in soil and rock, a hierarchy of analysis methods should be implemented with progression to the next method in the hierarchy required only in the event of failure to satisfy the requirements of the previous method. Recommended methods in the order of their application are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Pseudostatic stability analysis using a pseudostatic acceleration coefficient of 0.06 g (to be used only
at sites with no liquefaction potential).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Seismic displacement analysis using the procedures of Newmark, 1965, Makdisi and Seed, 1978, or Bray and
Travasarou, 2007 showing acceptably small displacements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Full dynamic analysis of soil-structure interaction coupled with continuum modeling showing acceptably
small displacements.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 514 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 18-5**: Mean Deterministic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum by Seismic Source Zone** 

**Table 18-6**: 84<sup>th</sup> Percentile Deterministic Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum by Seismic Source Zone**![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp19img05.jpg)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 515 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

![](tm266907d1_ex99-1sp19img03.jpg)

**Figure 18-8**: PSHA Results and Design Response Spectra**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 516 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

19 Market Studies and Contracts

No market studies were completed and no contracts are in place in support of this Technical Report as gold and silver production can generally be sold to any of a number of financial institutions or refining houses and therefore no market studies are required.

It is assumed that the doré produced at the South Railroad Project will be of a specification comparable with other Nevada gold and silver producers and as such, acceptable to all refineries.

Gold and silver produced by the South Railroad Project would be sold to refineries or other financial institutions and the settlement price would be based on the then-current spot price for gold and silver on public markets. There would be no direct marketing of the metal.

The base case financial model for the South Railroad Project utilizes a gold price of $3,100/oz and a silver price of $36.50/oz. The base case metal prices are informed by the CIBC consensus long term pricing as of December 2025.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 517 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

20 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact

WestLand Engineering and Environmental Services (WestLand), a permit acquisition strategy and government relations consulting firm, provided the following information on environmental considerations, permitting, and social and community impacts.

20.1 Introduction

As environmental consultants to Orla, WestLand has completed the following assessment of environmental studies, permitting, and social or community impacts for Orla's proposed South Railroad Mine Project (SRMP), which is located in the Pinion Range approximately 20 miles South of Carlin, Nevada. The SRMP has been defined for permitting purposes and is currently approximately 8,548 acres in size. The SRMP is a hard rock precious-metal development project. Orla submitted a Plan of Operations (under 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3809) and a Nevada Reclamation Permit (NRP) Application (under Nevada Administrative Code [NAC] 519A) (Plan Application) to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Tuscarora Field Office and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's (NDEP's) Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR) on November 6, 2020.

The SRMP is located on public lands administered by the BLM and private lands controlled by Orla and consists of the Mine Operations Area and the Access Road Area. The Mine Operations Area is located in all or portions of Sections 13 through 16, and 20 through 28, Township 30 North, Range 53 East (T30N, R53E), Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M) in Elko County, Nevada. The Access Road Area is located in all or portions of Sections 16, 17, 19 through 21, 29, and 30, T32N, R55E, Sections 25 through 27, and 34 through 36, T32N, R54E, Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 30, T31N, R54E, Sections 25, 26, and 35, T31N, R53E, and Sections 1, 2, 11, and 12, T30N, R53E, MDB&M in Elko County, Nevada. The Mine Operations Area and the Access Road Area comprise the SRMP Project Area. To access the SRMP from Elko travel southeast on State Highway 227 (Lamoille Highway) for approximately seven miles until the intersection of State Highways 227 and 228. Turn south onto Highway 228 (Jiggs Highway) and travel for approximately 11.3 miles until reaching an intersection with an unnamed road. Turn west northwest for 1.0 mile to Lower South Fork Road. Continue north on Lower South Fork Road for 2.1 miles to County Road 715B (Casway Road – Sherman Avenue- Lucky Nugget Road). Proceed west and north approximately three miles to the SRMP area. The Access Road Area is coincident with BLM Road 1119, CR 720 (Bullion Road), and BLM Road 1053.

In general, the proposed mine operations will consist of two open pit mines and waste rock storage areas, and the processing of the ore will use a heap leaching method. Orla plans the construction, operation, reclamation, and closing of this mining operation. Major components include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three waste rock disposal facilities (WRDF's) and associated catchment basins;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ore crushing and conveying system;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Lime and cement silos and ore agglomeration facility;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ore stockpiles;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Clay stockpile;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Growth media stockpiles;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· On-Site Power Plant and Sub-Station;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A limestone quarry area;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A lined heap leach facility (HLF) with solution channels, associated process solution tanks, and ponds;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Water Supply and Dewatering System;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Stormwater diversion ditches and stormwater sediment basins;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Water Treatment Plant Processing facilities comprised of chemical storage, filtration, pumps and pipelines;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Adsorption Desorption and Recovery (ADR) plant, refinery, and an assay laboratory;

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 518 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Access and haul roads;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ancillary facilities that include the following: ready line; maintenance area; reagent and fuel storage;
storage and laydown yards; explosive magazines; meteorological station; warehouse; truck maintenance shop; truck wash; offices, warehouse,
and workshop, change/lunch facilities; administration/security building; and solid and hazardous waste management facilities; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Reclamation and closure, including the development of evapotranspiration (ET) cells.

Orla proposes to mine approximately 73.4 million tons of heap-leach ore and 294.0 million tons of waste rock (total of 367.4million tons). The strip ratio is 4.00 tons of waste for every one ton of ore over the ten-year life of the mine. The ore and waste would be extracted from the open pits using conventional surface mining methods of drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling. Orla would use hydraulic shovels or front-end loaders to load the blasted mineralized material and waste into the haul trucks. The haul trucks would transport the waste rock to the waste rock disposal facility near the open pit and transport the mineralized material to the crushing, conveying and stacking facilities or directly to the heap leach pad as run-of-mine (ROM) ore. The heap leach would use a dilute NaCN solution to liberate the precious metals. A carbon absorption, desorption, and recovery process would be used to precipitate the precious metals. The precipitate would then be refined in a furnace to produce doré bars for shipment off site. The SRMP facilities would disturb approximately 1,769 acres. The existing exploration Plan of Operations (Exploration Plan) is authorized for up to 500 acres of surface disturbance. Currently, approximately 87.2 acres of as-built exploration surface disturbance within the SRMP does not overlap with planned mine facility footprints. Activities under the Exploration Plan will continue within and outside the SRMP boundary and will only include surface disturbance and activities located outside of the bonded facility footprints of the SRMP. The exploration activities would be based on work plans submitted to the BLM for review and concurrence that the activities are consistent with the Exploration Plan.

The review and approval process for the Plan Application by the BLM constitutes a federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM regulations. Thus, for the BLM to process the Plan Application the BLM is required to comply with the NEPA and has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required to comply with NEPA.

Prior to writing the EIS NEPA document, the NEPA contractor Nexus Environmental Consulting (Nexus) prepared Resource Reports for each environmental resource, which will evaluate the potential effect of the SRMP on each environmental resource. Each Resource Report is then reviewed and approved by the BLM. The NEPA contractor then uses the Resource Reports to complete the NEPA document.

The following sections provide additional detailed information on the principal permits necessary to develop each phase of the SRMP including the NEPA process, as well as the status relative to each permit process.

20.2 Environmental Baseline Studies

GSV (now Orla) has been conducting environmental baseline studies over the past several years as part of their ongoing permitting efforts prior to and subsequent to the submittal of the Plan Application to the BLM and BMRR, as a single document to both agencies. The SRMP Project Area has been surveyed for surface water resources, including Waters of the United States (WOTUS), biological resources, and cultural resources. In 2018, GSV commenced material characterization testing of the mineralized material and waste rock to determine the metal leaching and acid generation potential. In addition, an evaluation of the groundwater resources was commenced to determine groundwater supply potential, as well as the potential impacts from groundwater pumping and pit lake development. Between January 2019 and December 2021 GSV has had numerous meetings with the BLM and the EIS Contractor to determine what additional baseline data collection is needed for the permitting process and NEPA. In the spring of 2022, GSV collected additional baseline environmental data including biology and cultural resources along the Access Road Area and hydrology and biological data from Dixie Creek.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 519 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Within and adjacent to the SRMP Project Area there are Greater Sage Grouse, Golden Eagles, and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT). These species will have an effect on how the SRMP is permitted and what mitigation is required or proposed.

20.3 Bureau of Land Management Plan of Operations / Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation, Nevada
Reclamation Permit

The BLM and the BMRR have implemented a process for the Plan Application that commences prior to the submittal and continues through the review and approval process for the Record of Decision (ROD). GSV submitted a Plan Application for the SRMP in November 2020 and BLM acceptance of this Plan Application occurred in December of 2020. Revisions to the Plan Application were submitted in May 2022, February 2025, and June 2025. A NEPA contractor (SWCA) was selected in August 2021 to assist the BLM in preparation of an EIS and initiated work in September 2021. SWCA was replaced with a new NEPA contractor (Nexus) in December 2024.

20.3.1 Bureau of Land Management Pre-Application Planning

As part of the pre-Plan Application planning process with the BLM, initial meetings were held between the proponent and the BLM to discuss the anticipated scope of the mining operation and review the likely environmental resource baseline data needs required for the processing of the Plan Application by the BLM.

The process for collecting baseline data generally includes the development of baseline data collection work plans, which are submitted to the BLM for review and approval prior to initiating the baseline data collection. Following approval, field surveys are carried out to collect relevant baseline data. Depending on the environmental resource to be evaluated, desktop studies may be utilized in lieu of field surveys. Findings of the field surveys are then summarized in a Technical Report that documents the data collected. This Technical Report is then submitted to the BLM for review and approval. In some cases, the baseline data collection process will also involve the State of Nevada, depending on the resource being assessed, particularly for geochemical and hydrological surveys. Baseline data for the SRMP is being collected and several of the reports have been reviewed by the BLM. The required environmental baseline data includes the following: mineralized material and waste rock geochemical characterization; hydrogeological characterization; a pit lake evaluation; an assessment of ecological risk; air quality modeling; and cultural and biological resources.

Cultural resource and biology surveys have been completed over the SRMP. Supplemental work to assess conditions in Dixie Creek and along the proposed access route was completed during the first half of 2022. Sample collection and analysis for the characterization of the mineralized material and waste has been completed. The material characterization report was completed in the first half of 2020, and was revised in May 2022, and January 2025. The hydrogeologic evaluation commenced in the third quarter of 2018 and the report was completed in the first quarter of 2025.

20.3.2 Plan of Operations Processing

A Plan Application is required to be submitted to the BLM and the BMRR for any surface disturbance in excess of five acres. The single application utilizes the format of the Plan Application document accepted by the BLM and the BMRR. The Plan Application describes the operational procedures for the construction, operation, and closure of the SRMP. As required by the BLM and BMRR, the Plan Application includes a waste rock management plan, quality assurance plan, a storm water plan, a spill prevention plan, reclamation plan, a monitoring plan, and an interim management plan. In addition, a reclamation report with a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for the closure of the SRMP is required. The content of the Plan Application is based on the mine plan design and the data gathered as part of the environmental baseline studies. The Plan Application includes all mine and processing design information and mining methods. The BLM determines the completeness of the Plan Application and, when the completeness letter is submitted to the proponent, the NEPA process begins. The RCE is reviewed by both federal and state agencies and the bond is determined prior to the BLM issuing a decision record and BMRR issuing the Reclamation Permit on the Plan Application.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 520 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The Plan Application was submitted in November 2020 after the SRMP operational information was completed and essentially all the baseline surveys were completed. Key baseline reports for the SRMP were included in the submittal to the BLM and BMRR. GSV submitted a revision to the Plan Application in May 2022, which was revised to reflect the SRMP access from the north and an increase in the overall size of the SRMP Project Area. Orla revised the Plan Application again in February 2025 and June 2025 with updated SRMP boundary and appendices.

The BLM will need to complete their review of the baseline reports in the Plan Application and approve the final version of the reports prior to publication in the Federal Register and completing the NEPA process.

Since LCT and their habitat occur in the vicinity of the SRMP and LCT is a listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the BLM needs to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA. This required the BLM to complete a Biological Assessment (BA), which evaluates the potential effects of the SRMP on the species including mitigation measures to address the potential effects. The USFWS then uses the BA to complete a Biological Opinion (BO), which documents their determination of the SRMP's effects on the species. This process must be completed prior to the BLM making a decision on the Plan Application.

20.4 United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit

Orla has delineated, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has determined that there are WOTUS, including wetlands, within the SRMP Project Area. Based on the current design of the SRMP, the SRMP will likely have impacts to WOTUS, which will require an individual permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of their Section 404 permit application review process, the USACE looks at an avoid, minimize, mitigate process as part of their assessment. Orla is unable to avoid all the WOTUS in the SRMP design; however, Orla has designed the SRMP to avoid as much of the WOTUS as is reasonably possible. Orla will need to then mitigate for the WOTUS that is affected by the SRMP design.

20.5 National Environmental Policy Act

The NEPA process is triggered by a federal action. In this case, the issuance of a completeness letter for the Plan Application and the submittal of the Section 404 permit application triggers the federal action. The BLM has determined that an EIS is required for the SRMP. In addition, the BLM will be the lead federal agency for the completion of the NEPA process and the USACE is a cooperating agency under NEPA.

The EIS process is conducted in accordance with NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et. seq.), BLM, as lead federal agency, guidelines for implementing the NEPA in BLM Handbook H-1790-1 (updated January 2008), and BLM Washington Office Bulletin 94-310. The intent of the EIS is to assess the direct, indirect, residual, and cumulative effects of the SRMP and to determine the significance of those effects. Scoping is conducted by the BLM and includes a determination of the environmental resources to be analyzed in the EIS, as well as the degree of analysis for each environmental resource, including the results of the Section 7 analysis under the ESA. The scope of the cumulative analysis is also addressed during the scoping process. Following scoping and baseline information collection, the Draft EIS is prepared for the BLM by a third-party contractor. When the BLM determines the Draft EIS is complete, it would be submitted to the public for review. Comments received from the public would be incorporated into a Final EIS, which would in turn be reviewed by the BLM and the public prior to a ROD. Under an EIS there can be significant impacts. The preparation of an EIS is a lengthier and more expensive process than an EA. The SRMP proponent pays for the third-party contractor to prepare the EIS and also pays recovery costs to the BLM for any work on the SRMP by BLM specialists. As of the date of this report, an EIS contractor completed public scoping and is preparing the final draft of the EIS.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 521 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

20.6 State of Nevada Permits

There are several environmental permits issued by the NDEP that are necessary to develop the SRMP and which Orla needs to permit the SRMP. The NDEP issues permits that address water, air pollution, and land reclamation. The Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) issues water rights for the use and management of water.

20.6.1 Water Pollution Control Permit

A water pollution control permit (WPCP) from the BMRR is needed to construct, operate, and close a mining facility in the State of Nevada. The contents of the application are prescribed in the NAC Section 445A.394 through 445A.399. A WPCP application for the SRMP will be prepared based on the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Open pit mining, with an anticipated post-mining pit lake formation;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Storage of non-acid and acid generating waste rock;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Exploration;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Dewatering and water management;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Heap leach and process plant management; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ancillary facilities that include storm water diversions, and sediment control basin.

WPCP applications will include an engineering design for waste rock storage areas and heap leach/processing facilities, waste rock characterization reports, hydrogeological summary reports, engineering design for process components including methods for the control of storm water runoff, and containment reports detailing specifications for containment of process fluids. Applications will also contain the appropriate WPCP plans, including a process fluid management plan, a monitoring plan, an emergency response plan, a temporary closure plan, and a tentative plan for permanent closure of the mine.

20.6.2 National Pollution Discharge Eliminate System Permit

A National Pollution Discharge Eliminate System (NPDES) Permit from the NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution Control (BWPC) is needed to construct and operate the excess water discharge to the tributary of Dixie Creek. Under NRS 445A.450, the NDEP is authorized to implement the Federal NPDES program, and the contents of the application are prescribed in the 40 CFR 122.21. A NPDES permit application for the SRMP will be prepared and will be based on the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Applicant information;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Description of operations;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Outfall location;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Discharge date;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Type of waste;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Effluent characteristics;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Flow; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Description of the treatment system.

20.6.3 Air Quality Operating Permits

GSV/Orla was issued air quality operating permits from the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC). A Class I permit and Mercury Operating Permit to Construct were issued in December 2023 for the thermal processes with the potential to generate mercury emissions. A Class II permit, where the potential to emit of any criteria pollutant is less than 100 tons per year, was issued in October 2023.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 522 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

20.6.4 Water Rights

Orla is in the process of obtaining water rights from the NDWR. Water and water rights will have to come from the Dixie Creek - Ten Mile Creek designated hydrologic basins. This basin is currently over appropriated relative to the Nevada State Engineer's perennial yield for the basin. As a result, obtaining new water rights for mining-related consumptive uses is possible; however, multiple protests from existing water right holders should be expected. Obtaining non-consumptive water rights for de-watering activities that return the water to the basin will be more readily obtainable than consumptive water rights in the basin. Orla anticipates the need to purchase or lease existing rights to meet their water demands for the SRMP.

20.7 Elko County Special Use Permit

Orla will need a Special Use Permit issued by Elko County. This permit will need to include a road maintenance agreement for any county road to be used to access the SRMP.

20.8 Other Minor or Ministerial Permits

In addition to the principal environmental permits outlined above, Table 20-1 lists other notifications or ministerial permits that may likely be necessary to operate the SRMP.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 523 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 20-1**: Ministerial Permits, Plans, and Notifications**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Notification/Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Agency** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Timeframes** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Above Ground Storage Tank Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Corrective Actions | &nbsp;&nbsp;Up to six months to get registered; however, this is not required. The cost is $100 per tank per year and a requirement to perform monthly visual inspections |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Agreement for Road Maintenance | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elko County | &nbsp;&nbsp;Up to six months to negotiate the agreement with the county roads department and the county commission. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Building Permit(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Elko County | &nbsp;&nbsp;Four Weeks |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives User's License (User's Clearance) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives | &nbsp;&nbsp;N/A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Fire and Life Safety | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada State Fire Marshal | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week once the outlined materials are completed by Orla. Submit prior to construction and operation. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hazardous Materials Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada State Fire Marshal | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week once materials list is completed by Orla. Submit 30 days from the start of operations and annually thereafter by March 1st. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hwy 278 Turn out Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDOT (Right of way division) | &nbsp;&nbsp;TBD |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Industrial Artificial Pond Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Department of Wildlife | &nbsp;&nbsp;Four weeks |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Pad Commencement | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Pad As-Built Report | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Four weeks |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant As-Built Report | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Four weeks |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MSHA Mine ID Number | &nbsp;&nbsp;MSHA | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Opening Notification | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada division of Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Registry | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Division of Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Notification of Commencement of Operations | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Safety & Health Administration | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Production/Dewatering Wells - Proof of Completion | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Division of Water Resources | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Radio License | &nbsp;&nbsp;FCC | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RCRA Waste Mgt. ID - Mine | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | &nbsp;&nbsp;Two weeks |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Well Drilling Permit (Notice of Intent to Drill) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Division of Water Resources | &nbsp;&nbsp;One week |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Potable Water System | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Safe Drinking Water | &nbsp;&nbsp;Eight months |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Septic System | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada Bureau of Water Pollution Control | &nbsp;&nbsp;Six months to prepare the application (including the mercury control system) and process to obtain the permit. |

---

20.9 Environmental Study Results and Known Issues

As previously outlined, the SRMP is a previously explored minerals property with exploration related disturbance. However, there have been very long periods of non-operation. There are no known ongoing environmental issues with any of the regulatory agencies. GSV (now Orla) has been conducting baseline data collection for several years for environmental studies required to support the Plan Application and permitting process. The waste and mineralized material characterization and the hydrogeologic evaluation are currently in their latter stages of development. Material characterization indicates the need to manage a significant portion of the waste rock as potentially acid generating in engineered facilities.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 524 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The pit lake in Dark Star North is predicted to be circumneutral with arsenic, and possibly antimony, concentrations that exceed NDEP Profile I reference values without the implementation of environmental protection measures. This is primarily attributable to naturally elevated arsenic concentrations in inflowing groundwater and evapoconcentration within the pit lake. Long-term evapoconcentration may also lead to antimony concentrations exceeding the NDEP Profile I reference values without the implementation of environmental protection measures. The geochemical modeling indicate that the Dark Star North pit lake does not exceed NDEP Profile III reference values. The backfilling of the Dark Star Main open pit with waste rock from the Pinion pits results in circumneutral pore water and no significant change to water quality predictions for the pit lake in Dark Star North.

Regional groundwater modeling indicates that the Dark Star North pit lake will be a flow through system (estimated at 17 gpm). Outflow from Dark Star North will flow north within the Dixie Creek basin. Under pre mining conditions, naturally occurring arsenic and antimony concentrations are highest in proximity to the ore body mineralization where concentrations in the groundwater are in equilibrium with the arsenic and antimony-bearing minerals of the deposit. Arsenic and antimony concentration in groundwater decrease hydraulically downgradient of the deposit. This decrease in constituent concentrations along the groundwater flow path is evidence of natural attenuation within the local bedrock. This attenuation process would also occur with the outflow of the pit lake water.

If future monitoring during operations indicates that arsenic concentrations increase to a level where they could result in water chemistry exceeding background concentrations downgradient of the Dark Star North pit lake, arsenic concentrations could be reduced through the addition of iron to the pit lake as an environmental protection measure. The additional iron in the form of ferric chloride would result in precipitate of ferrihydrite, which consumes some alkalinity in the process. Dissolved arsenic, antimony, and other metals/metalloids would adsorb to the precipitated ferrihydrite, similar to what occurs in non-dosed pit lakes, but at a greater rate. The addition of ferric chloride would serve to increase the availability of ferrihydrite for sorption.

Geochemical modeling in PHREEQC indicates that ferric chloride could be added periodically to reduce the arsenic concentrations in the Dark Star North pit lake. If arsenic concentrations were to be reduced to or below 0.01 mg/L, the NDEP Profile I reference value, ferric chloride would need to be added at a rate of approximately 16 mg/L and at periodic intervals from one to 45 years. Shorter periods between dosing intervals would be necessary in the initial stage when the pit lake is filling, while longer periods between dosing intervals would be possible as the pit lake approaches steady state conditions. Alkalinity in the pit lake is sufficiently high to buffer the acid that is generated by ferrihydrite precipitation. Therefore, pH values are not adversely affected by the addition of ferric chloride.

Additional results to date indicate limited cultural issues, air quality impacts appear to be within State of Nevada standards, traffic and noise issues are present but at low levels, and socioeconomic impacts are positive. There are golden eagle, LCT, monarch butterfly and Greater sage-grouse in the SRMP and the vicinity, which will need to be addressed in the permitting of the SRMP. Consultation through Section 7 will be required for LCT and the monarch butterfly. Orla is working with the BLM on the management of these species.

Another known issue associated with this SRMP, and in general all projects that require permitting with the federal government, is the length of time required to obtain federal permits. The first SRMP permit application was submitted to the BLM in November 2020, revised in May 2022, February 2025, and June 2025. The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2025, and the NEPA process will commenced with the preparation of an EIS. According to Instructional Memorandum No. NV-2024-019, the EIS process should take approximately one year. The ROD is scheduled for completion on August 7, 2026.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 525 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

20.10 Waste Disposal and Monitoring

Waste rock characterization has been conducted and the results indicate that a portion of the waste rock and mineralized material are likely to be reactive, acid generating, and would leach metals. As a result, a detailed waste rock management plan and waste rock management strategy has been completed and is appended to the Plan of Operations.

20.11 Social and Community Issues

Social and community impacts have been and are being considered and evaluated for the Plan Amendment and Plan Application performed for the SRMP in accordance with the NEPA and other federal laws. Potentially affected Native American bands and tribes, tribal organizations, and/or individuals are engaged by Orla and formally consulted by the BLM during the preparation of all plan amendments to advise on the proposed projects that may have an effect on cultural sites, cultural resources, and traditional activities.

Potential community impacts to existing population and demographics, income, employment, economy, public finance, housing, community facilities, and community services are evaluated for potential impacts as part of the NEPA process. There are no known social or community issues that would have a material impact on the SRMP's ability to extract mineral resources. Identified socioeconomic issues (employment, payroll, services and supply purchases, and state and local tax payments) are anticipated to be positive.

20.12 Mine Closure

A Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure (TPPC) for the SRMP has been prepared and will be submitted to the BMRR with the WPCP application. In the TPPC, the proposed heap leach closure approach would consist of fluid management through evaporation, covering the heap leach growth media, and then revegetating. Any residual heap leach drainage will be managed with evaporation cells.

The bond calculations for the SRMP are in progress and will be refined in coordination with the BLM and BMRR.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 526 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

21 Capital and Operating Costs

Capital and operating costs were estimated for this Feasibility Study Update by Qualified Persons from each of RESPEC (mine development), M3 (process plant, site development, power generation, and ancillaries), Stantec (site-wide water management systems), NewFields (heap leach and waste rock disposal facilities), and Linkan Engineering (water treatment plant and potable water systems). Table 21-1 shows the estimated capital costs for the project. This includes $394.7 million in Pre-Production and $209.1 million for sustaining capital. Total capital costs are estimated at $603.9 million.

**Table 21-1**: Capital Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Site General (Earthworks) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10508 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10508 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Site Water Management (Stantec) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12425 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $40427 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Heap Leach Ore Placement | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;$47126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $47126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach Facility (NewFields) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $20665 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $24592 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $45257 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste Rock Disposal Facilities (NewFields) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $6394 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $13329 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $19723 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant (ADR, Refinery, Reagents) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $37656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $37656 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Water Systems (Process Plant) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $17664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1260 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $18924 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Water Treatment Plant & Potable (Linkan) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $16754 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Power Generation & Distribution | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $16399 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $16399 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ADR Bldg. & Ancil. (Warehouse, Maint., Admin, Fuel) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $24325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $24325 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Freight (Process Plant) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $8423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $8423 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Direct Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$233918** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$51606** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$285524** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Construction Support (inc. Mobilization) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10942 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10942 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Engineering, Procurement, & Const. Mgmt. | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $12847 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $12847 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Vendor Support | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1406 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Spare Parts (Capital, Commissioning) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $281 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Generator Financing Capital Deferral | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$**10990 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10990 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indirect Costs (Support Facilities Scope) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$**13118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29765 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency (Process Plant) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $31634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $31634 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency (Support Facilities Scope) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $9885 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7173 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $17058 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $10837 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Taxes (County) (Process Plant) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $6579 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $6579 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Indirect Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$101057** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$31281** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$132338** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Capital Equipment | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $22614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$119367 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $141981 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Preproduction Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $31719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $31719 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency (Mine Capital Equipment) | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; $5433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; $5433 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Mine Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$59766** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$119367** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$179133** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Working Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$6861** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$6861** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL CAPITAL COST** | &nbsp;&nbsp;K USD | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$394741** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$209114** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$603855** |

---

Table 21-2 shows the estimated operating costs for the LOM project. Operating costs were estimated at $1.2 billion for the LOM. This is $16.36 per ton processed or $1,120 per ounce of gold produced.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 527 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 21-2**: Operating Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Production Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Production Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Production Cost** |
| <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**Category** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**K USD** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$/ ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$/ Au oz** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$/ Au oz\*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;$816007 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $11.11 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $760.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302204 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $4.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $281.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$80678 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $75.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2308 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $0.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp; $2.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp; - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL OPERATING COST** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1201197** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$16.36** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$1120.20** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **$1116.32** |

---

*\* Including Silver Credit as a Reduction to Total Operating*

21.1 Mining Capital

Mining capital estimates for this Feasibility Study Update assume owner operations of mining equipment and were based on the equipment and facilities required to achieve the production schedule shown in Table 16-4. Capital costs were estimated based on vendor quotations, estimation guides, and benchmarks of recent costs for similar projects. To reduce up front capital, mining capital includes assumptions for leased-to-own equipment for primary mining equipment. These leasing budgetary quotations were provided by vendors and include 7.6% rate on equipment capital for 36-month terms, with a $1 end-of-lease purchase payment. Blast-hole production drills lease options include an annual effective interest rate of 7.4%, with 0% down, and no end-of-lease payment.

Down payments and principal portions of monthly payments have been applied to capital while monthly interest payments are applied to operating costs.

The remaining capital equipment is assumed to be purchased using 15% down payment at the time of placement of order and the remainder 85% payment at the time of delivery was used.

Leased-to-own equipment includes production drills, large loader, hydraulic shovels, haul trucks, dozers, graders, water trucks. Equipment that is owned without leasing includes the tow haul lowboy attachment, backhoe, crane, pit pumps, impact hammer, flatbed, skid loader, lube and fuel trucks, mechanics trucks, and tire trucks. In addition, pioneering drills are assumed to be rented. This is further discussed in the mine operating costs section (Section 21.3).

The mining capital estimate is summarized by year in Table 21-3. Note that numbers within the tables in this section are rounded, which may lead to minor summation differences.

**Table 21-3**: Mining Capital Cost by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** | ***Total Mining Capital*** |
| Primary Equipment | KUSD | $- | $7192 | $21985 | $25624 | $18939 | $8247 | $7178 | $7336 | $799 | $- | $- | $- | $97300 |
| Support Equipment | KUSD | $122 | $9832 | $8825 | $11204 | $6758 | $2138 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $38879 |
| Blasting Equipment | KUSD | $- | $117 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $117 |
| Mine Maintenance Equip. | KUSD | $- | $2087 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $2087 |
| Other Mine Capital | KUSD | $419 | $2845 | $96 | $230 | $3 | $5 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $3597 |
| Mine Preproduction | KUSD | $755 | $34261 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $35016 |
| Mining Equip. Salvage | KUSD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $(16419) | $(16419) |
| Total Mine Capital | KUSD | $1296 | $56334 | $30906 | $37058 | $25700 | $10390 | $7178 | $7336 | $799 | $- | $- | $(16419) | $160578 |

---

**21.1.1** **Primary Equipment** 

Primary equipment purchases refer to the purchase of drills, loading equipment, and haul trucks. The total LOM primary equipment cost estimate is $97.3 million, which includes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $10.76 million for production drills;

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 528 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $7.59 million for a large loader;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $13.99 million for hydraulic shovels; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $64.96 million for 200-ton capacity haul trucks.

21.1.2 **Support Equipment** 

Support equipment includes the equipment required to support the mining operations. This includes dozers to manage dumping locations and cleanup of benches for drilling and loading equipment. This also includes road maintenance equipment such as water trucks and graders. The total estimated capital for support equipment is $35.6 million and includes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $17.59 million for dozers, and two rubber tire dozers (RTD);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $4.55 million for motor graders;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $7.22 million for water trucks;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $3.99 million for truck and lowboy;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $1.85 million for 6 yd excavator;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $0.97 million for in-pit pumps to control runoff water;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $1.45 million for a 132-ton capacity crane (to be shared between mining and process); and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $0.23 million for two flatbed trucks used for moving maintenance items within the mine.

21.1.3 **Blasting Equipment** 

Blasting equipment includes a skid loader to be used for stemming holes. The cost estimate for the skid loader is $117,000. All other equipment is expected to be supplied by the blasting contractor.

21.1.4 **Mine Maintenance Capital** 

Mine maintenance capital includes one large lubrication truck at $696,000, two mechanics' trucks totaling $790,000, and a tire truck at $601,000.

21.1.5 Other Capital

Other capital includes an assortment of equipment and facilities totaling $3.59 million. This includes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $94,000 for light plants;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $163,000 for ANFO storage bins;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $16,000 for powder magazines to store boosters;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $10,000 for a cap magazine;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $75,000 for explosives storage site prep;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $72,000 for mobile radios in equipment and assorted handheld radios;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $750,000 for general shop equipment including hoists and other tooling;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $105,000 for engineering computers, plotters, and other office equipment;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $400,000 for geotechnical equipment;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $20,000 for dust suppression storage bladders;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $150,000 for surveying equipment and GPS base stations;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $225,000 in access roads to each deposit and site preparation;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· 94,000 for impact hammer;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $150,000 for ambulance and firefighting equipment; and

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 529 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· $1.27 million for critical spares.

Note that the access roads to each deposit and site preparations are estimated for each deposit, with $150,000 applied to the development of Dark Star and $75,000 applied to the preparation of Pinion. These amounts do not include the costs for the main access road.

21.1.6 **Mine Pre-Production** 

Mine pre-production is considered as the cost of all mining prior to the start of gold production from the ROM leach pad. For this Feasibility Study Update, this will be a 7-month period from the start of mining operations. The total mining costs during pre-production are estimated at $35 million. Ore mined during pre-production accounts for approximately 9% of the material mined during pre-production. The operating cost of the mining of ore during pre-production is included as part of the working capital.

21.1.7 **Mine Equipment Salvage** 

Mine equipment salvage has been estimated and applied at the end of the equipment useful life. The estimate assumes that the equipment value would depreciate immediately by 10% once placed into service. An assumed life-of-equipment hours were also assumed based on experience in operations and estimates from the equipment vendor's quotes. The life of equipment was compared to the equipment hours used by fleet or unit and the percent remaining was calculated. The percent remaining was then multiplied by the value of the equipment after the initial depreciation. Where the percent of remaining life was less than zero, no salvage was considered.

Table 21-4 shows the value estimate used for salvage. All dollar figures on this table are in $1,000. The last column in Table 21-4 shows the year when the salvage is applied. Total salvage value credited at the end of the mine life is $16.4 million.

**Table 21-4**: Salvage Value Estimate (Dollars in k USD)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Units** | **Hrs Used** | **Life HRs** | **% Remain** | **Cost** | **Initial<br> Depreciation** | **After Initial<br> Depreciation** | **Salvage** | **Capex<br> Consumed** | **Year for<br> Salvage** |
| ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** | ***Primary Equipment*** |
| Cat 995-12A 38-yrd Loader | 1 | 20438 | 52000 | 61% | $7087 | $709 | $6378 | $3871 | $3215 | 142 |
| Haul Truck Fleet #3 | 5 | 37586 | 52000 | 28% | $32657 | $3266 | $29392 | $8147 | $24510 | 142 |
| ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** | ***Support Equipment*** |
| Water Truck – 20,000 Gallon #1 | 2 | 48608 | 52000 | 7% | $4497 | $450 | $4048 | $264 | $4233 | 142 |
| Water Truck – 20,000 Gallon #2 | 1 | 43216 | 52000 | 17% | $2249 | $225 | $2024 | $342 | $1907 | 142 |
| 600 HP Dozer (D10) #2 | 1 | 44116 | 48000 | 8% | $2035 | $203 | $1831 | $148 | $1886 | 141 |
| 850 HP Dozer (D11) #2 | 1 | 47057 | 48000 | 2% | $3178 | $318 | $2861 | $56 | $3122 | 142 |
| Truck and Lowboy | 1 | 11120 | 52000 | 79% | $3725 | $372 | $3352 | $2636 | $1089 | 142 |
| 4.7 - 7.3 cu yd backhoe | 1 | 18533 | 48000 | 61% | $1728 | $173 | $1555 | $954 | $773 | 142 |

---

21.2 Process Capital

21.2.1 **Process Capital Cost Summary** 

The process plant costs are comprised of costs for the process facilities, as well as costs for site-wide water management systems, heap leach pad and ponds construction, waste rock storage facilities, infrastructure development, power generation and distribution, and ancillaries. The direct costs are developed from labor, materials, plant equipment, sub-contracts, and construction equipment. Freight is included for plant equipment and materials as a direct cost. Indirect costs are applied to the direct costs to account for items such as: construction support, engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM); vendor support during specialty construction and commissioning; spare parts; contingency; owner's costs; and taxes. Together, the direct and indirect costs form the capital costs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 530 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The direct process plant cost for this FSU has multiple contributors. Stantec developed the direct costs for the site-wide water management systems. NewFields developed the costs for the heap leach facility and the waste rock storage facilities. Qualified Persons from M3 developed the costs for site layout, the process plant, power generation, and distribution, and several ancillaries. The process plant includes the two-stage crushing circuit, adsorption, desorption, and regeneration plant, as well as the refinery and reagents. The ancillaries include components such as laboratory, warehouse, and maintenance, including the truck shop, administration building, and the fuel station.

Indirect costs were then calculated following industry-accepted methodologies. Regarding contingency, a workshop was facilitated by a third party to calculate suitable percentages of contingency based on a probabilistic method. The 90<sup>th</sup> percentile basis was selected as the overall project basis, which was equivalent to 13.5% of the total contracted and owner's cost. Total contracted costs include all process plant direct costs, plus construction support costs, EPCM costs, vendor support costs, and spare parts costs. First fills were calculated by Qualified Persons from M3. Owner's Costs were defined by Qualified Persons from Orla. Elko County Sales taxes are included at 7.10% of plant equipment and material costs.

Process plant capital costs were independently developed, and all capital cost estimates are based on the purchase of new equipment. The total evaluated project cost is projected to be in the accuracy range of -10% to +15%.

**Table 21-5: Initial Capital Process Plant Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Category (all costs are in USD** **1,000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Labor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Plant Equip.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-<br> Contract** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Const.<br> Equip.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Site General (Earthworks) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 4220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10508 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Site Water Management (Stantec) | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;28002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;28002 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Waste Rock Disposal Facilities (NewFields) | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;6394 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;6394 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing Circuit & Ore Placement | &nbsp;&nbsp;17984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach Facility (NewFields) | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;20665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;20665 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant (ADR, Refinery, Reagents) | &nbsp;&nbsp;14364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;957 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37656 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Systems (Process Plant) | &nbsp;&nbsp;7463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17664 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Treatment Plant & Potable (Linkan) | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp; - | &nbsp;&nbsp;16754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;16754 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Power Generation & Distribution | &nbsp;&nbsp;2850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1874 | &nbsp;&nbsp;823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16399 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ADR Bldg. & Ancillaries | &nbsp;&nbsp;8415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24325 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Freight (Process Plant) |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;5112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3311 |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;8423 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Direct Cost (Process Plant)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**55295** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**56233** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**36423** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**75623** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**10344** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**233917** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Construction Support (inc. Mobilization) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;10942 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Engineering, Procurement, & Const. Mgmt. |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;12847 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Vendor Support |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1406 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Spare Parts (Capital, Commissioning) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;281 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indirect Costs (Support Facilities Scope) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;16647 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency (Process Plant) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;31634 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency (Support Facilities Scope) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;9885 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;10837 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Taxes (County) (Process Plant) |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;6579 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Indirect Cost (Process Plant)** |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**101057** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL CAPITAL COST (Process Plant)** |  |  |  |  |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**334975** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 531 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

21.2.2 Freight

Estimates for equipment and material freight costs are based on bulk freight loads and have been estimated at 10% of the equipment and material cost.

21.2.3 Construction
 Support

Mobilization is included as an indirect cost at 5% of total direct field costs for process plant direct costs.

Temporary construction facilities are included at 1.5% of the total direct field cost (TDFC). Temporary construction power is included at 0.25% of TDFC.

21.2.4 EPCM

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management is included per a contract with Orla and M3 Engineering executed in Q1-2025.

21.2.5 Vendor Support

Vendor supervision of specialty construction is included at 1.5% of plant equipment supply costs. Vendor pre-commissioning is included at 0.5% of plant equipment supply costs. Vendor commissioning is included at 0.5% of plant equipment supply costs.

21.2.6 Spare Parts

Capital spare parts are included at 5% of plant equipment supply costs; these costs are included as part of the working capital. Commissioning spare parts are included at 0.5% of plant equipment supply costs. Two-year operating spare parts are excluded.

21.2.7 Generator Financing

Several LNG generators are envisioned for the project. Additionally, three diesel-fired generators are required during construction for temporary operation of the dewatering wells and the water treatment plant during the pre-production period. Financing of all the generators is included in the estimate. This includes terms of 25% downpayment and 8% annual effective interest rate, based on a six-year term. The down payment and principal portions of quarterly payments have been applied to capital, while quarterly interest payments are applied to operating costs. For the pre-production period, both principal and interest payments prior to construction are included with the initial capital.

21.3 Owner's Costs

Owner's costs were developed by Orla. The Owner's Costs include items such as salaries and wages for the project personnel, housing, and accommodations for the owner's team during project development, transportation for the owner's team during project development, owner's team vehicles, office services, and travel during project development.

21.4 Mine Operating Cost

Mine operating costs were estimated using first principles. This was done using estimated hourly costs of equipment and personnel against the anticipated hours of work for each. The equipment hourly costs were estimated for fuel, oil, and lubrication, tires, undercarriage, repair and maintenance costs, and special wear items.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 532 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

The largest consumables in the mine operating costs are tires, fuel, and explosives. Tire costs vary by equipment and are assumed to be $ per operating hours for different equipment using the estimation guide. Fuel costs were assumed to be $3.25 per gallon. ANFO and emulsion blend is assumed to be $578 per ton, which includes transportation costs.

Personnel costs include supervision, operating labor, and maintenance labor. The mine operating costs are summarized by year in Table 21-6. The LOM operating costs, before capitalization of pre-production costs, are $851 million and average $2.32 per ton including pre-stripping. After capitalization of pre-stripping, the LOM mine operating cost is estimated to be $816 million or $2.22 per ton mined. Note that numbers within the tables in this section are rounded, which may lead to minor summation differences.

**Table 21-6**: Yearly Mine Operating Cost Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** | **<u>Mine Op Cost Summary</u>** |
| Mine General Service | K USD | $300 | $1884 | $2506 | $2506 | $2506 | $2506 | $2386 | $2325 | $2325 | $2325 | $1961 | $212 | $23742 |
| Mine Maintenance | K USD | $- | $2230 | $4098 | $4095 | $4161 | $4359 | $4349 | $4338 | $4338 | $4338 | $3613 | $350 | $40267 |
| Engineering | K USD | $426 | $975 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $857 | $50 | $11561 |
| Geology | K USD | $- | $224 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $214 | $16 | $3176 |
| Drilling | K USD | $- | $3407 | $8527 | $9747 | $9006 | $1028 | $10649 | $9697 | $7980 | $10914 | $4619 | $133 | $84962 |
| Blasting | K USD | $- | $4365 | $9696 | $11322 | $10308 | $11876 | $12491 | $11306 | $8845 | $12865 | $6268 | $263 | $99604 |
| Loading | K USD | $- | $4444 | $10538 | $12187 | $10895 | $13638 | $13818 | $12119 | $9832 | $14390 | $6794 | $590 | $109247 |
| Hauling | K USD | $- | $7119 | $24292 | $24432 | $25200 | $37566 | $38073 | $32862 | $27289 | $38321 | $19594 | $638 | $275387 |
| Mine Support | K USD | $- | $6988 | $16862 | $20728 | $20728 | $20723 | $20757 | $20724 | $20723 | $20723 | $16172 | $1111 | $186239 |
| Total Mining Cost | K USD | $726 | $31637 | $78016 | $86514 | $84300 | $102449 | $104020 | $94868 | $82829 | $105373 | $60091 | $3362 | $834184 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | K USD | $29 | $2487 | $5048 | $3346 | $1146 | $1409 | $970 | $367 | $11 | $- | $- | $- | $14814 |
| Rental Equipment Charges | K USD | $- | $137 | $523 | $137 | $250 | $250 | $- | $364 | $182 | $182 | $- | $- | $2025 |
| Total Additional Operating Costs | K USD | $29 | $2624 | $5571 | $3483 | $1397 | $1659 | $970 | $731 | $193 | $182 | $- | $- | $16839 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | K USD | $755 | $34261 | $83588 | $89996 | $85697 | $104108 | $104990 | $95599 | $83022 | $105555 | $60091 | $3362 | $851024 |
| Prestrip Mining Capital | K USD | $755 | $34261 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $35016 |
| Net Mine Operating Cost | K USD | $- | $- | $83588 | $89996 | $85697 | $104108 | $104990 | $95599 | $83022 | $105555 | $60091 | $3362 | $816007 |
|  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |  ***Cost per Ton*** |
| Mine General Service | $/ton | $- | $0.12 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.11 | $0.59 | $0.06 |
| Mine Maintenance | $/ton | $- | $0.15 | $0.12 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.14 | $0.09 | $0.20 | $0.98 | $0.11 |
| Engineering | $/ton | $- | $0.06 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.05 | $0.14 | $0.03 |
| Geology | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.04 | $0.01 |
| Drilling | $/ton | $- | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.23 | $0.24 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.22 | $0.25 | $0.37 | $0.23 |
| Blasting | $/ton | $- | $0.29 | $0.28 | $0.27 | $0.28 | $0.26 | $0.26 | $0.26 | $0.28 | $0.26 | $0.34 | $0.74 | $0.27 |
| Loading | $/ton | $- | $0.29 | $0.30 | $0.29 | $0.29 | $0.29 | $0.28 | $0.28 | $0.31 | $0.29 | $0.37 | $1.65 | $0.30 |
| Hauling | $/ton | $- | $0.47 | $0.70 | $0.58 | $0.68 | $0.81 | $0.78 | $0.77 | $0.86 | $0.77 | $1.06 | $1.79 | $0.75 |
| Mine Support | $/ton | $- | $0.46 | $0.49 | $0.49 | $0.56 | $0.45 | $0.42 | $0.48 | $0.66 | $0.42 | $0.87 | $3.11 | $0.51 |
| Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $- | $2.09 | $2.25 | $2.05 | $2.28 | $2.21 | $2.13 | $2.21 | $2.62 | $2.11 | $3.25 | $9.41 | $2.27 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | $/ton | $- | $0.16 | $0.15 | $0.08 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $- | $- | $0.04 |
| Rental Equipment Charges | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $- | $0.01 |
| Total Additional Operating Costs | $/ton | $- | $0.17 | $0.16 | $0.08 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $- | $0.05 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $- | $2.26 | $2.41 | $2.14 | $2.32 | $2.24 | $2.15 | $2.23 | $2.62 | $2.11 | $3.25 | $9.41 | $2.32 |
| Prestrip Mining Capital | $/ton | $- | $2.26 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $0.10 |
| Net Mine Operating Cost | $/ton | $- | $- | $2.41 | $2.14 | $2.32 | $2.24 | $2.15 | $2.23 | $2.62 | $2.11 | $3.25 | $9.41 | $2.22 |

---

21.4.1 Mine General Services

Mine general services costs include mining supervision, along with engineering and geology services. Supervision allows for a mine superintendent, mine general foreman, and mine shift foremen. Engineering personnel include a chief engineer along with engineers and a surveying crew to support mine planning and operations. Geology is intended to support ore control, geological mapping, and sampling requirements.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 533 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Table 21-7 shows the yearly cost estimate for the mine's general services. LOM general services costs are estimated to be $38.5 million or $0.10/ton including pre-stripping.

**Table 21-7**: Mine General Services Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** | ***Mine General Services*** |
| Supervision | K USD | $300 | $1240 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1494 | $1194 | $152 | $14836 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $- | $489 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $719 | $655 | $51 | $6950 |
| Total | K USD | $300 | $1729 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $2213 | $1849 | $203 | $21786 |
| ***Engineering*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Salaried Personnel | K USD | $426 | $758 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $822 | $532 | $32 | $8321 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $- | $170 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $256 | $245 | $11 | $2472 |
| Total | K USD | $426 | $929 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $1077 | $777 | $43 | $10793 |
| ***Mine Geology*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Salaried Personnel | K USD | $- | $202 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $177 | $13 | $2819 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total | K USD | $- | $202 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $303 | $177 | $13 | $2819 |
| ***Supplies & Other*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General Services Supplies | K USD | $- | $7 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $1 | $118 |
| Engineering Supplies | K USD | $- | $18 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $30 | $3 | $294 |
| Geology Supplies | K USD | $- | $22 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $37 | $3 | $358 |
| Software Maint. & Support | K USD | $- | $29 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $4 | $474 |
| Outside Services | K USD | $- | $58 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $8 | $967 |
| Office Power | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Light Vehicles | K USD | $- | $89 | $181 | $180 | $180 | $180 | $60 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $871 |
| Total | K USD | $- | $223 | $409 | $409 | $409 | $409 | $289 | $229 | $229 | $229 | $229 | $19 | $3081 |
| ***Totals - Mining General*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General | K USD | $300 | $1884 | $2506 | $2506 | $2506 | $2506 | $2386 | $2325 | $2325 | $2325 | $1961 | $212 | $23742 |
| Engineering | K USD | $426 | $975 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $1157 | $857 | $50 | $11561 |
| Geology | K USD | $- | $224 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $340 | $214 | $16 | $3176 |
| Totals | K USD | $726 | $3083 | $4003 | $4003 | $4003 | $4003 | $3883 | $3822 | $3822 | $3822 | $3032 | $278 | $38479 |
| ***Cost per Ton Mined*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General | $/ton | $- | $0.12 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.11 | $0.59 | $0.06 |
| Engineering | $/ton | $- | $0.06 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.05 | $0.14 | $0.03 |
| Geology | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.04 | $0.01 |
| Totals | $/ton | $- | $0.20 | $0.12 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.09 | $0.08 | $0.09 | $0.12 | $0.08 | $0.16 | $0.78 | $0.10 |

---

21.4.2 Mine Maintenance

Mine maintenance costs include the cost of personnel for maintenance, supervision, and planning, along with shop support personnel, including light vehicle mechanics, welders, servicemen, tire men, and maintenance labor.

The estimated mine maintenance costs are shown in Table 21-8. Note that these costs do not include the maintenance labor directly allocated to the various equipment, which is accounted for in the other mining cost categories. The LOM estimated Mine Maintenance cost is $40.3 million or $0.11 per ton.

**Table 21-8**: Yearly Mine Maintenance Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** | ***Wages & Salaries*** |
| Supervision | K USD | $- | $608 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $885 | $590 | $41 | $8318 |
| Planners | K USD | $- | $184 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $316 | $237 | $26 | $2976 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $- | $531 | $1331 | $1331 | $1397 | $1595 | $1595 | $1595 | $1595 | $1595 | $1241 | $155 | $13964 |
| Total | K USD | $- | $1324 | $2532 | $2532 | $2598 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2068 | $223 | $25257 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 534 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** | ***Other Costs*** |
| Supplies | K USD | $- | $84 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $12 | $1392 |
| Light Vehicles | K USD | $- | $11 | $21 | $21 | $21 | $21 | $7 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $103 |
| Total | K USD | $- | $95 | $165 | $165 | $165 | $165 | $151 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $12 | $1495 |
| Consumables & Other Costs | K USD | $- | $754 | $1304 | $1301 | $1301 | $1301 | $1289 | $1279 | $1279 | $1279 | $1282 | $105 | $12474 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $152 | $263 | $262 | $262 | $262 | $263 | $262 | $262 | $262 | $263 | $22 | $2536 |
| Wages & Salaries | K USD | $- | $1324 | $2532 | $2532 | $2598 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2796 | $2068 | $223 | $25257 |
| Total | K USD | $- | $2230 | $4098 | $4095 | $4161 | $4359 | $4349 | $4338 | $4338 | $4338 | $3613 | $350 | $40267 |
| Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.07 | $0.29 | $0.03 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.06 | $0.01 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.09 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.09 | $0.06 | $0.11 | $0.62 | $0.07 |
| Total | $/ton | $- | $0.15 | $0.12 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.14 | $0.09 | $0.20 | $0.98 | $0.11 |

---

21.4.3 Drilling

Drilling cost estimates are shown in Table 21-9. The LOM drilling costs are estimated to be $84.9 million or $0.23 per ton, including pre-production.

**Table 21-9**: Yearly Drilling Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | ***Drilling Operating Costs*** |
| Prod Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 213 | 503 | 624 | 562 | 681 | 719 | 625 | 466 | 740 | 283 | 6 | 5422 |
| Prod Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $691 | $1635 | $2029 | $1828 | $2212 | $2337 | $2031 | $1514 | $2405 | $920 | $19 | $17621 |
| Prod Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $196 | $464 | $575 | $518 | $627 | $663 | $576 | $429 | $682 | $261 | $5 | $4996 |
| Prod Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Prod Drill Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $- | $590 | $1397 | $1733 | $1562 | $1890 | $1997 | $1735 | $1294 | $2055 | $786 | $16 | $15056 |
| Prod Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $1477 | $3496 | $4337 | $3908 | $4729 | $4996 | $4341 | $3237 | $5143 | $1967 | $41 | $37673 |
| Prod Drill Parts | K USD | $- | $721 | $1707 | $2117 | $1908 | $2309 | $2439 | $2119 | $1580 | $2510 | $960 | $20 | $18390 |
| Prod Drill Maintenance Labor | K USD | $- | $331 | $840 | $865 | $890 | $878 | $890 | $877 | $903 | $878 | $514 | $25 | $7892 |
| Pioneer Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 5 | 13 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 |  | 8 |  |  | 54 |
| Pioneer Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $15 | $41 | $33 | $7 | $21 | $13 | $19 | $- | $25 | $- | $- | $174 |
| Pioneer Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $4 | $11 | $9 | $2 | $6 | $4 | $5 | $- | $7 | $- | $- | $48 |
| Pioneer Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $- | $13 | $36 | $29 | $6 | $19 | $11 | $17 | $- | $22 | $- | $- | $154 |
| Pioneer Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $32 | $89 | $72 | $15 | $45 | $28 | $41 | $- | $55 | $- | $- | $377 |
| Pioneer Drill Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $26 | $72 | $58 | $12 | $37 | $23 | $33 | $- | $44 | $- | $- | $305 |
| Pioneer Drill Maint. Labor | K USD | $- | $20 | $63 | $37 | $12 | $25 | $12 | $26 | $- | $25 | $- | $- | $221 |
| Total Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 217 | 516 | 634 | 565 | 687 | 723 | 631 | 466 | 748 | 283 | 6 | 5475 |
| Total Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $706 | $1677 | $2062 | $1835 | $2233 | $2350 | $2049 | $1514 | $2431 | $920 | $19 | $17795 |
| Total Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $200 | $475 | $584 | $520 | $633 | $666 | $581 | $429 | $689 | $261 | $5 | $5045 |
| Total Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total Drill Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $- | $603 | $1434 | $1763 | $1568 | $1909 | $2008 | $1752 | $1294 | $2077 | $786 | $16 | $15210 |
| Total Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $1509 | $3585 | $4409 | $3923 | $4775 | $5024 | $4382 | $3237 | $5197 | $1967 | $41 | $38050 |
| Total Drill Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $747 | $1779 | $2175 | $1920 | $2345 | $2462 | $2152 | $1580 | $2554 | $960 | $20 | $18695 |
| Total Drill Maint. Labor | K USD | $- | $351 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $903 | $514 | $25 | $8113 |
| Total Drill Maint. Allocation | K USD | $- | $1098 | $2682 | $3078 | $2823 | $3248 | $3364 | $3055 | $2483 | $3457 | $1474 | $45 | $26807 |
| Total Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $- | $800 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $2260 | $1177 | $47 | $20105 |
| Total Drilling Cost | K USD | $- | $3407 | $8527 | $9747 | $9006 | $10283 | $10649 | $9697 | $7980 | $10914 | $4619 | $133 | $84962 |
| ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** | ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.02 | $0.01 |
| Undercarriage | $/ton | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 535 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| Drill Bits & Steel | $/ton | $- | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.04 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.11 | $0.10 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.05 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.07 | $0.02 |
| Total Maint. Allocation | $/ton | $- | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.13 | $0.07 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.13 | $0.05 |
| Total Drilling Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.23 | $0.24 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.22 | $0.25 | $0.37 | $0.23 |

---

21.4.4 Blasting

LOM blasting costs, including pre-production, are shown in Table 21-10. These costs are based on owner operations for blasting and assume heavy ANFO costs of $578/ton, including transportation costs, for blasting agents. Blasting accessories, costing $28.43 per hole, were also included in the blasting cost estimate. The LOM blasting costs are estimated to be $99.6 million or $0.27 per ton, including pre-production.

**Table 21-10**: Yearly Blasting Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** | **Blasting Costs** |
| Fuel | K Gal | $- | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 43 |
| Blasting Consumables | K USD | $- | $3164 | $7636 | $9262 | $8248 | $9817 | $10431 | $9246 | $6785 | $10805 | $4208 | $91 | $79693 |
| Equip. Consumables | K USD | $- | $10 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $18 | $1 | $172 |
| Equip. Maint. Allocations | K USD | $- | $3 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $0 | $42 |
| Personnel | K USD | $- | $494 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $848 | $71 | $8193 |
| Supplies | K USD | $- | $7 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $1 | $116 |
| Outside Services | K USD | $- | $687 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $98 | $11387 |
| Total Blasting Costs | K USD | $- | $4365 | $9696 | $11322 | $10308 | $11876 | $12491 | $11306 | $8845 | $12865 | $6268 | $263 | $99604 |
| **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** | **Cost per Ton** |
| Blasting Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.21 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.22 | $0.21 | $0.22 | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.22 |
| Equip. Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Equip. Maint. Allocations | $/ton | $- | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Personnel | $/ton | $- | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.05 | $0.20 | $0.02 |
| Supplies | $/ton | $- | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Outside Services | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.06 | $0.27 | $0.03 |
|  Total | $/ton | $- | $0.29 | $0.28 | $0.27 | $0.28 | $0.26 | $0.26 | $0.26 | $0.28 | $0.26 | $0.34 | $0.74 | $0.27 |

---

**21.4.5** Loading

Loading costs are based on the operation of two hydraulic shovels with 28.8 cubic yard buckets for all primary production. In addition, a 28 cubic yard front-end loader is assumed to be used as supplemental production and projects. The LOM loading costs are estimated to be $109.2 million or $0.30 per ton, including pre-production. The yearly loading cost estimate is shown in Table 21-11.

**Table 21-11**: Yearly Loading Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** | ***Shovel Cost*** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 319 | 744 | 1143 | 995 | 1156 | 1173 | 1147 | 848 | 1155 | 497 | 10 | 9187 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $1037 | $2419 | $3716 | $3235 | $3756 | $3811 | $3728 | $2757 | $3755 | $1614 | $31 | $29858 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $280 | $652 | $1002 | $872 | $1013 | $1028 | $1005 | $743 | $1012 | $435 | $8 | $8051 |
| Tires / Under Carriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $- | $123 | $288 | $442 | $385 | $447 | $453 | $444 | $328 | $447 | $192 | $4 | $3553 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $1440 | $3359 | $5160 | $4492 | $5216 | $5292 | $5177 | $3828 | $5214 | $2241 | $43 | $41461 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $1119 | $2610 | $4010 | $3491 | $4053 | $4113 | $4023 | $2975 | $4052 | $1741 | $34 | $32220 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 536 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $- | $2560 | $5969 | $9170 | $7982 | $9269 | $9405 | $9200 | $6802 | $9265 | $3982 | $77 | $73682 |
| ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** | ***Loader Cost*** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 111 | 261 | 26 | 15 | 170 | 175 | 16 | 28 | 251 | 5 | 6 | 1064 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $359 | $849 | $86 | $50 | $554 | $569 | $52 | $90 | $815 | $15 | $18 | $3457 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $125 | $296 | $30 | $17 | $193 | $198 | $18 | $31 | $284 | $5 | $6 | $1204 |
| Tires / Under Carriage | K USD | $- | $320 | $757 | $77 | $44 | $494 | $507 | $46 | $81 | $727 | $13 | $16 | $3082 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $- | $25 | $60 | $6 | $4 | $39 | $40 | $4$6 | $6 | $58 | $1 | $1 | $245 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $831 | $1962 | $198 | $115 | $1280 | $1315 | $120 | $209 | $1884 | $34 | $41 | $7989 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $208 | $491 | $50 | $29 | $320 | $329 | $30 | $52 | $471 | $9 | $10 | $1999 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $- | $1039 | $2453 | $248 | $144 | $1600 | $1644 | $150 | $261 | $2356 | $43 | $52 | $9989 |
| ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** | ***Total Loading Cost*** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 430 | 1006 | 1170 | 1011 | 1326 | 1348 | 1163 | 876 | 1406 | 501 | 15 | 10251 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $1397 | $3268 | $3802 | $3284 | $4310 | $4380 | $3780 | $2847 | $4570 | $1628 | $49 | $33316 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $405 | $948 | $1032 | $889 | $1206 | $1226 | $1023 | $775 | $1296 | $440 | $15 | $9255 |
| Tires/Under Carriage | K USD | $- | $320 | $757 | $77 | $44 | $494 | $507 | $46 | $81 | $727 | $13 | $16 | $3082 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $- | $149 | $348 | $448 | $388 | $486 | $494 | $447 | $334 | $505 | $193 | $5 | $3798 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $2271 | $5321 | $5358 | $4607 | $6496 | $6607 | $5297 | $4036 | $7098 | $2275 | $85 | $49451 |
| Parts/MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $1327 | $3101 | $4060 | $3519 | $4374 | $4442 | $4053 | $3027 | $4523 | $1750 | $44 | $34220 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $- | $3598 | $8423 | $9418 | $8126 | $10869 | $11049 | $9349 | $7063 | $11621 | $4025 | $129 | $83670 |
| Maint. Labor | K USD | $- | $288 | $720 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $942 | $157 | $8700 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $- | $558 | $1396 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $1827 | $305 | $16877 |
| Total Loading Costs | K USD | $- | $4444 | $10538 | $12187 | $10895 | $13638 | $13818 | $12119 | $9832 | $14390 | $6794 | $590 | $109247 |
| ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** | ***Cost per Ton*** |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.14 | $0.09 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $- | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.04 | $0.03 |
| Tires/Under Carriage | $/ton | $- | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.04 | $0.01 |
| Wear Items & GET | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.13 | $0.12 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.12 | $0.13 | $0.14 | $0.12 | $0.24 | $0.13 |
| Parts/MARC Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.12 | $0.09 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | $/ton | $- | $0.24 | $0.24 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.23 | $0.23 | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.23 | $0.22 | $0.36 | $0.23 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.05 | $0.44 | $0.02 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $- | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.06 | $0.04 | $0.10 | $0.85 | $0.05 |
| Total Loading Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.29 | $0.30 | $0.29 | $0.29 | $0.29 | $0.28 | $0.28 | $0.31 | $0.29 | $0.37 | $1.65 | $0.30 |

---

**21.4.6** Hauling

Haulage cost was estimated using the truck hour estimates discussed in Section 16.5.3. The LOM hauling costs are estimated to be $275.4 million or $0.75 per ton, including pre-production. The yearly haulage cost estimate is shown in Table 21-12.

**Table 21-12**: Yearly Haulage Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** | ***Haulage Cost*** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  | 746 | 2604 | 2587 | 2666 | 4072 | 4084 | 3339 | 2542 | 4119 | 2069 | 53 | 28880 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $2424 | $8464 | $8406 | $8665 | $13233 | $13272 | $10850 | $8260 | $13387 | $6723 | $174 | $93858 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $692 | $2415 | $2399 | $2472 | $3776 | $3787 | $3096 | $2357 | $3820 | $1918 | $50 | $26781 |
| Tires | K USD | $- | $1340 | $4679 | $4647 | $4790 | $7315 | $7336 | $5998 | $4566 | $7400 | $3716 | $96 | $51881 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $- | $238 | $831 | $826 | $851 | $1300 | $1304 | $1066 | $811 | $1315 | $660 | $17 | $9220 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $4694 | $16389 | $16278 | $16778 | $25623 | $25699 | $21010 | $15995 | $25922 | $13018 | $337 | $181741 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $523 | $1825 | $1813 | $1868 | $2853 | $2862 | $2340 | $1781 | $2887 | $1450 | $37 | $20239 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $- | $5216 | $18214 | $18090 | $18647 | $28476 | $28561 | $23349 | $17776 | $28808 | $14468 | $374 | $201980 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 537 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Maintenance Labor | K USD | $- | $424 | $1356 | $1415 | $1462 | $2028 | $2122 | $2122 | $2122 | $2122 | $1144 | $59 | $16377 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $- | $1478 | $4722 | $4927 | $5091 | $7062 | $7391 | $7391 | $7391 | $7391 | $3983 | $205 | $57030 |
| Total Haulage Costs | K USD | $- | $7119 | $24292 | $24432 | $25200 | $37566 | $38073 | $32862 | $27289 | $38321 | $19594 | $638 | $275387 |
| ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** | ***Cost per Ton Moved*** |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.16 | $0.24 | $0.20 | $0.23 | $0.29 | $0.27 | $0.25 | $0.26 | $0.27 | $0.36 | $0.49 | $0.26 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $- | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.10 | $0.14 | $0.07 |
| Tires | $/ton | $- | $0.09 | $0.13 | $0.11 | $0.13 | $0.16 | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.20 | $0.27 | $0.14 |
| Wear Items & GET | $/ton | $- | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.03 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.31 | $0.47 | $0.39 | ` | $0.55 | $0.53 | $0.49 | $0.51 | $0.52 | $0.70 | $0.94 | $0.49 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $- | $0.03 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.08 | $0.10 | $0.06 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | $/ton | $- | $0.34 | $0.52 | $0.43 | $0.50 | $0.61 | $0.58 | $0.54 | $0.56 | $0.58 | $0.78 | $1.05 | $0.55 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.07 | $0.04 | $0.06 | $0.17 | $0.04 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $- | $0.10 | $0.14 | $0.12 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.17 | $0.23 | $0.15 | $0.22 | $0.57 | $0.16 |
| Total Haulage Costs | $/ton | $- | $0.47 | $0.70 | $0.58 | $0.68 | $0.81 | $0.78 | $0.77 | $0.86 | $0.77 | $1.06 | $1.79 | $0.75 |

---

**21.4.7** Mine Support

Yearly mine support cost estimates are shown in Table 21-13, including pre-production costs. These costs assume the hourly costs for required support equipment and personnel as discussed in Sections 16.5 and 16.6, respectively. The LOM support costs are estimated to be $186.2 million or $0.51 per ton, including pre-production.

**Table 21-13**: Yearly Mine Support Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Total** |
| ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** | ***Total Mine Support Costs*** |
| Consumables | K USD | $- | $2804 | $6559 | $8181 | $8181 | $8177 | $8201 | $8178 | $8177 | $8177 | $6284 | $419 | $73338 |
| Parts/MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $1069 | $2495 | $3221 | $3221 | $3220 | $3229 | $3220 | $3220 | $3220 | $2426 | $162 | $28701 |
| Maint. Labor | K USD | $- | $839 | $2238 | $2628 | $2628 | $2628 | $2628 | $2628 | $2628 | $2628 | $2117 | $158 | $23745 |
| Operating Labor | K USD | $- | $2276 | $5569 | $6699 | $6699 | $6699 | $6699 | $6699 | $6699 | $6699 | $5345 | $372 | $60455 |
| Total | K USD | $- | $6988 | $16862 | $20728 | $20728 | $20723 | $20757 | $20724 | $20723 | $20723 | $16172 | $1111 | $186239 |
| ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** | ***Cost per Ton Mined*** |
| Consumables | $/ton | $- | $0.19 | $0.19 | $0.19 | $0.22 | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.19 | $0.26 | $0.16 | $0.34 | $1.17 | $0.20 |
| Maint. Allocations | $/ton | $- | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.09 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.10 | $0.06 | $0.13 | $0.45 | $0.08 |
| Maint. Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.08 | $0.05 | $0.11 | $0.44 | $0.06 |
| Operating Labor | $/ton | $- | $0.15 | $0.16 | $0.16 | $0.18 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.16 | $0.21 | $0.13 | $0.29 | $1.04 | $0.16 |
| Total Costs | $/ton | $- | $0.46 | $0.49 | $0.49 | $0.56 | $0.45 | $0.42 | $0.48 | $0.66 | $0.42 | $0.87 | $3.11 | $0.51 |

---

**21.4.8** **Leasing and Rental Costs** 

Leasing and rental costs were assumed for specific equipment based on vendor inputs as to typical leasing rates. The leasing of equipment was assumed to be "lease to own" terms, where Orla would own the equipment at the end of the lease terms. Haul trucks, shovels, loaders, dozers, graders, and water trucks were assumed to be leased using 0% down payment with a 7.6% APR over a 36-month lease period. Blasthole drills were leased using 0% down payment with a 7.4% APR over a 36-month lease period. Leased equipment was broken down by period in which it was placed into service for the purpose of amortization and includes:

Primary Mining Equipment

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Four production drills put into service during pre-production and Year 1;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 28 cubic yard loader was put into service during pre-production;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 28.8 cubic yard hydraulic shovels were put into service during pre-production and Year 1; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Fifteen 200-ton capacity haul trucks were put into service during pre-production, as well as in Years
1, 3, and Year 4.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 538 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Support equipment

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 600 hp size dozers put into service, with one during pre-production and the other in Year 1;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 850 hp size dozers put into service with one during pre-production and other in Year -1;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 860 hp size rubber tire dozers put into service during pre-production and Year 1;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three 18-foot motor graders were put into service, with two in pre-production and one in Year 1;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three 20,000-gallon water trucks were put into service during pre-production;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One truck and lowboy put into service during pre-production; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 6 cubic yard excavator put into service during pre-production.

Maintenance Equipment

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One lube and fuel truck put into service during pre-production;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two mechanic trucks were put into service during pre-production; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One tire truck was put in service during pre-production.

Equipment rental was assumed for short-term equipment requirements for the pioneer drills. One pioneer drill is assumed to be rented during the first two months of each Dark Star mining phase, as well as the first two months of the first two Pinion mining phases.

Rental terms are assumed to require 10% down payment of the equipment value, including taxes, erecting, and commissioning, along with 6% rental payments. This is assumed to cover mobilization and demobilization. The rental payments are applied directly to operating costs.

Table 21-14 shows the total estimated leasing and rental costs applied to operating costs. These costs are on top of the leasing costs that are capitalized and represent the leasing interest and all rental costs. The LOM leasing and rental costs are estimated to be $16.8 million or $0.05 per ton.

**Table 21-14**: Lease and Rental Operating Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -2** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Total** |
| ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** | ***Mine Op Cost Summary*** |
|  Leased Equipment Interest | K USD | $29 | $2487 | $5048 | $3346 | $1146 | $1409 | $970 | $367 | $11 | $- | $- | $14814 |
|  Rental Equipment Charges | K USD | $- | $137 | $523 | $137 | $250 | $250 | $- | $364 | $182 | $182 | $- | $2025 |
|  Leased Equipment Interest | $/ton | $- | $0.16 | $0.15 | $0.08 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $- | $0.04 |
|  Rental Equipment Charges | $/ton | $- | $0.01 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $0.01 |

---

**21.5** Process Operating Cost Summary

Process operating costs have been estimated by Qualified Persons from M3 from first principles. Labor costs were estimated using project specific staffing, salary and wage, and benefit requirements. Unit consumptions of materials, supplies, power, and delivered supply costs were also estimated. LOM overall average processing costs are estimated at an average cost of $4.12 per ton.

Operating costs were estimated based on 3<sup>rd</sup> quarter 2025 US dollars and are presented with no added contingency based upon the design and operating criteria present in this Technical Report. Operating costs are considered to have an accuracy of -10% to +15%.

The process operating costs presented are based upon the ownership of all process production equipment and site facilities. The owner will employ and direct all operating maintenance and support personnel for all site activities.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 539 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Operating costs estimates have been based upon information obtained from the following sources:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Project metallurgical test work and process engineering

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Development of a detailed equipment list and demand calculations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· M3 In-house data for reagent pricing

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Experience with other similar operations

Where specific data do not exist, cost allowances have been based upon consumption and operating requirements from other similar properties for which reliable data exist. Overall LOM operating costs by year and process type are presented in Table 21-15.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 540 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 21-15**: Life of Mine Average Process Operating Cost by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Yrs 11-13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Tons** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL Process Plant Ore** (000's) | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**8707** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**9208** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**10145** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**6646** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**7121** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**7522** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**6637** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**9938** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**7045** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**465** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**-** | <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;**73433** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Costs** (US$000's) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL Process Plant** | &nbsp;&nbsp;30156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30783 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31759 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;299752 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL Generator Financing (Interest)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;824 | &nbsp;&nbsp;671 | &nbsp;&nbsp;504 | &nbsp;&nbsp;324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2452 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**GRAND TOTAL** (US$000's) | &nbsp;&nbsp;**30980** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**31453** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**32263** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**28445** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**28736** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**27612** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**26690** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**30129** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**27115** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11169** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**27612** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**302204** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 541 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**21.5.1** Personnel and Staffing

Staffing requirements for process personnel have been identified by Orla, and validated by Qualified Persons from M3, based on experience with similar-sized operations in Nevada. Total process personnel requirements are estimated at 61 persons for the process plant operation. For the last 2.5 years of non-active mining or ore placement on the pad, the ADR facility requirements for labor have been reduced by 50%. Personnel requirements and costs are estimated at $6.7 million per year for the process plant operation and $3.4 million per year for the ADR Only facility operation.

**21.5.2** Power

Power usage for the process and process-facilities was derived from estimated connected loads assigned to powered equipment from the mechanical equipment list. Equipment power demands under normal operation were assigned and coupled with estimated on-stream times to determine the average energy usage and cost. Power requirements for the project are presented inTable 21-16.

**Table 21-16**: Power Requirements Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Process** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Process** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Process** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Connecter Power (kW)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Demand (kW)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Annual (kWh)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 100 - PRIMARY CRUSHING | &nbsp;&nbsp;421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1787763 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 200 - SECONDARY CRUSHING | &nbsp;&nbsp;1272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5852790 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 310 - HEAP LEACH PAD & PONDS | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72624 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 350 - SOLUTION TRANSFER | &nbsp;&nbsp;2123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10696524 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 400 - ADR | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1195102 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 500 - REFINERY | &nbsp;&nbsp;196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;801484 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 650 - WATER SYSTEMS | &nbsp;&nbsp;1720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10837162 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 800 - REAGENTS | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119283 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AREA 900 - ANCILLARY FACILITIES | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;259257 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**6131** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3610** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**31621990** |

---

Power will be generated via LNG generators on the project site at an estimated cost of $0.16/kWh.

**21.5.3** Consumable Items

Operating supplies have been estimated based upon unit costs and consumption rates projected by metallurgical tests. Freight costs are included in all operating supply and reagent estimates. Reagent consumptions have been derived from test work and from design criteria considerations. Other consumable items have been estimated by Qualified Persons from M3 based on experience with other similar operations. Table 21-17presents average consumptions for major consumables.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 542 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 21-17**: Process Consumables Average Annual Consumptions**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Item** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Form** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average Annual Consumption** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sodium Cyanide | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liquid at 30% NaCN by Weight | &nbsp;&nbsp;2,820 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lime | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bulk Delivery (22 tons) | &nbsp;&nbsp;5,240 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Antiscalant | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liquid Tote (IBC) | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Carbon | &nbsp;&nbsp;1000 lb Supersacks | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Nitric Acid | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liquid at 57% Acid by weight | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Caustic | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liquid at 50% NaOH by Weight | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 tons |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refinery Fluxes | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dry Solid Bags | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 tons |

---

Operating costs for consumable items have been distributed based on tonnage and gold/silver production or smelting batches, as appropriate.

**21.5.4** Maintenance

Annual maintenance costs have been included for the process facilities. The maintenance costs are estimated from the capital cost of the plant equipment at an allowance of 5% for parts repair or replacement. Maintenance labor is also included. The maintenance labor includes seven mechanics and five electricians/instrument technicians. These personnel are included as part of the overall process personnel quantity. An allowance for outside repairs is also included at 10% of the maintenance parts allowance. The total annual maintenance is estimated at $5.05 million per year for the first nine years of operation.

**21.5.5** Supplies and Services

Estimates for supplies and services have been included for items such as lubricants, third-party services for the process plant, safety items, and minor supplies and tools outside of maintenance. The total annual supplies and services is estimated at $758 thousand per year for the first nine years of operation.

**21.5.6** Process Operating Cost Exclusions

The following operating costs are excluded from the process plant operating cost estimate:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· G&A costs (see section 21.6)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Access road and internal roads maintenance

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Operating cost contingency

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Escalation costs

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Currency exchange fluctuations

**21.5.7** Generator Financing Costs

Financing costs were assumed for the LNG and Diesel Generators based on vendor input as to typical lending terms. Financed generators assumed 25% down payment of the equipment value. An annual percentage rate (APR) of 8% was assumed with equipment amortized over a period of six years.

**21.6** G&A Costs

G&A labor costs were included based on guidance from Orla regarding personnel quantities and expected salaries. These values were benchmarked against similar-sized facilities within Nevada or the surrounding region. An allowance for the non-labor component was also included based on benchmarks in the area.

G&A costs are included at $7.02 million per year for the first ten years of operation, which are the years of active mining and ore stacking on the pad. An annual G&A cost of $3.5 million is included for years 11, 12, and 13, which are the years of solution application on the heap leach pad for recovery of residual ounces from the pad.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 543 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **22** | Economic Analysis |

---

The economic analysis in this study includes a feasibility study-compliant modeling of the annual cash flows based on projected production volume, sales revenue, initial capital, operating cost, and sustaining capital with resulting evaluation of key economic indicators such as internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), and payback period (time in years to recapture the initial capital investment) for the Project. The sales revenue is based on the production of gold and silver in doré bullion. The estimates of the capital expenditures and site production costs have been developed specifically for this project and have been presented in the Section 21 of this Technical Report.

**22.1** Mining
 Physicals

The cash-flow model uses the mining and production schedules as discussed in Section 16 and summarized in Table 22-1. Results from the heap leach metal production model are included with this table to facilitate direct comparison between placed ounces, recoverable ounces, and recovered ounces. Placed ounces are per the mine plan and stacking plan. Recoverable ounces follow the leach kinetic curves for the placed ounces after cyanide-bearing solution has started being applied. Recovered ounces incorporate the timebased constraints for the time it takes leached ounces to reach the pad liner and report to the metal recovery plant. Ore is placed on the pad for a ten-year period. Solution application continues for an additional 3 years to allow recovery of the solubilized ounces.

**22.2** Process
 Plant Production Statistics

Ore will be processed by cyanide heap leaching as ROM and recovered via an ADR facility as described in Section 17 of this Technical Report. Overall production over the life of mine is summarized in Table 22-2.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 544 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 22-1**: Yearly Mine & Process Physicals**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Material Mined** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Total** |
| Total Ore | K Tons | 1322 | 8108 | 9583 | 10827 | 5094 | 7502 | 8538 | 6128 | 9070 | 6982 | 280 | - | - | 73433 |
| Total Ore | Au oz/t | 0.022 | 0.029 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.025 | 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.021 | 0.033 | - | - | 0.021 |
| Total Ore | Ag oz/t | - | 0.024 | 0.069 | 0.063 | 0.028 | 0.078 | 0.129 | 0.116 | 0.089 | 0.180 | 0.173 | - | - | 0.084 |
| Total Ore | K oz Au | 29 | 233 | 191 | 178 | 127 | 231 | 150 | 96 | 128 | 143 | 9 | - | - | 1516 |
| Total Ore | K oz Ag | - | 196 | 662 | 685 | 143 | 584 | 1105 | 712 | 804 | 1255 | 48 | - | - | 6195 |
| Total Waste | K Tons | 13813 | 26595 | 32523 | 26127 | 41299 | 41395 | 34337 | 25503 | 40853 | 11535 | 77 | - | - | 294056 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 15135 | 34703 | 42106 | 36953 | 46393 | 48897 | 42875 | 31630 | 49923 | 18517 | 357 | - | - | 367490 |
| Strip Ratio | W : O | 10.45 | 3.28 | 3.39 | 2.41 | 8.11 | 5.52 | 4.02 | 4.16 | 4.50 | 1.65 | 0.28 | - | - | 4.00 |
| **Total Ore Processed** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Total** |
| Total Ore Processed | K Tons | 465 | 8242 | 9208 | 10145 | 6646 | 7121 | 7522 | 6637 | 9938 | 7045 | 465 | - | - | 73433 |
| Total Ore Processed | Au oz/t | 0.010 | 0.026 | 0.021 | 0.018 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.019 | 0.022 | 0.014 | 0.020 | 0.025 | - | - | 0.021 |
| Total Ore Processed | Ag oz/t | - | 0.024 | 0.064 | 0.070 | 0.029 | 0.079 | 0.128 | 0.113 | 0.093 | 0.175 | 0.165 | - | - | 0.084 |
| Total Placed | K oz Au | 5 | 214 | 193 | 182 | 159 | 182 | 140 | 145 | 140 | 144 | 12 | - | - | 1516 |
| Total Recoverable | K oz Au | - | 141 | 130 | 123 | 120 | 149 | 86 | 101 | 79 | 92 | 35 | 5 | 0 | 1062 |
| Total Recovered | K oz Au | - | 149 | 114 | 124 | 114 | 150 | 77 | 101 | 72 | 99 | 38 | 17 | 18 | 1072 |
| Total Placed | K oz Ag | - | 195 | 587 | 710 | 191 | 564 | 962 | 748 | 928 | 1234 | 77 | - | - | 6195 |
| Total Recoverable | K oz Ag | - | 15 | 62 | 94 | 48 | 50 | 105 | 95 | 113 | 144 | 47 | 4 | 0 | 778 |
| Total Recovered | K oz Ag | - | 12 | 55 | 81 | 55 | 41 | 91 | 92 | 98 | 123 | 65 | 20 | 26 | 760 |
| Cumulative Recovery | % Au | - | 68.0% | 63.7% | 65.0% | 66.4% | 69.4% | 67.5% | 67.8% | 66.1% | 66.4% | 68.4% | 70.7% | 70.7% | 70.8% |
| Cumulative Recovery | % Ag | - | 6.2% | 8.5% | 9.9% | 12.0% | 10.8% | 10.4% | 10.8% | 10.7% | 10.6% | 11.5% | 11.8% | 12.3% | 12.4% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 545 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 22-2**: Life of Mine Process Statistics**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;73433 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1516 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;6195 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.7% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.3% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1072 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;760 |

---

Gold recoveries in the tables above include a slight increase due to residual leaching. This is described in Section 13.7 of this report. This is the reason for the recovered gold ounces being slightly higher than the recoverable gold ounces.

**22.3** **Smelter Return Factors** 

No contractual payable metal rates have yet been negotiated with smelters. Qualified Persons from M3 used typical rates based on industry experience or published guidelines. Payable rates for metals used were 99.9% for gold and 99.0% for silver. A bullion refining, transportation and insurance charge of $2.15 per troy ounce of gold was applied.

The project has a silver streaming agreement where Orla retains 15% of the revenue associated with silver. The impact of the silver streaming agreement is reflected in the project economic parameters.

**22.4** **Capital Expenditure** 

The capital expenditure schedule for the life of mine is shown in Table 22-3 below.

**Table 22-3: Capital Expenditure Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Capital<br> Expenditure, <br> $000** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** | **Sustaining** |
| **Capital<br> Expenditure, <br> $000** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | **Year 5** | **Year 6** | **Year 7** | **Year 8** | **Year 9** | **Year 10** |
| Mine Pre-Production | $22614 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine Capital | $37152 | $30906 | $37058 | $25700 | $10390 | $7178 | $7336 | $799 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Process | $324138 | $45460 | $5028 | $15051 | $13148 | $4201 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Owner's Cost | $10837 | $6861 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Total | $394741 | $83226 | $42085 | $40751 | 23538 | $11379 | $7336 | $799 | $0 | $0 | $0 |

---

**22.5** **Revenue** 

Annual revenue is determined by applying metal prices to the annual payable metal estimated for each operating year. Sales prices have been applied to all life-of-mine production without escalation or hedging. Gold bullion revenue is based on the gross value of the payable metals sold before refining and transportation charges. Gold and silver metal pricing are based on publish consensus long-term pricing as researched by the Owner and presented in Section 19:

Gold $3,100 per troy ounce

Silver $36.50 per troy ounce

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 546 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**22.6** **Total Production Cost** 

The total production cost includes mine operations, process plant operations, general administration, reclamation and closure, and government fees. Table 22-4 shows the estimated operating costs by area based on payable metals for the life of mine.

**Table 22-4: LOM Operating Costs**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM Operating Cost ($000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM Operating Cost ($000)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$816007 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302204 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$80678 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2308 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Operating Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1201197 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;$97464 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Production Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1311435 |

---

**22.7** **Depreciation** 

The depreciation cost was calculated using a 7-year modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) depreciation method following both initial and sustaining capital.

**22.8** **Royalties** 

As discussed in Section 4 to this Technical Report, portions of the unpatented and private lands are encumbered with royalties predominantly in the form of standard NSR or GSR and MP royalty agreements, or NPI agreements. The royalty value in Table 22-4 reflects the expected net royalty amounts.

**22.9** **Excise Tax** 

An excise tax is applied to gross revenue. The excise tax rate is 0.75% for gross annual revenue between $20 million and $150 million. The excise tax rate is 1.10% for gross annual revenue above $150 million.

**22.10** **Income Tax** 

A net proceeds tax of 5% is applied to revenue minus excise tax, operating cost, and depreciation. Regular corporate tax of 21% is applied to taxable corporation income after adjustments for state tax, if any, and net proceeds tax. No state income tax was applied.

**22.11** **Net Income After-Tax** 

The net income after-taxes is projected to be $1.095 billion.

**22.12** **Project Financing** 

It is assumed that the project will be all equity financed.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 547 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**22.13** **Economic Indicators** 

The economic analyses for the project are summarized in Table 22-5 below. The NPV calculations have been conducted per the Mid-Year discounting method, as opposed to the Year-End discounting method. The Mid-Year discounting method provides a closer representation of how cash flows are expected to be received in a normal year of operation.

**Table 22-5: Key Economic Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Before-Tax** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**After-Tax** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LOM Cash Flow ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1010583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$782677 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% ($000) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$733940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$564747 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 |

---

Note: Gold price at $3,100 per ounce; silver price at $36.50 per ounce.

**22.14** **Sensitivity Analysis** 

Table 22-6 below shows the sensitivity analysis of the key economic indicators (cash flow, NPV, IRR, and payback) to changes in gold prices.

**Table 22-6: Sensitivity Analysis**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base Case** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2,500 Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2,000 Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price (per troy oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$3100** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Price (per troy oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$52.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$41.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$21.50** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$23.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Cash Flow, $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2872.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1332.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1413.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$787.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$266.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2136.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$989.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1010.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$528.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$126.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | &nbsp;&nbsp;106.6% | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;**54.7%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;32.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Payback (Years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Cash Flow, $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2203.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1030.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$1094.6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$611.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$201.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1650.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$764.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**$782.7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$405.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$82.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | &nbsp;&nbsp;95.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;**48.0%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;28.1% | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Payback (Years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2.0** | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.9 |

---

**22.15** **Detailed Financial Model** 

The detailed financial model, shown in Table 22-7, was developed in compliance with the FSU requirement. This model has captured all the parameters of the mine production volume, annual sales revenue, and all the associated costs. This model was used to calculate the economics of the project, as well as for the sensitivity analysis. Totals in Table 22-7 may not add due to rounding.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 548 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Table 22-7: Detailed Financial Model**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;M3-PN250005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Prod** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 14** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (kt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;73433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6982 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;6195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;685 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;712 | &nbsp;&nbsp;804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (kt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;294056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25503 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (kt) | &nbsp;&nbsp;367490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34703 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36953 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46393 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48897 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49923 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Process Plant** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ROM Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;20772 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3578 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1372 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;4228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;448 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;16322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;874 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1694 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;51.7% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total ROM (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;37094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5922 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;66.6% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 549 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;M3-PN250005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Prod** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 14** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**2-Stage Crush Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;10892 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;2693 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1779 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;855 | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.1% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;25447 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;1110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3952 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3867 | &nbsp;&nbsp;397 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;4681 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;384 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total 2-Stage Crush (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;36339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;3803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;4681 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;71.1% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (kt)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;73433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9938 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;6195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;962 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748 | &nbsp;&nbsp;928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;70.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.8% | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;69.6% | &nbsp;&nbsp;56.6% | &nbsp;&nbsp;64.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;294.3% |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.6% |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.8% | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.9% | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2% | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.7% | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.5% |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;778 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 550 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;M3-PN250005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Prod** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 14** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Payable Metals** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1072 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;760 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Metal Prices** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold ($/oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3100.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver ($/oz) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Revenues ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3324149 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$461613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$352513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$382934 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$353039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$463144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$238355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$313888 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$223987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$307654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$119320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$52512 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$54906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (Net of Silver Streaming Agreement) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4161 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$673 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Revenues | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3328310 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$461679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$352812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$383376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$353341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$463368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$238856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$314390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$224525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$308327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$119679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$52624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$55048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Cost ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$816007 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$89996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$85697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$104108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$104990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$95599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$105555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$60091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302204 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$32263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$8594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$80678 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2308 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1201197 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$121904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$128710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$125241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$139813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$141062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$130391 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$116946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$142855 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$94435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$21630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;$97464 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$6828 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1726 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Production Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1311435 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$134658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$135538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$133226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$154353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$137403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$127025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$150516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$107126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14779 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$15662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$41309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Income** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2016875 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$327021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$217275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$250150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$203682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$309014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$101452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$187365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$74008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$201201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$109497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$37846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$39387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$41023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Depreciation ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp;$603151 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$78948 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$92904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$101041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$108830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$113128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$18812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$918 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Depreciation | &nbsp;&nbsp;$603151 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$78948 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$92904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$101041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$108830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$113128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$18812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$918 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income after Depreciation | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413724 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$248073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$124370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$94853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$195886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$65144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$160856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$55196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$189816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$102002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$32331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$38029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$41941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Proceeds and Excise Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp;$103820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16907 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11729 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16753 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Income Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp;$214642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$19743 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$24897 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$17937 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$39273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$21631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$19116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7572 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Taxes | &nbsp;&nbsp;$318462 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$56027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$43919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$24103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Net Income after Taxes ($000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1095262 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$211422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$98713 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$112483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$67267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$139860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$55432 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$129398 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$47212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$145897 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$77899 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$23324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$41941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 551 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;M3-PN250005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Prod** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 14** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income before Taxes | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413724 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$248073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$124370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$94853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$195886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$65144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$160856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$55196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$189816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$102002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$32331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$38029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$41941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Add back Depreciation | &nbsp;&nbsp;$603151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$78948 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$92904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$101041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$108830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$113128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$18812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$918 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Flow | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2016875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$327021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$217275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$250150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$203682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$309014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$101452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$187365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$74008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$201201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$109497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$37846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$39387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$41023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$12649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$3014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$6151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$2069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$2296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$34067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$9623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$3387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$2463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$5970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$8976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventory (parts) | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Spare Parts/WTP Pre-Prod Operation | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$6861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$6861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Working Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$6861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$34067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$29132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$4360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$4533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$8266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$3808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$780 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1383 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | &nbsp;&nbsp;$324138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$324138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Expansion Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$119367 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$37058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | &nbsp;&nbsp;$82886 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$45460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$15051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | &nbsp;&nbsp;$596994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$394741 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$76366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$42085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$40751 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$23538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$360674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$221523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$174785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$207970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$180642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$293276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$98454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$182033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$79566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$192935 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$105690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$38625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$39320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$39640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$360674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$139151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$35634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$243604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$424245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$717522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$815976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$998008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1077574 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1270510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1376200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1414825 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1454145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1414505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Taxes Payable | &nbsp;&nbsp;$318462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$56027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$43919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$24103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$360674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$221523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$138134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$182313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$144016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$265691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$42427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$172321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$48108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$184951 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$61771 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$49373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$360674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$139151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$1016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$181296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$325312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$591003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$633430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$805752 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$853860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1038810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1100581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1115104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1145416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1096043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 552 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**ORLA-GSV South Railroad Project - Financial Model** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;M3-PN250005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;**LOM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Prod** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 1** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 2** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 3** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 4** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 5** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 6** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 7** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 8** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 9** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 10** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 11** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 13** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 14** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1413021 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1010583 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$733940 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.7% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.8 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1094559 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$782677 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | &nbsp;&nbsp;$564747 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | &nbsp;&nbsp;48.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Payable Au (kozs) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;- | &nbsp;&nbsp;- |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$816007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$89996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$85697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$104108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$104990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$95599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$105555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$60091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$31453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$32263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$28736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$27115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$8594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;$80678 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;$97464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$6828 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1726 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Cost before By-Product Credit | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1298661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$134658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$135538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$133226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$154353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$137403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$127025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$150516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$107126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14779 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$15662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$/Au oz | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1787 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$872 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$884 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$132149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Credit | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$673 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Cost after By-Product Credit | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1294500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$134592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$135238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$132783 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$154129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$136903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$126523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$149979 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$106454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$26242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$15519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$/Au oz | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1781 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$866 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$132135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital Expenditures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;$119367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$30906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$37058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$7336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | &nbsp;&nbsp;$82886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$45460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$15051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$13148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-$16419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$29193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Net Proceeds and Excise Tax | &nbsp;&nbsp;$103820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16907 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$11729 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16753 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$9827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$12065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AISC | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1613347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$227865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$186508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$185263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$182542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$182261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$148795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$137149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$153980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$118519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$14809 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$16668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$17680 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$41307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$/Au oz | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1530 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1935 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$1194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$450546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 553 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23** | **Adjacent Properties** |

---

The Railroad- Pinion property is situated along the southeastern portion of the Carlin Gold Trend. The Rain Mining District, which is largely controlled by Nevada Gold Mines, is located 2 to 3 km (1.2 to 2 miles) north of the South Carlin Complex. The Rain District has been an active exploration and mining area for several decades and is the location for current and past mining activities by Nevada Gold Mines and Newmont Mining at the Rain open pit and underground mine and Emigrant open pit mine. To the south of the South Carlin Complex, several exploration areas have received sporadic exploration over the past three to four decades including Pony Creek. Adjacent properties to the South Carlin Complex are described below. The authors of this Technical Report have not visited or worked at any of these projects and where references are made to past production and/or historic or current mineral resources the authors have not verified the information. The information regarding such adjacent properties is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the property that is the subject of this Report.

**23.1** **Rain** 

Rain is a Carlin-style, sedimentary rock-hosted gold deposit that is located approximately four miles (seven kilometers) north of Gold Standard's North Bullion mineral resource. Newmont operated the Rain open pit mine, the Rain underground mine and the SMZ open pit mine from 1988 to 2000; and produced approximately 1.24 million ounces (Ressel *et al.*, 2015. Longo *et al*. (2002) summarized a number of mineral resources for the three deposits as follows: Rain open pit 15.5 million tons (14.1 million tonnes) at 0.066 opt (2.3 g/t) Au for a total of 1,017,300 ounces of gold; Rain Underground 1.154 million tons (1.04 million tonnes) at 0.23 opt (7.9 g/t) Au for a total of 265,000 ounces of gold and the SMZ open pit 1.5 million tons (1.4 million tonnes) at 0.019 opt (0.65 g/t) Au for a total of 30,000 ounces of gold. The mineral resources pre-date NI 43-101 and little or no detailed information such as potential mineral resource category or number of drill holes is presented for the estimates or how the mineral resources were arrived at. Therefore, the estimates are considered historic in nature and should not be relied upon. The authors of this Technical Report have been unable to verify this and this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization of the South Carlin Complex.

Along strike to the northwest of the Rain Project and likely on the same structure are the Saddle and Tess gold deposits. The mineralized zones are roughly 3.5 km (2 miles) north of the South Carlin Complex and 10 km (6 miles) northwest of the North Bullion mineral resource. Longo *et al*. (2002) states that Newmont identified a primarily underground high sulphide mineral resource of 1.37 million tons (1.23 million tonnes) at 0.572 opt (19.6 g/t) Au for a total of 782,000 ounces of gold at Saddle and 3.99 million tons (3.59 million tonnes) at 0.37 opt (12.7 g/t) Au for a total of 1,475,000 ounces of gold at Tess. The project was part of the Newmont South Area of operations but has recently been consolidated under the Newmont/Barrick Joint Venture (Nevada Gold Mines). No mining has been conducted at the two deposits. The mineral resources pre-date NI 43-101 and little or no detailed information such as potential mineral resource category or number of drill holes etc. is presented for the estimates or how the mineral resources were arrived at, therefore, the estimates are considered historic in nature and should not be relied upon. The authors of this Technical Report have not visited the Rain property, nor have they verified the historic estimates provided by Longo *et al*. (2002).

The Rain trend of mineralization is characterized by disseminated gold mineralization hosted in dominantly oxidized, silicified, dolomitized, and barite rich collapse breccia with rare sulfides, developed along the Webb Formation mudstone/Devils Gate Formation calcarenite contact and along the Rain Fault. Ore-controlling features at Rain include the west-northwest striking Rain fault, the Webb/Devils Gate contact, collapse breccia and northeast striking cross faults. Shallow oxide zones at the Rain deposit give way along the west-northwest trend to deeper sulphide- and carbon-bearing zones of substantial size and grade at the Saddle and Tess deposits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 554 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**23.2** **Emigrant** 

Emigrant is a Carlin-style, sedimentary rock-hosted gold deposit that is located approximately four miles (seven kilometers) north-northeast of the North Bullion mineral deposits. Until recently Newmont/Nevada Gold Mines has been mining the deposit through open pit methods and processing the ore at an onsite, run of mine heap leach operation with some crushing. The operation currently appears to be shut down. Disseminated gold mineralization is hosted in oxidized, silicified, dolomitized, and barite rich collapse breccia developed within the Webb Formation mudstone. Important ore-controlling features at Emigrant include the north-south-striking Emigrant Fault, collapse breccia and the Northeast Fault.

Open pit, oxide mineral resource and mineral reserve calculations for Newmont's Carlin Trend operations are typically commingled into a single heading of "Carlin open pits, Nevada" category. In 2003, mineral reserves at Emigrant were published at 1,220,000 ounces (Newmont, 2012). No details were provided by Newmont as to the quality of the mineral reserves. The mine is expected to produce roughly 800,000 ounces of gold over a ten plus year mine life and has recently commenced production (Harding, 2012). The authors of this Technical Report have been unable to verify this, and this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the South Carlin Complex.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 555 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **24** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** |

---

There are no additional data for the South Railroad property beyond that discussed in the preceding sections.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 556 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **25** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** |

---

The authors of this Technical Report believe that South Railroad is a project of merit and warrants advancing the study to detailed engineering and ultimately project construction.

The authors have reviewed the project data, including the drill-hole database and available metallurgical information, and have visited the project site. The authors believe that the data provided by Gold Standard, as well as the geological interpretations Gold Standard has derived from the data, are generally an accurate and reasonable representation of the South Railroad property. Based on the positive results of this FSU, the project should continue on a path to a production decision.

Presently, estimated mineral reserves include 1.60 million proven and probable ounces of gold and 6.1 million proven and probable ounces of silver in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits combined, and estimated mineral resources (inclusive of mineral reserves) include 1.94 million measured and indicated ounces of gold in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits combined, as well as inferred mineral resource estimates of 0.76 million ounces of gold in the Dark Star and Pinion deposits combined. Estimated mineral resources (inclusive of mineral reserves) for Pinion also include 7.4 million measured and indicated ounces of silver, as well as inferred mineral resource estimates of 0.11 million ounces of silver. The combined Jasperoid Wash and North Bullion mineral resource estimates, 0.51 million ounces of gold classified as measured and indicated and 0.42 million ounces of gold classified as inferred. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized.

**25.1** **Project Risks** 

**25.1.1** **Geotechnical Characterization** 

At the date of this Technical Report, the access road improvements and materials required have been assumed to be in relative alignment with existing roads in the area, which needs to be verified in future studies. Costs in the FSU assume average ground conditions and that no additional major engineering will be required. Surface geotechnical work is anticipated to be completed this summer as weather and permitting allows. Worse than assumed ground conditions may increase the cost of access road development.

**25.1.2** **Pit Lake Geochemistry** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The ground water hydrology model is currently
under development. At present no major risks were identified related to ground water considerations.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· At the date of this Technical Report, the pit
lake geochemistry and ground water model are still under development. At present, the FSU financials assumes that no water treatment is
required for final pit lakes. Pit lake geochemistry and ground water modeling is currently in progress. Results of this work could indicate
the need for water treatment and/or other closure requirements to meet state water standards. Water treatment of pit lakes may increase
the closure cost of the project.

**25.2** **Project Opportunities** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Oxide mineral resources ($1,750 Au) are currently drilled to Inferred (Jasperoid Wash and POD) status,
as are sulfide mineral resources in the North Bullion and POD deposits. These mineral resources are not included in the current mine plan
and should be evaluated for impacts to the project and work required to bring forward.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Mine plans should undergo various iterations to

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a. Evaluate opportunity for utilizing surface exposed mineralization at Dark Star Main and Pinion for placement
as crushed over-liner.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 557 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;b. Evaluate recently discovered mineralized gravels east of the Dark Star Main pit for potential inclusion
in the mine design or utilization as heap leach gravel over-liner cover.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Pit designs should undergo various iterations to

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a. Investigate opportunities to utilize limestone material in the Pinion deposit for neutralization capacity
of PAG material which may reduce waste rock storage facility construction.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;b. Investigate opportunities to utilize limestone sources for construction and construction cement requirements,
as well as lime to be used for leaching.

**25.3** **Exploration and Mineral Resource Expansion** 

Pinion remains open to exploration and expansion in all directions, particularly to the south where the most recent resources were extended, and to the north where the near-surface LT target has yet to be modeled. Increasing intrusive dikes have also been encountered as drilling progresses southward, suggesting that the source of the mineralized system is located somewhere farther south. However, the deposit is deeper where the host MLBX dips downward to the east, west and south. As gold prices continue to increase, these areas may require additional drilling to define the economic edges to mineralization. At Dark Star, the known mineralization is well-defined within the limits of the current resources, however, there is potential at depth on the West fault, and beneath colluvial cover along strike to the north. Additionally, the steep portion of Jasperoid Wash is open along strike, and the shallow-dipping portion on the east side is open to the north, south and east. Mineral resources can potentially be increased with expansion drilling, and delineation drilling could upgrade classification of the shallow-dipping resources. Jasperoid Wash and the deposits at North Bullion contain oxide and sulfide mineral resources at $2,800 gold price. The mineralization at Jasperoid Wash, and the POD, Sweet Hollow and South Lodes deposits at North Bullion have the potential to be mined via open pits, whereas the sulfide mineralization at the North Bullion deposit could be exploited in a combination open pit and underground scenario. There is also newly defined, relatively high-grade sulfide material below the Dark Star pit that could potentially be mined from underground. Current classification of mineral resources as Inferred prevent the material from these deposits from consideration within the FSU and mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Gold Standard's South Railroad property is centered on alower-plate window of the Carlin trend. The property has promising geologic characteristics similar to other productive districts of the Carlin trend, including carbonate host rocks, older thrust faults and folds, younger extensional faults and an Eocene (Carlin age) magmato-thermal event. Deposits at South Railroad are hosted both in collapse breccia developed along the Devonian Devils Gate limestone/Mississippian Tripon Pass micrite contact and within highly permeable Pennsylvanian-Permian clastic and carbonate units. These units are common hosts for Carlin-type gold deposits throughout north-central Nevada. The structural setting with north-, northeast- and northwest-striking Tertiary extensional faults overprinted on earlier compressional structures is a classic Carlin framework. There are numerous un-drilled and under-drilled targets along prospective structural corridors. As Orla continues to expand its property position in the area, the opportunities will continue to increase proportionally.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 558 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **26** | **Recommendations** |

---

Based on the results of this Feasibility Study Update, the authors conclude that the South Railroad Property represents a technically sound, economically robust, and execution-ready mining project that warrants advancement into full construction execution. This Feasibility Study demonstrates that the Project satisfies all material technical, economic, environmental, permitting, and operational criteria required to support a construction decision, subject to the assumptions, risks, and mitigating measures identified therein.

The mine plan, processing flowsheet, infrastructure layout, and waste management strategies have been developed to a level of detail commensurate with feasibility-level accuracy and are supported by appropriate engineering, test work, and trade-off analyses. Metallurgical test results confirm the suitability of the selected process route, and mine design and scheduling are based on appropriately classified Mineral Reserves prepared in accordance with CIM Definition Standards. No fatal flaws have been identified that would materially impede construction or sustained operations.

Project execution is recommended under an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management (EPCM) delivery model. This approach is considered appropriate given the Project's scale and technical complexity, and it provides flexibility to manage procurement strategies, contractor packaging, and schedule optimization while maintaining owner oversight of capital deployment and risk allocation. The EPCM model also supports phased commitment of capital, competitive tendering of major work packages, and alignment with the Project's permitting and construction sequencing requirements.

Capital and operating cost estimates supporting this recommendation have been prepared to feasibility-level standards and are fully detailed in Section 21. The capital cost estimate incorporates direct and indirect costs, owner's costs, allowances, and contingencies consistent with the level of engineering completed and the identified risk profile. Operating cost estimates are based on defined mine production schedules, process performance assumptions supported by test work, labor and consumable requirements, and site-specific logistics. Collectively, these estimates provide a reliable basis for project financing, budgeting, and execution planning.

The Project demonstrates positive economic indicators, including acceptable capital intensity, competitive operating costs, and resilience under reasonable sensitivity cases. Key project risks—technical, executional, environmental, and commercial—have been identified and are considered manageable within the proposed execution framework through established mitigation strategies, further detailed engineering, and disciplined project controls during the execution phase.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 559 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **27** | **References** |

---

Abbott, E.W. (2003), Technical Report on the Pony Creek Property, Larrabee District, Elko County, Nevada, USA: NI 43-101 report prepared for Mill City International Corp., 83 p.

American Selco Incorporated, 1970, Review of Field Investigations, 1968, and Proposed Exploration Program for 1969 in the Railroad Mining District Elko County, Nevada: document prepared for the Directors of Aladdin Sweepstake Consolidated Mining Company.

AMTEL, 2018 (September), *Abbreviated Gold Deportment Analysis of Milled Column Residues*: unpublished report to Gold Standard Ventures Inc., AMTEL Ltd. Report 18/46, no author, 13p.

Arthur, B., 2013, *Roaster Tests on Rail Road Ore 2013-OP-003*, Newmont Mining Corporation memo.

Barr Engineering, 2019, *Fragmentation Study Dark Star & Pinion Deposits, Design Basis,* Prepared for Gold Standard Ventures.

Bartels, E., 1999, R*ailroad Project, Pod Area Sectional Resource Calculation*: internal company memorandum prepared for Kinross Gold U.S.A, Inc.

Bettles, K., 2002, *Exploration and Geology, 1962-2002, at the Goldstrike Property*: *in* Thompson, T.B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 54-75.

Bharti Engineering, 1996, *Preliminary Assessment of the South Bullion Deposit*: confidential internal report, 5p.

Bloomberg Consensus Precious Metals Pricing, 2019 (September 30), <u>www.bloomberg.com</u>.

Bray, J. D., & Travasarou, T. (2007). *Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements.* Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(4), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(381)

Calloway, V., 1992, *Exploration Summary, Results and Recommendations for the Cord Ranch Lease, Elko County, Nevada*: Crown Resources internal report, 78p.

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. (2014). *CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves* (adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2014).

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. (2019). *CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves* (adopted by the CIM Council on May 10, 2019).

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. (2000). *CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves*. Adopted by the CIM Council on August 20, 2000.

Cline, J.L., 2004. Controversies on the origin of world-class gold deposit, Part 1: Carlin-type gold deposits in Nevada. Introduction to Carlin-type deposits. SEG Newsletter no. 59, pp. 1,11-12.

Cline, J.L., 2005. *Carlin-type gold deposits in Nevada: critical geologic characteristics and viable models*: Economic Geology 100<sup>th</sup> Anniversary Volume, pp. 451-484.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 560 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Clode, C.H., Grusing, S.R., Johnston, I.M., and Heitt, D.G., 2002, *Geology of the Deep Star Gold Deposit*: *in* Thompson, T.B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 76-90.

Crafford, A.E.J., 2007, *Geologic Map of Nevada*: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 249.

DeMatties, T.A., 2003 (January), *NI 43-101 Technical Report: An Evaluation of the Pinion Gold Property, Elko County, Nevada, USA*: prepared for Royal Standard Minerals Inc.

Dott, R.H. (1955): Pennsylvanian stratigraphy of the Elko and northern Diamond Ranges, northeast Nevada: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 39, p. 2211–2305

Dufresne, M. and Clarke, F., 2022: Technical Report and Maiden Mineral Resource Estimate, Pony Creek Property, Elko County, Nevada, USA, NI 43-101 report prepared for Contact Gold Corp., Effective Date February 24, 2022, 239 p.

Dufresne, M.B. and Koehler, S.R., 2016 (March), *Technical Report on the Railroad – Pinion Project, Elko County, Nevada USA*: unpublished technical report (NI43-101 compliant) prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc.., 471 p.

Dufresne, M.B., and Nicholls, S.J., 2016 (April), *Technical Report Resource Estimate Update Pinion Project Elko County, Nevada USA*: NI 43-101 technical report prepared by APEX Geoscience Ltd., 220 p.

Dufresne, M.B., and Nicholls, S.J., 2017a (August), *Technical Report Resource Estimate Update Dark Star Project, Elko County, Nevada USA*: NI 43-101 technical report prepared by APEX Geoscience Ltd., 220 p.

Dufresne, M.B., and Nicholls, S.J., 2017b (November), *Technical Report Maiden Resource Estimate North Bullion and Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA:* unpublished technical report (NI43-101 compliant) prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., 258 p.

Dufresne, M.B., and Nicholls, S.J., 2018 (February), *Technical Report Maiden Resource Estimate North Bullion and Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA Amended and Restated:* unpublished technical report (NI43-101 compliant) prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Corp., 292 p.

Dufresne, M.B., Nicholls, S.J., and Turner, A, 2014 (October), *Technical Report Maiden Resource Estimate Pinion Project, Elko County, Nevada USA*: unpublished technical report (NI43-101 compliant) prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., 141 p.

Dufresne, M.B., Nicholls, S.J., and Turner, A.J., 2015 (April), *Technical Report Maiden Resource Estimate Dark Star Deposit Elko County, Nevada USA*: NI 43-101 technical report prepared by APEX Geoscience Ltd., 179 p.

Dufresne, M.B., Koehler, S.R., and Jackson, M.R., 2017 (March), *Technical Report on the Railroad – Pinion Project, Elko County, Nevada USA*: unpublished technical report (NI43-101 compliant) prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., 259p.

Dufresne, M.B. and Schoeman, P. (2014), Technical Report on the East Bailey project Elko County, Nevada, USA, NI 43-101 report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. and Tanqueray Exploration Ltd., 128 p.

Emmons, W.H., 1910, *A Reconnaissance of Some Mining Camps in Elko, Lander and Eureka Counties, Nevada*: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 408.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 561 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Forte Analytical, LLC. (2022, October 7). ORLA Mining: Diffusion Leach Testing Report – Dark Star, Project Numbers 20009/21032, Revision A. Prepared by D. Rodriguez, checked and approved by N. Gow. Forte Analytical, LLC, Fort Collins, CO. 80 pp.

Galey, J.T., 1983, *Appraisal, Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada*, internal company report of AMAX Exploration, Inc.

Golder Associates, Inc, 2019 (July 10, by R. Browne), *Geotechnical Testing of TIW Deposists from Corehole DS17-02, South Railroad Project, Nevada*.

Gustin, M.M., 2017: Technical Report on the Pony Creek gold project, Elko County, Nevada, USA. NI 43-101 report prepared for Winwell Ventures Inc. dated April 18, 2017, 106 p.

Haldane, T.Q. (1990). Heap leaching and dump leaching at Mesquite Mine. Proceedings, GOLDTech 4: Advances in Gold and Silver, Sept. 10–12, 1990

Harding, A. (2012). *Mining to Start Soon at Emigrant*, Mining Quarterly (Elko Daily Free Press), Spring 2012, pp. 30–34.

Harp, M.T., Edie, R.J., Jackson, M.R., Koehler, S.R., Norby, J.W., Whitmer, N.E., Moore, S., and Wright, J.L., 2016, *New Discovery within the Dark Star Corridor, Railroad-Pinion District, Elko County, Nevada*: Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, Mineral Exploration Roundup 2016, Vancouver, abstract volume, p. 44.

Henry, C.D., Jackson, M.R., Mathewson, D.C., Koehler, S.R., and Moore, S.C., 2015, *Eocene Igneous Geology and Relation to Mineralization: Railroad District, Southern Carlin Trend, Nevada*: *in* Pennell, W.M., and Garside, L.J., eds., New Concepts and Discoveries, Geological Society of Nevada 2015 Symposium, Reno, Nevada, p. 939-965.

Hibdon, Z. (2018), Pony Creek project, Nevada, USA, 2017 Assay quality control report. Internal Contact Gold Inc. report dated April 2018, 22 p.

Hibdon, Z. (2019a), Advanced Exploration on New Discoveries at Pony Creek: Contact Gold, Technical Presentation, May 8, 2019.

Hibdon, Z. (2019b), Pony Creek project, Nevada, USA, 2018 Assay quality control report. Internal Contact Gold Inc. report dated August 2019, 23 p.

Hibdon, Z. (2019c), Pony Creek project, Nevada, USA, 2019 Assay quality control report. Internal Contact Gold Inc. report dated August 2019, 22 p.

Hofstra, A.H., and Cline, J.S., 2000. *Characteristics and models for Carlin-type gold deposits*: *in* Society of Economic Geologists Reviews vol. 13, pp. 163-220.

Hunsaker III, E.L., 2010 (May), *Technical Report on the Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA*: unpublished Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant), 67p.

Hunsaker III, E.L., 2012a (February), *Technical Report on the Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA*: unpublished Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant), 78p.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 562 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Hunsaker III, E.L., 2012b (April), *Amended and Restated Technical Report on the Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA*: unpublished Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant), 82p.

Ibrado, A. S., P.E. Sletten, S., P.E., Ristorcelli, CPG, Lindholm, M. CPG, Dufresne, M.B., P.Geo., Dyer, T, P.E., Simmons, G.L., QP-MMSA, Defilippi, C. RM-SME, DeLong, R., QP-MMSA, RG, PG, Myers, K.L., P.E. (2020). *NI 43-101 Technical Report and Pre-Feasibility Study, South Railroad Project.* Effective date March 23, 2020. Prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. Report M3-PN185047, 474p.

Iverson, B.G. (1991): Stratigraphy of Devonian-Mississippian rocks, northern Pinyon Range, southwestern Elko County, Nevada: M.S. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, 88 p.

Jackson, M.R., Lane, M., and Leach, B., 2002, *Geology of the West Leeville Deposit*: *in* Thompson, T.B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 106-114.

Jackson, M.R. and Koehler, S.R., 2014, *Carlin-style Gold and Polymetallic Targets within a Large Eocene, Magmato-thermal System on the Carlin Trend, Nevada*: Abstract for the AMEBC Mineral Exploration Roundup 2014, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Jackson, M.R., Mathewson, D.C., Koehler, S.R., Harp, M.T., Edie, R.J., Whitmer, N.E., Norby, J.W., and Newton, M.N., 2015, *Geology of the North Bullion Gold Deposit: Eocene Extension, Intrusion and Carlin-style Mineralization, the Railroad District, Carlin Trend, Nevada*: *in* Pennell, W.M., and Garside, L.J., eds., New Concepts and Discoveries, Geological Society of Nevada 2015 Symposium, Reno, Nevada, p. 313-331.

Jennings, D. K. (2001): Lumps Claims, Elko Nevada: Summary and Conclusions. Part of Internal company report.

Jones, W.C., and Postlethwaite, C., 1992, *Pieretti Land Block, Pieretti Ranch and Pinon Projects, Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada*: internal company report dated April, 1991, 148p.

Jones, W.C. and Postlethwaite, C. (1993): Pony Creek Project, 1992 Annual Report: Westmont internal report, 25 p.

Jones, M., Thomas, D., Shabestari, P. and Babcock, J., 1999 (October), *Railroad Project 1999 Summary Report*: ed. Cupp, B.L., unpublished report prepared for Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc., 55p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2004 (March), *Pinion & Railroad Project - Report on Metallurgical Testwork, Project No. 126C, File 7355,* unpublished report prepared for Royal Standard Minerals, by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 130p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2006, *Pinion Railroad Project Report of Metallurgical Test Work, March 2006, Project 126C, File 7355*. Unpublished confidential report prepared on behalf of Royal Standard Minerals, 146p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2016a (April), *Pinion Project Bottle Roll Leach Testing on Sample Received 08 March 2016, Report on Metallurgical Testwork, April 2016, Project No. 7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.:KCA0160038_PIN04_01.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 99p.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 563 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2016b (June), *Pinion Project Bottle Roll Leach Check Test Work, Report on Metallurgical Testwork, June 2016, Project No. 7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.: KCA0160059_PIN06_02,* unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 45p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2016c (June), *Pinion Project Coarse Crushed and Milled Bottle Roll Leach Testing, Report on Metallurgical Testwork, June 2016, Project No. 7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.:KCA0150075_PIN01_04,* unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 283p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2017a (June), *Pinion Project Column Leach Tests, Report on Metallurgical Testwork, June 2017, Project No. 7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.: KCA0160137 _PIN07_02.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 855p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2017b (November), *Dark Star Project, Bottle Roll and Column Leach Tests, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, November 2017. Project No. 9108C, File 9108, Report I.D.: KCA0170014_DKST01_03.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes Cassiday and Associates, 1180p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2018a (June), *Pinion Project HPGR Test Work, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, June 2018. Project No.7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.: KCA0170101_PIN08-01.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes Cassiday and Associates, 115p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2018b (June), *Dark Star Project HPGR Test Work – Report of Metallurgical Test Work, June 2018. Project No. 9108C, File 9108, Report ID: KCA0170085_DKST02_01*. Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2018c (October), *Jasperoid Wash Project, Report of Metallurgical Test Work*: Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2019 (March), *Pinion Project HPGR Test Work, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, March 2019. Project No.7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.: KCA0170101_PIN08-02.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes Cassiday and Associates, 115p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2019a (July), *Pinion Project Phase 3 Metallurgical Program – Report of Metallurgical Test Work, July 2019. Project No. 7355 C, File 7355, Report ID: KCA0180061_PIN09_03.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 1182p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 2019b, (July), *Dark Star Project Phase 3 Metallurgical Program – Report of Metallurgical Test Work, July 2019. Project No. 9108 C, File 9108, Report ID: KCA0180065_DKST03_01.* Unpublished report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, 2047p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, Dec 2020 (KCA 2020) - *Pinion Project Variability Composites Report of Metallurgy Test Work, December 2020*. Prepared for: Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, Reno, Nevada, Project No. 7355C, File 7355, Report I.D.: KCA0200097_PIN11_02, 166p.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, March 2021 (KCA 2021) – *HPGR Feasibility Composites – Dark Star Oxide Main and North, Pinion Oxide East and West*, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, March 2021. Prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, Reno, Nevada. Project No. 9108C, File: 9108, Report I.D.: KCA0200024_DKST04_06.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 564 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, January 2022 (KCA 2022) – *Pinion Project Phase 4 Composites Report for Metallurgical Test Work, January 2022. Project No. 7355 C, File 7355, Report ID: KCA0210045_PIN12_06*. Prepared for: Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, Reno, Nevada.

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, October 2024 (KCA 2024) - *South Railroad Project, PC23-01 Column Group 1-4 and DSC23-02 Column Group 1-2, Report of Metallurgical Test Work*, October 2024. *Project No. 9730 C, File 9730, Report ID: KCA0240027_SRR07_07.* Prepared for: Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, Reno, Nevada.

Ketner, K.B. and Smith Jr., J.F., 1963, *Geology of the Railroad mining district, Elko County, Nevada*: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 106.

Koehler, S.R. and Dufresne, M.B. (2016): Technical Report on the Railroad - Pinion Project, Elko County, Nevada USA. NI 43-101 report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. dated March 30, 2016, 217 p.

Koehler, S.R., Dufresne, M.B. and Turner, A., 2014 (March), *Technical Report on the Railroad and Pinion Projects, Elko County, Nevada USA*: unpublished Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant), 158p.

Koehler, S.R., Edie, R.J., Harp, M.T., Henry, C., Jackson, M.R., Mathewson, D.C., Norby, J.W., and Whitmer, N.E., 2015, *Precious and Base Metal Mineralization Within a Large Eocene, Magmato-Thermal System, Railroad District, Carlin Trend, Nevada*: *in* Pennell, W.M., and Garside, L.J., eds., New Concepts and Discoveries, Geological Society of Nevada 2015 Symposium, Reno, Nevada, p. 1229-1242.

Kuehn, C.A. and Rose, A.W., 1992, Geology and geochemistry of wall-rock alteration at the Carlin gold deposit, Nevada: Economic Geology, v. 87, p. 1697–1721.

Kuhl, T.F., 1985, *Geological Ore Reserves, Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada*: internal company memorandum prepared for NICOR Mineral Ventures.

LaPointe, Daphne, D., Tingley, Joseph V., and Jones, Richard B., 1991, *Mineral Resources of Elko County, Nevada*: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 106.

Longo, A.A., Thompson, T.B., and Harlan J. B., 2002, *Geologic Overview of the Rain Subdistrict*: *in* Thompson, T.B, Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R.O., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend, edited by, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111.

Lund, K., 2008. *Geometry of the Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic rift margin of western Laurentia: Implications for mineral deposit settings*: Geosphere, v. 4, pp. 429-4440

Lund Snee, J. E. (2013). Geology and geochronology of Cenozoic units in the Piñon Range and Huntington Valley, Nevada (Doctoral dissertation, MS thesis, Stanford University).

Lund Snee, J., and Miller, E.L. (2015): Preliminary geologic map of Cenozoic units of the central Robinson Mountain volcanic field and northwestern Huntington Valley, Elko County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 15-2, scale 1:24,000, 42 p.

M3 Engineering & Technology Corp., *Gold Standard Ventures South Railroad Project Electric Service Study Rev. P2*, January 14, 2020.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 565 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Macy, F.A., 1991 (September), *Report on Preliminary Cyanidation Testwork – Cord Ranch Cuttings Composites, MLI Job No. 1666, September 5, 1991,* unpublished report by McClelland Laboratories Inc. to Crown Resources Corporation, 15p.

Makdisi, F. I., & Seed, H. B. (1978). *A simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deformations in dams and embankments* (Report No. UCB/EERC-77/19). Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Maki, T.D. (1989). Heap Leaching at FMC Gold's Paradise Peak mine. Transactions of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration [Preprint.]

Masters, T.D., 2003a (February), *Gold mineral resource Calculations of the POD Gold Zone at Railroad Bullion*: unpublished report prepared for Royal Standard Minerals Inc., 8p.

Masters, T.D., 2003b (July), *History, Geology, Resources, Discovery Potential and proposed Exploration Drilling Program for the Pinion – Railroad Project, Nevada*: unpublished report prepared for Royal Standard Minerals Inc., 38p.

Mathewson, D.C., 2002, *Carlin Gold Trend, Nevada Longitudinal Section – The "Four Windows"*: unpublished cross section, files of Gold Standard Ventures Inc.

McClelland Laboratories Inc., 1995, *Report on Cyanidation Testwork – South Bullion Samples. MLI Job No. 2136 - June 9, 1995*: unpublished report prepared for Cypress Metals Company,

McComb, M., 2016 (May), Petrographic Examination of Fourteen Core Samples from the Dark Star Project, Nevada, internal company report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures.

McCusker, R. and Drobeck, P., 2012, *Piñon Project Summary*: unpublished report prepared for Royal Standard Minerals Inc.

Muntean, J.L., Coward, M.P. and Tarnocai, C.A., 2011. *Reactivated Paleozoic normal faults: controls on the formation of Carlin-type gold deposits in north-central Nevada*: *in* Ries, A.C., Butler, R.W.H., and Graham, R.R. (eds), Deformation of the Continental Crust: The Legacy of Mike Coward. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, no. 272, pp. 571-587.

Muntean, J.L., and Cline, J.S., 2018, *Introduction, Diversity of Carlin-style Gold Deposits*: *in* Muntean, J.L., ed., Diversity of Carlin-style Gold Deposits, Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 20, Society of Economic Geologists, p. 1-5.

Newmark, N.M. (1965) Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments. Geotechnique, 15, 139-160.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139

Newmont Mining Corporation. (2013). *2012 annual report* [Form 10-K]. <u>https://s24.q4cdn.com/382246808/files/doc_financials/annual/2012-Annual-Report_v001_e75k8c.pdf</u>

Norby, J.W. and Orobona, M.J.T., 2002, *Geology and Mineral Systems of the Mike Deposit*: in Thompson, T.B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 143-167.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 566 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Norby, J.W., Edie, R.J., Harp, M.T., Jackson, M.R., Koehler, S.R., Mathewson, D.C., Moore, S., Whitmer, N.E., and Wright, J.L., 2015, *Pinion Gold Deposit, Elko County, Nevada*: *in* Pennell, W.M., and Garside, L.J., eds., New Concepts and Discoveries, Geological Society of Nevada 2015 Symposium, Reno, Nevada, p. 169-189.

Nordquist, W.A., 1992, *Railroad Project, Elko County Nevada 1991 Annual Report*: Westmont Gold Inc., internal company report.

**Orla Mining Ltd., 2025.** *NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Camino Rojo Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico.* Prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd., Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, and Blue Coast Research Ltd. Effective Date: March 31, 2025; Signature Date: July 17, 2025. SLR Project No.: 233.065118.00001. 1240 – 1140 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 245 p.

Oversby, B., 1973, *New Mississippian formation in northeast Nevada, and its possible significance*: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 1779-1783.

Parr, A.J., 1998, *Pinon Project, Elko County Nevada, 1997 Exploration Report*: internal company report prepared for Cameco (US) Inc.

Parr, A.J., 1999, *Pinon and Jasperoid Wash Projects, Elko County Nevada, 1999 Exploration Report*: internal company report prepared for Cameco (US) Inc.

Peek, B.C., 1994 (February), *Dark Star Project, Elko County, Nevada, Geologic Resource Estimate*: internal report prepared for Crown Resources Corp., 4 p.

Rayias, A.C., 1999, *Stratigraphy, Structural Geology, Alteration, and Geochemistry of the Northeastern Railroad District, Elko County, Nevada*: unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.

Redfern, R. R., 2002, *Geological Report on the Dixie Creek Property*: unpublished report for Frontier Pacific Mining Corporation, 34p.

Ressel, M.W., 2000, *Summary of Research on Igneous Rocks and Gold Deposits on the Carlin Trend, Nevada*: Ralph J. Roberts Center for Research in Economic Geology Annual Research Meeting 1999, Program and Reports, 38p.

Russell, R.H., 1999: Pony Creek Property, Elko County: internal report prepared for Quest International Management Services, Inc., 9 p.

Russell, R.H., 2004: Evaluation of the Gold Resource on the Pony Creek Property, Larrabee Mining District Elko County, Nevada: NI 43-101 report prepared for Mill City International Corp., 75 p., available on January 11, 2022 at < www.sedar.com >

Russell, R.H., 2006: Evaluation of the Gold Resource on the Pony Creek Property, Larrabee Mining District Elko County, Nevada: NI 43-101 report prepared for Vista Gold Corp. and Allied Nevada Gold Corp., 130 p., available on January 11, 2022 at < www.sedar.com >

Shaddrick, D.R., 2012, *Technical Report on the Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada, USA*: Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 567 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Simmons, 2019, *Metallurgy Report – South Railroad Project*. Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc., by G L. Simmons Consulting, LLC, September 2019, 122 p.

Sletten, S., P.E., Bermudez, B., P.E., Ibrado, A.S., P.E., Lindholm, M. CPG, Dyer, T, P.E., Anderson, J., Simmons, G.L., QP-MMSA, DeLong, R., QP-MMSA, RG, PG, Lutes, K, P.E. (2022). *NI 43-101 Technical Report and Feasibility Study, South Railroad Project, Elko County, Nevada.* Effective date February 23, 2022. Report issue date March 14, 2022. Prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. Report M3-PN185047, 474p

Smith, J.F., Jr., and Ketner, K.B. (1968): Devonian and Mississippian rocks and the date of the Roberts Mountains thrust in the Carlin-Pinon Range area, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1251, 28 p.

Smith, J.F., and Ketner, K.B., 1975, *Stratigraphy of Paleozoic Rocks, Carlin-Piñon Range area, Nevada*: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 867-A, 86 p..

Smith, J.F., and Ketner, K.B., 1978, *Geologic Map of the Carlin-Pinon Range Area, Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada*: United States Geological Survey, Map I-1028, 1:62,500.

Spalding, V. (2018), NI 43-101 technical report, Pony Creek Project, Elko County, Nevada, United States of America, NI 43-101 report prepared for Contact Gold Corp. dated October 22, 2018, 118 p.

Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (B.C.) Inc., 1989 (August), *Draft Acid Rock Drainage Technical Guide Volume 1*: Norecol Environmental Consultants, and Gormely Process Engineering, British Columbia Acid Mine Drainage Task Force Report, 274p.

Stepperud, 2017a, *Pinion Project Comminution Testing, Hazen Project 12352 Report – February 1, 2017*. Unpublished letter report to Kappes, Cassiday & Associates.

Stepperud, 2017b, *Comminution Testing, Hazen Project 12391 Report and Appendices A and B – July 5, 2017.* Unpublished letter report to Kappes, Cassiday & Associates.

Stepperud, 2017c, *Comminution Testing, Hazen Project 12514, Report and Appendices A and B – April 9, 2017.* Unpublished letter report to Kappes, Cassiday & Associates.

Steperud, 2019a, *Comminution Testing, Hazen Project 12635 Report and Appendices A and B, March 6, 2019, 73p.* Unpublished letter report to Kappes, Cassiday & Associates.

Stepperud, 2019b, *Comminution Testing, Hazen Project 12620, Report and Appendices A and B – February 2019, 63p.* Unpublished letter report to Kappes, Cassiday & Associates.

Stewart, J.H., 1980, *Geology of Nevada*: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4, 136p.

Teal, L., and Jackson, M., 1997, *Geologic Overview of the Carlin Trend Gold Deposits and Description of Recent Deep Discoveries*: *in* Vikre, P., Thompson, T.B., Bettles, K., Christensen, O., and Parratt, R., eds., Carlin-Type Gold Deposits Field Conference, Society of Economic Geologists Guidebook Series, Volume 28, p. 3-37.

Teal, L. and Jackson, M., 2002: *Geologic Overview of the Carlin Trend Gold Deposits*: *in* Thompson, T.B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R., eds., Gold Deposits of the Carlin Trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 111, p. 9-19.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 568 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Thyssen-Krupp Industrial Solutions AG, July 7, 2020 (TKIS 2020) – *Test Proposal polycom® High-Pressure Grinding, Grindability Tests on Gold Ore for Dark Star and Pinion Projects, Nevada, for Kappes, Cassiday & Associates, 24p*. Project Name: Dark Star and Pinion Projects. Sample ID: WE-16010 by Hohann Asneimer.

Turner, A., Dufresne, M.B. and Koehler, S.R., 2015 (March), *Technical Report on the Railroad and Pinion Projects, Elko County, Nevada USA*: unpublished Technical Report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Inc. (NI43-101 compliant), 196p.

US Climate Data, <u>https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/carlin/nevada/united-states/usnv0107</u>.

Wells, D. and Coppersmith, K. (1994): New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. *Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 84: 974-1002.*

Wells, R.A., 1995, *Pinion/South Bullion Deposit Resource Estimates*: Cyprus Metals Exploration Corporation internal memorandum.

Western Regional Climate Center Historic Climate Information, Carlin Newmont Mine, Nevada, 2011: Administered by N.O.A.A. <u>http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsumetershtml</u>.

Wiliams, C.L., Thompson, T.B., Powell, J.L. and Dunbar, W.W., 2000, *Gold-Bearing Breccias of the Rain Mine, Carlin Trend, Nevada*: Economic Geology Volume 95(2), pp. 391-404.

Wood, J., 1995, *South Bullion/Dark Star Resource Estimates*: Cyprus Metals Exploration Corporation internal memorandum.

Wright, J.L., 2013, *Railroad Property Gravity Survey – IV.* internal company report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures.

Wright, J.L., 2016a, *Railroad Property CSAMT Survey – Phase VI GIS Compilation*: internal company report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures.

Wright, J.L. (2017a), Pony Creek Property Gravity Survey 2017 GIS Database: Technical Report, JL Geophysics, September 10, 2017.

Wright, J.L. (2017b), Pony Creek Property CSAMT Survey 2017 GIS Compilation: Technical Report, JL Wright Geophysics, December 28, 2017.

Wright, J.L., 2016b, Railroad Property Pearson, Deritter and Johnson Airborne Magnetic Survey GIS Database: internal company report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures.

Wright, J.L. (2018), Pony Creek Property CSAMT Survey 2018 GIS Compilation: Technical Report, JL Wright Geophysics, July 29, 2018.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | 569 |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Appendix A**

Feasibility Study Authors and Professional Qualifications

Certificates of Qualified Person (QP)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | A |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Matthew Sletten**

*I, Matthew Sletten, P.E., do hereby certify that:*

*1.* *I am employed as Vice President by M3 Engineering and Technology Corp., 2175 W. Pecos Rd. Suite 3, Chandler, AZ 85224;* 

*2.* *I graduated with a Master of Science in Structural Engineering and a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in 2004 and 2006, respectively;* 

*3.* *I am a registered Professional Engineer in good standing in the state of Arizona in the area of Civil Engineering, License #51936;* 

*4.* *I have worked as an engineer and project manager in the base metals and precious metals industry for a total of 20 years;* 

*5.* *My relevant work experience includes detailed engineering, engineering management, project management, corporate management, capital and operating cost development and report development for major mining projects throughout the world;* 

*6.* *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 am a "Qualified Person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.* 

*7.* *I am independent of the Company as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;* 

*8.* *I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February 27, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.* 

*9.* *I am responsible for Sections 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.10, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 21 (except 21.1 and 21.4), 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Technical Report;* 

*10.* *I visited the South Railroad project site on October 30, 2025 and reviewed the plant location site;* 

*11.* *I have no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report other than as an independent consultant for previous technical reports contributed to by M3.* 

*12.* *At 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.* 

*13.* *I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.* 

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | B |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u>

Matthew Sletten

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | C |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Benjamin Bermudez**

I, Benjamin Bermudez, P.E., do hereby certify that:

1. I
 am currently employed as a Chemical/Process Engineer at M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation,
 2175 W. Pecos Rd. Suite 3, Chandler, AZ 85224, USA.

2. I
 am a graduate of Arizona State University and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
 Engineering in 2009.

3. I
 am a Registered Professional Engineer in good standing in the State of Arizona in the area
 of Chemical Engineering (No. 54919).

4. I
 have worked as an engineer for a total of 17 years. My relevant experience includes mineral
 process plant engineering, support of new and on-going process plant operations, financial
 modeling of mineral properties, and project management.

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 am a " qualified
 person " for the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I
 am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South
 Railroad Project NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada",
 (the "Technical Report"), dated February 27, 2026, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I
 am responsible for the preparation of Sections
 1.7 and 17 of the Technical Report.

8. I
 have not visited the project site.

9. I
 have no prior involvement with the project or property that is the subject of the Technical
 Report other than as an independent consultant for previous technical reports contributed
 to by M3;

10. 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;

11. I
 am independent of the Company as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101;

12. I
 have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1,
 and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u>

Benjamin Bermudez, PE

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | D |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Michael S. Lindholm, C.P.G.**

I, Michael S. Lindholm, C.P.G., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Geologist of RESPEC Company LLC, 210 South Rock Blvd., Reno, Nevada, 89502.

2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Stephen F. Austin State University in 1984
and with a Master of Science degree in Geology from Northern Arizona University in 1989.

3. I am a Certified Professional Geologist (#11477) in good standing with the American Institute of Professional
Geologists. I am also registered as Professional Geologist in the state of California (#8152).

4. I have worked as geologist for over 35 years. My relevant work experience includes conducting exploration,
definition, modeling, and estimation of sediment-hosted epithermal gold-silver deposits in the Western US.

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 am a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI
43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February
27, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025 (the "Technical Report"), prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1.3-1.5, 1.8.1, 1.15, 6 (except 6.3, 6.4.4, and 6.5.3),
7 (except 7.2.3 and 7.2.5), 8, 9 (except 9.2), 10 (except 10.5 and 10.8), 11 (except 11.1.3, 11.4.2, 11.5.6, and 11.6.2), 12 (except 12.5),
and 14 (except 14.6) of the Technical Report.

8. I most recently visited the project site on August 21, 2025 for a period of a day.

9. I have not had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

10. As at 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.

11. I am independent of the issuer as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

12. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with
that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u>

Michael S. Lindholm

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | E |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Thomas L. Dyer, PE**

I, Thomas L. Dyer, P.E., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Engineer of RESPEC, 210 South Rock Blvd., Reno, Nevada, 89502.

2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mine Engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology in 1996.

3. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of Nevada (#15729) and a Registered Member (#4029995RM)
of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration.

4. I have worked as mining engineer for more than 28 years. Relevant experience includes mine design, reserve
estimation and economic analysis of precious-metals deposits in the United States and various countries in the world. I have worked as
Chief Engineer of an operating heap leach and mill gold mine in Nevada.

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 am a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI
43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February
27, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1.8.2 and 15 of the Technical Report.

8. I visited the project site from November 18, 2016 to November 20, 2016.

9. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. Through Mine
Development Associates Inc, I have completed internal mining and economic studies for Gold Standard Ventures Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Orla Mining Ltd., since 2016.

10. As at 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 contains all scientific and technical information that is required to
be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

11. I am independent of the issuer as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

12. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with
that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u>

Thomas L. Dyer, PE

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | F |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Gary Joe Petersen**

I, Gary Joe Petersen, P.E. SME-RM, QP, do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Mining Engineer of RESPEC, 210 South Rock Blvd., Reno, Nevada, 89502

2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering in 2011 from the University of Arizona.

3. I am a Professional Engineering (#035137) in good standing in Nevada in the areas of Mine and Mineral
Processing Engineering. I am also a Registered Member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME).

4. I have worked as a Mine Engineering for a total of 15 years, since 2011. My relevant experience includes
being directly involved in the evaluation and operation of industrial mineral, precious metal, and base metal mining projects throughout
the American Southwest.

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 am a "Qualified Person" for
the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February
27, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for Sections 1.9, 16, 21.1, and 21.4 of the Technical Report.

8. I have not visited the project site.

9. I have not had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.

10. 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 for contain all scientific and technical information that is required
to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.

11. I am independent of the issuer as described in Section 1.5 of the National Instrument 43-101.

12. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u> 

Gary Petersen, P.E.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | G |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Raymond H. Walton**

I, Raymond H. Walton, B.Tech., P.Eng., do hereby certify that:

1. I am President of Ray Walton Consulting Inc. Unit 424, Leader Lane, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5E 0B2

2. I graduated with a B.Tech (Hons.) degree in Materials Science and Technology from Brunel University, Uxbridge,
Middlesex, England in 1977.

3. I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the province of Ontario, Canada in the areas of Metallurgy
and Metallurgical Engineering, (License No. 90294521). I am also a member of the National Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

4. I have worked as a metallurgist continuously for more than 48 years since my graduation from Brunel University
and have extensive experience in gold, silver and copper metallurgy and extraction processes. My relevant experience includes corporate
oversight, feasibility studies, project evaluations, engineering, commissioning as well as operations on many gold and copper projects
around the world.

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 am a "Qualified Person" for
the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February 27,
2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for Sections 1.6 and 13 of the Technical Report.

8. I have not visited the project site.

9. I have been involved with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report since 2019, supervising
test work and advising on various aspects of the plant design.

10. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections
of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all the scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed
to make the Technical Report not misleading.

11. I am independent of the issuer as described in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101.

12. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | H |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>"signed"</u>

Raymond H. Walton

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | I |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Richard DeLong**

I, Richard DeLong, M.S., P.G., MMSA QP, do hereby certify that:

1. I a Senior Technical Advisor with WestLand, a Trinity Consultants Team,
 5401 Longley Lane, Suite 5, Reno, Nevada 89511.

2. I graduated with a Masters Degree in Geology
 and a Masters Degree in Resource Management from the University of Idaho.

3. I am a Professional Geologist in good standing
 in the State of Idaho in the area of Geology (No. 727). I am also recognized as a Qualified
 Person Member with special expertise in Environmental Permitting and Compliance with the
 Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (No. 01471QP).

4. I have worked as an environmental permitting
 and compliance specialist for a total of 34 years. My relevant experience includes permit
 acquisition of state and federal permits and baseline data acquisition programs for mining
 and exploration operations.

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 am a " qualified
 person " for the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation
 of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project NI 43-101 Technical Report,
 Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"),
 dated February 27, 2026, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for the
 preparation of Sections 1.11 and 20 of the Technical Report.

8. I have not visited the project site.

9. I have been involved with permitting activities
 for the project that is the subject of the Technical Report since 2018.

10. As at 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.

11. I am independent of the issuer as described
 in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.

12. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with that
 instrument and form.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | J |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> of February, 2026.

<u>(Signed) "*Richard DeLong*"</u>

Richard DeLong

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | K |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Warren E. Black**

I, Warren E. Black, MSc, P.Geo., of Edmonton, Alberta, do hereby certify that:

1. I am Senior Geologist and Geostatistician of:

APEX Geoscience Ltd.

100-11450 60 ST NW

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

2. I am a graduate of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, with a B.Sc. in Geology Specialization (2012)
and the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, with a M.Sc. in Mining Engineering Specializing in Geostatistics (2016).

3. I am a Professional Geologist (P.Geo.) registered with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists
of Alberta ("APEGA", Member #: 134064), a Professional Geoscientist with Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia ("EGBC",
Member #: 58051), and a Professional Geologist (Géologue) with L'Ordre des Géologues du Québec ("OQLF",
Member #: 10884).

4. I have over 12 years of relevant experience in mineral exploration and project development, covering both
North American and global settings. Specializing in mineral resource estimation, I have completed resource evaluations and uncertainty
analysis for various deposit types using advanced geostatistical methods. My research in multivariate geostatistical prediction has contributed
to the field of geostatistics. I have extensive relevant experience with exploration for, and the evaluation of, gold deposits of various
types, including sediment-hosted (Carlin-type) mineralization.

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 am a "Qualified Person" for
the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February
27, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for Section 1.8.1.2 and 14.6 of the Technical Report.

8. I have not visited the project site.

9. I have prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I assisted in
the preparation of the 2024 Pony Creek MRE on behalf of Contact Gold Corp. The published reference related to this work is included in
Section 27, References (see Dufresne and Clarke, 2022).

10. As of the date of this certificate, 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.

11. I am independent of Orla Mining Ltd. as described in Section 1.5 of
National Instrument 43-101.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | L |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

12. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>"signed"</u>

Warren E. Black, MSc, P.Geo.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | M |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

**Michael Dufresne**

I, Michael B. Dufresne, M.Sc., P.Geo., P.Geol., of Edmonton, Alberta, do hereby certify that:

1. I the President and a Principal of:

APEX Geoscience Ltd.

100-11450 60 ST NW

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

2. I graduated with a B.Sc. Degree in Geology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 1983
and a M.Sc. Degree in Economic Geology from the University of Alberta in 1987.

3. I am and have been registered as a Professional Geologist (#48439) with the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists ("APEGA") of Alberta since 1989 and a Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional
Engineers and Geoscientists ("EGBC") of British Columbia since 2012, Northwest Territories and Nunavut ("NAPEG")
since 2016, New Brunswick ("APEGNB") since 2024 and the Professional Geoscientists of Ontario ("PGO") since 2023.

4. I have worked as a geologist for more than 40 years since my graduation from university and have relevant
experience in all aspects of mineral exploration and mineral resource estimations for gold deposits of various types, including sediment-hosted
(Carlin-type) mineralization.

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 am a "Qualified Person" for
the purposes of NI 43-101.

6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled "South Railroad Project
NI 43-101 Technical Report, Feasibility Study Update, Elko County, Nevada", (the "Technical Report"), dated February
23, 2026, with an effective date of September 30, 2025, prepared for Orla Mining Ltd.

7. I am responsible for 6.3, 6.4.4, 6.5.3, 7.2.3, 7.2.5, 10.8.3, 10.10.2, 11.1.3, 11.3, 11.4.2, 11.6.2, and
12.5 of the Technical Report.

8. I visited the project site on January 26-27, 2022.

9. I have prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the
Technical Report. In 2014 I co-authored an NI 43-101 technical report prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Corp. for the East Bailey property
situated in the southern part of the Pony Creek Property. Gold Standard Ventures Corp. is not related to Contact Gold Corp. or Clover
Nevada II LLC. I visited the East Bailey property on April 23, 2014, prepared for Gold Standard Ventures Corp. for verification purposes.
The published reference related to this work is included in Section 27, References (see Dufresne and Schoeman, 2014). I also co-authored
a NI-43-101 technical report on behalf of Contact Gold Corp. for the Pony Creek property. The published reference related to this work
is included in Section 27, References (see Dufresne and Clarke, 2022).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | N |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

10. As of the date of this certificate, 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.

11. I am independent of Orla Mining Ltd., as described in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101.

12. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.

Signed and dated this 27<sup>th</sup> day of February 2026.

<u>(Signed)</u>

Michael Dufresne

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img56.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | O |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Appendix B**

Patented and Unpatented Claims

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | P |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Patent Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**MS ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assessed Owner** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Controlled By** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parcel** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Patent** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Survey<br> No** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Standing Elk Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;1486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Standing Elk MS | &nbsp;&nbsp;1486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mill Site | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 B |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bullion | &nbsp;&nbsp;1487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Webfoot | &nbsp;&nbsp;1488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18851 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hecla | &nbsp;&nbsp;1491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver King | &nbsp;&nbsp;1492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sky Blue | &nbsp;&nbsp;1495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15845 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripoli | &nbsp;&nbsp;1496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14927 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tripoli East | &nbsp;&nbsp;1497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cleveland | &nbsp;&nbsp;1498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mounted Ledge | &nbsp;&nbsp;1499 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hoffman Mine | &nbsp;&nbsp;1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Eagle | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Blue Jay | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grey Eagle | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kansas City | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lucky Boy | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Safety Pin | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tom Boy | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JMD EXPLORATION CORP | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-464-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;963599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4592 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bald Mountain Chief | &nbsp;&nbsp;1489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;ANv Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-968-070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9687 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Bell | &nbsp;&nbsp;1490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;ANv Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-968-070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11553 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sun Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;1494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SUN LODE COMPANY LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sun Lode Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-161-051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gladstone Mine | &nbsp;&nbsp;3365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;THE MENNING REVOCABLE TRUST 02152019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-114-054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3365 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | Q |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Androsa | &nbsp;&nbsp;3382 | &nbsp;&nbsp;THE MENNING REVOCABLE TRUST 02152019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GOLD STANDARD VENTURES (US) INC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-114-054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3382 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kenilworth | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Valley View | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Victor Fraction | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Vindicator Fraction | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Wide West | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SYLVANIA RESOURCES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sylvania Lease | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;0PM-101-030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1013054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4608 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | R |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CALAVERA # 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101456433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC276121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-May-1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CALAVERA EXPLORATION LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Calavera Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CALAVERA # 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101607039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC276106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-May-1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CALAVERA EXPLORATION LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Calavera Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JOE PP 56A | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101358982 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1104555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;691030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Aug-2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Camron Stitzel and Dean Stitzel | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Stitzel Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JOE PP 58A | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101358983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1104556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;691029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Aug-2014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Camron Stitzel and Dean Stitzel | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Stitzel Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JOE PP 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101373822 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC898185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;689364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-May-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Camron Stitzel and Dean Stitzel | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Stitzel Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JOE PP 58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101373823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC898186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;689365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-May-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Camron Stitzel and Dean Stitzel | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Stitzel Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557790 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557791 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557792 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858931 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557793 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858932 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557794 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858933 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858934 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557796 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858935 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557797 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858936 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557798 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PINE 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858937 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC932046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jun-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dina Aiazzi and Todd Schwandt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pine Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | S |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381693 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825914 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381694 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825915 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381695 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825916 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381696 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825917 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825918 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381698 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381699 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825921 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381701 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825922 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825923 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381703 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381704 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825925 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825926 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825927 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381708 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | T |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825931 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825932 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381712 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825933 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382838 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825934 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382839 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825935 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382840 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825936 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825937 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382842 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825938 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382843 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825939 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382844 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825940 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382845 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825941 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825942 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382847 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825943 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825944 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382849 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825945 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | U |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | V |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101471193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | W |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;12-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | X |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101472300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | Y |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;TF 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101473423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;18-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MAVERIX METALS (NEVADA) INC. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Maverix Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101603144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399864 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101453128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101604522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399866 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101601207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399867 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101459728 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101477961 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101491326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101477314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399871 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101492356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399872 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101497612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399873 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101604899 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399874 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226068 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101490519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | Z |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101603534 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101480368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399877 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101608977 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399878 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101548667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399879 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349399 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399880 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101546038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399881 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101496216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399882 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101527241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399883 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101401197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399884 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101494012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399885 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101480140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101458494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101300806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399888 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101495019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399889 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399890 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101600449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399891 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101303621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399892 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | AA |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101457405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399893 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399894 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101458111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399895 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101301544 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399896 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101453664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399897 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101300633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399898 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101452205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399899 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101348905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101340753 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399901 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101347151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399902 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101529535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399903 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101606819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101502108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101731807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101452140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399907 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399908 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101453123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399909 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | BB |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101605837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399910 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101456007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399911 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101607289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399912 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101605256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399913 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101755508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399914 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101501801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399915 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101755611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399916 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101496484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399917 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101603560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399918 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101495977 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399919 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101604243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101497700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399921 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101610320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399922 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101602258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399923 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101409252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399924 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101608564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399925 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101403259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399926 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | CC |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner<br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101527205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399927 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101401875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399928 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101490828 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102520866 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399930 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101346996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399931 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399932 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101528289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399933 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101498905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399934 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;GUTSY #1274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101529538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC399935 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;20-Feb-1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gutsy Claims,South Railroad |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382873 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382874 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382877 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | DD |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial<br> No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location<br> Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382878 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477049 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;WMH 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101384013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC826328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;08-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NEVADA SUNRISE LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;South Railroad,Sunrise Claims |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | EE |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101300440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101301056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101302762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101303628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887557 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887561 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887562 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887563 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529499 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529501 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887567 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529503 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101317649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887569 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529504 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318843 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318844 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;27-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318845 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887572 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887573 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318847 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887574 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | FF |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318849 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887576 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529511 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887577 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529512 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318851 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887578 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318852 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887579 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318854 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318855 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318857 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318859 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529521 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DK 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318862 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529524 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318863 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101318864 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320049 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | GG |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529466 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529467 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529469 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529471 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529472 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529474 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101320064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101403218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101454610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101454617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101455713 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101457628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101459109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101491931 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101493539 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101494430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101495144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529476 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529478 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529479 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | HH |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529481 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529482 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101511254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;26-Oct-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101521454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101525077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101540716 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101541817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101542055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101547604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554704 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554708 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179348 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554712 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554713 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554715 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | II |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101554716 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555758 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555759 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555760 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555761 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555764 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179361 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555766 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179363 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555767 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555768 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101555769 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556904 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556905 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556906 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556907 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556908 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179371 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556909 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179372 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556910 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556911 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556912 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556913 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101556914 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1179377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;746333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101600403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | JJ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998551 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658734 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998552 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658735 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998553 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658737 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658738 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101658739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998557 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101659109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PF NO. 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101659110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC998559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;604641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Sep-2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101756939 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101758191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102520457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102520771 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DIX 115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102521203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC732324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;05-Nov-1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887840 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887842 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887843 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887844 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522424 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887845 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887846 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887847 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887848 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102522428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887849 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887851 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | KK |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887852 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887853 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887854 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887855 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887856 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887857 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887858 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523652 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887859 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887861 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887862 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887863 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887864 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887866 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887867 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523663 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102523664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887871 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524864 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887872 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524865 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887873 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524866 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887874 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DF 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524867 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC887875 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529652 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Jan-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dixie Flats |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | LL |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856424 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101856429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857447 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857448 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | MM |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101857466 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858669 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858671 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858672 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858673 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858675 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101858676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC930291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Apr-2006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | NN |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101840332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1182513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748704 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101840333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1182514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101840334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1182515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101840335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1182516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NDS 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101840336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1182517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;748708 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Nov-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;North Star |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;APD 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101647113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | OO |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101648321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | PP |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101823022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824404 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452652 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;13-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452663 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | QQ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452669 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101824422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452671 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452672 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452673 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452675 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452677 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452678 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452680 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452681 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452683 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452684 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452685 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452686 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452687 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452688 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452689 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | RR |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;14-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452692 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101825622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452693 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452694 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452695 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452696 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452698 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452699 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452701 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826809 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452703 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826811 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452704 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;348 | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452708 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;16-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452712 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452713 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101826821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | SS |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452715 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452716 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452717 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Oct-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452718 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;361 | &nbsp;&nbsp;125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452721 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;363 | &nbsp;&nbsp;127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452722 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452723 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452724 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452725 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101828212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC810210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452726 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;17-Sep-1999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380481 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824969 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380482 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824971 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;371 | &nbsp;&nbsp;135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474544 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;372 | &nbsp;&nbsp;136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474547 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474548 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824977 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474549 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;378 | &nbsp;&nbsp;142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824979 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474551 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474552 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;380 | &nbsp;&nbsp;144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474553 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | TT |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;381 | &nbsp;&nbsp;145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101380494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824982 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;382 | &nbsp;&nbsp;146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;383 | &nbsp;&nbsp;147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;384 | &nbsp;&nbsp;148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474557 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;386 | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381652 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474561 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474562 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;389 | &nbsp;&nbsp;153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474563 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;391 | &nbsp;&nbsp;155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824993 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;393 | &nbsp;&nbsp;157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474567 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;394 | &nbsp;&nbsp;158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474569 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;396 | &nbsp;&nbsp;160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;397 | &nbsp;&nbsp;161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381663 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;398 | &nbsp;&nbsp;162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC824999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474572 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;399 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474573 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474574 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474576 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101381669 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474577 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;404 | &nbsp;&nbsp;168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474578 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382683 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474579 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | UU |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382684 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382685 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382686 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382687 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 47 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382809 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 53 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382811 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 55 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;424 | &nbsp;&nbsp;188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101382816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383885 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383886 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383887 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383888 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383889 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | VV |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim <br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;431 | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383890 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;432 | &nbsp;&nbsp;196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383891 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383892 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;434 | &nbsp;&nbsp;198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383893 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383894 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101383895 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC825037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;11-Sep-2001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;437 | &nbsp;&nbsp;201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;438 | &nbsp;&nbsp;202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;441 | &nbsp;&nbsp;205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;442 | &nbsp;&nbsp;206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;444 | &nbsp;&nbsp;208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;447 | &nbsp;&nbsp;211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388822 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;448 | &nbsp;&nbsp;212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388824 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101388825 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | WW |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim <br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PIR 125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101390032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC831192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;06-Jun-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;466 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834431 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;467 | &nbsp;&nbsp;231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834432 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101365229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;469 | &nbsp;&nbsp;233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 79 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834434 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;471 | &nbsp;&nbsp;235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;472 | &nbsp;&nbsp;236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834437 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834438 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;474 | &nbsp;&nbsp;238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 84 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;476 | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366029 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834441 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366030 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834442 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;478 | &nbsp;&nbsp;242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366031 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;479 | &nbsp;&nbsp;243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366032 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834444 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366033 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | XX |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;481 | &nbsp;&nbsp;245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366034 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;482 | &nbsp;&nbsp;246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366035 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834447 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PC 93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101366036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC834448 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;01-Sep-2002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC884220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC884221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527521 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC884222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;24-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC885995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527960 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC885996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527961 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC885997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527962 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC885998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527963 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC885999 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527964 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527965 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527966 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527967 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527968 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101678255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527969 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527970 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527971 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;499 | &nbsp;&nbsp;263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527972 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;501 | &nbsp;&nbsp;265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527974 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;503 | &nbsp;&nbsp;267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527976 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;504 | &nbsp;&nbsp;268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886012 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527977 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527978 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | YY |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527979 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886016 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527982 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;511 | &nbsp;&nbsp;275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;512 | &nbsp;&nbsp;276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101679258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;521 | &nbsp;&nbsp;285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;524 | &nbsp;&nbsp;288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 77 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528026 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;526 | &nbsp;&nbsp;290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528036 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;527 | &nbsp;&nbsp;291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528037 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;528 | &nbsp;&nbsp;292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528038 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;529 | &nbsp;&nbsp;293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;530 | &nbsp;&nbsp;294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 91 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | ZZ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;531 | &nbsp;&nbsp;295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528041 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;532 | &nbsp;&nbsp;296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528042 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528043 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;534 | &nbsp;&nbsp;298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101680259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886079 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528044 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528045 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;536 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528047 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528050 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;539 | &nbsp;&nbsp;303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528051 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;544 | &nbsp;&nbsp;308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528065 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;547 | &nbsp;&nbsp;311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;548 | &nbsp;&nbsp;312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528068 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;549 | &nbsp;&nbsp;313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528070 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;551 | &nbsp;&nbsp;315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;552 | &nbsp;&nbsp;316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528072 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;553 | &nbsp;&nbsp;317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;554 | &nbsp;&nbsp;318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | AAA |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;556 | &nbsp;&nbsp;320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101651250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;557 | &nbsp;&nbsp;321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;559 | &nbsp;&nbsp;323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;560 | &nbsp;&nbsp;324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528084 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;561 | &nbsp;&nbsp;325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;562 | &nbsp;&nbsp;326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;563 | &nbsp;&nbsp;327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528087 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528089 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;567 | &nbsp;&nbsp;331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;569 | &nbsp;&nbsp;333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528095 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;572 | &nbsp;&nbsp;336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528096 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;573 | &nbsp;&nbsp;337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528097 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;574 | &nbsp;&nbsp;338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;576 | &nbsp;&nbsp;340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;577 | &nbsp;&nbsp;341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;578 | &nbsp;&nbsp;342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101652248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;579 | &nbsp;&nbsp;343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | BBB |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653128 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528105 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653129 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653130 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528107 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;348 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653131 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528108 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653132 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528109 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528111 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 164 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886148 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528114 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 166 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886150 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528115 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 167 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886151 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528116 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 168 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886152 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528117 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 169 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653141 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528118 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 170 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886154 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528119 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653143 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886155 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;361 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 172 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886156 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528121 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653145 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886157 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;363 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886158 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101653147 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886159 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528124 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101654074 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528125 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101654075 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528126 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101654076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886162 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528127 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 234 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | CCC |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV102524821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;371 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;372 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528186 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311404 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;378 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;380 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;381 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;382 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;383 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;384 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;386 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;389 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;391 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101311421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;393 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;394 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | DDD |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;396 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528233 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;397 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528235 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;398 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528236 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;399 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528237 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528238 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528239 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528241 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528242 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;405 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528243 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528244 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528245 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;408 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528246 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;409 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528247 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;646 | &nbsp;&nbsp;410 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528248 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;647 | &nbsp;&nbsp;411 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528249 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;648 | &nbsp;&nbsp;412 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101312621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;649 | &nbsp;&nbsp;413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528251 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;650 | &nbsp;&nbsp;414 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528252 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;651 | &nbsp;&nbsp;415 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;652 | &nbsp;&nbsp;416 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528254 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;417 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528255 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;654 | &nbsp;&nbsp;418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528256 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;419 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528257 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | EEE |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim <br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;420 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;657 | &nbsp;&nbsp;421 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313809 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;422 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;659 | &nbsp;&nbsp;423 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313811 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;660 | &nbsp;&nbsp;424 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313812 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;661 | &nbsp;&nbsp;425 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313813 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;662 | &nbsp;&nbsp;426 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313814 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;663 | &nbsp;&nbsp;427 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313815 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;428 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101313821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;665 | &nbsp;&nbsp;429 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;666 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;667 | &nbsp;&nbsp;431 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;668 | &nbsp;&nbsp;432 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;669 | &nbsp;&nbsp;433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528276 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;434 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528277 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;671 | &nbsp;&nbsp;435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;672 | &nbsp;&nbsp;436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;673 | &nbsp;&nbsp;437 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315009 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886315 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528280 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;674 | &nbsp;&nbsp;438 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315010 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886316 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528281 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;675 | &nbsp;&nbsp;439 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886317 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528282 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886318 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528283 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;677 | &nbsp;&nbsp;441 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886319 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528284 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;678 | &nbsp;&nbsp;442 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886320 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528285 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;679 | &nbsp;&nbsp;443 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528286 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;680 | &nbsp;&nbsp;444 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886322 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528287 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | FFF |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;681 | &nbsp;&nbsp;445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886323 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528288 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;682 | &nbsp;&nbsp;446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886324 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528289 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;683 | &nbsp;&nbsp;447 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886325 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528290 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;684 | &nbsp;&nbsp;448 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886326 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528291 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;685 | &nbsp;&nbsp;449 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101315211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886327 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528292 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;686 | &nbsp;&nbsp;450 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528293 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;687 | &nbsp;&nbsp;451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886329 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528294 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;688 | &nbsp;&nbsp;452 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886330 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528295 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;689 | &nbsp;&nbsp;453 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 347 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886331 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528296 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;690 | &nbsp;&nbsp;454 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 348 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886332 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528297 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;691 | &nbsp;&nbsp;455 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 349 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886333 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528298 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;692 | &nbsp;&nbsp;456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528299 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;693 | &nbsp;&nbsp;457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;694 | &nbsp;&nbsp;458 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886336 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528301 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;695 | &nbsp;&nbsp;459 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886337 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;696 | &nbsp;&nbsp;460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886338 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528303 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;697 | &nbsp;&nbsp;461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886339 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528304 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;698 | &nbsp;&nbsp;462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886340 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528305 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;22-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;699 | &nbsp;&nbsp;463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886341 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528306 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886342 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528307 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;701 | &nbsp;&nbsp;465 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886343 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528308 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;702 | &nbsp;&nbsp;466 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528309 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;703 | &nbsp;&nbsp;467 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 361 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;704 | &nbsp;&nbsp;468 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101316219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC886346 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;21-Sep-2004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;705 | &nbsp;&nbsp;469 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 432 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101735310 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC915511 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | GGG |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim <br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;706 | &nbsp;&nbsp;470 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 433 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101735311 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC915512 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;471 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 434 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101735312 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC915513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545177 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;708 | &nbsp;&nbsp;472 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101735313 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC915514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RR 436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101735314 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC915515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545179 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;15-Sep-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;710 | &nbsp;&nbsp;474 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 196 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101852461 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547730 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;711 | &nbsp;&nbsp;475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 197 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101852462 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919787 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;712 | &nbsp;&nbsp;476 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 198 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101852463 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919788 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;713 | &nbsp;&nbsp;477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101852464 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919789 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;714 | &nbsp;&nbsp;478 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919790 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547734 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;715 | &nbsp;&nbsp;479 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 201 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919791 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547735 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;716 | &nbsp;&nbsp;480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919792 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;717 | &nbsp;&nbsp;481 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919793 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547737 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;718 | &nbsp;&nbsp;482 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919794 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547738 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;719 | &nbsp;&nbsp;483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 205 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;720 | &nbsp;&nbsp;484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101732493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919796 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;721 | &nbsp;&nbsp;485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 207 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733473 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919797 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547741 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;29-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;722 | &nbsp;&nbsp;486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733474 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919798 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547742 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;723 | &nbsp;&nbsp;487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733475 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547743 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;724 | &nbsp;&nbsp;488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733476 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547744 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;725 | &nbsp;&nbsp;489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547745 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;726 | &nbsp;&nbsp;490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733478 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547746 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;727 | &nbsp;&nbsp;491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733479 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547747 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;728 | &nbsp;&nbsp;492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733480 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547748 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;729 | &nbsp;&nbsp;493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733481 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547749 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;730 | &nbsp;&nbsp;494 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733482 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547750 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | HHH |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;495 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733483 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547751 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;496 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733484 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547752 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;733 | &nbsp;&nbsp;497 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733485 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919809 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547753 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;734 | &nbsp;&nbsp;498 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733486 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919810 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;735 | &nbsp;&nbsp;499 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733487 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919811 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733488 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547760 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;737 | &nbsp;&nbsp;501 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733489 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547761 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;738 | &nbsp;&nbsp;502 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733490 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;739 | &nbsp;&nbsp;503 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733491 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;740 | &nbsp;&nbsp;504 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 230 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733492 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547764 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;741 | &nbsp;&nbsp;505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JAK 231 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101733493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC919821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;28-Oct-2005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;742 | &nbsp;&nbsp;506 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS-1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101341210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1050984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643867 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Aug-2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;743 | &nbsp;&nbsp;507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS-2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101341211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1050985 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Aug-2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;744 | &nbsp;&nbsp;508 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS-3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101341212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1050986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643869 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Aug-2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;745 | &nbsp;&nbsp;509 | &nbsp;&nbsp;PS-7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101341213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1050987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643870 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Aug-2011 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;746 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 350 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101717039 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177565 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;747 | &nbsp;&nbsp;511 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 351 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101717040 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177566 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;748 | &nbsp;&nbsp;512 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 352 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177567 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;749 | &nbsp;&nbsp;513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 353 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869817 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177568 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;750 | &nbsp;&nbsp;514 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 354 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869818 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177569 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;751 | &nbsp;&nbsp;515 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 355 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869819 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177570 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;752 | &nbsp;&nbsp;516 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 356 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177571 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;753 | &nbsp;&nbsp;517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 357 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177572 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744609 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;754 | &nbsp;&nbsp;518 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 358 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869822 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177573 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744610 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;755 | &nbsp;&nbsp;519 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177574 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744611 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | III |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;756 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 360 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869824 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177575 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744612 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;757 | &nbsp;&nbsp;521 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 361 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869825 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177576 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;758 | &nbsp;&nbsp;522 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 362 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869826 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177577 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744614 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;759 | &nbsp;&nbsp;523 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 363 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177578 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744615 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;760 | &nbsp;&nbsp;524 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 364 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869828 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177579 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744616 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;761 | &nbsp;&nbsp;525 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 365 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869829 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177580 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744617 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;762 | &nbsp;&nbsp;526 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 366 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;763 | &nbsp;&nbsp;527 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 367 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869831 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744619 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;764 | &nbsp;&nbsp;528 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 368 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744620 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;765 | &nbsp;&nbsp;529 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 369 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869833 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177584 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744621 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;766 | &nbsp;&nbsp;530 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 370 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869834 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177585 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744622 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;767 | &nbsp;&nbsp;531 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 371 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;768 | &nbsp;&nbsp;532 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 372 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101869836 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177587 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744624 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;19-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;769 | &nbsp;&nbsp;533 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 373 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550822 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177588 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744625 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;770 | &nbsp;&nbsp;534 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 374 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550823 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177589 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744626 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;771 | &nbsp;&nbsp;535 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 375 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550824 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744627 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;772 | &nbsp;&nbsp;536 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 376 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550825 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177591 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744628 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;10-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;773 | &nbsp;&nbsp;537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 377 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550826 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;774 | &nbsp;&nbsp;538 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 378 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550827 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177593 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744630 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;775 | &nbsp;&nbsp;539 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 379 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550828 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177594 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744631 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;776 | &nbsp;&nbsp;540 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 380 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550829 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177595 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744632 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;777 | &nbsp;&nbsp;541 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 381 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550830 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;778 | &nbsp;&nbsp;542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 382 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550831 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177597 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744634 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;779 | &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 383 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177598 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744635 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;780 | &nbsp;&nbsp;544 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 384 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550833 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177599 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744636 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | JJJ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;781 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 385 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550834 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;782 | &nbsp;&nbsp;546 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 386 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550835 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177601 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744638 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;783 | &nbsp;&nbsp;547 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550836 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177602 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744639 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;784 | &nbsp;&nbsp;548 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 388 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550837 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177603 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744640 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;785 | &nbsp;&nbsp;549 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 389 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550838 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177604 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;786 | &nbsp;&nbsp;550 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 390 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550839 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177605 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744642 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;787 | &nbsp;&nbsp;551 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 391 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550840 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177606 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744643 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;788 | &nbsp;&nbsp;552 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 392 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550841 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744644 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;789 | &nbsp;&nbsp;553 | &nbsp;&nbsp;P 393 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101550842 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC1177608 | &nbsp;&nbsp;744645 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Jul-2018 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pony Creek |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;790 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101347860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404258 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;791 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101492467 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404259 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;792 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101731413 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404260 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;793 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101343266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404261 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;794 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101602618 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404262 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;795 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101509530 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768217 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404263 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;796 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101349696 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404264 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;797 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101458655 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768219 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404265 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;798 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101605218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768220 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404266 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;799 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101458123 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404267 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #11 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101609831 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768222 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;801 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101458939 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768223 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404269 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;802 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101754273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768224 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404270 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;803 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101344228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768225 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404271 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;09-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;804 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101540946 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768226 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404272 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | KKK |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim No by<br> Project** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BLM Legacy<br> Serial No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**COUNTY<br> FILING<br> NUMBER** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim<br> Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Location Date** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Claim Owner <br> registered with BLM** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**PROJECT** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;805 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101344401 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768227 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404273 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;806 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101604967 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768228 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404274 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;807 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C #18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NV101494908 | &nbsp;&nbsp;NMC768229 | &nbsp;&nbsp;404275 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lode | &nbsp;&nbsp;07-Feb-1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CLOVER NEVADA II LLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Woodruff |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | LLL |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Appendix C**

Resource Tabulations

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | MMM |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Measured Transitional** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 9123000 | 0.029 | 260000 | 0.002 | 5555000 | 0.02 | 86000 |  |
| **0.003** | **7785000** | **0.033** | **257000** | **0.003** | **4332000** | **0.02** | **83000** |  |
| 0.004 | 6924000 | 0.037 | 254000 | 0.004 | 3615000 | 0.02 | 80000 |  |
| 0.005 | 6437000 | 0.039 | 252000 | 0.005 | 3160000 | 0.02 | 78000 |  |
| 0.006 | 6159000 | 0.041 | 250000 | 0.006 | 2828000 | 0.03 | 77000 |  |
| 0.007 | 5893000 | 0.042 | 249000 | 0.007 | 2638000 | 0.03 | 75000 |  |
| 0.008 | 5703000 | 0.043 | 247000 | 0.008 | 2479000 | 0.03 | 74000 |  |
| 0.009 | 5516000 | 0.045 | 245000 | 0.009 | 2311000 | 0.03 | 73000 |  |
| 0.010 | 5311000 | 0.046 | 244000 | 0.010 | 2140000 | 0.03 | 71000 |  |
| 0.015 | 4268000 | 0.054 | 231000 | 0.015 | 1464000 | 0.04 | 63000 |  |
| 0.020 | 3527000 | 0.062 | 218000 | 0.020 | 1013000 | 0.05 | 55000 |  |
| 0.025 | 2911000 | 0.070 | 204000 | 0.025 | 734000 | 0.07 | 49000 |  |
| 0.030 | 2474000 | 0.078 | 192000 | 0.030 | 600000 | 0.08 | 45000 |  |
| 0.035 | 2144000 | 0.085 | 181000 | 0.035 | 534000 | 0.08 | 43000 |  |
| 0.040 | 1890000 | 0.091 | 172000 | 0.040 | 443000 | 0.09 | 40000 |  |
| 0.045 | 1718000 | 0.096 | 165000 | 0.045 | 386000 | 0.10 | 37000 |  |
| 0.050 | 1571000 | 0.100 | 158000 | 0.050 | 358000 | 0.10 | 36000 |  |
| 0.075 | 1047000 | 0.120 | 125000 | 0.075 | 240000 | 0.12 | 29000 |  |
| 0.100 | 632000 | 0.141 | 89000 | 0.100 | 143000 | 0.14 | 20000 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | NNN |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Transitional** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Transitional** |  |  |
| **Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** | **Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** | | |
| **Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** |  |  | **Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | **Tons** | **oz Au/ton** | **oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 5555000 | 0.02 | 86000 | 0.002 | 17336000 | 0.013 | 229000 |  |  |
| **0.003** | **4332000** | **0.02** | **83000** | **0.003** | **14747000** | **0.015** | **223000** |  |  |
| 0.004 | 3615000 | 0.02 | 80000 | 0.004 | 12671000 | 0.017 | 217000 |  |  |
| 0.005 | 3160000 | 0.02 | 78000 | 0.005 | 11128000 | 0.019 | 209000 |  |  |
| 0.006 | 2828000 | 0.03 | 77000 | 0.006 | 10053000 | 0.020 | 203000 |  |  |
| 0.007 | 2638000 | 0.03 | 75000 | 0.007 | 9250000 | 0.021 | 198000 |  |  |
| 0.008 | 2479000 | 0.03 | 74000 | 0.008 | 8539000 | 0.023 | 193000 |  |  |
| 0.009 | 2311000 | 0.03 | 73000 | 0.009 | 7851000 | 0.024 | 188000 |  |  |
| 0.010 | 2140000 | 0.03 | 71000 | 0.010 | 7238000 | 0.025 | 182000 |  |  |
| 0.015 | 1464000 | 0.04 | 63000 | 0.015 | 4261000 | 0.034 | 145000 |  |  |
| 0.020 | 1013000 | 0.05 | 55000 | 0.020 | 2523000 | 0.046 | 115000 |  |  |
| 0.025 | 734000 | 0.07 | 49000 | 0.025 | 1704000 | 0.057 | 97000 |  |  |
| 0.030 | 600000 | 0.08 | 45000 | 0.030 | 1275000 | 0.067 | 85000 |  |  |
| 0.035 | 534000 | 0.08 | 43000 | 0.035 | 1030000 | 0.075 | 77000 |  |  |
| 0.040 | 443000 | 0.09 | 40000 | 0.040 | 863000 | 0.082 | 71000 |  |  |
| 0.045 | 386000 | 0.10 | 37000 | 0.045 | 770000 | 0.087 | 67000 |  |  |
| 0.050 | 358000 | 0.10 | 36000 | 0.050 | 669000 | 0.093 | 62000 |  |  |
| 0.075 | 240000 | 0.12 | 29000 | 0.075 | 403000 | 0.114 | 46000 |  |  |
| 0.100 | 143000 | 0.14 | 20000 | 0.100 | 224000 | 0.135 | 30000 |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | OOO |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Sulfide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Sulfide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Sulfide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Indicated Sulfide** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.010 | 2150000 | 0.047 | 100000 |
| 0.011 | 2035000 | 0.049 | 99000 |
| 0.012 | 1940000 | 0.051 | 98000 |
| 0.013 | 1849000 | 0.053 | 97000 |
| 0.014 | 1739000 | 0.055 | 96000 |
| 0.015 | 1647000 | 0.057 | 94000 |
| 0.016 | 1576000 | 0.059 | 93000 |
| **0.017** | **1513000** | **0.061** | **92000** |
| 0.018 | 1431000 | 0.063 | 91000 |
| 0.019 | 1383000 | 0.065 | 90000 |
| 0.020 | 1331000 | 0.067 | 89000 |
| 0.025 | 1136000 | 0.074 | 85000 |
| 0.030 | 1023000 | 0.080 | 81000 |
| 0.035 | 921000 | 0.085 | 78000 |
| 0.040 | 853000 | 0.089 | 76000 |
| 0.045 | 790000 | 0.092 | 73000 |
| 0.050 | 740000 | 0.095 | 71000 |
| 0.075 | 484000 | 0.114 | 55000 |
| 0.100 | 275000 | 0.134 | 37000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | PPP |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 709000 | 0.010 | 7000 | 0.002 | 1184000 | 0.009 | 11000 |  |
| **0.003** | **549000** | **0.013** | **7000** | **0.003** | **870000** | **0.012** | **10000** |  |
| 0.004 | 499000 | 0.014 | 7000 | 0.004 | 762000 | 0.013 | 10000 |  |
| 0.005 | 454000 | 0.015 | 7000 | 0.005 | 700000 | 0.014 | 9000 |  |
| 0.006 | 397000 | 0.016 | 6000 | 0.006 | 614000 | 0.015 | 9000 |  |
| 0.007 | 372000 | 0.017 | 6000 | 0.007 | 552000 | 0.016 | 9000 |  |
| 0.008 | 351000 | 0.017 | 6000 | 0.008 | 511000 | 0.016 | 8000 |  |
| 0.009 | 313000 | 0.018 | 6000 | 0.009 | 481000 | 0.017 | 8000 |  |
| 0.010 | 291000 | 0.019 | 5000 | 0.010 | 446000 | 0.017 | 8000 |  |
| 0.015 | 176000 | 0.023 | 4000 | 0.015 | 239000 | 0.022 | 5000 |  |
| 0.020 | 98000 | 0.028 | 3000 | 0.010 | 446000 | 0.017 | 8000 |  |
| 0.025 | 40000 | 0.036 | 1000 | 0.025 | 46000 | 0.033 | 2000 |  |
| 0.030 | 23000 | 0.043 | 1000 | 0.030 | 23000 | 0.037 | 1000 |  |
| 0.035 | 17000 | 0.046 | 1000 | 0.035 | 13000 | 0.040 | 1000 |  |
| 0.040 | 13000 | 0.049 | 1000 | 0.040 | 2000 | 0.052 | - |  |
| 0.045 | 6000 | 0.057 | - | 0.045 | 2000 | 0.052 | - |  |
| 0.050 | 4000 | 0.061 | - | 0.050 | 2000 | 0.052 | - |  |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |  |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | QQQ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dark Star Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.010 | 51000 | 0.020 | 1000 |
| 0.011 | 44000 | 0.021 | 1000 |
| 0.012 | 42000 | 0.022 | 1000 |
| 0.013 | 37000 | 0.023 | 1000 |
| 0.014 | 35000 | 0.023 | 1000 |
| 0.015 | 31000 | 0.025 | 1000 |
| 0.016 | 31000 | 0.025 | 1000 |
| **0.017** | **31000** | **0.025** | **1000** |
| 0.018 | 26000 | 0.026 | 1000 |
| 0.019 | 24000 | 0.027 | 1000 |
| 0.020 | 24000 | 0.027 | 1000 |
| 0.025 | 11000 | 0.031 | - |
| 0.030 | 7000 | 0.033 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |

---

**Dark Star Inferred Sulfide - Underground**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| **0.075** | **380,000** | **0.108** | **41,000** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | RRR |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

**Pinion Measured Oxide – Open Pit**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 2722000 | 0.021 | 57000 | 0.17 | 471000 |
| **0.003** | **2668000** | **0.021** | **57000** | **0.18** | **469000** |
| 0.004 | 2610000 | 0.022 | 56000 | 0.18 | 466000 |
| 0.005 | 2569000 | 0.022 | 56000 | 0.18 | 464000 |
| 0.006 | 2458000 | 0.023 | 56000 | 0.19 | 455000 |
| 0.007 | 2324000 | 0.024 | 55000 | 0.19 | 446000 |
| 0.008 | 2182000 | 0.025 | 54000 | 0.20 | 427000 |
| 0.009 | 2068000 | 0.025 | 53000 | 0.20 | 409000 |
| 0.010 | 1942000 | 0.027 | 51000 | 0.20 | 390000 |
| 0.015 | 1364000 | 0.032 | 44000 | 0.23 | 308000 |
| 0.020 | 923000 | 0.040 | 37000 | 0.25 | 229000 |
| 0.025 | 624000 | 0.048 | 30000 | 0.26 | 160000 |
| 0.030 | 502000 | 0.053 | 27000 | 0.26 | 128000 |
| 0.035 | 375000 | 0.060 | 22000 | 0.25 | 93000 |
| 0.040 | 289000 | 0.066 | 19000 | 0.26 | 75000 |
| 0.045 | 240000 | 0.071 | 17000 | 0.26 | 62000 |
| 0.050 | 189000 | 0.078 | 15000 | 0.26 | 50000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | SSS |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Measured Transitional - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff<br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 224000 | 0.017 | 4000 | 0.18 | 40000 |
| **0.003** | **216000** | **0.018** | **4000** | **0.19** | **40000** |
| 0.004 | 216000 | 0.018 | 4000 | 0.19 | 40000 |
| 0.005 | 203000 | 0.019 | 4000 | 0.19 | 39000 |
| 0.006 | 189000 | 0.020 | 4000 | 0.19 | 37000 |
| 0.007 | 182000 | 0.020 | 4000 | 0.19 | 34000 |
| 0.008 | 170000 | 0.021 | 4000 | 0.18 | 31000 |
| 0.009 | 159000 | 0.022 | 3000 | 0.18 | 29000 |
| 0.010 | 140000 | 0.024 | 3000 | 0.17 | 24000 |
| 0.015 | 97000 | 0.029 | 3000 | 0.17 | 17000 |
| 0.020 | 69000 | 0.034 | 2000 | 0.19 | 13000 |
| 0.025 | 51000 | 0.038 | 2000 | 0.19 | 9000 |
| 0.030 | 35000 | 0.042 | 1000 | 0.24 | 8000 |
| 0.035 | 21000 | 0.049 | 1000 | 0.33 | 7000 |
| 0.040 | 17000 | 0.052 | 1000 | 0.36 | 6000 |
| 0.045 | 10000 | 0.058 | 1000 | 0.38 | 4000 |
| 0.050 | 7000 | 0.062 | - | 0.35 | 3000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | TTT |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Oxide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 53991000 | 0.016 | 848000 | 0.12 | 6743000 |
| **0.003** | **50821000** | **0.017** | **839000** | **0.13** | **6652000** |
| 0.004 | 48241000 | 0.017 | 830000 | 0.14 | 6537000 |
| 0.005 | 46262000 | 0.018 | 823000 | 0.14 | 6430000 |
| 0.006 | 43813000 | 0.019 | 811000 | 0.14 | 6287000 |
| 0.007 | 41334000 | 0.019 | 794000 | 0.15 | 6109000 |
| 0.008 | 38717000 | 0.020 | 774000 | 0.15 | 5881000 |
| 0.009 | 35980000 | 0.021 | 752000 | 0.16 | 5613000 |
| 0.010 | 33454000 | 0.022 | 726000 | 0.16 | 5369000 |
| 0.015 | 21641000 | 0.027 | 580000 | 0.18 | 3917000 |
| 0.020 | 13511000 | 0.033 | 440000 | 0.20 | 2709000 |
| 0.025 | 8500000 | 0.039 | 329000 | 0.22 | 1857000 |
| 0.030 | 5511000 | 0.045 | 247000 | 0.23 | 1276000 |
| 0.035 | 3748000 | 0.051 | 191000 | 0.24 | 897000 |
| 0.040 | 2541000 | 0.057 | 146000 | 0.25 | 640000 |
| 0.045 | 1781000 | 0.064 | 114000 | 0.26 | 458000 |
| 0.050 | 1277000 | 0.070 | 90000 | 0.26 | 330000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | UUU |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Indicated Transitional - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 2359000 | 0.014 | 33000 | 0.12 | 272000 |
| **0.003** | **2158000** | **0.015** | **32000** | **0.12** | **263000** |
| 0.004 | 2021000 | 0.016 | 32000 | 0.13 | 254000 |
| 0.005 | 1896000 | 0.017 | 31000 | 0.13 | 245000 |
| 0.006 | 1751000 | 0.017 | 30000 | 0.13 | 235000 |
| 0.007 | 1603000 | 0.018 | 29000 | 0.14 | 221000 |
| 0.008 | 1458000 | 0.020 | 28000 | 0.14 | 208000 |
| 0.009 | 1284000 | 0.021 | 27000 | 0.14 | 186000 |
| 0.010 | 1142000 | 0.022 | 26000 | 0.14 | 164000 |
| 0.015 | 722000 | 0.028 | 21000 | 0.13 | 97000 |
| 0.020 | 522000 | 0.033 | 17000 | 0.13 | 68000 |
| 0.025 | 351000 | 0.038 | 13000 | 0.13 | 46000 |
| 0.030 | 249000 | 0.042 | 10000 | 0.13 | 32000 |
| 0.035 | 173000 | 0.047 | 8000 | 0.13 | 22000 |
| 0.040 | 107000 | 0.052 | 6000 | 0.14 | 15000 |
| 0.045 | 78000 | 0.056 | 4000 | 0.15 | 12000 |
| 0.050 | 45000 | 0.062 | 3000 | 0.11 | 5000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | VVV |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 1553000 | 0.011 | 17000 | 0.07 | 105000 |
| **0.003** | **1349000** | **0.012** | **16000** | **0.08** | **102000** |
| 0.004 | 1248000 | 0.013 | 16000 | 0.08 | 98000 |
| 0.005 | 1167000 | 0.013 | 16000 | 0.08 | 95000 |
| 0.006 | 1071000 | 0.014 | 15000 | 0.08 | 89000 |
| 0.007 | 994000 | 0.015 | 15000 | 0.09 | 85000 |
| 0.008 | 924000 | 0.015 | 14000 | 0.08 | 78000 |
| 0.009 | 839000 | 0.016 | 13000 | 0.09 | 72000 |
| 0.010 | 743000 | 0.017 | 12000 | 0.09 | 66000 |
| 0.015 | 398000 | 0.020 | 8000 | 0.09 | 37000 |
| 0.020 | 154000 | 0.026 | 4000 | 0.12 | 19000 |
| 0.025 | 57000 | 0.032 | 2000 | 0.07 | 4000 |
| 0.030 | 40000 | 0.034 | 1000 | 0.06 | 2000 |
| 0.035 | 11000 | 0.037 | - | 0.07 | 1000 |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | WWW |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pinion Inferred Transitional - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Ag** |
| 0.002 | 110000 | 0.006 | 1000 | 0.09 | 9000 |
| **0.003** | **86000** | **0.008** | **1000** | **0.10** | **9000** |
| 0.004 | 80000 | 0.008 | 1000 | 0.11 | 9000 |
| 0.005 | 75000 | 0.008 | 1000 | 0.11 | 8000 |
| 0.006 | 60000 | 0.009 | 1000 | 0.12 | 7000 |
| 0.007 | 43000 | 0.010 | - | 0.14 | 6000 |
| 0.008 | 37000 | 0.010 | - | 0.15 | 5000 |
| 0.009 | 28000 | 0.011 | - | 0.16 | 4000 |
| 0.010 | 13000 | 0.012 | - | 0.17 | 2000 |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.00 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | XXX |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Jasperoid Wash Inferred Oxide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff oz<br> Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 6769000 | 0.009 | 58000 | 0.002 | 11991000 | 0.007 | 84000 |
| **0.003** | **6211000** | **0.009** | **57000** | **0.003** | **11086000** | **0.007** | **82000** |
| 0.004 | 5541000 | 0.010 | 54000 | 0.004 | 9903000 | 0.008 | 77000 |
| 0.005 | 4922000 | 0.011 | 52000 | 0.005 | 8718000 | 0.008 | 72000 |
| 0.006 | 4330000 | 0.011 | 48000 | 0.006 | 7404000 | 0.009 | 65000 |
| 0.007 | 3596000 | 0.012 | 44000 | 0.007 | 5162000 | 0.010 | 51000 |
| 0.008 | 2911000 | 0.013 | 38000 | 0.008 | 2984000 | 0.012 | 35000 |
| 0.009 | 2279000 | 0.015 | 33000 | 0.009 | 1805000 | 0.014 | 25000 |
| 0.010 | 1799000 | 0.016 | 29000 | 0.010 | 1287000 | 0.015 | 20000 |
| 0.015 | 764000 | 0.021 | 16000 | 0.015 | 531000 | 0.021 | 11000 |
| 0.020 | 400000 | 0.025 | 10000 | 0.020 | 213000 | 0.025 | 5000 |
| 0.025 | 155000 | 0.029 | 4000 | 0.025 | 76000 | 0.032 | 2000 |
| 0.030 | 35000 | 0.036 | 1000 | 0.030 | 45000 | 0.035 | 2000 |
| 0.035 | 18000 | 0.041 | 1000 | 0.035 | 21000 | 0.039 | 1000 |
| 0.040 | 10000 | 0.045 | - | 0.040 | 7000 | 0.042 | - |
| 0.045 | 3000 | 0.048 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | YYY |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 251000 | 0.006 | 2000 | 0.010 | 8598000 | 0.048 | 410000 |
| **0.003** | **164000** | **0.008** | **1000** | 0.011 | 8009000 | 0.051 | 404000 |
| 0.004 | 135000 | 0.009 | 1000 | 0.012 | 7503000 | 0.053 | 398000 |
| 0.005 | 108000 | 0.010 | 1000 | 0.013 | 7007000 | 0.056 | 392000 |
| 0.006 | 82000 | 0.011 | 1000 | 0.014 | 6557000 | 0.059 | 386000 |
| 0.007 | 58000 | 0.014 | 1000 | 0.015 | 6150000 | 0.062 | 381000 |
| 0.008 | 44000 | 0.015 | 1000 | 0.016 | 5791000 | 0.065 | 375000 |
| 0.009 | 32000 | 0.018 | 1000 | **0.017** | **5493000** | **0.067** | **370000** |
| 0.010 | 22000 | 0.022 | - | 0.018 | 5234000 | 0.070 | 365000 |
| 0.015 | 10000 | 0.035 | - | 0.019 | 5005000 | 0.072 | 361000 |
| 0.020 | 5000 | 0.054 | - | 0.020 | 4794000 | 0.075 | 357000 |
| 0.025 | 4000 | 0.062 | - | 0.025 | 4214000 | 0.082 | 344000 |
| 0.030 | 4000 | 0.065 | - | 0.030 | 3890000 | 0.086 | 336000 |
| 0.035 | 3000 | 0.066 | - | 0.035 | 3664000 | 0.090 | 328000 |
| 0.040 | 3000 | 0.069 | - | 0.040 | 3459000 | 0.093 | 321000 |
| 0.045 | 3000 | 0.072 | - | 0.045 | 3247000 | 0.096 | 312000 |
| 0.050 | 3000 | 0.073 | - | 0.050 | 3008000 | 0.100 | 300000 |
| 0.000 | - | - | - | 0.100 | 914000 | 0.166 | 152000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | ZZZ |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 328000 | 0.008 | 3000 | 0.010 | 6642000 | 0.043 | 285000 |  |
| **0.003** | **240000** | **0.011** | **3000** | 0.011 | 6042000 | 0.046 | 279000 |  |
| 0.004 | 218000 | 0.011 | 2000 | 0.012 | 5518000 | 0.049 | 273000 |  |
| 0.005 | 204000 | 0.012 | 2000 | 0.013 | 5096000 | 0.053 | 268000 |  |
| 0.006 | 184000 | 0.013 | 2000 | 0.014 | 4732000 | 0.056 | 263000 |  |
| 0.007 | 158000 | 0.014 | 2000 | 0.015 | 4414000 | 0.059 | 258000 |  |
| 0.008 | 133000 | 0.015 | 2000 | 0.016 | 4155000 | 0.061 | 254000 |  |
| 0.009 | 121000 | 0.015 | 2000 | **0.017** | **3959000** | **0.063** | **251000** |  |
| 0.010 | 107000 | 0.016 | 2000 | 0.018 | 3804000 | 0.065 | 248000 |  |
| 0.015 | 34000 | 0.024 | 1000 | 0.019 | 3663000 | 0.067 | 245000 |  |
| 0.020 | 10000 | 0.041 | - | 0.020 | 3552000 | 0.069 | 243000 |  |
| 0.025 | 5000 | 0.058 | - | 0.025 | 3249000 | 0.073 | 237000 |  |
| 0.030 | 5000 | 0.060 | - | 0.030 | 3081000 | 0.075 | 232000 |  |
| 0.035 | 5000 | 0.062 | - | 0.035 | 2923000 | 0.078 | 227000 |  |
| 0.040 | 4000 | 0.064 | - | 0.040 | 2771000 | 0.080 | 221000 |  |
| 0.045 | 3000 | 0.068 | - | 0.045 | 2609000 | 0.082 | 214000 |  |
| 0.050 | 3000 | 0.071 | - | 0.050 | 2373000 | 0.086 | 203000 |  |
| 0.000 | - | - | - | 0.100 | 420000 | 0.158 | 66000 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | AAAA |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Underground** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Underground** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Underground** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**North Bullion Inferred Sulfide - Underground** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cutoff <br> oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.025 | 695000 | 0.069 | 48000 |
| 0.050 | 612000 | 0.073 | 44000 |
| 0.055 | 538000 | 0.075 | 41000 |
| 0.060 | 459000 | 0.078 | 36000 |
| 0.065 | 378000 | 0.082 | 31000 |
| 0.070 | 302000 | 0.085 | 26000 |
| **0.075** | **215000** | **0.091** | **19000** |
| 0.080 | 164000 | 0.095 | 16000 |
| 0.085 | 128000 | 0.098 | 13000 |
| 0.090 | 93000 | 0.103 | 10000 |
| 0.095 | 52000 | 0.110 | 6000 |
| 0.100 | 31000 | 0.120 | 4000 |
| 0.105 | 23000 | 0.126 | 3000 |
| 0.110 | 18000 | 0.130 | 2000 |
| 0.115 | 15000 | 0.134 | 2000 |
| 0.120 | 11000 | 0.141 | 1000 |
| 0.150 | 3000 | 0.169 | - |
| 0.200 | - | - | - |
| 0.000 | - | - | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | BBBB |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 1895000 | 0.011 | 21000 | 0.010 | 63000 | 0.030 | 2000 |  |
| **0.003** | **1665000** | **0.012** | **20000** | 0.011 | 60000 | 0.030 | 2000 |  |
| 0.004 | 1412000 | 0.014 | 19000 | 0.012 | 55000 | 0.032 | 2000 |  |
| 0.005 | 1214000 | 0.015 | 19000 | 0.013 | 51000 | 0.034 | 2000 |  |
| 0.006 | 1099000 | 0.016 | 18000 | 0.014 | 49000 | 0.035 | 2000 |  |
| 0.007 | 1019000 | 0.017 | 18000 | 0.015 | 46000 | 0.036 | 2000 |  |
| 0.008 | 940000 | 0.018 | 17000 | 0.016 | 44000 | 0.037 | 2000 |  |
| 0.009 | 850000 | 0.019 | 16000 | **0.017** | **42000** | **0.038** | **2000** |  |
| 0.010 | 738000 | 0.021 | 15000 | 0.018 | 40000 | 0.039 | 2000 |  |
| 0.015 | 356000 | 0.029 | 10000 | 0.019 | 38000 | 0.040 | 2000 |  |
| 0.020 | 189000 | 0.040 | 8000 | 0.020 | 36000 | 0.041 | 1000 |  |
| 0.025 | 122000 | 0.050 | 6000 | 0.025 | 29000 | 0.046 | 1000 |  |
| 0.030 | 93000 | 0.057 | 5000 | 0.030 | 23000 | 0.050 | 1000 |  |
| 0.035 | 74000 | 0.064 | 5000 | 0.035 | 17000 | 0.057 | 1000 |  |
| 0.040 | 62000 | 0.069 | 4000 | 0.040 | 14000 | 0.061 | 1000 |  |
| 0.045 | 51000 | 0.074 | 4000 | 0.045 | 12000 | 0.065 | 1000 |  |
| 0.050 | 44000 | 0.079 | 3000 | 0.050 | 9000 | 0.070 | 1000 |  |
| 0.100 | 8000 | 0.118 | 1000 | 0.100 | - | 0.111 | - |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | CCCC |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sweet Hollow 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 2267000 | 0.010 | 23000 | 0.010 | 30000 | 0.024 | 1000 |  |
| **0.003** | **2051000** | **0.011** | **23000** | 0.011 | 29000 | 0.025 | 1000 |  |
| 0.004 | 1742000 | 0.013 | 22000 | 0.012 | 26000 | 0.026 | 1000 |  |
| 0.005 | 1508000 | 0.014 | 21000 | 0.013 | 22000 | 0.028 | 1000 |  |
| 0.006 | 1365000 | 0.015 | 20000 | 0.014 | 21000 | 0.029 | 1000 |  |
| 0.007 | 1265000 | 0.015 | 19000 | 0.015 | 20000 | 0.030 | 1000 |  |
| 0.008 | 1157000 | 0.016 | 19000 | 0.016 | 19000 | 0.031 | 1000 |  |
| 0.009 | 1042000 | 0.017 | 18000 | **0.017** | **18000** | **0.032** | **1000** |  |
| 0.010 | 930000 | 0.018 | 16000 | 0.018 | 17000 | 0.033 | 1000 |  |
| 0.015 | 400000 | 0.025 | 10000 | 0.019 | 15000 | 0.034 | 1000 |  |
| 0.020 | 172000 | 0.035 | 6000 | 0.020 | 14000 | 0.035 | 1000 |  |
| 0.025 | 95000 | 0.046 | 4000 | 0.025 | 10000 | 0.040 | - |  |
| 0.030 | 66000 | 0.055 | 4000 | 0.030 | 7000 | 0.047 | - |  |
| 0.035 | 53000 | 0.060 | 3000 | 0.035 | 5000 | 0.052 | - |  |
| 0.040 | 42000 | 0.066 | 3000 | 0.040 | 4000 | 0.054 | - |  |
| 0.045 | 35000 | 0.071 | 3000 | 0.045 | 4000 | 0.056 | - |  |
| 0.050 | 31000 | 0.074 | 2000 | 0.050 | 3000 | 0.060 | - |  |
| 0.100 | 3000 | 0.107 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | DDDD |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD Indicated Sulfide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 771000 | 0.040 | 31000 | 0.010 | 460000 | 0.080 | 37000 |
| **0.003** | **730000** | **0.042** | **31000** | 0.011 | 454000 | 0.081 | 37000 |
| 0.004 | 694000 | 0.044 | 31000 | 0.012 | 446000 | 0.082 | 37000 |
| 0.005 | 661000 | 0.046 | 31000 | 0.013 | 437000 | 0.083 | 36000 |
| 0.006 | 636000 | 0.048 | 30000 | 0.014 | 429000 | 0.085 | 36000 |
| 0.007 | 613000 | 0.049 | 30000 | 0.015 | 420000 | 0.086 | 36000 |
| 0.008 | 596000 | 0.051 | 30000 | 0.016 | 413000 | 0.087 | 36000 |
| 0.009 | 577000 | 0.052 | 30000 | **0.017** | **402000** | **0.089** | **36000** |
| 0.010 | 552000 | 0.054 | 30000 | 0.018 | 400000 | 0.090 | 36000 |
| 0.015 | 427000 | 0.066 | 28000 | 0.019 | 394000 | 0.091 | 36000 |
| 0.020 | 351000 | 0.077 | 27000 | 0.020 | 389000 | 0.092 | 36000 |
| 0.025 | 315000 | 0.083 | 26000 | 0.025 | 371000 | 0.095 | 35000 |
| 0.030 | 296000 | 0.086 | 26000 | 0.030 | 358000 | 0.097 | 35000 |
| 0.035 | 278000 | 0.090 | 25000 | 0.035 | 340000 | 0.101 | 34000 |
| 0.040 | 255000 | 0.095 | 24000 | 0.040 | 309000 | 0.107 | 33000 |
| 0.045 | 224000 | 0.102 | 23000 | 0.045 | 278000 | 0.115 | 32000 |
| 0.050 | 200000 | 0.109 | 22000 | 0.050 | 254000 | 0.121 | 31000 |
| 0.100 | 125000 | 0.172 | 21000 | 0.100 | 125000 | 0.172 | 21000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | EEEE |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**POD 2025 Inferred Sulfide - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 585000 | 0.037 | 22000 | 0.010 | 229000 | 0.067 | 15000 |
| **0.003** | **523000** | **0.041** | **22000** | 0.011 | 222000 | 0.068 | 15000 |
| 0.004 | 490000 | 0.044 | 21000 | 0.012 | 214000 | 0.070 | 15000 |
| 0.005 | 463000 | 0.046 | 21000 | 0.013 | 202000 | 0.074 | 15000 |
| 0.006 | 443000 | 0.048 | 21000 | 0.014 | 192000 | 0.077 | 15000 |
| 0.007 | 426000 | 0.050 | 21000 | 0.015 | 182000 | 0.080 | 15000 |
| 0.008 | 409000 | 0.051 | 21000 | 0.016 | 175000 | 0.083 | 14000 |
| 0.009 | 393000 | 0.053 | 21000 | **0.017** | **167000** | **0.086** | **14000** |
| 0.010 | 373000 | 0.055 | 21000 | 0.018 | 162000 | 0.088 | 14000 |
| 0.015 | 270000 | 0.072 | 19000 | 0.019 | 157000 | 0.090 | 14000 |
| 0.020 | 209000 | 0.088 | 18000 | 0.020 | 153000 | 0.092 | 14000 |
| 0.025 | 187000 | 0.096 | 18000 | 0.025 | 144000 | 0.096 | 14000 |
| 0.030 | 177000 | 0.100 | 18000 | 0.030 | 140000 | 0.099 | 14000 |
| 0.035 | 168000 | 0.103 | 17000 | 0.035 | 134000 | 0.101 | 14000 |
| 0.040 | 157000 | 0.108 | 17000 | 0.040 | 127000 | 0.105 | 13000 |
| 0.045 | 147000 | 0.112 | 16000 | 0.045 | 119000 | 0.109 | 13000 |
| 0.050 | 138000 | 0.116 | 16000 | 0.050 | 112000 | 0.113 | 13000 |
| 0.100 | 65000 | 0.167 | 11000 | 0.100 | 53000 | 0.157 | 8000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | FFFF |

---

**South Railroad Project** **<br> Form 43-101F1 Technical Report**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Indicated Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**South Lodes Inferred Oxide & Transitional - Open Pit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Cutoff**<br> **oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**oz Au** |
| 0.002 | 421000 | 0.011 | 5000 | 0.002 | 736000 | 0.012 | 8000 |
| **0.003** | **374000** | **0.012** | **5000** | **0.003** | **645000** | **0.013** | **8000** |
| 0.004 | 338000 | 0.013 | 4000 | 0.004 | 553000 | 0.014 | 8000 |
| 0.005 | 287000 | 0.015 | 4000 | 0.005 | 465000 | 0.016 | 8000 |
| 0.006 | 255000 | 0.016 | 4000 | 0.006 | 410000 | 0.018 | 7000 |
| 0.007 | 235000 | 0.017 | 4000 | 0.007 | 388000 | 0.018 | 7000 |
| 0.008 | 219000 | 0.017 | 4000 | 0.008 | 374000 | 0.019 | 7000 |
| 0.009 | 204000 | 0.018 | 4000 | 0.009 | 360000 | 0.019 | 7000 |
| 0.010 | 188000 | 0.019 | 4000 | 0.010 | 344000 | 0.020 | 7000 |
| 0.015 | 100000 | 0.024 | 2000 | 0.015 | 216000 | 0.024 | 5000 |
| 0.020 | 53000 | 0.030 | 2000 | 0.020 | 92000 | 0.032 | 3000 |
| 0.025 | 31000 | 0.036 | 1000 | 0.025 | 63000 | 0.037 | 2000 |
| 0.030 | 19000 | 0.042 | 1000 | 0.030 | 46000 | 0.041 | 2000 |
| 0.035 | 13000 | 0.046 | 1000 | 0.035 | 31000 | 0.045 | 1000 |
| 0.040 | 9000 | 0.050 | - | 0.040 | 20000 | 0.050 | 1000 |
| 0.045 | 5000 | 0.056 | - | 0.045 | 14000 | 0.053 | 1000 |
| 0.050 | 3000 | 0.062 | - | 0.050 | 7000 | 0.059 | - |
| 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | - |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm266907d1_ex99-1img01.jpg) | M3-PN250005 <br> 27 February 2026<br> Revision 0 | GGGG |

---