# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001879016
**File Stem:** 0001104659-25-061364
**Filing Date:** 2025-6
**Character Count:** 892499
**Document Hash:** b67d7ee3e1637061b459d43725556573
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001104659-25-061364.hdr.sgml**: 20250623

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001104659-25-061364

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 8-K

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 164

**CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT**: 20250623

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Regulation FD Disclosure

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Other Events

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Financial Statements and Exhibits

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20250623

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20250623

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** Ivanhoe Electric Inc.
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001879016
- **STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:** METAL MINING [1000]
- **ORGANIZATION NAME:** 01 Energy & Transportation
- **EIN:** 320633823
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** DE
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1231

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 8-K
- **SEC ACT:** 1934 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 001-41436
- **FILM NUMBER:** 251062930

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 450 E RIO SALADO PARKWAY
- **STREET 2:** SUITE 130
- **CITY:** TEMPE
- **STATE:** AZ
- **ZIP:** 85281
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 480-656-5821

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 450 E RIO SALADO PARKWAY
- **STREET 2:** SUITE 130
- **CITY:** TEMPE
- **STATE:** AZ
- **ZIP:** 85281

?xml version='1.0' encoding='ASCII'?

**UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 8-K**

**CURRENT REPORT**

**Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): **June 23, 2025**

**IVANHOE ELECTRIC INC.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Delaware** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**001-41436** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**32-0633823** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;(State or other jurisdiction of<br> incorporation or organization) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(Commission File Number) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(I.R.S. Employer<br> Identification No.) |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**450 E. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 130**, **Tempe** **, AZ** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**85281** |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | &nbsp;&nbsp;(Zip Code) |

---

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: **(480) 656-5821**

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

---

| |
|:---|
| Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
| Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
| Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
| Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

---

**Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Title of each class** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Name of each exchange on which <br> registered** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share &nbsp;&nbsp;IE | &nbsp;&nbsp;NYSE American |

---

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).

Emerging growth company ◻

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ◻

**Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.**

On June 23, 2025, Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company" or "IE") issued a press release announcing the release of a report entitled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" for its Santa Cruz Copper Project (the "Santa Cruz Project" or the "Project") located west of Casa Grande, Arizona, dated June 23, 2025 (the "PFS"). A copy of the Company's press release dated June 23, 2025 relating to the PFS is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K.

The Company intends to hold an investor call to discuss the release of the PFS on June 23, 2025 where a slideshow presentation discussing the results of the PFS will be presented. A copy of the slideshow presentation is furnished as Exhibit 99.2 to this Form 8-K.

The information contained in Exhibit 99.1 and 99.2 hereto shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any other filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

**Item 8.01 Other Events.**

**New Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Project**

 ****

On June 23, 2025, the Company provided a new Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary for its Santa Cruz Project, dated June 23, 2025, prepared in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for the Company by the following third-party qualified persons: Fluor Canada Ltd. ("Fluor"), BBA USA Inc. ("BBA"), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. ("Burns & McDonnell"), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ("Geosyntec"), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. ("H&A"), INTERA Incorporated ("INTERA"), KCB Consultants Ltd. ("KCB"), Life Cycle Geo, LLC ("LCG"), Met Engineering, LLC ("Met Engineering"), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. ("P&C"), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec"), and Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra Tech"). None of the qualified persons is affiliated with the Company or any other entity that has an ownership, royalty, or other interest in the property.

Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations in Regulation S-K 1300 ("S-K 1300"). All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States dollars (currency abbreviation: USD; currency symbol: US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions. All pricing is considered in first quarter 2025 dollars. Unless otherwise indicated, capital and operating costs do not include tariffs or escalations. Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

The information below is based on, or extracted from, the PFS. The PFS replaces and supersedes the prior S-K 1300 technical report summary for the Santa Cruz Project, which was an Initial Assessment.

***Property Setting***

The Project is a 92 kilometer drive south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and is accessed via the West Gila Bend Highway (Highway 84) 11 kilometers west of the city of Casa Grande, which has a population of approximately 57,700.

The greater Phoenix area is a major population center, with approximately 4.8 million people, and features an international airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and well-developed infrastructure and services that support the mining industry.

The climate in the Project area is typical of the Sonoran Desert, with temperatures ranging from -7°C to 47°C (19°F to 117°F) and an annual precipitation average ranging from 76 to 500 millimeters (3 to 30 inches) per year. Mining and exploration activities can be performed year-round, as there are no limiting weather or accessibility factors.

**Santa Cruz Copper Project Location**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg001.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

***Mineral Tenure, Ownership, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements & Permits***

The Santa Cruz Project is 100% owned by the Company through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mesa Cobre Land Holding Corp. ("Mesa Cobre").

***Mineral Tenure***

In 2021, IE acquired 238 unpatented mining lode claims from Central Arizona Resources, Ltd. In addition, IE acquired fee simple mineral title for two further land parcels: "CG100" and "Skull Valley". In 2022, IE acquired the 0.08 square kilometer (20-acre) "Skull Valley" property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and the 0.41 square kilometer (100.33-acre) "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of the project.

In 2023, IE acquired 16 Arizona State Land Department mineral exploration permits covering 27.95 square kilometers (~6,900 acres) of state mineral land. In 2024, IE exercised the agreement with D.R. Horton Phoenix East Construction, Inc. ("DRH"), granting IE, through Mesa Cobre, 100% of the mineral title for 26.0 square kilometers (~6,425 acres) of fee simple mineral estate, 39 federal unpatented mining lode claims (bringing the total claims controlled by IE to 277).

The total project area comprises fee simple land along with unpatented mining lode claims and Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits. Annual renewal fees for the unpatented mining lode claims and mineral exploration permits have been made as required. The area of proposed mine activity lies on fee simple land. Mineral control is summarized in the table and map below.

**Summary of the Company's Mineral Control**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Land Designation | Area (km2) |
| Fee Simple Mineral Ownership | 25.98 |
| Unpatented Mining Lode Claims (277 claims) | 25.92 |
| Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits (16 permits) | 30.47 |

---

**Santa Cruz Project Mineral Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg002.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

***Surface & Water Rights***

In 2022, IE acquired the surface rights to two land parcels: the 0.08 square kilometer (20-acre) Skull Valley property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and a 0.41 square kilometer (100.33-acre) land parcel "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of project. In August 2024, IE acquired the surface title to three 0.04 square kilometer (10-acre) parcels located in various areas of the project along with the mineral rights from DRH. The majority of the surface rights for the Santa Cruz Project were acquired in 2023. Surface rights are shown in the map below. IE acquired grandfathered irrigation rights and grandfathered Type 1 non-irrigation water rights in association with the private land purchased in 2023 and holds all necessary water rights for the life-of-mine plan envisaged in the PFS.

**Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg003.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025

***Royalties***

There are eight royalty owners for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, as summarized in the table below. Each royalty has its own distinct property description as shown in the map below.

**Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Royalty Owner | Royalty Description |
| Royalty Owner A | 10% of 1/800th of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the solution extraction / electrowinning ("SX/EW") process is completed |
| Royalty Owner B | 60% of 1/800th of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the SX/EW process is completed |
| Royalty Owner C | 2% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner D | 0.15% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner E | ½ of 1% net smelter return or ½ of 1% of 60% net smelter return if product is disposed of other than to a commercial smelter |
| Royalty Owner F | 10% net smelter return (capped at $7 million) |
| Royalty Owner G | 5% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner H | 1% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner I | $0.015 per pound of copper of additional mineable reserve copper over 2 billion pounds as determined by the "Definitive Feasibility Study" or by production beyond the amount estimated in the "Definitive Feasibility Study"; the royalty owner has the option to require payment in IE common stock at a 10% discount to the five-day volume weighted average price |

---

**Extent of Royalties**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg004.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

***History***

Copper mineralization, first discovered in the region in the 1960s, led to extensive drill programs across the project area. Exploration programs by several companies and joint ventures included diamond drilling and several geophysical surveys from the 1960s through the 1990s.

IE gained access to the land in August 2021 to start drill programs, completed a mineral resource estimate in 2022, an updated mineral resource estimate in early 2023, and an initial assessment in September 2023.

***Geology & Mineralization***

The Santa Cruz Project is situated within the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt, which is home to numerous productive copper deposits. Notable examples in Arizona include Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, Miami-Globe, San Manuel-Kalamazoo, Ray, Morenci, Sierrita, Twin Buttes, and the historically significant Sacaton Mine. These deposits are part of the larger physiographical area known as the Basin and Range Province, which covers much of the southwestern United States.

The porphyry copper deposits in the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt are the result of igneous activity during the Laramide Orogeny, which occurred between 50 and 80 million years ago. This geological event was driven by the subduction of the Farallon Tectonic Plate beneath the North American Tectonic Plate, resulting in the formation of a magmatic arc and the development of associated porphyry copper systems.

The project comprises four separate areas along a southwest-northeast corridor. These areas from southwest to northeast are known as the Southwest exploration area, the Santa Cruz deposit, the East Ridge deposit, and the Texaco deposit, all of which represent portions of one or more large porphyry copper systems separated by extensional Basin and Range normal faults. Each area has experienced variable periods of erosion, supergene enrichment, fault displacement, and tilting into their present positions.

Mineralization in the project area is divided into the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Supergene copper oxide mineralization mainly consists of atacamite and chrysocolla, with smaller amounts
of cuprous goethite, copper-bearing smectite clays, tenorite, cuprite, copper wad, and native copper.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Secondary supergene sulfide mineralization is dominantly chalcocite, which replaces hypogene sulfide.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Primary hypogene sulfide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite and molybdenite hosted within quartz-sulfide
stringers, veins, and breccias.

***Exploration, Drilling & Sampling***

IE has completed geophysical surveys including two dimensional, three dimensional, multichannel seismic, reprocessing of proprietary Typhoon™ three-dimensional perpendicular pole dipole induced polarization data, and ambient noise tomography. The geophysical datasets from these surveys were used to assist with geological interpretation and improved drill targeting.

A comprehensive surface ionic leach sampling program has also been completed across the project to assess in detecting copper mineralization at depth.

IE has completed 149 infill drillholes totaling approximately 120,000 meters since the 2023 initial assessment, bringing the total to 329 drillholes and 279,164 meters of combined drilling for the project since initiating exploration activity in 2021. Combined with historical drilling, IE has data for over 469 drillholes totaling 330,118 meters of combined drilling. The mineral resource estimates are based on data from 329 drillholes totaling 279,164 meters of combined drilling.

Detailed core logging is performed by IE geologists through digital data input into MX Deposit. Data that are logged include lithology, alteration, mineralization, veining, petrophysical data, and geotechnical parameters, such as faults, joints, fractures, hardness, and rock quality (Q-system) parameters. Additional characterization fields such as rock colors, grain sizes, textures, and supergene weathering features were also captured.

Approximately 5,884 density measurements from 210 drillholes were measured for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits.

Quality assurance and quality control for the IE drill programs consisted of inserting duplicates, blanks, and certified reference materials (standards) into the sample stream at set sampling intervals. BBA's review of the data indicated no material issues.

IE used 83 historical and 184 modern drillholes totaling over 70 kilometers of geotechnical drilling to analyze geotechnical characterization of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits. Historical drillholes were selected based on availability of rock quality designation data.

The groundwater flow model was calibrated and used to predict the residual passive inflows for the prefeasibility study mine plan. The predicted residual passive inflows resulting from the updated model, with mitigation measures of activated colloidal silica and grouting applied, indicate that the residual passive inflows for the first 10 years of the mine are at or below 6,000 gallons per minute, compared to the 12,000 gallons per minute estimated in the 2023 initial assessment model, in addition to two years of 3,000 gallons per minute of active pumping. From Years 11 through 25, the residual passive inflows in the updated model range from approximately 6,500 to 8,000 gallons per minute, compared to 15,000 to 18,000 gallons per minute predicted in the initial assessment model.

***Data Verification***

BBA personnel in the disciplines of geology, mineral resource estimation, mineral reserve estimation, and mining visited the project site in 2024. During the visit, BBA personnel reviewed and verified data acquisition procedures with IE personnel, visited active drill sites, and performed several other verification checks to ensure data integrity.

Based on the data made available, BBA considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed and that no material issues were identified from the programs. It is BBA's opinion that the geological data collection and quality assurance and control procedures used by IE are consistent with current industry practices and that the geological database is of suitable quality to support a mineral resource estimate.

***Metallurgical Testwork***

Metallurgy and processing test work were directed by Met Engineering, LLC and conducted at McClelland Labs in Sparks, Nevada, USA and at Blue Coast Research in Parksville, British Columbia, Canada. Metallurgical testwork included the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· establishing copper recoveries, based on sequential coppers for chloride-assisted, weak-sulfuric acid,
heap leaching of mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· determining commercial operating parameters for heap leaching mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Project,
including salt usage, sulfuric acid usage, ore cure/agglomeration practices, leach cell cycle times for an on/off leach pad design, annual
pregnant leach solution grades, and pregnant leach solution flow rate to solvent extraction.

A grade-recovery algorithm was developed based on sequential copper assays. For the life-of-mine processing, this equation produces a weighted average of 92.2% total copper recovery to cathode for leaching a 6-meter lift of ore crushed to 100% passing 9.5 mm for 180 days of irrigation utilizing an on/off leach pad.

There are no deleterious elements or factors that could have a significant effect on economic extraction of the copper in the mineralized material.

 **

***Mineral Resource Estimate***

 

***Estimation Methodology***

 ****

The Santa Cruz deposit has approximately 194,000 meters of drilling in 226 drillholes; East Ridge has approximately 49,000 meters of drilling in 62 holes; and Texaco has approximately 36,000 meters of drilling in 41 holes.

Geological domains were developed for the project based on alteration, lithological, and mineralogical characteristics, incorporating regional and local structural information. Normal faults separate the mineralization at the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits.

The Santa Cruz deposit was divided into several mineral domains: exotic domain, verde domain, leach cap, oxide domain, chalcocite enriched domain, and primary mineralization domain. The East Ridge deposit consists of a mix of oxide and chalcocite enriched domains. The Texaco deposit consists of all domains except for leach cap and exotic. The domains were further divided into subdomains based on individual grade profiles, which align with controls on mineralization. The following terms are assigned to the subdomains; these represent a local definition of the grade profile: high-grade, medium-grade, and low-grade.

Exploratory data analysis was conducted to determine the nature of element distribution and correlation of grades within individual lithological units, and to identify high-grade outlier samples. Capping was not applied to copper values as significant outliers were not identified. Samples were composited to 2-meter intervals. Variograms were completed by subdomain for each deposit.

The resource estimation methodology constrains the mineralization by using hard wireframe boundaries. Ordinary kriging was employed for the Santa Cruz deposit, and inverse distance squared was selected for the East Ridge and Texaco deposits. Multiple search passes were used for each deposit. Search parameters were based on variography and continuity of mineralization.

Validation checks were completed on the mineral resource estimates. These included visual comparison of estimated grade to composite grade, domain conformity, swath plots, and comparisons to alternate estimation methods.

Indicated and inferred classification was applied to the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits based on BBA's review that included the examination of drill spacing, visual comparison, kriging variance, distance to the nearest composite, and search pass, along with the search ellipsoid ranges. Collectively, this information was used to produce an initial classification script followed by manual wireframe application to further limit the mineral resource classification.

Mineral resources used commodity prices based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts. In the opinion of BBA, this price is generally aligned with pricing over the last one, three, and five years; forward-looking pricing from internationally recognized banks is appropriate for use in a mineral resource estimate. The commodity price considered three-year trailing averages.

***Mineral Resource Statement***

The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300 regulations. The in-situ mineral resource estimates for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, exclusive and inclusive of reserves, are presented in the tables below.

**In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Deposit | Classification | Tonnes <br> (kt) | Total Copper (%) | Acid Soluble Copper (%) | Cyanide Leach Copper (%) | Residual Copper (%) | Gold<br> (g/t) | Silver<br> (g/t) | Contained Copper (kt) | Total Acid Soluble Cu (kt) | Total Cyanide <br> Cu (kt) | Total Residual<br> Cu (kt) | Contained Gold (koz) | Contained Silver (koz) | Contained Copper (Mlbs) |
| Santa Cruz | Indicated | 178451 | 0.80 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.024 | 1.43 | 1435 | 607 | 359 | 477 | 139 | 8211 | 3163 |
| Santa Cruz | Inferred | 31998 | 0.73 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.021 | 1.78 | 232 | 68 | 54 | 110 | 21 | 1832 | 512 |
| East Ridge | Indicated | 4407 | 0.94 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.015 | 0.71 | 41 | 19 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 101 | 91 |
| East Ridge | Inferred | 48676 | 0.89 | 0.44 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.006 | 0.40 | 436 | 216 | 57 | 163 | 9 | 623 | 960 |
| Texaco | Inferred | 341345 | 0.78 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 0.028 | 0.81 | 2664 | 218 | 920 | 1537 | 302 | 8850 | 5873 |
| All Deposits | Indicated | 182859 | 0.81 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.024 | 1.41 | 1476 | 625 | 373 | 486 | 141 | 8312 | 3254 |
| All Deposits | Inferred | 422020 | 0.79 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.43 | 0.025 | 0.83 | 3332 | 503 | 1030 | 1809 | 333 | 11304 | 7346 |

---

Notes on mineral resources: 1. The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. 2. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 3. Mineral resources are reported in situ, inclusive of mineral reserves. 4. The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. 5. The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. 6. Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. 7. Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. 8. Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content. 10. k=thousand; t=tonne; g/t=grams per tonne; M=million; lb=pounds; oz=ounces; NSR=Net smelter return.

**In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Deposit | Classification | Tonnes<br> (kt) | Total Copper (%) | Acid Soluble Copper (%) | Cyanide Leach Copper (%) | Residual Copper (%) | Gold<br> (g/t) | Silver<br> (g/t) | Contained Copper (kt) | Total Acid Soluble Copper (kt) | Total Cyanide<br> Cu (kt) | Total Residual<br> Cu (kt) | Contained Gold (koz) | Contained Silver (koz) | Contained Copper (Mlbs) |
| Santa Cruz | Indicated | 317709 | 0.95 | 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.027 | 1.62 | 3017 | 1517 | 956 | 543 | 279 | 16513 | 6650 |
| Santa Cruz | Inferred | 31998 | 0.73 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.021 | 1.78 | 232 | 68 | 54 | 110 | 21 | 1832 | 512 |
| East Ridge | Indicated | 8742 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 0.014 | 0.68 | 88 | 40 | 34 | 14 | 4 | 191 | 193 |
| East Ridge | Inferred | 48676 | 0.89 | 0.44 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.006 | 0.40 | 436 | 216 | 57 | 163 | 9 | 623 | 960 |
| Texaco | Inferred | 341345 | 0.78 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 0.028 | 0.81 | 2664 | 218 | 920 | 1537 | 302 | 8850 | 5873 |
| All Deposits | Indicated | 326450 | 0.95 | 0.48 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.027 | 1.59 | 3104 | 1557 | 989 | 558 | 283 | 16704 | 6844 |
| All Deposits | Inferred | 422020 | 0.79 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.43 | 0.025 | 0.83 | 3332 | 503 | 1030 | 1809 | 333 | 11304 | 7346 |

---

Notes on mineral resources: 1. The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. 2. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 3. Mineral resources are reported in situ, inclusive of mineral reserves. 4. The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. 5. The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. 6. Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. 7. Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. 8. Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content. 10. k=thousand; t=tonne; g/t=grams per tonne; M=million; lb=pounds; oz=ounces; NSR=Net smelter return.

***Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate***

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the mineral resource estimates are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to long-term metal price assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to the input values for mining, processing, and general and administrative costs ("G&A")
to constrain the estimate

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized subdomains

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes in assumptions of marketability of the final product

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and mining assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labor, and supplies could be affected by epidemics,
pandemics, and other public health crises, or geopolitical influence.

***Mineral Reserve Estimate***

***Estimation Methodology***

Underground mineral reserves were estimated by BBA. Estimates were prepared for the Santa Cruz deposit, a portion of the East Ridge deposit, and the Verde domain located within the Santa Cruz deposit. The primary mining method for both deposits employs longhole stoping without pillars, utilizing a primary and secondary stoping sequence. Additionally, a few small lenses within the East Ridge deposit use a drift-and-fill mining method. Stopes will be backfilled with cemented rockfill to the end of the first quarter of 2029 and then all stopes will be backfilled after mining with paste backfill for the remainder of the mine life. Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves. Inferred mineral resources were not converted to mineral reserves; however, if inferred mineral resources fell within the mineral reserve designs, they were assumed to have zero grade.

The underground mine approach was designed using zones that were amenable to different mining methods based on geotechnical considerations, access requirements, deposit shape, orientation and grade, and mining depths. Waste or low-grade blocks in the stope shapes were treated as internal dilution. Mine designs were modified by including the capital and operating development needed to access the stopes, and the applicable infrastructure requirements.

Net smelter return ("NSR") represents the gross revenue generated from the sale of a refined metal product (in this case, copper cathodes) after deducting all associated off-site costs. For a mine producing copper cathodes via heap leaching and SX/EW, the traditional "smelter" and "refining" charges inherent in concentrate sales are not applicable. Instead, the offsite deductions are specific to the direct sale of cathodes.

The primary metal produced at the Santa Cruz Project is copper. While byproducts of gold and silver are present, the current heap leach SX/EW process does not recover these precious metals. As is common with polymetallic deposits, the cutoff value for mineral reserves is determined and expressed in terms of net smelter return value per tonne.

The NSR is calculated based on unit metal values, utilizing representative smelter contract terms, freight costs, and forecasted metal prices. The metal prices and metallurgical recovery rates used for NSR calculations and the operating cost for cutoff value calculations are summarized in the tables below. Royalties are factored into each block of the mineral resource model.

Mineral reserves are assessed using commodity prices derived from long-term forecasts from analysts and banks. According to BBA, this pricing generally reflects the trends observed over the past one, three, and five years, and the forward-looking prices from internationally recognized banks are deemed appropriate for mineral reserve estimates.

**NSR Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Product | Unit | Value |
| Acid Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 98.8 |
| Cyanide Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 85.4 |
| Residual Copper Recovery | % | 35.1 |
| Recoverable Copper | % | 90.9 |
| Net Recoverable Copper | % | 90.0 |
| Copper Price | $ per pound | 4.00 |

---

**Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Criteria | Unit | Santa Cruz | East Ridge | East Ridge |
| Criteria | Unit | 30 meter Longhole | Drift and Fill | 15 meter Longhole |
| Criteria | Unit | Leach | Leach | Leach |
| Cathode Split | % | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Onsite Costs |  |  |  |  |
| Mining Costs – Direct | $ per tonne processed | 31.00 | 47.05 | 47.05 |
| Processing Costs | $ per tonne processed | 10.32 | 10.32 | 10.32 |
| G&A | $ per tonne processed | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 |
| Onsite Total | $ per tonne processed | 43.95 | 60.00 | 60.00 |
| Onsite Rounded NSR Breakeven Cutoff | $ per tonne | 44.00 | 60.00 | 60.00 |

---

***Mineral Reserve Statement***

Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves. Inferred mineral resources were excluded from the mineral reserve estimate. Mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz Copper Project are estimated for the Santa Cruz deposit and a portion of the East Ridge deposit, as well as the Verde domain within the Santa Cruz deposit.

Mineral reserves are supported by a mine plan, engineering analysis, and modifying factors.

The point of reference for the mineral reserves is the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant. Mineral reserves are reported on a 100% basis.

The mineral reserve estimate for the Santa Cruz Copper Project is shown below.

**Santa Cruz Project Mineral Reserve Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Deposit | Classification | Tonnes<br> (kt) | Total Copper<br> (%) | Acid Soluble Copper (%) | Cyanide Leach Copper<br> (%) | Residual Copper<br> (%) | Contained Copper<br> (kt) | Total Acid Soluble Cu<br> (kt) | Total Cyanide Cu<br> (kt) | Total Residual Cu<br> (kt) |
| Santa Cruz | Probable | 132061 | 1.08 | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 1430 | 820 | 544 | 65 |
| East Ridge | Probable | 4112 | 1.03 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.12 | 42 | 19 | 18 | 5 |
| Total | Probable | 136173 | 1.08 | 0.61 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 1472 | 839 | 563 | 70 |

---

Notes: **1.** The mineral reserves in this estimate are current to June 23, 2025 and were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc. They are reported in accordance with the definitions for mineral reserves in S-K 1300. **2.** The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities. **3.** The mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits were completed using Deswik mining software. Mineral reserves are defined within stope designs that are prescribed by rock mechanics, considering the specific characteristics of deposits, mineral domains, mining methods, and the mining sequence. Transverse longhole stoping is the optimal mining method with uppers and cut & fill methods used where appropriate. Mining will occur in blocks, extracting ore from the bottom upwards, with paste backfill providing ground support to sustain a production rate of 20,000 tonnes per day for the first 15 years of operation. **4.** Mineral reserves are estimated at an NSR cutoff value of $43.95/t for longhole stoping and $60/t for longitudinal retreat stopes and drift and fill. The NSR values reflect the discrete metallurgical responses for each mineral reserve block using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb. **5.** Mineral reserves account for mining loss and dilution. **6.** Mineral reserves are a subset of the indicated mineral resource and do not include the inferred mineral resource. **7.** Rounding, as required by the guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

***Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate***

Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimate include the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to long-term metal price assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to the input assumptions used to derive the mineable shapes applicable to the assumed underground
and open pit mining methods used to constrain the estimates

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to the forecast dilution and mining recovery assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to the cutoff grades used to constrain the estimates

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· variations in geotechnical (including seismicity), hydrogeological, mining, and processing recovery assumptions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions.

***Mining Methods***

The Santa Cruz Project is an undeveloped brownfield project where mineral reserves have been identified for two deposits: Santa Cruz and East Ridge.

The Santa Cruz deposit is located approximately 480 to 940 meters below the surface. Based on the mineralization's geometry and supporting geotechnical data, transverse underground longhole stoping has been selected as the most suitable mining method. Mining will be conducted in blocks, with ore being extracted from the bottom upward within each block while utilizing paste backfill to provide ground support. A sill pillar will be maintained between the blocks. The paste backfill is designed to be strong enough to allow adjacent filled stopes to be mined without requiring additional pillars.

The stopes for the Santa Cruz deposit will have varying widths of 12 to 18 meters and lengths ranging from 10 to 17 meters, depending on the geotechnical domain, zone, and mining sequence (primary or secondary). The levels in the mine are spaced 30 meters apart. The Verde zone is a subdomain within the Santa Cruz deposit, and the production stopes in this area will be accessed from the Santa Cruz mine levels, featuring standard dimensions of 20 meters (height) x 15 meters (width) x 20 meters (length).

The East Ridge deposit is situated to the north of the main Santa Cruz deposit, approximately 310 to 790 meters below the surface. It consists of multiple tabular lenses and will be mined using a hybrid approach that combines longhole stoping and the drift-and-fill method, depending on the geometry of the orebody in each zone. At East Ridge, longhole stopes will measure 15 meters (height) x 10 meters (width) x 8 meters (length), accessed via longitudinal entries. For zones using the drift-and-fill method, the drifts will have dimensions of 5 meters (height) x 5 meters (width), with variable lengths determined by the local rock mass condition. Mining will begin with a drift sized at 5 meters (height) x 5 meters (width), followed by paste backfill and curing before the development of the next adjacent drift in the orebody.

Mine access will be provided through two decline drifts from the surface: one for main access and the other for a Railveyor system to handle materials. Ore will be transported from the stopes by load-haul-dump equipment to an orepass system, which will transfer the ore from a chute to a conveyor system. From the conveyor system, it will be loaded onto the Railveyor and brought to surface. Main intake and exhaust raises will be developed to ensure the mine workings are adequately ventilated. The combined production target for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits is approximately 20,000 tonnes per day.

The Santa Cruz Project encompasses three mining zones: Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge, depicted in the figure below. The Santa Cruz zone is the primary production area and is structurally divided into northern and southern regions.

**Mining Zones of Santa Cruz and East Ridge Deposits, View Looking North**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg012.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

Primary (first-pass) support will be installed in conjunction with the advance of excavation and will provide support and reinforcement. Any support applied at a later stage will be considered secondary (or second-pass) support. Excavation in rock will be performed via conventional (drill and blast) methods or with a roadheader machine.

The Santa Cruz Project mine life is expected to be 23 years with construction from 2026 to 2028 followed by schedule production to 2051. The table below summarizes the production in the mine plan. The "Ore" column represents the total development and production ore for Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge mining zones.

**Santa Cruz Scheduled Production Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Year | Ore<br> (tonnes in thousands) | Total Copper<br> (%) | AsCu<br> (%) | CNCu<br> (%) | Cu_Res<br> (%) | Ratio <br> Acid Soluble Copper:Total Copper |
| 2026 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2027 | 28 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.70 |
| 2028 | 1673 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.71 |
| 2029 | 3973 | 1.29 | 0.99 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.77 |
| 2030 | 5377 | 1.35 | 0.86 | 0.44 | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| 2031 | 6737 | 1.15 | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.53 |
| 2032 | 7492 | 1.12 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.06 | 0.50 |
| 2033 | 7439 | 1.13 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2034 | 7875 | 1.02 | 0.64 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.63 |
| 2035 | 7441 | 1.13 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
| 2036 | 7740 | 1.06 | 0.75 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.71 |
| 2037 | 7937 | 1.01 | 0.58 | 0.38 | 0.05 | 0.57 |
| 2038 | 7961 | 0.99 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.04 | 0.52 |
| 2039 | 7256 | 1.15 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.08 | 0.42 |
| 2040 | 7400 | 1.14 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.46 |
| 2041 | 7819 | 1.05 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2042 | 7851 | 1.07 | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0.48 |
| 2043 | 5956 | 1.07 | 0.68 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 0.64 |
| 2044 | 4177 | 1.04 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.03 | 0.48 |
| 2045 | 3732 | 1.04 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.65 |
| 2046 | 3338 | 1.05 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.64 |
| 2047 | 3453 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.69 |
| 2048 | 3586 | 1.07 | 0.65 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0.60 |
| 2049 | 3655 | 0.99 | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.06 | 0.53 |
| 2050 | 3643 | 1.04 | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.65 |
| 2051 | 2636 | 0.92 | 0.66 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.71 |
| Total | 136173 | 1.08 | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.05 |  |

---

The figures below shows a tonne-grade graph for production and includes estimated waste rock and the tonnes of material mined over the life-of-mine from the orebodies and development.

**Santa Cruz Tonne – Grade Graph**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg006.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

**Santa Cruz Tonnes of Mined Material**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg007.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

The injection of activated colloidal silica to reduce water flow around development excavations has been evaluated by Geosyntec for the project. During initial decline development where the twin declines pass through the upper portion of the Gila conglomerate and high hydraulic conductivity zones, standard ramp dewatering methods—in addition to methods like activated colloidal silica injection—support de-risking of early development.

Cemented paste backfill will be used as the primary backfill method to support the mining cycle at Santa Cruz Project and facilitate the excavation of adjacent voids. Cemented rockfill is used for the initial nine months of stoping as production ramps up and spent ore becomes available from the on/off heap leach pad. Paste backfill from milled spent ore is used for the remainder of the life of mine. The spent ore requires conditioning prior to use in the backfill system to ensure suitable properties for paste backfill.

Grade control at the Santa Cruz mine will be enhanced through technology integrated into the materials handling system, such as cross-belt analyzers. Additionally, production hole sampling and onsite testing at the surface assay laboratory will be employed to reconcile results with the mine plan.

The underground ventilation system is designed to ensure efficient airflow and maintain appropriate working temperatures underground throughout the life of mine. Using a pull system with main exhaust fans, the system has a capacity of 940 cubic meters per second, supported by two declines and three primary ventilation shafts. All main fans are planned to be installed on the surface at East Ridge shaft and Santa Cruz shaft #1, while booster fans will be needed to regulate ventilation flow underground. Due to high ambient temperatures, mechanical cooling is provided by a central refrigeration plant with a peak capacity of 20 megawatts of refrigeration. The system features variable frequency drives and regulators to allow ventilation control underground, ensuring adequate air quality and efficient clearance of mine blast gases.

***Recovery Methods***

Process for the Santa Cruz Project has been designed to cycle oxide and secondary sulfide ores through an on/off heap leach pad to produce a copper-rich pregnant leach solution that will be processed in the onsite solvent extraction and electrowinning circuit for recovery.

The process designs were based on existing technologies and proven equipment. The process and refinery plant designs are based on the results of metallurgical testwork on the mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Project. The designs are conventional.

The simplified overall process flow diagram is presented in the figure below.

Ore produced from the underground mine will be processed using a heap leach and solvent extraction and electrowinning flowsheet to produce London Metal Exchange grade copper cathode. The heap leaching process will take place on an on/off pad. Spent ore will be removed from the leach pad and processed for paste backfill or stacked on a spent ore pile. Approximately 50% of the spent ore will be processed for use in paste backfill. Operations will be conducted 24 hours per day, 365 days per year for approximately 26 years at a design stacking rate of up to 22,000 tonnes per day.

Run-of-mine ore will be delivered to surface at a diameter of less than 20 centimeters via the Railveyor. Ore from underground will be either fed, via a surge hopper, to crushing or diverted and conveyed to the coarse ore stockpile for future use. Fine ore (undersize from the crushing circuit) will be trucked to the agglomeration drums where sulfuric acid and sodium chloride can be added to facilitate agglomeration and leaching.

Crushed and agglomerated ore will be delivered to the leach pad via a combination of haul truck and overland conveying and stacking equipment. The final mobile conveyor will feed two self-propelled indexing conveyors in series, which in turn will feed the self-propelled mobile radial stacker. The cells will be 'retreat' stacked by the radial stacker in a 130-meter-wide, half-moon shape.

The on/off heap leach pad will be divided into seven cells, each 130 by 640 meters. There will be 25-meter-wide spacer strips between the cells effectively creating multiple leach pads and providing safety zones between the cells. The liner for the leach pad is comprised of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane overlaying a geosynthetic layer of clay overlaying prepared native foundation materials or grading fill.

Ore will be stacked at up to 22,000 tonnes per day, and therefore it will take approximately 36 days to stack each cell at design production rate. Each of the cells will progress through cycles in sequence with each stacking cycle taking 36 days and an entire cell cycle taking 265 days.

**Simplified Process Flowsheet**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg008.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

The cycles are as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· stacking (36 days)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· piping connections and stacker relocation (2 days)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· irrigation five 36-day cycles (180 days)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· drain down, water rinse, drain down, and piping removal (30 days)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· spent ore removal (28 days)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· inspection and rehabilitation (2 days).

The cells will be irrigated with raffinate (depleted pregnant leach solution from the solution extraction process). Leach solution will report to the pregnant leach solution pond. At the end of the leach cycle, spent ore will be removed to the spent ore piles or the paste plant using loaders and trucks, see the figure below.

**Seven-Cell Heap Leach and Solution Management**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg013.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

Solution will be managed in a series of lined ponds, including the raffinate pond, raffinate storm water pond, pregnant leach solution pond, pregnant leach solution stormwater pond, secondary pregnant leach solution pond, and spent ore area stormwater ponds. The pond system has been sized to contain normal operating solutions and stormwater and to maintain separation between contact and non-contact water. The proposed locations of the solution management ponds are depicted in the figure below.

**Solution Management Ponds, Leach Pad, and Spent Ore Piles**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg010.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

The solvent extraction circuit design comprises two parallel trains. Each train will consist of two extraction stages, two wash stages, and one strip stage.

The copper electrowinning tankhouse will comprise electrowinning cells with lead anodes and stainless-steel cathode blanks. Cathodes (copper electroplated onto stainless steel blanks) will be harvested manually using an overhead crane and bail. Cathodes will be stripped in an industry standard automated stripping machine and the washed blanks will be returned to the cells. Product cathode copper will be bundled, sampled, weighed, labeled, and shipped.

***Infrastructure***

The Santa Cruz Copper Project site surface infrastructure comprises the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· an open excavation 60-meter-deep "box cut" ramp for accessing a twin decline portal to the
underground mine workings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· three ventilation shafts to facilitate air flows to the underground mine workings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· primary mine ventilation fans, hardware, and ducting to control ventilation to the underground mine workings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· refrigeration plant to control temperatures in the underground mine workings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· ventilation bore for refrigeration

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· rock crushing process plant and temporary stockpiles

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· two spent ore facilities; north and south pads

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· on/off leach pad with associated collection ponds and mobile stacking

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· solution extraction and electrowinning process facilities

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· mobile cement batch plant facility

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· paste backfill batch facility

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· maintenance, and warehouse facilities

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· first aid/rescue building

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· multiple various ancillary outbuildings

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· entry security shack and various visitor and project parking spaces

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· equipment delivery and open laydown/storage area

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· multiple improved and unimproved access roads

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· piping and pumping systems for process and water services

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· explosives storage facility

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· high-voltage transmission line and substation

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· environmental monitoring facilities

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· emergency power generation facility

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· solar power and battery storage facility.

Key infrastructure locations are shown on the map below.

**Santa Cruz Site Plan**

![](tm2518281d1_8kimg011.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025

Power for the project will be provided from a combination of onsite renewable energy supply and utility grid supply. The goal of the mine development is to achieve a minimum of 70% of the energy supply from renewable sources including onsite photovoltaic solar generation built by a third-party developer in conjunction with a Power Purchase Agreement facilitated by local power provider Electrical District No. 3 plus onsite battery energy storage system. The renewables facility was sized based on available area and to provide 40 megawatts of continuous power annually with over 90% load coverage.

The proposed onsite battery energy storage system consists of a lithium-ion system rated for 140 megawatts / 560 megawatt hours. There is an additional opportunity to utilize the emerging vanadium redox flow battery technology. A percentage of the lithium-ion battery energy storage system could be replaced by a vanadium redox flow battery system. VRB Energy USA Inc. is the license holder of vanadium redox battery technology in the United States and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VRB Energy Inc., a 90%-owned and controlled subsidiary of IE.

The Santa Cruz Project will have an estimated operating load of 78.7 megawatts and a forecast annual consumption of between 580,000 and 690,000 megawatt hours during peak production years.

Water supply for process operations will be sourced from existing grandfathered Type I non-irrigation rights and mine dewatering. Potable water will be trucked in from the city. Trucked water will be stored in a tank to service the surface facilities.

Water management operations include systems of underground dewatering, water collection and conveyance facilities, water storage, water use, and various management options for discharge of excess water. Water not used for underground mining, the paste backfill plant, the process plant, and the on/off heap leach pad can be pumped to storage reservoirs. Rapid infiltration basins are used to capture non-contact stormwater runoff to prevent stormwater from coming into contact with mining operations.

Testwork confirmed the extracted groundwater quality will be acceptable for irrigation use when applied to suitable crops (e.g., cotton, alfalfa, pasture grasses) commonly grown in the vicinity of the project. The water distribution system is designed to distribute water to agricultural end-users, without treatment, and includes a side-stream water treatment process that may be used if the extracted groundwater does not meet the standards defined by end-users.

Onsite accommodations facilities are neither required nor planned. Personnel will reside in nearby settlements including Casa Grande, Maricopa, the Phoenix metropolitan area, and Tucson, and will commute to site by vehicle. Parking, security, fencing, and a gatehouse are included in the design.

The infrastructure buildings to be built on site include explosive magazine storage; cap magazine storage; core shack; process laboratory; security and main gate; fueling station; mine, plant operations building, changehouse, and mine dry; first aid and emergency rescue facilities; mining facility warehouse.

***Market Studies & Contracts***

Copper is a globally traded commodity that has established benchmark pricing in the form of exchanges such as the London Metals Exchange or Commodity Exchange Inc. The Santa Cruz Project aims to produce copper cathode. IE plans to sell the copper in the United States.

Refined copper cathodes will be sold with reference to the prices on the Commodity Exchange or London Metals Exchange at an agreed-upon quotational period. An additional premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers. Factors affecting the premium will include the shape and chemical specification of the cathode, together with the geographical location of the delivery point in relation to where the cathode is going to be consumed.

This study uses a base copper price of $4.25 per pound, which is based on a review of the one-, three-, and five-year trailing averages, as well as consensus forecasts from major banks and a market study completed by Ocean Partners for the Company.

Due to the shape, chemical composition, and origin point of the cathode, it is expected that a premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers that is marginally above the historical average. For financial modeling purposes, this premium is estimated at $0.14 per pound ($300 per tonne).

The below table summarizes the one-, three-, and five-year trailing price for copper using the LME Grade A monthly average as well as consensus forecasts from the major banks (CIBC, 2025) and Ocean Partners (2025).

**Commodity Price Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | LME Trailing Average ($ per pound) | LME Trailing Average ($ per pound) | LME Trailing Average ($ per pound) | Forecast ($ per pound) | Forecast ($ per pound) | Forecast ($ per pound) | Forecast ($ per pound) | Forecast ($ per pound) |
|  | 1-Year | 3-Year | 5-Year | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | Long-term |
| BBA<sup>1</sup> | 4.22 | 3.96 | 3.95 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Banks Forecast<sup>2</sup> |  |  |  | 4.36 | 4.52 | 4.65 |  | 4.31 |
| Ocean Partners<sup>3</sup> |  |  |  | 4.31 | 4.54 | 4.76 | 4.65 | 4.31 |

---

Notes: <sup>1</sup> BBA, Metal Pricing_R00, June 2025. <sup>2</sup> CIBC Consensus Commodity Prices – June 2025. <sup>3</sup> Ocean Partners, April 2025. LME = London Metals Exchange.

At this time, no sales agreements or contracts have been executed with vendors, contractors, or manufacturers.

***Environmental, Closure & Permitting***

Environmental studies have included examination of flora and fauna, threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, surface water mapping, cultural heritage, air quality, carbon intensity, surface water monitoring, groundwater monitoring, water quality, material characterization, and mine material environmental behavior.

Much of the property has been previously disturbed from its natural state. These disturbances include flood control features, such as the canal identified as the Santa Cruz Wash Canal, paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural practices. These disturbances have removed all potential natural surface water features that may have existed in this area. The only features within the property that possess characteristics of an ordinary high-water mark and may be potential Waters of the United States are the north branch of the Santa Cruz Wash and the constructed Santa Cruz Wash Canal.

The project is committed to responsible environmental management, with a particular focus on minimizing air quality impacts. The project is located within the West Pinal County PM10 (particulate matter emissions with a diameter less than 10 microns) nonattainment area. Accordingly, the project will take specific measures to control and effectively mitigate dust. These measures will be in alignment with both local and state requirements.

A groundwater monitoring program to continue collecting baseline water quality data was developed and implemented in October 2023. The objective of the monitoring plan is to establish a current baseline water quality profile for the site and help inform IE on best management practices for groundwater monitoring during and after mining operations.

The major permits for the project will require state, county, and local authorizations. Several of these permits have been issued for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities. Other permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted. The remaining permit applications for construction and operations will be prepared and submitted as sufficient design and engineering information become available.

The eventual closure and reclamation of the Santa Cruz Project will be directed and regulated under two separate but interconnected regulatory programs in Arizona: the Arizona State Mine Inspector and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Both programs are well-established and statutes and rules are subject to licensing timeframes.

Once the facility has been sufficiently designed to advance to mine development and operation, IE will need to apply for and receive an Aquifer Protection Permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and submit and receive approval from the Arizona State Mine Inspector for a project reclamation plan. The closure approach and related closure cost estimates must be submitted following approval and before facility construction and operation.

Although an operational mined land reclamation plan has not yet been developed for the project, a preliminary closure cost estimate has been developed. Based on the conceptual design plan in the PFS, the closure costs for the Santa Cruz Project are estimated at $35 million.

In alignment with the Company's community engagement and partnership standards, the project is being developed with a well-defined strategy to establish and uphold the support of the surrounding communities. At present, the project has initiated outreach with Native American communities that have ancestral ties to the land. In addition, community outreach with local stakeholders, and community involvement and potential partnerships are actively being pursued and/or assessed.

***Capital & Operating Cost Estimates***

***Capital Cost Estimate***

 **

For the Santa Cruz Project, capital and operating costs were determined based on the mine plan and SX/EW plant design. The estimation process incorporated assessments of material and labor requirements derived from the design, analysis of the process flowsheet, and anticipated consumption of power and supplies.

Cost estimation is based on a combination of vendor and consumable quotes and an internal database. Approximately 80% of the capital estimate is based on detailed quotes with estimated labor installation. For the purposes of this study, initial capital expenditure is assumed to be costs incurred in 2026, 2027, and 2028. By the end of 2028, ore production from stopes has been established and the SX/EW plant has been installed to begin copper production. Additional mine and plant capital costs are incurred from 2029 and 2050 to continue meeting mine ramp up and production demands and are included in sustaining capital costs.

Total life-of-mine capital costs are $2.36 billion: $1.24 billion in initial capital and $1.28 billion in sustaining capital. Capital costs are summarized in the table below.

**Estimated Total Capital Cost**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Capital Costs Summary** | **Initial Cost<br> ($M)** | **Sustaining Cost ($M)** | **Total LOM Capital<br> Cost ($M)** |
| Pre-production Mining Costs | 89 |  | 89 |
| Mining | 688 | 1193 | 1881 |
| Process | 240 | 65 | 305 |
| Surface Infrastructure | 61 | 8 | 69 |
| Indirects | 46 | 7 | 53 |
| Engineering, procurement, and construction management | 64 | 2 | 66 |
| Contingency | 48 | 5 | 53 |
| **Total Initial Capital** | **1236** |  |  |
| **Total Sustaining Capital** |  | **1281** |  |
| Reclamation and Closure Costs<sup>\*</sup> | 2 | -163 | -161 |
| **Total Life-of-Mine Capital Costs** | **1238** | **1118** | **2355** |

---

Note: Closure costs include land sales at the end of life of mine. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

***Operating Cost Estimate***

Total life-of-mine operating costs are $3.95 billion, as summarized in the table below.

**Estimated Operating Costs**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **$M Total** | **$/t Ore Processed** | **$/lb Copper Produced** |
| Mining |  |  |  |
| Consumables | 1239 | 9.22 | 0.41 |
| Mobile Equipment | 432 | 3.24 | 0.14 |
| Haulage | 39 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
| Labor | 626 | 4.73 | 0.21 |
| Power | 149 | 1.19 | 0.05 |
| Mine Services and Indirect | 55 | 0.40 | 0.02 |
| **Subtotal** | **2538** | **19.07** | **0.85** |
| **SX/EW Plant and Infrastructure** |  |  |  |
| Consumables | 276 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
| Hauling and Mobile Equipment | 177 | 1.30 | 0.06 |
| Labor | 185 | 1.36 | 0.06 |
| Power | 300 | 2.20 | 0.10 |
| Maintenance | 58 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
| **Subtotal** | **996** | **7.31** | **0.33** |
| G&A | 414 | 3.04 | 0.14 |
| **Total** | **3948** | **29.42** | **1.32** |

---

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. M=Millions; t=tonnes; lb=pounds.

***Economic Analysis***

Based on the cash flow model, the after-tax financial model resulted in an internal rate of return ("IRR") of 20.0% and a net present value ("NPV") of $1.4 billion using an 8% discount rate. The after-tax payback period, after start of operations, is 4.4 years. The pre-tax base case financial model resulted in an IRR of 22.0% and an NPV of $1.9 billion using an 8% discount rate.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project contemplates average annual copper cathode production of approximately 72,000 tonnes for the first 15 years of copper production and the average annual production is approximately 35,000 tonnes for the remaining 8 years of the life of mine.

The total life of mine is 23 years at an average C1 cash cost of $1.32 per pound of copper and sustaining cash costs of $2.01 per pound of copper.

A variable cut-off grade strategy optimizes recovery in the early years and maximizes mine life in the later years of the mine plan.

The financial analysis summary is shown in the table below.

**Estimated Operating Costs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Life of Mine** | **First 15 Years** |
| **Production Data** | **Production Data** | **Production Data** |
| Mine Life | 23 | 15 |
| Reserve Tonnes | 136 | 106 |
| Copper Grade | 1.08 | 1.10 |
| Daily Throughput | 15000 | 20000 |
| Annual Copper Production | 56685 | 72186 |
| Total Copper Cathode Produced | 1360 | 1083 |
| Recovery | 92.2 | 92.4 |
| **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** |
| Initial Capital | 1236 | - |
| Sustaining Capital | 1281 | 1176 |
| **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** |
| Mining Cost | 19.07 | 19.55 |
| Processing Cost | 7.31 | 7.02 |
| General and Administrative Cost | 3.04 | 3.03 |
| Royalties | 5.26 | 5.56 |
| Total Operating Cost | 34.68 | 35.16 |
| Operating + Sustaining Cost | 43.98 | 46.23 |
| C1 Cash Cost | 1.32 | 1.29 |
| All-in-Sustaining Cost | 2.01 | 1.99 |
| Financial Analysis | Financial Analysis | Financial Analysis |
| Copper Price | 4.25 | 4.25 |
| Domestic Cathode Premium | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Pre-Tax Cashflow | 6148 | 4501 |
| Pre-Tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1880 | - |
| Pre-Tax Internal Rate of Return | 22 | - |
| After-Tax Cashflow | 4961 | 3637 |
| After-Tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1376 | - |
| After-Tax Internal Rate of Return | 20 | - |
| After-Tax Payback Period | 4.4 |  |

---

***Risks***

The risks associated with the Santa Cruz Project are generally those expected with underground mining operations and include the accuracy of the mineral resource and mineral reserve models, and/or operational impacts.

In addition, the noted factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The capital cost estimates at mines under development may increase as construction progresses. This may
negatively affect the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The life-of-mine plan assumes that the project can be permitted based on envisaged timelines. If the permitting
schedule is delayed, this could impact costs and proposed production.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The long-term reclamation and mitigation of the Santa Cruz Project are subject to assumptions as to closure
timeframes and closure cost estimates. If these cannot be met, there is a risk to the costs and timing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Climate changes could impact operating costs and ability to operate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Political risk from challenges to the current state or federal mining laws.

***Opportunities***

Potential opportunities for the project include the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources to higher-confidence categories, with additional
drilling and supporting studies, such that this higher confidence material could potentially be converted to mineral reserves.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Optimizing the mine plan based upon market conditions. At present, the production stopes are dictated
by their copper content based upon a flat long term copper price.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Completing additional underground core diamond drilling and development within the ore, there could be
a reason to increase the width and/or height of the stopes, if geotechnical factors allow.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· IE holds a significant ground package that retains significant exploration potential for new operations
proximal to the current mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates, with the support of additional studies.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Ongoing leach testwork will focus on optimizing leach conditions to maximize copper recovery from chalcocite
and reduce heap leach pad capital costs and solvent extraction circuit capital costs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Simplification and optimization of the ore crushing circuit should provide for an opportunity to reduce
plant capital costs.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Use of two decades of South American knowledge and expertise at applying chloride-assisted leach technology
to inform construction of the on/off heap leach pad.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The low elevation profile of the heap leach pad (6-meter lift on/off pad) and the flat topographic terrain
should provide cost saving opportunities to use low head type pumps for pregnant leach solution, raffinate, and organic pumping that can
use less expensive materials of construction for pumps like fiberglass, bromo-butyl rubber-lined carbon steel (not applicable for organic)
and high-density polyethylene compared to exotic metal pumps resistant to this corrosion environment such as tantalum and titanium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There is potential for a considerable positive impact to the operating cost estimate by optimizing the
paste backfill recipe and reducing the binder requirements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There is potential to increase material handling and throughput, further optimizing the mine plan.

***Conclusions***

Under the assumptions presented in the PFS, the Santa Cruz Project consists of mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates that support a positive cash flow.

***Recommendations***

 ****

The recommended work programs to advance detailed engineering, operational readiness, permitting, and critical long-lead items total $22.4 million. The budget for recommended work is summarized in the table below.

**Proposed Reagent & Process Consumables**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Discipline** | **Cost ($ in millions)** |
| Permitting | 1.4 |
| Environmental Testing | 1 |
| Detailed Engineering – Surface & Underground | 9.1 |
| Long-Lead Items | 3.7 |
| Project Support | 4.2 |
| Contingency | 3 |
| Total | 22.4 |

---

**Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.**

**(d) Exhibits.**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Exhibit No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.1](tm2518281d1_ex23-1.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of BBA USA Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-1.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.2](tm2518281d1_ex23-2.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-2.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.3](tm2518281d1_ex23-3.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Fluor Canada Ltd.](tm2518281d1_ex23-3.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.4](tm2518281d1_ex23-4.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-4.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.5](tm2518281d1_ex23-5.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Haley & Aldrich, Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-5.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.6](tm2518281d1_ex23-6.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of INTERA Incorporated](tm2518281d1_ex23-6.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.7](tm2518281d1_ex23-7.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of KCB Consultants Ltd.](tm2518281d1_ex23-7.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.8](tm2518281d1_ex23-8.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Life Cycle Geo, LLC](tm2518281d1_ex23-8.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.9](tm2518281d1_ex23-9.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Met Engineering, LLC](tm2518281d1_ex23-9.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.10](tm2518281d1_ex23-10.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd.](tm2518281d1_ex23-10.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.11](tm2518281d1_ex23-11.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Stantec Consulting Services Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-11.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[23.12](tm2518281d1_ex23-12.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Consent of Tetra Tech, Inc.](tm2518281d1_ex23-12.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[96.1](tm2518281d1_ex96-1.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona, Prepared by: Fluor Canada Ltd., BBA USA Inc., Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Haley & Aldrich, Inc., INTERA Incorporated, KCB Consultants Ltd., Life Cycle Geo, LLC, Met Engineering, LLC, Paterson & Cooke USA, Inc., Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and Tetra Tech, Inc., dated June 23, 2025](tm2518281d1_ex96-1.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[99.1](tm2518281d1_ex99-1.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Press Release dated June 23, 2025](tm2518281d1_ex99-1.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;[99.2](tm2518281d1_ex99-2.htm) | &nbsp;&nbsp;[Slideshow from Conference Call](tm2518281d1_ex99-2.htm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;104 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded with the inline XBRL document) |

---

**Forward Looking Statements**

The Company cautions you that statements included in this Current Report on Form 8-K that are not a description of historical facts are "forward-looking statements" or "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable US and Canadian securities laws. Such statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company, its projects, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "would," "could", "will," "intend," "expect," "believe," "plan," "anticipate," "estimate," "scheduled," "forecast," "predict" and other similar terminology, or state that certain actions, events or results "may," "could," "would," "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. These statements reflect IE's current expectations regarding future events, performance and results and speak only as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K.

Such statements may include, without limitation: the projections, assumptions and estimates contained in the Preliminary Feasibility Study related to the Santa Cruz Project, including but not limited to those related to capital and operating costs, metal prices, cash flow, cash costs, revenue, net present value, internal rate of return, mine design and mining techniques and processes, copper production, grade and recoveries, development, throughput, life of mine, illustrative timelines related to mine construction, permitting and copper production, potential financing, jobs during construction and operations, mine sequencing, mining technology, equipment, staffing and infrastructure, emissions, use of land, water management and estimates regarding groundwater flow, power and other resources, estimates of mineral resources and reserves, potential for expansion of mineral resources, copper grade and cash cost costs relative to other mines, use of renewable energy, use of energy storage technologies, the ability to produce pure copper cathode, the ability to secure state and local permits, and planned or potential developments in the businesses of the Company.

Forward-looking statements are based on the author's beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available. Such statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors, including fluctuations in metal prices; risks related to inflation and changes in interest rates, discount rates, exchange rates, and taxes; risks due to the inherently hazardous nature of mining- related activities; uncertainties due to health and safety considerations; uncertainties related to environmental considerations, including, without limitation, climate change; uncertainties relating to obtaining approvals and permits, including renewals, from governmental regulatory authorities; uncertainties related to changes in law; uncertainty related to the availability and terms of capital; and those risk factors described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K and other disclosures made by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian securities regulators.

Although the authors believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking statements in this Current Report on Form 8-K are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such forward-looking statements, which only apply as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The authors disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law.

**SIGNATURES**

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 hereunto duly authorized.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **IVANHOE ELECTRIC INC.** | **IVANHOE ELECTRIC INC.** |
| Date: June 23, 2025 | By: | */s/ Taylor Melvin* |
|  |  | Taylor Melvin |
|  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

---

## Exhibit 23.1

**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

BBA USA Inc. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

BBA USA Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to BBA USA Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. BBA USA Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. BBA USA Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, BBA USA Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ BBA USA Inc.* |
|  | BBA USA Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 23.2

**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.* |
|  | Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 23.3

**Exhibit 23.3**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Fluor Canada Ltd. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Fluor Canada Ltd. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Fluor Canada Ltd.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Fluor Canada Ltd. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Fluor Canada Ltd. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Fluor Canada Ltd. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Fluor Canada Ltd.* |
|  | Fluor Canada Ltd. |

---

## Exhibit 23.4

**Exhibit 23.4**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.* |
|  | Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 23.5

**Exhibit 23.5**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Haley & Aldrich, Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Haley & Aldrich, Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Haley & Aldrich, Inc.* |
|  | Haley & Aldrich, Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 23.6

**Exhibit 23.6**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

INTERA Incorporated is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

INTERA Incorporated understands that the Company wishes to make reference to INTERA Incorporated's name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. INTERA Incorporated further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. INTERA Incorporated has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, INTERA Incorporated does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ INTERA Incorporated* |
|  | INTERA Incorporated |

---

## Exhibit 23.7

**Exhibit 23.7**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

KCB Consultants Ltd. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

KCB Consultants Ltd. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to KCB Consultants Ltd.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. KCB Consultants Ltd. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. KCB Consultants Ltd. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, KCB Consultants Ltd. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ KCB Consultants Ltd.* |
|  | KCB Consultants Ltd. |

---

## Exhibit 23.8

**Exhibit 23.8**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Life Cycle Geo, LLC is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Life Cycle Geo, LLC understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Life Cycle Geo, LLC's name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Life Cycle Geo, LLC further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Life Cycle Geo, LLC has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Life Cycle Geo, LLC does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Life Cycle Geo, LLC* |
|  | Life Cycle Geo, LLC |

---

## Exhibit 23.9

**Exhibit 23.9**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Met Engineering, LLC is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Met Engineering, LLC understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Met Engineering, LLC's name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Met Engineering, LLC further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Met Engineering, LLC has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Met Engineering, LLC does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Met Engineering, LLC* |
|  | Met Engineering, LLC |

---

## Exhibit 23.10

**Exhibit 23.10**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd.is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd.* |
|  | Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. |

---

## Exhibit 23.11

**Exhibit 23.11**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Stantec Consulting Services Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Stantec Consulting Services Inc.* |
|  | Stantec Consulting Services Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 23.12

**Exhibit 23.12**

**Consent**

**To**: Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Company")

**Re**: Current Report on Form 8-K and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-273195, 333-269029 and 333-280018) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-274241, 333-269490, 333-266227, 333-277101 and 333-284755) (collectively, the "Registration Statements") of the Company.

Tetra Tech, Inc. is the authoring firm of parts of the report titled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona" dated June 23, 2025, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the "Project") which was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the "Expert Report").

Tetra Tech, Inc. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Tetra Tech, Inc.'s name and the Expert Report in its Current Report on Form 8-K dated the date hereof (the "Form 8-K"), and to incorporate by reference certain information in the Registration Statements. Tetra Tech, Inc. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K related to the Project. Tetra Tech, Inc. has been provided with a copy of the Form 8-K, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.

Accordingly, Tetra Tech, Inc. does hereby consent to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 8-K, including the filing of the Expert Report as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of, in the Form 8-K, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the foregoing items in the Registration Statements.

Dated: June 23, 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| By: | */s/ Tetra Tech Inc.* |
|  | Tetra Tech, Inc. |

---

## Exhibit 96.1

**Exhibit 96.1**

![](tm2518281d1_ex96-1img025.jpg)

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Date & Signature Page

S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary<br> Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona

Prepared for: Ivanhoe Electric Inc.<br> Report Date: June 23, 2025

Prepared by Qualified Persons from the following Third-Party Companies:

---

| |
|:---|
| */s/ Fluor Canada Ltd*. |
| Fluor Canada Ltd.<br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ BBA USA Inc.* |
| BBA USA Inc. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.* |
| Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.* |
| Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Haley & Aldrich, Inc.* |
| Haley & Aldrich, Inc. <br> June 23, 2025 |

---

June 2025 Signatures – Page 1 of 2

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| |
|:---|
| */s/ INTERA Incorporated* |
| INTERA Incorporated <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ KCB Consultants Ltd.* |
| KCB Consultants Ltd. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Life Cycle Geo, LLC* |
| Life Cycle Geo, LLC <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Met Engineering, LLC* |
| Met Engineering, LLC <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd.* |
| Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Stantec Consulting Services Inc.* |
| Stantec Consulting Services Inc. <br> June 23, 2025 |
| */s/ Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech).* |
| Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). <br> June 23, 2025 |

---

June 2025 Signatures – Page 2 of 2

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table of Contents**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Sections |  |  |  |
| 1 | Executive Summary | Executive Summary | 1 |
| 1.1 | Introduction | Introduction | 1 |
| 1.2 | Terms of Reference | Terms of Reference | 1 |
| 1.3 | Property Setting | Property Setting | 1 |
| 1.4 | Mineral Tenure, Ownership, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements & Permits | Mineral Tenure, Ownership, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements & Permits | 3 |
|  | 1.4.1 | Mineral Tenure | 3 |
|  | 1.4.2 | Surface & Water Rights | 5 |
|  | 1.4.3 | Royalties | 6 |
| 1.5 | History | History | 7 |
| 1.6 | Geology & Mineralization | Geology & Mineralization | 7 |
| 1.7 | Exploration, Drilling & Sampling | Exploration, Drilling & Sampling | 8 |
| 1.8 | Data Verification | Data Verification | 8 |
| 1.9 | Metallurgical Testwork | Metallurgical Testwork | 9 |
| 1.10 | Mineral Resource Estimate | Mineral Resource Estimate | 9 |
|  | 1.10.1 | Estimation Methodology | 9 |
|  | 1.10.2 | Mineral Resource Statement | 10 |
|  | 1.10.3 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate | 12 |
| 1.11 | Mineral Reserve Estimate | Mineral Reserve Estimate | 12 |
|  | 1.11.1 | Estimation Methodology | 12 |
|  | 1.11.2 | Mineral Reserve Statement | 13 |
|  | 1.11.3 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate | 16 |
| 1.12 | Mining Methods | Mining Methods | 16 |
| 1.13 | Recovery Methods | Recovery Methods | 20 |
| 1.14 | Infrastructure | Infrastructure | 25 |
| 1.15 | Market Studies & Contracts | Market Studies & Contracts | 27 |
| 1.16 | Environmental, Closure & Permitting | Environmental, Closure & Permitting | 28 |
| 1.17 | Capital & Operating Cost Estimates | Capital & Operating Cost Estimates | 29 |
|  | 1.17.1 | Capital Cost Estimate | 29 |
|  | 1.17.2 | Operating Cost Estimate | 31 |
| 1.18 | Economic Analysis | Economic Analysis | 31 |
| 1.19 | Risks | Risks | 33 |
| 1.20 | Opportunities | Opportunities | 33 |
| 1.21 | Conclusions | Conclusions | 34 |
| 1.22 | Recommendations | Recommendations | 34 |
| 2 | Introduction | Introduction | 35 |
| 2.1 | Registrant for Whom the Report was Prepared | Registrant for Whom the Report was Prepared | 35 |
| 2.2 | Purpose of the Report | Purpose of the Report | 35 |
| 2.3 | Terms of Reference | Terms of Reference | 35 |

---

June 2025 Page ii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 2.4 | Report Date | Report Date | 36 |
| 2.5 | Previous Technical Report Summaries | Previous Technical Report Summaries | 36 |
| 2.6 | Qualified Persons | Qualified Persons | 36 |
| 2.7 | Site Visits & Scope of Personal Inspection | Site Visits & Scope of Personal Inspection | 36 |
| 2.8 | Information Sources | Information Sources | 36 |
| 3.0 | Property Description | Property Description | 39 |
| 3.1 | Location | Location | 39 |
| 3.2 | Property & Mineral Title | Property & Mineral Title | 39 |
|  | 3.2.1 | Fee Simple | 39 |
|  | 3.2.2 | Lode Mining Claims | 39 |
|  | 3.2.3 | Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits | 40 |
|  | 3.2.4 | Stock-Raising Homestead Act | 40 |
| 3.3 | Ownership | Ownership | 40 |
|  | 3.3.1 | Mineral Title Ownership | 41 |
|  | 3.3.2 | Surface Title Ownership | 47 |
|  | 3.3.3 | Water Rights | 48 |
| 3.4 | Royalties | Royalties | 48 |
| 3.5 | Encumbrances | Encumbrances | 49 |
|  | 3.5.1 | Environmental Assessments | 50 |
| 3.6 | Violations & Fines | Violations & Fines | 50 |
| 3.7 | Significant Factors & Risks that May Affect Access, Title, or Work Programs | Significant Factors & Risks that May Affect Access, Title, or Work Programs | 50 |
| 4.0 | Accessibility, Climate, Resources, Infrastructure & Physiography | Accessibility, Climate, Resources, Infrastructure & Physiography | 51 |
| 4.1 | Accessibility | Accessibility | 51 |
| 4.2 | Climate | Climate | 51 |
| 4.3 | Local Resources | Local Resources | 51 |
| 4.4 | Physiography | Physiography | 51 |
| 5.0 | History | History | 53 |
| 5.1 | Historical Exploration | Historical Exploration | 53 |
| 6.0 | Geological Setting, Mineralization & Deposit | Geological Setting, Mineralization & Deposit | 55 |
| 6.1 | Regional Geology | Regional Geology | 55 |
| 6.2 | Metallogenic Setting | Metallogenic Setting | 55 |
| 6.3 | Santa Cruz Copper Project Geology | Santa Cruz Copper Project Geology | 57 |
|  | 6.3.1 | Santa Cruz Bedrock Lithologies | 57 |
|  | 6.3.2 | Basin Fill Lithologies | 59 |
|  | 6.3.3 | Alteration | 61 |
|  | 6.3.4 | Structural Geology | 62 |
|  | 6.3.5 | Property Mineralization | 62 |
| 6.4 | Deposit Types | Deposit Types | 67 |
| 7.0 | Exploration | Exploration | 70 |
| 7.1 | Geophysics and Geochemistry | Geophysics and Geochemistry | 70 |
|  | 7.1.1 | Geophysical Exploration | 70 |
|  | 7.1.2 | Geochemical Exploration | 75 |
|  | 7.1.3 | Qualified Person's Interpretation of the Exploration Information | 76 |

---

June 2025 Page iii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 7.2 | Drilling | Drilling | 76 |
|  | 7.2.1 | Historical Drilling | 76 |
|  | 7.2.2 | Ivanhoe Electric Drill Programs | 78 |
| 7.3 | Geotechnical | Geotechnical | 85 |
|  | 7.3.1 | Sampling Methods & Laboratory Determinations | 85 |
|  | 7.3.2 | Comment on Results | 85 |
| 7.4 | Hydrogeological Investigations | Hydrogeological Investigations | 85 |
|  | 7.4.1 | Hydrogeological Data Collection | 85 |
|  | 7.4.2 | Hydrogeological Conceptual Site Model | 88 |
|  | 7.4.3 | Groundwater Flow Model & Results | 88 |
|  | 7.4.4 | Comment on Results | 91 |
| 8.0 | Sample Preparation, Analysis & Security | Sample Preparation, Analysis & Security | 92 |
| 8.1 | Assay Laboratory Selection | Assay Laboratory Selection | 92 |
|  | 8.1.1 | 2021 to 2022 | 92 |
|  | 8.1.2 | 2023 to 2024 | 93 |
|  | 8.1.3 | Ionic Leach | 93 |
| 8.2 | Sample Preparation & Analysis | Sample Preparation & Analysis | 93 |
|  | 8.2.1 | Skyline Assayers & Laboratories | 93 |
|  | 8.2.2 | SGS Laboratories | 94 |
|  | 8.2.3 | ALS Laboratories | 94 |
|  | 8.2.4 | American Assay Laboratories | 94 |
|  | 8.2.5 | Historical Core Assay Sample & Analysis | 95 |
| 8.3 | Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures | Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures | 95 |
|  | 8.3.1 | 2021 to 2022 | 95 |
|  | 8.3.2 | 2023 to 2024 | 95 |
|  | 8.3.3 | Santa Cruz Sampling | 95 |
|  | 8.3.4 | East Ridge & Texaco Sampling | 98 |
| 8.4 | Density | Density | 98 |
| 8.5 | Security & Storage | Security & Storage | 99 |
| 8.6 | BBA Opinion | BBA Opinion | 99 |
| 9.0 | Data Verification | Data Verification | 100 |
| 9.1 | Data Verification Procedures | Data Verification Procedures | 100 |
| 9.2 | BBA Site Visit 2024 | BBA Site Visit 2024 | 100 |
| 9.3 | Field Collar Validation | Field Collar Validation | 100 |
| 9.4 | Core Logging, Sampling & Storage Facilities | Core Logging, Sampling & Storage Facilities | 101 |
| 9.5 | Independent Sampling | Independent Sampling | 102 |
| 9.6 | Twin Hole Analysis | Twin Hole Analysis | 103 |
| 9.7 | Database Validation | Database Validation | 104 |
| 9.8 | Review of Company's QA / QC | Review of Company's QA / QC | 104 |
| 9.9 | BBA Opinion | BBA Opinion | 104 |

---

June 2025 Page iv

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 10.0 | Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing | Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing | 105 |
| 10.1 | Test Laboratories | Test Laboratories | 105 |
| 10.2 | Metallurgical Testwork | Metallurgical Testwork | 105 |
|  | 10.2.1 | Column Leach Testing | 105 |
| 10.3 | Metallurgical Variability | Metallurgical Variability | 114 |
| 10.4 | Deleterious Elements | Deleterious Elements | 115 |
| 10.5 | Met Engineering Opinion | Met Engineering Opinion | 115 |
| 11.0 | Mineral Resource Estimates | Mineral Resource Estimates | 116 |
| 11.1 | Deposits | Deposits | 116 |
| 11.2 | Drillhole Database | Drillhole Database | 116 |
| 11.3 | Geological Domaining | Geological Domaining | 117 |
| 11.4 | Data Preparation | Data Preparation | 121 |
|  | 11.4.1 | Exploratory Data Analysis | 121 |
|  | 11.4.2 | Assay Intervals at Minimum Detection Limits | 122 |
|  | 11.4.3 | Compositing | 122 |
|  | 11.4.4 | Outlier Analysis & Capping | 122 |
|  | 11.4.5 | Density | 122 |
|  | 11.4.6 | Block Model Strategy & Analysis | 124 |
|  | 11.4.7 | Assessment of Spatial Grade Continuity | 124 |
|  | 11.4.8 | Block Model Definition | 126 |
|  | 11.4.9 | Search Strategy | 126 |
| 11.5 | Block Model Validation | Block Model Validation | 130 |
|  | 11.5.1 | Statistical Comparison | 130 |
|  | 11.5.2 | Visual Comparison | 130 |
|  | 11.5.3 | Swath Plots | 134 |
| 11.6 | Mineral Resource Classification | Mineral Resource Classification | 134 |
| 11.7 | Commodity Pricing | Commodity Pricing | 136 |
| 11.8 | Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction | Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction | 136 |
| 11.9 | NSR Cutoff | NSR Cutoff | 138 |
| 11.1 | Mineral Resource Estimate | Mineral Resource Estimate | 139 |
| 11.11 | Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cutoff | Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cutoff | 144 |
| 11.12 | Differences in Resource Model Iterations | Differences in Resource Model Iterations | 145 |
| 11.13 | Factors That May Affect Mineral Resources | Factors That May Affect Mineral Resources | 146 |
| 11.14 | BBA Opinion | BBA Opinion | 146 |
| 12.0 | Mineral Reserve Estimate | Mineral Reserve Estimate | 147 |
| 12.1 | Basis of Estimate | Basis of Estimate | 147 |
| 12.2 | Underground Mine Estimates | Underground Mine Estimates | 147 |
|  | 12.2.1 | Santa Cruz | 147 |
|  | 12.2.2 | Verde | 150 |
|  | 12.2.3 | East Ridge | 151 |
| 12.3 | Net Smelter Return & Cutoff Value | Net Smelter Return & Cutoff Value | 152 |
| 12.4 | Mineral Reserve Estimate | Mineral Reserve Estimate | 153 |

---

June 2025 Page v

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 12.5 | Factors That May Affect Mineral Reserves | Factors That May Affect Mineral Reserves | 155 |
| 13.0 | Mining Methods | Mining Methods | 156 |
| 13.1 | Introduction | Introduction | 156 |
| 13.2 | Geotechnical Considerations | Geotechnical Considerations | 156 |
| 13.3 | Mining Zones | Mining Zones | 158 |
| 13.4 | Ground Support | Ground Support | 159 |
| 13.5 | Secondary Support | Secondary Support | 162 |
| 13.6 | Boxcut & Decline Access | Boxcut & Decline Access | 162 |
| 13.7 | Groundwater | Groundwater | 162 |
|  | 13.7.1 | Faults & Grouting Program | 162 |
|  | 13.7.2 | Activated Colloidal Silica Injection | 162 |
|  | 13.7.3 | Ramp Dewatering | 162 |
|  | 13.7.4 | Mining Area Dewatering | 163 |
| 13.8 | Mining Areas | Mining Areas | 163 |
|  | 13.8.1 | Dilution | 163 |
|  | 13.8.2 | Longhole Stoping Dilution | 164 |
|  | 13.8.3 | Drift-and-Fill Dilution | 164 |
|  | 13.8.4 | Mining Recovery Factor | 164 |
|  | 13.8.5 | Development Allowance | 164 |
| 13.9 | Mine Design | Mine Design | 165 |
|  | 13.9.1 | Santa Cruz Orebody – Transverse Longhole Stoping | 165 |
|  | 13.9.2 | Verde Orebody – Longhole Stoping | 167 |
|  | 13.9.3 | East Ridge Orebody– Longitudinal Longhole Stoping | 167 |
|  | 13.9.4 | East Ridge – Drift-and-Fill | 168 |
|  | 13.9.5 | Development | 169 |
| 13.1 | Production Schedule | Production Schedule | 171 |
| 13.11 | Mining Operations | Mining Operations | 173 |
|  | 13.11.1 | Capital vs. Operating Development | 173 |
|  | 13.11.2 | Underground Material Handling System | 174 |
|  | 13.11.3 | Backfill | 176 |
|  | 13.11.4 | Grade Control | 178 |
|  | 13.11.5 | Mine Ventilation & Refrigeration | 178 |
|  | 13.11.6 | Underground Infrastructure | 181 |
|  | 13.11.7 | Personnel | 182 |
|  | 13.11.8 | Mining Equipment Fleet | 182 |
| 14.0 | Process & Recovery Methods | Process & Recovery Methods | 186 |
| 14.1 | Process Method Selection | Process Method Selection | 186 |
| 14.2 | Processing Overview & Flowsheets | Processing Overview & Flowsheets | 186 |
| 14.3 | Metallurgical Design Basis | Metallurgical Design Basis | 187 |
| 14.4 | Process Plant | Process Plant | 188 |
|  | 14.4.1 | Major Process Equipment Design Criteria and Selection | 188 |

---

June 2025 Page vi

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 14.5 | Crushing, Agglomeration & Stacking | Crushing, Agglomeration & Stacking | 189 |
|  | 14.5.1 | Crushing | 189 |
|  | 14.5.2 | Agglomeration | 190 |
|  | 14.5.3 | Stacking | 190 |
| 14.6 | On/Off Heap Leach | On/Off Heap Leach | 190 |
|  | 14.6.1 | On/Off Heap Leach Pad | 190 |
|  | 14.6.2 | Solution Management | 190 |
|  | 14.6.3 | Heap Leach Process | 193 |
|  | 14.6.4 | Spent Ore Management | 195 |
|  | 14.6.5 | Solvent Extraction | 195 |
| 14.7 | Electrowinning | Electrowinning | 196 |
|  | 14.7.1 | Reagent Preparation & Distribution | 196 |
| 14.8 | Raw Water | Raw Water | 197 |
| 14.9 | Air Supply | Air Supply | 197 |
| 14.1 | Power | Power | 197 |
| 14.11 | Personnel | Personnel | 197 |
| 15.0 | Infrastructure | Infrastructure | 198 |
| 15.1 | Surface Infrastructure | Surface Infrastructure | 198 |
|  | 15.1.1 | Roads & Logistics | 199 |
|  | 15.1.2 | On/Off Leach Pads | 200 |
|  | 15.1.3 | Spent Ore Storage Facilities | 200 |
|  | 15.1.4 | Power & Electrical | 200 |
|  | 15.1.5 | Gas Pipelines | 202 |
|  | 15.1.6 | Water Supply | 202 |
|  | 15.1.7 | Water Management | 202 |
|  | 15.1.8 | Built Infrastructure | 205 |
| 15.2 | QP Opinion | QP Opinion | 205 |
| 16.0 | Market Study | Market Study | 206 |
| 16.1 | Market Information | Market Information | 206 |
| 16.2 | Study Price & Sales Terms | Study Price & Sales Terms | 206 |
| 16.3 | Contracts | Contracts | 207 |
| 17.0 | Environmental Studies, Permitting & Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups | Environmental Studies, Permitting & Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups | 208 |
| 17.1 | Baseline & Supporting Studies | Baseline & Supporting Studies | 208 |
|  | 17.1.1 | Flora & Fauna | 208 |
|  | 17.1.2 | Special Status Species | 208 |
|  | 17.1.3 | Migratory Bird Treaty Act | 209 |
|  | 17.1.4 | Surface Water Mapping | 209 |
|  | 17.1.5 | Cultural Heritage | 211 |
|  | 17.1.6 | Air Quality | 211 |
|  | 17.1.7 | Carbon Intensity | 211 |
|  | 17.1.8 | Surface Water Monitoring | 213 |
|  | 17.1.9 | Groundwater Monitoring & Water Quality | 213 |
|  | 17.1.10 | Material Characterization & Water Quality Predictions | 215 |
|  | 17.1.11 | Mine Material Environmental Behavior | 216 |

---

June 2025 Page vii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 17.2 | Permitting & Authorizations | Permitting & Authorizations | 218 |
| 17.3 | Waste & Spent Ore Disposal, Site Monitoring, & Water Management | Waste & Spent Ore Disposal, Site Monitoring, & Water Management | 221 |
| 17.4 | Post-Performance or Reclamations Bonds | Post-Performance or Reclamations Bonds | 221 |
| 17.5 | Status of Permit Applications | Status of Permit Applications | 222 |
|  | 17.5.1 | Arizona State Mine Inspector – Reclamation Plan | 222 |
|  | 17.5.2 | Arizona Department of Environmental Quality – Aquifer Protection Permit | 222 |
|  | 17.5.3 | Known Requirements for Post-Performance or Reclamation Bonds | 223 |
|  | 17.5.4 | Adequacy of Current Reclamation Plans | 223 |
| 17.6 | Mine Closure | Mine Closure | 224 |
|  | 17.6.1 | Waste, Development Rock, Heap Leach & Spent Ore Closure & Reclamation Approach | 224 |
|  | 17.6.2 | General Grading & Revegetation Approach | 224 |
|  | 17.6.3 | Process Area & Pond Closure Reclamation Approach | 224 |
|  | 17.6.4 | Structural Decommissioning Approach | 225 |
|  | 17.6.5 | Underground Operations Closure Approach | 225 |
|  | 17.6.6 | Aquifer Restoration & Post-Closure Monitoring Approach | 225 |
| 17.7 | Local Individuals & Groups | Local Individuals & Groups | 226 |
| 17.8 | QP Opinion | QP Opinion | 226 |
| 18.0 | Capital & Operating Costs | Capital & Operating Costs | 228 |
| 18.1 | Basis for Cost Estimates | Basis for Cost Estimates | 228 |
|  | 18.1.1 | Mining Costs | 228 |
|  | 18.1.2 | Process and Infrastructure Costs | 229 |
| 18.2 | Capital Cost Estimate | Capital Cost Estimate | 230 |
|  | 18.2.1 | Mining Capital Costs | 230 |
|  | 18.2.2 | Process Facilities & Infrastructure Capital Costs | 231 |
|  | 18.2.3 | Owner's Costs and Indirects | 232 |
|  | 18.2.4 | Engineering Procurement and Construction Management | 233 |
| 18.3 | Operating Cost Estimate | Operating Cost Estimate | 233 |
|  | 18.3.1 | Mine Operating Costs | 234 |
|  | 18.3.2 | SX/EW and Infrastructure Operating Costs | 241 |
|  | 18.3.3 | General & Administrative Operating Costs | 243 |
| 19.0 | Economic Analysis | Economic Analysis | 244 |
| 19.1 | Methodology Used | Methodology Used | 244 |
| 19.2 | Financial Model Parameters | Financial Model Parameters | 244 |
|  | 19.2.1 | Pricing | 244 |
|  | 19.2.2 | Royalties | 245 |
|  | 19.2.3 | Taxes | 245 |
|  | 19.2.4 | Working Capital | 245 |
| 19.3 | Economic Analysis | Economic Analysis | 246 |
| 19.4 | Sensitivity Analysis | Sensitivity Analysis | 249 |

---

June 2025 Page viii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| 20.0 | Adjacent Properties | 250 |
| 21.0 | Other Relevant Data & Information | 251 |
| 22.0 | Interpretations & Conclusions | 252 |
| 22.1 | Introduction | 252 |
| 22.2 | Property Setting | 252 |
| 22.3 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties & Agreements | 252 |
| 22.4 | Geology & Mineralization | 253 |
| 22.5 | History | 253 |
| 22.6 | Exploration, Drilling & Sampling | 253 |
| 22.7 | Data Verification | 253 |
| 22.8 | Metallurgical Testwork | 254 |
| 22.9 | Mineral Resource Estimates | 254 |
| 22.1 | Mineral Reserve Estimates | 254 |
| 22.11 | Mining Methods | 255 |
| 22.12 | Recovery Methods | 255 |
| 22.13 | Infrastructure | 255 |
| 22.14 | Market Studies | 256 |
| 22.15 | Environmental, Permitting & Social Considerations | 256 |
| 22.16 | Capital Cost Estimates | 256 |
| 22.17 | Operating Cost Estimates | 256 |
| 22.18 | Economic Analysis | 257 |
| 22.19 | Risks & Opportunities | 257 |
|  | Risks | 257 |
|  | Opportunities | 258 |
| 22.2 | Conclusions | 258 |
| 23.0 | Recommendations | 259 |
| 23.1 | Recommended Work Program Budget | 259 |
| 23.2 | Permitting | 259 |
| 23.3 | Environmental Testing | 259 |
| 23.4 | Detailed Engineering | 260 |
|  | Surface | 260 |
|  | Underground | 260 |
| 23.5 | Long-Lead Items | 260 |
| 23.6 | Project Support | 260 |
| 24.0 | References | 262 |
| 24.1 | List of References | 262 |
| 24.2 | Units of Measurement & Abbreviations | 266 |
| 25.0 | Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant | 271 |
| 25.1 | Introduction | 271 |
| 25.2 | Macroeconomic Trends | 271 |
| 25.3 | Markets | 271 |
| 25.4 | Legal Matters | 271 |
| 25.5 | Environmental Matters | 271 |
| 25.6 | Stakeholder Accommodations | 272 |
| 25.7 | Governmental Factors | 272 |

---

June 2025 Page ix

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Tables |  |  |
| Table 1-1: | Summary of Ivanhoe Electric's Mineral Control | 3.0 |
| Table 1-2: | Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Copper Project | 6.0 |
| Table 1-3: | In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco | 11.0 |
| Table 1-4: | In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco | 11.0 |
| Table 1-5: | NSR Parameters | 13.0 |
| Table 1-6: | Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations | 13.0 |
| Table 1-7: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserve Estimate | 15.0 |
| Table 1-8: | Santa Cruz Scheduled Production Summary | 18.0 |
| Table 1-9: | Commodity Price Summary | 28.0 |
| Table 1-10: | Estimated Mining Initial Capital Cost | 30.0 |
| Table 1-11: | Estimated Operating Costs | 31.0 |
| Table 1-12: | Estimated Operating Costs | 32.0 |
| Table 1-13: | Proposed Reagent & Process Consumables | 34.0 |
| Table 2-1: | Qualified Person Contributions | 37.0 |
| Table 2-2: | Site Visits | 38.0 |
| Table 3-1: | Summary of Ivanhoe Electric's Mineral Title | 41.0 |
| Table 3-2: | Unpatented Mining Lode Claims | 43.0 |
| Table 3-3: | Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Copper Project | 48.0 |
| Table 5-1: | Project History | 54.0 |
| Table 6-1: | Deposit & Mineralization Summary of the Santa Cruz Copper Project | 63.0 |
| Table 7-1: | Geophysical Assessments Conducted on the Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits from 2022 to 2024 | 71.0 |
| Table 7-2: | Summary of Available Data by Region | 76.0 |
| Table 7-3: | Drillhole Summary by Year | 78.0 |
| Table 7-4: | Drillhole Summary by Deposit | 80.0 |
| Table 7-5: | Number of Assays by Assay Type & Deposit | 80.0 |
| Table 7-6: | Drilling Equipment & Contractors | 83.0 |
| Table 7-7: | HGU Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates from Current & Historical Tests Conducted in the Project Area | 88.0 |
| Table 8-1: | Labs Used for Analysis & Time Periods | 92.0 |
| Table 8-2: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Density Measurements | 98.0 |
| Table 9-1: | Original Assay Values vs. BBA Check Sample Assay Values | 103.0 |
| Table 10-1: | Sample Selection for Master Composites for Column Leach Testing | 106.0 |
| Table 10-2: | Master Composite and Variability Samples | 109.0 |
| Table 11-1: | Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Geological Domains | 117.0 |

---

June 2025 Page x

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 11-2: | Volume of Santa Cruz Wireframe Domains | 120 |
| Table 11-3: | Density Values Measured for the Project by Geological and Resource Domain | 123 |
| Table 11-4: | Santa Cruz Variography Parameters | 125 |
| Table 11-5: | East Ridge Variography Parameters | 125 |
| Table 11-6: | Texaco Variography Parameters | 125 |
| Table 11-7: | Block Model Definition Parameters | 126 |
| Table 11-8: | Santa Cruz Block Model Search Parameters | 127 |
| Table 11-9: | East Ridge Block Model Search Parameters | 128 |
| Table 11-10: | Texaco Block Model Search Parameters | 129 |
| Table 11-11: | Input Parameter Assumptions | 137 |
| Table 11-12: | Smelting Terms – Copper Concentrate Input Assumptions | 138 |
| Table 11-13: | In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco | 140 |
| Table 11-14: | In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco | 140 |
| Table 11-15: | In-Situ Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves | 141 |
| Table 11-16: | In-Situ East Ridge Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves | 141 |
| Table 11-17: | In-Situ Texaco Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate | 142 |
| Table 12-1: | Summary of Stope Sizes by Domain & Sequence | 148 |
| Table 12-2: | NSR Parameters | 152 |
| Table 12-3: | Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations | 153 |
| Table 12-4: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserve Estimate | 154 |
| Table 13-1: | Geotechnical Domains | 157 |
| Table 13-2: | Ground Support Categories for Conventional (Drill & Blast) Development | 160 |
| Table 13-3: | Ground Support Categories for Roadheader Development | 161 |
| Table 13-4: | Summary of Mining Recoveries by Stope Type | 164 |
| Table 13-5: | Santa Cruz Orebody Stope Sizes | 165 |
| Table 13-6: | Santa Cruz Mine Lateral & Vertical Development Dimensions | 170 |
| Table 13-7: | Santa Cruz Production Summary | 172 |
| Table 13-8: | Paste Strength Requirements | 178 |
| Table 13-9: | Peak Equipment Quantities Per Year – Owner's Fleet – Operating Development & Stoping | 183 |
| Table 13-10: | Contractor's Fleet – Capital Decline Development – in Alluvium & Conglomerate | 184 |
| Table 13-11: | Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock | 184 |
| Table 13-12: | Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock – Other Equipment | 184 |
| Table 13-13: | Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock – Support Equipment | 184 |
| Table 13-14: | Total Equipment Quantities Per Year – Contractor's Fleet – Other Capital Development | 185 |
| Table 13-15: | Total Equipment Quantities Per Year – Contractor's Fleet – Paste Preparation Plant | 185 |
| Table 14-1: | Key Metallurgical Testwork Parameters | 187 |
| Table 14-2: | Major Process Design Criteria | 188 |
| Table 14-3: | Major Process Equipment | 189 |
| Table 14-4: | Proposed Reagent & Process Consumables | 196 |
| Table 16-1: | Copper Price Summary | 206 |
| Table 16-2: | Commodity Price Summary | 207 |

---

June 2025 Page xi

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 17-1: | Permits Table | 219 |
| Table 18-1: | Initial & Sustaining Capital Cost Summary | 230 |
| Table 18-2: | Estimated Mining Initial Capital Cost | 231 |
| Table 18-3: | Estimated Mining Sustaining Capital Cost | 231 |
| Table 18-4: | Estimated Process Facilities and Infrastructure Capital Cost Summary | 232 |
| Table 18-5: | Estimated Operating Costs | 233 |
| Table 18-6: | Mine Operating Cost Summary for the Life of Mine | 235 |
| Table 18-7: | Paste Preparation Operating Cost Primary Inputs | 238 |
| Table 18-8: | Estimated Life-of-Mine Paste Preparation Plant Operating Costs by Category | 240 |
| Table 18-9: | SX/EW and Infrastructure Operating Cost Summary for the Life of Mine | 241 |
| Table 19-1: | Mine Development Cost Accelerated Depreciation Schedule | 245 |
| Table 19-2: | Summary of Working Capital | 245 |
| Table 19-3: | Economic Analysis Results | 246 |
| Table 19-4: | Cash Flow Model | 248 |
| Table 23-1: | Recommended Work Program Budget | 259 |

---

June 2025 Page xii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figures |  |  |
| Figure 1-1: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Location | 2.0 |
| Figure 1-2: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Control Map | 4.0 |
| Figure 1-3: | Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map | 5.0 |
| Figure 1-4: | Extent of Royalties | 6.0 |
| Figure 1-5: | Mining Zones of Santa Cruz and East Ridge Deposits, View Looking North | 17.0 |
| Figure 1-6: | Santa Cruz Tonne – Grade Graph | 19.0 |
| Figure 1-7: | Santa Cruz Tonnes of Mined Material | 19.0 |
| Figure 1-8: | Simplified Process Flowsheet | 22.0 |
| Figure 1-9: | Seven-Cell Heap Leach and Solution Management | 23.0 |
| Figure 1-10: | Solution Management Ponds, Leach Pad, and Spent Ore Piles | 24.0 |
| Figure 1-11: | Santa Cruz Site Plan | 26.0 |
| Figure 3-1: | Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Control Map | 42.0 |
| Figure 3-2: | Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map | 47.0 |
| Figure 3-3: | Extent of Royalties | 49.0 |
| Figure 5-1: | Historical Drill Collars, Deposit, & Exploration Area Names | 53.0 |
| Figure 6-1: | Regional Geology of the Southwestern Porphyry Belt & the Copper Porphyry Deposits Adjacent to the Project | 56.0 |
| Figure 6-2: | Generalized Cross-Section of the Santa Cruz – Sacaton System | 57.0 |
| Figure 6-3: | Simplified Stratigraphic Section of Santa Cruz Copper Project | 60.0 |
| Figure 6-4: | Geological Cross-Section of Santa Cruz Deposit Looking Northwest | 64.0 |
| Figure 6-5: | Geological Cross-Section of the East Ridge Deposit, Looking Northwest | 65.0 |
| Figure 6-6: | Geological Cross-Section of the Texaco Deposit, Looking North | 66.0 |
| Figure 6-7: | Simplified Alteration and Mineralization Zonation Model of a Porphyry Copper Deposit | 67.0 |
| Figure 6-8: | Schematic Representation of an Exotic Copper Deposit | 68.0 |
| Figure 6-9: | Typical Copper Porphyry Cross-Section and Associated Minerals | 69.0 |
| Figure 7-1: | 2022 Gravity Survey Station Plan (Left) & Gravity Survey Results (Right) | 72.0 |
| Figure 7-2: | Ground Magnetics Survey Results | 73.0 |
| Figure 7-3: | Quantum Audio Magnetotellurics Survey Lines | 74.0 |
| Figure 7-4: | Geochemical Exploration Map – Copper | 75.0 |
| Figure 7-5: | Geochemical Exploration Map – Molybdenum | 76.0 |
| Figure 7-6: | Plan Map of Historical Drillhole Collars | 77.0 |
| Figure 7-7: | Plan Map of the Twinned Drillholes & Historical Drillhole Collars | 79.0 |
| Figure 7-8: | Plan Map of Historical & Ivanhoe Electric Drillhole Collar Locations | 81.0 |
| Figure 7-9: | Plan Map of Historical & Ivanhoe Electric Drill Collar Locations by Program | 82.0 |
| Figure 7-10: | Historical (Pre-Ivanhoe Electric) & Current Groundwater Monitoring & Testing Locations | 87.0 |
| Figure 7-11: | Comparison of Residual Passive Inflow for the No-Mitigation Scenario & Mitigation Scenario | 90.0 |
| Figure 7-12: | Model Estimates of Maximum Residual Passive Inflows to Mine Workings | 91.0 |
| Figure 8-1: | Certified Reference Material Performance Charts for Santa Cruz Deposit | 97.0 |
| Figure 9-1: | Core Logging Facility, Casa Grande, Arizona | 101.0 |
| Figure 10-1: | Spatial Distribution of the Variability & Master Composite Samples | 107.0 |
| Figure 10-2: | Copper Leach Rate Profiles for Columns A through I | 112.0 |

---

June 2025 Page xiii

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-1: | Plan View of Santa Cruz Copper Project Diamond Drilling by Deposit | 116 |
| Figure 11-2: | Santa Cruz Primary Mineralization Domains, Domains & Subdomains | 118 |
| Figure 11-3: | Santa Cruz Deposit Domain Idealized Cross-Section | 119 |
| Figure 11-4: | Santa Cruz Block Model Validation with Drillholes & Total Copper Percent | 131 |
| Figure 11-5: | East Ridge Block Model Validation with Drillholes & Total Copper Percent | 132 |
| Figure 11-6: | Texaco Block Model Validation of Total Copper Percent | 133 |
| Figure 11-7: | Santa Cruz High-Grade Oxide Domain Swath Plot, Total Copper % in Y-Direction | 134 |
| Figure 11-8: | Plan View of Resource Classification for Santa Cruz with Indicated & Inferred Classifications & Drill Collar Locations | 135 |
| Figure 11-9: | Oblique View of Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Resources | 143 |
| Figure 11-10: | Copper Cutoff Sensitivity for Santa Cruz & East Ridge – Indicated Tonnes & Grade | 144 |
| Figure 11-11: | Copper Cutoff Sensitivity for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco – Inferred Tonnes & Grade | 145 |
| Figure 12-1: | Santa Cruz North-South Divide | 148 |
| Figure 12-2: | Santa Cruz Mining Areas (looking Northeast) | 149 |
| Figure 12-3: | Verde Mining Region | 150 |
| Figure 12-4: | East Ridge Mining Areas (looking West) | 151 |
| Figure 13-1: | Santa Cruz Geotechnical Domain Profile, North-South Section Looking East | 157 |
| Figure 13-2: | Mining Zones of Santa Cruz Copper Project, View Looking North | 158 |
| Figure 13-3: | Bolting Pattern Associated with Conventional (Drill & Blast) Development, Support Category 1 (Not to Scale) | 159 |
| Figure 13-4: | Transverse Longhole Stoping in the Santa Cruz Orebody (Looking Southwest) | 166 |
| Figure 13-5: | Longitudinal Longhole Stoping in East Ridge Zone (Looking Northwest – Not to Scale) | 168 |
| Figure 13-6: | Drift-and-Fill Mining in the East Ridge Zone (Looking Northwest – Not to Scale) | 169 |
| Figure 13-7: | Santa Cruz Tonne – Grade Graph | 171 |
| Figure 13-8: | Santa Cruz Tonnes of Mined Material | 173 |
| Figure 13-9: | Santa Cruz Mine Capital vs. Operating Development & Production | 174 |
| Figure 13-10: | Santa Cruz Orepass System – Section View Looking Northeast | 175 |
| Figure 13-11: | Ventilation Cooling/Heat Load throughout Life of Mine | 179 |
| Figure 13-11: | Life-of-Mine Ventilation Schematic | 181 |
| Figure 14-1: | Simplified Process Flowsheet | 187 |
| Figure 14-2: | Seven-Cell Heap Solution Management | 192 |
| Figure 14-3: | Solution Management Ponds, Leach Pad & Spent Ore Piles | 194 |
| Figure 15-1: | Santa Cruz Site Plan | 199 |
| Figure 15-2: | Transmission Lines Near the Santa Cruz Copper Project | 201 |
| Figure 15-3: | Water Balance Process Flow Diagram | 203 |
| Figure 17-1: | Scope 1 & 2 CO<sub>2</sub>e Emissions & Avoided Emissions | 212 |
| Figure 17-2: | Annual CO<sub>2</sub>e Emissions & Intensities (Maximum 70% Renewable) | 213 |
| Figure 18-1: | Life-of-Mine Mining Operating Costs by Category | 234 |
| Figure 18-2: | Yearly Mine Operating Cost Profile | 236 |
| Figure 18-3: | Estimated Life-of-Mine Paste Backfill Material Preparation Operating Cost Percentage by Category | 240 |
| Figure 18-4: | Process Plant Operating Percentage by Category (Life-of-Mine Average) | 242 |
| Figure 19-1: | Annual and Cumulative Cash Flow | 247 |
| Figure 19-2: | Sensitivity Analysis Results | 249 |

---

June 2025 Page xiv

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Forward-Looking Statements**

Certain statements in this Technical Report Summary constitute "forward-looking statements" or "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable US and Canadian securities laws. Such statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Ivanhoe Electric, its projects, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "would," "could", "will," "intend," "expect," "believe," "plan," "anticipate," "estimate," "scheduled," "forecast," "predict" and other similar terminology, or state that certain actions, events or results "may," "could," "would," "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. These statements reflect Ivanhoe Electric's current expectations regarding future events, performance and results and speak only as of the date of this Technical Report Summary.

Such statements in this Technical Report Summary include, without limitation: the projections, assumptions and estimates related to the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including, without limitation, those relating to development, capital and operating costs, production, grade, recoveries, metal prices, life of mine, mine sequencing, economic assumptions such as capital expenditures, cash flow and revenue, mine design, mining techniques and processes, timing of estimated production, equipment, staffing, emissions, use of land, estimates of mineral resources, use of energy storage technologies; the ability to produce 99.99% pure copper cathode; and the ability to secure state and local permits for the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

Forward-looking statements are based on the author's beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available. Such statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors, including fluctuations in metal prices; risks related to inflation and changes in interest rates, discount rates, exchange rates, and taxes; risks due to the inherently hazardous nature of mining- related activities; uncertainties due to health and safety considerations; uncertainties related to environmental considerations, including, without limitation, climate change; uncertainties relating to obtaining approvals and permits, including renewals, from governmental regulatory authorities; uncertainties related to changes in law; uncertainty related to the availability and terms of capital; and those risk factors described in Ivanhoe Electric's Annual Report on Form 10-K and other disclosures made by Ivanhoe Electric with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian securities regulators.

Although the authors believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking statements in this Technical Report are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such forward-looking statements, which only apply as of the date of this Technical Report, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The authors disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law.

June 2025

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

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

---

1.1 Introduction

This report was prepared as a technical report summary on the Santa Cruz Copper Project (the Project) in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric by the following third-party firms: Fluor Canada Ltd. (Fluor), BBA USA Inc. (BBA), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (H&A), INTERA Incorporated (INTERA), KCB Consultants Ltd. (KCB), Life Cycle Geo, LLC (LCG), Met Engineering, LLC (Met Engineering), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. (P&C), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec), and Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). None of the qualified persons is affiliated with the Company or any other entity that has an ownership, royalty, or other interest in the property.

1.2 Terms of Reference

Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States dollars (currency abbreviation: USD; currency symbol: US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.

All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300 and AACE Class 3, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates.

All pricing is considered in first quarter (Q1) 2025 dollars.

Unless otherwise indicated, capital and operating costs do not include tariffs or escalations.

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

This report uses U.S. English. Units may be in either metric or US customary units as identified in the text. A list of abbreviations and units of measure is provided in Section 24.

Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations in Regulation S-K 1300 (S-K 1300).

This report contains forward-looking information; refer to the note regarding forward-looking information at the front of the report.

1.3 Property Setting

The project is a 92 km drive south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and is accessed via the West Gila Bend Highway (Highway 84) 11 km west of the city of Casa Grande, which has a population of approximately 57,700.

The greater Phoenix area is a major population center, with approximately 4.8 million people, and features an international airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and well-developed infrastructure and services that support the mining industry (Figure 1-1).

June 2025 Page 1

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The climate in the project area is typical of the Sonoran Desert, with temperatures ranging from -7°C to 47°C (19°F to 117°F) and an annual precipitation average ranging from 76 to 500 mm (3 to 30 inches) per year. Mining and exploration activities can be performed year-round, as there are no limiting weather or accessibility factors.

**Figure 1-1: Santa Cruz Copper Project Location**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img002.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 2

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.4 Mineral Tenure, Ownership, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements & Permits

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is 100% owned by Ivanhoe Electric through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mesa Cobre Land Holding Corp. (Mesa Cobre).

1.4.1 Mineral Tenure

In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 238 unpatented mining lode claims from Central Arizona Resources, Ltd. (CAR). In addition, Ivanhoe Electric acquired fee simple mineral title for two further land parcels: "CG100" and "Skull Valley". In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the 0.08 km<sup>2</sup> (20-acre) "Skull Valley" property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and the 0.41 km<sup>2</sup> (100.33-acre) "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of the project.

In 2023, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 16 Arizona State Land Department mineral exploration permits covering 27.95 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,900 acres) of state mineral land. In 2024, Ivanhoe Electric exercised the agreement with D.R. Horton Phoenix East Construction, Inc. (DRH), granting Ivanhoe Electric, through Mesa Cobre, 100% of the mineral title for 26.0 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,425 acres) of fee simple mineral estate, 39 federal unpatented mining lode claims (bringing the total claims controlled by Ivanhoe Electric to 277).

The total project area comprises fee simple land along with unpatented mining lode claims and Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits. Annual renewal fees for the unpatented mining lode claims and mineral exploration permits have been made as required. The area of proposed mine activity lies on fee simple land. Mineral control is summarized in Table 1-1 and shown on Figure 1-2.

**Table 1-1: Summary of Ivanhoe Electric's Mineral Control**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Land Designation** | **Area (km<sup>2</sup>)** |
| Fee Simple Mineral Ownership | 25.98 |
| Unpatented Mining Lode Claims (277 claims) | 25.92 |
| Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits (16 permits) | 30.47 |

---

June 2025 Page 3

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 1-2: Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img003.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 4

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.4.2 Surface & Water Rights

In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface rights to two land parcels: the 0.08 km<sup>2</sup> (20-acre) Skull Valley property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and a 0.41 km<sup>2</sup> (100.33-acre) land parcel "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of project. In August 2024, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface title to three 0.04 km<sup>2</sup> (10-acre) parcels located in various areas of the project along with the mineral rights from DRH. The majority of the surface rights for the Santa Cruz Copper Project were acquired in 2023. Surface rights are shown in Figure 1-3. Ivanhoe Electric acquired grandfathered irrigation rights and grandfathered Type 1 non-irrigation water rights in association with the private land purchased in 2023 and holds all necessary water rights for the life-of-mine plan envisaged in this report.

**Figure 1-3: Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img004.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025

June 2025 Page 5

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.4.3 Royalties

There are eight royalties owners for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, as summarized in Table 1-2. Each royalty has its own distinct property description as shown in Figure 1-4.

**Table 1-2: Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Copper Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Royalty Owner** | **Royalty Description** |
| Royalty Owner A | 10% of 1/800<sup>th</sup> of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the solution extraction / electrowinning (SX/EW) process is completed |
| Royalty Owner B | 60% of 1/800<sup>th</sup> of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the SX/EW process is completed |
| Royalty Owner C | 2% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner D | 0.15% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner E | ½ of 1% net smelter return or ½ of 1% of 60% net smelter return if product is disposed of other than to a commercial smelter |
| Royalty Owner F | 10% net smelter return (capped at $7 million) |
| Royalty Owner G | 5% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner H | 1% net smelter return |
| Royalty Owner I | $0.015/lbs of copper of additional mineable reserve copper over 2 billion pounds (Blbs) as determined by the "Definitive Feasibility Study" or by production beyond the amount estimated in the "Definitive Feasibility Study"; the royalty owner has the option to require payment in Ivanhoe Electric common stock at a 10% discount to the five-day volume weighted average price |

---

**Figure 1-4: Extent of Royalties**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img005.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 6

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.5 History

Copper mineralization, first discovered in the region in the 1960s, led to extensive drill programs across the project area. Exploration programs by several companies and joint ventures included diamond drilling and several geophysical surveys from the 1960s through the 1990s.

Ivanhoe Electric gained access to the land in August 2021 to start drill programs, completed a mineral resource estimate in 2022, an updated mineral resource estimate in early 2023, and an initial assessment in September 2023.

1.6 Geology & Mineralization

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is situated within the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt, which is home to numerous productive copper deposits. Notable examples in Arizona include Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, Miami-Globe, San Manuel-Kalamazoo, Ray, Morenci, Sierrita, Twin Buttes, and the historically significant Sacaton Mine. These deposits are part of the larger physiographical area known as the Basin and Range Province, which covers much of the southwestern United States.

The porphyry copper deposits in the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt are the result of igneous activity during the Laramide Orogeny, which occurred between 50 and 80 million years ago. This geological event was driven by the subduction of the Farallon Tectonic Plate beneath the North American Tectonic Plate, resulting in the formation of a magmatic arc and the development of associated porphyry copper systems.

The project comprises four separate areas along a southwest-northeast corridor. These areas from southwest to northeast are known as the Southwest exploration area, the Santa Cruz deposit, the East Ridge deposit, and the Texaco deposit, all of which represent portions of one or more large porphyry copper systems separated by extensional Basin and Range normal faults. Each area has experienced variable periods of erosion, supergene enrichment, fault displacement, and tilting into their present positions.

Mineralization in the project area is divided into the following:

· Supergene copper oxide mineralization mainly
consists of atacamite and chrysocolla, with smaller amounts of cuprous goethite, copper-bearing smectite clays, tenorite, cuprite, copper
wad, and native copper.

· Secondary supergene sulfide mineralization is
dominantly chalcocite, which replaces hypogene sulfide.

· Primary hypogene sulfide mineralization consists
of chalcopyrite and molybdenite hosted within quartz-sulfide stringers, veins, and breccias.

June 2025 Page 7

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.7 Exploration, Drilling & Sampling

Ivanhoe Electric has completed geophysical surveys including two dimensional, three dimensional, multichannel seismic, reprocessing of proprietary Typhoon™ three-dimensional perpendicular pole dipole induced polarization data, and ambient noise tomography. The geophysical datasets from these surveys were used to assist with geological interpretation and improved drill targeting.

A comprehensive surface ionic leach sampling program has also been completed across the project to assess in detecting copper mineralization at depth.

Ivanhoe Electric has completed 149 infill drillholes totaling approximately 120,000 meters since the 2023 initial assessment, bringing the total to 329 drillholes and 279,164 meters of combined drilling for the project since initiating exploration activity in 2021. Combined with historical drilling, Ivanhoe Electric has data for over 469 drillholes totaling 330,118 meters of combined drilling. The mineral resource estimates are based on data from 329 drillholes totaling 279,164 meters of combined drilling.

Detailed core logging is performed by Ivanhoe Electric geologists through digital data input into MX Deposit. Data that are logged include lithology, alteration, mineralization, veining, petrophysical data, and geotechnical parameters, such as faults, joints, fractures, hardness, and rock quality (Q-system) parameters. Additional characterization fields such as rock colors, grain sizes, textures, and supergene weathering features were also captured.

Approximately 5,884 density measurements from 210 drillholes were measured for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits.

Quality assurance and quality control for the Ivanhoe Electric drill programs consisted of inserting duplicates, blanks, and certified reference materials (standards) into the sample stream at set sampling intervals. BBA's review of the data indicated no material issues.

Ivanhoe Electric used 83 historical and 184 modern drillholes totaling over 70 km of geotechnical drilling to analyze geotechnical characterization of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits. Historical drillholes were selected based on availability of rock quality designation data.

The groundwater flow model was calibrated and used to predict the residual passive inflows for the prefeasibility study mine plan. The predicted residual passive inflows resulting from the updated model, with mitigation measures of activated colloidal silica and grouting applied, indicate that the residual passive inflows for the first 10 years of the mine are at or below 6,000 gallons per minute (gal/min), compared to the 12,000 gal/min estimated in the initial assessment (IA) model, in addition to two years of 3,000 gal/min of active pumping (Ivanhoe Electric, 2023). From Years 11 through 25, the residual passive inflows in the updated model range from approximately 6,500 to 8,000 gal/min, compared to 15,000 to 18,000 gal/min predicted in the IA model (Ivanhoe Electric, 2023).

1.8 Data Verification

BBA personnel in the disciplines of geology, mineral resource estimation, mineral reserve estimation, and mining visited the project site in 2024. During the visit, BBA personnel reviewed and verified data acquisition procedures with Ivanhoe Electric personnel, visited active drill sites, and performed several other verification checks to ensure data integrity.

June 2025 Page 8

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Based on the data made available, BBA considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed and that no material issues were identified from the programs. It is BBA's opinion that the geological data collection and quality assurance and control procedures used by Ivanhoe Electric are consistent with current industry practices and that the geological database is of suitable quality to support a mineral resource estimate.

1.9 Metallurgical Testwork

Metallurgy and processing test work were directed by Met Engineering, LLC and conducted at McClelland Labs (MLI) in Sparks, Nevada, USA and at Blue Coast Research (BCR) in Parksville, British Columbia, Canada. Metallurgical testwork included the following:

· establishing copper recoveries, based on sequential
coppers for chloride-assisted, weak-sulfuric acid, heap leaching of mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

· determining commercial operating parameters for
heap leaching mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including salt usage, sulfuric acid usage, ore cure/agglomeration
practices, leach cell cycle times for an on/off leach pad design, annual pregnant leach solution grades, and pregnant leach solution flow
rate to solvent extraction.

A grade-recovery algorithm was developed based on sequential copper assays. For the life-of-mine processing, this equation produces a weighted average of 92.2% total copper recovery to cathode for leaching a 6-meter lift of ore crushed to 100% passing 9.5 mm for 180 days of irrigation utilizing an on/off leach pad.

There are no deleterious elements or factors that could have a significant effect on economic extraction of the copper in the mineralized material.

1.10 Mineral Resource Estimate

1.10.1 Estimation Methodology

The Santa Cruz deposit has approximately 194,000 meters of drilling in 226 drillholes; East Ridge has approximately 49,000 meters of drilling in 62 holes; and Texaco has approximately 36,000 meters of drilling in 41 holes.

Geological domains were developed for the project based on alteration, lithological, and mineralogical characteristics, incorporating regional and local structural information. Normal faults separate the mineralization at the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits.

The Santa Cruz deposit was divided into several mineral domains: exotic domain, verde domain, leach cap, oxide domain, chalcocite enriched domain, and primary mineralization domain. The East Ridge deposit consists of a mix of oxide and chalcocite enriched domains. The Texaco deposit consists of all domains except for leach cap and exotic. The domains were further divided into subdomains based on individual grade profiles, which align with controls on mineralization. The following terms are assigned to the subdomains; these represent a local definition of the grade profile: high-grade, medium-grade, and low-grade.

Exploratory data analysis was conducted to determine the nature of element distribution and correlation of grades within individual lithological units, and to identify high-grade outlier samples. Capping was not applied to copper values as significant outliers were not identified. Samples were composited to 2-meter intervals. Variograms were completed by subdomain for each deposit.

June 2025 Page 9

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The resource estimation methodology constrains the mineralization by using hard wireframe boundaries. Ordinary kriging was employed for the Santa Cruz deposit, and inverse distance squared was selected for the East Ridge and Texaco deposits. Multiple search passes were used for each deposit. Search parameters were based on variography and continuity of mineralization.

Validation checks were completed on the mineral resource estimates. These included visual comparison of estimated grade to composite grade, domain conformity, swath plots, and comparisons to alternate estimation methods.

Indicated and inferred classification was applied to the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits based on BBA's review that included the examination of drill spacing, visual comparison, kriging variance, distance to the nearest composite, and search pass, along with the search ellipsoid ranges. Collectively, this information was used to produce an initial classification script followed by manual wireframe application to further limit the mineral resource classification.

Mineral resources used commodity prices based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts. In the opinion of BBA, this price is generally aligned with pricing over the last one, three, and five years; forward-looking pricing from internationally recognized banks is appropriate for use in a mineral resource estimate. Section 16 provides an explanation of the commodity price forecasts. The commodity price considered three-year trailing averages.

1.10.2 Mineral Resource Statement

The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300 regulations. The in-situ mineral resource estimates for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, inclusive and exclusive of reserves, are presented in Tables 1-3 and 1-4, respectively.

June 2025 Page 10

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 1-3: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold<br> (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid <br> Soluble <br> Copper (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;317709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;956 | &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6650 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;31998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;512 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;8742 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;48676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;960 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Texaco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;341345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5873 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**326450** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.48** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.30** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.17** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.027** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.59** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3104** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1557** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**989** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**558** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**283** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**16704** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**6844** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**422020** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.79** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.24** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.43** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.025** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.83** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3332** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**503** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1030** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1809** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**333** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11304** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**7346** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, inclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

**Table 1-4: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes <br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (g/t)** | **Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total Acid<br> Soluble Cu<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide <br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;178451 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1435 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;607 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;359 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;477 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3163 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;31998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;512 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4407 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.94 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.015 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;91 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;48676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;960 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Texaco | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;341345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5873 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**182859** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.81** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.34** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.20** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.27** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.024** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1.41** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1476** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**625** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**373** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**486** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**141** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**8312** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**3254** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**422020** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.79** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.24** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.43** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.025** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**0.83** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**3332** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**503** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1030** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**1809** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**333** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**11304** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**7346** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, inclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 11

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.10.3 Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate

Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the mineral resource estimates are as follows:

· changes to long-term metal price assumptions

· changes to the input values for mining, processing,
and general and administrative (G&A) costs to constrain the estimate

· changes to local interpretations of mineralization
geometry and continuity of mineralized subdomains

· changes to the density values applied to the
mineralized zones

· changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions

· changes in assumptions of marketability of the
final product

· variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological,
and mining assumptions

· changes to assumptions with an existing agreement
or new agreements

· changes to environmental, permitting, and social
license assumptions

· logistics of securing and moving adequate services,
labor, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics, and other public health crises, or geopolitical influence.

1.11 Mineral Reserve Estimate

1.11.1 Estimation Methodology

Underground mineral reserves were estimated by BBA. Estimates were prepared for the Santa Cruz deposit, a portion of the East Ridge deposit, and the Verde domain located within the Santa Cruz deposit. The primary mining method for both deposits employs longhole stoping without pillars, utilizing a primary and secondary stoping sequence. Additionally, a few small lenses within the East Ridge deposit use a drift-and-fill mining method. Stopes will be backfilled with cemented rockfill to the end of Q1 2029 and then all stopes will be backfilled after mining with paste backfill for the remainder of the mine life. Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves. Inferred mineral resources were not converted to mineral reserves; however, if inferred mineral resources fell within the mineral reserve designs, they were assumed to have zero grade.

The underground mine approach was designed using zones that were amenable to different mining methods based on geotechnical considerations, access requirements, deposit shape, orientation and grade, and mining depths. Waste or low-grade blocks in the stope shapes were treated as internal dilution. Mine designs were modified by including the capital and operating development needed to access the stopes, and the applicable infrastructure requirements.

Net smelter return (NSR) represents the gross revenue generated from the sale of a refined metal product (in this case, copper cathodes) after deducting all associated off-site costs. For a mine producing copper cathodes via heap leaching and SX/EW, the traditional "smelter" and "refining" charges inherent in concentrate sales are not applicable. Instead, the offsite deductions are specific to the direct sale of cathodes.

June 2025 Page 12

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The primary metal produced at the Santa Cruz Copper Project is copper. While byproducts of gold and silver are present, the current heap leach SX/EW process does not recover these precious metals. As is common with polymetallic deposits, the cutoff value for mineral reserves is determined and expressed in terms of net smelter return value per tonne.

The NSR is calculated based on unit metal values, utilizing representative smelter contract terms, freight costs, and forecasted metal prices. The metal prices and metallurgical recovery rates used for NSR calculations are summarized in Table 1-5. Operating cost for cutoff value calculations are summarized in Table 1-6. Royalties are factored into each block of the mineral resource model.

Mineral reserves are assessed using commodity prices derived from long-term forecasts from analysts and banks. According to BBA, this pricing generally reflects the trends observed over the past one, three, and five years, and the forward-looking prices from internationally recognized banks are deemed appropriate for mineral reserve estimates.

**Table 1-5: NSR Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Unit** | **Value** |
| Acid Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 98.8 |
| Cyanide Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 85.4 |
| Residual Copper Recovery | % | 35.1 |
| **Recoverable Copper** | **%** | **90.9** |
| **Net Recoverable Copper** | **%** | **90.0** |
| Copper Price | $/lb | 4.00 |

---

**Table 1-6: Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Santa Cruz** | **East Ridge** | **East Ridge** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **30 m Longhole** | **Drift and Fill** | **15 m Longhole** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Leach** | **Leach** | **Leach** |
| Cathode Split | % | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| **Onsite Costs** |  |  |  |  |
| Mining Costs – Direct | $/t processed | 31.00 | 47.05 | 47.05 |
| Processing Costs | $/t processed | 10.32 | 10.32 | 10.32 |
| G&A | $/t processed | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 |
| Onsite Total | $/t processed | 43.95 | 60.00 | 60.00 |
| **Onsite Rounded NSR Breakeven Cutoff** | **$/t** | **44.00** | **60.00** | **60.00** |

---

1.11.2 Mineral Reserve Statement

Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves. Inferred mineral resources were excluded from the mineral reserve estimate. Mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz Copper Project are estimated for the Santa Cruz deposit and a portion of the East Ridge deposit, as well as the Verde domain within the Santa Cruz deposit.

Mineral reserves are supported by a mine plan, engineering analysis, and modifying factors.

June 2025 Page 13

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The point of reference for the mineral reserves is the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant. Mineral reserves are reported on a 100% basis.

The mineral reserve estimate for the Santa Cruz Copper Project is shown in Table 1-7.

June 2025 Page 14

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 1-7: Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserve Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (kt)** | **Total Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid <br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total Acid<br> Soluble Cu<br> (kt)** | **Total <br> Cyanide<br> Cu<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual Cu<br> (kt)** |
| Santa Cruz | Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;132061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1430 | &nbsp;&nbsp;820 | &nbsp;&nbsp;544 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 |
| East Ridge | Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;4112 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;42 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 |
| Total | Probable | &nbsp;&nbsp;136173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.41 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1472 | &nbsp;&nbsp;839 | &nbsp;&nbsp;563 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 |

---

Notes: **1.** The mineral reserves in this estimate are current to June 23, 2025 and were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc. They are reported in accordance with the definitions for mineral reserves in S-K 1300. **2.** The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities. **3.** The mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits were completed using Deswik mining software. Mineral reserves are defined within stope designs that are prescribed by rock mechanics, considering the specific characteristics of deposits, mineral domains, mining methods, and the mining sequence. Transverse longhole stoping is the optimal mining method with uppers and cut & fill methods used where appropriate. Mining will occur in blocks, extracting ore from the bottom upwards, with paste backfill providing ground support to sustain a production rate of 20,000 tonnes per day for the first 15 years of operation. **4.** Mineral reserves are estimated at an NSR cutoff value of $43.95/t for longhole stoping and $60/t for longitudinal retreat stopes and drift and fill. The NSR values reflect the discrete metallurgical responses for each mineral reserve block using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb. **5.** Mineral reserves account for mining loss and dilution. **6.** Mineral reserves are a subset of the indicated mineral resource and do not include the inferred mineral resource. **7.** Rounding, as required by the guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 15

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.11.3 Factors That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate

Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimate include the following:

· changes to long-term metal price assumptions

· changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions

· changes to the input assumptions used to derive
the mineable shapes applicable to the assumed underground and open pit mining methods used to constrain the estimates

· changes to the forecast dilution and mining recovery
assumptions

· changes to the cutoff grades used to constrain
the estimates

· variations in geotechnical (including seismicity),
hydrogeological, mining, and processing recovery assumptions

· changes to environmental, permitting, and social
license assumptions.

1.12 Mining Methods

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is an undeveloped brownfield project where mineral reserves have been identified for two deposits: Santa Cruz and East Ridge.

The Santa Cruz deposit is located approximately 480 to 940 meters below the surface. Based on the mineralization's geometry and supporting geotechnical data, transverse underground longhole stoping has been selected as the most suitable mining method. Mining will be conducted in blocks, with ore being extracted from the bottom upward within each block while utilizing paste backfill to provide ground support. A sill pillar will be maintained between the blocks. The paste backfill is designed to be strong enough to allow adjacent filled stopes to be mined without requiring additional pillars.

The stopes for the Santa Cruz deposit will have varying widths of 12 to 18 meters and lengths ranging from 10 to 17 meters, depending on the geotechnical domain, zone, and mining sequence (primary or secondary). The levels in the mine are spaced 30 meters apart. The Verde zone is a subdomain within the Santa Cruz deposit, and the production stopes in this area will be accessed from the Santa Cruz mine levels, featuring standard dimensions of 20 meters (height) x 15 meters (width) x 20 meters (length).

The East Ridge deposit is situated to the north of the main Santa Cruz deposit, approximately 310 to 790 meters below the surface. It consists of multiple tabular lenses and will be mined using a hybrid approach that combines longhole stoping and the drift-and-fill method, depending on the geometry of the orebody in each zone. At East Ridge, longhole stopes will measure 15 meters (height) x 10 meters (width) x 8 meters (length), accessed via longitudinal entries. For zones using the drift-and-fill method, the drifts will have dimensions of 5 meters (height) x 5 meters (width), with variable lengths determined by the local rock mass condition. Mining will begin with a drift sized at 5 meters (height) x 5 meters (width), followed by paste backfill and curing before the development of the next adjacent drift in the orebody.

Mine access will be provided through two decline drifts from the surface: one for main access and the other for a Railveyor system to handle materials. Ore will be transported from the stopes by load-haul-dump (LHD) equipment to an orepass system, which will transfer the ore from a chute to a conveyor system. From the conveyor system, it will be loaded onto the Railveyor and brought to surface. Main intake and exhaust raises will be developed to ensure the mine workings are adequately ventilated. The combined production target for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits is approximately 20,000 t/d.

June 2025 Page 16

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Santa Cruz Copper Project encompasses three mining zones: Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge (Figure 1-5). The Santa Cruz zone is the primary production area and is structurally divided into northern and southern regions.

**Figure 1-5: Mining Zones of Santa Cruz and East Ridge Deposits, View Looking North**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img01.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

Primary (first-pass) support will be installed in conjunction with the advance of excavation and will provide support and reinforcement. Any support applied at a later stage will be considered secondary (or second-pass) support. Excavation in rock will be performed via conventional (drill and blast) methods or with a roadheader machine.

June 2025 Page 17

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Santa Cruz Copper Project mine life is expected to be 23 years with construction from 2026 to 2028 followed by schedule production to 2051. Table 1-8 summarizes the production in the mine plan. The "Ore" column represents the total development and production ore for Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge mining zones.

**Table 1-8: Santa Cruz Scheduled Production Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Ore<br> (kt)** | **Total Copper<br> (%)** | **AsCu<br> (%)** | **CNCu<br> (%)** | **Cu_Res<br> (%)** | **Ratio <br> ASCU:TCU** |
| 2026 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2027 | 28 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.70 |
| 2028 | 1673 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.71 |
| 2029 | 3973 | 1.29 | 0.99 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 0.77 |
| 2030 | 5377 | 1.35 | 0.86 | 0.44 | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| 2031 | 6737 | 1.15 | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.53 |
| 2032 | 7492 | 1.12 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.06 | 0.50 |
| 2033 | 7439 | 1.13 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2034 | 7875 | 1.02 | 0.64 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.63 |
| 2035 | 7441 | 1.13 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
| 2036 | 7740 | 1.06 | 0.75 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.71 |
| 2037 | 7937 | 1.01 | 0.58 | 0.38 | 0.05 | 0.57 |
| 2038 | 7961 | 0.99 | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.04 | 0.52 |
| 2039 | 7256 | 1.15 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.08 | 0.42 |
| 2040 | 7400 | 1.14 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.46 |
| 2041 | 7819 | 1.05 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2042 | 7851 | 1.07 | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.06 | 0.48 |
| 2043 | 5956 | 1.07 | 0.68 | 0.34 | 0.05 | 0.64 |
| 2044 | 4177 | 1.04 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.03 | 0.48 |
| 2045 | 3732 | 1.04 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.65 |
| 2046 | 3338 | 1.05 | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.64 |
| 2047 | 3453 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.69 |
| 2048 | 3586 | 1.07 | 0.65 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0.60 |
| 2049 | 3655 | 0.99 | 0.52 | 0.41 | 0.06 | 0.53 |
| 2050 | 3643 | 1.04 | 0.67 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.65 |
| 2051 | 2636 | 0.92 | 0.66 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.71 |
| **Total** | **136173** | **1.08** | **0.62** | **0.41** | **0.05** |  |

---

June 2025 Page 18

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Figure 1-6 shows a tonne-grade graph for production and includes estimated waste rock. Figure 1-7 shows tonnes of material mined over the life-of-mine from the orebodies and development.

**Figure 1-6: Santa Cruz Tonne – Grade Graph**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img02.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

**Figure 1-7: Santa Cruz Tonnes of Mined Material**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img03.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 19

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The injection of activated colloidal silica to reduce water flow around development excavations has been evaluated by Geosyntec for the project. During initial decline development where the twin declines pass through the upper portion of the Gila conglomerate and high hydraulic conductivity zones, standard ramp dewatering methods—in addition to methods like activated colloidal silica injection—support de-risking of early development.

Cemented paste backfill will be used as the primary backfill method to support the mining cycle at Santa Cruz Copper Project and facilitate the excavation of adjacent voids. Cemented rockfill is used for the initial nine months of stoping as production ramps up and spent ore becomes available from the on/off heap leach pad. Paste backfill from milled spent ore is used for the remainder of the life of mine. The spent ore requires conditioning prior to use in the backfill system to ensure suitable properties for paste backfill.

Grade control at the Santa Cruz mine will be enhanced through technology integrated into the materials handling system, such as cross-belt analyzers. Additionally, production hole sampling and onsite testing at the surface assay laboratory will be employed to reconcile results with the mine plan.

The underground ventilation system is designed to ensure efficient airflow and maintain appropriate working temperatures underground throughout the life of mine. Using a pull system with main exhaust fans, the system has a capacity of 940 m<sup>3</sup>/s, supported by two declines and three primary ventilation shafts. All main fans are planned to be installed on the surface at East Ridge shaft and Santa Cruz shaft #1, while booster fans will be needed to regulate ventilation flow underground. Due to high ambient temperatures, mechanical cooling is provided by a central refrigeration plant with a peak capacity of 20 MW of refrigeration. The system features variable frequency drives and regulators to allow ventilation control underground, ensuring adequate air quality and efficient clearance of mine blast gases.

1.13 Recovery Methods

Process for the Santa Cruz Copper Project has been designed to cycle oxide and secondary sulfide ores through an on/off heap leach pad to produce a copper-rich pregnant leach solution (PLS) that will be processed in the onsite solvent extraction and electrowinning circuit for recovery.

The process designs were based on existing technologies and proven equipment. The process and refinery plant designs are based on the results of metallurgical testwork on the mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project. The designs are conventional.

The simplified overall process flow diagram is presented in Figure 1-8.

Ore produced from the underground mine will be processed using a heap leach and solvent extraction and electrowinning flowsheet to produce London Metal Exchange grade copper cathode. The heap leaching process will take place on an on/off pad. Spent ore will be removed from the leach pad and processed for paste backfill or stacked on a spent ore pile. Approximately 50% of the spent ore will be processed for use in paste backfill. Operations will be conducted 24 hours per day, 365 days per year for approximately 26 years at a design stacking rate of up to 22,000 t/d.

Run-of-mine ore will be delivered to surface at a diameter of less than 20 cm via the Railveyor. Ore from underground will be either fed, via a surge hopper, to crushing or diverted and conveyed to the coarse ore stockpile for future use. Fine ore (undersize from the crushing circuit) will be trucked to the agglomeration drums where sulfuric acid and sodium chloride can be added to facilitate agglomeration and leaching.

June 2025 Page 20

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Crushed and agglomerated ore will be delivered to the leach pad via a combination of haul truck and overland conveying and stacking equipment. The final mobile conveyor will feed two self-propelled indexing conveyors in series, which in turn will feed the self-propelled mobile radial stacker. The cells will be 'retreat' stacked by the radial stacker in a 130-meter-wide, half-moon shape.

The on/off heap leach pad will be divided into seven cells, each 130 x 640 meters (Figure 1-8). There will be 25-meter-wide spacer strips between the cells effectively creating multiple leach pads and providing safety zones between the cells. The liner for the leach pad is comprised of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane overlaying a geosynthetic layer of clay overlaying prepared native foundation materials or grading fill.

Ore will be stacked at up to 22,000 t/d, and therefore it will take approximately 36 days to stack each cell at design production rate. Each of the cells will progress through cycles in sequence with each stacking cycle taking 36 days and an entire cell cycle taking 265 days.

June 2025 Page 21

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 1-8: Simplified Process Flowsheet**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img04.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

June 2025 Page 22

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The cycles are as follows:

· stacking (36 days)

· piping connections and stacker relocation (2
days)

· irrigation five 36-day cycles (180 days)

· drain down, water rinse, drain down, and piping
removal (30 days)

· spent ore removal (28 days)

· inspection and rehabilitation (2 days).

The cells will be irrigated with raffinate (depleted pregnant leach solution from the solution extraction process). Leach solution will report to the pregnant leach solution pond. At the end of the leach cycle, spent ore will be removed to the spent ore piles or the paste plant using loaders and trucks (Figure 1-9).

**Figure 1-9: Seven-Cell Heap Leach and Solution Management**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img05.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

Solution will be managed in a series of lined ponds, including the raffinate pond, raffinate storm water pond, pregnant leach solution pond, pregnant leach solution stormwater pond, secondary pregnant leach solution pond, and spent ore area stormwater ponds. The pond system has been sized to contain normal operating solutions and stormwater and to maintain separation between contact and non-contact water. The proposed locations of the solution management ponds are depicted in Figure 1-10.

June 2025 Page 23

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 1-10: Solution Management Ponds, Leach Pad, and Spent Ore Piles**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img06.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

June 2025 Page 24

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The solvent extraction circuit design comprises two parallel trains. Each train will consist of two extraction stages, two wash stages, and one strip stage.

The copper electrowinning tankhouse will comprise electrowinning cells with lead anodes and stainless-steel cathode blanks. Cathodes (copper electroplated onto stainless steel blanks) will be harvested manually using an overhead crane and bail. Cathodes will be stripped in an industry standard automated stripping machine and the washed blanks will be returned to the cells. Product cathode copper will be bundled, sampled, weighed, labeled, and shipped.

1.14 Infrastructure

The Santa Cruz Copper Project site surface infrastructure comprises the following:

· an open excavation 60-meter-deep "box cut"
ramp for accessing a twin decline portal to the underground mine workings

· three ventilation shafts to facilitate air flows
to the underground mine workings

· primary mine ventilation fans, hardware, and
ducting to control ventilation to the underground mine workings

· refrigeration plant to control temperatures in
the underground mine workings

· ventilation bore for refrigeration

· rock crushing process plant and temporary stockpiles

· two spent ore facilities; north and south pads

· on/off leach pad with associated collection ponds
and mobile stacking

· solution extraction and electrowinning process
facilities

· mobile cement batch plant facility

· paste backfill batch facility

· maintenance, and warehouse facilities

· first aid/rescue building

· multiple various ancillary outbuildings

· entry security shack and various visitor and
project parking spaces

· equipment delivery and open laydown/storage area

· multiple improved and unimproved access roads

· piping and pumping systems for process and water
services

· explosives storage facility

· high-voltage transmission line and substation

June 2025 Page 25

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· environmental monitoring facilities

· emergency power generation facility

· solar power and battery storage facility.

Key infrastructure locations are shown on Figure 1-11.

**Figure 1-11: Santa Cruz Site Plan**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img07.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025

Power for the project will be provided from a combination of onsite renewable energy supply and utility grid supply. The goal of the mine development is to achieve a minimum of 70% of the energy supply from renewable sources including onsite photovoltaic solar generation built by a third-party developer in conjunction with a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) facilitated by local power provider Electrical District No. 3 (ED3) plus onsite battery energy storage system. The renewables facility was sized based on available area and to provide 40 MW of continuous power annually with over 90% load coverage.

June 2025 Page 26

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The proposed onsite battery energy storage system consists of a lithium-ion system rated for 140 MW / 560 MWh. There is an additional opportunity to utilize the emerging vanadium redox flow battery technology. A percentage of the lithium-ion battery energy storage system could be replaced by a vanadium redox flow battery system. VRB Energy USA Inc. is the license holder of vanadium redox battery technology in the United States and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VRB Energy Inc., a 90%-owned and controlled subsidiary of Ivanhoe Electric.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project will have an estimated operating load of 78.7 MW and a forecast annual consumption of between 580,000 and 690,000 MWh during peak production years.

Water supply for process operations will be sourced from existing grandfathered Type I non-irrigation rights and mine dewatering. Potable water will be trucked in from the city. Trucked water will be stored in a tank to service the surface facilities.

Water management operations include systems of underground dewatering, water collection and conveyance facilities, water storage, water use, and various management options for discharge of excess water. Water not used for underground mining, the paste backfill plant, the process plant, and the on/off heap leach pad can be pumped to storage reservoirs. Rapid infiltration basins are used to capture non-contact stormwater runoff to prevent stormwater from coming into contact with mining operations.

Testwork confirmed the extracted groundwater quality will be acceptable for irrigation use when applied to suitable crops (e.g., cotton, alfalfa, pasture grasses) commonly grown in the vicinity of the project. The water distribution system is designed to distribute water to agricultural end-users, without treatment, and includes a side-stream water treatment process that may be used if the extracted groundwater does not meet the standards defined by end-users.

Onsite accommodations facilities are neither required nor planned. Personnel will reside in nearby settlements including Casa Grande, Maricopa, the Phoenix metropolitan area, and Tucson, and will commute to site by vehicle. Parking, security, fencing, and a gatehouse are included in the design.

The infrastructure buildings to be built on site include explosive magazine storage; cap magazine storage; core shack; process laboratory; security and main gate; fueling station; mine, plant operations building, changehouse, and mine dry; first aid and emergency rescue facilities; mining facility warehouse.

1.15 Market Studies & Contracts

Copper is a globally traded commodity that has established benchmark pricing in the form of exchanges such as the London Metals Exchange or Commodity Exchange Inc. The Santa Cruz Copper Project aims to produce copper cathode. Ivanhoe Electric plans to sell the copper in the United States.

Refined copper cathodes will be sold with reference to the prices on the Commodity Exchange or London Metals Exchange at an agreed-upon quotational period. An additional premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers. Factors affecting the premium will include the shape and chemical specification of the cathode, together with the geographical location of the delivery point in relation to where the cathode is going to be consumed.

June 2025 Page 27

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

This study uses a base copper price of $4.25 per pound, which is based on a review of the one-, three-, and five-year trailing averages, as well as consensus forecasts from major banks and a market study completed by Ocean Partners for Ivanhoe Electric.

Due to the shape, chemical composition, and origin point of the cathode, it is expected that a premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers that is marginally above the historical average. For financial modeling purposes, this premium is estimated at $0.14 per pound ($300 per tonne) (Ocean Partners, 2025).

Table 1-9 summarizes the one-, three-, and five-year trailing price for copper using the LME Grade A monthly average as well as consensus forecasts from the major banks (CIBC, 2025) and Ocean Partners (2025).

**Table 1-9: Commodity Price Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** |
|  | **1-Year** | **3-Year** | **5-Year** | **2026** | **2027** | **2028** | **2029** | **Long-term** |
| BBA<sup>1</sup> | 4.22 | 3.96 | 3.95 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Banks Forecast<sup>2</sup> |  |  |  | 4.36 | 4.52 | 4.65 |  | 4.31 |
| Ocean Partners<sup>3</sup> |  |  |  | 4.31 | 4.54 | 4.76 | 4.65 | 4.31 |

---

Notes: <sup>1</sup>BBA, Metal Pricing_R00, June 2025. <sup>2</sup>CIBC Consensus Commodity Prices – June 2025. <sup>3</sup>Ocean Partners, April 2025. LME = London Metals Exchange.

At this time, no sales agreements or contracts have been executed with vendors, contractors, or manufacturers.

1.16 Environmental, Closure & Permitting

Environmental studies have included examination of flora and fauna, threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, surface water mapping, cultural heritage, air quality, carbon intensity, surface water monitoring, groundwater monitoring, water quality, material characterization, and mine material environmental behavior.

Much of the property has been previously disturbed from its natural state. These disturbances include flood control features, such as the canal identified as the Santa Cruz Wash Canal, paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural practices. These disturbances have removed all potential natural surface water features that may have existed in this area. The only features within the property that possess characteristics of an ordinary high-water mark and may be potential Waters of the United States are the north branch of the Santa Cruz Wash and the constructed Santa Cruz Wash Canal.

The project is committed to responsible environmental management, with a particular focus on minimizing air quality impacts. The project is located within the West Pinal County PM<sub>10</sub> (particulate matter emissions with a diameter less than 10 microns) nonattainment area. Accordingly, the project will take specific measures to control and effectively mitigate dust. These measures will be in alignment with both local and state requirements.

A groundwater monitoring program to continue collecting baseline water quality data was developed and implemented in October 2023. The objective of the monitoring plan is to establish a current baseline water quality profile for the site and help inform Ivanhoe Electric on best management practices for groundwater monitoring during and after mining operations.

June 2025 Page 28

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The major permits for the project will require state, county, and local authorizations. Several of these permits have been issued for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities. Other permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted. The remaining permit applications for construction and operations will be prepared and submitted as sufficient design and engineering information become available.

The eventual closure and reclamation of the Santa Cruz Copper Project will be directed and regulated under two separate but interconnected regulatory programs in Arizona: the Arizona State Mine Inspector and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Both programs are well-established and statutes and rules are subject to licensing timeframes.

Once the facility has been sufficiently designed to advance to mine development and operation, Ivanhoe Electric will need to apply for and receive an Aquifer Protection Permit from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and submit and receive approval from the Arizona State Mine Inspector for a project reclamation plan. The closure approach and related closure cost estimates must be submitted following approval and before facility construction and operation.

Although an operational mined land reclamation plan has not yet been developed for the project, a preliminary closure cost estimate has been developed. Based on the conceptual design plan in this report, the closure costs for the Santa Cruz Copper Project are estimated at $35 million.

In alignment with Ivanhoe Electric's community engagement and partnership standards, the project is being developed with a well-defined strategy to establish and uphold the support of the surrounding communities. At present, the project has initiated outreach with Native American communities that have ancestral ties to the land. In addition, community outreach with local stakeholders, and community involvement and potential partnerships are actively being pursued and/or assessed.

1.17 Capital & Operating Cost Estimates

1.17.1 Capital Cost Estimate

For the Santa Cruz Copper Project, capital and operating costs were determined based on the mine plan and SX/EW plant design. The estimation process incorporated assessments of material and labor requirements derived from the design, analysis of the process flowsheet, and anticipated consumption of power and supplies.

Cost estimation is based on a combination of vendor and consumable quotes and an internal database. Approximately 80% of the capital estimate is based on detailed quotes with estimated labor installation. For the purposes of this study, initial capital expenditure is assumed to be costs incurred in 2026, 2027, and 2028. By the end of 2028, ore production from stopes has been established and the SX/EW plant has been installed to begin copper production. Additional mine and plant capital costs are incurred from 2029 and 2050 to continue meeting mine ramp up and production demands and are included in sustaining capital costs.

Total life-of-mine capital costs are $2.36 billion: $1.24 billion in initial capital and $1.28 billion in sustaining capital. Capital costs are summarized in Table 1-10.

June 2025 Page 29

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 1-10: Estimated Total Capital Cost**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capital Costs Summary** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Cost<br> ($M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Cost<br> ($M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total LOM Capital<br> Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-production Mining Costs | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | &nbsp;&nbsp;688 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1193 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1881 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process | &nbsp;&nbsp;240 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;305 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Infrastructure | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indirects | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM | &nbsp;&nbsp;64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp;48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Initial Capital** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1236** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Sustaining Capital** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1281** |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation and Closure Costs<sup>\*</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;-161 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Life-of-Mine Capital Costs** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1238** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1118** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**2355** |

---

Note: Closure costs include land sales at the end of life of mine. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

June 2025 Page 30

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.17.2 Operating Cost Estimate

Total life-of-mine operating costs are $3.95 billion, as summarized in Table 1-11.

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

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Category** | **$M Total** | **$/t Ore Processed** | **$/lb Copper Produced** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining** | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Consumables | 1239 | 9.22 | 0.41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mobile Equipment | 432 | 3.24 | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Haulage | 39 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Labor | 626 | 4.73 | 0.21 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Power | 149 | 1.19 | 0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Services and Indirect | 55 | 0.40 | 0.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal** | **2538** | **19.07** | **0.85** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**SX/EW Plant and Infrastructure** |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Consumables | 276 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hauling and Mobile Equipment | 177 | 1.30 | 0.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Labor | 185 | 1.36 | 0.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Power | 300 | 2.20 | 0.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance | 58 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal** | **996** | **7.31** | **0.33** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | 414 | 3.04 | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **3948** | **29.42** | **1.32** |

---

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

1.18 Economic Analysis

Based on the cash flow model, the after-tax financial model resulted in an IRR of 20.0% and an NPV of $1.4 billion using an 8% discount rate. The after-tax payback period, after start of operations, is 4.4 years. The pre-tax base case financial model resulted in an IRR of 22.0% and an NPV of $1.9 billion using an 8% discount rate.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project contemplates average annual copper cathode production of approximately 72,000 tonnes for the first 15 years of copper production and the average annual production is approximately 35,000 tonnes for the remaining 8 years of the life of mine.

The total life of mine is 23 years at an average C1 cash cost of $1.32 per pound of copper and sustaining cash costs of $2.01 per pound of copper.

A variable cut-off grade strategy optimizes recovery in the early years and maximizes mine life in the later years of the mine plan.

The financial analysis summary is shown in Table 1-12.

June 2025 Page 31

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 1-12: Estimated Operating Costs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Life of Mine** | **First 15 Years** |
| **Production Data** | **Production Data** | **Production Data** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Life | 23 | 15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reserve Tonnes | 136 | 106 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Grade | 1.08 | 1.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Daily Throughput | 15000 | 20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Annual Copper Production | 56685 | 72186 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Copper Cathode Produced | 1360 | 1083 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery | 92.2 | 92.4 |
| **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Capital | 1236 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital | 1281 | 1176 |
| **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | 19.07 | 19.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Cost | 7.31 | 7.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | 3.04 | 3.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalties | 5.26 | 5.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | 34.68 | 35.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating + Sustaining Cost | 43.98 | 46.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C1 Cash Cost | 1.32 | 1.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in-Sustaining Cost | 2.01 | 1.99 |
| **Financial Analysis** | **Financial Analysis** | **Financial Analysis** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Price | 4.25 | 4.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Domestic Cathode Premium<sup>1</sup> | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax Cashflow | 6148 | 4501 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1880 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax Internal Rate of Return | 22 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Cashflow | 4961 | 3637 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1376 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Internal Rate of Return | 20 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Payback Period | 4.4 |  |

---

<sup>1</sup> See Section 16 for a discussion on copper premium.

June 2025 Page 32

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

1.19 Risks

The risks associated with the Santa Cruz Copper Project are generally those expected with underground mining operations and include the accuracy of the mineral resource and mineral reserve models, and/or operational impacts.

In addition, the noted factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates include:

· The capital cost estimates at mines under development
may increase as construction progresses. This may negatively affect the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates.

· The life-of-mine plan assumes that the project
can be permitted based on envisaged timelines. If the permitting schedule is delayed, this could impact costs and proposed production.

· The long-term reclamation and mitigation of the
Santa Cruz Copper Project are subject to assumptions as to closure timeframes and closure cost estimates. If these cannot be met, there
is a risk to the costs and timing.

· Climate changes could impact operating costs
and ability to operate.

· Political risk from challenges to the current
state or federal mining laws.

1.20 Opportunities

Potential opportunities for the project include the following:

· Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources
to higher-confidence categories, with additional drilling and supporting studies, such that this higher confidence material could potentially
be converted to mineral reserves.

· Optimizing the mine plan based upon market conditions.
At present, the production stopes are dictated by their copper content based upon a flat long term copper price.

· Completing additional underground core diamond
drilling and development within the ore, there could be a reason to increase the width and/or height of the stopes, if geotechnical factors
allow.

· Ivanhoe Electric holds a significant ground package
that retains significant exploration potential for new operations proximal to the current mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates,
with the support of additional studies.

· Ongoing leach testwork will focus on optimizing
leach conditions to maximize copper recovery from chalcocite and reduce heap leach pad capital costs and SX circuit capital costs.

· Simplification and optimization of the ore crushing
circuit should provide for an opportunity to reduce plant capital costs.

· Use of two decades of South American knowledge
and expertise at applying chloride-assisted leach technology to inform construction of the on/off heap leach pad.

· The low elevation profile of the heap leach pad
(6-meter lift on/off pad) and the flat topographic terrain should provide cost saving opportunities to use low head type pumps for pregnant
leach solution, raffinate, and organic pumping that can use less expensive materials of construction for pumps like fiberglass, bromo-butyl
rubber-lined carbon steel (not applicable for organic) and HDPE compared to exotic metal pumps resistant to this corrosion environment
such as tantalum and titanium.

June 2025 Page 33

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· There is potential for a considerable positive
impact to the operating cost estimate by optimizing the paste backfill recipe and reducing the binder requirements.

· There is potential to increase material handling
and throughput, further optimizing the mine plan.

1.21 Conclusions

Under the assumptions presented in this report, the Santa Cruz Copper Project consists of mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates that support a positive cash flow.

1.22 Recommendations

The recommended work programs to advance detailed engineering, operational readiness, permitting, and critical long-lead items total $22.4 million. The budget for recommended work is summarized in Table 1-13.

**Table 1-13: Proposed Reagent & Process Consumables**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Discipline** | **Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Permitting | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Environmental Testing | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Detailed Engineering – Surface & Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Long-Lead Items | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Project Support | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **22.4** |

---

June 2025 Page 34

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

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

---

2.1 Registrant for Whom the Report was Prepared

This technical report summary was prepared for Ivanhoe Electric, Inc. (Ivanhoe Electric) on the Santa Cruz Copper Project located in Arizona, United States (Figure 3-1).

The report was prepared by Fluor Canada Ltd. (Fluor), BBA USA Inc. (BBA), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (H&A), INTERA Incorporated (INTERA), KCB Consultants Ltd. (KCB), Life Cycle Geo, LLC (LCG), Met Engineering, LLC (Met Engineering), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. (P&C), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec), and Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). None of the qualified persons is affiliated with the Company or any other entity that has an ownership, royalty, or other interest in the property.

2.2 Purpose of the Report

This report was prepared to be attached as an exhibit to support mineral property disclosure, including mineral resource estimates and mineral reserve estimates, for the Santa Cruz Copper Project in certain of Ivanhoe Electric's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mineral resources are reported for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. Mineral reserves are reported for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits.

2.3 Terms of Reference

Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States dollars (currency abbreviation: USD; currency symbol: US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions.

All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300 and AACE Class 3, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates.

All pricing is considered in Q1 2025 dollars.

Unless otherwise indicated, capital and operating costs do not include tariffs or escalations.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

This report uses U.S. English. Units may be in either metric or US customary units as identified in the text. A list of abbreviations and units of measure is provided in Section 24.

Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations in Regulation S-K 1300 (S-K1300).

This report contains forward-looking statements; refer to the note regarding forward-looking statements at the front of the report.

June 2025 Page 35

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

2.4 Report Date

Information in the report is current as of June 23, 2025.

2.5 Previous Technical Report Summaries

This technical report summary supersedes the previous technical report summary, "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary" (September 2023).

2.6 Qualified Persons

This report was authored and compiled by third-party firms who are mining experts who meet the criteria for such according to 17 CFR § 229.1302(b)(1). Table 2-1 lists the contributions of each third-party firm.

In addition to their individual chapters, the third-party firms also contributed to Section 1, Executive Summary; Section 2.6, Qualified Persons, Section 2.7, Site Visits & Scope of Personal Inspection, Section 22, Interpretation and Conclusions; Section 23, Recommendations; and Section 24, References, according to their area of expertise.

A portion of the information was provided by the registrant, Ivanhoe Electric, as set forth in Section 25. The third-party firms have relied on the registrant for the information specified in Section 25.

2.7 Site Visits & Scope of Personal Inspection

Consulting QPs and support staff visited the project site. The scope of inspection by each discipline area is summarized in Table 2-2.

2.8 Information Sources

The reports and documents listed in Sections 24 and 25 were used to support the preparation of the report.

June 2025 Page 36

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 2-1: Qualified Person Contributions**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Legal Company Name** | **Abbreviation** | **Report Sections and Subsection Responsibility** |
| Fluor Canada Ltd. | Fluor | 1.1, 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.17 to 1.20, 1.22, 2.1 to 2.8, 14.1 to 14.11, 15.1, 15.2, 18.1, 18.1.2, 18.2, 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.4, 18.3, 18.3.2, 18.3.3, 18.4, 21, 22.1, 22.12, 22.13, 22.16, 22.17, 22.19, 22.20, 23.1, 23.4, 23.6, 24, 25 |
| BBA USA Inc. | BBA | 1.1 to 1.8, 1.10 to 1.12, 1.15, 1.17 to 1.22, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 3.1 to 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 6.1 to 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1 to 8.6, 9.1 to 9.9, 11.1 to 11.14, 12.1 to 12.5, 13.1 to 13.11, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 18.1, 18.1.1, 18.2, 18.2.1, 18.3, 18.3.1, 18.3.3, 19.1 to 19.4, 20, 21, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7, 22.9, 22.10, 22.11, 22.14, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18, 22.19, 22.20, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. | Burns & McDonnell | 1.1, 1.2, 1.14, 1.22, 2.1 to 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 15.1.4.1, 15.2, 21, 22.1, 22.13, 23.1, 23.5, 24, 25 |
| Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. | Geosyntec | 1.1, 1.2, 1.12, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 13.7.2, 15.1.7, 21, 22.1, 22.11, 22.13, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| Haley & Aldrich, Inc. | H&A | 1.1, 1.2, 1.16, 1.19, 1.20, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, 17.8, 21, 22.1, 22.15, 22.19, 23.1, 23.3, 24, 25 |
| INTERA Incorporated | INTERA | 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 7.4, 21, 22.1, 22.6, 22.19, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| KCB Consultants Ltd. | KCB | 1.1, 1.2, 1.13, 1.19, 1.20, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 14.6.1, 14.6.2, 14.6.4, 21, 22.1, 22.12, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| Life Cycle Geo, LLC | LCG | 1.1, 1.2, 1.16, 1.19, 1.20, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 to 2.8, 17.1.8, 17.3, 21, 22.1, 22,15, 22.19, 22.20, 23.1, 23.3, 24, 25 |
| Met Engineering, LLC | Met Engineering | 1.1, 1.2, 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 10.1 to 10.5, 21, 22.1, 22.8, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. | P&C | 1.1, 1.2, 1.12, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 13.11.3, 18.3.2.2, 21, 22.1, 22.11, 22.19, 23.1, 23.4, 24, 25 |
| Stantec Consulting Services Inc. | Stantec | 1.1, 1.2, 1.12, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 to 2.8, 13.11.5, 21, 22.1, 22.11, 23.1, 22.4, 24, 25 |
| Tetra Tech, Inc. | Tetra Tech | 1.1, 1.2, 1.16, 1.19, 1.20, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17.5, 17.7, 21, 22.1, 22.15, 22.19, 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 24, 25 |

---

June 2025 Page 37

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 2-2: Site Visits**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area of Investigation** | **Company** | **Site Visit Date** | **Scope of Personal Inspection** |
| Mineral Resource Estimates; Mineral Reserve Estimates; Geology; Geotechnical; Mine Planning; Underground Infrastructure | BBA | February 27, 2024<br> April 22 to 23, 2024<br> July 16 to 17, 2024<br> August 22 to 23, 2024 | Reviewed past work, active work, active drill sites, geology controls, data capture processes, sample chain of custody, and drill logs and core.<br> Verified data entry process and collar locations. |
| Process; Infrastructure | Fluor | August 13, 2024 | Site tour and inspected proposed sites for processing facilities and surface infrastructure. |
| Metallurgical Testwork; Mineral Recovery; Infrastructure | Met Engineering | February 23, 2023 | Reviewed core and inspected proposed sites for processing facilities. |
| Spent Ore Facility and Heap Leach Pad; Foundation Conditions – Geotechnical | KCB | July 13, 2023<br> January 13, 2024 | Visited locations within the footprints of these structures for visual observation.<br> Observed drilling and recovered drill core. |
| Hydrogeology | INTERA | August 10, 2023<br> November 5, 2023<br> May 27 to 29, 2024 | Site tour, reviewed core and geology, hydrogeology drilling and testing kick-off, reviewed and developed the site hydrogeology model and discussed the groundwater model development. |
| Environmental | Tetra Tech | August 24, 2023 | Site examination, visited core facility, and reviewed environmental components of the proposed project. |
| Geochemistry and Water Quality | LCG | July 13, 2022 | Site examination, visited core facility, reviewed core and associated environmental and geochemical properties, discussed historical water quality and received project overview. |
| Closure | H&A | August 23, 2023 | Site examination, visited core facility, overview of the project and discussed reclamation and closure components. |
| Power Sources | Burns & McDonnell | April 28, 2025 | Viewed proposed location for renewables campus. |
| Ventilation | Stantec | February 28, 2025 | Reviewed general site layout and topography. |
| Backfill | P&C | February 20, 2025 | Site tour to proposed boxcut and paste plant locations. Visited nearby sources of potential paste feed sources. |
| Water Management | Geosyntec | November 5, 2024 | Site tour and discussion of water management options. |

---

June 2025 Page 38

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **3** | **Property Description** |

---

3.1 Location

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is located 11 km west of Casa Grande, Arizona, approximately 92 km south of Phoenix (Figure 1-1). It is approximately 9 km southwest of the Sacaton deposit, which was previously mined by ASARCO. The project includes a cluster of deposits and exploration areas that measure approximately 11 km long by 1.6 km wide.

Project centroid coordinates are at approximately -111.88212, 32.89319 (WGS84) in Township 6 S, Range 4 E, Section 24, NE Quarter. The Santa Cruz exploration area, including the Santa Cruz Copper Project, covers 82.37 km<sup>2</sup>.

3.2 Property & Mineral Title

BBA has not independently verified the following information which is in the public domain and have sourced the data from Ivanhoe Electric including Hall (2025) and LaLonde (2025).

3.2.1 Fee Simple

"Fee simple" is the most common and absolute type of property ownership in the United States. By owning a fee simple estate, the property owner has control over the surface, subsurface, and mineral rights, as well as the rights to the air above the property. These rights can be split to different owners. Each of these rights (or all of them together) can then be sold, gifted, or bequeathed to another individual or entity by the property owner. No fees or renewals are due on owned fee simple land, only property taxes.

3.2.2 Lode Mining Claims

Unpatented Mining Lode Claims Federal (30 USC and 43 CFR) laws concerning mining claims on Federal land are based on an 1872 Federal law titled "An Act to Promote the Development of Mineral Resources of the United States." Mining claim procedures still are based on this law, but the original scope of the law has been reduced by several legislative changes.

Most details regarding procedures for locating claims on Federal lands have been left to individual states, providing that state laws do not conflict with Federal laws (30 USC 28; 43 CFR 3831.1).

Mineral deposits are located either by lode or placer claims (43 CFR 3840). The 1872 Federal law requires a lode claim for "veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place" (30 USC 26; 43 CFR 3841.1), and a placer claim for all "forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz or other rock in place" (30 USC 35). The maximum size of a lode claim is 1,500 ft (457 m) in length and 600 ft (183 m) in width, whereas an individual or company can locate a placer claim as much as 20 acres (8 ha) in area.

Ivanhoe Electric controls 277 Unpatented Mining Lode Claims as part of the Santa Cruz property package. Unpatented Mining Lode Claims have annual maintenance fee requirements due on or before September 1<sup>st</sup> of every calendar year. Unpatented Mining Lode Claims give the claimant exclusive rights to the federal mineral estate on which they are located. All claims are currently in good standing and a table of claims is provided in Table 3-2 in Section 3.3.1.

June 2025 Page 39

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

3.2.3 Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits

Mineral exploration permits are for lands held by Arizona State Trust and managed by Arizona State Land Department. Revenue generated goes to several public entities including kindergarten to grade 12 public education and state universities.

Mineral exploration permits are granted for five-year maximum term, provided annual renewals applications and fees are submitted. The permit holder can submit for a new mineral exploration permit at the end of the five-year term and will be "first in line" for another five-year mineral exploration permit term. Permit grants the holder the exclusive right to explore for minerals during the permit term. A permit does NOT grant exclusive access to surface, nor the right to mine (this would occur via a land auction or a mineral lease).

Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) mining exploration permits are held for five years and subject to annual renewal fees, which include $500 per permit plus $1 per acre rent plus work expenditures or an in-lieu fee of $10 per acre for Years 1 and 2 and $20 per acre for Years 3 through 5. If additional time beyond five years is required to continue characterization of an ore deposit, a new application for a mineral exploration permit must be submitted prior to the expiry of the permit.

3.2.4 Stock-Raising Homestead Act

The *Stock-Raising Homestead Act* of 1916 provided settlers patented surface ownership of federal lands for ranching purposes. Unlike previous homestead acts the 1916 Act separated surface rights from subsurface rights, resulting in split estates.

Some of Ivanhoe Electric's 277 Unpatented Mining Lode Claims are located on the federal mineral rights associated with certain Stock-Raising Homestead Act Lands.

3.3 Ownership

The Santa Cruz Copper Project lies primarily on fee simple land. Surface and mineral titles, and associated rights, were acquired by Ivanhoe Electric as purchases and options on private parcels.

In 2019, Ivanhoe Electric's predecessor, High Power Exploration Inc. (HPX), entered into an agreement with Central Arizona Resources, Ltd. ("CAR") to access historical data, and stake 238 unpatented mining lode claims on the area around, and including, the Santa Cruz Copper Project. In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric was formed from a split from HPX, and then, through CAR, signed an Option Agreement with D.R. Horton Phoenix East Construction, Inc. (DRH) for the option to purchase the mineral, certain surface parcels, 39 unpatented claims on split estate land, and associated rights for the Santa Cruz Copper Project. Also in 2021, Ivanhoe Electric, through CAR, signed a Surface Use Agreement with Legends Property, LLC (Legends) to enable access and exploration on the lands encompassed by the DRH Option. In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric consolidated 100% ownership of the project from CAR by assigning the agreements to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mesa Cobre Land Holding Corp. (Mesa Cobre). In 2023, Legends formed Wolff-Harvard Ventures, LP ("Wolff-Harvard") as the party of title to the land.

June 2025 Page 40

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

3.3.1 Mineral Title Ownership

In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 238 unpatented mining lode claims from CAR. In addition, Ivanhoe Electric acquired fee simple mineral title for two further land parcels: "CG100" and "Skull Valley". In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the 20-acre "Skull Valley" property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and a 100.33-acre "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of project.

In 2023, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 16 Arizona State Land Department mineral exploration permits covering 27.95 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,900 acres) of state mineral land with exploration potential. The permits expire at various dates ranging from November 2025 to May 2030.

In 2024, Ivanhoe Electric exercised the agreement with DRH, granting Ivanhoe Electric, through Mesa Cobre, 100% of the mineral title for 26.0 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,425 acres) of fee simple mineral estate, 39 federal unpatented mining lode claims, and 2.6 km<sup>2</sup> (~642.5 acres) of Stock-Raising Homestead Act lands.

Unpatented mineral lode claims renew annually on September 1 with a fee of $200 per claim. Mineral title is summarized in Table 3-1 and shown on Figure 3-1. Claims are listed in Table 3-2.

**Table 3-1: Summary of Ivanhoe Electric's Mineral Title**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Land Designation** | **Area (km<sup>2</sup>)** |
| Fee Simple Mineral Ownership | 25.98 |
| Unpatented Mining Lode Claims (277 claims) | 25.92 |
| Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits (16 permits) | 30.47 |

---

June 2025 Page 41

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 3-1: Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spt2img08.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 42

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 3-2: Unpatented Mining Lode Claims**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Serial<br> Number** | **Lead<br> File Number** | **Legacy Serial<br> Number** | **Legacy Lead File<br> Number** | **Claim<br> Name** | **Case<br> Disposition** | **Claim<br> Type** | **Next Payment<br> Due Date** |
| AZ101424918 | AZ101424918 | AMC47328 | AMC47300 | CHAVO NO 55 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101339292 | AZ101339292 | AMC47333 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 5 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101421434 | AZ101421434 | AMC47334 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 6 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101315626 | AZ101315626 | AMC47335 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 7 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101423475 | AZ101423475 | AMC47336 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 8 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101314482 | AZ101314482 | AMC47337 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 9 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101513061 | AZ101513061 | AMC47338 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 10 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101404184 | AZ101404184 | AMC47339 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 11 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101422640 | AZ101422640 | AMC47340 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 12 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ102524120 | AZ102524120 | AMC47341 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 13 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101315734 | AZ101315734 | AMC47342 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 14 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101403486 | AZ101403486 | AMC47347 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 19 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101401035 | AZ101401035 | AMC47348 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 20 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101422533 | AZ101422533 | AMC47349 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 21 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101310451 | AZ101310451 | AMC47350 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 22 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101404654 | AZ101404654 | AMC47351 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 23 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101403046 | AZ101403046 | AMC47352 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 24 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101400680 | AZ101400680 | AMC47353 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 25 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101426616 | AZ101426616 | AMC47354 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 26 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101420451 | AZ101420451 | AMC47355 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 27 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101340104 | AZ101340104 | AMC47356 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 28 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101339901 | AZ101339901 | AMC47357 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 29 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101319426 | AZ101319426 | AMC47358 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 30 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101515736 | AZ101515736 | AMC47359 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 31 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101422970 | AZ101422970 | AMC47360 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 32 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101424011 | AZ101424011 | AMC47361 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 33 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101425394 | AZ101425394 | AMC47362 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 34 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101425654 | AZ101425654 | AMC47363 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 35 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ102521618 | AZ102521618 | AMC47364 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 36 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101513001 | AZ101513001 | AMC47365 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 37 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101313279 | AZ101313279 | AMC47366 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 38 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101510534 | AZ101510534 | AMC47367 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 39 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101376637 | AZ101376637 | AMC47368 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 40 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101406903 | AZ101406903 | AMC47369 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 41 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101316806 | AZ101316806 | AMC47370 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 50 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101515425 | AZ101515425 | AMC47371 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 51 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101511715 | AZ101511715 | AMC47372 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 52 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101515428 | AZ101515428 | AMC47373 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 53 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101400730 | AZ101400730 | AMC47374 | AMC47300 | NIK NO 54 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871129 | AZ101871129 | AMC460163 | AMC460163 | SCX 1 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871130 | AZ101871130 | AMC460164 | AMC460163 | SCX 2 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871131 | AZ101871131 | AMC460165 | AMC460163 | SCX 3 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871132 | AZ101871132 | AMC460166 | AMC460163 | SCX 4 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871133 | AZ101871133 | AMC460167 | AMC460163 | SCX 5 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871134 | AZ101871134 | AMC460168 | AMC460163 | SCX 6 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871135 | AZ101871135 | AMC460169 | AMC460163 | SCX 7 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871136 | AZ101871136 | AMC460170 | AMC460163 | SCX 8 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871137 | AZ101871137 | AMC460171 | AMC460163 | SCX 9 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871138 | AZ101871138 | AMC460172 | AMC460163 | SCX 10 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871139 | AZ101871139 | AMC460173 | AMC460163 | SCX 11 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871140 | AZ101871140 | AMC460174 | AMC460163 | SCX 12 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871141 | AZ101871141 | AMC460175 | AMC460163 | SCX 13 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871142 | AZ101871142 | AMC460176 | AMC460163 | SCX 14 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871143 | AZ101871143 | AMC460177 | AMC460163 | SCX 15 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871144 | AZ101871144 | AMC460178 | AMC460163 | SCX 16 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871947 | AZ101871947 | AMC460179 | AMC460163 | SCX 17 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871948 | AZ101871948 | AMC460180 | AMC460163 | SCX 18 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871949 | AZ101871949 | AMC460181 | AMC460163 | SCX 19 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871950 | AZ101871950 | AMC460182 | AMC460163 | SCX 20 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871951 | AZ101871951 | AMC460183 | AMC460163 | SCX 21 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871952 | AZ101871952 | AMC460184 | AMC460163 | SCX 22 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871953 | AZ101871953 | AMC460185 | AMC460163 | SCX 23 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871954 | AZ101871954 | AMC460186 | AMC460163 | SCX 24 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871955 | AZ101871955 | AMC460187 | AMC460163 | SCX 25 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871956 | AZ101871956 | AMC460188 | AMC460163 | SCX 26 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871957 | AZ101871957 | AMC460189 | AMC460163 | SCX 27 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871958 | AZ101871958 | AMC460190 | AMC460163 | SCX 28 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871959 | AZ101871959 | AMC460191 | AMC460163 | SCX 29 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871960 | AZ101871960 | AMC460192 | AMC460163 | SCX 30 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871961 | AZ101871961 | AMC460193 | AMC460163 | SCX 31 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871962 | AZ101871962 | AMC460194 | AMC460163 | SCX 32 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871963 | AZ101871963 | AMC460195 | AMC460163 | SCX 33 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871964 | AZ101871964 | AMC460196 | AMC460163 | SCX 34 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871965 | AZ101871965 | AMC460197 | AMC460163 | SCX 35 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871966 | AZ101871966 | AMC460198 | AMC460163 | SCX 36 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871967 | AZ101871967 | AMC460199 | AMC460163 | SCX 37 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872776 | AZ101872776 | AMC460200 | AMC460163 | SCX 38 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |

---

June 2025 Page 43

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Serial<br> Number** | **Lead<br> File Number** | **Legacy Serial<br> Number** | **Legacy Lead File<br> Number** | **Claim<br> Name** | **Case<br> Disposition** | **Claim<br> Type** | **Next Payment<br> Due Date** |
| AZ101872777 | AZ101872777 | AMC460201 | AMC460163 | SCX 39 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872778 | AZ101872778 | AMC460202 | AMC460163 | SCX 40 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872779 | AZ101872779 | AMC460203 | AMC460163 | SCX 41 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872780 | AZ101872780 | AMC460204 | AMC460163 | SCX 42 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872781 | AZ101872781 | AMC460205 | AMC460163 | SCX 43 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872782 | AZ101872782 | AMC460206 | AMC460163 | SCX 44 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872783 | AZ101872783 | AMC460207 | AMC460163 | SCX 45 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872784 | AZ101872784 | AMC460208 | AMC460163 | SCX 46 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872785 | AZ101872785 | AMC460209 | AMC460163 | SCX 47 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872786 | AZ101872786 | AMC460210 | AMC460163 | SCX 48 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872787 | AZ101872787 | AMC460211 | AMC460163 | SCX 49 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872788 | AZ101872788 | AMC460212 | AMC460163 | SCX 50 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872789 | AZ101872789 | AMC460213 | AMC460163 | SCX 51 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872790 | AZ101872790 | AMC460214 | AMC460163 | SCX 52 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872791 | AZ101872791 | AMC460215 | AMC460163 | SCX 53 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872792 | AZ101872792 | AMC460216 | AMC460163 | SCX 54 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872793 | AZ101872793 | AMC460217 | AMC460163 | SCX 55 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872794 | AZ101872794 | AMC460218 | AMC460163 | SCX 56 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872795 | AZ101872795 | AMC460219 | AMC460163 | SCX 57 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101872796 | AZ101872796 | AMC460220 | AMC460163 | SCX 58 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873617 | AZ101873617 | AMC460221 | AMC460163 | SCX 59 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873618 | AZ101873618 | AMC460222 | AMC460163 | SCX 60 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873619 | AZ101873619 | AMC460223 | AMC460163 | SCX 61 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873620 | AZ101873620 | AMC460224 | AMC460163 | SCX 62 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873621 | AZ101873621 | AMC460225 | AMC460163 | SCX 63 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873622 | AZ101873622 | AMC460226 | AMC460163 | SCX 64 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873623 | AZ101873623 | AMC460227 | AMC460163 | SCX 65 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873624 | AZ101873624 | AMC460228 | AMC460163 | SCX 66 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873625 | AZ101873625 | AMC460229 | AMC460163 | SCX 67 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873626 | AZ101873626 | AMC460230 | AMC460163 | SCX 68 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873627 | AZ101873627 | AMC460231 | AMC460163 | SCX 69 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873628 | AZ101873628 | AMC460232 | AMC460163 | SCX 70 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873629 | AZ101873629 | AMC460233 | AMC460163 | SCX 71 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873630 | AZ101873630 | AMC460234 | AMC460163 | SCX 72 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873631 | AZ101873631 | AMC460235 | AMC460163 | SCX 73 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873632 | AZ101873632 | AMC460236 | AMC460163 | SCX 74 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873633 | AZ101873633 | AMC460237 | AMC460163 | SCX 75 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873634 | AZ101873634 | AMC460238 | AMC460163 | SCX 76 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873635 | AZ101873635 | AMC460239 | AMC460163 | SCX 77 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873636 | AZ101873636 | AMC460240 | AMC460163 | SCX 78 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101873637 | AZ101873637 | AMC460241 | AMC460163 | SCX 79 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874470 | AZ101874470 | AMC460242 | AMC460163 | SCX 80 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874471 | AZ101874471 | AMC460243 | AMC460163 | SCX 81 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874472 | AZ101874472 | AMC460244 | AMC460163 | SCX 82 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874473 | AZ101874473 | AMC460245 | AMC460163 | SCX 83 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874474 | AZ101874474 | AMC460246 | AMC460163 | SCX 84 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874475 | AZ101874475 | AMC460247 | AMC460163 | SCX 85 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874476 | AZ101874476 | AMC460248 | AMC460163 | SCX 86 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874477 | AZ101874477 | AMC460249 | AMC460163 | SCX 87 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874478 | AZ101874478 | AMC460250 | AMC460163 | SCX 88 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874479 | AZ101874479 | AMC460251 | AMC460163 | SCX 89 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874480 | AZ101874480 | AMC460252 | AMC460163 | SCX 90 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874481 | AZ101874481 | AMC460253 | AMC460163 | SCX 91 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874482 | AZ101874482 | AMC460254 | AMC460163 | SCX 92 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874483 | AZ101874483 | AMC460255 | AMC460163 | SCX 93 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874484 | AZ101874484 | AMC460256 | AMC460163 | SCX 94 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874485 | AZ101874485 | AMC460257 | AMC460163 | SCX 95 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874486 | AZ101874486 | AMC460258 | AMC460163 | SCX 96 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874487 | AZ101874487 | AMC460259 | AMC460163 | SCX 97 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874488 | AZ101874488 | AMC460260 | AMC460163 | SCX 98 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874489 | AZ101874489 | AMC460261 | AMC460163 | SCX 99 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101874490 | AZ101874490 | AMC460262 | AMC460163 | SCX 100 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875304 | AZ101875304 | AMC460263 | AMC460163 | SCX 101 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875305 | AZ101875305 | AMC460264 | AMC460163 | SCX 102 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875306 | AZ101875306 | AMC460265 | AMC460163 | SCX 103 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875307 | AZ101875307 | AMC460266 | AMC460163 | SCX 104 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875308 | AZ101875308 | AMC460267 | AMC460163 | SCX 105 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875309 | AZ101875309 | AMC460268 | AMC460163 | SCX 106 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875310 | AZ101875310 | AMC460269 | AMC460163 | SCX 107 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875311 | AZ101875311 | AMC460270 | AMC460163 | SCX 108 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875312 | AZ101875312 | AMC460271 | AMC460163 | SCX 109 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875313 | AZ101875313 | AMC460272 | AMC460163 | SCX 110 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875314 | AZ101875314 | AMC460273 | AMC460163 | SCX 111 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875315 | AZ101875315 | AMC460274 | AMC460163 | SCX 112 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875316 | AZ101875316 | AMC460275 | AMC460163 | SCX 113 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875317 | AZ101875317 | AMC460276 | AMC460163 | SCX 114 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875318 | AZ101875318 | AMC460277 | AMC460163 | SCX 118 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875319 | AZ101875319 | AMC460278 | AMC460163 | SCX 119 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |

---

June 2025 Page 44

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Serial<br> Number** | **Lead<br> File Number** | **Legacy Serial<br> Number** | **Legacy Lead File<br> Number** | **Claim<br> Name** | **Case<br> Disposition** | **Claim<br> Type** | **Next Payment<br> Due Date** |

---

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| AZ101875320 | AMC460279 | AMC460163 | SCX 120 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875321 | AMC460280 | AMC460163 | SCX 121 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875322 | AMC460281 | AMC460163 | SCX 122 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875323 | AMC460282 | AMC460163 | SCX 123 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101875324 | AMC460283 | AMC460163 | SCX 124 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876144 | AMC460284 | AMC460163 | SCX 125 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876145 | AMC460285 | AMC460163 | SCX 126 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876146 | AMC460286 | AMC460163 | SCX 127 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876147 | AMC460287 | AMC460163 | SCX 128 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876148 | AMC460288 | AMC460163 | SCX 129 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876149 | AMC460289 | AMC460163 | SCX 130 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876150 | AMC460290 | AMC460163 | SCX 131 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876151 | AMC460291 | AMC460163 | SCX 132 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876152 | AMC460292 | AMC460163 | SCX 133 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876153 | AMC460293 | AMC460163 | SCX 134 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876154 | AMC460294 | AMC460163 | SCX 135 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876155 | AMC460295 | AMC460163 | SCX 136 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876156 | AMC460296 | AMC460163 | SCX 137 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876157 | AMC460297 | AMC460163 | SCX 138 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876158 | AMC460298 | AMC460163 | SCX 139 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876159 | AMC460299 | AMC460163 | SCX 140 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876160 | AMC460300 | AMC460163 | SCX 141 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876161 | AMC460301 | AMC460163 | SCX 142 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876162 | AMC460302 | AMC460163 | SCX 143 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876163 | AMC460303 | AMC460163 | SCX 144 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101876164 | AMC460304 | AMC460163 | SCX 145 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717758 | AMC460305 | AMC460163 | SCX 146 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717759 | AMC460306 | AMC460163 | SCX 147 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717760 | AMC460307 | AMC460163 | SCX 148 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717761 | AMC460308 | AMC460163 | SCX 149 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717762 | AMC460309 | AMC460163 | SCX 150 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717763 | AMC460310 | AMC460163 | SCX 151 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717764 | AMC460311 | AMC460163 | SCX 152 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717765 | AMC460312 | AMC460163 | SCX 153 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717766 | AMC460313 | AMC460163 | SCX 154 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717767 | AMC460314 | AMC460163 | SCX 155 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717768 | AMC460315 | AMC460163 | SCX 156 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717769 | AMC460316 | AMC460163 | SCX 157 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717770 | AMC460317 | AMC460163 | SCX 158 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717771 | AMC460318 | AMC460163 | SCX 159 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717772 | AMC460319 | AMC460163 | SCX 160 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717773 | AMC460320 | AMC460163 | SCX 161 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717774 | AMC460321 | AMC460163 | SCX 162 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717775 | AMC460322 | AMC460163 | SCX 163 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717776 | AMC460323 | AMC460163 | SCX 164 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717777 | AMC460324 | AMC460163 | SCX 165 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101717778 | AMC460325 | AMC460163 | SCX 166 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718617 | AMC460326 | AMC460163 | SCX 167 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718618 | AMC460327 | AMC460163 | SCX 168 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718619 | AMC460328 | AMC460163 | SCX 169 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718620 | AMC460329 | AMC460163 | SCX 170 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718621 | AMC460330 | AMC460163 | SCX 171 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718622 | AMC460331 | AMC460163 | SCX 172 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718623 | AMC460332 | AMC460163 | SCX 173 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718624 | AMC460333 | AMC460163 | SCX 174 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718625 | AMC460334 | AMC460163 | SCX 175 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718626 | AMC460335 | AMC460163 | SCX 176 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718627 | AMC460336 | AMC460163 | SCX 177 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718628 | AMC460337 | AMC460163 | SCX 178 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718629 | AMC460338 | AMC460163 | SCX 179 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718630 | AMC460339 | AMC460163 | SCX 180 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718631 | AMC460340 | AMC460163 | SCX 181 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718632 | AMC460341 | AMC460163 | SCX 182 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718633 | AMC460342 | AMC460163 | SCX 183 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718634 | AMC460343 | AMC460163 | SCX 184 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718635 | AMC460344 | AMC460163 | SCX 185 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718636 | AMC460345 | AMC460163 | SCX 186 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101718637 | AMC460346 | AMC460163 | SCX 187 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719456 | AMC460347 | AMC460163 | SCX 188 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719457 | AMC460348 | AMC460163 | SCX 189 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719458 | AMC460349 | AMC460163 | SCX 190 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719459 | AMC460350 | AMC460163 | SCX 191 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719460 | AMC460351 | AMC460163 | SCX 192 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719461 | AMC460352 | AMC460163 | SCX 193 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719462 | AMC460353 | AMC460163 | SCX 194 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719463 | AMC460354 | AMC460163 | SCX 195 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719464 | AMC460355 | AMC460163 | SCX 196 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719465 | AMC460356 | AMC460163 | SCX 197 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |

---

June 2025 Page 45

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Serial<br> Number** | **Lead<br> File Number** | **Legacy Serial<br> Number** | **Legacy Lead File<br> Number** | **Claim<br> Name** | **Case<br> Disposition** | **Claim<br> Type** | **Next Payment<br> Due Date** |

---

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| AZ101719466 | AMC460357 | AMC460163 | SCX 198 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719467 | AMC460358 | AMC460163 | SCX 199 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719468 | AMC460359 | AMC460163 | SCX 200 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719469 | AMC460360 | AMC460163 | SCX 201 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719470 | AMC460361 | AMC460163 | SCX 202 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719471 | AMC460362 | AMC460163 | SCX 203 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719472 | AMC460363 | AMC460163 | SCX 204 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719473 | AMC460364 | AMC460163 | SCX 205 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719474 | AMC460365 | AMC460163 | SCX 206 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719475 | AMC460366 | AMC460163 | SCX 207 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101719476 | AMC460367 | AMC460163 | SCX 208 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720299 | AMC460368 | AMC460163 | SCX 209 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720300 | AMC460369 | AMC460163 | SCX 210 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720301 | AMC460370 | AMC460163 | SCX 211 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720302 | AMC460371 | AMC460163 | SCX 212 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720303 | AMC460372 | AMC460163 | SCX 213 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720304 | AMC460373 | AMC460163 | SCX 214 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720305 | AMC460374 | AMC460163 | SCX 215 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720306 | AMC460375 | AMC460163 | SCX 216 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720307 | AMC460376 | AMC460163 | SCX 217 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720308 | AMC460377 | AMC460163 | SCX 218 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720309 | AMC460378 | AMC460163 | SCX 219 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720310 | AMC460379 | AMC460163 | SCX 220 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720311 | AMC460380 | AMC460163 | SCX 221 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720312 | AMC460381 | AMC460163 | SCX 222 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720313 | AMC460382 | AMC460163 | SCX 223 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720314 | AMC460383 | AMC460163 | SCX 224 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720315 | AMC460384 | AMC460163 | SCX 225 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720316 | AMC460385 | AMC460163 | SCX 226 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720317 | AMC460386 | AMC460163 | SCX 227 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720318 | AMC460387 | AMC460163 | SCX 228 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101720319 | AMC460388 | AMC460163 | SCX 229 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871145 | AMC460389 | AMC460163 | SCX 230 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871146 | AMC460390 | AMC460163 | SCX 231 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871147 | AMC460391 | AMC460163 | SCX 232 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871148 | AMC460392 | AMC460163 | SCX 233 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871149 | AMC460393 | AMC460163 | SCX 244 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871150 | AMC460394 | AMC460163 | SCX 245 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871151 | AMC460395 | AMC460163 | SCX 246 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871152 | AMC460396 | AMC460163 | SCX 247 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871153 | AMC460397 | AMC460163 | SCX 248 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871154 | AMC460398 | AMC460163 | SCX 249 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871155 | AMC460399 | AMC460163 | SCX 250 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |
| AZ101871156 | AMC460400 | AMC460163 | SCX 251 | ACTIVE | LODE CLAIM | 2025-09-02 |

---

June 2025 Page 46

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

3.3.2 Surface Title Ownership

In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface rights to two land parcels: the 0.08 km<sup>2</sup> (20 acre) "Skull Valley" property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the project and a 0.41 km<sup>2</sup> (100.33 acre) land parcel "CG100" from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of project. In August 2024, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface title to 3 0.04 km<sup>2</sup> (10-acre) parcels located in various areas of the project as part of the subject property in the DRH purchase. A surface title map is shown on Figure 3-2.

**Figure 3-2: Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img001.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 47

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

In May 2023, Ivanhoe Electric exercised the option to acquire the surface title to ~24.2 km<sup>2</sup> (5,975 acres) encompassing the Santa Cruz Copper Project from Wolff-Harvard. To close the purchase, Ivanhoe Electric paid $34.3 million, including $5.1 million of previously paid deposits. Ivanhoe Electric also issued a secured promissory note to the seller in the principal amount of approximately $82.6 million over a period of 4.5 years. The promissory note includes an annual interest rate of prime plus 1.0%. As of June 13, 2025, a total of $36.6 million remains to be paid to Wolff-Harvard. In the event that Ivanhoe Electric elects to begin mine construction prior to completing the final principal payment, the full outstanding balance will be paid prior to commencement of major mine construction activities.

3.3.3 Water Rights

Ivanhoe Electric acquired grandfathered irrigation rights and grandfathered Type 1 non-irrigation water rights in association with the private land purchased in 2023 and holds all necessary water rights for the life-of-mine plan envisaged in this report. Water is further discussed in Sections 7, 13, 15, and 17.

3.4 Royalties

Noted royalties on future mineral development of the project are summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3.

**Table 3-3: Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Copper Project**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Royalty Owner** | **Royalty Description** |
| Royalty Owner A | 10% of 1/800<sup>th</sup> of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the SX-EW process is completed |
| Royalty Owner B | 60% of 1/800<sup>th</sup> of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the SX-EW process is completed |
| Royalty Owner C | 2% NSR |
| Royalty Owner D | 0.15% NSR |
| Royalty Owner E | ½ of 1% NSR or ½ of 1% of 60% NSR if product is disposed of other than to a commercial smelter |
| Royalty Owner F | 10% NSR (capped at $7 million) |
| Royalty Owner G | 5% NSR |
| Royalty Owner H | 1% NSR |
| Royalty Owner I | $0.015/pound of copper of Additional Mineable Reserve Copper over 2 billion pounds as determined by the "Definitive Feasibility Study" or by production beyond the amount estimated in the "Definitive Feasibility Study"; the royalty owner has the option to require payment in Ivanhoe Electric common stock at a 10% discount to the five-day volume weighted average price |

---

June 2025 Page 48

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 3-3: Extent of Royalties**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img002.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

3.5 Encumbrances

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is located on a large private land package which may reduce lengthy permitting timelines that result from federal land management permitting processes.

Permitting and permitting conditions are discussed in Section 17.2 of this report.

June 2025 Page 49

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

3.5.1 Environmental Assessments

A 2023 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, completed by Environmental Site Assessments, Inc. identified an aquifer exemption on a small portion of the property and agrochemical contamination of soils in former crop fields. While the aquifer exemption is representative of a controlled recognized environmental condition, further assessment of the agrochemical contamination will be required prior to earthwork for redevelopment of these areas.

3.6 Violations &
 Fines

Ivanhoe Electric advised BBA that as of June 13, 2025, no material violations or fines were imposed during 2025 by any regulatory authority that would affect the planned work for the Santa Cruz Copper Project as presented in this report.

3.7 Significant
 Factors & Risks that May Affect Access, Title, or Work Programs

To the extent known to BBA, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Santa Cruz Copper Project that are not discussed in this report.

June 2025 Page 50

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **4** | **Accessibility, Climate, Resources, Infrastructure & Physiography** |

---

4.1 Accessibility

The project is approximately 60 km, or a 92 km drive, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and is accessed via the West Gila Bend Highway (Highway 84) 11 km west of the city of Casa Grande, which has a population of approximately 57,700. The greater Phoenix area is a major population center, with approximately 4.8 million people, and features an international airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and well-developed infrastructure and services that support the mining industry.

4.2 Climate

The climate in the project area is typical of the Sonoran Desert, with temperatures ranging from -7°C to 47°C (19°F to 117°F) and an annual precipitation average ranging from 76 to 500 millimeters (3 to 30 inches) per year. Precipitation occurs as frequent low-intensity winter rains during December and January and violent summer "monsoon" thunderstorms during July and August.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project site contains no surface water resources. Storm runoff water from the site is drained toward the Santa Cruz River by minor tributaries to the Santa Rosa and North Santa Cruz washes.

Any future mining operation will be conducted year-round. Exploration activities can be performed year-round as there are no limiting weather or accessibility factors.

4.3 Local
 Resources

Electrical power is available along Midway Road with a high-voltage line running beside the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway along the northern edges of the Santa Cruz Copper Project area. An east-west rail line parallels the highway and passes through Casa Grande. A natural gas line is available along Clayton Road on the southern side of the project area.

The cities of Casa Grande, Maricopa, and Phoenix can supply sufficient electricity, skilled labor, and supplies for the project.

Infrastructure that will be required to support any future operations is discussed in Sections 13, 14, and 15 of this report. These report sections also discuss potential water sources, electricity, personnel, and supplies for the life-of-mine plan in the prefeasibility study.

4.4 Physiography

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is in the Middle Gila Basin, entirely within the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The area is characterized by low, jagged, mountain ranges separated by broad, alluvial-filled basins. This portion of the Sonoran Desert is sparsely vegetated with greater variability near washes and in areas that have long lain fallow. Catclaw acacia, mesquite, creosote bush, bursage, and salt cedar are common near washes and abandoned areas.

June 2025 Page 51

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The project area is flat and featureless. It has an elevation of 403 ±5 meters above sea level (masl) and slopes gently to the northwest. Much of the project area has been used for irrigated agriculture; the decaying remnants of an extensive system of wells and concrete-lined ditches are still present, as are the alignments of furrows despite decades of lying fallow. Efforts at real estate development in the 1990s and 2000s have also left visible remnants with preliminary roadworks and some planting (palm trees) overlying the previous agricultural remains. Soils proximal to washes tend to be more sand- and gravel-rich, while soils in old agricultural areas are more silt- and clay-rich.

June 2025 Page 52

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **5** | **History** |

---

5.1 Historical
 Exploration

Three main deposits, shown on Figure 5-1, form part of the current project area: Texaco (in the northeast), Santa Cruz North (southwest of Texaco), and Casa Grande West / Santa Cruz South (the southernmost deposit).

**Figure 5-1: Historical Drill Collars, Deposit, & Exploration Area Names**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img003.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

Work completed on the project area is summarized in Table 5-1.

June 2025 Page 53

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 5-1: Project History**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operator** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1961–1962 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Discovered copper mineralization; completed geophysical surveys (induced polarization (IP), resistivity, seismic reflection, and magnetics). Completed six drillholes and identified the Sacaton deposit. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1964 –1965 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Expanded exploration efforts across the Casa Grande Valley. Completed 16 drillholes but no additional mineralization was discovered. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1970 –1971 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Reviewed available data and concluded additional exploration was warranted. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1973 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Newmont Mining, Hanna Mining, Getty Oil Corp. (Getty Oil) and Quintana Corp. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Initiated the Covered Area Project (CAP) managed by David Lowell. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1974 –1980 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO Santa Cruz Inc. and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (ASARCO-Freeport) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Initiated Santa Cruz Joint Venture (SCJV). Acquired additional ground around the Santa Cruz North deposit area.<br>1974: Three drillholes, encountered porphyry-style mineralization over what became the Santa Cruz North deposit.<br> 1975: Four drillholes at Santa Cruz North, one at Texaco.<br> 1976: One drillhole at Casa Grande, six at Texaco.<br> 1977: Drilled six holes at Texaco and 12 at Casa Grande.<br> 1979: Four drillholes at Santa Cruz North.<br> 1980: Six drillholes at Santa Cruz North. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1974 –1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mined the Sacaton deposit using open pit methods. Initiated underground mining, but this was discontinued due to low copper prices. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1974 –1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hanna Mining, Getty Oil | &nbsp;&nbsp; CAP project team focused their attention on the Santa Cruz system (referred to as the Casa Grande Project).<br>Evidence for porphyry-style mineralization, in the form of a leached cap was found around what became the Casa Grande West deposit.<br>Hanna Mining took over as project operator in 1977, with Getty Oil providing funding. Tightly spaced drilling continued until 1982, when a combination of factors, including low copper prices, led to the project being mothballed.<br>1975: Drilled two holes at Casa Grande, 2 holes at Santa Cruz North and 1 hole at Texaco.<br> 1976: Drilled two holes at Casa Grande North, 14 holes at Casa Grande.<br> 1977: One hole drilled at Texaco, 45 at Casa Grande.<br> 1978: One hole drilled at Santa Cruz, 31 holes at Casa Grande.<br> 1979: Drilled six holes at Casa Grande and Santa Cruz North.<br> 1981: Two drillholes at Santa Cruz North.<br> 1982: Two drillholes at Santa Cruz North. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1990 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO-Freeport, Texaco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Entered into a joint venture on the Texaco land position. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 – 1998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;US Bureau of Reclamation, ASARCO-Freeport | &nbsp;&nbsp;Joint venture in-situ copper mining leach project between ASARCO-Freeport, and the US Bureau of Reclamation. Field testing began in 1988, and the test wells were constructed in 1989 in a five-point pattern with one injection well centered between four extraction wells. Salt tracer tests were conducted in 1991; permits for the use of sulfuric acid were received in 1994; and the solvent extraction-electrowinning (SX/EW) pilot plant was completed in 1995. Leach testing commenced in 1996, continued until December 1997 when congressional funding through the US Bureau of Reclamation ceased. Pumping continued until the end of February 1998. Plant placed on care and maintenance. The final research report was never made public; however, a newsletter from the project was circulated in March 1998, which noted that 35,000 pounds of copper were extracted. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ASARCO-Freeport | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 drillholes at Texaco. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;D.R. Horton (DRH) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Purchased from ASARCO-Freeport. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;DRH and Legends | &nbsp;&nbsp;Legends acquires surface rights from DRH. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;High Power Exploration, Ltd. (HPX) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric predecessor, HPX, signs an agreement with Central Arizona Resources (CAR) for access to historical data throughout the area as well as 238 unpatented mining lode claims. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric is formed via a split from HPX. All Santa Cruz agreements are transferred to Ivanhoe Electric. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric-CAR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Agreements signed with DRH and Legends for subsurface and surface rights. Work programs including drilling, geochemical, geophysical, and geological exploration commence. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Issues first mineral resource estimate. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric consolidates 100% ownership of the project from CAR. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Issues updated mineral resource estimate. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Legends | &nbsp;&nbsp;Legends is acquired by Wolff-Harvard Ventures, LP (Wolff-Harvard). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Issues initial assessment. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exercises options with DRH and Wolff-Harvard to complete acquisition of subsurface and surface ownership. |

---

June 2025 Page 54

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **6** | **Geological Setting, Mineralization & Deposit** |

---

6.1 Regional
 Geology

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is located within an approximately 600 km long northwest-to-southeast-trending metallogenic belt known as the Southwestern Porphyry Belt, which extends from northern Mexico into the southwestern United States. The belt includes many productive porphyry copper deposits in Arizona, such as Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, Miami-Globe, San Manuel-Kalamazoo, Ray, Morenci, and the neighboring Sacaton Mine (Figure 6-1).

These porphyry copper deposits are located within a broader physiographic region known as the Basin and Range Province which occupies the majority of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. This region is predominantly characterized by alternating linear sub-parallel mountain chains separated by broad, flat valleys formed by regional tectonic extension during the mid- to late-Cenozoic period.

The basement geological units of Arizona consist of formations developed during the Paleoproterozoic collisional orogeny that were subsequently stitched together by anorogenic granitic plutonic suites within the Mesoproterozoic. Basement Proterozoic lithologies at the Santa Cruz site are represented by three primary units: Pinal schist, Oracle granite, and diabase intrusions.

The Pinal schist is a metasedimentary to metavolcanic schist that represents the oldest and most expansive basement rock within southern Arizona. Proterozoic anorogenic granitic complexes were emplaced into the Pinal schist between 1450 to 1350 Ma. Continental rifting during the Mesoproterozoic introduced both Paleo- and early-Mesoproterozoic granitic complexes to the surface, where they were subsequently buried beneath younger Neoproterozoic rocks of the Apache Group, which represent a very shallow intracontinental basin. These rocks were intruded and dilated by successive diabase intrusions around 1100 Ma related to the separation of the Rodinia supercontinent. Throughout the Paleozoic era, Arizona was situated within a craton characterized by significant disconformities in the stratigraphy, interpreted to represent relative transgressive and regressive changes in sea level. Continental shortening throughout the Cretaceous is contemporaneous with diachronous magmatism within the same location (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015). Cessation of magmatic activity during the Paleocene period marked the onset of erosion of the uplifted arc, which is presently located southwest of the Colorado Plateau.

6.2 Metallogenic
 Setting

The porphyry copper deposits of the Southwestern Porphyry Belt are the genetic product of igneous activity during the Laramide Orogeny (80 to 50 Ma). Laramide porphyry systems near the Santa Cruz Copper Project define a prominent southwest-to-northeast linear trend orthogonal to the trend of the Laramide magmatic arc environment.

During the tectonic extension of the mid-Cenozoic period, the Laramide volcanic arc and associated porphyry copper systems were variably dismembered, tilted, and buried beneath a complex mixture of basin sediments such as the Casa Grande Valley. However, before burial and concealment by sedimentary cover, many of Arizona's Laramide porphyry copper systems underwent supergene enrichment processes, which significantly enhanced their economic value as mineral deposits.

June 2025 Page 55

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-1: Regional Geology of the Southwestern Porphyry Belt & the Copper Porphyry Deposits Adjacent to the Project**

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2023.

Supergene enrichment in the project area demonstrates evidence of multiple enrichment cycles, indicated by the presence of several obliquely oriented chalcocite and oxide-copper blankets formed from successive syn-tilting enrichment events. These obliquely oriented blankets are interpreted to have formed due to syn-rotation enrichment and subsequent overprinting of newer supergene blankets over the previous ones. Cycled supergene enrichment processes such as these are observed throughout the Tertiary period and subsequently ceased with the deposition of basin sediments and concealment of the bedrock below which altered the hydrology. The earliest supergene enrichment at the Santa Cruz deposit is believed to have occurred during the Eocene epoch (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015). Supergene alunite from the nearby Sacaton porphyry copper deposit, approximately 8.5 km from the Santa Cruz deposit, was potassium-argon (K-Ar) dated to 41 Ma (Cook, 1994).

June 2025 Page 56

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

6.3 Santa
 Cruz Copper Project Geology

The Santa Cruz Copper Project consists of four separate areas of interest along a southwest-northeast trend which continues in line with the neighboring historical Sacaton mine. These areas, from southwest to northeast, are referred to as (1) the Southwest exploration area, (2) the Santa Cruz deposit, (3) the East Ridge deposit, and (4) the Texaco deposit. Each of these deposits or areas represents portions of one or more porphyry copper systems that have been dissected and separated as a result of extensional Basin and Range normal faulting. Likewise, each area has experienced variable periods of erosion, supergene enrichment, fault displacement, and tilting into their present positions due to Basin and Range extensional faulting (Figure 6-2).

**Figure 6-2: Generalized Cross-Section of the Santa Cruz – Sacaton System**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp3img018.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

6.3.1 Santa Cruz Bedrock Lithologies

Bedrock geology at the Santa Cruz Copper Project is largely dominated by Oracle granite (1450 to 1350 Ma) with lesser proportions of Proterozoic diabase intrusions (1100 Ma), variably dipping 15° to the south-southeast, and Laramide porphyry intrusions (75 Ma), dipping at ~30° to 40° to the north-northwest.

June 2025 Page 57

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

6.3.1.1 Oracle Granite

The Oracle granite is predominantly characterized as a coarse-grained biotite granite with large pink- or salmon-colored orthoclase feldspars approximately 32 to 38 mm across which gives the rock a pink- to pink-gray mottled appearance on fresh surfaces.

The groundmass comprises uniformly sized 5 mm grains of clear white feldspar and glassy quartz with greenish-black masses of biotite and magnetite. Composition suggests it should be classed as quartz monzonite rather than granite. Surface exposures are typically of light-buff color. Alteration minerals include sericite, secondary biotite, and secondary orthoclase.

6.3.1.2 Diabase

The Proterozoic diabase is a coarse-grained rock characterized by a composition predominantly of plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, and olivine. Plagioclase feldspar and pyroxene, ranging from labradorite to bytownite, often exhibit crystal twinning and characteristic lathy ophitic to subophitic textures. Accessory minerals include minor amounts of iron-titanium oxides, magnetite and ilmentite, which contribute to the magnetic properties of the rock, apatite, and occasionally biotite or hornblende.

The diabase intrusions are interpreted to have been emplaced as horizontal to sub-horizontal sills, rather than vertical to subvertical dykes, though infrequent subvertical dykes are recognized in nearby locales. Due to its iron and magnesium-rich composition, occurrences of diabase are often congruent with increased hypogene and supergene copper mineralization, relative to other lesser reactive rocks.

Petrographic thin section analysis indicates that the diabase is predominantly associated with secondary biotite and epidote as hydrothermal alteration products.

6.3.1.3 Laramide Porphyry

The Laramide porphyry intrusions are variable in composition but are collectively regarded as the causative intrusive for primary hypogene mineralization within the Santa Cruz Copper Project. The porphyry intrusions typically characterized as a quartz monzonite composition (35% quartz, 6% biotite, 29% feldspar, 30% K-feldspar, and plagioclase) with 40% phenocrysts averaging 1.5 mm and 60% aplitic to aphanitic groundmass. Quartz phenocrysts are less than 10 mm, sub-spherical, and comprise approximately 25% of the phenocrysts. Biotite makes up 15% of the phenocrysts and are less than 5 mm. Subhedral plagioclase phenocrysts, 60%, are generally less than 7 mm.

June 2025 Page 58

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

There are two distinct groups of Laramide-aged porphyry intrusions. One contains quartz phenocrysts of less than 5% by volume and is generally associated with increased biotite phenocrysts, as well as increased biotite content in the groundmass, typically resulting in a darker color for this unit. The other variant contains a greater abundance of quartz phenocrysts (>5%) and is often described as being more siliceous and lighter in color. These two distinct groups of Laramide-aged porphyry are formally referred to as the "granodiorite porphyry" and "latite porphyry," respectively.

A third Laramide porphyry consists of a biotite-quartz feldspar monzonite porphyry comprising 15% biotite, 25% K-feldspar, 40% plagioclase and 20% quartz, with 15% phenocrysts consisting of 20% biotite, 70% plagioclase and 10% quartz in an aphanitic 15% biotite, 30% K-feldspar, 35% plagioclase, 20% and quartz groundmass with an 0.06 mm average crystal size.

Alteration minerals within mineralized Laramide intrusions are variable depending on the porphyry endmember but are dominated by hydrothermal biotite, sericite, and lesser orthoclase feldspar.

6.3.1.4 Pinal Schist

The Pinal schist has not been intersected within the project area but is interpreted to occur at depth based on the regional geology. The unit typically consists of medium- to high-grade metamorphic rocks derived from sedimentary to volcanic protoliths. As part of the broader suite of Proterozoic metamorphic rocks in southern Arizona, the Pinal schist is exposed in mountain ranges such as the Santa Catalina and Rincon Mountains. Structurally, the unit is often intensely deformed, exhibiting multiple generations of folding and faulting, and is intruded by younger granitic bodies such as the Oracle granite.

6.3.2 Basin Fill Lithologies

Directly overlying the erosional surface of the bedrock units is a series of sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks. These rocks consist of predominantly syn-extensional erosional sediments and cobble conglomerates, airfall volcanic tuffs, and andesitic basalts associated with flows or volcaniclastic deposits. The sediments and cobble conglomerate units include alluvium, Gila conglomerate, Whitetail conglomerate, and basal conglomerate. The Gila and Whitetail conglomerates are separated stratigraphically and conformably by a narrow marker bed of rhyolitic Apache Leap tuff (20 Ma), usually of no greater thickness than 1 m. Basaltic flows and volcaniclastic deposits are represented by the mafic conglomerate which exists variably above, below, or intercalated within the basal conglomerate and/or lower Whitetail conglomerate.

The syn-extensional sedimentary units and morphology are well-understood across the project area through numerous core-from-surface drilling intersections. A simplified stratigraphic column is shown in Figure 6-3.

June 2025 Page 59

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-3: Simplified Stratigraphic Section of Santa Cruz Copper Project**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp3img019.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

6.3.2.1 Alluvium

The project area is characterized by an extensive layer of Quaternary alluvium, ranging from 80 to 100 m in thickness. This geological formation primarily comprises alternating layers of fine-grained sand, silt, and clay, interspersed with occasional fragments of caliche and iron oxides. Minimal variation is observed within the vertical profile, which indicates consistent depositional conditions across the project area. The presence of caliche fragments and subtle iron oxide staining within the alluvium points towards periodic episodes of soil formation and diagenetic alterations under semi-arid climatic conditions typical of Arizona.

6.3.2.2 Gila Conglomerate

The Tertiary Gila conglomerate consists of alternating beds of rounded to sub-rounded to sub-angular cobble to lesser boulder conglomerates, composed of mixed lithologies specific to the regional area, and beds of moderately sorted sand and gravel pebble conglomerates. These beds collectively average 150 to 300 m in thickness across the project area, and reach their thickest intersections over paleo-valleys controlled by buried extensional structural block configurations, and exhibit a conformable relationship with the underlying Apache Leap tuff.

The regional aquifer starts about 150 m below the surface in the Gila conglomerate, extending through different layers until it reaches bedrock. This water table is consistent across the project area.

June 2025 Page 60

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

6.3.2.3 Apache Leap Tuff

The Tertiary Apache Leap tuff, characterized as a rhyolitic airfall tuff, primarily consists of a devitrified quartzofeldspathic cryptocrystalline groundmass with infrequent compressed pumice fragments observable within thicker and less weathered intersections. This unit, interpreted to be horizontal to sub-horizontal across the Casa Grande Valley, can occur as multiple layers within a single section. The tuff displays a conformable relationship with the underlying Whitetail conglomerate.

6.3.2.4 Whitetail Conglomerate

The Tertiary Whitetail conglomerate, temporally and characteristically regarded as the stratigraphically lower and earlier equivalent of the Gila conglomerate, consists of alternating beds of mostly angular to sub-angular cobble to boulder conglomerates, composed of mixed lithologies specific to the regional area, with periodically interbedded layers of moderately to poorly sorted sand and gravel pebble conglomerates. Interpreted to represent a period of higher intensity erosion, the unit collectively averages 100 to 400 m in thickness across the project area. The thickest intersections are found over paleo-valleys controlled by extensional structural block configurations. It displays a conformable relationship with the underlying basal conglomerate or mafic conglomerate and an unconformable relationship with the underlying Oracle granite or Laramide porphyry.

6.3.2.5 Mafic Conglomerate

The Tertiary mafic conglomerate is characterized as a monomictic volcaniclastic unit composed of tightly compacted angular to sub-angular pebble to cobble-sized clasts of basaltic material. The unit is markedly distinguished from other sedimentary units by the sharp difference in clast composition and clast abundance, with little matrix support. Within the lower sedimentary sequence of the Santa Cruz deposit, the unit typically forms thin and relatively flat layers ranging from 1 to 3 m thick, which can be found above, below, or intercalated with the Basal conglomerate and/or Whitetail conglomerate. These thin layers generally dip to the southeast at ~5° to 15°. The unit shows a conformable relationship with the underlying basal conglomerate or Whitetail conglomerate and an unconformable relationship with the underlying Oracle granite or Laramide porphyry.

6.3.2.6 Basal Conglomerate

Tertiary basal conglomerate is characterized as a tightly compacted, monomictic conglomerate consisting of angular cobble- to boulder-sized clasts of Oracle granite. The unit is also markedly distinguished from other units by a sharp and significant introduction or increase in total hematitic iron oxidation throughout the rock mass. The unit averages 25 to 100 m thickness across the project area, reaching the thickest intersections at the base of paleo-valleys due to surface erosion, slope degradation, or mass wasting. The unit displays a conformable relationship with the underlying mafic conglomerate or an unconformable relationship with the underlying Oracle granite.

6.3.3 Alteration

Hydrothermal alteration at the Santa Cruz Copper Project is variable across the project area and largely dependent on the proximity and position relative to causative Laramide porphyry intrusions. Hypogene hydrothermal alteration assemblages consist predominantly of quartz, secondary biotite, secondary orthoclase, magnetite, sericite, and phengite. Low-temperature broad overprints are present consisting of illite and smectite, lesser kaolinite (which occurs primarily in the Oracle granite), and late chlorite and calcite. Rare subordinate phases such as epidote, albite, and tremolite may also occur locally.

June 2025 Page 61

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Supergene alteration is the latest overprint, which is the product of surface weathering, oxidation, and heated meteoric groundwater. The breakdown of sulfides results in sulfuric acid that can lead to the formation of limonite, alunite, jarosite, and kaolinite-bearing assemblages. Supergene alteration, as a result of heated meteoric groundwater, occurs as smectite clay alteration of mafic to intermediate-composition igneous rocks, smectite alteration along Miocene Basin and Range faults, and broad pervasive illite-smectite alteration overprints.

6.3.4 Structural Geology

The project area lies within the Basin and Range geological province, within a domain that has experienced a high degree of extensional tectonism. Faulting is intimately associated with mineralization and the current deposit configuration in several ways. The extensional fault systems that are recognized in the project area have a transport direction towards the southwest.

Major, deep-seated, northeast-to-southwest-striking basement structures controlled Laramide-age intrusive emplacement and metal endowment during transpressional arc magmatism. These structures are interpreted as detachment faults that have been reactivated multiple times, potentially serving as transfer faults for dextral offset during Basin and Range extension. Post-mineral faulting in the project area shows evidence of two generations of normal faulting in a northwest-southeast direction. This caused significant rotation and offset of fault blocks, with the earliest generation exhibiting a sub-horizontal configuration and the latest showing a sub-vertical configuration. The detachment fault has not been intersected within the project area but is believed to be at depth based on regional geology and fault block orientation.

Post-emplacement faulting has controlled and affected groundwater dynamics and the mobilization and deposition of copper through supergene enrichment processes. These faults also played a role in shaping the paleotopographical landscape and had a controlling influence on the development and distribution of exotic copper mineralization within paleodrainages. Internal faults in the Santa Cruz deposit have been modeled using active seismic geophysics, geotechnical analysis, and geological diamond drillhole logs.

6.3.5 Property Mineralization

Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Copper Project is summarized in Table 6-1. Figures 6-4 to 6-6 show cross-sections of the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, respectively.

June 2025 Page 62

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 6-1: Deposit & Mineralization Summary of the Santa Cruz Copper Project**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Deposit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dimensions** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Structure** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Alteration** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineralization** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz Deposit | &nbsp;&nbsp; The Santa Cruz deposit is approximately 2,000 m long and 700 m wide.<br>Mineralization occurs from about 400 m below the surface at 0 m above sea level to a depth of approximately -600 m below sea level. | &nbsp;&nbsp; Precambrian Oracle granite, Laramide porphyry, Precambrian<br> diabase | &nbsp;&nbsp;Basin and Range <br> extensional faulting | &nbsp;&nbsp; Pervasive sericite overprint associated with moderate density stockwork quartz veinlets. Higher temperature alteration is displayed as secondary biotite, chlorite, and minor secondary orthoclase.<br>Low-temperature supergene weathering overprints hydrothermal alteration as illite, smectite, and lesser kaolinite. | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Supergene:** The uppermost exotic copper mineralization is primarily hosted in overlying clastic and volcanic rocks. The supergene stratigraphy comprises zoned mineralization, with chrysocolla at the top, followed by atacamite, and then chalcocite. There is evidence of post-rotational supergene enrichment horizons, indicating two or more supergene sulfide events.<br>**Hypogene:** Primary sulfide mineralization includes chalcopyrite, pyrite, and minor molybdenite, which are hosted in quartz-sulfide stringers, veinlets, veins, and breccias. Additionally, finely to coarsely disseminated copper sulfides are found within vein envelopes associated with hydrothermal porphyry mineralization. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge Deposit | &nbsp;&nbsp;The East Ridge deposit consists of discrete subparallel zones. East Ridge North occurs as four dipping, subparallel zones from 4 to 8 m thick, 500 to 700 m long along strike, and 300 to 600 m extent along dip with an average dip of 35° to 45°. East Ridge South consists of two shallowly dipping, subparallel zones from 5 to 15 m thick, approximately 300 m long along strike and 600 m in extent down dip with an average dip of 15°. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Oracle granite, Laramide porphyry, Precambrian diabase | &nbsp;&nbsp;Basin and Range <br> extensional faulting | &nbsp;&nbsp; Pervasive sericite overprint associated with low to moderate density stockwork quartz veinlets. Higher temperature alteration is displayed as secondary biotite, magnetite, and minor secondary orthoclase.<br>Low-temperature supergene weathering overprints hydrothermal alteration as illite, smectite, and lesser kaolinite. | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Supergene:** Correlative and partially displaced from the Santa Cruz deposit. Supergene sulfide mineralization consists of thin, stacked intervals displaced from those in the Santa Cruz deposit by Basin and Range faulting. Chrysocolla and atacamite is broadly distributed near the fault-controlled paleo valley between the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits.<br>**Hypogene:** Primary sulfide mineralization is correlative and displaced from the Santa Cruz deposit and includes broad zones of low to moderate density quartz-sulfide veins consisting of chalcopyrite, pyrite, and molybdenite. Small zones of mineralized hydrothermal breccia are in the north portion of East Ridge. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Texaco Deposit | &nbsp;&nbsp;The Texaco deposit is approximately 1,500 m long and 650 m wide. The highest intercept of mineralization occurs at about 450 m below surface at -50 m below sea level, while the deepest intercept is at approximately -720 m below sea level. The deposit is tabular and dipping, and these dimensions represent the highest and lowest intersections of mineralization with an average thickness of 150 m. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Oracle granite, Laramide porphyry, Precambrian<br> diabase | &nbsp;&nbsp;Basin and Range <br> extensional faulting | &nbsp;&nbsp; Pervasive sericite in groundmass and stockwork quartz-sericite-pyrite veins. Higher temperature alteration is associated with quartz-molybdenite veins, secondary, biotite and magnetite within thin veinlets.<br>Low-temperature supergene weathering overprints hydrothermal alteration as illite, smectite, and lesser kaolinite. | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Supergene:** Supergene mineralization at Texaco contains significantly less copper oxide and copper chloride mineralization compared to the Santa Cruz deposit, although a well-developed leached cap exists. Veined and disseminated chalcocite exists in sub-horizontal blankets that have been tilted due to faulting and extension.<br>**Hypogene:** Primary sulfide mineral assemblages consist of chalcopyrite, pyrite, molybdenite hosted in quartz-sulfide veins, veinlets, vein breccia and breccias, as well as fine to coarsely disseminated sulfides within vein envelopes. Chalcopyrite and pyrite occur as sulfide cement within breccias. Hypogene mineralization at Texaco forms a distinct zoning pattern of chalcopyrite-molybdenite to chalcopyrite to pyrite from core to shell.<br>|
| Southwest Exploration Area | The dimensions of the Southwest exploration area are yet to be determined as the deposit boundaries remain undefined. | Precambrian Oracle granite, Laramide porphyry | Basin and Range <br> extensional faulting | Higher temperature alteration assemblage consisting of sericite, secondary biotite,<br> magnetite, and secondary orthoclase.<br>Significant supergene weathering is not observed within the Southwest exploration area. | **Supergene:** Supergene mineralization at the Southwest exploration area consists of weakly disseminated and partially enriched sulfides with chalcocite and/or bornite rims.<br>**Hypogene:** Hypogene mineralization within the Southwest exploration area is characterized by limited drilling that encountered bedrock at approximately 1,000 m depth. Sulfide mineralization includes pyrite and chalcopyrite that occur as chemical cement within a magmatic-hydrothermal breccia and sparse quartz-sulfide veining. |

---

June 2025 Page 63

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-4: Geological Cross-Section of Santa Cruz Deposit Looking Northwest**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img008.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 64

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-5: Geological Cross-Section of the East Ridge Deposit, Looking Northwest**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img009.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 65

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-6: Geological Cross-Section of the Texaco Deposit, Looking North**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img010.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 66

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

6.4 Deposit
 Types

Porphyry copper deposits (Figure 6-7) form in areas of shallow magmatism within subduction-related tectonic environments (Sillitoe, 2010).

**Figure 6-7: Simplified Alteration and Mineralization Zonation Model of a Porphyry Copper Deposit**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp3img020.jpg)

Source: Sillitoe, 2010.

As shown in Figure 6-7, the deposits in the project area have the typical characteristics of a porphyry copper deposit defined by Berger et al. (2008):

· Copper-bearing sulfides are localized in a network
of fracture-controlled stockwork veinlets and as disseminated grains in the adjacent altered rock matrix.

· Alteration and mineralization at 1 to 4 km
depth are genetically related to magma reservoirs emplaced into the shallow crust (6 km to over 8 km), predominantly intermediate
to silicic in composition, in magmatic arcs above subduction zones.

· Intrusive rock complexes associated with porphyry
copper mineralization and alteration are predominantly in the form of upright-vertical cylindrical stocks and/or complexes of dykes.

· Zones of phyllic-argillic and marginal propylitic
alteration overlap or surround a potassic alteration assemblage.

· Copper may also be introduced during overprinting
phyllic-argillic alteration events.

Primary hypogene mineralization occurs as disseminations and in stockworks of veins, in hydrothermally altered, shallow intrusive complexes and their adjacent country rocks (Berger et al., 2008). Sulfides of the hypogene zone are dominantly chalcopyrite and pyrite. The hydrothermal alteration zones and vein paragenesis of porphyry copper deposits are well-known and provide an excellent tool for advancing exploration. Schematic cross-sections of typical alteration zones and associated minerals are presented in Figure 6-8.

June 2025 Page 67

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-8: Schematic Representation of an Exotic Copper Deposit**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp3img021.jpg)

Source: Fernandez-Mote et al. (2018); modified after Münchmeyer (1996) and Sillitoe (2005).

Supergene enrichment processes are a common feature of many porphyry copper systems located in certain physiogeographical regions (semi-arid). It can result in upgrading of low-grade porphyry copper sulfide mineralization into economically significant accumulations of supergene copper species (copper oxides, halides, carbonates, etc.). This is particularly important in the southwestern United States. Supergene enrichment occurs when a porphyry system is uplifted to shallow depths and is exposed to surface oxidation processes. This leads to the copper being leached from the hypogene mineralization during weathering of primarily pyrite, which generates significant sulfuric acid in oxidizing conditions, and redeposits the copper below the water table as supergene copper sulfides such as chalcocite and covellite. Figure 6-9 illustrates a schematic section through a secondary enriched porphyry copper deposit, identifying the main mineral zones formed as an overprint from the weathering of the hypogene system.

The project area has a history of oxidation and leaching that resulted in the formation of enriched chalcocite horizons, and later stages of oxidation and leaching, which modified the supergene copper mineralization by oxidizing portions of it in place and mobilizing some of the chalcocite to a greater depth (Figure 6-9). This process is associated with descending water tables and or erosion and uplift of the system, or changes in climate, or hydrogeological systematics.

June 2025 Page 68

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 6-9: Typical Copper Porphyry Cross-Section and Associated Minerals**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp3img022.jpg)

Source: modified from Asmus, B. (2013).

June 2025 Page 69

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **7** | **Exploration** |

---

7.1 Geophysics
 and Geochemistry

Various exploration programs have been conducted in the project area by different operators starting in the 1960s. These are summarized in Section 5, and where relevant to the Santa Cruz Copper Project, are also summarized in the following sub-sections.

7.1.1 Geophysical Exploration

7.1.1.1 Historical Surveys

Ivanhoe Electric compiled historical geophysical survey information on the project area completed by previous operators (refer to Table 5-1).

Historical induced polarization (IP) survey reports indicate that extraneous responses in IP surveys at Sacaton and Santa Cruz resulted from groundwater present in the valley sediments and conglomerates. Controlled source audio-frequency magnetotelluric surveys were considered promising for tracking leachate detectability with salt doping/tracing.

7.1.1.2 Ivanhoe Electric

Ivanhoe Electric has completed geophysical surveys including ground gravity, seismic refraction tomography, proprietary Typhoon™ three-dimensional perpendicular pole dipole induced polarization (3D PPD IP), ground magnetics, multichannel analysis surface wave, and controlled source audio-frequency magnetotellurics. The geophysical datasets from these surveys were used to assist with geological interpretation and improved drill targeting. The surveys and results are summarized in Table 7-1. Maps detailing the location of the surveys, survey design, and sample results are shown in Figures 7-1 through 7-3.

June 2025 Page 70

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 7-1: Geophysical Assessments Conducted on the Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits from 2022 to 2024**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Technique** | **Purpose** | **Results** |
| 2022 | Ground gravity | To understand the depth to basement, the characteristics of the post-mineral cover, and the pre-mineral basement. When integrated with seismic data, which provides superior vertical resolution, the combination yields high-resolution insights into key geological relationships in the subsurface. | Gravity data, combined with seismic datasets, was used to estimate depths to basement outside of drilled domains. This data helped improve the modeling of geological contacts, structures, and post-mineral cover geometries, aiding in drillhole planning and mine design optimization. |
| 2022 | 2D surface seismic refraction tomography | To determine bedrock depth and subsurface topography within a discrete 1.5 by 1.2 km region northwest of the Santa Cruz deposit. | The seismic tomographic survey helped model the depth to basement within the survey area. It revealed that the cover sequence generally consists of low-velocity materials, which enabled the delineation of the basement contact in nearby zones. Certain gravels near the basement interface exhibited high seismic velocities due to varying degrees of induration and lithification. Some domains of crystalline basement showed anomalously low velocities, attributed to extensive hydrothermal alteration and supergene leaching. |
| 2022 | Typhoon™ (3D PPD IP) | The aim was to address subsurface chargeability anomalies from disseminated sulfides and to analyze resistivity and conductivity data from the 3D PPD survey. This would help define geological features like lithological, alteration, mineralization domains, and water table configuration. | Results revealed strong chargeability anomalies that correspond with areas of known porphyry-style mineralization previously confirmed through drilling such as disseminated sulfide mineralization such as pyrite and chalcopyrite. |
| 2022 | Ground magnetics | To resolve structures and geological relationships in the subsurface. | The results revealed subsurface features such as faults and magnetic variations. Interpretation in Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits faced interference from steel drill casings and possibly abandoned rods. Despite this, magnetic anomalies at historical drill sites helped verify the accuracy of recorded collar locations. |
| 2023 | Quantum-audio magnetotellurics | To obtain broad magnetic and resistivity datasets across the property for regional context and interpretation of subsurface structural and alteration features. | The survey sensor, suspended beneath the helicopter, experienced vibrational and rotational noise, leading to low-quality data with a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Consequently, the dataset was unusable for creating higher-order derivative products like resistivity models or magnetic inversions, and was excluded from operational workflows. |
| 2024 | 3D and 2D seismic and multichannel analysis surface wave | High-resolution seismic imaging was conducted to de-risk capital development and provide interpretive data on stratigraphic contacts and structures. Additionally, two multichannel surface wave survey lines were completed to inform near-surface shear wave velocity for planned infrastructure. | The integration of 2D, 3D seismic, and multichannel analysis surface wave survey results reduced geological uncertainty by clarifying lithological boundaries and fault geometries, improving capital planning. |
| 2024 | Typhoon™ data reprocessing | The 2022 Santa Cruz Copper Project Typhoon™ 3D PPD IP survey data was reprocessed using a new suite of QA/QC tools and newly introduced machine learning techniques to identify and filter erroneous readings within the raw data. | The refined data served as updated input for creating a new 3D chargeability and resistivity inversions. The resulting 3D inversions and report featured smoother geometries with less distortion from cultural noise. |
| 2024 | Ambient noise tomography | To map the thickness of the conglomerates, detect any lateral velocity variation within the bedrock, and detect structural features for additional geological context. | The modeled results showed that the passive seismic data delineated stratigraphic and structural features relevant to porphyry copper exploration, increasing confidence in geologic interpretations. |

---

June 2025 Page 71

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-1: 2022 Gravity Survey Station Plan (Left) & Gravity Survey Results (Right)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img014.jpg)

Note: Shows complete Bouguer gravity anomaly at reduction density of 2.3 g/cm<sup>3</sup>. Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 72

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-2: Ground Magnetics Survey Results**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img015.jpg)

Note: Ground magnetics survey lines are shown on the left and TMI RTP ground magnetics results are shown on the right. Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 73

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-3: Quantum Audio Magnetotellurics Survey Lines**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp03img016.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 74

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.1.2 Geochemical Exploration

The deposits at the Santa Cruz Copper Project are deep and most sampling has been the result of drilling. Drilling results are discussed in Section 7.2.

Ivanhoe Electric conducted a partial ionic leach sampling survey through ALS Laboratories in Tucson, Arizona. The geochemical datasets have been used to assist with geological interpretation and improved drill targeting.

A comprehensive surface ionic leach sampling program was completed across the entire project area in two phases to assess the utility of this survey method in detecting copper mineralization at depth. A total of 815 surface samples were collected by Ivanhoe Electric along approximately 30 sampling lines across both sampling phases. The program aimed to validate the survey methodology and explore its potential to enhance targeting and geological interpretation efforts.

Survey sample sites were collected from approximately 30 northeast-southwest oriented sampling lines, with each line spaced approximately 223 m apart in the northwest-southeast direction, with samples collected at roughly 130 to 150 m spacing in the northeast-southwest direction. Line lengths were variable to conform to the property boundary. Samples were not collected from a small residential area within the property. Each sample was analyzed for 61 elements using a static sodium cyanide leach method in conjunction with various common chelating leaching agents. The sampling results for copper and molybdenum are shown in Figures 7-4 and 7-5, respectively.

**Figure 7-4: Geochemical Exploration Map – Copper**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img01.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

June 2025 Page 75

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-5: Geochemical Exploration Map – Molybdenum**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img02.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

7.1.3 Qualified Person's Interpretation of the Exploration Information

The exploration primarily conducted by Ivanhoe Electric provided vectors to geophysical and geochemical anomalies that were drill tested. This work further developed the understanding of copper mineralization within the project area.

7.2 Drilling

Drilling within the Santa Cruz Copper Project property totals 469 drillholes for 330,118 meters of drilling. Of this total, 329 drillholes for 279,164 meters were used in support of the mineral resource. The 140 drillholes excluded from the estimation do not intersect the deposit or did not have relevant information for estimation, such as shallow sonic holes with no assay samples taken.

7.2.1 Historical Drilling

The historical drilling within the project area can be separated into several series: CG (Hanna-Getty), SC (ASARCO), and T and HC drilling (related to the in-situ program described in Section 5). A summary of drilling production by each series is provided in Table 7-2; collar locations are shown in Figure 7-6.

**Table 7-2: Summary of Available Data by Region**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Total** |
| **Description** | **CG** | **SC** | **HC** | **T** | **Total** |
| Total Number of Holes | 122 | 80 | 5 | 5 | 212 |

---

June 2025 Page 76

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Dataset Region** | **Total** |
| **Description** | **CG** | **SC** | **HC** | **T** | **Total** |
| Total Drilled (m) | 102563 | 62754 | 3622 | 2295 | 165317 |

---

**Figure 7-6: Plan Map of Historical Drillhole Collars**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img03.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 77

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.2.1.1 Santa Cruz & East Ridge Deposits

Historical drilling at the Santa Cruz deposit consisted of 108,301 m of core from 126, 47.26 mm diameter (NQ) drillholes completed between 1965 to 1996. Historically, these two deposits were undifferentiated, thus drilling totals are cumulative for both deposits. The historical drill core is currently unavailable for review except for sparse, skeletonized core boxes from a single historical drillhole CG-037.

A program was conducted to check the collar locations of a selection from the drillhole database using a professionally licensed surveying company, D2 Land Surveying. Based on the transformation for these spot-checked drillholes, collar locations were adjusted. All historical drilling was conducted vertically. For the Santa Cruz deposit, the drilling was completed along 100 m spaced section lines with drillholes spaced 90 to 100 m apart on each section line.

7.2.1.2 Texaco Deposit

Historical Texaco deposit drilling consists of 23,848 m of core from 27 NQ drillholes completed between 1975 and 1997. The drillholes in this deposit area are in the "SC" drillhole series. The historical core is predominantly unavailable for review with the exception of sparse, skeletonized boxes from historical drillholes SC-066 and SC-069A. A program was conducted to check the collar locations of a selection of historical drillholes from the database using a professionally licensed surveying company, D2 Land Surveying. Based on the transformation for these spot-checked drillholes, collar locations were adjusted. All historical drilling was conducted vertically. For the Texaco deposit, the drilling was completed along 100 to 200 m spaced section lines with drillholes spaced 200 m apart on each section line. The average drill section and spacing in the Texaco deposit is approximately 200 m and varies between approximately 90 and 250 m.

7.2.2 Ivanhoe Electric Drill Programs

7.2.2.1 Overview

Ivanhoe Electric has completed 286 holes totaling more than 175 km of combined drilling since initiating activity on the Santa Cruz Copper Project in 2021 (Table 7-3).

In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric initially completed five core drillholes totaling 4,739 m within the Santa Cruz deposit to twin historical drillholes for data validation (Figure 7-7). Drilling was a mixture of rotary pre-collar through the barren Tertiary sediments and core drilling through the target areas and shoulders. All samples from within the interpreted mineralized zone were assayed for total copper (%), acid soluble copper (%), cyanide soluble copper (%), and molybdenum (%). The collar locations, downhole surveys, geological logging, sampling, and assaying between the two sets of drillholes were used to determine if historical data were valid and would not bias the geological model or mineral resource estimate.

All five historical hole assays aligned with the 2021 Ivanhoe Electric core drilling assays. The 2021 core drilling assays were of higher resolution due to smaller sample sizes and validated the ASARCO assays.

**Table 7-3: Drillhole Summary by Year**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Number of Holes** | **Total Meters Drilled** |
| 2021 | 6 | 6005 |
| 2022 | 106 | 60117 |
| 2023 | 81 | 60995 |

---

June 2025 Page 78

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Number of Holes** | **Total Meters Drilled** |
| 2024 | 93 | 47469 |
| **Total** | **286** | **174586** |

---

**Figure 7-7: Plan Map of the Twinned Drillholes & Historical Drillhole Collars**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img04.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

Drilling occurred in multiple areas of the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including in the Southwest exploration area, Santa Cruz deposit, East Ridge deposit, and Texaco deposit (Table 7-4).

June 2025 Page 79

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 7-4: Drillhole Summary by Deposit**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Total Drilling** | **Total Drilling** | **Total Drilling** | **Ivanhoe Electric Drilling** | **Ivanhoe Electric Drilling** | **Ivanhoe Electric Drilling** |
| **Deposit** | **Number of<br> Drillholes** | **Meters** | **Meters<br> Intersecting<br> Deposit** | **Number of<br> Drillholes** | **Meters** | **Meters<br> Intersecting<br> Deposit** |
| Santa Cruz | 226 | 194463 | 72074 | 142 | 114368 | 42684 |
| East Ridge | 62 | 48878 | 18070 | 38 | 29356 | 11159 |
| Texaco | 41 | 35823 | 8170 | 14 | 12703 | 3442 |
| **Total** | **329** | **279164** | **98314** | **194** | **156427** | **57285** |

---

Much of the drilling was focused on definition and metallurgical drilling within the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposit areas with secondary exploration drilling in the other project areas. The number of assays, by deposit, are shown in Table 7-5.

**Table 7-5: Number of Assays by Assay Type & Deposit**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Assay Type** | **Santa Cruz Deposit** | **East Ridge Deposit** | **Texaco Deposit** |
| Total Copper (TCu) | 34591 | 7567 | 3808 |
| Acid Soluble Copper (ASCu) | 30635 | 5280 | 2401 |
| Cyanide Soluble Copper (CNCu) | 25868 | 5251 | 2490 |
| Gold (Au) | 14646 | 1244 | 1297 |
| Silver (Ag) | 24261 | 5143 | 2204 |

---

Drill collar locations for Ivanhoe Electric's and historical drilling are identified on Figure 7-8. Drill collar locations by program are shown on Figure 7-9.

June 2025 Page 80

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-8: Plan Map of Historical & Ivanhoe Electric Drillhole Collar Locations**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img05.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

June 2025 Page 81

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-9: Plan Map of Historical & Ivanhoe Electric Drill Collar Locations by Program**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img06.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

June 2025 Page 82

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.2.2.2 Drill Methods

Drilling was performed using a variety of drilling equipment and methodologies including coring, reverse circulation, tricone rotary, and shallow sonic boring (Table 7-6). The drilling equipment and methodology used was dependent on the target objective and target depth. Most drilling performed during 2021 and 2022 used standard PQ diamond coring from the surface to maximize the amount of core sample recovered for use in multiple sampling and testing programs. Tricone or rotary with HQ core tails was used when targets did not require large-diameter coring for bulk material, allowing for a more cost-efficient approach.

Reverse-circulation (RC) and sonic drilling were also used in 2022 for rapid characterization of bedrock interface underneath sedimentary cover, soil, and clay horizons in the upper alluvial and overburden sediments, and conglomerate units. Table 7-6 also summarizes drilling contractors and equipment who performed operations for the project.

Drillhole abandonment procedures were designed to meet or exceed Arizona's mandated requirements. Most drilling reached or exceeded depths over 100 m and followed state-approved borehole abandonment methods.

**Table 7-6: Drilling Equipment & Contractors**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drilling Contractor** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drilling Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equipment Models** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Major Drilling Internation Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Core, rotary with core tails | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF160, LF230, LF350 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;National EWP | &nbsp;&nbsp;Core, rotary with core tails, well | &nbsp;&nbsp;Schramm T-130, LF230 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;T&J Enterprises, Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Reverse circulation | &nbsp;&nbsp;HRC 1500 (Custom) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Layne Christensen Company | &nbsp;&nbsp;Well | &nbsp;&nbsp;Atlas Copco RD-20, Schramm T-130, Schramm T-200, 60T |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cascade Environmental | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sonic | &nbsp;&nbsp;LF600 |

---

7.2.2.3 Logging

Detailed core logging is performed by Ivanhoe Electric geologists through digital data input into MX Deposit. Data logged included lithology, alteration, mineralization, veining, petrophysical data, and geotechnical parameters such as faults, joints and fractures, hardness, and rock quality designation (RQD). Additional characterization fields such as rock colors, stain colors, grain sizes, textures, and supergene weathering features were also captured.

The core logging and geological database consists of five major rock types, including 47 major lithologies congruent with historically logged lithologies, 21 lithological textures, 17 alteration types, and 15 lithological structures. There are 28 unique economic and gangue minerals recorded in the current database.

Photographs of all drill core were taken, both wet and dry, and are stored digitally in Imago software.

7.2.2.4 Recovery

Recovery was collected by logging geologists digitally into MX Deposit for all core drilled. Recovery was measured as a percentage of the length of rock measured by core loggers over the drilled interval. The average recovery is 90% with areas of lower recovery typically seen in sedimentary overburden units and structures.

June 2025 Page 83

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.2.2.5 Collar Surveying

Collar surveying was performed by Environmental Field Services, LLC, upon completion and abandonment of the drillholes. Each survey job used the NGS (National Geodetic Survey) benchmark "CZ2366" as the primary benchmark for all subsequent work. Data collection was done by an Arizona state licensed land surveyor and survey technician using a Trimble R8S Integrated GNSS and Trimble TC83 data collector with collected data validated to fall within acceptable tolerances of Arizona State minimum standards for survey work.

Data were delivered after the completion of a job and data validation via email in Excel spreadsheets as positional coordinates for drillhole collars in NAD 83 United States State Plane coordinate system in international feet. These were then converted from State Plane to UTM Zone 12N and from international feet to meters using ESRI ArcPro by Ivanhoe Electric. The converted survey coordinates then entered MX Deposit and superseded any other existing collar information for use in geographical and modeling software.

7.2.2.6 Downhole Surveying

Downhole surveying during the 2021 to 2024 drilling programs was conducted using a REFLEX EZ Gyro and IMDEX OMNIx42 multi-shot gyroscopic surveying tool taken within each drillhole during drilling at 30 m increments for continuous tracking, and then after hole completion from the bottom in 150 m increments as the tool is being pulled from the completed drillhole for check analysis.

Depending on technical utility, many drillholes were also surveyed using borehole geophysical surveying probes through Southwest Exploration Services, LLC. or International Directional Services Inc. Each borehole was surveyed for 4RX sonic-gamma (sampled every 0.06 m), acoustic televiewer (sampled every 0.003 m), E-logs-gamma (sampled every 0.06 m), and a gamma caliper test for fluid temperature conduction (sampled every 0.06 m). The downhole surveying has also allowed for the calibration of post-drilling information to ensure that deviation surveying was correct and lithological and mineralogical contacts were logged properly. The downhole surveying was also used to collect accurate oriented structural measurements.

7.2.2.7 Density

There are no records of density measurements from historical drill core from the Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits. Further details on density by Ivanhoe Electric are in Section 8.4.

7.2.2.8 Comment on Material Results & Interpretation

Drill spacing varies from approximately 60 to 100 m in most of the deposit areas to about 200 m spacing in the less drilled areas. Procedures for 2021-2024 drilling, collar surveying, and geological and geotechnical logging are consistent with industry-standard practices. Procedures for pre-2021 data collection are not recorded in the information provided to BBA.

Review of recovery data indicated no correlation between grade and zones of lower recovery. Overall, BBA considers the drill data to be acceptable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation.

June 2025 Page 84

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.3 Geotechnical

Ivanhoe Electric has used 83 historical and 184 modern drillholes totaling over 70 km of drilling with geotechnical data metrics captured serving as the basis for analysis supporting geotechnical characterization of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits. Drill core and photos are not available for any of the historical drillholes and Q-system parameters are not available.

7.3.1 Sampling Methods & Laboratory Determinations

Ivanhoe Electric processed diamond drill core to collect RQD data, Q data (quality of a rock mass), rock hardness, fracture statistics, and laboratory strength testing. Point load testing, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), triaxial compressive strength, unified soils classification system, small-scale direct shear, Cerchar abrasivity, and Brazilian disc tension testing were determined by laboratory testing at laboratory strength testing by Call & Nicholas, Inc. in Tucson, Arizona. Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), and the British Standards (BS), and testing equipment calibrations were provided as a quality control measure.

Five sonic drillholes assessed and characterized the alluvium and sediments through sampling, sediment logging, and Atterburg limits for clay behavior under the Unified Soil Classification System.

Acoustic borehole image logs from televiewer surveys from 72 core holes helped to orient and identify the dominant joint orientation and fabric in the overburden and bedrock rock masses.

Results were grouped by lithology and mode of failure. Laboratory results for point load testing, uniaxial compression strength, and triaxial testing in which the failure took place through pre-existing weak planes or joints were not used for parameter estimations.

7.3.2 Comment on Results

Logging data and laboratory testing results are generally consistent with the description of the rock mass. Methods and data collected are consistent with generally accepted industry standard of practice as described in using the Q-System (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 2022). Laboratory testing is in accordance with standard ASTM guidelines.

7.4 Hydrogeological Investigations

The area around the Santa Cruz Copper Project has undergone numerous hydrogeological studies since the 1970s to evaluate the geological and hydrogeological properties and the mining feasibility of the area. Historical wells, where hydraulic tests were conducted and the hydrogeology data was available for the prefeasibility-level hydrogeology investigation, are shown in Figure 7-11. The historical data combined with recently collected hydrogeological data, have informed the hydrogeological conceptual site model for the project and were incorporated into the groundwater flow model to estimate the projected groundwater inflows for the mine plan.

7.4.1 Hydrogeological Data Collection

To support the initial assessment, a baseline hydrogeological model was developed in 2022 and 2023, incorporating Lugeon packer test data from exploration boreholes conducted by Ivanhoe Electric and Montgomery & Associates (Montgomery & Associates, 2023). The Lugeon packer tests were completed at depths ranging from 182.1 to 684.6 m below ground surface in exploration boreholes SCC-101, -106, -111, -124, and -128 (Figure 7-10).

June 2025 Page 85

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The prefeasibility study hydraulic testing program was conducted from October 2023 through October 2024 by Ivanhoe Electric and INTERA and included 56 additional hydraulic tests performed at 14 locations (Figure 7-10). The hydraulic testing was conducted in six new groundwater monitoring wells (SCH-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, and -006) and TW-1 using several different types of test methods, including packer tests, step tests, and constant rate pumping tests depending on the location and formation properties (INTERA, 2025). To test areas within the mine plan for the Santa Cruz Copper Project, slug packer tests were also conducted in six exploration boreholes (SCC-235A, -237, -239, -240, -243, and -247) (Figure 7-10). In addition, Geosyntec performed a constant rate test in borehole SCH-007 (Figure 7-10).

A total of 48 prefeasibility study tests, 24 initial assessment tests, and 30 re-analyzed historical tests were used to determine the hydraulic properties of the hydrogeological units, along with two tests from the Pinal Active Management Area Model (Pinal model). Eighteen tests were used to define the hydraulic properties of the overburden units and 84 tests were used to define the hydraulic properties of the bedrock units (Table 7-7). Since the alluvium is not saturated in the vicinity of the project area, the hydraulic properties for the alluvium are from the Pinal model (ADWR, 2019) and not from the hydraulic testing program. The historical and recent hydraulic test analysis results were used to refine the hydrogeological conceptual site model and groundwater flow characteristics, improving the predictive capability of the groundwater flow model for the project.

A total of 109 grouted-in vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) were installed within 25 core holes (Figure 7-10). These instruments were installed to provide pressure responses during the prefeasibility study hydraulic tests in 2023 and 2024.

June 2025 Page 86

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-10: Historical (Pre-Ivanhoe Electric) & Current Groundwater Monitoring & Testing Locations**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img07.jpg)

June 2025 Page 87

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

7.4.2 Hydrogeological Conceptual Site Model

For the hydrogeological conceptual site model and the project area groundwater flow model, the overburden geology, and mineral domains in both the Santa Cruz mine area and East Ridge mine area were subdivided into hydrogeological units based on specific hydraulic properties with distinct influence on storage or movement of groundwater, such as hydraulic conductivity or specific storage. Thirteen hydrogeological units were identified in the project area that align with the geological domains and include four overburden units and nine bedrock units. The hydraulic conductivity values presented in Table 7-7 were determined from the hydraulic tests conducted in the area, including re-analyzed historical test data as well as recent test data from the initial assessment and prefeasibility study.

**Table 7-7: HGU Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates from Current & Historical Tests Conducted in the Project Area**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hydrogeological Unit<br> (HGU)** | **Hydraulic<br> Conductivity<br> Minimum (cm/s)** | **Hydraulic <br> Conductivity <br> Maximum (cm/s)** | **Hydraulic Conductivity<br> Geometric Mean (cm/s)** | **No. of Hydraulic<br> Conductivity Tests** |
| Alluvium\* | 1.2E-02 | 2.3E-02 | 1.7E-02 | 2 |
| Conglomerate North | 4.4E-06 | 5.2E-02 | 7.0E-03 | 8 |
| Conglomerate South | 1.4E-04 | 1.4E-02 | 1.1E-03 | 7 |
| Basal Conglomerate | 3.3E-06 | 1.3E-04 | 1.9E-05 | 3 |
| Leach Cap | 3.5E-08 | 1.4E-03 | 2.1E-05 | 13 |
| Santa Cruz Oxide | 2.2E-09 | 3.1E-04 | 1.5E-06 | 10 |
| Santa Cruz Chalcocite | 1.5E-08 | 7.1E-06 | 4.4E-07 | 5 |
| Santa Cruz Primary Mineralized | 1.2E-06 | 2.7E-05 | 6.5E-06 | 5 |
| Santa Cruz Primary Unmineralized | 9.7E-08 | 1.0E-04 | 3.1E-06 | 8 |
| Santa Cruz Unmineralized | 3.5E-08 | 2.7E-03 | 8.5E-05 | 14 |
| East Ridge Mineralized | 5.2E-06 | 6.4E-05 | 1.8E-05 | 17 |
| East Ridge Unmineralized | 1.6E-07 | 9.9E-07 | 4.7E-07 | 4 |
| Fault Zone | 2.6E-06 | 3.8E-03 | 1.4E-04 | 8 |

---

\*Hydraulic conductivity estimates for alluvium are from Liu et al. (2014).

Groundwater flow characterization of the project area was informed by both the regional data from wells surrounding the project area and data collected within the project area as part of the hydrogeological investigations during the initial assessment and prefeasibility study. Groundwater movement within the conglomerate units generally flows westward toward areas of historically high groundwater withdrawal for agricultural irrigation.

7.4.3 Groundwater Flow Model & Results

To develop a groundwater flow model, the Pinal model (ADWR, 2019) was modified to enable the simulation of the bedrock head field and to more accurately represent the water supply pumping stresses after 2015. Then, using the USGS MODFLOW-6 groundwater flow code (MF6) (Langevin et al., 2017), the groundwater flow model was developed as an inset model to the modified regional Pinal model and calibrated with recent water level observations to reflect current flow conditions within the project area. The spatial extent of the inset groundwater flow model was developed to ensure sufficient distance from the mine to assess potential regional effects from bedrock dewatering. The hydraulic properties within the inset groundwater flow model were assigned based on the spatial distribution and hydraulic properties of the hydrogeological units (Table 7-7).

June 2025 Page 88

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The groundwater flow model integrates both the known hydraulic properties of the hydrogeological units and inferred geology, geology from outside the project area, along with hydraulic properties from the surficial alluvium down to the bedrock, using parameters calibrated from the Pinal model as well as recently collected data and reanalyzed historical data. The groundwater flow model was calibrated using measured water levels and the calibration was assessed through standard statistical comparisons between simulated and observed groundwater levels. Following model calibration, the model was used to predict the long-term (mine life) groundwater inflow into mine developments and assess changes in surrounding water levels. Initial model runs were used to identify zones with higher inflows. Based on the initial model runs, mitigation strategies were selected and modifications to the mine plan design were applied by the mining engineers to reduce groundwater inflows. To reduce the residual passive inflows, mitigation measures were developed by Ivanhoe Electric and their mine engineers, and included:

· Activated colloidal silica application to the
decline and Railveyor and other mine developments within conglomerate HGUs.

· Grout application to all mine developments within
the leach cap HGU, the fault zone HGU, and all East Ridge developments. The mine plan was designed to avoid intersection with the fault
zone HGU but some small intersections exist.

Although shotcrete will be used in the underground mine workings it will not be relied upon to effectively limit groundwater inflow and is not used as a mitigation measure in the model. Concrete will be used in the underground workings as structural control in the vent shafts, haulage chutes, and portions of orepass raises and was applied in both the mitigation and no-mitigation simulations.

The results of the groundwater flow modelling demonstrated a significant reduction of between 2,000 gal/min to more than 4,000 gal/min in total residual passive inflow with the mitigation measures applied (Figure 7-11). The model results indicate that the mine developments intersect the water table at the beginning of 2027, and with the activated colloidal silica mitigation applied to the decline as it passes through the conglomerates, the inflows to the decline are approximately 500 gal/min in 2027 (blue line in Figure 7-11). Inflows to the decline increase in 2028 when the decline enters bedrock and grouting replaces the activated colloidal silica as the mitigation measure. During peak mining periods, by applying the mitigation measures, inflows range from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 gal/min (blue line in Figure 7-11) (INTERA, 2025). The substantial reduction in inflows by applying the mitigation measures highlights the effectiveness of the measures at sealing off key mine features.

June 2025 Page 89

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-11: Comparison of Residual Passive Inflow for the No-Mitigation Scenario & Mitigation Scenario**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img08.jpg)

Figure 7-11 shows the maximum residual passive inflows and the percentage of mine workings within the range of residual passive inflows estimated from the groundwater flow model with mitigation measures (INTERA, 2025). The residual passive inflow for the decline is reduced due to the application of activated colloidal silica in the conglomerates and grouting in the bedrock with 72.2% of the decline having a maximum residual passive inflow of 0 to 5 gal/min (Figure 7-12).

Most of the Santa Cruz mine workings, 98.4% in the Santa Cruz deposit and 93.5% of the Verde domain, show 0 to 5 gal/min maximum residual passive inflow (Figure 7-12). The areas of lower residual passive inflow represent both stopes—that are only open for short periods during mining and have no inflow—and regions of low hydraulic conductivity in the Santa Cruz oxide HGU and the Santa Cruz chalcocite HGU.

Mine developments in East Ridge have the highest amount of maximum residual passive inflows, with 63% of mine workings within the East Ridge deposit having a range of 0 to 5 gal/min inflows, 22.7% with 5 to 10 gal/min inflows, 8.5% with 10 to 15 gal/min inflows, 3.4% with 15 to 20 gal/min inflows, and 2.4% with more than 20 gal/min inflows (Figure 7-12). The groundwater flow model indicates that increased inflows in East Ridge are primarily from the East Ridge mineralized HGU; however, the fault zone HGU, between the Santa Cruz deposit and the East Ridge deposit, may be contributing to the inflows as well (INTERA, 2025).

June 2025 Page 90

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 7-12: Model Estimates of Maximum Residual Passive Inflows to Mine Workings**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img09.jpg)

Note: Max RPI = maximum residual passive inflows.

7.4.4 Comment on Results

The resulting groundwater model uses hydraulic testing and updated hydrogeological understanding to model groundwater inflows and supports future economic extraction of mineralized material.

June 2025 Page 91

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8** | **Sample Preparation, Analysis & Security** |

---

8.1 Assay Laboratory Selection

Table 8-1 details the labs used for analysis and time periods.

**Table 8-1: Labs Used for Analysis & Time Periods**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dates** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay Laboratories** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;September 2021 – December 2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Skyline, SGS, American Assay Labs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;December 2022 – May 2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Skyline, SGS |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;May 2023 – June 2025 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SGS, ALS Global |

---

The four laboratories used from September 2021 to December 2022 are certified by the International Standards Organization (ISO), demonstrating technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (ISO 17025) and were independent of Ivanhoe Electric. Additionally, Skyline was certified as ISO 9001, indicating that the quality management system conforms to the requirements of the International Standards. SGS Burnaby conformed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for specific tests as listed on their scope of accreditation. American Assay carried approval from the State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection. Issues with analytical quality at American Assay Labs in early 2022 lead to Ivanhoe Electric discontinuing work with this laboratory.

The five laboratories used from December 2022 to May 2023 are recognized by the International Standard (ISO 17025) for demonstrating technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system . Additionally, Skyline is recognized by ISO 9001, indicating that the quality management system conforms to the requirements of the international standard. SGS Burnaby conforms to requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for specific tests as listed on their scope of accreditation. ALS North Vancouver and Tucson conform to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for specific analytical procedures as listed on their scope of accreditation. In May 2023, due to quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) concerns in the preparation department at Skyline, Ivanhoe Electric discontinued work with this laboratory.

8.1.1 2021 to 2022

Drill core from the Santa Cruz Copper Project was sampled under the direct supervision of the project's managing staff.

Samples collected in 2021-2022 were cut lengthwise, either in half or in four quarters, using an NTT Coresaw diamond-bladed saw or a Husqvarna® table saw. Each sample, consisting of one-half or one-quarter of the drill core, was placed in a plastic sample bag labeled with the sample number and sealed with a zip tie. This bag was then placed in a burlap sample bag, also labeled with the sample number, with a sample tag inserted between the plastic and burlap bags. The sample tag corresponded with the tag stapled to the core box containing the remaining half or three-quarters of the drill core for cataloging and storage. The burlap sample bags were then grouped in batches of 25, placed in large, labeled plastic bags, sealed with zip ties, and transported to the laboratory facility in large fold-out plastic bins. Quarter core was used for a subset of holes and quarter core duplicates were determined to have roughly equivalent variance to half core duplicates.

June 2025 Page 92

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

8.1.2 2023 to 2024

Drill core from the Santa Cruz Copper Project was sampled under the direct supervision of the project's managing staff.

Samples collected in 2023 and 2024 were cut lengthwise in half, using the NTT Coresaw diamond-bladed saw. Each sample consisted of one-half of the split drill core, which was placed in an 8 mm thick, 18″ x 24″ plastic sample bag labeled with the sample number in black Sharpie® and a sample tag affixed to the outside of the plastic bag via a chemical seal. The sample tag affixed to the outside of the sample bag corresponded with the tag stapled to the core box where the remaining half-core was placed for cataloging and storage. The plastic sample bags were then placed in large, fold-out plastic bins or super sacks on pallets for transport to the laboratory facility.

8.1.3 Ionic Leach

Ivanhoe Electric collected samples in the spring of 2024 for mobile metal ion analysis via ALS's ionic leach program. Sample preparation was completed by ALS Tucson and prepared samples were sent to ALS North Vancouver for ionic leach analysis.

Sample collection consisted of removing the top 10 to 15 cm of soil using a stainless-steel trowel and then removed any contaminated soil from the area with a plastic trowel. The plastic trowel was cleaned with a wire brush followed by a plastic brush before the sample was collected. Approximately 1 kg of material was collected 30 cm below the layer that was removed and placed into a quart-sized plastic Ziplock bag. Bags were labeled with a sample ID and tag, organized into groups of 200, and placed into larger rice bags or cloth bags to be transported to the laboratory.

8.2 Sample Preparation & Analysis

8.2.1 Skyline Assayers & Laboratories

Half of the total drill core samples taken during August 2022 to May 2023 and all the drill core samples taken during the September 2021 to August 2022 core drilling programs were prepared and analyzed at Skyline. The samples were crushed from the split core to prepare a total sample of up to 5 kg at 75% passing 6 mm. Samples were then riffle split, and a 250 g sample was pulverized with standard steel to plus 95% passing at 150 µm. After sample pulp preparation, the samples were analyzed using the following methods:

· All samples were analyzed for total copper using
multi-acid digestions with an atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) finish. The lower limit of detection is 0.01% for total copper, with
an upper detection limit of 10%.

· Sequential analyses (SEQ) for cyanide soluble
copper and acid soluble copper were conducted via multi-acid leaching with an AAS finish. The lower limit of detection is 0.005%, with
an upper detection limit of 10%.

· Molybdenum was prepared using multi-acid digestion
and analyzed using ICP-OES. This analysis has a lower detection limit of 0.001%.

· Samples greater than 10% Cu with a 20% threshold
were analyzed again using a long iodine method.

June 2025 Page 93

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

8.2.2 SGS Laboratories

All samples taken during the May 2023 to June 2024 diamond drilling program were prepared and analyzed at SGS Burnaby, Tempe, or Lakefield. The other half of the total drill core samples taken during the August 2022 to May 2023 diamond drilling program and not sent to Skyline, were prepared and analyzed at SGS Burnaby or Lakefield. The samples were crushed from the split core to prepare a total sample of up to 9 kg at 6 mm. Samples were then riffle split, and a 250 g sample was crushed to 75% passing at 2 mm. The sample was then pulverized with standard steel to plus 85% passing at 75 µm. After sample pulp preparation, the samples were analyzed using the following methods:

· All samples were analyzed for total copper using
a sodium peroxide fusion with an inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish. The lower limit of detection
is 0.001% for total copper, with an upper detection limit of 5%.

· Three-stage SEQ for cyanide soluble and acid
soluble copper were conducted via multi-acid leaching with an AAS finish. For SEQ copper analyses, the lower limit of detection is 0.005%,
with an upper detection limit of 100% using a separate subsample than what was used for the total copper analysis.

· Molybdenum was prepared using a sodium peroxide
fusion with an inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish. The lower limit of detection is 0.001% for total
molybdenum with an upper detection limit of 5%. Multi-element analysis was prepared using a 33-element, four-acid digestion and analyzed
using a combined ICP-OES and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) package.

· Gold was prepared using a 30 g fire assay and
analyzed using an AAS finish. This analysis has a lower limit of detection of 5 ppb, with an upper detection of 10,000 ppb or 1 ppm.

· Silver was prepared using a four-acid digestion
and analyzed using a combined ICP-OES and ICP-MS package. This analysis has a lower detection limit of 0.02 ppm and an upper detection
limit of 100 ppm.

· Samples greater than 5% Cu, with a 60% threshold,
were reanalyzed using a short iodide titration overlimit.

· Samples greater the 60% Cu were reanalyzed using
electrogravimetry, with a 95% Cu threshold.

8.2.3 ALS Laboratories

In spring 2024, Ivanhoe Electric collected surface samples for mobile metal ion analysis at ALS Tucson and ALS North Vancouver via an ionic leach program. A 50 g sample was taken directly from the field bag with no pre-treatment to reduce any chances of contamination. Processing of the 50 g sample was carried out in a dedicated ionic preparation laboratory in North Vancouver.

Copper, gold, silver, and molybdenum were analyzed via a static sodium cyanide leach utilizing the chelating agents ammonium chloride, citric acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the leachant buffered at an alkaline pH of 8.5. The leachant solution was analyzed using an ICP-MS finish. Lower limits for all elements were as follows: Cu 1 ppb, Au 0.01 ppb, Ag 0.05 ppb, and Mo 0.2 ppb.

8.2.4 American Assay Laboratories

Two drillholes from the 2021 drill campaign were prepared and analyzed at American Assay Laboratories. Due to issues with analytical quality, Ivanhoe Electric discontinued work with this facility.

June 2025 Page 94

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

8.2.5 Historical Core Assay Sample & Analysis

Historically, samples from both Texaco and Santa Cruz drilling were sent to Skyline to be assayed for standard total copper and non-sulfide copper methods. Samples were crushed and split; a 250 to 500 mg sample was then prepared in the following ways:

· Total copper analysis samples were dissolved
using a mixture of hydrochloric acid (HCl), nitric acid (HNO<sub>3</sub>) and perchloric acid (HClO<sub>4</sub>) over low heat. The mixture
was then measured using AAS.

· Non-sulfide copper was dissolved using a mixture
of sulfuric acid (H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>) and sulfurous acid (H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>3</sub>) over moderate to high heat. This mixture
was then filtered, diluted, and measured using AAS. No information on the historical analytical detection limits is available.

8.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

Analytical QC measures involve internal and external laboratory procedures implemented to monitor the precision and accuracy of the sample preparation and assay data. These measures are important to identify potential sample sequencing errors and to monitor for contamination of samples.

8.3.1 2021 to 2022

Ivanhoe Electric submitted a blank, standard, or duplicate sample on every seventh sample with an approximate insertion rate of 4.8% for all QC types. Sampling and analytical QA/QC protocols typically involved taking half-core field duplicate samples and inserting QC samples (certified reference material (CRM) and blanks), to monitor the reliability of the assay results throughout the drill program.

8.3.2 2023 to 2024

Ivanhoe Electric submitted a coarse blank and an analytical blank, a certified reference material (CRM or standard), or a duplicate sample on every sixth sample to increase the insertion rate of QC samples to meet or exceed 5% per sample type. Field duplicates were submitted at an average insertion rate of 4.6% in 2023 and 4.8% in 2024. Supplemental coarse reject duplicates and pulverization duplicates depending on grade were also submitted.

8.3.3 Santa Cruz Sampling

8.3.3.1 Standards

During the 2023-2024 drilling campaigns, Ivanhoe Electric submitted ten different CRMs from OREAS, Geostats Ply., CDN Resources Laboratory Ltd., and MEG LLC. CRMs were chosen to be matrix and mineralization matched, as well as represent copper grades seen throughout the deposits. A barren, low-grade, mid-grade, and high-grade CRM was used for both oxide and sulfide copper material. All CRMs are certified for copper analysis, eight are certified for multi-element analysis and gold fire-assay, and nine are certified for silver analysis.

A review of the CRM results identified minimal laboratory failures at Skyline and SGS. Few measurements go above or below three standard deviations. When measurements produced results above or below three standard deviations, the laboratory would recalibrate and reanalyze the sample. Figure 8-1 shows performance charts for the most frequently used oxide and primary sulfide CRMs for the Santa Cruz deposit.

June 2025 Page 95

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Ivanhoe Electric created two high-grade matrix matched standards in late 2023 to control assay grades above 2% copper. One standard was made at 2.076% copper (SCHG01), and the other at 3.405% (SCHG02) copper. These standards were received in late spring 2024, and round robin certification was obtained in May 2024.

8.3.3.2 Blanks

As part of its QA/QC process for the Santa Cruz deposit, Ivanhoe Electric used coarse (1") granite material from Pioneer Landscaping to assess contamination in assay samples. Ivanhoe Electric submitted 158 coarse granite blanks to Skyline and 1,127 coarse granite blanks to SGS during the 2023 and 2024 drilling campaigns. No significant carryover of elevated metals was evident in blanks measured at Skyline or at SGS. A threshold of ±0.02% Cu was accepted for blank samples. If a sample did not initially pass, it was reanalyzed.

8.3.3.3 Duplicates

Ivanhoe Electric submitted 136 field duplicates from the Santa Cruz deposit to Skyline and 949 field duplicates to SGS during the 2023 and 2024 drilling campaigns as a part of its QA/QC process. The results of the field duplicates are in good agreement for total copper (%), acid soluble copper (%) and cyanide soluble copper (%).

June 2025 Page 96

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 8-1: Certified Reference Material Performance Charts for Santa Cruz Deposit**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img10.jpg) | ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img11.jpg) |
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img13.jpg) | ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img12.jpg) |

---

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 97

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

8.3.4 East Ridge & Texaco Sampling

8.3.4.1 Standards

During the 2022 drilling campaign, Ivanhoe Electric submitted ten CRMs for drilling carried out within the East Ridge deposit and nine CRMs for drilling conducted within the Texaco deposit. A review of the CRM results showed minimal failures from Skyline or SGS for samples submitted from either deposit. In the rare instance of failure (outside three standard deviations), the laboratory re-calibrated their equipment and re-analyzed the batch.

8.3.4.2 Blanks

During the 2023-2024 drilling campaigns, Ivanhoe Electric submitted 289 for the East Ridge deposit and 171 coarse granite blanks for the Texaco deposit to Skyline and SGS as part of its QA/QC process. No significant carryover of elevated metals was evident in blanks measured at Skyline or SGS. A threshold of ±0.02% Cu was accepted for blank samples. If the samples did not initially pass, they were reanalyzed.

8.3.4.3 Duplicates

During the 2023-2024 drilling campaign, Ivanhoe Electric submitted field duplicates for the East Ridge and Texaco deposits as a part of its QA/QC process. For the East Ridge deposit, 49 field duplicates were submitted to Skyline and 235 field duplicates to SGS. For the Texaco deposit, 26 field duplicates were submitted to Skyline and 110 field duplicates to SGS. All samples appear to be in reasonable agreement. Slight to moderate differences can be explained by a "nugget" effect and geological inconsistencies in mineralization.

8.4 Density

A total of 5,884 density measurements from 210 core drillholes exist for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. Measurements were calculated using the weight in air versus the weight in water method (Archimedes).

Density values were relatively consistent per domain, and an estimated density value would be very similar to an assigned value. Values were assigned to blocks based on subdomains per deposit. Due to a significant increase in measurements, East Ridge and Texaco have sufficient sample density to assign specific averages per deposit and domain (Table 8-2). Texaco subdomains lacked sufficient samples for unique values.

Measurements were calculated using the weight in air versus the weight in water method (Archimedes)by applying the following formula:

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img14.jpg)

**Table 8-2: Santa Cruz Copper Project Density Measurements**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average Density** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Alluvium | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.96 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Gila Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.18 |

---

June 2025 Page 98

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Average Density** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Apache Leap Tuff | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Whitetail Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lacustrine Sediments | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.60 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mafic Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.34 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Basal Conglomerate | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Diabase | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.61 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Laramide porphyry | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle granite | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.54 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pinal Schist | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.65 |

---

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

8.5 Security & Storage

The drill core from Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco were stored in wax impregnated core boxes and transported from the drill rig to the core shack. After being logged, the core boxes were palletized, weatherized, and stored in Ivanhoe Electric's secure drill core storage facilities. The drill core storage facilities are surrounded by gated chain-link fencing and locked for security purposes. All samples for analyses were transported by courier to the laboratories in Tucson, Tempe, North Vancouver, or Burnaby.

8.6 BBA Opinion

BBA was supplied with raw QA/QC data and has carried out an independent review of the results for Ivanhoe Electric's sampling programs. It is the QP's opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures used are consistent with standard industry practices and that the data is suitable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation.

June 2025 Page 99

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **9** | **Data Verification** |

---

9.1 Data Verification Procedures

BBA performed several verification checks to ensure the data integrity of the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including the data associated with the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. BBA also completed data analysis and validation, as described in Section 11.

9.2 BBA Site Visit 2024

BBA completed an initial site visit to the project area, including the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, from February 27 to March 1, 2024. BBA personnel were accompanied by Ivanhoe Electric management and geologists.

An additional inspection of site was completed by BBA from April 22 to 23, 2024.

Activities carried out during the site visits included the following:

· reviewed work completed on the project as well
as the geological, geotechnical, and geographical setting

· reviewed active work, including active drill
sites

· reviewed the site's geology, mineralization,
and structural controls

· reviewed the data capture process including logging,
sampling, analytical, and quality assurance and quality control (QA / QC) procedures

· reviewed the chain of custody of samples from
the sampling process to the sample dispatch

· reviewed drill logs, drill core, storage facilities,
and collected samples for assay verification purposes

· confirmed both historical and Ivanhoe Electric
drillhole collar locations

· verified the data entry process into the drillhole
database system.

Ivanhoe Electric employs a rigorous QA / QC protocol, including the routine insertion of field duplicates, blanks, and certified reference standards. BBA received a monthly QA / QC report from Ivanhoe Electric and was provided with all QA / QC data prior to the site visits.

The geological data collection procedures and the chain of custody were found to be consistent with current industry practices and follow Ivanhoe Electric's internal procedural documentation. BBA verified the quality of geological and sampling information collected by Ivanhoe Electric and confirmed the data are fit for use in the creation of geological and mineralized models and that the data are appropriate for use in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation.

9.3 Field Collar Validation

While visiting the project site, BBA and Ivanhoe Electric personnel verified 51 collar locations using a Garmin GPSMAP 62 handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit. These collar readings compared to the recorded collar locations in the project database; deviations between these two readings were within the expected resolution of the handheld units. Three drillholes that were noted to have a GPS deviation greater than 10 m were resurveyed by a third-party group using a differential GPS system. The resurveyed coordinates obtained by Ivanhoe Electric returned coordinate values within a reasonable tolerance of the GPS coordinates obtained by BBA.

June 2025 Page 100

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

9.4 Core Logging, Sampling & Storage Facilities

The drillholes are logged, photographed, and sampled on site at the Ivanhoe Electric core logging facility (Figure 9-1). Drill core is palletized, winterized, and stored at Ivanhoe Electric's core storage facilities. The core samples, pulps, and coarse rejects are kept at the core logging facility or at Ivanhoe Electric's core storage facilities.

**Figure 9-1: Core Logging Facility, Casa Grande, Arizona**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp4img15.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2024.

Ivanhoe Electric drillhole recordings are stored in a commercial geological database management system, MX Deposit. Data are logged and entered directly into the software. The software has been extensively customized for Ivanhoe Electric and the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including defined pick lists and calculated fields, which enable data integrity checks at the data entry stage. Geotechnical measurements are also taken and entered directly in MX Deposit with the same validation and data integrity checks. Select drillholes were surveyed with a suite of televiewer probes, including acoustic borehole imaging, which characterized the orientation and properties of discontinuities using WellCAD software.

June 2025 Page 101

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Core loggers have access to Ivanhoe Electric's standard operating procedures and work instruction documentation for logging and sampling, which includes a standardized drill inspection checklist for standardizing and enforcing core logging procedures. QA/QC samples, including blanks, duplicates, and standards, are appropriately selected and inserted into the sampling workflow. Documentation, the data collection process, and geotechnical logs are subject to routine internal audits by senior staff and management to ensure consistent and accurate collection of data by the Ivanhoe Electric team.

9.5 Independent Sampling

BBA selected sample intervals from eight holes drilled on the Santa Cruz deposit. Twenty verification samples were collected (Table 9-1) from the existing assay database.

Sample material for the verification samples were the pulp rejects from previously submitted Ivanhoe Electric samples. Pulp rejects were sent to BBA's office in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, where the sample numbers were validated, and were then submitted to ALS. Sudbury for preparation and then analyzed at ALS North Vancouver. ALS is certified by the International Standards Organization (ISO), demonstrating technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (ISO 17025) and is independent of Ivanhoe Electric. The ALS sample workflow uses the same aliquot when testing for acid soluble copper and cyanide soluble copper.

The BBA check assay results from ALS were compared to Ivanhoe Electric's sample database. The results are summarized in Table 9-1 for total copper (%), acid soluble copper (%), and cyanide soluble copper (%). Two samples, or 10% of the assays checked, showed sample variances significantly greater than 10%. All other results, regardless of analytical method, were within reasonable tolerances for the deposit type and no material biases were evident.

June 2025 Page 102

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 9-1: Original Assay Values vs. BBA Check Sample Assay Values**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Original Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BBA Check Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BBA Check Samples** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**BBA Check Samples** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample<br> Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total <br> Cu (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Acid <br> Soluble Cu<br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cyanide<br> Soluble Cu<br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> Cu (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Acid <br> Soluble Cu<br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cyanide<br> Soluble Cu<br> (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;694731 | &nbsp;&nbsp;884.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;885.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;694736 | &nbsp;&nbsp;888.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;889.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;695558 | &nbsp;&nbsp;840.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;841.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;695641 | &nbsp;&nbsp;911.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;912.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.08 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-056_334 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;601.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-056_345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;609.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;610.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-056_381 | &nbsp;&nbsp;639.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;640.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-056_403 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;640.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;641.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_171 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_185 | &nbsp;&nbsp;670.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;671.80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.43 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;697.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;698.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_268 | &nbsp;&nbsp;740.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;742.19 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.96 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.97 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.85 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-057_278 | &nbsp;&nbsp;749.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;750.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.63 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.76 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.67 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-084_100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;747.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;749.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.05 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.92 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.99 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-125_046 | &nbsp;&nbsp;598.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;600.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-178_054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;591.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;593.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.03 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.98 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-178_059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;599.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;601.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-178_133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;708.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;710.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.71 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-186_067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;647.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;649.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.86 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01 |

---

9.6 Twin Hole Analysis

In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric drilled five twin holes with the intention of verifying five historical drillholes. All five twin hole assays aligned with the historical drilling, validating the historical ASARCO cyanide soluble assays.

Between 2021 and 2024, several holes drilled for resource estimation purposes were evaluated against nearby historical holes of different vintages. The results were consistent with the 2021 validation. Due to different sample lengths and differences in analytical methods, a direct comparison of assay intervals is not representative of the results; however, geological contacts were consistent between the holes and composited assays.

June 2025 Page 103

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

9.7 Database Validation

BBA completed a spot check verification of the assay database for each deposit, as follows:

· Santa Cruz deposit – approximately 10%
(3,700) of the 37,000 assays.

· East Ridge deposit – approximately 10%
(800) of the 8,000 assays.

· Texaco deposit – approximately 10% (390)
of the 3,900 assays.

The geology was validated for lithological units from Ivanhoe Electric's Leapfrog lithological model. The geological contacts aligned with the core contacts and are acceptable for use. Datamine software also has a validation routine when importing the data. No errors were recorded.

Due to the re-analyses to determine cyanide soluble copper within the historical samples, there are instances where cyanide soluble copper is greater than total copper. It has been determined that the historical cyanide soluble assays are valid as they align with recent drillhole assays. Therefore, a cap has been applied to historical cyanide soluble assays such that they must not exceed the associated total copper value by 20% for each sample, as these results are from separate sample splits and this variance in values is expected. Likewise, any acid soluble assays that exceed the associated total copper value by 20% are capped.

9.8 Review of Company's QA / QC

BBA conducted an independent review of Ivanhoe Electric's QA / QC procedures as part of the validation process and believes that the company has a robust QA / QC process in place, as described in Section 9.5.

9.9 BBA Opinion

It is BBA's opinion that the geological data collection and QA / QC procedures used by Ivanhoe Electric are consistent with current industry practices and that the geological database is of suitable quality to support the mineral resource estimates, mineral reserve estimates, and mine planning.

June 2025 Page 104

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10** | **Mineral Processing & Metallurgical Testing** |

---

10.1 Test Laboratories

During the over 60-year history of exploration around the project area, a significant number of metallurgical studies and accompanying laboratory-scale tests have been completed by external consultants. Since Ivanhoe Electric acquired the property in 2021, metallurgy and processing testwork has been directed by Met Engineering, LLC (Met Engineering) and conducted at McClelland Labs (MLI) in Sparks, Nevada, USA and at Blue Coast Research (BCR) in Parksville, British Columbia, Canada. The laboratories performed metallurgical testing to industry standards using industry-accepted procedures. MLI meets the requirements of AC89 Accreditation Criteria for Testing Laboratories from the International Accreditation Service (IAS) and with ISO 17025. The labs are independent of Ivanhoe Electric.

10.2 Metallurgical Testwork

After the Initial Assessment was published in September 2023, various trade-off studies were completed. In late 2023 a proposed float-leach process flowsheet was pursued where the mineralized material would be floated producing a salable copper-gold-silver concentrate, followed by sulfuric acid leaching of the tailings using solvent extraction (SX) / electro-winning (EW) technology to produce copper cathode. This flowsheet successfully delivered high copper recovery while producing both salable concentrate and copper cathode. Testwork continued to evaluate alternatives and ultimately arrived at a flowsheet of dynamic heap leaching of the ore followed by SX/EW to produce copper cathode for sale in the US marketplace and eliminated production of copper concentrates that likely would have necessitated selling them into the Asian or European markets because of limited copper smelting capacity in the US.

10.2.1 Column Leach Testing

Column leach studies simulating heap leaching were completed in 2024 and 2025 at the MLI and BCR laboratories. Exploratory testwork at MLI established operating parameters that were used on later variability testwork completed at BCR. The BCR variability program optimized leach parameters for the Santa Cruz oxide and chalcocite mineral domains resulting in refining reagent consumption while maximizing recovery.

10.2.1.1 Sample Selection

Fifty-six samples consisting of PQ-size drill core halves from the 2023 to 2024 Ivanhoe Electric drilling program were selected for variability analyses and building nine master composites, representing the mineralized material, for column leach testing. Sample intervals are continuous with an average length of 20 m and a minimum calculated total copper grade of 0.7%. Table 10-1 identifies the individual samples that were selected to create each of the nine master composite samples. The master composites provide broad spatial coverage of the Santa Cruz and Verde domains within the mine design (Figure 10-1). Expected mine plan feed variability is captured by samples representing the oxide, chalcocite, and transitional mineral domains. All lithologies found within the mineralized material are also represented, which includes pure Oracle granite samples and samples with mixtures of porphyry and diabase dikes.

June 2025 Page 105

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 10-1: Sample Selection for Master Composites for Column Leach Testing**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID /<br> Master Composite ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Drillhole<br> ID** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**From<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**To<br> (m)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mineral Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **A – High Grade Oxide Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;765.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;796.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;625.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;640.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;673.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;583.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;611.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **B – High Grade Oxide Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR059 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;613.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;633.37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;517.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;535.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;644.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR064 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-188 | &nbsp;&nbsp;524.54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;538.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR094 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-215 | &nbsp;&nbsp;598.46 | &nbsp;&nbsp;615.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **C – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR054 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;862.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;885.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR060 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-182 | &nbsp;&nbsp;592.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;614.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Porphyry / Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR078 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;601.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-205A | &nbsp;&nbsp;915.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;945.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;885.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;916.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **D – Moderate Grade Chalcocite Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR063 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-187 | &nbsp;&nbsp;644.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;660.28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;669.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR071 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;738.23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;763.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;614.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR077 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;646.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;673.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **E – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR057 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;690.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;669.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR083 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-206 | &nbsp;&nbsp;510.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;533.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Porphyry/ Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;840.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;857.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR099 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-210 | &nbsp;&nbsp;593.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;616.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Porphyry/ Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **F – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR053 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-173 | &nbsp;&nbsp;765.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;796.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR055 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-175 | &nbsp;&nbsp;615.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;632.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;625.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR066 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-189 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;669.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR069 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-192 | &nbsp;&nbsp;640.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;673.26 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR073 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-195 | &nbsp;&nbsp;583.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;611.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR076 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-199 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;614.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR090 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-211 | &nbsp;&nbsp;556.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **G – Moderate Grade Oxide Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR056 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-176 | &nbsp;&nbsp;590.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;615.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR061 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-183 | &nbsp;&nbsp;625.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR062 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;517.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;535.70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR067 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;617.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;643.20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR068 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;590.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;614.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR085 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;795.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;825.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR091 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;766.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;793.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR092 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-213 | &nbsp;&nbsp;840.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;857.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR093 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-214 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;584.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **H – Moderate Grade Mixed Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR052 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-165 | &nbsp;&nbsp;582.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;612.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Porphyry / Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR080 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-203 | &nbsp;&nbsp;614.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;644.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Cu Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR081 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-204 | &nbsp;&nbsp;875.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;907.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR082 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-205A | &nbsp;&nbsp;915.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;945.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR088 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-209 | &nbsp;&nbsp;554.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;583.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide/Enrichment Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **I – High Grade Chalcocite Ore** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR058 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-180 | &nbsp;&nbsp;523.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;544.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite / Porphyry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR086 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-208 | &nbsp;&nbsp;886.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;917.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR098 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-178 | &nbsp;&nbsp;800.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;818.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR102 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-219A | &nbsp;&nbsp;644.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;674.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite/Primary Transition Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VAR103 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SCC-221 | &nbsp;&nbsp;885.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;916.69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Enrichment Zone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |

---

Source: Met Engineering, 2025.

June 2025 Page 106

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 10-1: Spatial Distribution of the Variability & Master Composite Samples**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img01.jpg)

Source: Met Engineering, 2025.

June 2025 Page 107

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

10.2.1.2 Ore Characterization

SGS Advanced Mineralogy (SGS) in Ontario, Canada, analyzed 106 ore samples from Ivanhoe Electric's testing programs at MLI and BCR. The samples received were ground to an approximate P<sub>80</sub> of 150 μm. The mineralogical work was conducted with a TESCAN integrated mineral analyzer (TIMA-X), electron probe micro-analysis (EPMA), laser ablation by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA by ICP-MS), X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD), and chemical assays.

The ore characterization summary for the master composites (A-I) and the variability samples that constitute them are presented in Table 10-2. The abbreviation "CNCu" in the table header represents the cyanide-soluble copper measured in the sample. It is strictly an analytical measurement to indicate the level of secondary sulfide copper present. Cyanide is not used in the proposed Santa Cruz metallurgical process flowsheet.

The modal mineralogy across composites is generally consistent, with minimal variability in the abundance of quartz, potassium feldspar, and plagioclase. The predominant lithology in the variability and master composite samples is mostly Oracle granite. However, master composite E exhibits less quartz (40%) and higher amounts of biotite (5%) and smectite (8%). This variation is attributed to a higher proportion of porphyry in the samples.

Atacamite constitutes, on average, 60% of the oxide copper across all master composites. It is also the primary source of chloride, accounting for 88% of the deportment, which shows a strong correlation between chloride and the oxide mineral domain.

Secondary sulfide copper is mainly chalcocite, comprising 98% of the deportment in the master composites, with covellite and bornite rare and only representing only 2% of the secondary sulfide copper deportment.

Chalcocite and pyrite are the main sources of sulfur in the master composites, contributing to a cumulative deportment of 74%. Cuprous goethite and sulphates make up a lesser amount of the sulfur deportment with a combined 13%. The sulfur content is highest in master composite C, D, and I, which represent high-grade chalcocite ore.

Iron is found in a wider range of minerals than other elements discussed. These minerals include cuprous goethite, muscovite/illite, biotite, iron oxides, and pyrite. Cuprous goethite contains the largest abundance of iron at 34% with muscovite/illite as the second most prominent at 20%. Biotite and pyrite iron deportment is more variable between individual composites but represents a combined 23% of the overall iron.

June 2025 Page 108

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 10-2: Master Composite and Variability Samples**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sample ID** | **Total<br> Cu %** | **Sequential <br> Coppers %** | **Sequential <br> Coppers %** | **Sequential <br> Coppers %** | **Sulfur<br> Assay<br> %** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Copper Deportment Mineralogy** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Modal Mineralogy %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** | **Selected Assays %** |
| **Sample ID** | **Total<br> Cu %** | **ASCu** | **CNCu** | **ResCu** | **Total S** | **Atacamite** | **Chrysocolla** | **Cu-Goethite** | **Cu-Mica** | **Other<br> Cu** | **Chalcocite** | **Chalcopyrite** | **Other<br> Cu-Sulfides** | **Quartz** | **K-Feldspars** | **Biotite** | **Muscovite/<br> Ilite** | **Carbonates** | **Pyrite** | **Iron<br> Oxides** | **Smectites** | **Chlorine** | **Fluorine** | **Calcium** | **Iron** | **Magnesium** | **Aluminum** | **Potassium** | **Manganese** |
| **Master Composites** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| A | 1.48 | 1.36 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.90 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 48.76 | 26.37 | 0.45 | 16.38 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 2.87 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 1.36 | 0.15 | 6.24 | 4.57 | 0.01 |
| B | 1.43 | 1.36 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 44.56 | 27.15 | 0.78 | 15.93 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 4.51 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 1.70 | 0.19 | 6.54 | 4.10 | 0.01 |
| C | 1.44 | 0.55 | 0.88 | 0.02 | 0.76 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.91 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 45.69 | 30.12 | 0.96 | 14.34 | 0.07 | 0.82 | 0.22 | 2.30 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 1.91 | 0.19 | 6.12 | 4.25 | 0.01 |
| D | 1.36 | 0.14 | 1.10 | 0.12 | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.09 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 45.81 | 30.53 | 1.82 | 12.99 | 0.02 | 0.82 | 0.17 | 2.34 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 1.91 | 0.24 | 6.37 | 4.90 | 0.01 |
| E | 1.31 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.49 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 40.32 | 24.09 | 5.57 | 12.01 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 8.11 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.24 | 2.49 | 0.54 | 7.40 | 3.92 | 0.01 |
| F | 1.28 | 0.92 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.61 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 48.15 | 25.23 | 1.42 | 15.88 | 0.02 | 0.46 | 0.26 | 3.07 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 2.00 | 0.25 | 6.33 | 4.33 | 0.01 |
| G | 1.18 | 0.95 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.69 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.63 | 38.50 | 1.24 | 9.62 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 2.97 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 1.32 | 0.21 | 6.31 | 4.87 | 0.01 |
| H | 1.21 | 0.75 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 44.99 | 32.31 | 0.63 | 12.71 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 3.41 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 1.27 | 0.17 | 6.47 | 4.54 | 0.01 |
| I | 1.47 | 0.16 | 1.21 | 0.10 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.16 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 47.19 | 29.83 | 0.52 | 13.13 | 0.05 | 0.90 | 0.22 | 2.15 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 1.75 | 0.15 | 6.22 | 4.52 | 0.01 |
| **Variability Samples** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| VAR053 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.02 | 0.053 | 0.01 | 0.57 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 45.61 | 30.88 | 4.41 | 10.72 | 0.03 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 2.97 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 1.08 | 0.20 | 6.93 | 5.72 | 0.01 |
| VAR054 | 1.51 | 0.62 | 0.88 | 0.007 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 1.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.76 | 38.76 | 0.43 | 11.47 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 1.23 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 1.31 | 0.18 | 6.83 | 4.79 | 0.01 |
| VAR055 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.47 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 49.95 | 28.19 | 0.03 | 13.66 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 2.46 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 2.00 | 0.22 | 6.72 | 5.30 | 0.01 |
| VAR057 | 1.27 | 0.99 | 0.24 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.39 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 43.56 | 34.75 | 0.10 | 11.99 | 0.07 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 1.53 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 2.60 | 0.67 | 7.73 | 4.02 | 0.01 |
| VAR059 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 40.66 | 37.11 | 3.60 | 9.16 | 0.02 | 0.34 | 0.30 | 2.02 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 1.18 | 0.10 | 6.56 | 4.58 | 0.01 |
| VAR060 | 1.84 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.04 | 1.78 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 1.17 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 45.07 | 33.55 | 0.02 | 13.39 | 0.00 | 1.78 | 0.06 | 1.68 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 3.35 | 0.33 | 7.36 | 3.83 | 0.01 |
| VAR061 | 1.81 | 1.79 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 1.55 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 43.07 | 34.73 | 1.12 | 13.19 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 3.72 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 1.45 | 0.14 | 5.93 | 3.01 | 0.00 |
| VAR062 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.43 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 36.26 | 47.50 | 1.09 | 9.39 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.98 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 1.68 | 0.34 | 7.04 | 5.62 | 0.01 |
| VAR063 | 0.81 | 0.13 | 0.67 | 0.01 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.69 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 44.65 | 33.41 | 1.75 | 11.19 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 3.46 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 1.96 | 0.42 | 7.20 | 5.21 | 0.01 |
| VAR064 | 2.10 | 2.06 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.79 | 0.02 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 39.22 | 20.10 | 7.95 | 12.49 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 11.98 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 2.85 | 0.18 | 6.56 | 3.52 | 0.01 |
| VAR066 | 1.42 | 0.13 | 1.00 | 0.29 | 1.62 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.79 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 49.97 | 28.78 | 0.02 | 12.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.22 | 3.32 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 3.42 | 0.49 | 6.77 | 4.60 | 0.01 |
| VAR069 | 1.83 | 1.8 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 1.61 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 47.79 | 14.12 | 0.79 | 21.13 | 0.04 | 2.59 | 0.18 | 5.21 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 1.52 | 0.13 | 6.03 | 3.43 | 0.00 |
| VAR071 | 1.80 | 0.16 | 1.37 | 0.27 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 1.38 | 0.32 | 0.03 | 60.79 | 6.42 | 0.02 | 25.24 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 2.43 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 1.57 | 0.13 | 6.51 | 5.94 | 0.01 |
| VAR073 | 1.71 | 1.69 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.52 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 40.99 | 36.79 | 3.49 | 8.91 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 4.12 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.86 | 0.09 | 6.25 | 6.02 | 0.00 |
| VAR076 | 1.42 | 0.11 | 1.30 | 0.01 | 1.14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 1.33 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 54.45 | 12.31 | 0.12 | 21.83 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.55 | 3.39 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 1.43 | 0.10 | 6.46 | 5.58 | 0.00 |
| VAR077 | 1.38 | 0.17 | 1.18 | 0.03 | 0.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 1.22 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 45.67 | 21.27 | 4.20 | 15.69 | 0.04 | 1.93 | 0.22 | 3.38 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 1.32 | 0.12 | 6.51 | 5.04 | 0.01 |
| VAR078 | 0.95 | 0.36 | 0.55 | 0.04 | 1.14 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.62 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 57.05 | 12.65 | 0.02 | 22.18 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 2.51 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 2.39 | 0.30 | 6.51 | 4.33 | 0.01 |
| VAR082 | 1.01 | 0.76 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.39 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 50.26 | 22.12 | 2.45 | 15.97 | 0.07 | 1.49 | 0.14 | 2.67 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 1.27 | 0.21 | 6.35 | 6.02 | 0.02 |
| VAR083 | 1.44 | 1.33 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.81 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.04 | 41.76 | 0.69 | 9.71 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 1.25 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 2.69 | 0.31 | 7.67 | 3.79 | 0.01 |
| VAR084 | 0.69 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 48.03 | 15.26 | 2.23 | 17.45 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 8.08 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.39 | 5.61 | 1.35 | 7.41 | 4.35 | 0.03 |
| VAR086 | 2.14 | 0.22 | 1.91 | 0.01 | 0.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 2.00 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 25.12 | 25.06 | 19.51 | 2.86 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.65 | 12.11 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 1.38 | 0.11 | 6.35 | 5.40 | 0.01 |
| VAR089 | 1.21 | 0.14 | 0.93 | 0.14 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.86 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 46.11 | 28.42 | 0.19 | 14.92 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 3.18 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 2.27 | 0.40 | 6.56 | 5.84 | 0.01 |
| VAR090 | 1.63 | 1.18 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 33.15 | 33.50 | 4.89 | 5.28 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 4.40 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 1.90 | 0.16 | 6.51 | 4.96 | 0.00 |
| VAR092 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 36.41 | 33.30 | 3.78 | 12.55 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 7.32 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.73 | 3.01 | 0.67 | 7.09 | 4.98 | 0.03 |
| VAR095 | 1.10 | 1.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.77 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 45.24 | 37.82 | 0.11 | 11.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 1.31 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 2.39 | 0.42 | 7.57 | 5.64 | 0.01 |

---

June 2025 Page 109

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

10.2.1.3 Results

Two heap leach approaches were examined using the standard column leach test methods:

· conventional bacteria-assisted, weak sulfuric
acid, ferric-sulfate heap leaching of mixed oxide and secondary sulfide copper minerals (decades-old technology)

· newer, but widely used in South America, chloride-assisted,
weak sulfuric acid, ferric-sulfate heap leaching of mixed oxide and secondary sulfide copper minerals (in use since the 2000s).

The conventional bacteria-assisted, weak sulfuric acid, ferric-sulfate heap leaches were quickly found at MLI to not be practical because the high levels of naturally-occurring chloride in the mineralized material are toxic to the bacteria. Fortunately, all the bacterial column leaches transitioned into successful chloride-assisted leaches.

All column leach tests were performed with 3 m deep beds of material using 4-inch diameter columns. The best operating parameters, evaluated at MLI, are listed below:

· particle size (evaluated by bottle roll testing
and by column tests): 100% passing 0.5 inches

· amount of acid applied in the cure/agglomeration
step: 3 to 5 kg/t

· amount of chloride (salt) added in the cure/agglomeration
step: 2.5 to 5.0 kg/t

· raffinate application rate: 8 L/h/m<sup>2</sup>

· length of the cure/agglomeration step: 7 days

The best column leach results achieved at MLI were 95.6% total copper recovery in 81 days of leaching on a sample containing 1.68% TCu distributed as 72% ASCu, 27% CNCu, and 1% CuRes.

These results were used to develop the follow-on mineral process testing studies at BCR in H1 2025 to support this technical report summary. The focus of the BCR studies was on establishing copper recoveries based on sequential coppers and/or mineralogical copper deportments by using chloride-assisted, weak-sulfuric acid, heap leaching of mineralized material from the oxide and chalcocite mineral domains. The BCR studies were also carried out to determine the commercial operating parameters for heap leaching, such as:

· salt usage

· sulfuric acid usage

· ore cure/agglomeration practices

· column leach cycle times for an on/off leach
pad design:

- raffinate irrigation rate and time

- operating column leach moisture level

- drain-down time

- residual moisture content after drain-down

June 2025 Page 110

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

- copper level in the residual moisture

· annual pregnant leach solution grades

· flow rate of pregnant leach solution to solvent
extraction.

METSIM modeling results were used to interpret test results and inform the process design criteria.

Nine 3 m x 0.15 m diameter column leaches were set up using material from the master composites. All the column leaches were operated as chloride-assisted, weak sulfuric acid heap leaches to extract copper from copper oxides and secondary copper sulfides. Leaching was performed in an open cycle (once through solution) format. Operating conditions were kept the same in each column leach except for the cure acid, which varied from 3 to 10 kg/t depending on the predicted net acid consumption from earlier agitation leach tests. Irrigation times varied from 36 days on high oxide copper samples to 90 days on high chalcocite samples.

All the column leaches ran in open circuit format using a synthetic raffinate solution containing elements that mimic a mature commercial raffinate maintaining 100 g/L of chloride. The columns all operated without any solution flow issues.

The column leaches were operated in a temperature-controlled enclosure. The temperature was kept at 30°C to mimic expected average temperatures at the Santa Cruz Copper Project site.

10.2.1.3.1 Copper Recovery

Total copper recovery (calculated from the metallurgical balances from the products [residue and pregnant leach solution]) ranged from 80% to 97% with most results near or above 90% (four out of nine tests were above 95%). The lower recoveries occurred on within samples dominated by slower leaching chalcocite mineralogy.

The head and sequential copper recoveries were calculated from the size-by-size feed and tail assays. (The calculation is [1 – {tail assay / feed assay}] x 100.) The total copper recovery calculated in this case can differ somewhat from the actual total copper recovery (reported above) calculated from the metallurgical balance from the products (residue and pregnant leach solution), but in this test program they were the same.

· Size-by-size total copper recovery ranged from
80% to 97% with most recoveries above 90%.

· Acid soluble copper recovery ranged from 91%
to 99% with most above 98%.

· Cyanide soluble copper recovery ranged from 76%
to 93% with most above 85%. Lower recoveries were related to low chalcocite feed grades in all instances.

10.2.1.3.2 Recovery as a Function of Time

When each column leach test was completed, the calculated total copper in the feed was determined from column leach products, copper in pregnant leach solution, and copper left unleached in the column leach residue. The total copper value was used to derive the copper extracted for each day of leaching and an extraction curve was constructed as shown in Figure 10-2 for all nine column tests. Most of the feed copper leached from six out of the nine columns in 60 days (over 90% recovery). The three slower leaching columns C, D, and I contained high levels of chalcocite. Their leach curves showed they were still leaching after 90 days (88%, 81%, and 80% extraction, respectively) when all the tests were stopped and would have leached to a higher extraction level if the time had been extended.

June 2025 Page 111

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 10-2: Copper Leach Rate Profiles for Columns A through I**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img02.jpg)

Source: Met Engineering, 2025.

10.2.1.3.3 Effect of Particle Size on Recovery

There were three column tests run at BCR on minus 25.4 mm material to compare their recoveries against the same samples at minus 12.7 mm leached under the same conditions. These had lower recoveries than their corresponding column leaches leaching minus 12.7 mm samples, ranging from 7% to 23% less recovery. These results confirm the P<sub>100</sub> of 12.7 mm was the better crush size for optimum extraction.

June 2025 Page 112

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Additionally, to evaluate the effect of particle size, the residues for each of the columns were screened and each size fraction (1.7 through 6.7 mm) assayed for total copper, acid soluble copper, cyanide soluble copper, and residual copper. Recoveries of total copper, acid soluble copper, cyanide soluble copper and residual copper for each size fraction were calculated based on the assays of the same size fraction in the column head sample and the assays of total copper, acid soluble copper, cyanide soluble copper and residual copper in the residue.

The average recoveries for total copper and cyanide soluble copper for each of the five individual size fractions show that recovery increases as particle size decreases. This trend is consistent with the shrinking core model of leaching and proper accessibility. The average recovery for acid soluble copper for each of the five individual size fractions shows that recovery increases only slightly as particle size decreases.

There was a clear increase in the extraction of chalcocite in the size-by-size test results at 6.7 mm. Particle sizes below 6.7 mm experience a 7.5% higher recovery of chalcocite compared to particles above 6.7 mm. The size-by-size copper recovery analysis was used to predict the improvement in total copper recovery for each master composite test if the material had been crushed to 100% passing 9.5 mm. The recovery algorithm in Section 10.2.1.4 accounts for this improved recovery.

10.2.1.3.4 Copper Recovery / Acid Consumption / Leach Cycle Time Relationship

The relationship between copper recoveries, acid consumption, pregnant leach solution grade, and leach cycle time for each of the nine columns tested was evaluated. For samples of the oxide domain mineralization and for the oxide to chalcocite transition domain mineralization, results indicated that 90% or more of the copper will leach out in a 3 m column leach within 60 days. Another 30 days of leaching only increases recovery by 2% in these mineral domains. For samples of chalcocite domain mineralization, results indicated that 76% to 84% of the copper will leach out in a 3 m column leach within 60 days. Another 30 days of leaching increased recovery by 4% and the extraction curves were still showing an upward trend.

Pregnant leach solution copper levels trended lower as the leach cycle progressed and correlated well with the amount of oxide copper versus the amount of secondary copper present in the sample. For example, higher oxide copper produced higher pregnant leach solution grade (10 g/L Cu) early in the cycle compared to samples high in secondary copper (7 g/L Cu).

10.2.1.3.5 Key Reagents

Chloride occurred naturally in most master composite samples. The natural chloride level was augmented by the addition of salt in the agglomeration stage of each test. Enough sodium chloride was added to each master composite to bring the chloride level to 7 kg/t of feed. The synthetic irrigation solution used in the open circuit mode was maintained at 100 g/L chloride.

The acid added in the cure/agglomeration step varied from 3 to 10 kg/t. This resulted in acid usage ranging from 1 to 10 kg/t of feed. Most of the acid consumption values were less than 5 kg/t.

10.2.1.4 Copper Recovery Algorithm

Column test results at 3 m bed depths were used to generate a grade recovery algorithm to predict copper recovery to cathode of leaching minus 9.5 mm feed material in a 6 m lift for 180 days. The algorithm described below is based on a regression analysis of the total copper recovery for each test against the sequential copper assays for the feed in each test.

June 2025 Page 113

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

General equation format:

*TCu Recovery to cathode = constant + A x ASCu + B x CNCu + C x CuRes, constant includes discount factor from* pregnant leach solution *extraction to cathode and scaling factors.*

Regression result:

*TCu Recovery to cathode = 97.85 + (-0.0531) x ASCu + (-6.783) x CNCu + (-55.108) x CuRes with an upper cap of 96 and a lower cap of 0*

For life-of-mine processing, this equation produces a weighted average of 92.2% TCu recovered to cathode.

Copper recoveries should be confirmed in a pilot test in full height 6 m columns operating in closed circuit for future commercial design purposes.

10.2.1.5 Summary of Results

Most of the column leach tests completed their leach cycles in 60 days, after which usually less than four additional percentage points of copper recovery were achieved with an additional 30 days of leaching. Most of the column tests had achieved 90% total copper recovery or higher at 90 days. The exceptions were samples C, D, and I, which had the most cyanide soluble copper (0.95%,1.12%, and 1.17% CNCu, respectively) of the samples by a significant margin compared to the other samples (average of 0.25% CNCu and ranging from 0.05% to 0.62%).

Higher total copper recoveries can be expected for the mineralized material with higher ratios of acid soluble copper to total copper. When the proportion of cyanide soluble copper increases the total copper recovery decreases somewhat.

The application of chloride assisted, weak sulfuric acid heap leaching has been applied successfully for two decades in South America.

10.3 Metallurgical Variability

The copper recovery variability of the Santa Cruz oxide mineral domain is small, ranging from 93% to 97% total copper recovery. Copper recovery variability for the mixed oxide and chalcocite mineral domain is small as well, ranging from 93% to 95% total copper recovery. Copper recovery variability for the chalcocite mineral domain is wider; it ranges from 84% to 92% total copper recovery.

The copper recovery of the chalcocite mineral domain is less than for the oxide mineral domain which is likely due to slower leaching kinetics in the chalcocite mineral domain.

Sulfuric acid usage is the other parameter of interest for variability. Acid consumption does not follow a particular pattern related to the mineral domain. The consumption is generally low, except for master composite-E, which is considered moderate at 10 kg/t and is due to elevated biotite level in this sample. Acid usage ranged from 1 to 10 kg/t, with most values below 5 kg/t.

June 2025 Page 114

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

10.4 Deleterious Elements

There are no deleterious elements in the mineralized material or leach solution that pose a significant threat to cathode quality or project development.

The current solvent extraction design, with two wash stages and a loaded organic coalescer, mitigates potential damage from high pregnant leach solution chloride levels affecting electroplating stainless-steel blanks.

10.5 Met Engineering Opinion

Industry-standard studies were performed as part of process flowsheet development and facility design. Test samples are representative of the mineralization. Subsequent production experience and focused investigations guided facility alterations and process changes.

Testwork was performed on mineralization from the project area to support a preliminary feasibility study on the potential processing route and metallurgical performance. The testwork results are satisfactory to support a heap leach SX-EW process design.

June 2025 Page 115

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **11** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** |

---

11.1 Deposits

The mineral resource estimates for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits are detailed in this section. The Southwest Exploration Area is not included in the mineral resource estimates.

11.2 Drillhole Database

The Santa Cruz deposit has 194,463 m of core drilling in 226 drillholes; East Ridge has 62 holes totaling 48,878 m; and Texaco has 41 drillholes totaling 35,823 m. All holes were drilled from 1964 to 2024 (Figure 11-1 and Table 7-4). A breakdown of the number of assays used within each mineral resource estimate is provided in Table 7-5.

**Figure 11-1: Plan View of Santa Cruz Copper Project Diamond Drilling by Deposit**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img03.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 116

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.3 Geological Domaining

The Santa Cruz deposit was divided into three primary mineralization domains: (1) leach cap, (2) weathered supergene enrichment, and (3) primary hypogene mineralization. Each primary geological domain was further subdivided into domains and subdomains (Table 11-1). The leach cap was added after additional drilling exhibited a continuous area of leached material distinct from the supergene domain.

**Table 11-1: Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Geological Domains**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Primary<br> Geological Domain** | **Domain** | **Subdomain Name** | **Domain Code** |
| **Santa Cruz Deposit** | **Santa Cruz Deposit** | | |
| Leached | Leach Cap<br> (Mostly Unmineralized, Some Acid Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade | 20 |
| Leached | Leach Cap<br> (Mostly Unmineralized, Some Acid Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade | 21 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Exotic <br> (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Copper) | Low-Grade | 10 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Exotic <br> (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Copper) | High-Grade | 11 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Exotic <br> (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Copper) | Verde Domain (Mineralized) | 12 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Exotic <br> (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Copper) | Verde Domain (Unmineralized) | 13 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade | 30 |
| Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid Soluble Copper) | High-Grade | 31 |
|  | Chalcocite-Enriched <br> (Primarily Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade | 40 |
|  | Chalcocite-Enriched <br> (Primarily Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade | 41 |
| Hypogene Mineralization | Primary <br> (Primary Sulfide Copper) | Low-Grade | 50 |
| Hypogene Mineralization | Primary <br> (Primary Sulfide Copper) | High-Grade | 51 |
| **East Ridge Deposit** | **East Ridge Deposit** |  |  |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Exotic <br> (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Copper) | Low-Grade | 341 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid and Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade (North) | 301 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid and Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade (North) | 311 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid and Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade (South) | 401 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid and Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade (South) | 411 |
| **Texaco Deposit** | **Texaco Deposit** |  |  |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid Soluble Copper) | Low-Grade | 221 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide <br> (Primarily Acid Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade | 222 |
| Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Chalcocite-Enriched <br> (Primarily Cyanide Soluble Copper) | Medium-Grade | 232 |
| Hypogene Mineralization | Primary <br> (Primary Sulfide Copper) | Low-Grade | 211 |
| Hypogene Mineralization | Primary <br> (Primary Sulfide Copper) | Medium-Grade | 212 |

---

June 2025 Page 117

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The East Ridge deposit is predominantly structurally controlled and consists of a mix of oxide and enrichment; therefore, it has fewer domains. East Ridge is also split into the north and south domains, as no continuity has been observed between the two mineralized zones. The Texaco deposit consists of all domains except for the leach cap and exotic domains; however, this may be refined through additional drilling.

Collectively, each of these domains was divided into subdomains based on their individual grade profiles, which align with mineralization controls. A schematic for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit hierarchies is outlined in Figure 11-2. The following terms, which represent a local definition of the grade profile, are assigned to the subdomains: high-grade (HG), medium-grade (MG), and low-grade (LG).

**Figure 11-2: Santa Cruz Primary Mineralization Domains, Domains & Subdomains**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img04.jpg)

Note: East Ridge is defined by exotic and oxide domains, while Texaco is defined by oxide, chalcocite, and primary domains. Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

Exotic copper is present at Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits in varying degrees and is hosted in tertiary sediments. All other styles of copper mineralization are hosted within the Oracle granite and intrusive dikes and terminate at the contact of the tertiary sediments. The current drilling indicates that the basal faults within the region truncate the copper mineralization at depth.

June 2025 Page 118

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Oracle granite hosts the Laramide porphyry, commonly associated with brecciation and primary copper mineralization. Secondary supergene copper mineralization is separated vertically from the primary hypogene mineralization, occurring as the oxide and chalcocite-enriched domains. The oxide domain is defined by an elevated (approximately 70% and greater) ratio of acid soluble copper to total copper, while the chalcocite-enriched domain is defined by an elevated (approximately 70% and greater) ratio of cyanide soluble copper to total copper. High-grade copper oxides follow the trend of the paleo-water table, as percolating meteoric water dissolved primary copper minerals and transported copper to the water table, where copper oxide minerals precipitated due to change in pH and oxidation-reduction conditions. The chalcocite enrichment domain also follows the paleo-water table, where deposition occurred just below the water table and likely before formation of the oxide domain. The primary domain considers the residual copper, which is the total copper minus the acid soluble copper and cyanide soluble copper (i.e., residual Cu = TCu – ASCu – CNCu). The leach cap is mostly barren but has one known discrete mineralized body, predominantly copper oxides. Figure 11-3 is a conceptual example of the Santa Cruz deposit domaining. Table 11-2 shows the volume of the mineralized wireframes.

**Figure 11-3: Santa Cruz Deposit Domain Idealized Cross-Section**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img05.jpg)

Note: Cross-section looking northwest, ±50 m wide.

June 2025 Page 119

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-2: Volume of Santa Cruz Wireframe Domains**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domain** | **Domain Code** | **Wireframe Volume** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Santa Cruz** | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic Low-Grade | 10 | 20062 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic High-Grade | 11 | 1034 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic – Verde | 12 | 1068 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cap Low-Grade | 20 | 90011 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cap Medium-Grade | 21 | 989 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Low-Grade | 30 | 95410 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide High-Grade | 31 | 24832 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Low-Grade | 40 | 50029 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Medium-Grade | 41 | 9452 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Low-Grade | 50 | 145107 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Primary High-Grade | 51 | 4928 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**East Ridge** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic | 341 | 16519 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Low-Grade – North | 301 | 486575 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Medium-Grade – North | 311 | 9148 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Low-Grade – South | 401 | 91805 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Medium-Grade – South | 411 | 3949 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Texaco** |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Low-Grade | 221 | 630350 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide Medium-Grade | 222 | 2367 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite Medium-Grade | 232 | 219277 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Low-Grade | 211 | 659611 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Medium-Grade | 212 | 4994 |

---

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

Mineralization wireframes adhere to known controls on mineralization, such as the paleo water-table for supergene mineralization and dike orientation for primary mineralization. The mineralization hosted in the Oracle granite bedrock is constrained by the bedrock interface above, and laterally by the northwest-striking normal faults. The high-grade subdomains have a minimum thickness of 5 m and mostly constrain an average grade of 2.0% TCu. Due to geological heterogeneity, while portions of the high-grade wireframes incorporate grades below 2.0%, these intercepts occur along the mineralized trend. Laterally these high-grade wireframes are delineated by half the distance to the closest external drillhole. When no nearby drilling exists, the lateral extents are constrained to approximately 30 m, or half the average deposit drillhole spacing. Medium-grade subdomains mostly constrain an average grade of 1.0% TCu and above.

June 2025 Page 120

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

There is some overlap of the chalcocite mineralization within the Oxide domain, but this constitutes approximately 20% or less of the mineralization in the domain. It is difficult to fully parse the mineralization types, as faulting, rotation, and water table fluctuation over time cause complex overprinting of the various copper mineralization types.

Implicit domain modeling was completed in Leapfrog to represent known controls on high-grade and low-grade mineralization, with explicit control lines employed to ensure a reasonable interpretation.

11.4 Data Preparation

11.4.1 Exploratory Data Analysis

The exploratory data analysis was conducted on raw drillhole data to determine the nature of the element distribution, the correlation of grades within domains, and the identification of high-grade outlier samples. A combination of descriptive statistics, histograms, probability plots, and X-Y scatter plots were used to analyze the grade population of the data using Snowden Supervisor v9.0. The findings were used to help define modeling procedures and parameters used in the mineral resource estimate. Gold and silver were added to the resource based on flotation testwork and are being considered for recovery later in the mine life. Molybdenum was removed as it was not considered for later recovery.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the grade distribution and continuity of each sample population, determine the presence of outliers, and identify correlations between grade and rock types for each mineral subdomain.

Individual drillhole tables (e.g., collar, survey, assay, etc.) were merged to create one single master de-surveyed drillhole file in Datamine Studio RM v2.0.66.0.

Prior to grade estimation, the data were prepared using the following methods:

1. All drillhole assays that intersected a wireframe within each domain were assigned a set of codes representative
of the domain, wireframe number, and mineralization type.

2. The drillhole assay data were combined in Datamine to a single static drillhole file, which was then "flagged"
to intersecting copper mineralization subdomains outlined by the wireframe coding process.

3. High-grade outlier assays in each domain were reviewed.

June 2025 Page 121

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.4.2 Assay Intervals at Minimum Detection Limits

Unsampled intervals in the database were set to half the detection limit (LLD) per variable. Pending assay results were left absent, and core loss/void zones were also left absent. Gold values were set to half LLD in modern holes and left absent in historical holes, as gold assays were only run on select samples within ore zones.

11.4.3 Compositing

Assays captured within all wireframes were composited to 2.0 m regular intervals based on the observed modal distribution of assay lengths. The Initial Assessment used 3.0 m composites as the database was mostly historic data sampled at 3.0 m intervals. An option to use slightly variable composite lengths was chosen to redistribute short composites at domain edges. All composite assays were generated within each mineral domain with no overlaps along boundaries. The composite assays were validated statistically to ensure there was no loss of data or significant change to the mean grade of each assay population.

11.4.4 Outlier Analysis & Capping

Grade outliers that are much higher than the general population of assays have the potential to bias (inflate) the quantity of metal estimated in a block model. Geostatistical analysis using X-Y scatter plots, cumulative probability plots, and decile analysis was used to analyze the composited drillhole assay data for each subdomain to determine appropriate grade capping. Statistical analysis was performed independently on all subdomains. After thorough review of the statistics, it was determined that copper capping was not necessary for any of the deposits, as the distribution does not contain numerous outliers, and that capping did not have a significant effect on the final resource. Compositing helped reduce the effect of outliers. Gold capping was applied for East Ridge for values above 1 ppm.

11.4.5 Density

A total of 5,884 density measurements from 210 core drillholes exist for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. Measurements were calculated using the weight in air versus the weight in water method (Archimedes).

Density values were relatively consistent per domain, and an estimated value would be very similar to an assigned value. Values were assigned to blocks based on subdomains per deposit. East Ridge and Texaco have sufficient sample density to assign unique values by domain. Texaco subdomains lacked sufficient samples for unique values. Table 11-3 gives average density values for geological domains in each deposit.

June 2025 Page 122

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-3: Density Values Measured for the Project by Geological and Resource Domain**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Project Lithological Units** | **Subdomain** | **Average Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** |
| Alluvium | - | 1.96 |
| Gila Conglomerate | - | 2.18 |
| Whitetail Conglomerate | - | 2.33 |
| Basal Conglomerate | - | 2.39 |
| Mafic Conglomerate | - | 2.34 |
| Oracle Granite (Unmineralized) | - | 2.54 |
| **Santa Cruz Domains** | **Subdomain** | **Average Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** |
| Exotic | Low-Grade | 2.36 |
| Exotic | High-Grade | 2.37 |
| Exotic | Verde | 2.58 |
| Leach Cap | Low-Grade | 2.48 |
| Leach Cap | Medium-Grade | 2.57 |
| Oxide | Low-Grade | 2.48 |
| Oxide | High-Grade | 2.54 |
| Chalcocite Enriched | Low-Grade | 2.51 |
| Chalcocite Enriched | Medium-Grade | 2.54 |
| Primary | Low-Grade | 2.57 |
| Primary | High-Grade | 2.57 |
| **East Ridge Domains** | **Subdomain** | **Average Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** |
| Exotic | Low-Grade | 2.38 |
| Oxide | North Low-Grade | 2.53 |
| Oxide | North Medium-Grade | 2.56 |
| Oxide | South Low-Grade | 2.44 |
| Oxide | South Medium-Grade | 2.47 |
| **Texaco Domains** | **Subdomain** | **Average Density (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** |
| Oxide | Low-Grade | 2.46 |
| Oxide | Medium-Grade | 2.46 |
| Chalcocite Enriched | Medium-Grade | 2.56 |
| Primary | Low-Grade | 2.54 |
| Primary | Medium-Grade | 2.54 |

---

June 2025 Page 123

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.4.6 Block Model Strategy & Analysis

A series of upfront test modeling was completed to define an estimation methodology to meet the following criteria:

· represents the Santa Cruz Copper Project geological
and structural controls

· accounts for the variability of grade, orientation,
and continuity of mineralization

· provides control on the smoothing (grade spreading)
of grades and the influence of outliers

· accounts for most of the mineralization within
the Santa Cruz Copper Project

· is robust and repeatable within the mineral domains.

Multiple interpolation test scenarios were evaluated to determine the optimum process and parameters to achieve the intended criteria. Each scenario was based on nearest neighbor (NN), inverse distance squared (ID<sup>2</sup>), inverse distance cubed (ID<sup>3</sup>), and ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation methods. All test scenarios were evaluated based on global statistical comparisons, visual comparisons of composite assays versus block grades, swath averages, and the assessment of overall smoothing. Based on the testing results, it was determined that the final resource estimation methodology would constrain the mineralization by using hard wireframe boundaries to control mineralization. OK was selected as the most applicable interpolation method for the Santa Cruz deposit, and ID<sup>2</sup> was selected for the East Ridge and Texaco deposits.

11.4.7 Assessment of Spatial Grade Continuity

Datamine, Leapfrog, and Snowden Supervisor were used to determine the geostatistical relationships of the Santa Cruz Copper Project. Variography was performed on composite data for each deposit per domain (Tables 11-4 to 11-6). Experimental variograms were calculated from the composited assay data for each element to determine the approximate dimensions and orientations of the search ellipses.

The following were considered for each analysis:

· Downhole variograms were created and modeled
to define the nugget effect.

· Experimental semi-variograms were calculated
to determine directional variograms for the major, semi-major, and minor orientations.

· Variograms were modeled using an exponential
model with practical range and a normalized sill of 1.

Directional variograms were modeled using the nugget defined in the downhole variography and the ranges for the major, semi-major, and minor directions. Gold and silver values for Santa Cruz and Texaco were estimated by ID<sup>2</sup> for the final values.

Variography for East Ridge and Texaco were used for the OK estimate, which was run for validation purposes only, while variography helped inform the ranges and orientations of search ellipses.

June 2025 Page 124

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-4: Santa Cruz Variography Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **C2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** |
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** | **C2** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** |
| Exotic Low-Grade | TCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Exotic Low-Grade | ASCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Exotic Low-Grade | CNCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Exotic High-Grade | TCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Exotic High-Grade | ASCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Exotic High-Grade | CNCu % | 80 | 10 | 180 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.42 | 26 | 129 | 7 | 0.38 | 170 | 150 | 15 |
| Verde Domain | TCu % | 115 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.38 | 26 | 97 | 16 | 0.42 | 120 | 100 | 30 |
| Verde Domain | ASCu % | 115 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.38 | 26 | 97 | 16 | 0.42 | 120 | 100 | 30 |
| Verde Domain | CNCu % | 115 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.38 | 26 | 97 | 16 | 0.42 | 120 | 100 | 30 |
| Leach Cap Low-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Leach Cap Low-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Leach Cap Low-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Leach Cap Low-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Leach Cap Low-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Leach Cap Medium-Grade | TCu % | 180 | 150 | 0 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.50 | 22 | 50 | 10 | 0.30 | 190 | 100 | 30 |
| Leach Cap Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 180 | 150 | 0 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.50 | 22 | 50 | 10 | 0.30 | 190 | 100 | 30 |
| Leach Cap Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 180 | 150 | 0 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.66 | 80 | 50 | 25 | 0.14 | 150 | 100 | 30 |
| Leach Cap Medium-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Leach Cap Medium-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Oxide Low-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Oxide Low-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Oxide Low-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.37 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 0.43 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Oxide Low-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Oxide Low-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Oxide High-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.05 | 0.20 | 22 | 50 | 10 | 0.75 | 190 | 100 | 30 |
| Oxide High-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.05 | 0.20 | 22 | 50 | 10 | 0.75 | 190 | 100 | 30 |
| Oxide High-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 30 | 165 | Z-X-Z | 0.05 | 0.20 | 80 | 50 | 25 | 0.75 | 150 | 100 | 30 |
| Oxide High-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Oxide High-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Low- Grade | TCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.10 | 0.36 | 199 | 159 | 59 | 0.54 | 200 | 160 | 60 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Low- Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.10 | 0.39 | 162 | 71 | 59 | 0.51 | 200 | 135 | 60 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Low- Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.10 | 0.36 | 199 | 159 | 59 | 0.54 | 200 | 160 | 60 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Low- Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Low- Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.67 | 70 | 134 | 20 | 0.13 | 190 | 135 | 45 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.34 | 25 | 75 | 20 | 0.46 | 200 | 135 | 45 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 45 | 170 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.67 | 70 | 134 | 20 | 0.13 | 190 | 135 | 45 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Primary Low-Grade | TCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.43 | 44 | 224 | 20 | 0.37 | 270 | 225 | 45 |
| Primary Low-Grade | ASCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.24 | 134 | 138 | 45 | 0.56 | 250 | 250 | 50 |
| Primary Low-Grade | CNCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.24 | 134 | 138 | 45 | 0.56 | 250 | 250 | 50 |
| Primary Low-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Primary Low-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Primary High-Grade | TCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.43 | 44 | 224 | 20 | 0.37 | 270 | 225 | 45 |
| Primary High-Grade | ASCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.24 | 134 | 138 | 45 | 0.56 | 250 | 250 | 50 |
| Primary High-Grade | CNCu % | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.24 | 134 | 138 | 45 | 0.56 | 250 | 250 | 50 |
| Primary High-Grade | Au ppb | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |
| Primary High-Grade | Ag ppm | 160 | 140 | -120 | Z-X-Z | 0.20 | 0.40 | 50 | 69 | 7 | 0.40 | 170 | 150 | 40 |

---

**Table 11-5: East Ridge Variography Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **C2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** |
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** | **C2** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | TCu % | 230 | 40 | 44 | Z-X-Z | 0.15 | 0.30 | 35 | 90 | 20 | 0.55 | 190 | 130 | 30 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 230 | 40 | 44 | Z-X-Z | 0.15 | 0.30 | 35 | 90 | 20 | 0.55 | 190 | 130 | 30 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 230 | 40 | 44 | Z-X-Z | 0.15 | 0.30 | 35 | 90 | 20 | 0.55 | 190 | 130 | 30 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | Au ppb | 230 | 40 | 44 | Z-X-Z | 0.15 | 0.30 | 35 | 90 | 20 | 0.55 | 190 | 130 | 30 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | Ag ppm | 230 | 40 | 44 | Z-X-Z | 0.15 | 0.30 | 35 | 90 | 20 | 0.55 | 190 | 130 | 30 |

---

**Table 11-6: Texaco Variography Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Rotation Angles** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **Structure 1** | **C2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** | **Structure 2** |
| **Domain** | **Variable** | **1** | **2** | **3** | **Axes** | **Nugget** | **C1** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** | **C2** | **Range 1** | **Range 2** | **Range 3** |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.27 | 0.52 | 144 | 51 | 85 | 0.20 | 413 | 111 | 102 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.08 | 0.85 | 38 | 117 | 85 | 0.06 | 577 | 300 | 102 |
| Oxide Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.09 | 0.45 | 46 | 103 | 102 | 0.46 | 251 | 326 | 210 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | TCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.23 | 0.67 | 207 | 147 | 78 | 0.10 | 379 | 237 | 94 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.08 | 0.46 | 234 | 99 | 20 | 0.46 | 357 | 304 | 94 |
| Chalcocite Enriched Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 60 | 8 | 15 | Z-Y-X | 0.18 | 0.44 | 29 | 240 | 78 | 0.39 | 434 | 288 | 94 |
| Primary Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | TCu % | 145 | 17 | -8 | Z-Y-X | 0.20 | 0.58 | 357 | 151 | 67 | 0.22 | 534 | 304 | 227 |
| Primary Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | ASCu % | 145 | 17 | -8 | Z-Y-X | 0.01 | 0.48 | 390 | 237 | 78 | 0.42 | 468 | 586 | 94 |
| Primary Low-Grade and Medium-Grade | CNCu % | 145 | 17 | -8 | Z-Y-X | 0.10 | 0.88 | 160 | 106 | 78 | 0.02 | 381 | 171 | 94 |

---

June 2025 Page 125

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.4.8 Block Model Definition

The block model shape and size are typically a function of the geometry of the deposit, the density of assay data, drillhole spacing, and the selected mining unit. The block model prototype parameters are listed in Table 11-7. All three deposits employed the same prototype parameters.

**Table 11-7: Block Model Definition Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **Block<br> Origin<br> (m)** | **Block<br> Maximum<br> (m)** | **Subdomain Block<br> Dimension<br> (m)** | **Low-Grade Block<br> Dimension<br> (m)** | **Texaco Low-Grade <br> Parent Dimension <br> (m)** | **Minimum<br> Sub-Block<br> (m)** |
| Easting | 414200 | 421500 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 2.5 |
| Northing | 3637800 | 3644800 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 2.5 |
| Elevation | -1200 | 500 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 2.5 |

---

The block models were not rotated and are constrained by surface topography. The resource estimation was conducted using Datamine within the NAD 83 UTM Zone 12 N projection grid.

11.4.9 Search Strategy

Search orientations for each deposit were based on the shape of the modeled mineral domains and variography. Three nested searches were performed on all domains.

Tables 11-8 to 11-10 display the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco search parameters, respectively. The search distances were based upon the variography ranges outlined in Table 11-8. The search radius of the first search was based on 50% of the range of the variogram, the second search is 80% of the range, and the third search pass is 200% of the range.

Search strategies used an ellipsoidal search with a minimum and maximum number of composites and a maximum number of composites per hole for each block. Blocks that did not meet these criteria do not appear in the estimate.

Gold and silver are estimated with unique parameters as these do not have the same controls as copper throughout the deposit.

June 2025 Page 126

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-8: Santa Cruz Block Model Search Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Total Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot.<br> 1** | **Rot.<br> 2** | **Rot.<br> 3** | **Axis<br> 1** | **Axis<br> 2** | **Axis<br> 3** | **Dist.<br> 1** | **Dist.<br> 2** | **Dist.<br> 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per<br> Hole** | **Dist.<br> 1** | **Dist.<br> 2** | **Dist.<br> 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per<br> Hole** | **Dist.<br> 1** | **Dist.<br> 2** | **Dist.<br> 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per<br> Hole** |
| Exotic LG/HG | 80 | 10 | 180 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 85 | 75 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 136 | 120 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 187 | 165 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Verde | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 60 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 96 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 132 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 68 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 108 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 149 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap MG | 180 | 150 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Oxide HG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Chalcocite LG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 128 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 176 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite MG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 68 | 23 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 108 | 36 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 149 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary HG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Acid Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Exotic LG/HG | 80 | 10 | 180 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 85 | 75 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 136 | 120 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 187 | 165 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Verde | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 60 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 96 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 132 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 68 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 108 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 149 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap MG | 180 | 150 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Oxide HG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Chalcocite LG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 128 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 176 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite MG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 68 | 23 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 108 | 36 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 149 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary HG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Exotic LG/HG | 80 | 10 | 180 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 85 | 75 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 136 | 120 | 12 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 187 | 165 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Verde | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 60 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 96 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 132 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 68 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 108 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 149 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Leach Cap MG | 180 | 150 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 50 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 80 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 110 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Oxide HG | 60 | 30 | 165 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Chalcocite LG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 128 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 176 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite MG | 60 | 45 | 170 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 95 | 68 | 23 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 152 | 108 | 36 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 209 | 149 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary HG | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Santa Cruz Copper Project – Au, Ag** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| All Domains | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

Note: LG = low-grade; MG = medium-grade and HG = high-grade. Source: BBA, 2024.

June 2025 Page 127

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-9: East Ridge Block Model Search Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Total Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Exotic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North LG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North MG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South LG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South MG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Exotic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North LG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North MG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South LG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South MG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **East Ridge Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Exotic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North LG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide North MG | 240 | 40 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 80 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 110 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South LG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide South MG | 135 | 25 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 48 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 220 | 220 | 66 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **East Ridge Project - Au, Ag** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| All Domains | 160 | 140 | -120 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 125 | 125 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 200 | 40 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 275 | 275 | 55 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

Note: LG = low-grade; MG = medium-grade and HG = high-grade. Source: BBA, 2024.

June 2025 Page 128

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-10: Texaco Block Model Search Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Texaco Project - Total Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide MG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary MG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Acid Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide MG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary MG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Texaco Project - Cyanide Soluble Copper** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| Oxide LG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Oxide MG | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Chalcocite | 60 | 8 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 100 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 200 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary LG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| Primary MG | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Texaco Project - Au, Ag** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 1** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 2** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** | **Pass 3** |
| **Domain** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Rotation** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Axes** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Search Distances** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** | **Number of Samples** |
| **Domain** | **Rot. 1** | **Rot. 2** | **Rot. 3** | **Axis 1** | **Axis 2** | **Axis 3** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** | **Dist. 1** | **Dist. 2** | **Dist. 3** | **Min.** | **Max.** | **Max.<br> Per Hole** |
| All Domains | 145 | 17 | -8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 160 | 160 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 320 | 320 | 120 | 3 | 8 | 2 |

---

Note: Abbreviations used in the table are low grade (LG), medium grade (MG) and high grade (HG). Source: BBA, 2024.

June 2025 Page 129

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.5 Block Model Validation

The Santa Cruz deposit block model was estimated using NN, ID<sup>2</sup>, ID<sup>3</sup>, and OK interpolation methods for global comparisons and validation purposes. The OK method was selected for the Santa Cruz mineral resource estimate over ID<sup>2</sup>, ID<sup>3</sup>, and NN because it was the most representative approach for the deposit. The East Ridge and Texaco deposit block models were estimated using NN, ID<sup>2</sup>, ID<sup>3</sup>, and OK, and the ID<sup>2</sup> method was selected for the mineral resource estimates. The density and quantity of drilling were insufficient in East Ridge and Texaco to produce confident variography for the final estimate.

11.5.1 Statistical Comparison

The global block model statistics by domain were compared between the OK, ID<sup>2</sup>, ID<sup>3</sup>, and NN methods and the composite drillhole data. The results of this comparison provided validation of the final estimate compared to various estimation methods.

11.5.2 Visual Comparison

The validation of the interpolated block model employed visual assessments and validation plots of block grades against assay grades and composites. The result demonstrated good agreement between local block estimates and nearby samples without excessive smoothing in the block model.

Figures 11-4 to 11-6 provide examples of visual block model validation, displaying total copper in the block model and drillholes, as well as domains for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco.

June 2025 Page 130

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 11-4: Santa Cruz Block Model Validation with Drillholes & Total Copper Percent**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img06.jpg)

Note: Figure shows cross-section looking northwest, ±50 m width. Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 131

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 11-5: East Ridge Block Model Validation with Drillholes & Total Copper Percent**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img07.jpg)

Note: Figure shows cross-section looking northwest, ±50 m width. Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 132

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 11-6: Texaco Block Model Validation of Total Copper Percent**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img08.jpg)

Note: Figure shows cross-section looking northwest, ±50 m width. Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 133

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.5.3 Swath Plots

A series of swath plots were generated for total copper, acid soluble copper, and cyanide soluble copper from slices throughout each deposit for various domains. They compare the block model grades for NN, ID<sup>2</sup>, ID<sup>3</sup>, and OK to the drillhole composite grades to evaluate potential local grade bias. A review of the swath plots did not identify bias in the model that is material to the mineral resource estimate. Figure 11-7 shows a swath plot for Santa Cruz high-grade oxide domain total copper as an example.

**Figure 11-7: Santa Cruz High-Grade Oxide Domain Swath Plot, Total Copper % in Y-Direction**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp05img09.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025. Note: S_CU_PCT is sample total copper grade, M_TCUID<sup>2</sup> is the estimated ID<sup>2</sup> total copper grade, M_TCUID<sup>3</sup> is the estimated ID<sup>3</sup> total copper grade, M_TCUNN is the estimated NN total copper grade, and M_TCUOK is the estimated OK total copper grade.

11.6 Mineral Resource Classification

The mineral resource estimate was classified in accordance with S-K 1300 definitions. Mineral resource classifications were assigned to broad regions of the block model based on the BBA's confidence and judgment related to geological understanding, continuity of mineralization in conjunction with data quality, spatial continuity based on variography, estimation parameters, data density, and block model representativeness.

June 2025 Page 134

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Indicated and inferred classifications were applied to Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco based on a full review that included the examination of drill spacing, visual comparison, kriging variance, distance to the nearest composite, and search volume estimation (the estimation pass in which each block was populated) along with the search ellipsoid ranges. Collectively, this information was used to produce an initial classification script followed by manual wireframe application to further limit the mineral resource classification (Figure 11-8).

**Figure 11-8: Plan View of Resource Classification for Santa Cruz with Indicated & Inferred Classifications & Drill Collar Locations**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg001.jpg)

Uncertainties that could affect the mineral resource estimates include historical assay instrument precision, historical geological logging data quality, and changes to the structural model. The indicated mineral resource is supported by significant modern drilling, reducing the uncertainty due to historical drill and assay data. The inferred mineral resource lacks the level of geologic confidence due to the uncertainty in areas of limited geological information.

Most of the first search pass results were classified as indicated, while the second search pass results were evaluated with further criteria, including a kriging variance of 0.65 or less as well as geological confidence. The indicated mineral resource has an average drillhole spacing of 60 m. Small, internal zones of inferred results within large swaths of indicated results were not broken out, as these represent noise. The third search pass results are classified as inferred, as they represent estimates beyond the modeled spatial continuity of the values.

June 2025 Page 135

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

While most of the East Ridge deposit is classified as inferred, there is a small portion of indicated mineral resource where dense infill and validation drilling was completed in recent campaigns. The indicated mineral resource has an average drillhole spacing of 65 m.

The Texaco deposit is classified as inferred, as the area is defined by historical drilling which has yet to be validated with modern drilling with >150 m spacing.

11.7 Commodity Pricing

Mineral resources used commodity prices based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts. In the opinion of the QP, this price is generally aligned with pricing over the last one, three, and five years; forward-looking pricing from internationally recognized banks is appropriate for use in a resource estimate. Section 16 provides an explanation of the commodity price forecasts. The commodity price considered three-year trailing averages.

11.8 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction

The mineral resources were estimated using Datamine to create the block models for the Santa Cruz, Texaco, and East Ridge deposits, and Deswik.CAD 2024.1 and Deswik.SO 5.1 software to create reasonable mineable shapes.

To demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco mineral resource estimates, representative minimum mining unit shapes were created using Deswik's mineable stope optimizer (MSO) tool. This MSO tool constrains and evaluates the block model based on economic and geometric parameters (Table 11-11), thereby generating potentially mineable shapes.

The Santa Cruz deposit was assumed to be developed as a long-life operation consisting of an underground longhole stoping plan with some drift and fill, and an initial mining rate of 20,000 t/d to produce a copper concentrate. East Ridge was assumed to be a longhole stoping plan at 3,500 t/d, while the Texaco deposit was assumed to be a longhole stoping plan at 7,000 t/d.

June 2025 Page 136

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-11: Input Parameter Assumptions**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Santa Cruz<br> 20,000 t/d** | **Santa Cruz<br> 20,000 t/d** | **East Ridge Exotic<br> 340 to 590 t/d** | **East Ridge<br> 3,500 t/d** | **Texaco<br> 7,000 t/d** | **Texaco<br> 7,000 t/d** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **30 m Long Hole** | **30 m Long Hole** | **6 m X 9 m <br> Drift and Fill** | **15 m Long Hole** | **30 m Long Hole** | **30 m Long Hole** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Leach** | **Concentrator** | **Leach** | **Leach** | **Leach** | **Concentrator** |
| Cathode Split | % | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Concentrate Split | % | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| **Onsite Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mining Costs – Direct | $/t | 22.00 | 22.00 | 40.00 | 30.00 | 22.00 | 22.00 |
| Processing Costs | $/t | 7.00 | 9.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 |
| General & Administrative | $/t | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 |
| Onsite Total | $/t | 31.63 | 33.63 | 49.63 | 39.63 | 31.63 | 33.63 |
| **Rounded NSR Cutoff** | **$/t** | 32.00 | 34.00 | 50.00 | 40.00 | 32.00 | 34.00 |
| **Copper Equivalent** | **%** | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.43 |

---

June 2025 Page 137

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The mineral resource is comprised of all material found within the MSO wireframes generated for Santa Cruz at a cutoff of $32.00 NSR per tonne processed heap leach and $34.00 NSR for concentrator longhole stoping, $40.00 NSR cutoff for East Ridge longhole stoping, and $50.00 for drift and fill, $32.00 NSR copper cutoff for heap leach, and $34.00 for concentrator for Texaco longhole stoping.

Input assumptions per processing method are detailed in Table 11-12. Gold and silver are reported as possible commodities based on flotation testwork, as other processing techniques may be incorporated at the project.

**Table 11-12: Smelting Terms – Copper Concentrate Input Assumptions**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Unit** | **Value** |
| Treatment Charge | $/t | 80.00 |
| Copper Refining | $/lbs payable | 0.08 |
| Copper Payable Chalcocite Concentrate | % | 90.1 |
| Copper Payable Chalcopyrite Concentrate | % | 96.2 |
| Copper Deduction (Concentrate <30%) | % | 0 |
| Copper Concentrate Losses | % | 0.2 |
| Gold Payable | % | 92 |
| Silver Payable | % | 90 |
| Gold Deduction | g/t | 1.00 |
| Silver Deduction | g/t | 30.00 |

---

11.9 NSR Cutoff

The mineral resources are reported at a net smelter return (NSR) cutoff of $32.00 to $50.00 depending on deposit and type of underground production. The NSR calculation is dependent on mineral processing.

If the acid soluble copper percentage is greater than 0.05%, the following leach NSR equation is used:

*NSR per tonne milled*

= $67.82 \* % *CNCu* + $12.83 \* % *CuRes* + $79.54 \* % *ASCu* + $0.00 \**Au ppb* + $0.00 \* *Ag ppm*

June 2025 Page 138

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

If the acid soluble copper percentage is less than or equal to 0.05%, the following concentrator NSR equation is used:

*NSR per tonne milled* 

= $67.55 \* % *CNCu* +$67.55 \* % *CuRes* +$0.00 \* % *ASCu* + $0.03 \* *Au ppb* + $0.48 \* *Ag ppm*

*Where:*

*"% CNCu" is percent cyanide soluble copper*

*"% CuRes" is percent residual copper, or percent total copper minus percent acid soluble copper minus percent cyanide soluble copper*

*"% ASCu" is percent acid soluble copper*

*"Au ppb" is parts per billion of gold*

*"Ag ppm" is parts per million of silver.*

Residual copper percent is a calculated value; however, analyses were completed at external laboratories that confirmed the calculated values were similar to the analyzed values.

Copper equivalent grade is calculated as:

<u>*NSR*</u> <br> *Copper Price \* Average Copper Recovery \* Conversion Ratio: tonnes - pounds*

11.10 Mineral Resource Estimate

The mineral resource estimate is reported in situ for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, including and excluding reserves, in Tables 11-13 and 11-14. These tables are not additive.

Individual mineral resource estimates for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits are presented in Tables 11-15, 11-16, and 11-17, respectively. These tables are not additive.

Figure 11-9 shows the general location and geometry of the three deposits.

June 2025 Page 139

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-13: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Gold<br> (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;317709 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.48 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.027 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3017 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1517 | &nbsp;&nbsp;956 | &nbsp;&nbsp;543 | &nbsp;&nbsp;279 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16513 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6650 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;31998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;232 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54 | &nbsp;&nbsp;110 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;512 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;8742 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;191 | &nbsp;&nbsp;193 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;48676 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;436 | &nbsp;&nbsp;216 | &nbsp;&nbsp;57 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;623 | &nbsp;&nbsp;960 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Texaco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;341345 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.27 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.028 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.81 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2664 | &nbsp;&nbsp;218 | &nbsp;&nbsp;920 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1537 | &nbsp;&nbsp;302 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8850 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5873 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**326450** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.95** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.48** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.30** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.17** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.027** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1.59** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3104** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1557** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**989** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**558** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**283** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**16704** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**6844** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**422020** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.79** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.12** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.24** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.43** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.025** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.83** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**3332** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**503** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1030** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**1809** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**333** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**11304** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**7346** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1**. The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, inclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9**. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

**Table 11-14: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes <br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (g/t)** | **Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid<br> Soluble<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | 178451 | 0.80 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 0.024 | 1.43 | 1435 | 607 | 359 | 477 | 139 | 8211 | 3163 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | 31998 | 0.73 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.021 | 1.78 | 232 | 68 | 54 | 110 | 21 | 1832 | 512 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated | 4407 | 0.94 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.015 | 0.71 | 41 | 19 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 101 | 91 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;East Ridge | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | 48676 | 0.89 | 0.44 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 0.006 | 0.40 | 436 | 216 | 57 | 163 | 9 | 623 | 960 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Texaco | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred | 341345 | 0.78 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.45 | 0.028 | 0.81 | 2664 | 218 | 920 | 1537 | 302 | 8850 | 5873 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated** | **182859** | **0.81** | **0.34** | **0.20** | **0.27** | **0.024** | **1.41** | **1476** | **625** | **373** | **486** | **141** | **8312** | **3254** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**All Deposits** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred** | **422020** | **0.79** | **0.12** | **0.24** | **0.43** | **0.025** | **0.83** | **3332** | **503** | **1030** | **1809** | **333** | **11304** | **7346** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, exclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 140

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-15: In-Situ Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Classification** | **Domain** | **Tonnes <br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (g/t)** | **Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid<br> Soluble<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic | 7239 | 0.85 | 0.71 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.002 | 0.01 | 61 | 52 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 135 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Verde | 1690 | 1.88 | 1.44 | 0.36 | 0.09 | 0.046 | 1.39 | 32 | 24 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 76 | 70 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cap | 6573 | 0.79 | 0.61 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.011 | 0.29 | 52 | 40 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 62 | 114 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 62756 | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.027 | 1.30 | 550 | 450 | 85 | 21 | 55 | 2618 | 1213 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite | 26201 | 0.77 | 0.06 | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.024 | 1.94 | 201 | 15 | 161 | 28 | 21 | 1637 | 444 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary | 73990 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.56 | 0.025 | 1.60 | 538 | 26 | 101 | 412 | 59 | 3817 | 1187 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **178450** | **0.80** | **0.34** | **0.20** | **0.27** | **0.024** | **1.43** | **1435** | **607** | **359** | **477** | **139** | **8211** | **3163** |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic | 137 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Verde | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cap | 212 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.005 | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 10653 | 0.76 | 0.54 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.026 | 1.40 | 81 | 58 | 23 | 0 | 9 | 479 | 179 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite | 1740 | 0.76 | 0.14 | 0.54 | 0.08 | 0.019 | 1.43 | 13 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 80 | 29 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary | 19256 | 0.70 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.56 | 0.018 | 2.05 | 136 | 6 | 21 | 108 | 11 | 1272 | 299 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **31998** | **0.73** | **0.21** | **0.17** | **0.34** | **0.021** | **1.78** | **232** | **68** | **54** | **110** | **21** | **1832** | **512** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, exclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

**Table 11-16: In-Situ East Ridge Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Classification** | **Domain** | **Tonnes <br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (g/t)** | **Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid<br> Soluble<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 4407 | 0.94 | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.015 | 0.71 | 41 | 19 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 101 | 91 |
| Indicated | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **4407** | **0.94** | **0.43** | **0.31** | **0.20** | **0.015** | **0.71** | **41** | **19** | **14** | **9** | **2** | **101** | **91** |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Exotic | 8557 | 0.94 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.57 | 0.003 | 0.16 | 80 | 29 | 2 | 49 | 1 | 45 | 177 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 40120 | 0.89 | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.007 | 0.45 | 355 | 187 | 55 | 113 | 9 | 577 | 784 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **48676** | **0.89** | **0.44** | **0.12** | **0.33** | **0.006** | **0.40** | **436** | **216** | **57** | **163** | **9** | **623** | **960** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, exclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 141

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 11-17: In-Situ Texaco Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Classification** | **Domain** | **Tonnes <br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Acid<br> Soluble<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Cyanide<br> Leach<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Residual<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (g/t)** | **Silver<br> (g/t)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Acid<br> Soluble<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Cyanide<br> Cu (kt)** | **Total<br> Residual<br> Cu (kt)** | **Contained<br> Gold<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Silver<br> (koz)** | **Contained<br> Copper<br> (Mlbs)** |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 31329 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.020 | 0.54 | 193 | 150 | 53 | 0 | 20 | 546 | 426 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chalcocite | 74873 | 0.96 | 0.06 | 0.71 | 0.19 | 0.010 | 0.71 | 717 | 47 | 529 | 141 | 25 | 1719 | 1580 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary | 235143 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.59 | 0.032 | 0.90 | 1754 | 21 | 338 | 1395 | 245 | 6826 | 3867 |
| Inferred | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **341345** | **0.78** | **0.06** | **0.27** | **0.45** | **0.028** | **0.81** | **2664** | **218** | **920** | **1537** | **302** | **8850** | **5873** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, exclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at a NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9**. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 142

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 11-9: Oblique View of Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Resources**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg002.jpg)

June 2025 Page 143

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.11 Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting
 Cutoff

The sensitivity of the updated Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco mineral resource estimates to copper (%) cutoff is summarized in Figures 11-10 and 11-11 across all interpolation methods. The resource cutoff uses NSR, but copper equivalent cutoffs can be used for comparison.

**Figure 11-10: Copper Cutoff Sensitivity for Santa Cruz & East Ridge – Indicated Tonnes & Grade**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg003.jpg)

Note: Texaco resources are classified as inferred, and therefore not present. Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 144

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 11-11: Copper Cutoff Sensitivity for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco – Inferred Tonnes & Grade**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg004.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

11.12 Differences in Resource Model Iterations

The current resource model iterations have changed significantly when compared to the iterations released in the initial assessment. Factors that have influenced changes in the resource are as follows:

· significant addition of new drilling to all three
deposits, with expansion drilling at Texaco contributing to overall resource growth

· change in interpretation of deposits based on
new information

· understanding of structural influence on the
deposit

· discovery of historical data issues in East Ridge.

June 2025 Page 145

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

11.13 Factors That May Affect Mineral
 Resources

Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the mineral resource estimates are as follows:

· changes to long-term metal price assumptions

· changes to the input values for mining, processing,
and general and administrative (G&A) costs to constrain the estimate

· changes to local interpretations of mineralization
geometry and continuity of mineralized subdomains

· changes to the density values applied to the
mineralized zones

· changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions

· changes in assumptions of marketability of the
final product

· variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological,
and mining assumptions

· changes to assumptions with an existing agreement
or new agreements

· changes to environmental, permitting, and social
license assumptions

· logistics of securing and moving adequate services,
labor, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics, and other public health crises, or geopolitical influence.

11.14 BBA Opinion

BBA is not aware of any environmental, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that would materially affect the estimation of mineral resources that are not discussed in this report.

BBA is of the opinion that the mineral resources for the project, which were estimated using industry-accepted practices, have been prepared and reported using S-K 1300 definitions.

Technical and economic parameters and assumptions applied to the mineral resource estimate are based on parameters received from Ivanhoe Electric and reviewed within the BBA technical team to determine if they were appropriate. All issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.

June 2025 Page 146

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **12** | **Mineral Reserve Estimate** |

---

12.1 Basis of Estimate

Underground mineral reserves were estimated by BBA. Estimates were prepared for the Santa Cruz deposit, a portion of the East Ridge deposit, and the Verde domain located within the Santa Cruz deposit. The primary mining method for both deposits employs longhole stoping without pillars, utilizing a primary and secondary stoping sequence. Additionally, a few small lenses within the East Ridge deposit use a drift-and-fill mining method. Stopes will be backfilled with cemented rockfill to the end of Q1 2029 and then all stopes will be backfilled after mining with paste backfill for the remainder of the mine life. Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves. Inferred mineral resources were not converted to mineral reserves; however, if inferred mineral resources fell within the mineral reserve designs, they were assumed to have zero grade.

12.2 Underground Mine Estimates

Mineral reserve estimates are based on the mineral resource 3D block models. Stope shapes were created based on individual zone and lens geometry. Each mining region has a distinct approach and is divided into smaller mining areas. There are two primary stoping methods used: transverse and longitudinal, along with one drifting method known as drift and fill. These methods are selected based on the thickness of the ore body and the available access routes. The majority of the ore extracted will be mined using the transverse method as discussed in Section 13.9, Mine Design.

The mineral reserve stopes were designed using Deswik Stope Optimizer software. The stope optimization process was guided by economic prospectivity and geotechnical parameters specific to the rock type, the orebody orientation and regions, and the mining sequence. The initial Deswik Stope Optimizer runs were conducted with no recovery and no dilution applied. Recovery and dilution factors were applied after the stopes were generated to calculate the final tonnes and grade of the reserves. Mining recovery and dilution are discussed in Section 13.

Based on engineering considerations, lower grade blocks may be included in stope designs if their development is proposed in conjunction with other blocks. While low-grade blocks do not warrant the required development, they are considered economically viable if developed in conjunction with the other blocks. Similarly, evaluation of extraction method or ground conditions may result in lower-grade blocks being included in the mineral reserve estimate.

12.2.1 Santa Cruz

The mining approach for the Santa Cruz region involves bulk mining. The stopes vary in size between the North and South zones and by domain (Table 12-1 and Figure 12-1).

June 2025 Page 147

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 12-1: Summary of Stope Sizes by Domain & Sequence**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domains** | **Geotechnical Region** | **Primary / Secondary <br> (Height x Width x Length)** |
| Chalcocite | North | P: 30 m x 12 m x 17 m<br> S: 30 m x 15 m x 20 m |
| Chalcocite | South | P: 30 m x 15 m x 23 m<br> S: 30 m x 18 m x 25 m |
| Oxide | North | P: 30 m x 12 m x 13 m<br> S: 30 m x 15 m x 15 m |
| Oxide | South | P: 30 m x 15 m x 15 m<br> S: 30 m x 18 m x 17 m |

---

**Figure 12-1: Santa Cruz North-South Divide**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg005.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 148

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The region is divided into several mining areas: Blocks 2, 3, and 4 (see Figure 12-2). Block 4 serves as a sill pillar, separating Blocks 2 and 3 (due to changes in the mine plan development, Block 1 was incorporated into Block 2). The primary mining method is transverse downhole stoping, executed in a primary-secondary sequence, with selective uphole stopes. Transverse stoping offers greater flexibility in drilling patterns, improved visibility of drawpoints, and enhanced ore recovery. Although this method typically requires more waste development to access multiple fronts, in Santa Cruz the main level haulage drifts and stope accesses will be developed within the orebody itself.

The main haulage drift will run parallel to the orebody, while stope access drives are oriented perpendicular from the hangingwall to the footwall. Production stoping will occur simultaneously at multiple locations on either side of the main haulage drift. In areas where only bottom sill access is available, uphole drilling will be employed.

Major infrastructure will be located near access points and main ramps, with charging stations strategically placed to ensure efficient distances from active mining areas. Due to Santa Cruz's irregular mineralization and significant geotechnical constraints, some areas may be mined using a primary-primary or other modified sequence. At the end of the mine life, retreat mining will recover stopes near ore passes as they are decommissioned along the main haulage drifts.

**Figure 12-2: Santa Cruz Mining Areas (looking Northeast)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg006.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 149

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

12.2.2 Verde

The Verde mining region is a mineralized area situated within the hangingwall of the Santa Cruz deposit, which will be accessed through the Santa Cruz development (Figure 12-3). The mining will involve longitudinal primary-primary stope mining, measuring 20 m high x 15 m wide x 20 m long. Some undercut drifts will be created at the bottom of the stopes to maximize ore recovery from the area.

**Figure 12-3: Verde Mining Region**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg007.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 150

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

12.2.3 East Ridge

The East Ridge mining area will use selective mining techniques that are adapted to the varying orientations of the mining areas. The mining areas of East Ridge North 1, 2, and 3 will be primarily developed using downhole longitudinal stoping (Figure 12-4). The dimensions for these stopes will be 15 m high x 10 m wide x 8 m long, with some additional uphole stopes as needed.

In contrast, mining areas North 4 and 5 will employ a drift and fill method in increments of 5 m height due to the relatively shallow dip of the lenses in these sections. The mining sequence for this approach will follow a retreat pattern, starting from the outside and moving toward the center, and from the footwall to the hangingwall.

**Figure 12-4: East Ridge Mining Areas (looking West)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg008.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 151

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

12.3 Net Smelter Return & Cutoff Value

Net smelter return (NSR) represents the gross revenue generated from the sale of a refined metal product (in this case, copper cathodes) after deducting all associated off-site costs. For a mine producing copper cathodes via heap leaching and solvent extraction / electrowinning (SX/EW), the traditional "smelter" and "refining" charges inherent in concentrate sales are not applicable. Instead, the offsite deductions are specific to the direct sale of cathodes.

The primary metal produced in Santa Cruz will be copper. While byproducts of gold and silver are present, the current heap leach SX/EW process does not recover these precious metals. As is common with polymetallic deposits, the cutoff value for mineral reserves is determined and expressed in terms of net smelter return value per tonne.

The NSR is calculated based on unit metal values, using representative smelter contract terms, freight costs, and forecast metal prices. The metal prices and metallurgical recovery rates used for NSR calculations are summarized in Table 12-2. Royalties are factored into each block of the mineral resource model.

**Table 12-2: NSR Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Product** | **Unit** | **Value** |
| Acid Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 98.8 |
| Cyanide Soluble Copper Recovery | % | 85.4 |
| Residual Copper Recovery | % | 35.1 |
| **Recoverable Copper** | **%** | **90.9** |
| **Net Recoverable Copper** | **%** | **90.0** |
| Copper Price | $/lb | 4.00 |

---

Mineral reserves are assessed using commodity prices derived from long-term forecasts from analysts and banks. According to BBA, this pricing generally reflects the trends observed over the past one, three, and five years, and the forward-looking prices from internationally recognized banks are deemed appropriate for reserve estimates. Section 16 offers a detailed explanation of the commodity price forecasts, which consider a three-year trailing average timeframe.

June 2025 Page 152

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Santa Cruz operating costs used as the basis for cutoff value calculations are presented in Table 12-3.

**Table 12-3: Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Santa Cruz** | **East Ridge** | **East Ridge** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **30 m Longhole** | **Drift and Fill** | **15m Longhole** |
| **Criteria** | **Unit** | **Leach** | **Leach** | **Leach** |
| Cathode Split | % | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| **Onsite Costs** |  |  |  |  |
| Mining Costs – Direct | $/t Processed | 31.00 | 47.05 | 47.05 |
| Processing Costs | $/t Processed | 10.32 | 10.32 | 10.32 |
| G&A | $/t Processed | 2.63 | 2.63 | 2.63 |
| Onsite Total | $/t Processed | 43.95 | 60.00 | 60.00 |
| **Onsite Rounded NSR Breakeven Cutoff** | **$/t** | **44.00** | **60.00** | **60.00** |

---

12.4 Mineral Reserve Estimate

Mineral reserves as at June 23, 2025 are summarized in Table 12-4. The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities.

Longhole stoping, and drift and fill mining methods are used in this mineral reserve estimate, as discussed in Section 13.9.

Production designs are created based on the geometries relevant to the mining methods, as discussed in Section 13. Mineral reserve estimates are based on the mineral resource 3D block models. Mineable shapes are created based on individual zones and lens geometries around the production locations that meet the NSR cutoff threshold, while also ensuring that adverse pillar geometries are not created that could become unstable, and that mining does not cease near a problematic structure. Production locations outside the mineral reserve outlines are not included in mineral reserves. Once designs are completed, access ramps and other supporting infrastructure are designed.

The production design wireframes are evaluated against the model to generate tonnes and grades for each location. Internal portions of the mineralized zones that did not meet the NSR cutoff value are treated as waste. This mineralized material could be included in the mineable shapes and the mineral reserves by applying a marginal cutoff value as the material will have to be mined to gain access to other areas of the mineral reserve.

June 2025 Page 153

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 12-4: Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserve Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (kt)** | **Total<br> Copper (%)** | **Acid Soluble<br> Copper (%)** | **Cyanide Leach<br> Copper (%)** | **Residual <br> Copper (%)** | **Contained <br> Copper (kt)** | **Total Acid<br> Soluble Cu (kt)** | **Total Cyanide <br> Cu (kt)** | **Total Residual <br> Cu (kt)** |
| Santa Cruz | Probable | 132061 | 1.08 | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 1430 | 820 | 544 | 65 |
| East Ridge | Probable | 4112 | 1.03 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.12 | 42 | 19 | 18 | 5 |
| Total | Probable | 136173 | 1.08 | 0.61 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 1472 | 839 | 563 | 70 |

---

Notes: **1.** The mineral reserves in this estimate are current to June 23, 2025 and were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc. They are reported in accordance with the definitions for mineral reserves in S-K 1300. **2.** The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities. **3.** The mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits were completed using Deswik mining software. Mineral reserves are defined within stope designs that are prescribed by rock mechanics, considering the specific characteristics of deposits, mineral domains, mining methods, and the mining sequence. Transverse longhole stoping is the optimal mining method with uppers and cut & fill methods used where appropriate. Mining will occur in blocks, extracting ore from the bottom upwards, with paste backfill providing ground support to sustain a production rate of 20,000 tonnes per day for the first 15 years of operation. **4.** Mineral reserves are estimated at an NSR cutoff value of $43.95/t for longhole stoping and $60/t for longitudinal retreat stopes and drift and fill. The NSR values reflect the discrete metallurgical responses for each mineral reserve block using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb. **5.** Mineral reserves account for mining loss and dilution. **6.** Mineral reserves are a subset of the indicated mineral resource and do not include the inferred mineral resource. **7.** Rounding, as required by the guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

June 2025 Page 154

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

12.5 Factors That May Affect Mineral Reserves

Mineral reserves are subject to risks typically associated with high-production underground longhole stoping operations. These risks could materially impact the reserves and include, but are not limited to, the following:

· variations in realized metal prices compared
to initial assumptions

· fluctuations in mining, processing, and general
and administrative (G&A) costs used to determine the cutoff grade

· changes in the interpretation of mineralization
geometry or the continuity of mineralized zones

· modifications to geotechnical or hydrogeological
assumptions, potentially causing schedule delays, increased dilution, or reduced recoveries

· variations in mining and metallurgical recovery
rates

· shifts in long-term assumptions regarding payability,
marketability, and penalty terms

· alterations in mining development or geotechnical
conditions that could lead to additional unplanned dilution

· adjustments to current mining methods where specific
zones or lenses allow

· assumptions related to ongoing access to the
site, retention of mineral tenure, obtaining necessary environmental, mining, and other regulatory permits, and maintaining a social license
to operate with relevant stakeholders.

June 2025 Page 155

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **13** | **Mining Methods** |

---

13.1 Introduction

This report envisions underground mining of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits.

The Santa Cruz deposit lies 480 to 940 m below the surface. For this deposit, transverse underground longhole stoping has been selected as the optimal mining method. Mining will occur in blocks, extracting ore from the bottom up, with paste backfill providing ground support. A sill pillar will be mined at the end of the project's life, and the backfill will be designed to support adjacent filled stopes without needing extra pillars.

Stopes in the Santa Cruz deposit will range from 12 to 18 m in width and 10 to 17 m in length, with levels spaced 30 m apart. The Verde subdomain's stopes will have standard dimensions of 20 m in height, 15 m in width, and 20 m in length.

The East Ridge deposit is located 310 to 790 m below the surface, comprising several lenses and using a hybrid mining approach of longhole stoping and drift-and-fill methods. Longhole stopes will measure 15 m x 10 m x 8 m (H x W x L), while drift-and-fill drifts will be 5 m x 5 m, with variable lengths. Mining will begin with a 5 m x 5 m drift, followed by backfill and curing before developing adjacent drifts.

Access to the mine will be facilitated by two decline drifts: one for main access and another for a Railveyor system. Ore will be transported from stopes to the surface via load-haul-dump (LHD) vehicles, an orepass system, and a Railveyor system. The combined production average for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits is approximately 20,000 t/d.

13.2 Geotechnical Considerations

Geotechnical criteria used in the mine optimization were provided in Section 7.3.

Geotechnical domains (Table ‎13-1 and Figure 13-1) were established to reflect material deposition type and alteration characteristics. Geotechnical domains have differing geotechnical qualities.

June 2025 Page 156

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-1: Geotechnical Domains**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Unit** | **Abbreviation** | **Note** |
| Alluvium | Alv, | Uppermost unit. |
| Conglomerate | CGL | The conglomerate deposit is characterized vertically as the Gila conglomerate, overlying the Whitetail, basal, and mafic conglomerate horizons. |
| Oracle Granite | GR | Santa Cruz and East Ridge zones. |
| Leach Cap | LC | Santa Cruz zone. |
| Oxide | OX | Santa Cruz zone, Verde zone (Verde OX mineralization, within an envelope of Verde slide (SL) lithology), East Ridge zone (ERNOx_medium-grade ore zone and ERNOx_low-grade host rock). |
| Chalcocite | CN | Santa Cruz zone. |
| Primary | PR | Santa Cruz zone. |
| Faults | (Weak or Shear Zones) and D2 Fault Zone | Santa Cruz zone. |
| Secondary Lithologies |  | Diabase and undifferentiated porphyry units. |

---

**Figure 13-1: Santa Cruz Geotechnical Domain Profile, North-South Section Looking East**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg009.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 157

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.3 Mining Zones

The Santa Cruz Copper Project will consist of three mining zones: Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge (Figure 13-2). The Santa Cruz zone represents the main area of mine production. The Santa Cruz zone is divided structurally into north and south regions (refer to Figure 12-1).

The Santa Cruz area is characterized by the presence of groundwater inflows, varying by geotechnical and hydrogeological domain. Mining plans have been de-risked by using a minimum 5 m offset for production areas from high-risk domains, including the primary zone, Gila conglomerate, leach cap, and the D2 fault zone.

**Figure 13-2: Mining Zones of Santa Cruz Copper Project, View Looking North**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg010.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

June 2025 Page 158

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.4 Ground Support

Ground control measures are applied systematically to ensure safe workplaces, limit dilution and overbreak, and stabilize weak rock masses, particularly in the vicinity of high-risk domains.

Ground support descriptions per Support Category are summarized on the following page in Table 13-2. An example of bolting patterns associated with Support Category 1 for nominal 5.5 m x 5.5 m (W x H) development is shown in Figure 13-3.

**Figure 13-3: Bolting Pattern Associated with Conventional (Drill & Blast) Development, Support Category 1 (Not to Scale)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1spimg011.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

Primary (first-pass) support will be installed in in cycle with excavation advance and will provide supporting and reinforcing functions. Excavation advance in rock will be performed via conventional (drill and blast) methods (Table 13-2) or with a roadheader machine (Table 13-3).

Decline (ramp) development and lateral Railveyor drifts in rock are to be excavated by either conventional (drill and blast) or roadheader methods. Roadheader support categories are summarized in Table 13-3.

Shotcrete used for long-term access and Support Categories 1S, 2S, and 3 will be applied over mesh. Support Category 4 will be fiber-reinforced shotcrete when applied.

June 2025 Page 159

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-2: Ground Support Categories for Conventional (Drill & Blast) Development**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Q Value** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimated<br> RMR76\GSI** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithological Domain** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Advance<br> Length** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ground Support description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;> 2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;> 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide, Chalcocite, Verde, Oracle Granite | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 m (13 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4 m #7 rebar on 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft x 4 ft) spacing with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga.) to within 1.5 m of sill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 1 (Shotcrete) | &nbsp;&nbsp;> 2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;> 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Decline Development | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 m (13 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Optional (non-systematic) application of 50 mm (2″) shotcrete over weldmesh screening; as local rock mass conditions require. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 - 2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 - 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary, Lower Range Oxide, Chalcocite, Verde, Oracle Granite | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 m (10 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4 m #7 rebar on a 1.2 m x 0.8 m (4 ft x 2.5 ft) bolting pattern with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga.) to within 1.5 m of sill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 2 (Shotcrete) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 - 2.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 - 50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Decline Development and. Railveyor Drifts | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 m (10 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Support as above, followed by application of 50 mm (2″) shotcrete over weldmesh screening. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 - 0.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 - 40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Fault Seams/Zones,<br> Leach Cap | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 m (6.5 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 mm (4″) shotcrete down to sill (two passes of 50 mm each). Prior to the second shotcrete application (pass): install 2.4 m #7 rebar on a 1.2 m x 0.8 m (4 ft x 2.5 ft) bolting pattern with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga.) to within 1.0 m of sill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Category 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;< 0.07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;< 20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Development Connection from Sed. Zone into Hard Rock (Oxide, Chalcocite, Verde, Oracle Granite). Development through faults | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 m (5 ft) | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75 mm (3″) of fiber-reinforced shotcrete (FRS) down to the sill, followed by 2.4 m #7 rebar, installed with 6 Ga. weldmesh screen on 1.2 m x 0.8 m bolting pattern to within 1.0 m of sill.<br> Install #7 rebar lattice girders, spaced each 2.4 m, and encased in 150 mm (6″) standard (not FRS) shotcrete. Spiling (forepoling) pre-support may be required. |

---

Notes: **1.** Due to limited excavation stand-up time, support category 3 and support category 4 are to be installed with minimum delay (typically immediately following completion of drift blast and mucking cycle). **2.** Install galvanized weldmesh screen in permanent development. Non-galvanized ("black") weldmesh can be used in temporary development.

June 2025 Page 160

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-3: Ground Support Categories for Roadheader Development**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Support Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Q value** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Anticipated Visual Indications of Rock Mass Stability (Example)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Advance<br> Length** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ground Support Description & Sequence** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp; > 2.0<br> (GSI >50) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Smooth excavation surface, minimal (minor) structural disturbance. | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 m | &nbsp;&nbsp; Initial support pass = standard shotcrete application (50 mm / 2 in) onto excavated rock surfaces (down to sill).<br> Second support pass = installation of 2.4 m #7 rebar on 1.2 m x 1.2 m (4 ft x 4 ft) pattern to within 1.5 m of sill with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.7 - 2.0<br> (GSI 41 – 50) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Irregular to smooth excavation surface, release of localized rock blocks (kinematic (wedge) instability). | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 m | &nbsp;&nbsp; Initial support pass = standard shotcrete application (50 mm / 2 in; non-FRS) onto excavated rock surfaces (down to sill).<br> Second support pass = installation of 2.4 m #7 rebar on a 1.2 m x 0.8 m bolting pattern with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga) to within 1.5 m of sill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp; 0.07 - 0.7<br> (GSI 20 – 40) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Over-excavation of roadheader profile due to localized rock mass instability and the presence of weak rock seams (example: fault zones).<br> Unravelling risk if left unsupported for 72 hours following initial excavation. | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 m | &nbsp;&nbsp; 100 mm (4 in) standard shotcrete down to sill (two passes of 50 mm each).<br> Prior to the second shotcrete application (pass): install 2.4 m #7 rebar on a 1.2 m x 0.8 m (4 ft x 2.5 ft) bolting pattern with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga) to within 1.0 m of sill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp; < 0.07<br> (GSI <20) | &nbsp;&nbsp; Over-excavation of roadheader profile due to rock mass instability.<br> Unravelling/caving risk if left unsupported for 24 hours following initial excavation.<br> Presence of fault. | &nbsp;&nbsp;4 m | &nbsp;&nbsp; 75 mm (3 in) of FRS down to sill, followed by installation of 2.4 m #7 rebar on 1.2 m x 0.8 m spacing with welded mesh (100 mm / 6 Ga) down to within 1.0 m of sill.<br> Install #7 rebar lattice girder spaced each 2.4 m and encased in 150 mm (6 in) standard shotcrete.<br> Spiling (forepoling) pre-support as required. |

---

Notes: Due to limited excavation stand-up time, Support Category RH3 and Support Category RH4 is to be installed with minimum delay, (typically: immediately following completion of drift advance and mucking cycle). Install galvanized weldmesh screen in permanent development. Non-galvanized ("black") Weldmesh can be used in temporary development.

June 2025 Page 161

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.5 Secondary Support

As a minimum, secondary ground support will be required to reinforce stope brow areas. Brow support will consist of three parallel rings of cablebolts spaced approximately 2.5 m apart. The initial cablebolt ring will be located approximately 2 m from the planned stope brow. Systematic cablebolting of the secondary ore drifts is likely required due to wedge potential, reduced rock mass quality, and/or rock mass relaxation (stress relief) at the stope sill horizon. Cablebolting of secondary stopes drifts may require installation of 0-Gauge weldmesh straps ("screen straps") with a tensioned bearing plate. The screen straps would be installed across the drift, with each cable ring.

13.6 Boxcut & Decline Access

The twin portals are each planned at 7.26 m wide x 5.44 m high (23.8 ft x17.8 ft) in the alluvium, will be approximately 27.3 m (89.5 ft) apart, and is planned to be excavated from a trapezoidal-shaped 60 m deep boxcut, with parallel sides measuring 300 m at the top of the box cut and 44 m at the entrance of the boxcut for the ramp decline. The decline will be at 15% downgrade to a depth of 60 m below the surface to begin the entrance portal for the underground mine. The distance between portal entrance at the entrance of the boxcut ramp will be 405 m. The distance from the top of the box cut at surface elevation to the entrance of the boxcut at surface elevation will be 500 m.

13.7 Groundwater

A discussion on groundwater is provided in Section 7.4.

13.7.1 Faults & Grouting Program

Pre-grouting of declines will occur for locations that pass through water-bearing fault zones using drilling holes approximately 235 m from above. The fault zones of the Santa Cruz Copper Project are high hydraulic conductivity zones with weaker rock mass characteristics.

A grouting program was developed to address water-bearing fault zones during mine development. At the end of the mine life, stopes that vertically align with the water-bearing fault zones will be paste filled to seal the water-bearing structure. Following this backfilling procedure, remnant stopes will be mined from these locations.

13.7.2 Activated Colloidal Silica Injection

The injection of activated colloidal silica to reduce water flow around development excavations was evaluated by Geosyntec for the project. During initial decline development where the twin declines pass through the saturated Gila Conglomerate (a zone of high hydraulic conductivity), standard ramp dewatering methods—activated colloidal silica gel injection will be used to support de-risking of early development.

13.7.3 Ramp Dewatering

During initial decline development and until major pumping stations with boreholes to surface are established, development contractors will use face dewatering pumps and temporary pump skids with pump boxes in a daisy-chain configuration. Peak maximum inflow from 2026 to 2030 is expected to be 379 L/s (6,000 gal/min) during twin decline development. Once major pumping stations are established level sumps will be developed in each decline to collect ramp inflows and pump to the nearest major pumping station.

June 2025 Page 162

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.7.4 Mining Area Dewatering

Peak maximum inflow during the mine life is expected to be 505 L/s (8,000 gal/min). Typically, water on mine levels will flow in ditches along level development at a 2% negative gradient to a gravity sump near the level entrance. Gravity sumps will use twin boreholes to gravity transfer water to the sump on the level below. On levels and locations in the mine where gravity flow cannot be achieved, level sumps will be developed. These level sumps will be set up as dirty water systems, utilizing Wilson-style sumps with submersible pumps. Each level includes two Wilson sumps and submersible pumps for redundancy.

At the level directly above the major and minor pumping stations, de-grit plants will be used in an independent excavation, with gravity-fed and pumped water to a main pipe header that feeds a de-grit plant rated to handle peak flows. Solids will be extracted from the water via a screw conveyor, where they can be collected. From the de-grit plant, the filtered water will be directly piped to twin boreholes that feed into the live sump of major/minor pump stations.

The major and minor pump stations will include two multi-stage centrifugal pumps, each rated for peak inflows with a 25% surge capacity. Pumps will be arranged in an operating/standby configuration. The pumps will be fed by flooded suction using a live sump contained behind a concrete dam wall. The live sump is sized to optimize the pump cycle times. On main collection levels, major/minor pump stations will have a large excavation sized for 6 hours of peak water inflows specific to each station location.

Mine water will be pumped from the major/minor pump stations to surface via cased boreholes. For pump stations located deep within the mine, intermediate pump stations will be used to limit borehole lengths. The dewatering system of the East Ridge orebody will be independent from the Santa Cruz orebody. At the East Ridge orebody, level sumps/minor pump stations will be located at the bottom of each mining horizon and will feed one dedicated major pump station to surface. Major pump station locations for the Santa Cruz orebody have been strategically placed based on mining production horizons and schedule; the Verde orebody will use the dewatering infrastructure of the Santa Cruz orebody. In horizons with high dewatering inflows, two major/minor pump stations have been included in the design to mitigate risk of failure at any single pump station in the system.

13.8 Mining Areas

13.8.1 Dilution

In the longhole stope and cut-and-fill design stage, the planned excavation shapes often cannot perfectly align with the mineralized outlines. Due to the extensive tabular nature of the Santa Cruz orebody, internal stopes may experience unplanned dilution from adjacent mineralized stopes or backfilled stopes.

In the case of the East Ridge orebody, the mineralization is also tabular, and for most zones within this deposit, external dilution consists of uneconomic material from the periphery of the mining block. Therefore, internal dilution (or planned dilution) in the East Ridge mining region primarily depends on the geometry of the orebody and the minimum mining width. This type of dilution is predominantly observed in longitudinal access stopes. Dilution may be controlled and/or minimized through suitable blasting practices.

The dilution percentage is defined as tonnes of dilution material divided by tonnes of mineralized material, as follows:

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Dilution % = | Tonnes of Dilution Material | X 100  |
| Dilution % = | Tonnes of Mineralized Material | X 100  |

---

June 2025 Page 163

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.8.2 Longhole Stoping Dilution

Santa Cruz orebody longhole stopes are based on a fixed height of 30 meters, East Ridge a level height of 15 meters, and the Verde domain a level height of 20 meters. Perimeter stopes in both orebodies contain internal dilution, and all stopes include unplanned dilution from neighboring previously-mined backfilled stopes.

A primary (planned) dilution of 3% was selected for all longhole stopes. A secondary (unplanned) dilution of 9% was selected for both longhole stoping and drift-and-fill production wireframes. Dilution is expected primarily from stope walls adjacent to pastefill with 3% for primary stopes with a single face and 9% for secondary stopes with three faces.

13.8.3 Drift-and-Fill Dilution

The minimum mining width for drift-and-fill mining in East Ridge is 5 meters. Drift-and-fill development contains limited internal dilution within the proposed mining shapes on the perimeter of the target zone of mineralization. A dilution of 5% was applied to drift-and-fill production shapes versus longhole stoping methods (9% secondary dilution).

13.8.4 Mining Recovery Factor

Mining recoveries and dilution percentages were determined based on rock mechanics considerations, empirical methods, data from operating underground mines in the region, and BBA subject matter expertise.

Table 13-4 summarizes the forecast mining recoveries by orebody and stope type.

**Table 13-4: Summary of Mining Recoveries by Stope Type**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Stope Type** | **Value** | **Unit** |
| Recovery Downhole Stopes Santa Cruz / Verde | 94 | % |
| Recovery Uphole Stopes | 85 | % |
| Recovery Sill Pillar Stopes | 40 | % |
| Recovery Drift-and-Fill | 94 | % |
| Recovery East Ridge Stopes | 90 | % |

---

13.8.5 Development Allowance

An additional development allowance of 5% was added to all underground mine development which including, level accesses, main level haulage drives, and remucks to account for back slashes, side slashes, and additional infrastructure excavations added in medium- and short-range mine design.

June 2025 Page 164

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.9 Mine Design

The final mine outline is shown in Figure 13-2.

13.9.1 Santa Cruz Orebody – Transverse Longhole Stoping

Longhole stopes at the Santa Cruz orebody will vary in size between the orebody and geotechnical region. Table 13-5 shows stope sizes.

**Table 13-5: Santa Cruz Orebody Stope Sizes**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Domain** | **Geotechnical Region** | **Primary / Secondary (Height x Width x Length)** |
| Cyanide | North | P: 30 m x 12 m x 17 m<br> S: 30 m x 15 m x 20 m |
| Cyanide | South | P: 30 m x 15 m x 23 m<br> S: 30 m x 18 m x 25 m |
| Oxide | North | P: 30 m x 12 m x 13 m<br> S: 30 m x 15 m x 15 m |
| Oxide | South | P: 30 m x 15 m x 15 m<br> S: 30 m x 18 m x 17 m |

---

Each stope will have a 5 meters x 5 meters (W x H) access drift above and below. For typical stopes, production drilling will be completed from the access drift above; however, in certain locations, upper stopes can be drilled from below. These stopes have been assigned a lower mining recovery factor.

June 2025 Page 165

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Transverse stopes will be developed perpendicular (transverse) to the strike of the orebody (Figure 13-4).

**Figure 13-4: Transverse Longhole Stoping in the Santa Cruz Orebody (Looking Southwest)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img1.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

Access drifts will be driven from the hanging wall, and stopes will be mined across the full width of the orebody, creating large, open voids. Primary stopes will be mined first, leaving unmined ore (secondary stopes) between them for support. Once a primary stope is mined out, it will be backfilled with pastefill to provide structural support. After the pastefill has cured and reached the required strength, adjacent secondary stopes can be mined, using the filled primary stopes as stable walls. In the case of Santa Cruz, a central access drift will be used instead of a conventional footwall drift to keep development in stable rock mass conditions and increase available production areas.

After ore extraction, a plug of high-binder paste backfill will be placed first, followed by mass fill with a lower binder content. The pastefill will be allowed to cure, reaching sufficient strength to act as a working platform and to support subsequent mining operations. Paste backfill strength will be verified through paste backfill sampling and laboratory testing before advancing to the next mining phase.

Transverse longhole stoping in the Santa Cruz orebody will follow a lateral and vertical chevron primary-secondary mining sequence, retreating from the hanging wall. A pastefill plant on surface and an underground reticulation system will supply paste to backfill open stopes. A central main level drive with perpendicular stope cuts to the northeast and southwest will be used to access production stopes. This central access design helps achieve the 20,000 to 22,000 t/d average production rate by increasing the quantity of available stoping locations.

June 2025 Page 166

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.9.2 Verde Orebody – Longhole Stoping

The Verde mine levels will be accessed via the Santa Cruz mine levels at similar elevations. Verde orebody access will pass through a sedimentary conglomerate zone where a grouting program will be required to reduce water inflow. Due to the challenging geological setting, development in Verde will be limited to main access drifts and top and bottom stope cuts. Level sumps and electrical stations will be used on the closest Santa Cruz mine level.

Maximum stope dimensions for the Verde orebody are planned to be 20 m x 15 m x 20 m (H x W x L).

13.9.3 East Ridge Orebody– Longitudinal Longhole Stoping

Stope dimensions for the East Ridge orebody are as follows:

· Longhole stope dimensions: 15 m x 10 m x 8 m
(H x W x L)

· Ore zone areas with hanging wall dip of less
than 55° will be mined with alternative mining methods (drift-and-fill)

Longitudinal stoping is an underground mining technique primarily used for narrow to moderately wide, steeply dipping orebodies (Figure 13-5).

In this method, stopes are developed parallel to the strike length of the orebody, allowing for continuous extraction along the orebody's length. The orebody is divided into longitudinal panels along its strike. Each panel is mined sequentially from one end to the other, and from the bottom upwards (overhand).

After a stope is mined out, the void is filled with pastefill. The pastefill is pumped into the stope to provide ground support and allow adjacent or overlying stopes to be safely mined. Longitudinal stoping with pastefill is particularly effective for narrow vein orebodies with steep dips as present in certain lenses of East Ridge.

The East Ridge orebody also contains zones suitable for transverse longhole stoping, like the Santa Cruz orebody, where the orebody geometry is sufficiently wide for this approach.

June 2025 Page 167

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-5: Longitudinal Longhole Stoping in East Ridge Zone (Looking Northwest – Not to Scale)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img2.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

13.9.4 East Ridge – Drift-and-Fill

Bottom-up drift-and-fill mining is an underground mining technique used to extract orebodies that are narrow, irregular, or weakly consolidated. This method involves mining horizontal drifts of the orebody, starting from the lowest level, and progressing upwards (Figure 13-6). After each drift is mined out, the resulting void will be backfilled using paste backfill before the next slice above is mined.

Mining begins at the bottom of the orebody, where drifts will be excavated along the ore zone. After a drift is mined, it will be backfilled with paste backfill. This material will be pumped into the mined-out drift, where it will set and provide ground support. Once the paste backfill has cured and is strong enough to support equipment and personnel, mining will advance to the next drift above. The filled lower drift will serve as a stable working platform for the next level.

June 2025 Page 168

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-6: Drift-and-Fill Mining in the East Ridge Zone (Looking Northwest – Not to Scale)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img3.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

Due to the challenging ground conditions present at East Ridge, drift-and-fill mining offers several advantages for specific lenses. These advantages include smaller open spans during mining, sequential backfilling to maintain ground stability and selective mining for the challenging orebody geometry. The selective nature of drift-and-fill mining minimizes dilution and maximizes ore recovery.

13.9.5 Development

Initial twin decline development is planned with a roadheader and tunnel excavator where the design passes through sedimentary units and maintains a straight trajectory with sufficient clearance for the roadheader to operate. During decline development in sedimentary units, lattice girders and extensive re-enforcement will be used due to the low strength of the material. In sedimentary units, a near-circular profile was selected for strength in the presence of high pore water pressure.

Conventional drill and blast development is planned for internal ramps and mine level development in the Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge orebodies. Drill and blast methods allow for higher productivity in multiple heading scenarios and for equipment to operate in tighter radius turns. Table 13-6 summarizes the lateral and vertical development dimensions.

June 2025 Page 169

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-6: Santa Cruz Mine Lateral & Vertical Development Dimensions**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Development Activity** | **Dimensions** |
| **Lateral Development** | |
| **Decline** | |
| Decline Access, Decline Railveyor, Decline Crosscuts, Electrical – Railveyor | Decline Alluvium 7.2 MW x 5.4 MH |
| Decline Access, Decline Railveyor, Decline Crosscuts, Electrical – Railveyor | Decline Bedrock Class 4 5.7 MW x 5.6 MH |
| Decline Access, Decline Crosscuts | Arch 5.0 MW x 5.5 MH |
| Decline Crosscuts, Electrical – Railveyor, Roadheader Pulloff | Arch 5.0 MW x 5.0 MH |
| **Infrastructure** |  |
| Batch Plant Storage, Electrical – Battery Charge Station, Electrical – Conveyor Switchroom, Electrical – Mine Switchroom, Electrical – Power Substation, Electrical – Power Substation, Electrical – Primary Switchroom , Electrical – Primary Switchroom, Electrical – Pump Switchroom, Electrical – Secondary Switchroom, Electrical – Temporary Switchroom, Latrine, Magazine – Caps, Magazine – Powder, Orepass Access, Remuck, Services Station, Stope Cut, Storage – Ballast, Storage – Construction, Storage – Development, Sump – Level, Sump – Pump Room, Vent Access, Electrical Hole Receiving Station. | Arch 5.0 MW x 5.0 MH |
| Electrical – Temporary Switchroom | Decline Alluvium 7.2 MW x 5.4 MH |
| Electrical – Temporary Switchroom | Decline Bedrock Class 4 5.7 MW x 5.6 MH |
| Level Access, Main Level Haulage Drive, Conveyor Level, Ramp, Refueling Station | Arch 5.0 MW x 5.5 MH |
| Refuge Station | Arch 6.0 MW x 5.0 MH |
| Sump – Level | Arch 5.0 MW x 6.67 MH |
| Sump – Pump Room | Arch 6.5 MW x 6.5 MH |
| Sump – Pump Room | Arch 5.5 MW x 5.5 MH |
| Sump – Pump Room | Arch 7.5 MW x 8.5 MH |
| Electrical Hole Receiving Station | Arch 6.0 MW x 5.0 MH |
| **Vertical Development** |  |
| Orepass, Vent Raise | Round 3.0 m Diameter |
| Shaft (Blind Bore Development) | Round 6.5 m Diameter |
| Vent Raise | Round 4.0 m Diameter |
| Hole – Dewatering | Round 0.15 m (6")\* |
| Hole – Dewatering, Hole – Electrical, Hole – Pastefill | Round 0.30 m (12") |
| Hole – Dewatering | Round 0.35 m (14") |

---

Note: \* Based on final groundwater model, 10-inch lines will be used where 6-inch lines are shown in model. This is captured in the cost model.

June 2025 Page 170

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

13.10 Production Schedule

The Santa Cruz life-of-mine is expected to be 23 years, from 2029 to 2051, following three years of construction. Figure 13-7 and Table 13-7 shows the production included in the mine plan. Remnant stopes will have higher associated mining costs due to operational challenges. The "Ore" column represents the total development and production ore for Santa Cruz, Verde, and East Ridge orebodies. Figure 13-8 shows tonnes of material mined over the life of mine from the orebodies and development.

**Figure 13-7: Santa Cruz Tonne – Grade Graph**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img4.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 171

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-7: Santa Cruz Production Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Ore<br> (kt)** | **Total Copper<br> (%)** | **CNCu<br> (%)** | **AsCu<br> (%)** | **Cu_Res<br> (%)** | **Ratio<br> ASCU:TCU** |
| 2026 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2027 | 28 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.34 | 0.10 | 0.70 |
| 2028 | 1673 | 0.71 | 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.71 |
| 2029 | 3973 | 1.29 | 0.26 | 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.77 |
| 2030 | 5377 | 1.35 | 0.44 | 0.86 | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| 2031 | 6737 | 1.15 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.04 | 0.53 |
| 2032 | 7492 | 1.12 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.06 | 0.50 |
| 2033 | 7439 | 1.13 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2034 | 7875 | 1.02 | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.03 | 0.63 |
| 2035 | 7441 | 1.13 | 0.39 | 0.72 | 0.02 | 0.64 |
| 2036 | 7740 | 1.06 | 0.29 | 0.75 | 0.02 | 0.71 |
| 2037 | 7937 | 1.01 | 0.38 | 0.58 | 0.05 | 0.57 |
| 2038 | 7961 | 0.99 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 0.52 |
| 2039 | 7256 | 1.15 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.08 | 0.42 |
| 2040 | 7400 | 1.14 | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.46 |
| 2041 | 7819 | 1.05 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| 2042 | 7851 | 1.07 | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.48 |
| 2043 | 5956 | 1.07 | 0.34 | 0.68 | 0.05 | 0.64 |
| 2044 | 4177 | 1.04 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.03 | 0.48 |
| 2045 | 3732 | 1.04 | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.06 | 0.65 |
| 2046 | 3338 | 1.05 | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.06 | 0.64 |
| 2047 | 3453 | 1.00 | 0.26 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 0.69 |
| 2048 | 3586 | 1.07 | 0.36 | 0.65 | 0.06 | 0.60 |
| 2049 | 3655 | 0.99 | 0.41 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.53 |
| 2050 | 3643 | 1.04 | 0.29 | 0.67 | 0.08 | 0.65 |
| **2051** | 2636 | 0.92 | 0.14 | 0.66 | 0.12 | 0.71 |
| **Total** | **136173** | **1.08** | **0.41** | **0.62** | **0.05** | - |

---

June 2025 Page 172

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-8: Santa Cruz Tonnes of Mined Material**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img5.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

13.11 Mining Operations

13.11.1 Capital vs. Operating Development

Santa Cruz mine development will be divided between mining contractors for capital development, and Ivanhoe Electric personnel for operating development and production (Figure 13-9).

Contractor mining companies will bring experienced personnel and offer a short ramp-up period during early stages of the project. Contractor mining will be used for the boxcut excavation, lateral decline development with a roadheader, and drill and blast (capital) lateral development. Contractors will also be used for vertical development activities, including drilling, shaft sinking, and raiseboring (i.e., ventilation shafts, ventilation raises, orepasses, electrical, paste and dewatering service holes).

Ivanhoe Electric operations personnel will be responsible for production activities, including stope cut development excluding the first 13 m of the haul drift , truck haulage, production drilling, and stope mucking.

June 2025 Page 173

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-9: Santa Cruz Mine Capital vs. Operating Development & Production**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img6.jpg)

Note: Isometric view looking Northeast. Source: BBA, 2025.

13.11.2 Underground Material Handling System

In the Santa Cruz zone, ore will be transported by LHD from stopes to an orepass system, transferred by chute to a conveyor system, and then loaded on the Railveyor and brought to surface. At East Ridge, LHDs at stopes and drift-and-fill zones will load haul trucks, and material will be trucked to a dedicated Railveyor load point and brought to surface by the Railveyor.

Due to the planned high production rate from the Santa Cruz deposit, four to eight orepass accesses will be required on each level, depending on the overall length of the level. Orepasses are designed in V-formations with a 70° dip and 3 m diameter. This design increases the number of accesses available for production on levels above the conveyor loading level. Orepasses will be steel-lined in high-impact zones near the top of the ore bins. Steel-lined ore bins with average height of 40 m are planned at the bottom of each orepass system. Ore bins will feed a chute system to a small picking conveyor; the picking conveyor will then transfer material to the main conveyor on a conveyor loading level. Material will be transported on the conveyor system to the intersection with the Railveyor decline where material is loaded into Railveyor cars.

Self-cleaning magnets will be installed strategically at material transfer points to remove tramp steel introduced from mining activities. Conveyor levels will contain three to four ore bins depending on level length, and multiple conveyors legs for on-demand operation of certain orepass/ore bin systems as required for production. Figure 13-10 illustrates the material handling overview including the designed orepass system.

June 2025 Page 174

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-10: Santa Cruz Orepass System – Section View Looking Northeast**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img7.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 175

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Railveyor system is planned as a loop hybrid system. After loading, each train will travel forward to the unloading point. Once empty, the train will autonomously travel back to the loading point on a return track.

In the initial capital cost estimate, the Railveyor system includes drive station mechanical and electrical components, train cars, a 40 lb/yd steel track and associated materials, and control system components (i.e., communication cables, PLCs). The system will be capable of handling an average of 22,000 t/d production under ideal operating conditions. Mine production rates will fluctuate depending on the quantity of available production areas at different stages in the mine schedule. It is expected that the higher system capability of 22,000 t/d will be required to achieve a mine average production rate of 20,000 t/d during peak production years.

13.11.3 Backfill

Cemented paste will be used as the primary means of backfill to support the mining cycle and allow excavation of the adjacent voids. Cemented rockfill utilizing waste rock from the decline development will be used while stoping is ramping up through Q1 2029 and backfill demand is low. This coincides with initial availability of spent ore from the on/off pad as feed material for the paste system. Cemented paste backfill produced from milled spent ore will then be used for the remainder of the mine life. The milled spent ore requires conditioning prior to use in the backfill system to establish suitable properties for use as pastefill.

Mine backfill demand ramps up over the first two years of production (2029 and 2030) to ~1.6 Mm<sup>3</sup> of voids to be filled in 2030. During this initial phase, a single paste backfill production module and dedicated 8-inch pipeline underground distribution system with a design capacity of 250 m<sup>3</sup>/h is planned. In 2030, the estimated annual paste plant utilization peaks at approximately 74% for one module. A second backfill production module and parallel 8-inch pipeline underground distribution system is planned to start production by the end of 2030. Backfill demand increases to nearly 2.3 Mm<sup>3</sup> in 2031 and levels off around 3 Mm<sup>3</sup> per year over the remainder of the life of mine.

A paste backfill system rarely operates at a fixed operating point and the inputs into the system will naturally change through variation in the orebody and what is upstream of the paste plant. It is important to include flexibility within the system to accommodate for varying paste plant feeding material properties, paste backfill rheology, and other changes in process parameters. For the routing and paste pump pressure capacity of the underground distribution system, a yield stress range of between 150 and 450 Pa is specified. The expected paste solids concentration is in the range of 72% to 76% solids by weight for milled spent ore.

13.11.3.1 Milled Spent Ore Pastefill

Paste backfill testwork was completed on three milled spent ore samples produced at laboratory scale. A 300 to 500 µm top size was demonstrated to contain adequate fines to produce a stable paste and was carried forward in the design. Mineralogy consists primarily of quartz (~50%) and feldspars (~35%) with low contents of reactive clays, micas, and sulfides and are not expected to inhibit paste backfill strength gain. Although the use of milled spent ore as a paste plant feed material is not common, the material did not exhibit any problematic material properties or chemistry hindering backfill performance given neutralization and chloride washing are completed upstream.

June 2025 Page 176

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Ivanhoe Electric has garnered interest from suppliers to specifically provide slag cement for the paste backfill requirements. Paste testwork from the previous project study that used tailings produced from a milling, leaching and flotation process flow sheet for pastefill feed material is still considered a valid proxy for the milled spent ore pastefill feed as the mineralogy, chemistry and particle condition post washing and neutralization are similar. This UCS testwork with slag cement has been carried into the binder usage estimate, noting that: a) The tailing from the previous study was milled to a finer PSD with the coarsening of the milled spent ore demonstrated though testwork to be slightly beneficial to paste backfill strength gain; b) Commercial slag cement is preblended with alkali activators and a ratio of cement clinker which will differ between suppliers; c) Particularly for this paste backfill application, sufficient cement clinker must be present to achieve the early cure times required for the mining cycle and to prevent potential retarding of the cement hydration from residual chlorides and sulfates levels in the spent ore. This will need further testing prior to implementation, which is planned to proceed immediately post-study.

Spent ore requires chloride washing, pH neutralization with lime, and milling to produce a suitable feed material for paste. The spent ore is milled through an open circuit ball mill (no recirculation or cyclone sizing) to produce a high solids concentration discharge. The solids and water inputs are metered to maintain sufficient solids to feed the paste circuit without the requirement for dewatering at the paste plant. The mill material will discharge into a hopper and be pumped through an overland pipeline to the paste plant and paste mixer. In the mixer, trim water and binder will be added according to a programmed recipe to produce paste at the desired solids concentration and binder content.

The paste will overflow the mixer into a paste hopper that supplies a hydraulic piston paste pump. The paste will be pumped by pipeline via adjacent boreholes and the underground distribution system throughout the mine to the desired underground stopes. Binder will be delivered from the manufacturer's terminal to silos at the paste plant for metering into the mixer. A 1,200-tonne storage silo will provide sufficient binder for two days of paste operation with 120-tonne dosing silos providing buffer for metering. A clean water tank will supply water for metering into the mixer and pipeline flushing. A dedicated high-pressure flush pump will flush the underground distribution system when a paste pour is complete or as an emergency backup to clear the underground distribution system.

Two independent, parallel, modules with mixer, binder dosing silo with weigh belt and feeder, paste pump and pipeline will be installed for a combined design capacity of 500 m<sup>3</sup>/h. This will allow one or both modules to operate, filling two different stopes at a time.

13.11.3.2 Underground Distribution System

The paste will be pumped from the paste plant through two parallel boreholes (one for each operating paste module) located adjacent to the paste plant. The boreholes will enter the mine in a designated paste cuddy off the interconnecting drift between the Santa Cruz and East Ridge regions. Both pipelines will be routed along the back of the mine drift to Santa Cruz region with a transfer station to allow either line to be connected to East Ridge region through a series of spools. Both lines will be carried down the north side of the Santa Cruz region primarily through interlevel boreholes. At each borehole level breakthrough, a transition in a cuddy will be constructed to allow access for either line to a level or bypass to lower levels. In the lower levels of the mine, where mining occurs bottom up, the pipelines will follow the ramp system until level accesses are developed.

The paste backfill system is designed to operate under full flow conditions to minimize pipeline wear due to free fall and/or slack flow. The selection of the pipeline size is primarily based on ensuring that friction losses are minimized during normal operation.

13.11.3.3 Paste Strength Requirements

Placed paste strength requirements are summarized in Table 13-8.

June 2025 Page 177

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 13-8: Paste Strength Requirements**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Strength Requirement** | **Fill Strength Target<br> (UCS)** | **Cycle Time for Exposure** |
| Sidewall Exposure – Santa Cruz Domain (30 m) | 375 to 500 kPa (15 to 23 m span) | 10 to 14 days |
| Sidewall Exposure – Verde Domain (20 m) | 325 kPa (15 m span) | 4 to 7 days |
| Undercut (Sill Exposure) – Plug Pour (15 m High) | 1,600 kPa | On exposure |
| Undercut (Sill) Mass Pour (Above 15 m Height) | Per sidewall exposure/minimum paste strength/cap strength | Per sidewall exposure |
| Plug (Per Barricade Loading Assumption) | 210 kPa | 2 days |

---

13.11.4 Grade Control

Grade control will be facilitated using technology integrated into the materials handling system (e.g., cross-belt analyzers). Additionally, production hole sampling and onsite testing at the surface assay laboratory will be used to reconcile results against the mine plan.

13.11.5 Mine Ventilation & Refrigeration

The underground mine ventilation system was designed as a pull system, with the exhaust fans providing the negative pressure to ventilate the mine. All main fans are planned to be installed on surface, at the East Ridge ventilation shaft and the Santa Cruz ventilation shaft #1, while some booster fans will be required to control the ventilation flow underground.

The design ventilation capacity of the system is 940 m<sup>3</sup>/s, with the airflow provided from two declines and three ventilation shafts and one short raise feeding the declines close to the portals. Due to the ambient temperatures, the temperatures underground cannot be maintained below the maximum reject temperatures with ventilation only, so mechanical cooling is required. Cooling will be provided at the intakes through the central refrigeration plant with overland insulated piping and bulk air coolers installed adjacent to the portals and at the Santa Cruz shaft #2.

For flexibility and efficient operation of the ventilation system, all main fans and boosters will be equipped with variable frequency drives. This allows the speed of the fans to be adjusted according to the airflow required. The system has been designed to allow ventilation on demand, to monitor and control the ventilation system through automated regulators installed at the internal raise accesses. This ensures that adequate air quality is maintained on all working levels.

13.11.5.1 Airflow Requirements

The Santa Cruz ventilation system is designed to meet the minimum design velocity requirements at each active heading, ensuring sufficient airflow for heat and diesel dilution is provided in compliance with regulatory standards. This approach ensures good air quality and allows for the efficient clearance of mine blast gases.

June 2025 Page 178

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The airflow requirements for the Santa Cruz mine ventilation system are determined by the greater of 12.5 m³/s (based on a velocity of 0.5 m/s for a 5 m x 5 m heading) or 0.063 m³/s per operating horsepower in the active development/production heading. Cooling will be provided as necessary to manage heat. The overall ventilation system is designed for 940 m³/s to support the planned development and production activities. The ventilation milestones staged requirements are as follows:

· Stage 1: Declines Development (Q4 2027) 165 m³/s

· Stage 2: East Ridge Shaft Established (Q1 2028) 320 m³/s

· Stage 3: Santa Cruz Shaft #1 Established (Q3 2028) 450 m³/s

· Stage 4: Santa Cruz Shaft #2 Established (Q4 2029) 770 m³/s

· Stage 5: Block 3 Flowthrough Established (2036) 920 m³/s

· Stage 6: Life of Mine (2040) 940 m³/s

The ventilation is provided through two surface main fan stations at the East Ridge shaft and the Santa Cruz shaft #1. These fans will have a bifurcated arrangement, with fans installed in parallel and ducting connecting to a 5.5 m diameter raise.

13.11.5.2 Cooling Requirements

Due to the location of the mine, cooling will be required to condition the intake ventilation air. The cooling requirements considered the heat from the mobile equipment, auto-compression, strata heat, broken rock, fissure water ingress, and electrical loads. The peak ventilation cooling required is 20 megawatts of refrigeration (MWr) as outlined in Figure 13-11.

**Figure 13-11: Ventilation Cooling/Heat Load throughout Life of Mine**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img8.jpg)

Source: Stantec, 2025.

June 2025 Page 179

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Cooling will be provided through a centralized refrigeration plant. The refrigeration plant will have four chillers, each rated to provide 5 MWr of cooling capacity at the bulk air coolers, and four cooling towers to reject the heat from each chiller. The chillers, cooling towers, and bulk air coolers will be staged as additional cooling duty is required by the mine. The refrigeration plant is planned to have a total capacity of 20 MWr, with the bulk air coolers located at the intake portals raise and Santa Cruz Shaft #2. A cooling duty of 10 MWr is planned at each of these locations.

13.11.5.3 System Description

Access to the mine is planned through two declines: a service decline and a Railveyor decline (for handling materials). To support the development of the twin declines, flowthrough ventilation will be established, with fresh air being pushed through one decline and exhausted through the other. The declines will be ventilated through bulkhead fans at the bottom of the short intake raise close to the portals.

Roadheaders are planned for some of the headings. Ventilation for headings being developed with a roadheader will incorporate an exhausting ducted system with a wet scrubber for dust control. The intake air will be conditioned initially with a skid-mounted rental air handling system; this will later be replaced with a permanent bulk air cooler.

The development will proceed in stages, with shafts (East Ridge, Santa Cruz #1, Santa Cruz #2) established to support ventilation and production. Bulkheads, internal raises, and booster fan stations will be installed to direct the ventilation. Some of the bulkheads will include doors to allow access and louver regulators to control the airflow, with air quality stations monitoring the air flow. Auxiliary fans will be installed at the levels and ramps, and ducted to production or development headings as required.

Airflow to the mining areas will be provided through the twin declines and Santa Cruz Shaft #2. The exhaust from the mining areas will be directed either to (1) internal raises onto the conveyor levels and then to the main exhaust shafts; or (2) directly to the main exhaust shafts (East Ridge shaft and Santa Cruz Shaft #1). A schematic showing the planned life-of-mine ventilation is provided in Figure 13-11.

June 2025 Page 180

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 13-12: Life-of-Mine Ventilation Schematic**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img9.jpg)

Note: For clarity, auxiliary fans / ducts for development and production are not shown. Source: Stantec, 2025.

13.11.5.4 Auxiliary Ventilation

The auxiliary ventilation for the development and production headings<sup>1</sup> is planned to employ a forced ventilation system, with the fans pushing fresh air to the heading from the closest flowthrough ventilation, and exhaust from the heading returning through the drift. The auxiliary fans were sized based on the heading length and the mining activity. For production headings, a single auxiliary fan will be capable to support two active headings. Dampers will be installed within the ducting to control the flow to the heading, with 15 m<sup>3</sup>/s provided to each active production heading. One auxiliary fan will be capable of supporting two headings. While for the development headings, a dedicated development fan will be required per heading, with 30 m<sup>3</sup>/s provided to each development heading.

13.11.6 Underground Infrastructure

Proposed underground infrastructure will include the following:

· A compressed air system, supplied by large air
compressors located on surface. The main compressed air lines will be installed down the twin declines.

· Process water will consist of a gravity-fed system
from a surface pond via a raw water pump. Cased boreholes will be used to send process water between level service stations.

<sup>1</sup> Except for roadheader development, which will employ an exhausting system as described in Section 13.11.5.3.

June 2025 Page 181

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· An electrical system will be installed to support
the Railveyor system, road header development, production mining and infrastructure, development and construction, BEV charging stations,
conveyors, and surface ventilation fans. The system will include incoming 13.8 kV feeds, power distribution, power substation, primary
substation, secondary substation, infrastructure substation, mining substation, major and minor pumping substations, and conveyor substation.

· Leaky feeder and long-term evolution (LTE) cables
will be installed in the mine for underground communications.

· A control room on surface will allow supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) for monitoring and operation. There will also be a tele-remote control room for equipment operation,
a server room that contains PLCs and cabinets, and multiple operator stations for LHDs and production drills. Variable frequency drives
and starters for pumps, fans and other underground installations will be connected through the network to the PLC for monitoring and control.

· Fuel stations will be available for diesel, lubricant,
hydraulic fluid, and engine oil.

· A battery charging station for BEVs will be provided.

· Bulk underground explosives storage, and separate
detonator storage areas for development and production, are included in the design.

13.11.7 Personnel

The labor force will be divided into contractor and Ivanhoe Electric operations personnel. Peak numbers will include 432 Ivanhoe Electric personnel and 107 mine contract staff.

13.11.8 Mining Equipment Fleet

The mobile equipment fleet will consist of a combination of diesel, diesel/electric, and battery electric vehicles. In early development stages before charging infrastructure is constructed, diesel equipment will be primarily deployed. From the start of operations, development equipment will be composed of a diesel/BEV hybrid fleet (for few equipment types like emulsion loaders, LHDs, personnel carriers, etc.). The diesel equipment will transition to BEV-type equipment will be complete by 2033. During full production, BEV LHDs will be used instead of diesel equipment to reduce fuel and ventilation costs.

All mining equipment purchased by Ivanhoe Electric will be financed to reduce initial capital requirements. The financed equipment will be replaced with purchased equipment, Table 13-9 summarizes the mobile equipment required to be purchased by year. Contractor equipment fleet requirements are summarized in Tables 13-10 to 13-14. Major paste plant preparation and equipment are summarized in Table 13-15.

June 2025 Page 182

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table** 13-9: Peak Equipment Quantities Per Year – Owner's Fleet – Operating Development & Stoping**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment Type** | **Motive Power** | **Peak Year** | ***Count*** |
| Emulsion Loader (Development) – Diesel | Diesel/Electric | 2028 | 2 |
| Emulsion Loader (Development) – Electric | BEV/Electric | 2033 | 3 |
| Bolter | Diesel/Electric | 2033 | 10 |
| Boom Truck | Diesel | 2031 | 6 |
| Cable Bolter | Diesel/Electric | 2031 | 3 |
| Raise Bore (Production Slot) | Diesel/Electric | 2023 | 6 |
| Emulsion Loader (Production) – Diesel | Diesel/Electric | 2029 | 2 |
| Emulsion Loader (Production) – Electric | BEV/Electric | 2034 | 4 |
| Forklift – Diesel | Diesel | 2029 | 2 |
| Forklift – Battery Electric | BEV | 2033 | 4 |
| Jumbo | Diesel/Electric | 2030 | 4 |
| LHD – Diesel | Diesel | 2031 | 6 |
| LHD – Battery Electric | BEV | 2033 | 11 |
| Cleanup LHD | Diesel | 2029 | 2 |
| Longhole Drill | Diesel/Electric | 2031 | 7 |
| Scissor Lift – Diesel | Diesel | 2028 | 2 |
| Scissor Lift – Battery Electric | BEV | 2033 | 4 |
| Shotcrete Sprayer | Diesel/Electric | 2028 | 8 |
| Transmixer | Diesel | 2028 | 2 |
| Truck | Diesel | 2031 | 4 |
| Rock breaker | Diesel | 2030 | 2 |
| Fuel/Lube truck | Diesel | 2028 | 2 |
| Grader | Diesel | 2028 | 1 |
| Telehandler | Diesel | 2031 | 3 |
| Mechanic Truck | Diesel | 2030 | 2 |
| Personnel Carrier (32-person) | Diesel | 2031 | 4 |
| Safety – Diesel | Diesel | 2028 | 1 |
| Safety – Battery Electric | BEV | 2033 | 1 |
| Engineering/Surveyor/Geology – Diesel | Diesel | 2028 | 3 |
| Engineering/Surveyor/Geology | BEV | 2033 | 5 |
| Shifter – Diesel | Diesel | 2031 | 4 |
| Shifter – Battery Electric | BEV | 2033 | 6 |
| Rescue Vehicle | Diesel | 2028 | 1 |
| Explosive transport truck | Diesel | 2028 | 2 |
| Mobile Batch Plant | Diesel | 2028 | 2 |
| **Total** |  |  |  |

---

June 2025 Page 183

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table** 13-10: Contractor's Fleet – Capital Decline Development – in Alluvium & Conglomerate**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **2026** | **2027** |
| Tunnel Excavator | 2 | 2 |
| Loading Excavator | 2 | 2 |
| Underground Haul Truck | 2 | 2 |
| Load Haul Dump Truck | 2 | 2 |
| Telehandler with Suspended Personnel Platform | 2 | 2 |
| Shotcrete Sprayer | 2 | 2 |
| Transmixer | 2 | 2 |
| **Total** | **18** | **18** |

---

**Table** 13-11: Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **2027** | **2028** | **2029** | **2035** |
| Road Header | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Loading Excavator | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Underground Haul Truck | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Load Haul Dump Truck | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Telehandler with Suspended Personnel Platform | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Shotcrete Sprayer | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Transmixer | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| **Total** | **14** | **18** | **18** | **10** |

---

**Table** 13-12: Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock – Other Equipment**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **2029** | **2030** | **2035** |
| Powder Truck | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ammonium Nitrate / Fuel Oil (ANFO) Pot | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Load/Haul/Dump (LHD) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| **Total** | **3** | **3** | **3** |

---

**Table** 13-13: Contractor's Fleet – Capital Development – in Bedrock – Support Equipment**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **2029** | **2030** | **2035** |
| Grader | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Service/Lube Truck | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Service Truck | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Flatbed Pickup | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Diesel Buggies | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Scissor Deck | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Watertruck | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| **Total** | **9** | **9** | **9** |

---

June 2025 Page 184

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table** 13-14: Total Equipment Quantities Per Year – Contractor's Fleet – Other Capital Development**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **Peak Year** | **Quantity** |
| Jumbo | 2028 | 4 |
| Explosives Loader | 2028 | 3 |
| Load/Haul/Dump (LHD) | 2028 | 4 |
| Bolter | 2028 | 6 |
| Shotcrete | 2028 | 1 |
| Transmixer | 2028 | 2 |
| Scissor Lift | 2028 | 4 |
| Forklift | 2028 | 2 |
| Personnel Carrier | 2028 | 4 |
| Trucks | 2028 | 2 |
| Raisebore (for Vertical Development) | 2028 | 1 |
| **Total** |  | **34** |

---

**Table** 13-15: Total Equipment Quantities Per Year – Contractor's Fleet – Paste Preparation Plant**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** **Type** | **Peak Year** | **Quantity** |
| Paste Material Prep Ball Mill | 2028 | 1 |
| Continuous Paste Mixer | 2028 | 2 |
| Paste Pump | 2028 | 2 |
| Binder Storage Silo | 2028 | 1 |
| Binder Dosing Silo | 2028 | 2 |
| Flush Pump | 2028 | 2 |
| **Total** |  | **10** |

---

June 2025 Page 185

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **14** | **Process & Recovery Methods** |

---

14.1 Process Method Selection

Process for the Santa Cruz Copper Project has been designed to cycle oxide and secondary sulfide ores through an on/off heap leach to produce a copper-rich pregnant leach solution (PLS) that will be processed in the onsite solvent extraction / electrowinning (SX/EW) circuit for recovery.

The process designs were based on existing technologies and proven equipment. The process and refinery plant designs are based on the results of metallurgical testwork on the mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project. The designs are conventional.

14.2 Processing Overview & Flowsheets

The proposed Santa Cruz Copper Project processing facilities will include the following operations:

· coarse ore stockpile

· primary crushing

· secondary crushing

· tertiary crushing

· agglomeration

· heap leaching

· solvent extraction (SX)

· electrowinning (EW)

· reagent preparation and distribution

· water treatment and distribution

· compressed air

A simplified overall process flow diagram is presented in Figure 14-1.

June 2025 Page 186

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 14-1: Simplified Process Flowsheet**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img10.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

14.3 Metallurgical Design Basis

Metallurgical design parameters for the facilities are based on the metallurgical testwork discussed in Section 10. The key metallurgical parameters derived from the metallurgical testwork program are presented in Table 14-1.

**Table 14-1: Key Metallurgical Testwork Parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Unit** | **Design Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach Feed Particle Size | mm | sub-9.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bulk Density for Stacking & Volumetric Calculations | t/m<sup>3</sup> | 1.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Solids Density | t/m<sup>3</sup> | 2.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sodium Chloride (NaCl) Addition to Agglomeration | kg/t | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Acid Addition | kg/t | 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Irrigation Rate | L/h/m<sup>2</sup> | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Residual Moisture | wt % | 6.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Overall Copper Recovery | % | 92.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Concentration of Soluble Copper in Residual Moisture | g/L | 0.35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Work Index of Spent Ore | kWh/t | 14.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Crusher Work Index of Ore | kWh/t | 4.0 |

---

June 2025 Page 187

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

14.4 Process Plant

Ore produced from the underground mine will be processed using a heap leach and SX/EW flowsheet to produce London Metal Exchange (LME) Grade A copper cathode. The heap leaching process will take place on an on/off pad. Spent ore will be removed from the on/off leach pad and processed for paste backfill or placed in a spent ore storage facility. Approximately 50% of the spent ore will be processed for use in paste backfill. Operations will be conducted 24 hours per day, 365 days per year for approximately 24 years at a design daily stacking rate of up to 22,000 tonnes.

14.4.1 Major Process Equipment Design Criteria and Selection

Major process design criteria are presented in Table 14-2. Major process equipment specifications are presented in Table 14-3.

**Table 14-2: Major Process Design Criteria**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Unit** | **Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Information** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Information** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Information** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing & Agglomeration Annual Operating Hours | h/y | 6570 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SX/EW Annual Operating Hours | h/y | 8497 |
| **Ore Production** | **Ore Production** | **Ore Production** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Life-of-Mine Ore Production | Mt | 136 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stacking Rate | t/d | 22000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Plant Feed Grade (Life of Mine)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Plant Feed Grade (Life of Mine)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Plant Feed Grade (Life of Mine)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Acid Soluble Copper | % | 0.63 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cyanide Soluble Copper | % | 0.42 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Residual Copper | % | 0.05 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Copper | % | 1.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Life-of-Mine Total Copper Recovery | % | 92.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Design Annual Copper Production | t/y | 76000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leaching (On/Off Pad)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leaching (On/Off Pad)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Heap Leaching (On/Off Pad)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cell Dimensions | L x W (m) | 640 x 130 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Number of Cells | no. | 7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lift Height (Single Lift) | m | 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Leach Solution** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Leach Solution** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Leach Solution** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pregnant Leach Solution / Raffinate Flow Rate (Average) | m<sup>3</sup>/h | 2000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Leach Solution Flow Rate (Average) | m<sup>3</sup>/h | 1300 |

---

June 2025 Page 188

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 14-3: Major Process Equipment**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **Number** | **Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Crusher | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;C160 Jaw |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Crusher | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MP1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Crusher | 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;MP1000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Screen | 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3 m x 6.7 m inclined; double-deck; banana |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach Stacking System | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mobile conveyors with radial stacker |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SX Circuit | 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Two trains each of (two extraction + two wash + one strip) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EW Circuit | 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124 cells with 84 cathodes each, 2.3 m<sup>2</sup> per cathode |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EW Rectifier | 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Output current (maximum) 67 kA / 287 V |

---

14.5 Crushing, Agglomeration & Stacking

14.5.1 Crushing

Run-of-mine ore will be delivered to surface at sub 20 cm diameter via Railveyor. Ore from underground will be either fed, via surge hopper, to the jaw crusher for primary crushing or diverted and conveyed to the coarse ore stockpile for future use. From the underground Railveyor, ore will be introduced to a vibrating grizzly feeder that will divert fines around the primary crusher, thereby reducing the required crusher volumetric throughput. The primary crusher will be a jaw-type crusher. A metal removal magnet and subsequent metal detector situated on the grizzly feed conveyor will be used to remove and prevent tramp metal from underground from entering the jaw crusher.

Crushed ore discharged from the primary crusher will be combined with grizzly undersize and fed to the secondary crusher, which will operate in open circuit. The secondary crusher will be a cone crusher of the same model as the tertiary crusher; however, it will be operated with a different liner set and different close side setting. Secondary crusher discharge will be combined with tertiary crusher discharge and fed to the tertiary crusher closing screens. The two tertiary closing screens will be large banana-type, dual-deck screens. Screen undersize (crushing circuit product), at 100% passing 9.5 mm, will be conveyed to two truck loadout hoppers. The loadout hoppers will serve to buffer the continuous crushing circuit to the batch mode trucking operation. Ore will be trucked from the crushing circuit to the portable agglomeration drums located at the leach pad. Crushing circuit product screen oversize will be returned to the tertiary crushing feed conveyor for further crushing. The tertiary crushing circuit will comprise two cone crushers arranged in parallel configuration.

Dust generated during crushing, screening, and conveying will be captured using dry-type dust collectors and controlled using mist generators where appropriate. The crushing circuit will be located outdoors, and maintenance lifting will be performed by mobile crane.

June 2025 Page 189

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

14.5.2 Agglomeration

Fine ore (undersize from the tertiary crushing circuit screens) will be trucked to the agglomeration drums where sulfuric acid and sodium chloride can be added to facilitate agglomeration and leaching. Haul trucks will dump into a surge hopper from where two apron feeders will supply the two parallel agglomeration drums. Feed to the agglomeration drums will be measured for the ratio addition of reagents. The agglomeration drums will be mounted on a mobile module that will be relocated to each cell of the on/off pad as required. The salt silo will be located near the truck loadout hoppers and salt will be added to each truck loadout hopper via screw conveyor based on a tonnage ratio. Acid will be trucked to the mobile agglomeration module and transferred to a day tank from which a metering pump will add the desired amount of acid to the drum. Salt will be received in bulk and blown into a silo for storage.

14.5.3 Stacking

Crushed ore will be delivered to the leach pad via a combination of haul truck and overland conveying and stacking equipment. Agglomerated ore will discharge onto a transfer conveyor which will feed a series of grasshopper-type mobile conveyors. The final mobile conveyor will feed two self-propelled indexing conveyors in series, which in turn will feed the self-propelled mobile radial stacker. The cells will be 'retreat' stacked by the radial stacker in a 130 m wide half-moon shape.

14.6 On/Off Heap Leach

14.6.1 On/Off Heap Leach Pad

The on/off heap leach pad will be underlain by a liner system, comprising:

· a high-density polyethylene geomembrane, overlying:

· a geosynthetic clay liner, overlying:

· prepared native foundation materials or compacted
grading fill.

The liner system will be overlain by a drainage system comprising perforated pipes at 6 m spacing, installed in 0.5 m thick drainage layer of select, processed ore and/or waste rock. The perforated pipes will connect to a main collector pipe which runs down the center of each cell that conveys solution to the collection ponds. The drainage system has been sized to convey the design irrigation rate (8 L/h/m<sup>2</sup>) and a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.

The stability of the on/off heap leach pad was analyzed under static and pseudo-static loading conditions and meets the criteria for the factor of safety outlined in the Arizona Mining BADCT Guidance Manual (ADEQ 2005). Laboratory testing results on project-specific materials (e.g., spent ore, liner system interfaces) were used to estimate engineering parameters for the stability models.

14.6.2 Solution Management

Solution will be managed in a series of lined ponds, as follows:

· raffinate pond

· raffinate storm water pond

· pregnant leach solution pond

· pregnant leach solution stormwater pond

· secondary pregnant leach solution (SLS) pond

· spent ore area storm water ponds.

June 2025 Page 190

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The pond system has been sized to contain normal operating solutions and stormwater. The entire site will be fenced to reduce the risk of danger to wildlife. Water that accumulates in the stormwater ponds will be periodically pumped to the primary solution ponds to maintain the level and prevent discharge to the environment. The liner systems for each pond follow Prescriptive BADCT guidelines for process solution ponds (ADEQ 2005), and comprise:

· a UV resistant high-density polyethylene geomembrane,
overlying:

· a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS)
comprising a geonet, gravity-draining to a sump to allow for leak monitoring and leachate removal, overlying:

· a high-density polyethylene geomembrane, overlying:

· a geosynthetic clay liner, overlying:

· prepared native foundation materials, compacted
grading fill, or compacted pond embankment fill.

The SLS pond and solution management will be used to support extended leach cycles during secondary sulfide leaching by returning selected copper solutions to the top of the heap leach pad thereby achieving high copper extractions.

The proposed locations of the solution management ponds are depicted in Figure 14-2. The design of the heap leach facility is planned to be operated as zero-discharge.

June 2025 Page 191

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 14-2: Seven-Cell Heap Solution Management**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img11.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

June 2025 Page 192

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

14.6.3 Heap Leach Process

The on/off heap leach pad will be divided into seven cells, each with dimensions of 130 m x 640 m and a spacer strip of 25 m wide between the cells, effectively creating multiple leach pads. Initial capital will include three cells and associated spacer strips. An additional cell and associated strip will be required in Years 2 and 3 of operation, respectively, and the two final cells and a single spacer will be required in Year 4 of operation.

The cells will be 'retreat' stacked by radial stacker in a 130 m wide half-moon shape. Agglomerated ore will be fed to the stacker by mobile conveyors. The leach stack (single lift at angle-of-repose) height will be 6 meters.

Ore will be stacked at 22,000 t/d; therefore, it will take approximately 36 days to stack each cell at design production rate. Each of the cells will progress through the following cycles in sequence with each stacking cycle taking 36 days and an entire cell cycle taking 265 days:

· stacking (36 days)

· piping connections and stacker relocation (2
days)

· irrigation in five 36-day cycles (180 days)

· drain down, water rinse, drain down, and piping
removal (30 days)

· spent ore removal (28 days)

· inspection and rehabilitation (2 days).

The cells will be irrigated with raffinate (depleted pregnant leach solution from the SX process). Leach solution will report to the pregnant leach solution pond. At the end of the leach cycle, spent ore will be removed using loaders and trucks.

Pregnant leach solution will report to the solvent extraction circuit and raffinate will return to the heap from solvent extraction at a flowrate of 2,000 m<sup>3</sup>/h. The pad configuration and solution management presented in Figure 14-3 are planned.

Secondary sulfides in the ore will require oxygen for leaching. Air will be supplied to each cell by blowing air using two dedicated fans per cell. In total, there will be 14 fans; however, only six will be operating at any given time. Air piping will also be installed in a gravel layer of select, processed ore / waste rock beneath the stacked ore at an elevation above the drainage system. For each cell, two fans will discharge to an air header. The air tubes will have perforated air holes for air distribution.

June 2025 Page 193

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 14-3: Solution Management Ponds, Leach Pad & Spent Ore Piles**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp7img12.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025

June 2025 Page 194

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

14.6.4 Spent Ore Management

Due to geometry constraints of the site, two spent ore piles are proposed. The first will be constructed south of the leach pad and will contain approximately the first six years of production and will be constructed during the first year of operations and staged as appropriate, growing to the south as required. The second spent ore stock pile will be constructed north of the leach pad with the capacity to contain the remainder of the spent ore. Figure 14-3 shows the proposed location of the spent ore piles.

Spent ore (leached) will be left on the heap leach pad to drain for 10 days. Upon completion of irrigation piping removal, the spent ore will be removed using loaders and excavators and trucked to either the relevant spent ore pile or the paste backfill preparation plant. Following removal, the heap leach pad will be inspected and rehabilitated as required prior to the start of the next cycle that will begin with stacking.

The spent ore piles will be underlain by a high-density polyethylene geomembrane on top of prepared foundation or compacted grading fill. The geomembrane will be covered by a 1-meter-thick, compacted, protection layer of carefully placed spent ore. The portion of the stockpiles below the ultimate piles slopes will be compacted for pile stability. Runoff water will be collected in adjacent ponds for reuse in the process. Ultimately, the spent ore waste piles will be shaped, covered, and vegetated once production has ceased.

Additionally, during ramp-down years it will be possible to leave spent ore on the on/off pad, creating a third waste pile if required.

14.6.5 Solvent Extraction

In the solvent extraction plant, copper is selectively removed (extracted) from the aqueous pregnant leach solution in mixers, using an "organic" extractant. The denser aqueous and lighter organic phases are then separated in settlers. This leaves the aqueous solution (now termed "raffinate") containing all other solutes (notably chloride, acid, and iron) which is returned to the heap leach via the raffinate pond. Any residual aqueous solution entrained in the organic phase is removed in a washing stage.

Next, the copper-loaded organic is stripped using a highly acidic solution from the electrowinning plant (lean electrolyte), whereby the copper is transferred at a higher concentration to the electrolyte (now termed "rich electrolyte") and delivered to the electrowinning plant for recovery as cathode.

The solvent extraction circuit design comprises two parallel trains. Each train will consist of two extraction stages, two wash stages, and one strip stage.

Organic will be circulated through the extraction, washing, and stripping stages. A surge tank with pumps for loaded organic will be situated between the final extraction stage and the (first) wash stage. Entrained aqueous will be drained from this tank and returned to the extraction circuit.

Pregnant leach solution from the leach pad will be pumped through the two extraction settlers in series in countercurrent fashion with barren organic to extract copper. The barren organic will become loaded organic and will enter an organic surge tank. The loaded organic will then be pumped through the wash stage(s) to the strip settler. Water will be added to the wash stages to remove as much of the high-chloride aqueous as possible via dilution. The cleaned organic will then proceed to the strip stage.

June 2025 Page 195

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Lean-electrolyte will be fed to the strip stage where it will extract copper from the loaded organic to form rich-electrolyte. This stream of rich electrolyte will enter a surge tank and be pumped through a coalescing column to remove the majority of the entrained organic. The partially cleaned rich electrolyte will be stored in another surge tank and then pumped through dual media filters to reduce the entrained organic to approximately 5 ppm. These filters will be periodically backwashed with demineralized water, which will be returned to the raffinate. The electrolyte product will then enter an electrowinning cell feed tank system where it will be mixed with a portion of the lean electrolyte and reagents to form electrowinning cell feed electrolyte. This electrolyte will be pumped to the electrowinning circuit. The electrowinning circuit will require a higher flowrate than the strip settler, so the flow will be increased by circulating cell return lean electrolyte.

Initially, only one solvent extraction train will be installed together with the tank farm, treatment, and PLS and raffinate pond facilities. As the PLS solution flow grows, a second train will be constructed during the second year of operation for use in Year 3.

14.7 Electrowinning

The copper electrowinning tankhouse will comprise electrowinning cells with calcium-tin-lead rolled plate anodes and stainless-steel cathode blanks. Cathodes (copper electroplated onto stainless steel blanks) will be harvested manually using an overhead crane and bail. Positioning devices on the crane and cells will assist the crane operator with alignment. Cathodes will be stripped in an industry standard automated stripping machine and the washed blanks will be returned to the cells. Product cathode will be bundled, sampled, weighed, labeled, and shipped.

The electrowinning cells and stripping machine will be located within a building. The cells will be individually covered to contain acid mist that naturally evolves from the solution surface. Covered cells will provide a safe working environment for the operators and capture acid mist prior to release to the atmosphere. Captured cell gases and aerosols will be scrubbed prior to release to the environment.

14.7.1 Reagent Preparation & Distribution

Sulfuric acid, guar, cobalt sulfate, extractant, diluent, and sodium chloride will be used in the process (Table 14-4). Where appropriate, reagent mix tanks will be provided with bag breakers and dust collectors. Each reagent makeup area will be equipped with independent containment and a dedicated sump. Bagged reagents will be stored under cover in the site warehouse.

**Table 14-4: Proposed Reagent & Process Consumables**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Reagent & Consumables** | **Units** | **Consumption Rate** |
| **Reagents** | | |
| Sodium Chloride | kg/t<sub>ore</sub> | 1 |
| Sulfuric Acid | kg/t<sub>ore</sub> | 6 |
| Makeup Water | kg/t<sub>ore</sub> | 723 |
| Guar | kg/t<sub>cathode</sub> | 0.18 |
| Cobalt Sulfate | kg/t<sub>cathode</sub> | 0.29 |
| Extractant | kg/t<sub>cathode</sub> | 2.53 |
| Diluent | kg/t<sub>cathode</sub> | 7.11 |

---

June 2025 Page 196

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Liners and Grinding Media** | | |
| Primary Crusher – Liners | set/y | 2 |
| Secondary & Tertiary Crushers – Liners | set/y | 9 |

---

14.8 Raw Water

Makeup water (water sourced by natural means that has not been treated) will be sourced from existing grandfathered Type I non-irrigation rights and mine dewatering. Mine dewatering will report to a surface pond for storage, sedimentation, and eventual discharge to agricultural end users. A portion of the makeup water will be used untreated by the process, while a portion will be treated in the reverse-osmosis plant and used for the wash settlers, reagent mixing, and electrowinning circuit. Mine dewatering will provide a sufficient supply of makeup water for the life-of-mine plan.

Further discussion of water is discussed in Sections 3.2.3, 15.6, 15.7, and 17.2.

14.9 Air Supply

A compressed air distribution system will be included to supply required process air to the plant—primarily to the crusher area. Instrument air will be included for instrumentation and controls.

14.10 Power

Power supplies are discussed in Section 15.5.

14.11 Personnel

The process personnel count is 121 persons. See Section 18.3.2.1.3 for a breakdown of crew for each circuit.

June 2025 Page 197

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **15** | **Infrastructure** |

---

15.1 Surface Infrastructure

The Santa Cruz Copper Project site surface infrastructure comprises the following:

· an open excavation 60 m deep "box
cut" ramp for accessing a twin decline portal to the underground mine workings

· three ventilation shafts to facilitate air flows
to the underground mine workings

· primary mine ventilation fans, hardware, and
ducting to control ventilation to the mine workings

· refrigeration plant to control temperatures in
the underground mine workings

· ventilation bore for refrigeration

· rock crushing process plant and temporary stockpiles

· two spent ore facilities; north and south pads

· on/off leach pad with associated collection ponds
and mobile stacking

· SX/EW process facilities

· mobile cement batch plant facility

· paste backfill preparation and pumping facility

· maintenance and warehouse facilities

· first aid/rescue building

· multiple various ancillary outbuildings

· entry security shack and various visitor and
employee parking spaces

· equipment delivery and open laydown/storage area

· multiple improved and unimproved access roads

· piping and pumping systems for process and water
services

· explosives storage facility

· high-voltage transmission line and substation

· environmental monitoring facilities

· emergency power generation facility

· solar power and battery storage facility.

Key infrastructure locations are shown on Figure 15-1.

June 2025 Page 198

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 15-1: Santa Cruz Site Plan**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img01.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

15.1.1 Roads & Logistics

The project is accessed by all-weather road networks, as discussed in Section 4, along with rail and air access.

June 2025 Page 199

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

15.1.2 On/Off Leach Pads

On/off heap leach pads are discussed in Section 14.6.

15.1.3 Spent Ore Storage Facilities

Spent ore storage facilities are discussed in Section 14.6.1.

15.1.4 Power & Electrical

Power for the project will be provided from a combination of onsite renewable energy supply and utility grid supply. The goal of the mine development is to achieve a minimum of 70% of the energy supply from renewable sources. The renewables sources will include onsite solar generation and a battery energy storage system (Section 15.1.4.1) as well as the option of "Green Select" (power from renewable sources) from the local power utility provider, ED3, based on availability.

15.1.4.1 Renewable Power

This report proposes a hybrid power system consisting of onsite photovoltaic (PV) solar generation built by a third-party developer in conjunction with a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) facilitated by local power provider ED3 plus onsite battery energy storage to help meet site power demands in addition to utility-provided grid power. The renewables facility was sized based on available area and to provide 40 MW of continuous power annually with over

90% load coverage. The solar plus battery energy storage system (BESS) facility will have seasonal efficiency fluctuations due to the difference in daily sun exposure between summer and winter. The "de-rate" target (~15 MW) for the proposed system will be able to service in the wintertime to a 90% confidence level based on the used weather data set. The solar output was calculated utilizing a P<sub>90</sub> meteorological data set.

The proposed onsite BESS consists of a lithium-ion (Li-ion) system rated for 140 MW / 560 MWh. There is an additional opportunity to utilize the emerging vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB) technology. A percentage of Li-ion BESS could be replaced by a VRFB system. VRB Energy USA Inc. is the license holder of vanadium redox battery technology in the United States and is a wholly owned subsidiary of VRB Energy Inc., a 90%-owned and controlled subsidiary of Ivanhoe Electric.

15.1.4.2 Utility Power

Regular, grid-supplied power will be sourced from Pinal County Electrical District Number 3 (ED3), which is a small, local supplier to the Maricopa-Stanfield area. ED3's jurisdiction also includes the Maricopa Stanfield irrigation and drainage district. Figure 15-2 shows the existing power transmission lines and the potential routing options for the 69 kV transmission line installation. Option A routes the 69 kV transmission line north from Sexton Substation along Anderson Road and turns east on Clayton to the main substation. Option B routes the 69 kV transmission line in the ADOT right-of-way east on Highway 84, located on the north side of the highway, then turns north just before Midway Road to the main substation.

June 2025 Page 200

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 15-2: Transmission Lines Near the Santa Cruz Copper Project**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img02.jpg)

Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2025.

15.1.4.3 Power Distribution

The nearest ED3 substation (Sexton) is to the west at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 84 and South Anderson Road, 5 km from the planned Santa Cruz main substation at the project site. Long-term grid power to the site will be from a new 69 kV transmission line from Sexton, installed and operated by ED3. At the Santa Cruz main substation, power will be dropped from 69 kV to 13.8 kV for site-wide power distribution.

15.1.4.4 Power Consumption

The Santa Cruz Copper Project will have an estimated operating load of 78.7 MW and a forecast annual consumption of between 580,000 and 690,000 MWh during peak production years.

June 2025 Page 201

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The estimated operating load for the underground mine equipment is forecast to average 42.5 MW with peak operating power around 52 MW. The estimated total annual energy consumption attributed to the underground mine over the life of mine is estimated to average 300,000 MWh/y, peaking approximately 368,000 MWh/y.

The average estimated operating load of the Santa Cruz Paste Plant is 13.4 MW; with the average annual power consumption at 77,000 MWh/y, peaking at approximately 109,000 MWh/y.

The estimated average operating load for the Santa Cruz surface facilities is forecast to be 25.9 MW; the estimated annual power consumption during peak production years is forecast to be approximately 223,000 MWh/y.

15.1.5 Gas Pipelines

A natural gas pipeline crosses the project area and accesses various adjacent residential customers, farms, and businesses. There is currently no plan for the use of natural gas during project development or operations, so the section of the natural gas pipeline that crosses through the proposed facilities will be abandoned and relocated during early-stage project development.

15.1.6 Water Supply

Water supply for processing operations will be sourced from existing grandfathered Type I non-irrigation rights and mine dewatering, as discussed in Section 14.8.

Potable water will be trucked in from the city. Trucked water will be stored in a tank to service the surface facilities.

15.1.7 Water Management

Water management operations include systems of underground dewatering, water collection and conveyance facilities, water storage, water use, and various management options for discharge of excess water. Water not used for underground mining, the paste backfill plant, the process plant, and the on/off heap leach pad will be pumped to storage reservoirs. Rapid infiltration basins are used to capture non-contact stormwater runoff to prevent stormwater from coming into contact with mining operations.

Testwork completed confirmed that the extracted groundwater quality will be acceptable for irrigation use when applied to suitable crops (e.g., cotton, alfalfa, pasture grasses) commonly grown in the vicinity of the project. The water distribution system is designed to distribute water to agricultural end-users, without treatment, and includes a side-stream water treatment process that may be used if the extracted groundwater does not meet the standards defined by end-users.

15.1.7.1 Water Balance

The site-wide water balance has been developed to help with understanding the various water flows of the mine infrastructure for the project. The site-wide water balance is based on the process flow diagram presented in Figure 15-3 and is used to predict potential water use, surpluses, and deficits for the site and mine water management infrastructure, including the mine dewatering ponds, stormwater management ponds, pregnant leach solution pond, and secondary pregnant leach solution pond, over the life of mine and into post-closure. Ultimately, there are four primary water use demands for the project: underground process, on/off heap leach pad, process plant, and paste backfill plant.

June 2025 Page 202

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 15-3: Water Balance Process Flow Diagram**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img03.jpg)

Source: Geosyntec, 2025.

June 2025 Page 203

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The primary source of water for use on the project is the underground mine water inflows encountered while developing the mine workings. Mine inflows and process waters will be collected within the underground mine water management infrastructure and pumped to the mine dewatering ponds on surface for on-site usage, off-site distribution, and, if needed, treatment. The annual dewatering estimate is approximately 15.85 Mm<sup>3</sup>/y at peak development. The water balance described below focuses on the first 10 years of mine development with an estimated average inflow of 11 Mm³/y. Approximately 99,500 m<sup>3</sup>/y is estimated to be required for underground mine processing needs. Details on the heap leach pad process are provided in Section 14.6. Additionally, evaporative losses outside of the heap leach pad are estimated to be approximately 305,000 m<sup>3</sup>/y; total evaporative losses are estimated at 5.25 Mm<sup>3</sup>/y. The ratios of water used between each process are anticipated to remain relatively constant throughout the life of mine. Excess water will be stored within ponds for future onsite water use or conveyed off site for agricultural end-users.

The paste backfill plant will use a portion of spent ore to create a paste that is returned to the underground mine. The plant will use water from the mine dewatering pond to create a slurry that consists of approximately 25% water and 75% solids.

Stormwater can additionally be used as makeup water for various processing activities throughout the site. Contact water runoff from the leach pad, spent ore stockpile, and process plant will be collected in segregated stormwater ponds to act as makeup water reservoirs for the raffinate pond or will be conveyed to the mine dewatering pond. This stormwater management pond is sized to accept approximately 50,000 m<sup>3</sup> of runoff, and the spent ore stormwater management pond is sized to accept approximately 22,000 m<sup>3</sup> of runoff.

Water losses on site will include evaporation, particularly at the on/off leach pad, water distribution center, process plant stormwater management pond, and as moisture retained in the spent ore. Evaporative and retained moisture losses at the on/off leach pad are conservatively estimated to be approximately 4.5 Mm<sup>3</sup>/y. As a result, it is anticipated that makeup water demands could range between 230 to 950 m<sup>3</sup>/h. Evaporative losses from the ponds on site are estimated to be 180,000 m<sup>3</sup>/y.

Based on preliminary findings, sufficient water is anticipated to be available for the facilities that require water reuse at site.

15.1.7.2 Water Treatment

The results from the groundwater quality and flow models (Section 7) have been used to develop a water treatment and distribution strategy for groundwater extracted during mining operations and for collected stormwater. Groundwater extraction flow rates are defined based on the groundwater inflow model developed by INTERA, which is further discussed in Section 7.4.3. Results from the groundwater inflow model indicate increasing groundwater extraction flows over the life of mine, with extraction flows from approximately 22.71 m<sup>3</sup>/h in February 2027 to approximately 1,806 m<sup>3</sup>/h in November 2045. The treatment and distribution systems will be built in stages to accommodate the varying groundwater extraction flow rates. This phased approach provides multiple benefits, allowing time to gain insight on the site's actual water flows and quality so that distribution and treatment design can be expanded or modified, if required.

June 2025 Page 204

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

15.1.8 Built Infrastructure

15.1.8.1 Camps & Accommodation

Onsite accommodations facilities are neither required nor planned. Personnel will reside in nearby settlements including Casa Grande, Maricopa, the Phoenix metropolitan area, and Tucson, and will commute to site by vehicle. Parking, security, fencing, and a gatehouse are included in the design.

15.1.8.2 Ancillary buildings

The following is a list of infrastructure buildings to be built on site:

· explosive magazine storage

· cap magazine storage

· core shack

· process lab

· security / main gate

· fueling station

· mine/plant operations building

· change house / mine dry

· first aid and emergency rescue facilities

· mining facility warehouse.

15.2 QP Opinion

Fluor is of the opinion that the infrastructure needs and sources are well-understood and have been interpreted from reliable studies and evaluations by experts in this field.

The level of assessment and design are appropriate for level of engineering and represent good industry practice.

June 2025 Page 205

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **16** | **Market Study** |

---

16.1 Market Information

Ocean Partners (2025) completed a market study for Ivanhoe Electric on copper and precious metals for the Santa Cruz Copper Project. The QP reviewed the study and has summarized the findings of this study in this section.

Copper is a globally traded commodity that has established benchmark pricing in the form of exchanges such as the London Metals Exchange (LME) or Commodity Exchange Inc. (COMEX). Copper obtained from mining is sold as a concentrate, copper cathode, or as a precipitate with high copper content.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project aims to produce copper cathode. Ivanhoe Electric plans to sell the copper in the United States.

Refined copper cathodes will be sold with reference to the COMEX or LME price at an agreed-upon quotational period. An additional premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers. Factors affecting the premium will include the shape and chemical specification of the cathode, together with the geographical location of the delivery point in relation to where the cathode is going to be consumed.

16.2 Study Price & Sales Terms

This study uses a base copper price of $4.25/lb, which is based on a review of the one-, three-, and five-year trailing averages, as well as consensus forecasts from major banks and Ocean Partners.

Due to the shape, chemical composition, and origin point of the copper cathode, it is expected that a premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers that is marginally above the historical average. For financial modeling purposes, this premium is estimated at $0.14 per pound ($300 per tonne) (Ocean Partners, 2025). The copper price is summarized in Table 16-1.

**Table 16-1: Copper Price Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Metric** | **Unit** | **Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper | $/lb | 4.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Cathode Premium | $/lb | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **$/lb** | **4.39** |

---

BBA cautions that price forecasting is an inherently forward-looking exercise that is dependent upon numerous assumptions. The uncertainty around timing of supply and demand forces has the potential to create a volatile price environment, and BBA fully expects that the price will move significantly above and below the selected price over the life of the project.

Given the expected volatility, BBA believes the selected price is a reasonable estimate for evaluating a long-term mining asset (20+ years). It aligns with both historical and anticipated long-term pricing.

June 2025 Page 206

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Table 16-2 summarizes the one-, three-, and five-year trailing price for copper using the LME Grade A monthly average as well as consensus forecasts from the major banks (CIBC, 2025) and Ocean Partners (2025).

**Table 16-2: Commodity Price Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **LME Trailing Average ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** | **Forecast ($/lb)** |
|  | **1-Year** | **3-Year** | **5-Year** | **2026** | **2027** | **2028** | **2029** | **Long-term** |
| BBA<sup>1</sup> | 4.22 | 3.96 | 3.95 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Banks Forecast<sup>2</sup> |  |  |  | 4.36 | 4.52 | 4.65 |  | 4.31 |
| Ocean Partners<sup>3</sup> |  |  |  | 4.31 | 4.54 | 4.76 | 4.65 | 4.31 |

---

Notes: 1. BBA, Metal Pricing_R00, June 2025. 2. CIBC Consensus Commodity Prices – June 2025. 3. Ocean Partners, April 2025.

16.3 Contracts

At this time, no sales agreements or contracts have been executed with vendors, contractors, or manufacturers.

Major contracts that will be required include:

· Contract labor for underground access and ventilation

· Major material procurement for all process facilities and electrical infrastructure

· Power purchase agreements for renewables and grid power, inclusive of local utility

· Contract labor for process and surface infrastructure construction.

Copper cathode will be sold at mine-gate.

June 2025 Page 207

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **17** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting & Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** |

---

17.1 Baseline & Supporting Studies

17.1.1 Flora & Fauna

Undisturbed uplands within and surrounding the property are open with a shrubland community dominated by creosote bush, saltbush, burroweed (*Isocoma tenuisecta*), desert ironwood (*Olneya tesota*), barrel cactus (*Echinocactus* spp.), white thorn (*Acacia constricta*), and velvet mesquite shrubs (*Prosopis velutina*). Much of the project area contains abandoned agricultural fields. These abandoned agricultural areas contain the same vegetation community as the less-disturbed areas but with an appreciably higher annual grass and forb component. The North Branch Santa Cruz Wash supports xeroriparian vegetation dominated by velvet mesquite, wolfberry (*Lycium* sp.) creosote bush, and crucifixion thorn (*Canotia holacantha*). Desert broom (*Baccharis sarothroides*), Mexican palo verde (*Parkinsonia aculeata*), desert hackberry (*Celtis ehrenbergiana*), cocklebur (*Xanthium strumarium*), and nonnative and invasive tamarisk (*Tamarix* sp.) are present along the North Branch Santa Cruz Wash in low densities, as well as a lone Fremont cottonwood (*Populus fremontii*). Bermuda grass (*Cynodon dactylon*) and other grasses and forbs line the irrigation levee that confines the Santa Cruz Wash.

Wildlife species activity observed within or close to the property include coyote (*Canis latrans*), javelina (*Tayassu tajacu*), gray fox (*Urocyon cinereoargenteus*), round-tailed ground squirrel (*Xerospermophilus tereticaudus*), common raven (*Corvus corax*), phainopepla (*Phainopepla nitens*), Cooper's hawk (*Accipiter cooperii*), great blue heron (*Ardea herodias*), mourning dove (*Zenaida macroura*), black-tailed jackrabbit (*Lepus californicus*), greater roadrunner (*Geococcyx californianus*), turkey vulture (*Cathartes aura*), and hummingbird spp. (family *Trochilidae*). Carp spp. (family *Cyprinidae*) and catfish spp. (family *Ictaluridae*) were observed in the East Main canal bordering a portion of the southwest corner of the project area. These wildlife species are typical of the local landscape and reflective of the mixed land use of the property and surroundings which include active and abandoned agricultural fields, irrigation canals, ponds, and undeveloped Sonoran Desert.

17.1.2 Special Status Species

Special-status species include species designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered, threatened, proposed for listing, or candidate for listing under the *Endangered Species Act* and species protected under the *Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act*, Endangered Species Act-listed, proposed, and candidate species. The federal protection status, known suitable habitat, total range, and distribution in Arizona was evaluated, and it was determined that there are no endangered species with potential to occur within the project area. No United States Fish and Wildlife Service-designated or proposed critical habitat occurs within the project area. A search of the Heritage Data Management System using the Arizona Game and Fish Department Online Environmental Review Tool found no records of endangered species listed special-status species within 3 miles (5 km) of the project area.

Two *Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act* species (golden eagle and bald eagle) were determined to have some potential to occur within the project area. A review of publicly-available bald eagle sighting records in the area (ebird, 2023) show eagles perching on transmission poles and irrigation pivots to the west of the project area, likely foraging in the agricultural field, irrigation canals, and ponds. There are no breeding behavior observations in the records. An incidental take permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may be required for construction activities within 660 ft (201 m) or blasting within a half-mile (0.8 km) of an active eagle nest. As there are no known eagle nests in the area at this time, the project is not expected to need an incidental take permit. Bald eagle use of the properties to the west of the project will continue to be tracked, and best management practices will be implemented to protect bald eagles as required.

June 2025 Page 208

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Ivanhoe Electric will continue monitoring changes in special-status plant and animal species protections throughout the life of the project and implement best management practices to avoid "take" of listed species should they occur on the property in the future.

17.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The *Migratory Bird Treaty Act* is intended to ensure the sustainability of all protected migratory bird species and currently includes protection of 1,106 avian species. During active construction, pre-construction clearance surveys are conducted weekly within the project area to avoid the incidental take of migratory birds.

Nesting migratory bird species identified in the project area include the horned lark (*Eremophila alpestris*), red-tailed hawk (*Buteo jamaicensis*), mourning dove (*Zenaida macroura*), band-tailed pigeon (*Colombidea* sp.), nighthawk (*Chordeilinae* sp.), verdin (*Auriparus flaviceps*), northern mockingbird (*mimus polyglottos*) cactus wren (*Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus*), raven (*Corvus corax*), ground sparrow (*Spizella pusilla*), greater roadrunner (*Geococcyx californianus*), and western burrowing owl (*Athene cunicularia* ssp. *hypugaea*) (WestLand, 2023 and 2024).

All employees and contractors are trained on *Migratory Bird Treaty Act* requirements and the project's migratory bird survey and monitoring protocols. Pre-construction clearance surveys and implementation of beneficial practices and procedures to protect migratory bird species will continue throughout the life of the project.

17.1.4 Surface Water Mapping

Under Section 404 of the *Clean Water Act* the United States Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill to surface water features determined to be Waters of the United States. A geographical information system (GIS) delineation of the ordinary high-water mark within the surface water features of the project area was developed, using current, publicly available aerial photography and subsequent, targeted field reconnaissance. This delineation was created based on the practices typically used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in assessing ephemeral channels in the arid southwest.

June 2025 Page 209

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Much of the project area has been previously disturbed from its natural state. These disturbances include flood control features, such as the canal identified as the Santa Cruz Wash Canal, paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural practices. These disturbances have removed all potential natural surface water features that may have existed in the area. The only features within the project area that possess characteristics of an ordinary high-water mark are the North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wash and the constructed Santa Cruz Wash Canal.

The North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wash is the downgradient extension of the Santa Cruz River between the Santa Cruz Flats to the south and the confluence with the Gila River to the north. This feature possesses the characteristics of an ordinary high-water mark, including changes in soil character, debris, scour, and an abrupt change in plant communities. Based on the observed vegetation, it is possible that the channels of this feature may possess adjacent wetlands. The constructed Santa Cruz Wash Canal also serves a similar function as the North Branch, namely channeling flows from the Santa Cruz River northward through the City of Maricopa and the Ak-Chin Indian Community, towards the confluence with the Gila River to the north.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project area has an approved jurisdictional delineation in which the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that the portion of the Santa Cruz Wash running through the project area is ephemeral. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. the Environmental Protection Agency invalidated portions of the March 20, 2023, definition of waters of the United States (the 2023 WOTUS Rule), including use of the concept of "significant nexus" for determining *Clean Water Act* jurisdiction. Under the current definition of waters of the United States, amended on September 8, 2023, to conform to the Sackett decision [88 Fed. Reg. 61964 (the Conforming Rule)], tributaries like the features within the Santa Cruz Copper Project area must be "relatively permanent standing or continuously flowing bodies of water" to be jurisdictional waters of the United States. Given the United States Army Corps of Engineers' previous determination that the tributaries within the project area are ephemeral, it would be reasonable to assume that these features cannot be Waters of the United States under the Conforming Rule.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has identified washes and tributaries previously regarded as potentially Waters of the United States before the Sackett decision as non-Waters of the United States but protected by the State. The Santa Cruz River between Baumgartner Road and the Ak-Chin Indian Community falls into this category and has been identified as water that is non-Waters of the United States but protected by the State. Although the language specifying the reach of the Santa Cruz Wash can be found in the code, the exact path between Baumgartner Road and the Ak-Chin Indian Community has not been identified by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The project area is within the general geographic location identified in the administrative code. Ivanhoe Electric will adhere to the requirements of the State and not discharge into the wash without appropriate permits in place.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers retains the final authority for determining the presence of Waters of the United States and to date has not been asked to provide its concurrence with this delineation. However, the project has been designed to avoid impacting potential Waters of the United States and is not expected to require a permit under Section 404 of the *Clean Water Act*.

June 2025 Page 210

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

17.1.5 Cultural Heritage

An archeological evaluation of the project area was completed in 2005 and 2006 (Foster et al., 2006). In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric completed a Class III cultural survey to reassess 20 previously recorded sites (Middleton, 2022) and their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Of the 20 sites reassessed, five sites were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: two Euro-American sites and three prehistoric ancestral sites. Despite there being no federal permitting or requirements under Section 106 of the *National Prehistoric Preservation Act* for private lands, the Ivanhoe Electric team is committed to working directly with descendant communities to help preserve and protect places of important cultural value. Ivanhoe Electric has developed and implemented an archeological Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the three National Register of Historic Places -eligible prehistoric ancestral sites located within the Santa Cruz Copper Project area. Although Ivanhoe Electric intends to avoid significant ancestral sites during project development, it is necessary to both monitor and preserve the known prehistoric archeological resources in the long-term and to have a designated protocol in case of inadvertent discovery during earth-moving activities outside of known site boundaries.

17.1.6 Air Quality

Ivanhoe Electric is seeking a Class II air quality permit from the Pinal County Air Quality Control District, currently under review, to meet power requirements during the Santa Cruz Copper Project's construction phase. The project obtains annual fugitive dust permits and will continue to update and renew these, as required, to manage dust from mining, material handling, transportation, stockpiling, and wind erosion, ensuring compliance with tailored dust control measures. Situated in the West Pinal County PM<sub>10</sub> nonattainment area, the project will adopt targeted dust mitigation strategies suitable for the arid climate, adhering to local and state regulations.

Key air pollutants include dust (i.e., windblown dust, mining activities, and material handling), and combustion emissions (i.e., generators and other fuel-burning equipment). The project will amend the Class II air quality permit to include process emission sources for the full life of mine and is expected to be classified as a synthetic minor source. As a synthetic minor source, emissions will be kept below major source thresholds through operational limits and control technologies. Mitigation strategies encompass water sprays and enclosures for material handling, enhanced dust suppression (e.g., chemical suppressants, paved roads, reduced speed limits, limiting operations during high winds), emission controls for generators to minimize combustion emissions, and ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and staff training to ensure effective emission controls and regulatory compliance.

17.1.7 Carbon Intensity

Ivanhoe Electric performed a carbon impact assessment for the Santa Cruz Copper Project, analyzing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions over its operational life, and compared the project's carbon intensity to copper mining industry benchmarks. Scope 1 emissions, stemming from onsite fuel combustion, explosives, and refrigerant leaks, were calculated using emission factors from the United States Code of Federal Regulations and industry standards. Scope 2 emissions, arising from electricity used for ore crushing, grinding, and ancillary operations, were estimated based on regional utility emission factors.

The project plans to implement onsite solar generation combined with utility-provided carbon neutral power, expected to supply a total of 70% renewable energy by 2029, substantially lowering Scope 2 emissions (see Figure 17-1 for avoided carbon dioxide equivalent [CO<sub>2</sub>e] emissions). Global warming potentials are drawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, converting greenhouse gas emissions into carbon dioxide equivalent.

June 2025 Page 211

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 17-1: Scope 1 & 2 CO<sub>2</sub>e Emissions & Avoided Emissions**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img04.jpg)

Source: Tipple Consulting, 2023.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project anticipates an average carbon intensity of 1.29 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of copper, decreasing to 1.19 tonnes during active mining (2028 to 2051). This is significantly below the 2018 industry average of 3.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne for copper cathode, and is expected to decline to 1.5 tonnes by 2050. By producing only copper cathode, the project avoids emissions from downstream processing. The renewable microgrid enables one of the lowest carbon intensities in the industry (see Figure 17-2 for annual and total intensities), highlighting Ivanhoe Electric's dedication to sustainable and innovative mining practices.

June 2025 Page 212

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 17-2: Annual CO<sub>2</sub>e Emissions & Intensities (Maximum 70% Renewable)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img05.jpg)

Note: The carbon intensity in 2028 appears elevated because it is calculated as a function of recovered copper (i.e., tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>e per tonne of copper). A relatively low volume of recovered copper that year leads to a higher intensity valued, even if total emissions remain relatively consistent. Source: Tipple Consulting, 2023.

17.1.8 Surface Water Monitoring

A surface water monitoring program was implemented in January 2024. Surface water samples are collected and analyzed from three set locations on site: the Santa Cruz Wash Canal, the North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wash, and the confluence of both surface waterbodies as they exit the project site. Samples are collected and analyzed quarterly.

The objective of baseline surface water sampling activities is to evaluate the current condition of surface water in the North Branch of the Santa Cruz Wash and the Santa Cruz Wash Canal. Baseline data will inform parties of conditions in the canal and wash prior to the onset of mining activities and help inform Ivanhoe Electric of any potential impacts to these bodies of water in the future.

17.1.9 Groundwater Monitoring & Water Quality

17.1.9.1 Historical Water Quality

Area water quality, summarized from a dataset spanning 77 wells with data collected from 1976 to 2000, were reviewed to understand historic baseline conditions (LCG, 2023). Current (2023 to 2025) water quality is summarized in Section 17.1.9. A review of the historical water quality indicates that area bedrock and overburden water quality generally meet Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Numeric Aquifer Water Quality Standard with the few following exceptions:

· Water quality in many overburden wells exceeds
Aquifer Water Quality Standard for gross alpha (15 pCi/L) with concentrations as high as 50 pCi/L (uncorrected for natural uranium
or radon).

June 2025 Page 213

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· Numerous overburden wells and a few bedrock wells
indicate arsenic above Aquifer Water Quality Standard (0.01 mg/L [revised proposed standard]) with concentrations approaching 0.04 to
0.05 mg/L.

· Nitrate concentrations in a number of overburden
wells exceeds Aquifer Water Quality Standard (44 mg/L) with concentrations as high as 55 mg/L.

It is suspected that elevated baseline nitrate concentrations are associated with agricultural activities, whereas the arsenic and gross alpha exceedances are likely tied to local water-rock reactions between overburden and mineralized bedrock and baseline groundwater, as supported by the ongoing materials characterization program (refer to Section 17.1.10).

17.1.9.2 Current Water Quality

A groundwater monitoring program to continue collecting baseline water quality data was developed and implemented in October 2023. The objective of the monitoring plan is to establish a current baseline water quality profile for the site and help inform Ivanhoe Electric on the best management practice for groundwater monitoring during and after mining operations. The plan was used to provide the water quality predictions.

The program currently includes four rehabilitated historical wells, all in the overburden, and seven new monitoring wells. A summary of predominant overburden and bedrock water quality is as follows:

· pH

- Overburden pH is typically circumneutral (x = 7.2), with the majority of measurements above pH 6.3.

- Mean bedrock pH is ~8.6.

· Oxidation-reduction potential

- Conditions in the bedrock, as expected, are on average more reducing (*x* = -193 mV) than those in the overburden (*x* = 38 mV).

· Major ion chemistry

- Overburden wells are generally sodium-dominant with mixed anion (bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate) proportions.

- Bedrock wells are also sodium-dominant, but with lower calcium and magnesium proportions, and with lower alkalinity (e.g., proportionally chloride and sulfate dominant).

· Trace element chemistry

As has been observed in the historical well water quality, arsenic, and gross alpha exceedances of Aquifer Water Quality Standard are consistently observed in recent water quality from overburden wells. Future Aquifer Water Quality Standards for uranium are likely to be lower, and it is expected that consistent uranium exceedances will also occur in overburden wells.

- Bedrock wells regularly exceed Aquifer Water Quality Standard for fluoride, although not substantially.

For operational water management purposes, it is possible to classify and segregate overburden from bedrock groundwater based on concentration differences and multivariate forensic signatures. The overburden aquifer tends to have distinctly higher concentrations of gross alpha, uranium, arsenic, nitrate, calcium, magnesium, strontium, and alkalinity and distinctly lower concentrations of fluoride, radium-226, radium-228, sodium, sulfate, chloride, lithium, and molybdenum than the bedrock aquifer.

June 2025 Page 214

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Multivariate analysis indicates that the forensic signatures of bedrock and overburden waters are likely also clearly distinct and that each water type can be identified and operationally managed based on their chemistry alone. Almost all overburden waters sampled to date are chemically similar to one another with positive correlation between gross alpha, phosphorous, sulfate, toluene, boron, potassium, bromide, lithium, and alkalinity. Bedrock waters are more chemically variable than overburden waters, but multivariate correlations are observed in bedrock waters between radium-226, radium-228, arsenic, iron, fluoride, calcium, chloride, zinc, nickel, barium, and silica. These signatures are preliminary, based on the limited dataset available; additional water quality data will be used to further refine the forensic signature.

17.1.10 Material Characterization & Water Quality Predictions

Material characterization studies were initiated in 2022 and are currently ongoing. The purpose of mine material characterization studies for the Santa Cruz Copper Project is to advance the site environmental conceptual model and to understand both long-term material environmental behavior and environmental risks associated with various planned waste facilities as well as the underground workings. More specific objectives include identifying material types (or classes) to be managed, either as waste or borrow material, providing clear segregation criteria for Ivanhoe Electric, and initiating the processes of developing long-term water quality predictions and evaluating materials and water management alternatives.

Sample numbers for materials selected for characterization were proportional to anticipated excavated mass and projected waste and ore tonnages, based on project mine planning and geometallurgical planning by the project team. Sampling and testing also incorporate the estimated diversity of lithological, mineralogical, mineralization, oxidation, alteration, and environmental characteristics observed in exploration drill core and processed mine materials. The material characterization team used prior experience with the geochemistry of porphyry copper deposits in Arizona and elsewhere to provide general background relevant to the expected environmental performance at the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

The environmental characterization test program was developed both to meet Arizona Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology guidance for permitting purposes and to support project feasibility, design, and future operational and post-closure needs. The program follows the general tiered approach prescribed in the Arizona Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology manual (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005), with Tier IA static test methods including acid-base accounting and bulk chemistry conducted on the entire subset; Tier IB static test methods including the meteoric water mobility procedure leach test and mineralogy by X-ray diffraction conducted on a subset of the Tier 1A materials; and Tier 2 methods including the longer-term humidity cell leach tests conducted on an even smaller subset selected to best represent the range of materials and environmental characteristics observed in Tier 1 test results. In all, the test program is robust, currently with over 200 drill core samples characterized according to Tier 1A. Additionally, 11 Tier 2 humidity cells have been tested, some for over a year, all for Phase A (mine access) materials. The initiation of 20+ Phase B (mine area materials) humidity cells is planned for mid-year 2025. The testing program for the Phase B characterization work also includes Tier 1A and 1B testing for processed mine materials including spent ore and leach raffinate. Additional spent ore and raffinate samples and paste backfill cylinders are currently being generated by the project for environmental characterization work in 2025.

June 2025 Page 215

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

17.1.10.1 Mine Material Types

Anticipated mine material types can be developed into three broad project classes, as follows:

· Mine access material (characterization testing
Phase A) – Includes both overburden and bedrock material that must be mined to access the targeted mineralized area. The mine access
material will be stored on the surface during or after development of underground access to the mine area. Access area overburden and
bedrock material have been extensively sampled and characterized by Tier 1A, Tier 1B, and Tier 2 laboratory tests.

· Mine area material (characterization testing
Phase B) – includes mineralized bedrock that will be excavated predominantly as ore for processing, with accompanying minor waste
rock. A considerable set of mineralized bedrock samples has already been characterized by Tier 1A and Tier 1B tests; Tier 2 tests conducted
on mine access (Phase A) bedrock are likely a proxy for the environmental behavior of mine area bedrock material; humidity cells for mine
area (Phase B) bedrock will be initiated in 2025. Additional samples are anticipated for all characterization tiers in future years, both
to fill knowledge gaps and to further support detailed design and evaluation of future mine water and material management alternatives.

17.1.11 Mine Material Environmental Behavior

Results of the various characterization programs that have been completed indicate that the following broad conclusions below can be drawn about expected environmental behavior of various material types that will comprise future waste facilities.

All overburden (mine access material) material has very low to non-detectable levels of sulfide and total sulfur, the source of acid-generating potential, and variable levels of acid-neutralizing potential. In the overburden sample population, acid-neutralizing potential consistently exceeds acid-generating potential therefore overburden materials can be safely classified as non-acid-generating. The considerable sources of acid-neutralizing potential indicate that overburden material is potentially useful as borrow/construction material that would not generate acidic and associated metalliferous drainage (i.e., acid mine drainage/metals leaching). Overburden material also exhibits low-level arsenic and uranium-leaching potential, although this is mitigated by the fact that these constituents already exceed Arizona Department of Water Resources criteria in baseline area groundwater. Mine access bedrock material is likely to have similar environmental characteristics to mine area bedrock and can be used as a reliable surrogate for mine area bedrock at this time.

June 2025 Page 216

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Mine area mineralized bedrock is a mix of potentially acid-generating and non-potentially acid-generating materials. These bedrock materials exhibit variable levels of acid-generating potential but all have very little acid-neutralizing potential. Based on the currently inferred sample populations, bedrock appears likely to be 38% non-acid-generating, 56% acid generating, and approximately 6% classified as uncertain. Potentially acid generating materials that become acidic are likely to exhibit drainage quality with pH as low as 3.5 and with high concentrations of sulfate and metals that substitute for sulfur (chalcophile) and iron (siderophile) in sulfide minerals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, copper, selenium etc.). Humidity cell test results suggest that in some cases acidic conditions could form in less than one year under atmospheric/ambient conditions. The lack of acid-neutralizing potential in most potentially acid generating mine materials further suggests that lag times will generally be short (a few years or less). For bedrock samples that are non-potentially acid generating, there is still potential for materials to leach low levels of oxy-anions (e.g., antimony, arsenic, selenium) and natural uranium and presumably some natural uranium decay products.

Spent ore material is expected to exhibit weak acid-generating potential, primarily due to the very low concentrations of iron sulfides that are expected to be present in the processed oxide ore. The neutralization capacity of the spent material is also expected to be negligible, as most carbonate minerals will be depleted during sulfuric acid leaching. Any remaining buffering is likely limited to slow-reacting silicate minerals, which may partially neutralize any residual minor amounts of acidity generated post-leaching. Residual leaching solutions retained within the spent ore are anticipated to be acidic and contain elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids, halides, and trace metals, primarily due to evapo-concentration and the recycling of leach solutions. Contact water from the spent ore pad is expected to reflect these constituents; water quality will be highly dependent on operational rinsing practices, and the extent to which solid phase precipitation reduces constituent loads somewhat. Paste backfill is not expected to be acid generating, as the alkaline binding agents used in the mix are anticipated to neutralize the minor potential acidity from the low concentrations of residual sulfides. In addition, the paste structure is expected to limit oxygen diffusion to sulfide minerals, thereby reducing the rate of sulfide oxidation. Metal leaching from the paste backfill will be further assessed through ongoing geochemical testing.

17.1.11.1 Water Quality Predictions

Underground water quality predictions were developed, with focus on seepage chemistry to be collected from underground workings during operations. The objective of this modeling is to support development of the operational surface water management strategy as this water will be pumped to the surface during operations. The modeling relied on two scenarios, a Base and Upper Case, which were developed to simulate expected and upper-bound conditions, respectively. Key aspects of the predictions are summarized here:

· Based on seepage rates into the underground
stopes and workings substantial solute input from the disturbed rock zone would be required to meaningfully alter baseline dewatering
water chemistry over time.

· The Base Case is considered more representative
of the expected average life-of-mine underground water quality than the Upper Case. Upper Case scenarios are designed to characterize
potential maximum solute concentrations and highlight existing uncertainties to be addressed in detailed design.

· Base Case predictions and associated sensitivity
scenarios indicate that dewatering water chemistry generally reflects the geochemical characteristics of the overburden and bedrock aquifers.
Exceedances of potential water-quality criteria are typically predicted where baseline non-contact water chemistry approaches or exceeds
regulatory thresholds.

June 2025 Page 217

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· Cadmium and selenium, elevated under baseline
conditions, are predicted to exceed Arizona Department of Environmental Quality reference values across several percentile levels in all
scenarios and sensitivities.

17.2 Permitting & Authorizations

The primary permits for the project will require state, county, and local authorizations. Several of these permits have been issued for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities. Other permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted. The remaining permit applications for construction and operations will be prepared and submitted as sufficient design and engineering information become available. Table 17-1 lists the major federal, state, and local permits required for the project.

June 2025 Page 218

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 17-1: Permits Table**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Jurisdiction** | **Agency** | **Permit Needed & Description** | **Comment** |
| Federal | US Environmental Protection Agency | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Hazardous Waste Management | Waste accumulation threshold will determine when hazardous waste ID number (permit) is required. |
| Federal | US Fish and Wildlife Service | Migratory Bird Treaty Act | Ongoing monitoring and implementation of beneficial practices throughout life of project. |
| Federal | US Environmental Protection Agency | Class V Underground Injection Control Permit for mine backfill | Permit by rule or individual permit depending on materials characterization and pre-application discussion with agency; Underground Injection Control program expected to be under state jurisdiction by 2027. |
| State | Arizona Department of Environmental Quality | Aquifer Protection Permit | Facility-specific permit for heap leach, spent ore, temporary development rock, truck wash, and ponds. |
| State | Arizona Department of Environmental Quality | Recycled Water Discharge Permit for redistribution of excess treated water to priority users | For distribution of treated water for third party uses (e.g., irrigated crops). |
| State | Arizona Department of Water Resources | 45-513 – Groundwater Withdrawal Permit to withdraw groundwater for dewatering purposes in an Active Management Area | Project is within the Pinal Active Management Area. |
| State | Arizona State Mine Inspector | Mined Land Reclamation Plan | Closure plans developed as part of initial assessment / prefeasibility study. |
| State | Arizona Department of Transportation | Encroachment Permit for access off Hwy 84 | Traffic impact analysis completed. |
| County | Pinal County Air Quality Control District | Air Quality Control Permit – determined by quantity of emissions from stationary sources and process emissions | Required for any industrial operation that has the potential to emit 5.5 pounds per day or 1 ton per year of any regulated air pollutant is required to obtain a permit from Pinal County Air Quality. Submitted March 2025 for construction activities and under agency review. |
| County | Pinal County Air Quality Control District | Pinal County Dust Control Permit – West Pinal Non-Attainment | Existing permit will be amended as needed. |
| City | City of Casa Grande | Special Flood Hazard Area Development Permit for proposed development within a floodplain | Likely not required as facilities have been designed to avoid development within Special Flood Hazard Areas. |
| City | City of Casa Grande | General Plan Amendment – major amendment to city plan | Required to include mining operations and infrastructure within city limits. Obtained February 2025. |
| City | City of Casa Grande | Major Site Plan/Planned Area Development Plan – major amendment to existing plan | Required to accommodate industrial use/mining operations in a Planned Area Development zone. Obtained February 2025. |

---

June 2025 Page 219

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The following permits have been obtained for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities:

· Arizona State Mine Inspector Mined Land Reclamation
Plan (issued for exploration activities, amendment for construction activities has been submitted, an additional amendment will be needed
for final facility design).

· Pinal County Dust Control Permit (issued for
exploration activities, will be amended as needed to accommodate construction activities).

· City of Casa Grande Special Flood Hazard Area
Development Permit (issued for exploration activities, in the renewal process, likely not needed for construction as flood plains have
been avoided).

The following permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted:

· Pinal County Air Quality Control District Class II
Air Permit (submitted for construction activities and under agency review, will be amended for operations).

· Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Aquifer
Protection Permits (for ponds, rock storage, and truck wash — general permit applications in preparation).

· Arizona Department of Water Resources 45-513
Groundwater Withdrawal Permit (application in preparation).

· Arizona Department of Transportation Encroachment
Permit for access off Highway 84 (application in preparation).

The following permits for construction and operation will be prepared and submitted as design and engineering details become available:

· US Environmental Protection Agency Class V
Underground Injection Control Permit (for mine backfill).

· Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Aquifer
Protection Permits (for the heap leach and spent ore storage facilities).

· Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Recycled
Water Discharge Permit (for discharge of treated water, if necessary).

Land use authorizations from the City of Casa Grande, including a General Plan Amendment and Major Amendment to a Planned Area Development Zone, have been obtained to allow mining activities and infrastructure within the project site.

June 2025 Page 220

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

17.3 Waste & Spent Ore Disposal, Site Monitoring, & Water Management

This section discusses the requirements and plans for waste and spent ore disposal, site monitoring, and water management during operations and after mine closure. Operators must demonstrate within their mine plans and permit applications that pollutant discharges will be prevented or managed to prevent contaminants of concern from traveling beyond points of compliance. Arizona Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology stipulates the following for planning for materials and water management and design of storage facilities:

· Applicant must develop a waste characterization
plan for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. A site-specific sampling and analysis plan has been submitted to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality and is continuously revised as new test material becomes available.

· Waste facilities can be designed with pre-designated
engineered containment (prescriptive approach) under the assumption that facilities will be discharging, and that the discharge will require
management.

· Waste facilities can also be individually designed
which places the burden on the operator to demonstrate facility discharge will not result in downgradient impacts to aquifer, vadose zone,
or land surface.

· Required long-term monitoring for compliance
with facility Aquifer Protection Permit will be dictated by the conditions of the permit.

Based on Arizona Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology guidance for materials and water management and the results of characterization testing performed to date, the following plans will be required for waste and spent ore disposal, site monitoring, and water management during operations and following mine closure:

· Metal Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage Management
Plan – Must include definitions and classification criteria for potentially metal-leaching and acid-generating materials, handling
and storage plan, monitoring plan, sampling plan, and contingency plan.

· Heap Leach and Spent Ore Operations, Maintenance,
and Surveillance Manual – Must include information such as governance, facility description, operational requirements, maintenance
requirements, surveillance requirements, and linkages with the emergency response plan.

· Site-Wide Water Management Plan – Must
include information specific to the leaching and spent ore facilities, protection against floods, seepage management, discharge management,
risks of discharge to the receiving environment, water quality and quantity mitigation measures, and a trigger response plan for upset
conditions.

· Site-Wide Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring
Plan – Must include information such as monitoring objectives, methods, rationale for the monitoring locations/depths, water quality
parameters to be monitored, sampling frequency and period, analytical testing procedures, QA/QC methods, and reporting requirements.

· Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan *–* Must include information specific to the heap leach and spent ore facilities, such as environmental monitoring requirements,
annual safety inspections, and post-closure maintenance requirements for the closure cover system and stormwater controls.

17.4 Post-Performance or Reclamations Bonds

The eventual closure and reclamation of the Santa Cruz Copper Project will be regulated under two interconnected regulatory programs. Both programs are well-established in Arizona and the statutes and rules are subject to licensing timeframes. The agencies are required by statute to issue approvals when credible applications are deemed administratively and technically complete.

June 2025 Page 221

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· Arizona Revised Statutes authorizes the Arizona
State Mine Inspector to establish mined land reclamation requirements. The Arizona State Mine Inspector's primary role in this context
is the approval (or denial) of mined land reclamation plans submitted by all metalliferous and aggregate mining units and exploration
operations with surface disturbances greater than five acres on private lands.

· Arizona Revised Statutes also authorizes the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to regulate discharges (or potential discharges) to an aquifer or vadose zone in the State
or requires those who operate a facility that discharges to obtain an Aquifer Protection Permit. While considered an operational permit,
the Aquifer Protection Permit program also considers the eventual cessation of operations and the restoration of vadose and aquifer conditions.

17.5 Status of Permit Applications

17.5.1 Arizona State Mine Inspector – Reclamation Plan

Although exploration activities conducted by Ivanhoe Electric are subject to the approved exploration level reclamation plan (approved September 27, 2023), Ivanhoe Electric must submit and obtain approval for an amended mined land reclamation plan prior to initiating actual mining operations. However, certain facilities needed for mine development, general construction and site improvements, or advanced exploration, such as excavating a decline, can be covered under an amended exploration level reclamation plan. Unreclaimed disturbances from prior or ongoing exploration activities can simply be incorporated into the disturbance footprint of the operating plan or reclaimed under the existing exploration level plan.

Future mining operations will require a mined land reclamation plan as established in Chapter 5 of Title 11 in the Arizona Revised Statutes. The plan can be developed once Ivanhoe Electric has completed at least 75% design drawings for all surface disturbances and structures at the site. The closure of discharging facilities as defined in Aquifer Protection Permit rules (such as heap leach and spent ore storage units, process ponds and waste rock stockpiles) must be included within the approved plan even though the detailed plans to closing these facilities are also documented in the Aquifer Protection Permit and approved by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

17.5.2 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality – Aquifer Protection Permit

Future mining operations that are the subject of this document will require an approved Aquifer Protection Permit as established in Chapter 2, Title 49 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Aquifer Protection Permit facilities required to support decline development and construction activities will be authorized under general permits and will include contact water ponds, a temporary stockpile, and a truck wash. Pre-application meetings for these facilities have been completed with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and a determination of applicability was received July 8, 2024. General Aquifer Protection Permit applications for these facilities are being prepared concurrently with design drawings of these facilities.

The on/off heap leach and spent ore facilities will require an Aquifer Protection Permit. Although the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality does allow pre-application meetings and certain preliminary permitting activities to be conducted under 30% design drawings, the Aquifer Protection Permit can only be approved once Ivanhoe Electric has completed at least 75% design drawings for all surface disturbances and structures that are subject to the permit. Consequently, the project design status for these facilities prevents any substantive Aquifer Protection Permit activities at this time.

June 2025 Page 222

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The closure of discharging facilities as defined in Aquifer Protection Permit rules (such as heap leach and spent ore repositories, process ponds and waste rock stockpiles) must be included within the approved reclamation plan even though the detailed plans and approach to closing these facilities are documented in the Aquifer Protection Permit and approved by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Costs for closing these facilities must be addressed in the Aquifer Protection Permit application package although Arizona Revised Statutes expressly prohibits duplicative bonding requirements.

17.5.3 Known Requirements for Post-Performance or Reclamation Bonds

Aside from the reclamation plan for exploration and development activities at the site, Ivanhoe Electric has no current obligations to tender post-mining performance or reclamation bonds for the project. Once the facility achieves the level of design necessary to advance to mine development and operation, Ivanhoe Electric will need to submit and gain approval of an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality -approved Aquifer Protection Permit and an Arizona State Mine Inspector-approved reclamation plan. The closure approach and related closure cost estimates must be submitted following approval and before facility construction and operation can begin.

Although an operational mined land reclamation plan has not yet been developed for the planned operations at the Santa Cruz Copper Project, a preliminary closure cost estimate has been developed. Based on the conceptual design plan described in this document, the estimated closure costs for the project are $35 million.

17.5.4 Adequacy of Current Reclamation Plans

Although facility plans have not progressed sufficiently to develop detailed reclamation permits for future operations, Ivanhoe Electric has commissioned the required background studies and preliminary permitting to support current exploration activities. Further, we fully expect that the current planning efforts will provide sufficient design and operational detail to support an administratively and technically complete Mined Land Reclamation Plan.

June 2025 Page 223

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

17.6 Mine Closure

The present level of design considered in this document is insufficient to generate closure or reclamation plans as required by the Arizona State Mine Inspector and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for facility construction and operation. It is possible, based on the revised conceptual mine plans and facility layout discussed herein, to contemplate certain closure and reclamation obligations and approaches for the site elements described in the subsections below.

17.6.1 Waste, Development Rock, Heap Leach & Spent Ore Closure & Reclamation
 Approach

Required geochemical characterization will inform the need as well as means and methods for capping and covering these materials to prevent stormwater contamination and seepage that could impact the vadose zone or underlying aquifer. If characterization of these materials suggest that the "wastes" are geochemically inert, then isolation measures needed to prevent water-rock interactions are rendered unnecessary. Although preliminary geochemical evaluations are favorable, sufficient geochemical modeling has not been completed to determine if these materials will be inert.

The Arizona State Mine Inspector will not address or review the adequacy of closure or capping systems in the reclamation plan. However, the Arizona State Mine Inspector will require a geotechnical analysis to demonstrate that the stockpiles are safe and stable under static and pseudo-static conditions.

17.6.2 General Grading & Revegetation Approach

There are typically no grading or revegetation requirements included in an approved Aquifer Protection Permit. The Arizona State Mine Inspector-approved reclamation plan will address all grading, site recontouring, and revegetation requirements. To the extent practicable, the plan will recommend grading and recontouring to restore surface topography and drainage patterns. Roads and other compacted areas must be ripped and scarified to encourage the success of revegetation efforts. Material stockpiles should be graded and contoured to reduce erosive effects of rainfall events, enhance long-term stability, and reduce ponding and infiltration.

Inert materials (such as broken concrete and asphalt) generated from facility decommissioning activities can be buried on site without a permit provided those materials are categorically inert or are determined to be inert via approved testing protocols.

17.6.3 Process Area & Pond Closure Reclamation Approach

The approved closure approach will require that all process liquids, reagents, and solid residues be removed from the ponds and leaching circuits. These facilities can be rinsed with the resultant liquids evaporated but remaining sludges and sediments must be characterized and profiled for offsite transportation and disposal or recovery in accordance with Aquifer Protection Permit and hazardous waste rules and regulations. Once drained and cleaned, pond liners can be perforated and buried on site or transported from the property as solid waste.

The Arizona State Mine Inspector-approved reclamation plan will not address pond closure, but any remaining surface depressions must be regraded to achieve the safe and stable condition requirements of the reclamation rules. These efforts would typically be addressed in the general grading and reclamation approach discussed in the Reclamation Plan.

June 2025 Page 224

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

All solid wastes, laboratory and assay chemicals, and general household wastes must be removed from the structures prior to structural decommissioning. These materials must be recycled or characterized and profiled for appropriate offsite transportation and disposal.

17.6.4 Structural Decommissioning Approach

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality -approved Aquifer Protection Permit closure plan will not specifically address the decommissioning of surface structures aside from the requirement that any process liquids or residues are not discharged in an uncontrolled manner.

The Arizona State Mine Inspector-approved reclamation plan will address structural decommissioning efforts to the extent that closure cost estimates include the demolition and removal of all surface facilities not specifically excluded from the plan. The Arizona State Mine Inspector rules do allow for the retention of specific structures such as water wells, utility infrastructure, or buildings where these structures can enhance the productive post-mining use of the property. These facilities must be specifically identified in the approved plan and excluded from reclamation.

Inert materials (such as broken concrete and asphalt) generated from facility decommissioning activities can be buried on site without permit provided those materials are categorically inert or are determined to be inert via approved testing protocols. These efforts would typically be addressed in the general grading and reclamation approach section of the reclamation plan.

17.6.5 Underground Operations Closure Approach

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality approved Aquifer Protection Permit will require that all fuels, chemicals, wastes, and explosives used in the development and operation of underground operations be removed and disposed to prevent potential impacts to mine flooding. Fluid-containing equipment and machinery left underground must be drained and any contaminated materials must be removed and properly disposed.

Geochemical and hydrological modeling required in the Aquifer Protection Permit should predict the resulting rock-water and water-water interactions occurring as a consequence of mine flooding. If these interactions have the potential to impact the aquifer above a specific alert level as measured at the approved points of compliance, then actions prescribed in the Aquifer Protection Permit must be implemented. Sufficient geochemical and hydrological modeling has not yet been completed to assess this possibility.

The Reclamation Plan to be approved by the Arizona State Mine Inspector will require that the mine portal and any associated escape or ventilation shafts be appropriately closed and sealed to establish long-term safety and stability.

17.6.6 Aquifer Restoration & Post-Closure Monitoring Approach

Post-closure monitoring related to the Aquifer Protection Permit may include confirmation sampling related to the clean closure of any process areas or individual discharging facilities and the long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions across the site following closure. Ivanhoe Electric will be required to maintain, survey, and routinely sample the monitoring well network, including the various point of compliance wells, until such time as groundwater conditions have stabilized and regulated constituents of interest are not at risk of exceeding an alert level at any of the points of compliance. It is estimated that post-closure monitoring will be required for at least ten years depending on the speed at which the aquifer recovers from dewatering and aquifer conditions stabilize. Once groundwater conditions have stabilized and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality grants closure, Ivanhoe Electric must abandon all monitoring and point-of-compliance wells in accordance with the Aquifer Protection Permit.

June 2025 Page 225

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

The Arizona State Mine Inspector-approved reclamation plan will require site monitoring to document the effectiveness of grading and reclamation efforts including the success of revegetation. The plan will require the maintenance of fencing, signage and other site barriers, the removal of trash or wildcat dumping, and the repair of any erosion damage to capped and covered structures. . Following revegetation success after at least four growing seasons, the Arizona State Mine Inspector can determine that the site has been successfully reclaimed and return all or part of the reclamation bond established with the Arizona State Mine Inspector.

Certain facilities (like a spent ore repository, for instance) may not achieve clean closure and would thus require long-term monitoring and periodic involvement by the Engineer of Record. Depending on the geochemical characteristics of the repository waste, how quickly these facilities dewater, and the long-term stability of the containment areas, certain types of legacy facilities may not ever be released and declared closed. However, characterization and design efforts at the site have not progressed sufficiently to determine the long-term closure requirements of any facilities.

17.7 Local Individuals & Groups

In alignment with Ivanhoe Electric's community engagement and partnership standards, the Santa Cruz Copper Project is being developed with a well-defined strategy to establish and uphold the support of the surrounding communities. At present, the project has initiated outreach with Native American communities that have ancestral ties to the land, community outreach with local stakeholders, community involvement, and is actively assessing potential partnerships within the local community.

Ivanhoe Electric recognizes the need to keep stakeholders well informed about the project's potential economic and community benefits and Ivanhoe Electric's commitment to safety and the environment. To achieve this, the Ivanhoe Electric team has initiated meetings with various key groups, including local community leaders, neighboring communities, and regional- and state-level representatives. A community working group has been implemented and has been meeting quarterly since November 2023. Consistent communication will continue through the community working group platform. This group provides a forum for stakeholder involvement and allows interested community members to engage with the team and stay informed about the project as it progresses.

Furthermore, the Ivanhoe Electric team recognizes the potential impacts of noise and dust from the proposed activities and is taking proactive steps to address them. During the facility design phase, engineering controls will be incorporated to minimize noise and dust disturbances and maintain harmony with the surrounding community. Ivanhoe Electric plans to create an all-encompassing environmental, social, and governance framework designed to effectively address community concerns and ensure that the Santa Cruz Copper Project operates in a socially responsible manner.

17.8 QP Opinion

H&A is of the opinion that this report adequately addresses the federal and state permitting and closure standards that will impact the closure and reclamation of the project.

June 2025 Page 226

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

LCG is of the opinion that this report adequately addresses the environmental assessments, including geochemical materials characterization and baseline water quality studies. The work performed meets industry standards, reflects current regulatory requirements, and is appropriate for the current level of design and planning.

Tetra Tech is of the opinion that this report adequately addresses environmental assessments, permits, and plans, as well as negotiations and agreements with local entities. The plans and permitting requirements are adequate for the current level of design and planning.

June 2025 Page 227

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **18** | **Capital & Operating Costs** |

---

18.1 Basis for Cost Estimates

Accurate estimation of capital and operating costs is fundamental to assessing the economic viability of a proposed project. Together with projected revenues and other anticipated expenses, these cost estimates provide the foundation for the financial analysis detailed in Section 19.

For the Santa Cruz Copper Project, capital and operating costs were determined based on the mine plan and SX/EW plant design. The estimation process incorporated assessments of material and labor requirements derived from the design, analysis of the process flowsheet, and anticipated consumption of power and supplies.

All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300 and AACE Class 3, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates. All pricing is considered in Q1 2025 dollars. Inflation or escalation are not considered.

Cost estimation is based on a combination of vendor and consumable quotes and internal database. Approximately 80% of the capital estimate is based on detailed quotes with estimated labor installation. For the purposes of this study, initial capital expenditure is assumed to be costs incurred in 2026, 2027, and 2028. By the end of 2028, ore production from stopes has been established and the SX/EW plant infrastructure has been installed to begin copper production. Additional mine and plant capital costs are incurred from 2029 and 2050 to continue meeting mine ramp up and production demands and are included in sustaining capital costs.

Standard rates for fuel and power were used in the estimate and are summarized as follows:

· diesel fuel cost of 0.076 $/L

· current electricity rate of 0.091 $/kWh until
2027

· estimated electricity rate of 0.0728 $/kWh from
2028 to end of mine life.

18.1.1 Mining Costs

Mining equipment requirements were determined based on the mine production schedule and estimates for scheduled production time, mechanical availability, equipment utilization, and operating efficiency. Annual operating hours for each equipment type were projected, with the assumption that each unit will be used until it reaches its planned service life, after which replacement units will be added to the fleet as necessary. The capital cost estimate for mining equipment also includes major equipment rebuild (overhaul) costs.

The mining equipment capital cost estimate is based on the following assumptions:

· All replacement units are assumed to be new purchases.

· Freight and spare parts costs were included in
the equipment costs.

· Equipment rebuilds are included at appropriate
intervals within the capital cost estimate.

June 2025 Page 228

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· Contingency is included in the mining equipment
capital cost estimate, ranging from 5% (where budgetary quotes are available) to 14.9% (for estimates based on first-principles build-ups).

Labor estimates were based on unit rates, MTOs and installation factors for an underground operation using based on first-principles build-ups.

All consumables estimates were based on first-principles build-ups.

18.1.2 Process and Infrastructure Costs

This section discusses the methodology for estimating process and infrastructure capital costs.

Equipment capacities, duty specifications, and quantities were established using process flowsheets, design criteria, material mass balances, and engineering calculations. Design drawings and vendor budget quotations were used to develop layouts, the 3D model, and drawings to support the generation of MTOs for all earthworks, concrete, steel, piping, and electrical components.

The inputs below were also used to estimate process plant and infrastructure (non-mining) operating costs:

· Continuous operations, 24 hours per day and 365
days per year, with an availability of 92%, for a total of 8,059 operating hours per year with two 12-hour shifts.

· Shift-based personnel work a four-week-on, four-week-off
roster, with four shift panels.

· Annual throughput, head grade, and production
that serve as the basis for production-based operational parameters are based on the mine plan provided by BBA.

MTOs were priced by budget quotation or in-house data. Estimated quantities generated through MTOs have a design allowance added to allow for overbuy, cut, and waste. Labor rates were estimated based on in-house databases and benchmarked against local contractor quotations.

Total direct hours were calculated using a site adjustment factor model that incorporates efficiency losses bases on craft availability, working at height, workweek, climate, and project size.

Engineering and procurement and construction management costs have been estimated as a percentage of the total project cost based on historical data. Engineering and procurement as well as construction management services will be provided by a combined team of Ivanhoe Electric and contract personnel.

Other indirect costs included in the estimate are as follows:

· temporary facilities, construction equipment,
and construction services

· freight and logistics

· spare parts

· first fills

June 2025 Page 229

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· vendor representatives

· pre-commissioning and startup.

18.2 Capital Cost Estimate

Table 18-1 summarizes the initial and sustaining capital cost estimates for the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

**Table 18-1: Estimated Total Capital Cost**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Capital Costs Summary** | **Initial Cost<br> ($M)** | **Sustaining Cost<br> ($M)** | **Total LOM Capital <br> Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Preproduction Mining Costs | 89 | - | 89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | 688 | 1193 | 1881 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process | 240 | 65 | 305 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Infrastructure | 61 | 8 | 69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indirects | 46 | 7 | 53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM | 64 | 2 | 66 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | 48 | 5 | 53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Initial Capital** | **1236** | **-** | **-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Sustaining Capital** | **-** | **1281** | **-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation and Closure Costs | 2 | -163 | -161 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Life-of-Mine Capital Costs** | **1238** | **1118** | **2355** |

---

Note: Closure costs include land sales at the end of mine life. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

18.2.1 Mining Capital Costs

The total mining capital cost estimate is $2,051 million, which includes $857 million of initial capital and a sustaining capital of $1,193 million.

June 2025 Page 230

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 18-2: Estimated Mining Capital Cost**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mining Capital Costs** | **Initial Capital Cost <br> ($M)** | **Sustaining Cost<br> ($M)** | **Total LOM Capital <br> Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capitalized Operating Expenditures | 89 |  | 89 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capital Development | 487 | 448 | 935 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mobile Equipment | 20 | 464 | 484 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mines Services | 180 | 274 | 455 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty Payment |  | 7 | 7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal** | **776** | **1193** | **1970** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indirects | 12 |  | 12 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM | 28 |  | 28 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | 41 |  | 41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | **857** | **1193** | **2051** |

---

Note: \* Includes cost of a one-time royalty payment of $7 million.

Sustaining capital is required to maintain mine infrastructure critical for ongoing operations. The sustaining capital cost estimate includes costs for, construction, and commissioning of infrastructure items.

The cost estimates are based on vendor-supplied budgetary quotes and cost models from BBA with input from Ivanhoe Electric. Sustaining capital costs support the production schedule over the 23-year mine life. capital costs are shown in Table 18-3.

**Table 18-3: Estimated Mining Sustaining Capital Cost**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **Sustaining Capital Cost ($M)** |
| Capital Development Cost | 448 |
| Mobile Equipment | 464 |
| Mine Services | 274 |
| **Total** | **1186** |

---

18.2.2 Process Facilities & Infrastructure Capital Costs

The Santa Cruz process capital cost estimate reflects the costs associated with the process equipment and facilities, and the infrastructure buildings and equipment.

The total capital cost (including initial and sustaining costs) for the Santa Cruz process facilities and infrastructure totals $518 million (Table 18-4). Sustaining capital includes the second train in the SX plant, the balance of the heap leach pad cells, and the second spent ore stockpile.

June 2025 Page 231

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 18-4: Estimated Process Facilities and Infrastructure Capital Cost Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**SX/EW and Surface Infrastructure <br> Cost Summary** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital <br> Cost ($M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Cost<br> ($M)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total LOM Capital<br> Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Capitalized Operating Expenditure | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing | &nbsp;&nbsp;101 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;121 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;59 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SX/EW | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17 | &nbsp;&nbsp;97 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Infrastructure | &nbsp;&nbsp;61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Subtotal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**332** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**74** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**406** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Indirects | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp;24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Estimate** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**430** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**88** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**518** |

---

18.2.3 Owner's Costs and Indirects

Owner's costs include the following:

· Owner's engineering team

· Owner's project management team

· previous studies and other sunk costs

· front-end engineering design study

· metallurgical testing and simulation studies

· geotechnical drilling and services

· environmental services

· permitting costs

· land acquisition costs

· operation and maintenance manuals

· startup costs

· community stakeholder costs

· insurance costs

· legal fees

· financing costs

· taxes

· duties and tariffs

· currency exchange

· escalation

· Owner's contingency (management reserve)

· security

· recruiting and training.

June 2025 Page 232

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Indirect capital costs may include the following:

· temporary facilities and services

· freight and logistics

· spare parts

· first fills

· vendor representation

· pre-commissioning and startup.

18.2.4 Engineering Procurement and Construction Management

Engineering procurement and construction management (EPCM) includes the costs for detailed engineering for construction, procurement of major equipment and an Integrated Construction Management team.

Detailed engineering efforts have been included in the vendor and contractor supplied quotations.

18.3 Operating Cost Estimate

Total life-of-mine operating costs are $3.95 billion as summarized in Table 18-5.

**Table 18-5: Estimated Operating Costs**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **$M Total** | **$/t Ore Processed** | **$/lb Copper** |
| **Mining** | | | |
| Consumables | 1239 | 9.22 | 0.41 |
| Mobile Equipment | 432 | 3.24 | 0.14 |
| Haulage | 39 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
| Labor | 626 | 4.73 | 0.21 |
| Power | 149 | 1.19 | 0.05 |
| Mine Services and Indirect | 55 | 0.40 | 0.02 |
| **Subtotal** | **2538** | **19.07** | **0.85** |
| **SX/EW Plant and Infrastructure** |  |  |  |
| Consumables | 276 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
| Hauling and Mobile Equipment | 177 | 1.30 | 0.06 |
| Labor | 185 | 1.36 | 0.06 |
| Power | 300 | 2.20 | 0.10 |
| Maintenance | 58 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
| **Subtotal** | **996** | **7.31** | **0.33** |
| G&A | 414 | 3.04 | 0.14 |
| **Total** | **3948** | **29.42** | **1.32** |

---

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

June 2025 Page 233

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.1 Mine Operating Costs

The life-of-mine mining operating costs by category are presented in Figure 18-1.

**Figure 18-1: Life-of-Mine Mining Operating Costs by Category**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img014.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

Mine operating costs include the following categories:

· consumables

- lateral development

- production stope preparation

- production drilling

- production blasting

- production backfill

- production drifting

June 2025 Page 234

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· mobile equipment

- maintenance costs

- fuel costs

- battery rentals

- charger rentals

· haulage

- Railveyor maintenance

- conveyor maintenance

· power

· mine services and indirects

- instrumentation, communication, and automation

- ventilation

others.

A summary of the mine operating costs for the life of mine is presented in Table 18-6. The yearly cost operating profile is shown in Figure 18-2.

**Table 18-6: Mine Operating Cost Summary for the Life of Mine**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **$M Total** | **$/t Ore Processed** | **$/lb Copper** |
| Consumables | 1239 | 9.22 | 0.41 |
| Mobile Equipment | 432 | 3.24 | 0.14 |
| Haulage | 39 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
| Labor | 626 | 4.73 | 0.21 |
| Power | 149 | 1.19 | 0.05 |
| Mine Services and Indirect | 54 | 0.40 | 0.02 |
| **Total** | **2538** | **19.07** | **0.85** |

---

Note: Approximately $61 million of the mining costs are transferred to capitalized operating expenditures.

June 2025 Page 235

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Figure 18-2: Yearly Mine Operating Cost Profile**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img009.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

18.3.1.1 Mine Operating Costs

The mine operating cost estimate is based on the following key inputs and assumptions:

· average in-situ densities as follows:

- ore density 2.54 t/m<sup>3</sup>

- waste density 2.51 t/m<sup>3</sup>

· 365 operating days per year

· two 12-hour shifts per day

· 9.5 hours of productive time per shift

· all capital mine development completed by mining
contractor

· waste is trucked to the nearest Railveyor location
in 2028; the Railveyor transports the waste to surface

· Railveyor used in stages to switch between transporting
ore and waste

· equipment quantities are only for Owner-operated
equipment (operating development and stoping).

June 2025 Page 236

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.1.1.1 Underground Labor

Key input and assumptions used to estimate the underground labor requirement are as follows:

· Load-Haul-Dump (LHD)

All longhole stope LHDs will be operated tele-remotely from a control room throughout the shift. High production demands will require multiple mining equipment operating on the levels, thereby increasing the amount of interaction with the LHDs.

- All lateral development LHDs will be operated tele-remotely from a control room only during shift change. During shifts, they will be operated by a person in the cab. These operators will share the duties of relocating the production LHDs within different zones.

· Longhole Drills

- All longhole drills will be operated autonomously from a control room both during shifts and shift changes.

- Two people in the control room will monitor the production drills, while three people will be located underground for drill alignment and bit changes.

- Personnel will be cross-trained in multiple equipment to increase useable hours and reduce the overall labor requirement. For example: the same operator will be capable of operating the jumbo, bolter, and development LHD.

18.3.1.1.2 Equipment Database

· Mobile equipment costs are a mix of leasing at
the beginning of the project and purchase after the lease period. No financing information is available for Maclean, Chevrolet, Toyota;
therefore, the following assumptions are made:

The downpayment is 15% of the sale price.

The total cost including interest is 18% over the sale price.

18.3.1.1.3 Haulage Costs

Key input and assumptions that were made to estimate haulage costs are as follows:

· The Railveyor will begin operating in 2028.

18.3.1.1.4 Indirect Costs

Key input and assumptions related to indirect costs are as follows:

· All indirect costs for East Ridge will be carried
by Santa Cruz.

· Indirect costs for 2026 and 2027 are accounted
for in the capital cost estimate. The operating cost model includes indirect costs from 2028 to the end of mine life.

June 2025 Page 237

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.1.1.5 Mine Lateral Development

Key operating cost input and assumptions related to mine lateral development are as follows:

· All capital development is contractual. Costs
will be retrieved from contractor quotes.

· 5% of category 1 ground support class and 10%
of categories 2 and above will be rehabilitated each year.

18.3.1.1.6 Production Stoping

Key operating cost input and assumptions for production stoping are as follows:

· Stope preparation and backfill includes costs
for both longhole stoping and drift and fill.

· For uppers stopes, costs for consumables have
been assumed to be 10% higher.

· Uppers/Stoping ratio is 2.23% over the life-of-mine
tonnage. This ratio is used to arrive at tonnages for stoping and uppers from 2044 to the end of the mine life.

18.3.1.2 Paste Backfill Preparation Operating Costs

The paste preparation plant operating cost estimate encompasses the following processing steps:

· spent ore grinding

· spent ore neutralization.

The items identified in Table 18-7 were used as primary inputs to the paste preparation plant operating cost estimate.

**Table 18-7: Paste Preparation Operating Cost Primary Inputs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Category** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Value** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dry Tonnage Processed | &nbsp;&nbsp;t/y | &nbsp;&nbsp;4278000<sup>\*</sup> |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Electricity Rate (at Point of use) by Ivanhoe Electric | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/MWh | &nbsp;&nbsp;72.80 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Quicklime | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/kg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.33 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Binder | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;195 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grinding Media | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/kg | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.78 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ball Mill Liners | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/kg | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.50 |

---

Note: \* Maximum observed in 2042.

The inputs below were also used in to estimate the paste preparation operating costs:

· Continuous operations, 24 hours per day and 365
days per year, with an availability of 92%, for a total of 8,059 operating hours per year with two 12-hour shifts.

June 2025 Page 238

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.1.2.1 Paste Preparation Operating Cost by Type

The estimated annual operating cost has been divided into fixed and variable cost types. The annual fixed costs are approximately $601,902 (3%) while the variable costs are approximately $18.08 per tonne of spent ore processed. Fixed processing costs include labor; while variable processing costs include maintenance, consumables, and electricity make up the remaining 97%.

18.3.1.2.2 Paste Preparation Operating Cost by Category

Paste preparation operating costs were divided into the following four categories:

· labor

· maintenance

· consumables

· electricity.

18.3.1.2.3 Labor

Non-mine labor requirements were determined by Ivanhoe Electric in the form of a paste backfill material preparation plant staffing plan. In total, 4.75 persons per shift were costed for paste backfill material preparation operations at an average inclusive cost of $68,789 per person. The partial persons are maintenance staff shared with the processing plant operations.

18.3.1.2.4 Maintenance

Maintenance costs were factored from the direct capital cost estimate of mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and controls equipment associated with the paste backfill material preparation area. A factor of 2% was applied to the capital cost of mechanical equipment to determine the annual maintenance parts cost. A factor of 2% was applied to the capital cost of electrical equipment and 2% to the capital cost of instrumentation equipment to determine the annual maintenance parts cost. These maintenance costs exclude labor, which is included under the labor category. This cost represents the annual spare parts and lubrication cost required to maintain the processing equipment.

18.3.1.2.5 Consumables

The consumption of consumables was derived from calculations based on metallurgical testwork and first principles and priced using vendor quotations.

18.3.1.2.6 Electricity

The electrical rate was applied to the estimated consumed power loads extracted from the electrical load list, which was in turn derived from the installed power of the mechanical equipment.

The estimated life-of-mine annual paste preparation operating costs are summarized by category in Table 18-8.

June 2025 Page 239

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 18-8: Estimated Life-of-Mine Paste Preparation Plant Operating Costs by Category**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Life-of-Mine Unit Cost** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Life-of-Mine Unit Cost** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area** | **$/t Spent Ore Processed** | **$/lb Cu** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Labor | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consumables | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.362 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Electricity | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.042 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**18.61** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**0.424** |

---

The life-of-mine paste backfill material preparation operating costs by category are presented graphically in Figure 18-3.

**Figure 18-3: Estimated Life-of-Mine Paste Backfill Material Preparation Operating Cost Percentage by Category**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img015.jpg)

Source: P&C, 2025.

June 2025 Page 240

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.2 Process and Infrastructure Operating Costs

A summary of the process and infrastructure operating costs for the mine life is presented in Table 18-9.

**Table 18-9: SX/EW and Infrastructure Operating Cost Summary for the Life of Mine**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **Total ($M)** | **$/t Ore Processed** | **$/lb Copper** |
| Consumables | 276 | 2.03 | 0.09 |
| Hauling and Mobile Equipment | 177 | 1.30 | 0.06 |
| Labor | 185 | 1.36 | 0.06 |
| Power | 300 | 2.20 | 0.10 |
| Maintenance | 58 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
| **Total** | **996** | **7.31** | **0.33** |

---

18.3.2.1 SX/EW Plant Operating Cost

The SX/EW plant operating cost estimate encompasses the following processing steps:

· primary crushing

· agglomeration

· ore handling and stacking

· leach solution pumping and heap leach operations

· solvent extraction

· electrowinning

· haulage and storage of spent ore.

18.3.2.1.1 Process Plant Operating Cost by Type

The total estimated annual operating cost has been divided into fixed and variable cost types. Annual fixed costs are approximately $8.7 million (19%). The average variable costs over the life of mine are approximately $6.04 per tonne of ore processed (81%).

Fixed processing costs include labor. Variable processing costs include hauling and mobile equipment, maintenance, consumables, and electrical consumption.

18.3.2.1.2 Process Plant Operating Cost by Category

Processing plant operating costs were divided into the following five categories:

· labor

· hauling and mobile equipment

June 2025 Page 241

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· maintenance

· consumables

· electricity.

The life-of-mine process plant operating costs by category are presented in Figure 18-4.

**Figure 18-4: Process Plant Operating Percentage by Category (Life-of-Mine Average)**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img017.jpg)

Source: Fluor, 2025.

18.3.2.1.3 Labor

In total, 121 persons were costed for processing and infrastructure operations at an average inclusive cost of $71,860 per person.

18.3.2.1.4 Hauling & Mobile Equipment

Annual diesel fuel consumption for onsite mobile equipment is estimated based on fleet size, annual fleet operating hours, and fuel consumption for each piece of mobile equipment. A fleet of 53 pieces of mobile equipment were assigned to the processing plant and infrastructure areas including forklifts, pickups, cranes, grader vacuum trucks, manlifts, etc. Hauling of spent ore from the on/off pad to the paste processing area (50%) and spent ore pile (50%) was estimated using a local contractor quotation supplied by Ivanhoe Electric of $0.45/km/m<sup>3</sup>.

June 2025 Page 242

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

18.3.2.1.5 Maintenance

Maintenance costs were factored from the direct capital cost estimate of mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and controls equipment. A factor of 2% was applied to the capital cost of mechanical equipment to determine the annual maintenance parts cost. A factor of 2% was applied to the capital cost of electrical equipment and 2% to the capital cost of instrumentation equipment to determine the annual maintenance parts cost. These maintenance costs exclude labor, which is included under the labor category. This cost represents the annual spare parts and lubrication cost required to maintain the processing equipment.

18.3.2.1.6 Consumables

Consumable consumption was derived from calculations based on metallurgical testwork and first principles with pricing provided by vendor quotations.

18.3.2.1.7 Electricity

The electric rate was applied to the estimated consumed power loads extracted from the electrical load list, which was in turn derived from the installed power of the mechanical equipment. Power consumption during ramp-up and ramp-down years was factored based on annual throughput relative to the design annual throughput.

18.3.3 General & Administrative Operating Costs

General and administrative (G&A) costs include mine management, human resources, accounting, environmental, health and safety, laboratory, community relations, communications, legal, insurance, training and other costs not relating to mining or processing.

June 2025 Page 243

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **19** | **Economic Analysis** |

---

19.1 Methodology Used

BBA prepared a cash flow model to evaluate the Santa Cruz Copper Project on a real basis. This model was prepared on a monthly basis for the first five years (2026 to 2030), quarterly for the next five years (2031 to 2035), and annual basis for the remainder of the project (2036 to 2071). Active mine closure starts in 2052 followed by passive closure in 2055. This section presents the main assumptions used in the cash flow model and the resulting indicative economics.

The economic model is based on the mine plan as outlined in Section 13. The economic results of the project do not include inferred resources.

Capital and operating costs were developed in Section 18 and the build-ups and associated accuracy, and contingency can be found in those sections.

All results and technical and cost information are presented in this section on a 100% basis reflective of Ivanhoe Electric's ownership, unless otherwise noted.

As with the capital and operating costs and pricing forecasts, the economic analysis is inherently a forward-looking exercise. These estimates rely upon a range of assumptions and forecasts that are subject to change depending upon macroeconomic conditions, operating strategy and new data collected through future study and operation.

19.2 Financial Model Parameters

All costs incurred prior to the model start date are considered sunk costs. The potential impact of these costs on the economics of the project is not evaluated. This includes exploration expenditures and working capital as these items are assumed to have a zero balance at model start.

The model continues several years beyond the mine life to incorporate closure costs in the cash flow analysis.

The discount rate select is 8%. Discounting was conducted on a monthly basis for the initial five years, transitioned to a quarterly basis during the subsequent five years on a mid-quarter period, and then proceeded annually for the remainder of the project on a mid-year period. Discounting commenced in the second month.

Start of the project is considered January 1, 2026. All pricing is considered in Q2 2025 dollar. No inflation or escalation is considered.

19.2.1 Pricing

Modeled prices are based on prices developed in Section 16 of this report, including copper price. Only copper cathode is modeled. Any other metals present are not considered in the model.

June 2025 Page 244

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

19.2.2 Royalties

The project is subject to several royalties as outlined in previous sections. These royalties vary in rate and area of influence. The material subject to royalties was provided in the mining schedule and the appropriate rates were applied in the model. The royalties are calculated after the removal of the leaching and extraction costs. This approach results in an approximate royalty rate of approximately 5.7% and totaling approximately $715.8 million over the life of the project.

19.2.3 Taxes

The Project is subject to a combined state and federal income tax rate of 25.9%. Taxable income is determined based on gross revenue, minus allowable deductions, including royalties, offsite costs, operating costs, tax depreciation, depletion, and net operating losses incurred, among other specific state and federal tax adjustments. Project capital costs are depreciated using the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) applicable to the specific categories of mine development and infrastructure.

Property taxes are included in operating costs as a line-item within G&A costs. Estimates are based on the Arizona Department of Revenue guidelines, discussions with tax experts, and market precedents for operating mines in Arizona. Property taxes are modeled utilizing the cost approach for the initial five years and split between the income and cost approaches for the remaining life of mine.

The Project is modeled as being subject to Arizona Mineral Severance Tax payable at a rate of 2.5% on gross revenue minus allowable deductions.

19.2.4 Working Capital

The assumptions for working capital in this analysis are summarized in Table 19-2. The change in working capital over the life of the project is zero.

**Table 19-1: Summary of Working Capital**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Working Capital** | **Days** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Days per Year | 365 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Days in Accounts Receivable | 15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Days of Cost of Good Sold in Inventory | 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Days in Accounts Payable | 90 |

---

June 2025 Page 245

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

19.3 Economic Analysis

The economic analysis metrics are prepared on annual pre- and after-tax basis.

The results of the analysis are presented in Table 19-3. The results show that with a copper price of $4.25/lb, a copper premium of $0.14/lb, the project yields an after-tax net present value (NPV) of $1.4 billion at 8%, and an after-tax internal rate of return (IRR) of 20.0%, and a payback period of 4.4 years from construction start.

**Table 19-2: Economic Analysis Results**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **Life of Mine** | **First 15 Years** |
| **Production Data** | **Production Data** | **Production Data** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Life | 23 | 15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reserve Tonnes | 136 | 106 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Grade | 1.08 | 1.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Daily Throughput | 15000 | 20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Annual Copper Production | 56685 | 72186 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Copper Cathode Produced | 1360 | 1083 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery | 92.2 | 92.4 |
| **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** | **Capital Costs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Capital | 1236 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital | 1281 | 1176 |
| **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** | **Unit Costs** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | 19.07 | 19.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Cost | 7.31 | 7.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost | 3.04 | 3.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalties | 5.26 | 5.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | 34.68 | 35.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating + Sustaining Cost | 43.98 | 46.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C1 Cash Cost | 1.32 | 1.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All-in-sustaining Cost | 2.01 | 1.99 |
| **Financial Analysis** | **Financial Analysis** | **Financial Analysis** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Price | 4.25 | 4.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Domestic Cathode Premium<sup>1</sup> | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Cashflow | 6148 | 4501 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1880 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Tax Internal Rate of Return | 22 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Cashflow | 4961 | 3637 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Net Present Value (8%) | 1376 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Internal Rate of Return | 20 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After-Tax Payback Period | 4.4 |  |

---

<sup>1</sup> See Section 16 for discussion on copper premium.

June 2025 Page 246

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

This estimated cash flow is inherently forward-looking and dependent upon numerous assumptions and forecasts, such as macroeconomic conditions, mine plans and operating strategy, that are subject to change.

The annual and cumulative cash flows are presented on an annual basis in Figure 19-1 and Table 19-4.

**Figure 19-1: Annual and Cumulative Cash Flow**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1img007.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 247

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

**Table 19-3: Cash Flow Model**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Description** | **LOM<br> Total** | **Units** | **Pre-Production** | **Pre-Production** | **Pre-Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Production** | **Closure** |
| **Description** | **LOM<br> Total** | **Units** | **YR-3** | **YR-2** | **YR-1** | **YR1** | **YR2** | **YR3** | **YR4** | **YR5** | **YR6** | **YR7** | **YR8** | **YR9** | **YR10** | **YR11** | **YR12** | **YR13** | **YR14** | **YR15** | **YR16** | **YR17** | **YR18** | **YR19-23** | **YR24-43** |
| **Description** | **LOM<br> Total** | **Units** | **2026** | **2027** | **2028** | **2029** | **2030** | **2031** | **2032** | **2033** | **2034** | **2035** | **2036** | **2037** | **2038** | **2039** | **2040** | **2041** | **2042** | **2043** | **2044** | **2045** | **2046** | **2047-2051** | **2052-2071** |
| SX/EW Feed Production Tonnage | 136.2 | Mt | 0.00 | 0.03 | 1.67 | 3.97 | 5.38 | 6.74 | 7.49 | 7.44 | 7.87 | 7.44 | 7.74 | 7.94 | 7.96 | 7.26 | 7.40 | 7.82 | 7.85 | 5.96 | 4.17 | 3.74 | 3.67 | 16.64 | 0.00 |
| Recovered Copper Production | 2999 | Mlbs | - | - | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;25 | 106 | 148 | 158 | 168 | 169 | 166 | 174 | 171 | 164 | 161 | 165 | 167 | 169 | 168 | 134 | 90 | 79 | 77 | 342 | - |
| Assumptions |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Base Copper Price | 4.25 | $/lb | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.25 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Cathode Premium | 0.14 | $/lb | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Copper Price | 4.39 | $/lb | 4.25 | 4.25 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 4.39 | 0.00 |
| **Gross Revenue** | **13167** | **$M** | **-** | **-** | **109** | **466** | **648** | **694** | **740** | **742** | **727** | **763** | **752** | **719** | **705** | **725** | **733** | **742** | **736** | **589** | **396** | **346** | **337** | **1499** | **-** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Costs | 3948 | $M | 0 | 0 | 0 | 143 | 194 | 221 | 225 | 226 | 236 | 215 | 215 | 226 | 220 | 209 | 204 | 199 | 194 | 162 | 120 | 113 | 104 | 508 | 17 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalties | 716 | $M | 0 | 0 | 6 | 32 | 45 | 48 | 52 | 51 | 47 | 48 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 35 | 28 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 69 | 0 |
| **Capital Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Capital Costs | 1077 | $M | 168 | 405 | 504 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indirect & EPCM | 119 | $M | 28 | 34 | 48 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | 53 | $M | 15 | 16 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital Costs | 1267 | $M | 0 | 0 | 0 | 292 | 146 | 69 | 75 | 47 | 65 | 81 | 118 | 78 | 42 | 32 | 32 | 21 | 47 | 17 | 14 | 21 | 28 | 43 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation & Closure Costs | -113 | $M | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -115 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Change in Working Capital | 0 | $M | 0 | 0 | 3 | -17 | -4 | -2 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 6 | 2 | -3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Taxes | 1187 | $M | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 19 | 50 | 44 | 69 | 79 | 75 | 76 | 85 | 89 | 94 | 94 | 73 | 45 | 39 | 38 | 169 | 29 |
| **Cash Flow Results** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Pre-Tax Cash Flow** | **6148** | **$M** | **-213** | **-455** | **-469** | **12** | **265** | **355** | **383** | **418** | **381** | **413** | **380** | **385** | **410** | **448** | **461** | **485** | **460** | **382** | **244** | **196** | **188** | **880** | **139** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative Pre-Tax Cash Flow |  | $M | -213 | -668 | -1136 | -1125 | -860 | -508 | -122 | 297 | 677 | 1090 | 1470 | 1856 | 2265 | 2713 | 3174 | 3659 | 4119 | 4501 | 4745 | 4941 | 5129 | 6009 | 6148 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**After-Tax Cash Flow** | **4961** | **$M** | **-213** | **-455** | **-469** | **9** | **258** | **346** | **364** | **368** | **337** | **344** | **301** | **310** | **334** | **363** | **372** | **391** | **366** | **309** | **199** | **158** | **150** | **712** | **106** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cumulative After-Tax Cash Flow |  | $M | -213 | -668 | -1136 | -1127 | -869 | -523 | -159 | 210 | 547 | 891 | 1192 | 1502 | 1836 | 2198 | 2571 | 2962 | 3328 | 3637 | 3836 | 3994 | 4144 | 4855 | 4961 |

---

June 2025 Page 248

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

19.4 Sensitivity Analysis

BBA performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative sensitivity of the project's NPV to a number of key parameters (Figure 19-2). This is accomplished by flexing each parameter upwards and downwards by 25%, except recovery which is assumed to not exceed 95%. Within the constraints of this analysis, the project appears to be most sensitive to copper grade and copper recovery.

BBA cautions that this sensitivity analysis is for information only and notes that these parameters were flexed in isolation within the model and are assumed to be uncorrelated with one another which may not be reflective of reality. Additionally, the amount of flex in the selected parameters may violate physical or environmental constraints present at the operation.

**Figure 19-2: Sensitivity Analysis Results**

![](tm2518281d1_ex96-1img026.jpg)

Source: BBA, 2025.

June 2025 Page 249

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **20** | **Adjacent Properties** |

---

There are no adjacent properties that are relevant to the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

June 2025 Page 250

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **21** | **Other Relevant Data & Information** |

---

There is no other data or information relevant to the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

June 2025 Page 251

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **22** | **Interpretations & Conclusions** |

---

22.1 Introduction

The third-party firms who authored this report as qualified persons note the following interpretations and conclusions in their areas of responsibility, based on review of data available for this report.

22.2 Property Setting

The Santa Cruz Copper Project is located in Arizona where mining activities have been carried out for over 100 years. The local and regional infrastructure and supply of goods available to support mining operations is well-established. Personnel with experience in mining-related activities are available in the district. There are excellent transportation routes that access central Arizona.

There are no significant topographic or physiographic issues that would affect the Santa Cruz Copper Project. Vegetation is typically sparse. The most common current land use is growing cotton and cattle feedlots.

Mining operations are expected to be able to be conducted year-round.

22.3 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties & Agreements

The Santa Cruz exploration area, including the Santa Cruz Copper Project, covers 82.37 km<sup>2</sup>. In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 238 unpatented mining lode claims. In addition, Ivanhoe Electric acquired fee simple mineral title for two further land parcels: CG100 and Skull Valley. In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the 20-acre Skull Valley property in the southeastern area of the project and a 100.33-acre "CG100" in the northeastern area of project.

In 2023, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 16 Arizona State Land Department mineral exploration permits covering 27.95 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,900 acres) of state mineral land. In May 2023, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface title to ~24.2 km<sup>2</sup> (5,975 acres) encompassing the Santa Cruz Copper Project.

In 2024, Ivanhoe Electric was granted 100% of the mineral title for 26.0 km<sup>2</sup> (~6,425 acres) of fee simple mineral estate, 39 federal unpatented mining lode claims, and 2.6 km<sup>2</sup> (~642.5 acres) of Stock-Raising Homestead Act lands.

Ivanhoe Electric acquired grandfathered irrigation rights and grandfathered Type 1 non-irrigation water rights in association with the private land purchased in 2023 and holds all necessary water rights for the life-of-mine plan envisaged in this report.

There are numerous royalties that apply to the property and planned mining operations. Royalty payments vary depending on the amount of refined copper produced and the net smelter return values.

A 2023 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, completed by Environmental Site Assessments, Inc. identified an aquifer exemption on a small portion of the property and agrochemical contamination of soils in former crop fields. While the aquifer exemption is representative of a controlled recognized environmental condition, further assessment of the agrochemical contamination will be required prior to earthwork for redevelopment of these areas.

June 2025 Page 252

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

To the extent known to BBA, there are no other known significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Santa Cruz Copper Project that are not discussed in this report.

22.4 Geology & Mineralization

The deposits within the Santa Cruz Copper Project area are considered to be porphyry copper deposits of the Southwestern Porphyry Belt, defined by a combination of hypogene and supergene mineralization segmented by normal faults.

The geological understanding of the mineralogy, lithology, alteration, and structural controls on mineralization is sufficient to support estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves, and can support mine planning.

22.5 History

The project area has over 60 years of exploration history conducted by various operators targeting definition and expansion of copper mineralization.

22.6 Exploration, Drilling & Sampling

Drilling within the Santa Cruz Copper Project totals 469 drillholes for 330,118 m of drilling. Of this total, 329 drillholes for 279,164 m were used in support of the mineral resource estimate. Drilling is predominantly vertically-oriented from the surface, which is appropriate to intersect the sub-horizontal mineralization.

Sampling methods, sample preparation, analysis and security conducted prior to Ivanhoe Electric's involvement were in accordance with exploration practices and industry standards at the time the information was collected. Current sampling methods are acceptable for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. Sample preparation, analysis and security are currently performed in accordance with general industry standards.

Current QA/QC protocols meet industry standard insertion rates for blanks, standards, and duplicates. These control samples adequately control issues with contamination, precision, accuracy, and sampling errors. Assay and geological information collected from drillholes is considered sufficient for interpretation of the deposit and mineral resource estimation.

Geotechnical data were used to develop an understanding of the rock quality throughout the deposits and surrounding rocks and to plan ground support methods.

A three-dimensional numerical groundwater model was constructed to understand the groundwater system and predict water inflows during mining operations. The groundwater flow model indicates residual passive inflows in the first 10 years of mining at or below 6,000 gallons per minute.

22.7 Data Verification

Validation checks are performed by Ivanhoe Electric personnel on data used to support estimation comprise checks on surveys, collar coordinates, lithology data (cross-checking from photographs and core library), and assay data. Errors were rectified in the database prior to data being approved for use in resource estimation.

June 2025 Page 253

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Reviews performed by external consultants were undertaken in support of pre-feasibility level studies and in support of technical reports, producing independent assessments of the database quality. No significant problems with the database, sampling protocols, flowsheets, check analysis program, or data storage were noted.

BBA considers a reasonable level of verification has been completed, and that no material issues have been unidentified from the programs undertaken.

BBA requested that information, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the body of this report be reviewed by Ivanhoe Electric staff as a further level of data verification. Feedback from the reviewers was incorporated into the report as required.

BBA reviewed the reports and are of the opinion that the data verification programs completed on the data collected from the project are consistent with industry best practices and that the database is sufficiently error-free to support the geological interpretations and mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation, and mine planning.

22.8 Metallurgical Testwork

Metallurgical studies have been conducted to evaluate alternative process flowsheet configurations, including the chosen flowsheet of weak acid, chloride-assisted, heap leaching. If the project prepares to advance to basic engineering and construction, it is recommended that leach testwork continues to quantify geometallurgical variability, optimize leach conditions, and provide input to process design criteria.

22.9 Mineral Resource Estimates

All mineralogical information, exploration drill data, and background information were provided to BBA by Ivanhoe Electric.

Mineral resources are reported using the mineral resource definitions set out in S-K 1300 and are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. The reference point for the estimate is in situ. Mineral resources are reported on a 100% ownership basis.

Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimates include: changes to long-term metal price assumptions; changes to the input values for mining, processing, and general and administrative (G&A) costs to constrain the estimate; changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized subdomains; changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones; changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes in assumptions of marketability of the final product; variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and mining assumptions; changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements; changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions; logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labor, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics, and other public health crises, or geopolitical influence.

22.10 Mineral Reserve Estimates

Mineral reserves were converted from measured and indicated mineral resources. Inferred mineral resources were not converted to mineral reserves; however, if inferred mineral resources fell within the mineral reserve designs, they were assumed to have zero grade.

June 2025 Page 254

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

All current mineral reserves will be exploited using underground mining methods. Mineral reserves were estimated using longhole stoping and drift-and-fill methods. Mineral resources were converted to mineral reserves using a detailed mine plan, an engineering analysis, and consideration of modifying factors. Modifying factors include the consideration of dilution and ore losses, underground mining methods, metallurgical recoveries, permitting, and infrastructure requirements.

Mineral reserves are reported using the definitions set out in S-K 1300. The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities. Mineral reserves are reported on a 100% ownership basis.

Factors that may affect the mineral reserve estimate include: changes to long-term metal price assumptions; changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions; changes to the input assumptions used to derive the mineable shapes applicable to the assumed underground and open pit mining methods used to constrain the estimate; changes to the forecast dilution and mining recovery assumptions; changes to the cutoff grades used to constrain the estimate; variations in geotechnical (including seismicity), hydrogeological, mining, and processing recovery assumptions; and changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions.

22.11 Mining Methods

Mining operations can be conducted year-round.

Underground mining will be conducted using conventional long-hole stoping or drift-and-fill methods. The underground mine plans are based on the current knowledge of geotechnical, hydrogeological, mining, and processing information.

The life-of-mine plan assumes 136.1 Mt ore and waste rock will be mined and 124.9 Mt of ore will be treated.

22.12 Recovery Methods

The designs for the process facilities were based on metallurgical testwork. The designs are conventional to the global copper industry.

Factors that may produce variations in recovery due to the day-to-day changes in ore type or combinations of ore type being processed. These variations are expected to trend to the forecast recovery value for monthly or longer reporting periods.

22.13 Infrastructure

New infrastructure will be required to support proposed operations for the Santa Cruz Copper Project. Power will be transmitted from a local provider to an onsite substation along with an onsite renewable power campus. The water management system will be installed to collect mine dewatering, contact, and non-contact water, stormwater, and process water.

Structures will be installed on site to support maintenance, laboratory testing, emergency services, security, change-house, and mine warehouse facilities.

June 2025 Page 255

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

22.14 Market Studies

A price of $4.25 per pound copper is based on a review of the one-, three-, and five-year trailing averages, as well as consensus forecasts from major banks and Ocean Partners.

Due to the shape, chemical composition, and origin point of the cathode, it is expected that a premium to the price will be negotiated with potential buyers that is marginally above the historical average; this premium is estimated at $0.14 per pound ($300 per tonne).At this time, no sales agreements or contracts have been executed with vendors, contractors, or manufacturers.

22.15 Environmental, Permitting & Social Considerations

Baseline and supporting environmental studies were completed to assess pre-existing environmental and social conditions and to support decision-making processes during permitting, design, construction, operations, and closure. Characterization studies were completed for flora and fauna, special status species, surface water mapping, air quality, cultural resources, groundwater quality, and material environmental behavior.

Plans were developed and implemented to address aspects of operations such as waste, migratory bird protection measures, fugitive dust management, reclamation, spill prevention and contingency planning, water management, and noise levels.

Stakeholder engagement is a primary pillar of Ivanhoe Electric's community relations and social performance strategy and includes development of a community working group, participation, sponsorship, and support in local activities; city council and county meetings; serving on boards and committees; and one-to-one engagement. From this engagement, Ivanhoe Electric listens to, and partners with, local organizations to identify a social investment strategy.

At present, the project has initiated outreach with Native American communities that have ancestral ties to the land, community outreach with local stakeholders, community involvement, and is actively assessing potential partnerships within the local community.

22.16 Capital Cost Estimates

All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300 and AACE Class 3, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates. All pricing is considered in Q1 2025 dollars. Inflation or escalation are not considered.

Capital costs included funding for infrastructure, underground dewatering, underground mine equipment, and surface equipment.

The overall capital cost estimate for the life of mine is $2.4 billion.

22.17 Operating Cost Estimates

Operating costs were based on estimations and are projected through the life-of-mine plan, and are at minimum at a prefeasibility level of confidence, having an accuracy level of – 20% to +25%. No contingency was applied to operating cost estimates.

June 2025 Page 256

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Costs were estimated from supplier issued quotes. Labor and energy costs were based on budgeted rates applied to headcounts and energy consumption estimates.

The life-of-mine operating costs are estimated at $3.95 billion. The average mining costs over the life of mine are $19.07/t processed, process costs are $7.31/t processed, and general and administrative costs are $3.04/t processed.

22.18 Economic Analysis

Based on the cash flow model, the after-tax financial model resulted in an IRR of 20.0% and an NPV of $1.4 billion using an 8% discount rate. The after-tax payback period, after start of operations, is 4.4 years.

The pre-tax base case financial model resulted in an IRR of 22.0% and an NPV of $1.9 B using an 8% discount rate.

The Santa Cruz Copper Project contemplates average annual copper cathode production of approximately 72,000 tonnes for the first 15 years of copper production and the average annual production is approximately 35,000 tonnes for the remaining 8 years of life of mine.

The total mine life is 23 years at an average C1 cash cost of $1.32 per pound of copper and sustaining cash costs of $2.01 per pound of copper.

A variable cut-off grade strategy optimizes recovery in the early years and maximizes mine life in the later years of the mine plan.

A sensitivity analysis was completed by flexing each parameter upwards and downwards by 25%, except recovery which is assumed to not exceed 95%. Within the constraints of this analysis, the project appears to be most sensitive to copper grade and copper recovery.

22.19 Risks & Opportunities

Factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates were identified in Section 11.13 and Section 12.5, respectively.

22.19.1 Risks

The risks associated with the Santa Cruz Copper Project are generally those expected with underground mining operations and include the accuracy of the mineral resource and mineral reserve models, and/or operational impacts.

In addition, the noted factors that may affect the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates include:

· The capital cost estimates at mines under development
may increase as construction progresses. This may negatively affect the economic analysis that supports the mineral reserve estimates.

· The life-of-mine plan assumes that the project
can be permitted based on envisaged timelines. If the permitting schedule is delayed, this could impact costs and proposed production.

June 2025 Page 257

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· The long-term reclamation and mitigation of the
Santa Cruz Copper Project are subject to assumptions as to closure timeframes and closure cost estimates. If these cannot be met, there
is a risk to the costs and timing.

· Climate changes could impact operating costs
and ability to operate.

· Political risk from challenges to the current
state or federal mining laws.

22.19.2 Opportunities

Potential opportunities for the project include the following:

· Upgrade of some or all the inferred mineral resources
to higher-confidence categories, with additional drilling and supporting studies, such that this higher confidence material could potentially
be converted to mineral reserves.

· Optimizing the mine plan based upon market conditions.
At present, the production stopes are dictated by their copper content based upon a flat long term copper price.

· Completing additional underground diamond drilling
and development within the ore, there could be a reason to increase the width and/or height of the stopes, if geotechnical factors allow.

· Ivanhoe Electric holds a significant ground package
that retains significant exploration potential for new operations proximal to the current mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates,
with the support of additional studies.

· Ongoing leach testwork will focus on optimizing
leach conditions to maximize copper recovery from chalcocite and reduce heap leach pad capital costs and SX circuit capital costs.

· Simplification and optimization of the ore crushing
circuit should provide for an opportunity to reduce plant capital costs.

· Use of two decades of South American knowledge
and expertise at applying chloride-assisted leach technology to inform construction of the on/off heap leach pad.

· The low elevation profile of the heap leach pad
(6-m lift on/off pad) and the flat topographic terrain should provide cost saving opportunities to use low head type pumps for PLS, raffinate
and organic pumping that can use less expensive materials of construction for pumps like fiberglass, bromo-butyl rubber-lined carbon steel
(not applicable for organic) and HDPE compared to exotic metal pumps resistant to this corrosion environment such as tantalum and titanium.

· There is potential for a considerable positive
impact to the operating cost estimate by optimizing the paste backfill recipe and reducing the binder requirements.

· There is potential to increase material handling
and throughput, further optimizing the mine plan.

22.20 Conclusions

Under the assumptions presented in this report, the Santa Cruz Copper Project consists of mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates that support a positive cash flow.

June 2025 Page 258

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23** | **Recommendations** |

---

23.1 Recommended Work Program Budget

The recommended work programs to advance detailed engineering, operational readiness, permitting, and critical long-lead items total $22.4 million. The budget for recommended work is summarized in Table 23-1.

**Table 23-1: Recommended Work Program Budget**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Discipline** | **Cost ($M)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Permitting | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Environmental Testing | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Detailed Engineering – Surface & Underground | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Long-Lead Items | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Project Support | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Contingency | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**22.4** |

---

23.2 Permitting

· Continue permitting activities and agency engagement
for Pinal County Class II air permit, City of Casa Grande Major Site Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Aquifer Protection,
Arizona Department of Water Resources dewatering permit, EPA Class V UIC Permit.

· As the facility engineering progresses, advance
the closure and reclamation design and engage Arizona State Mining Inspector to obtain an approved mined land reclamation plan for mining
operations.

· Continue working with the community working group
to keep local stakeholders informed about the project's potential economic and community benefits, as well as the company's
commitment to safety and the environment.

· Continue outreach with Native American communities
that have ancestral ties to the land.

23.3 Environmental Testing

· Continue environmental baseline data collection
to support major local, county, and state permitting programs.

· The initiation of 20+ Phase B (mine area materials)
humidity cells is planned for mid-year 2025. The testing program for the Phase B characterization work also includes Tier 1A and 1B testing
for processed mine materials including spent ore and leach raffinate. Additional spent ore and raffinate samples and paste backfill cylinders
are currently being generated by the project for environmental characterization work in 2025.

· Additional characterization of heap leach spent
ore and associated raffinate.

June 2025 Page 259

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

23.4 Detailed Engineering

23.4.1 Surface

The following work plans are recommended to investigate capital and operating cost opportunities, reduce, or remove operating risks, and attempt to improve metallurgical performance of the heap leach:

· ore flow and crusher circuit optimization

· SX circuit configuration and technology evaluation

· site layout optimization

· leach pad grading and drainage optimization

· testwork to optimize leach conditions and to
reduce reagent consumption.

The following key studies to advance to detailed engineering of the heap leach pad, spent ore stockpile, and solution collection pond:

· Hydraulic testing on select ore / waste rock
to determine whether it is suitable for the heap leach pad drainage layer. Test the resistance of the material to long-term contact with
process solutions to ensure the material will not degrade over time.

· Perform laboratory testing on selected geosynthetics
using process solutions to confirm compatibility.

· Estimate seepage rates from the heap leach
pad and spent ore stockpiles and estimate seepage water quality.

23.4.2 Underground

· Detailed underground engineering design for the
boxcut, ramp, roadheader development, and ventilation blind bore shafts.

· Additional geotechnical drilling to support the
proposed boxcut.

· Additional geotechnical drilling to support the
blind bore ventilation shaft development.

· Phased-study of activated colloidal silica sealing
project within specific areas of the proposed decline.

· Detailed design of the Railveyor materials handling
system to maintain schedule for long-lead procurement items.

· Paste backfill testing to optimize cement binder
content and quantities and establish supply chain and logistics with key providers and their facility upgrades.

23.5 Long-Lead Items

· Purchase an interim substation, including a transformer
and switchgear, to meet early and interim power loads.

23.6 Project Support

· Staffing to support early works.

June 2025 Page 260

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

· Implement a procurement management system.

· Optimize the documents management system.

· Implement a project management system.

· Implement a safety management system.

June 2025 Page 261

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **24** | **References** |

---

24.1 List of References

Anderson, T. H., (2015). Jurassic (170–150 Ma) basins: The tracks of a continental-scale fault, the Mexico-Alaska megashear, from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), (2005). Arizona Mining Guidance Manual Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT).

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), (2005). Arizona Mining Guidance Manual Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT).

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), (2019). Pinal Model and 100-Year Assured Water Supply Projection Technical Memorandum. October 11, 2019.

Asmus, B., (2013). Gossan or the iron cap. Retrieved from <u>https://en.archaeometallurgie.de/gossan-iron-cap</u>

Balla, J. C., (1972). The relationship of Laramide stocks to regional structure in central Arizona.

Banks, N. G., Cornwall, H. R., Silberman, L., Creasey, S. C., & Marvin, R. F. (1972). Chronology of Intrusion and Ore Deposition at Ray, Arizona; Part I, K-Ar Ages. Economic Geology, 67(7), 864-878.

BBA (2025). June Metal Pricing_R00.XLS

Berger, B., Ayuso, R., Wynn, J., & Seal, R., (2008). Preliminary Model of Porphyry Copper Deposits. from USGS site: <u>http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr20081321</u>

Blue Coast Laboratories, Ltd. (2025). PJ-5524 - Ivanhoe Electric - Santa Cruz Column Leach Metallurgical Testwork Report V1.0.

Call & Nicholas Inc., (2022). Decline Characterization and Support Estimation. December 14.

Canadian Dam Association, (2019). Technical Bulletin: Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams.

Chávez, W. X., (2021). Weathering of Copper Deposits and Copper Mobility: Mineralogy, Geochemical Stratigraphy, and Exploration Implications. SEG Discovery, (126), 16-27.

CIBC (2025). Consensus Commodity Prices, June 2025.

Cook III, S. S. (1994)., The geological history of supergene enrichment in the porphyry copper deposits of southwestern North America (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona).

Cummings, R. B., & Titley, S. R., (1982). Geology of the Sacaton porphyry copper deposit. Advances in Geology of the Porphyry Copper Deposits, Southwest North America, 507-521.

Dilles, John H., et al., (2000). Overview of the Yerington porphyry copper district: Magmatic to nonmagmatic sources of hydrothermal fluids, their flow paths, alteration affects on rocks, and Cu-Mo- Fe-Au ores.

eBird, (2023). EBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: <u>http://www.ebird.org</u>. Accessed: August 1, 2023.

June 2025 Page 262

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2007). Map number 04021C1150E and 04021C1175E, effective on 12/4/2007. Accessed June 28, 2023. <u>https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home</u>

Fernández-Mort, A., & Riquelme, R. A.-Z., (2018). genetic model based on evapoconcentration for sediment-hosted exotic-copper mineralization in arid environments: the case of the El Tesoro Central copper deposit, Atacama Desert, Chile. Miner Deposita, 53, 775-795. Retrieved from <u>https://doi.org/10.1007/s00126-017-0780-2</u>

Foster, Michael S., Ron Ryden, and Cara Bellavia, (2006). An Archaeological Evaluation of the Legends Project Area, West of the Town of Casa Grande, Pinal County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report 9596-094. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona.

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., (2025). Updated Site Sampling Plan Santa Cruz Copper Project. Prepared for Ivanhoe Electric. April 2025

Global Tailings Review (GTR), (2020). Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM). August.

Hall, R.R., Dorsey & Whitney, LLP. (2025). Confidential Santa Cruz NSR Royalty Analysis and Opinion Letter dated May 15, 2025.

Harlan, S. S., (1993). Paleomagnetism of Middle Proterozoic diabase sheets from central Arizona. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 30(7), 1415-1426.

INTERA Incorporated (INTERA), (2025). Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modeling for the Santa Cruz Copper Project Preliminary Feasibility Study. Prepared for Ivanhoe Electric. June 2025.

Klawon J., P. Pearthree, S. Skotnicki, C. and Ferguson, (1998). Geology and Geological Hazards of the Casa Grande Area, Pinal County, Arizona. Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-23. September.

Kreis, H. G., (1978). A Structural and Related Mineral Reinterpretation of the Santa Cruz Horst Block. Internal report.

Kreis, H. G., (1982). Geology and copper reserves of the lands area, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Pinal County, Arizona. Prepared for ASARCO Incorporated. August 27.

LaLonde, M.C., Fennemore Law, (2025). Update to Mineral Title Report dated October 29, 2021, June 30, 2022, February 10, 2023, September 21, 2023, and November 19, 2023. Prepared for Ivanhoe Electric. February 2025.

Langevin, C.D., Hughes, J.D., Banta, E.R., Niswonger, R.G., Panday, S. and Provost, A.M., (2017). Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Flow Model (No. 6-A55). United States Geological Survey.

Leveille, R. A., & Stegen, R. J., (2012). The southwestern North America porphyry copper province.

Lipske, J. L., & Dilles, J. H., (2000). Advanced argillic and sericitic alteration in the subvolcanic environment of the Yerington porphyry copper system, Buckskin Range, Nevada.

Liu, S., Nelson, K., Yunker, D., Hipke, W., and Corkhill, F. (2014). Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Pinal Active Management Area, Arizona: Model Update and Calibration (Model Report No. 26). Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division. February 2014.

Lowell, J., & Guilbert, J., (1970). Lateral and vertical alteration-mineralization zoning in porphyry ore deposits. Economic Geology, 65, 373-408.

McClelland Laboratories (2024). 4815 Mesa Cobre Holding Corporation Report_7-8-24.

June 2025 Page 263

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

Middleton, Sherri (2022). A Class III Cultural Resources Assessment of 20 Archaeological Sites on Private Land In Support of the Santa Cruz Copper Project Near Casa Grande, Arizona, WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, November 3, 2022.

Montgomery & Associates, (2023). Results of 2022 and 2023 Packer Testing, Santa Cruz – Pinal County, AZ (Project #: 3457.07). Technical Memorandum. Natalie Speaks, Brady Nock, and Colin Kikuchi. June 1.

Mote, T., Becker, T., Renne, P., & Brimhall, G., (2001). Chronology of Exotic Mineralization at El Salvador, Chile, by 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Copper Wad and Supergene Alunite. Economic Geology, 351-

Mountain States Engineering (1980). ASARCO Study, Section 5.3.2.

Münchmeyer, C., (1998). Exotic Deposits - Products of Lateral Migration of Supergene Solutions from Porphyry Copper Deposits. Andean Copper Deposits: New Discoveries, Mineralization, Styles and Metallogeny. Francisco Camus, Richard Sillitoe, Richard Petersen.

Nelson, P.H., (1991). Geophysical Logs from a Copper Oxide Deposit, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Casa Grande, Arizona (USGS Open-File Report 91-357).

NGI Handbook (2022). Using the Q-system: Rock Mass Classification and Support Design. Oslo, Norway.

Ocean Partners, (2025). Copper Concentrate Market Study, Ivanhoe Electric Santa Cruz Project, Revision 2, April 5, 2025.

PMC Laboratory Limited (2023) JAN 2023-10_McClelland_Ivanhoe_FINAL_Rev1.

Scarborough, R., & Meader, N., (1989). Geological Map of the Northern Plomosa Mountains, Yuma [La Paz] County, Arizona.

Sell, J.D., (1976). A Structural and Related Mineral Reinterpretation of the Santa Cruz Horst Block - Santa Cruz Copper Project Studies, Pinal County, Arizona, internal report from Sell to F.T. Greybeal.

SGS Laboratories (2024) 20188-02 - FINAL - Report & Appendices - combined - November 29, 2024.

SGS Laboratories (2025). 20118-01-Variability – Final Report Appendices – combined – January 8 2025.pdf

Sillitoe, R. H., (2010). Porphyry Copper Systems. Economic Geology. Retrieved from <u>https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.105.1.3</u>

Tosdal, R., & Wooden, J. L., (2015). Construction of the Jurassic magmatic arc, southeast California and southwest Arizona. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 513, 189-221.

USGS (2023a). Mineral Industry Surveys, Copper in April 2023, July 2023 USGS (2023b). Copper, prepared by Daniel Flanagan, dflanagan@usgs.gov

Vikre, P., Graybeal, F., & Koutz, F., (2014). Concealed Basalt-Matrix Diatremes with Cu-Au-Ag-(Mo)- Mineralized Xenoliths, Santa Cruz Porphyry Cu-(Mo) System, Pinal County, Arizona. Economic Geology. doi:10.2113/econgeo.109.5.1271

Watts Griffis McQuat, Evoy, E.F., (1982). Casa Grande Copper Company Ore Reserve Study for the Hanna Mining Company.

Watts, A. B., Karner, G., & Steckler, S., (1982). Lithospheric flexure and the evolution of sedimentary basins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 305(1489), 249-281.

June 2025 Page 264

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, (2023). Draft Ivanhoe Electric Preconstruction Biological Resources Surveys Summary Report, March 1, 2023.

WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, (2024). Draft Ivanhoe Electric Preconstruction Biological Resources Surveys Summary Report, January 28, 2025.

WestLand. WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, (2022a). Biological Evaluation for the Texaco Exploration Project in Casa Grande, Arizona, March 18, 2022.

WestLand. WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, (2022b). OHWM Evaluation: Santa Cruz Exploration Project, March 21, 2022 (rev).

June 2025 Page 265

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

24.2 Units of Measurement & Abbreviations

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation / Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;~ | &nbsp;&nbsp;Approximately |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;˚C | &nbsp;&nbsp;Degrees Celsius |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;° | &nbsp;&nbsp;Degrees |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;°F | &nbsp;&nbsp;Degrees Fahrenheit |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3D | &nbsp;&nbsp;Three-dimensional |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;A | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ampere |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AACE | &nbsp;&nbsp;American Association of Cost Engineering |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AAS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Atomic absorption spectrometry |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ABA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acid base accounting |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;Silver |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;AG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Autogenous grinding |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ai | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond abrasion index |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Alv | &nbsp;&nbsp;Alluvium |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ANFO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ammonium nitrate / fuel oil |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ASCu | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acid-soluble copper |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ASLD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Arizona State Land Department |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ASTM | &nbsp;&nbsp;American Society of Testing and Materials |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;B | &nbsp;&nbsp;Billion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BBA | &nbsp;&nbsp;BBA USA Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BCR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Blue Coast Research |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BEV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Battery electric vehicle |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Burns & McDonnell | &nbsp;&nbsp;Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BWi | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond ball work index |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C$ or CAD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Canadian dollar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CAPEX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Capital cost estimate |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CAR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Central Arizona Resources, Ltd. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CCTV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Closed-circuit television |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CDA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Canadian Dam Association |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conglomerate |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CIL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Carbon in leach |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;cm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Centimeter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;cm/s | &nbsp;&nbsp;Centimeter per second |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CN | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyanide |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CNCu | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyanide soluble copper |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;COMEX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Commodity Exchange Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CoV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Coefficient of variation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CRM | &nbsp;&nbsp;Certified reference material |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cu | &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CuRes | &nbsp;&nbsp;Residual copper |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CWi | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond crushing work index |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;d | &nbsp;&nbsp;Day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;DRH | &nbsp;&nbsp;D.R. Horton Phoenix East Construction, Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EDF | &nbsp;&nbsp;Environmental design flood |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EDTA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EGL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Effective grinding length |

---

June 2025 Page 266

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation / Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EMP | &nbsp;&nbsp;Environmental management plan |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Engineering, procurement, and construction |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EPCM | &nbsp;&nbsp;Engineering, procurement, and construction management |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Fe | &nbsp;&nbsp;Iron |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FEL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Front-end loader |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Fluor | &nbsp;&nbsp;Fluor Canada Ltd. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;FS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Feasibility study |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;g | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gram |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;General and administrative |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;g/L | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grams per liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;g/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;Grams per tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;gal/min | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gallons per minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Geosyntec | &nbsp;&nbsp;Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;GPS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Global positioning system |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;GR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oracle Granite |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;GRG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gravity recoverable gold |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;GWh | &nbsp;&nbsp;Gigawatt-hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;h | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;H | &nbsp;&nbsp;Height |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;H&A | &nbsp;&nbsp;Haley & Aldrich, Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;h/y | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hours per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>3</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfurous acid |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfuric acid |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ha | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hectare |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HCL | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hydrochloric acid |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HDPE | &nbsp;&nbsp;High-density polyethylene |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HG | &nbsp;&nbsp;High grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HGU | &nbsp;&nbsp;Hydrogeological Unit |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;hp | &nbsp;&nbsp;Horsepower |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HPX | &nbsp;&nbsp;High Power Exploration Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HQ | &nbsp;&nbsp;Drill core size (63.5 mm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HSE | &nbsp;&nbsp;Health, safety, environment |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HV | &nbsp;&nbsp;High voltage |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;HVAC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heating ventilation and air-conditioning |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;I&CS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Instrumentation and control system |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;IA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Initial assessment |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ICP-AES | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ID<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance squared |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ID<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inverse distance cubed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;INTERA | &nbsp;&nbsp;INTERA Incorporated |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ISO | &nbsp;&nbsp;International Standards Organization |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ISRM | &nbsp;&nbsp;International Society for Rock Mechanics |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;J | &nbsp;&nbsp;Joule |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;k | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilo or thousand |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;K-Ar | &nbsp;&nbsp;Potassium-argon |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;KCB | &nbsp;&nbsp;KCB Consultants Ltd. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kg | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilogram |

---

June 2025 Page 267

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation / Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kg/m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilogram per cubic meter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kg/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilogram per tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;km | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilometer |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Square kilometer |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;koz | &nbsp;&nbsp;Thousand ounces |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kPa | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilopascal |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilovolt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kVA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilovolt-ampere |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kW | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilowatt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kWh | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilowatt-hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;kWh/t | &nbsp;&nbsp;Kilowatt-hour per tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;L | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;L/h/m<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Liters per hour per square meter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cap |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LCG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Life Cycle Geo, LLC |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LCRS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leachate collection and removal system |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Low grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LHDs | &nbsp;&nbsp;Load-haul-dump equipment |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LLD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Detection limit |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LME | &nbsp;&nbsp;London Metal Exchange |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LTE | &nbsp;&nbsp;Long-term evolution |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ma | &nbsp;&nbsp;Million years ago |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;masl | &nbsp;&nbsp;Meters above sea level |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Material take-offs | &nbsp;&nbsp;MTOs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Met Engineering | &nbsp;&nbsp;Met Engineering, LLC |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Medium grade |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mg/L | &nbsp;&nbsp;Milligram per liter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;min | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ML | &nbsp;&nbsp;Megaliter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ML/ARD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Metal leaching and acid rock generating |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MLI | &nbsp;&nbsp;McClelland Labs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;mm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Millimeter |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MPa | &nbsp;&nbsp;Megapascal |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MSO | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mineable stope optimizer |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mt | &nbsp;&nbsp;Million tonnes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mt/y | &nbsp;&nbsp;Million tonnes per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MVA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Megavolt-ampere |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MW | &nbsp;&nbsp;Megawatt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MWr | &nbsp;&nbsp;Megawatts of refrigeration |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NAG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Non-acid-generating (rockfill material) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NGOs | &nbsp;&nbsp;Non-governmental organizations |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NGS | &nbsp;&nbsp;National Geodetic Survey |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NN | &nbsp;&nbsp;Nearest neighbor |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPAG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Non-potentially acid generating |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NQ | &nbsp;&nbsp;Drill core size (47.26 mm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NSR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Net smelter return |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;O | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxygen |

---

June 2025 Page 268

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation / Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;OEM | &nbsp;&nbsp;Original equipment manufacturer |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;OH&S | &nbsp;&nbsp;Occupational health and safety |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;OK | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ordinary kriging |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;OX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P&C | &nbsp;&nbsp;Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P&ID | &nbsp;&nbsp;Piping and instrument diagram |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;P<sub>80</sub> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Particle size at which 80% of the material will pass |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pa | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pascal |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PAG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Potentially acid generating |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PAX | &nbsp;&nbsp;Potassium amyl xanthate |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PCS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Process control system |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PFD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Process flow diagram |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PFS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-feasibility study |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;pH | &nbsp;&nbsp;Potential hydrogen |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PLC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Programmable logic controller |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PLS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pregnant leach solution |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PMF | &nbsp;&nbsp;Probable maximum flood |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ppb | &nbsp;&nbsp;Parts per billion |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PPD IP | &nbsp;&nbsp;Perpendicular pole dipole induced polarization |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ppm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Parts per million |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PQ | &nbsp;&nbsp;Drill core size (85 mm) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;PV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Photovoltaic |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;QA/QC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Quality assurance / quality control |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Reverse circulation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RMR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Rock mass rating |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ROM | &nbsp;&nbsp;Run of mine |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;rpm | &nbsp;&nbsp;Revolutions per minute |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RQD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Rock quality designation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RWi | &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond rod work index |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;s | &nbsp;&nbsp;Second |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SAR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Species at risk |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SCADA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Supervisory control and data acquisition |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SEQ | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sequential analyses |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SG | &nbsp;&nbsp;Specific gravity |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;S-K 1300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations in Regulation S-K 1300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SLS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary pregnant leach solution |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stantec | &nbsp;&nbsp;Stantec Consulting Services Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;SX/EW | &nbsp;&nbsp;Solvent extraction / electrowinning |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;t | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tonne |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;t/d | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tonnes per day |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;t/h | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tonnes per hour |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;t/y | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tonnes per year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TCu | &nbsp;&nbsp;Total copper |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tetra Tech | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tetra Tech, Inc. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;TSP | &nbsp;&nbsp;Total suspended particulate |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;UCF | &nbsp;&nbsp;Undiscounted cash flow |

---

June 2025 Page 269

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Abbreviation / Unit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;UCS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Uniaxial compressive strength |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;UPS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Uninterruptible power supply |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;US$ or USD | &nbsp;&nbsp;United States dollar |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;V | &nbsp;&nbsp;Volt |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VRFB | &nbsp;&nbsp;Vanadium redox flow battery |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VSD | &nbsp;&nbsp;Variable-speed drive |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;VWPs | &nbsp;&nbsp;Vibrating wire piezometers |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;W | &nbsp;&nbsp;Width |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;WOTUS | &nbsp;&nbsp;Waters of the United States |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;wt % | &nbsp;&nbsp;Weight percentage |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;y | &nbsp;&nbsp;Year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;μg/m<sup>3</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;Micron per cubic meter |

---

June 2025 Page 270

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **25** | **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant** |

---

25.1 Introduction

The companies who authored this report consider it reasonable to rely on Ivanhoe Electric for the information identified in the subsections below, because it employed industry professionals with considerable expertise in order to collect the information in these areas.

25.2 Macroeconomic Trends

Information relating to inflation, interest rates, discount rates, and taxes was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

This information is used in the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11 and the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12.

25.3 Markets

Information relating to market studies / markets for product, market entry strategies, marketing and sales contracts, product valuation, product specifications, transportation costs, agency relationships, material contracts (e.g., mining, transportation, handling, hedging arrangements, and forward sales contracts) was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

This information is used in the market studies in Section 16 and in the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11 and the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12.

25.4 Legal Matters

Information relating to mineral tenure (payments to retain property rights), surface rights, water rights, royalties, encumbrances, easements and rights-of-way, violations and fines, permitting requirements, and the ability to maintain and renew permits was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

This information is used in support of the property description and ownership information in Section 3, the permitting and mine closure descriptions in Section 17, and the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11 and the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12.

25.5 Environmental Matters

Information relating to baseline and supporting studies for environmental permitting and monitoring requirements, ability to maintain and renew permits, emissions controls, closure planning, closure and reclamation bonding and bonding requirements, sustainability accommodations, and monitoring for, and compliance with, requirements relating to protected areas and protected species was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

June 2025 Page 271

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1header.jpg) | Santa Cruz Copper Project<br> S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary<br> Preliminary Feasibility Study |

---

This information is used when discussing ownership information in Section 3, the permitting and closure discussions in Section 17, and the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11 and the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12.

25.6 Stakeholder Accommodations

Information relating to social and stakeholder baseline and supporting studies, hiring and training policies for workforce from local communities, partnerships with stakeholders (including national, regional, and state mining associations; trade organizations; state and local chambers of commerce; economic development organizations; Native American communities: non-governmental organizations; and state and federal governments), and the community relations plan was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

This information is used in the social and community discussions in Section 17 and the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11 and the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12.

25.7 Governmental Factors

Information relating to taxation and royalty considerations, monitoring requirements and frequency, bonding requirements, violations and fines, and risks due to changes in regulations and policies was obtained from Ivanhoe Electric.

This information is used in the discussion on royalties and property encumbrances in Section 3, the permitting and mine closure descriptions in Section 17, and the economic analysis in Section 19. It supports the reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates in Section 11, the assumptions used in demonstrating the economic viability of the mineral reserve estimates in Section 12, and risks due to changes in regulations and policies in Section 22.19.1.

June 2025 Page 272

## Exhibit 99.1

**Exhibit 99.1**![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img07.jpg)

June 23, 2025

**Ivanhoe Electric's Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Copper Project in Arizona Defines a High-Quality Underground Mining Operation with Strong Economics**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Advanced United States Copper Project on Private Land with an After-Tax Net Present Value<sub>8%</sub> of $1.9 Billion and a 24.0% Internal Rate of Return at Current COMEX Copper Price**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Updated Reserves and Mine Plan Support 100% Heap Leach Process Producing 1.4 Million Tonnes of Copper Cathode Over 23 Year Mine Life**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Low Initial Capital of $1.24 Billion and First Quartile Unit Cash Costs of $1.32 Per Pound of Copper**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Highly Engineered Study Will Be Used to Secure Project Financing**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Initial Construction Targeted for First Half 2026, with First Copper Cathode Production Projected in 2028**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img01.jpg)

**Significant Copper Resources Support Future Expansion Potential on Existing Land Package**

**PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Ivanhoe Electric Inc. ("Ivanhoe Electric") (NYSE American: IE; TSX: IE) Executive Chairman Robert Friedland and President and Chief Executive Officer Taylor Melvin are pleased to announce the completion of the Preliminary Feasibility Study (the "Study") for the Company's Santa Cruz Copper Project in Arizona. Located in the heart of Arizona, a state known for its prolific mining history and its booming technology industry, the Santa Cruz Copper Project is poised to become one of the nation's next major domestic producers of refined copper. The highly engineered Study confirms the strong economics of a high-quality, high-grade underground copper mining operation and heap leach processing facility supported by modern technologies. The NI 43-101 Technical Report co-filed in Canada will include the Study as a Feasibility Study as defined by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.**

**The Preliminary Feasibility Study, as prepared under United States regulatory requirements, provides the requisite engineering studies needed to pursue long- term project financing. Project financing efforts are already underway. Ivanhoe Electric is pursuing multiple avenues of funding, including support from United States government agencies, commercial lending institutions, and potential strategic partners at the asset level. On April 15, 2025, Ivanhoe Electric received a Letter of Interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States outlining the potential to provide up to $825 million in debt financing with a 15-year repayment tenor under the Make More in America initiative (refer to <u>Ivanhoe Electric's April 15, 2025 news release</u>).**

**Mr. Friedland commented: "Given global conflicts that concern us all, the United States is now awake to the urgent national security imperative to restore domestic American mineral production to the scale of the American economy. Our government, industry, and defense establishment clearly recognize the paramount importance of having a secure, domestic supply of all critical minerals in the 21st century, including copper. The skillsets and government support required to mine copper, the king of metals, are the same skillsets required to mine any and all elements on the periodic table. Our Santa Cruz Copper Project is at the leading edge of this resurgence – as one of the first new copper mines that will be opened in the United States in a generation…right in the heart of Arizona – "the Copper State", with its burgeoning automotive, defense, and technology industries…including the likes of Lucid Motors and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. A simple Google search will show anyone there are over 1,250 aerospace and defense-related companies in the state of Arizona alone.**

**Santa Cruz will mine the largest high-grade copper oxide orebody in America…which will be processed onsite by a new generation of skilled and highly paid American workers. Santa Cruz will produce an LME Grade A 99.99% pure copper cathode product that will be ready for immediate sale to American industry from our mine gate. Our project will not process concentrate in antiquated, expensive and polluting smelters or ship copper concentrate back and forth across international borders for downstream processing. We will produce pure American copper mined and processed in America, and directly shipped from Arizona for use in American homes, factories and our national defense industry. Santa Cruz is the right project, in the right place, at the right time. Our progress to date could not have been achieved without the support of our long-term supportive investors, such as Saudi Arabia's Maaden and BHP, the world's largest mining company, and several of the world's top institutional investors who understand the urgent need for domestic copper production. This is what the American mineral industry and resurgence must look like – clean, secure, strategic, and ready to support American national security."**

**Mr. Melvin commented: "I am proud of the extraordinary work by our Santa Cruz Project team to complete our Preliminary Feasibility Study on time and on budget. We have assembled a dedicated team of talented mine engineers and underground specialists who have been critical in getting us to this point. Working together with our expert industry consultants, our team's tireless efforts have resulted in a highly engineered underground mine plan and a simplified heap-leach process design with low initial capital, low unit operating costs, and high copper recoveries. Our advanced Santa Cruz Project will provide high- paying jobs in Arizona and be a significant long-term U.S. producer of copper cathode to help meet domestic demand. We are fortunate to have such a high- quality copper asset on private land with excellent infrastructure in Arizona, a state with a rich mining history and a bright mining future."**

**<u>Highlights of the Preliminary Feasibility Study</u>**

**High-grade Mineral Reserves**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Probable Mineral Reserves of 136 million tonnes at a grade of 1.08% copper totaling 1.5 million tonnes of contained copper supports a 23-year mine life** 

**Large, Modern Underground Mining Operation with Simple Process Flowsheet**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **20,000 tonnes per day mining operation utilizing modern mining technology** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Conventional on/off heap leaching lowers operating costs and initial surface capital while yielding high copper recoveries of 92.2% over the life of mine and allowing spent ore to be utilized underground as paste backfill** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Average annual production of 72,000 tonnes of copper cathode during the first 15 years of mining** 

**Low Project Capital Intensity and Unit Operating Costs Underpin Strong Economic Results**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Initial project capital of $1.24 billion and a capital intensity of approximately **$17,000 per tonne of copper<sup>1</sup>** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Global first quartile<sup>2</sup> C1 cash costs of $1.32 per pound of copper over the life of mine, and lowest cost in America** 

<sup>1</sup> Initial capital expenditures divided by average annual copper production for the first 15 years of mining

<sup>2</sup> S&P Global Market Intelligence co-product C1 copper cash cost curve (Q4 2024 dataset dated June 2025), compared to Santa Cruz Copper Project Preliminary Feasibility Study life of mine C1 cash cost and annual average copper production for the first 15 years of mining

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **At the current COMEX copper price of $4.83 per pound, the after-tax net present value at an 8% discount rate is $1.9 billion with an internal rate of return of 24%** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **At a base case of $4.25 per pound of copper, the after-tax net present value at an 8% discount rate is $1.4 billion with an internal rate of return of 20%** 

**Clear Path to Development**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **This is the final technical study to support ongoing project financing discussions** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Private land and mineral rights enable streamlined permitting process** 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Indicative development plan targets initial construction in first half of 2026 and first copper cathode production in 2028** 

**High copper grades, high copper recoveries, low initial capital, and low operating costs give the Santa Cruz Copper Project attractive economics at prices well below today's COMEX copper price (Table 1).**

**Table 1. Life of mine copper price sensitivity**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Pre-tax** | **Pre-tax** | **Pre-tax** | **After-tax** | **After-tax** | **After-tax** |
| <br>**Copper<br> Price<br> ($/pound)** | **Life of<br> Mine Free<br> Cashflow<br> ($ billion)** | **Net<br> Present<br> Value<sub>8</sub>%<br> ($ billion)** | **Internal<br> Rate of<br> Return<br> (%)** | **Life of<br> Mine Free<br> Cashflow<br> ($ billion)** | **Net<br> Present<br> Value<sub>8</sub>%<br> ($ billion)** | **Internal<br> Rate of<br> Return<br> (%)** |
| 3.75 | 4.73 | 1.29 | 17.8% | 3.85 | 0.91 | 16.3% |
| 4.00 | 5.44 | 1.59 | 20.0% | 4.41 | 1.14 | 18.2% |
| 4.25 (Base) | 6.15 | 1.88 | 22.0% | 4.96 | 1.38 | 20.0% |
| 4.50 | 6.86 | 2.17 | 24.0% | 5.52 | 1.61 | 21.8% |
| 4.75 | 7.56 | 2.47 | 26.0% | 6.07 | 1.84 | 23.5% |
| 4.83 (COMEX Spot\*) | 7.79 | 2.56 | 26.6% | 6.25 | 1.91 | 24.0% |
| 5.00 | 8.27 | 2.76 | 27.9% | 6.63 | 2.07 | 25.2% |

---

\*COMEX spot price of $4.83 per pound of copper as of June 20, 2025.

**<u>Details of the Preliminary Feasibility Study</u>**

**The Preliminary Feasibility Study is a Highly Engineered Study Supported by Extensive Drilling, Metallurgical and Hydrogeological Testwork, and Trade-off Studies Involving Global Leaders in Mine Engineering Since the 2023 Initial Assessment Study, Ivanhoe Electric has invested more than $100 million in new drilling, advanced testwork, and extensive engineering studies to produce the Preliminary Feasibility Study. The Study incorporates data gathered from an additional 149 drill holes totaling nearly 120,000 meters, more than 250 trade-off studies, and hundreds of hydrogeological and metallurgical tests. Since commencement of exploration at the Santa Cruz Copper Project in 2021, Ivanhoe Electric has completed 329 drill holes totaling 279,000 meters.**

**Fluor Canada Ltd. served as Project Lead for the Study and was also responsible for surface infrastructure and heap leach pads, working in close collaboration with Ivanhoe Electric's Project team of more than 40 engineers, geologists, and technicians. Other industry-leading consultants involved in major workstreams of the Study include BBA USA Inc. for resources, reserves, underground mine planning and economic analysis, KCB Consultants Ltd. for heap leaching, Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. for paste backfill, Met Engineering, LLC for metallurgical testing, and INTERA Incorporated for hydrogeology.**

**The Study summary results are presented below in Table 2. The Santa Cruz Copper Project compares favorably on a global scale in terms of C1 cash cost, and in terms of capital intensity when compared to North and South American greenfield copper projects (Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively).**

**Table 2. Summary results**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | **Units** | **Life of Mine** | **First 15 Years** |
| Production Data | Production Data | Production Data | Production Data |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Life | Year | 23 | 15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Reserve Tonnes | Million tonnes | 136 | 106 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Grade | % | 1.08 | 1.10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Daily Throughput | Tonnes per day | 15000 | 20000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Annual Copper Production | Tonnes per year | 56685 | 72186 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Copper Cathode Produced | Thousand tonnes | 1360 | 1083 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Recovery | % | 92.2 | 92.4 |
| Capital Costs | Capital Costs | Capital Costs | Capital Costs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Capital | $ million | 1236 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sustaining Capital | $ million | 1281 | 1176 |
| Unit Costs | Unit Costs | Unit Costs | Unit Costs |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | $ per tonne processed | 19.07 | 19.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Cost | $ per tonne processed | 7.31 | 7.02 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General and Administrative Cost<sup>1</sup> | $ per tonne processed | 3.04 | 3.03 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalties | $ per tonne processed | 5.26 | 5.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | $ per tonne processed | 34.68 | 35.16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Operating + Sustaining Cost | $ per tonne processed | 43.98 | 46.23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C1 Cash Cost | $ per pound of copper | 1.32 | 1.29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;All-in-sustaining Cost | $ per pound of copper | 2.01 | 1.99 |
| Financial Analysis | Financial Analysis | Financial Analysis | Financial Analysis |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Price | $ per pound | 4.25 | 4.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Domestic Cathode Premium | $ per pound | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Free Cashflow | $ million | 6148 | 4501 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Net Present Value8% | $ million | 1880 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-tax Internal Rate of Return | % | 22 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Free Cashflow | $ million | 4961 | 3637 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Net Present Value8% | $ million | 1376 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Internal Rate of Return | % | 20 | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;After-tax Payback Period<sup>2</sup> | Year | 4.4 | - |

---

1. General and Administrative Cost inclusive of property tax. 2. After-tax payback period from the start of operations in 2029.

**Figure 1. Cash cost curve of global copper mines, highlighting United States operating mines**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img02.jpg)

**Figure 2. Initial capital intensity compared to North and South American greenfield copper projects**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img03.jpg)

**The Santa Cruz Copper Project is Located on 100%-owned Private Land in the Heart of America's Copper State**

**The Santa Cruz Copper Project is located approximately 40 miles southeast of Phoenix, Arizona in Casa Grande on nearly 6,000 acres of 100%-owned private land, including surface, mineral, and associated water rights necessary for the mining operation (Figure 3). Casa Grande is at the heart of a rapidly growing industrial corridor with readily available power and transportation infrastructure and a skilled local industrial workforce.**

**Figure 3. Santa Cruz Copper Project location**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img04.jpg)

**The planned site layout provides for a compact surface footprint of less than 2,600 acres, representing approximately 40% of the nearly 6,000 acres of private land 100% owned by Ivanhoe Electric at the Santa Cruz Copper Project.**

**The site layout provides sufficient space for future expansion opportunities.**

**Figure 4. Planned site layout**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img05.jpg)

**High-Grade Oxide and Chalcocite Mineral Reserves Amenable to Heap Leaching Support a 23-Year Mine Life**

**The Study includes an initial Mineral Reserve Estimate for the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including Probable Reserves for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge Deposits. Stope shapes were created based on mineralized zone geometry and optimized based on economic prospectivity and geotechnical parameters specific to the** **rock type, the orebody orientation, and the mining sequence. Recovery and dilution factors were applied to calculate the final tonnes and grade of the reserve.**

**Probable Reserves of 136 million tonnes at a 1.08% total copper grade, totaling 1.5 million tonnes of contained copper were calculated (Figure 5). Only high- grade copper mineralization from the Oxide and Chalcocite domains of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge Deposits, highly amenable to the heap leaching flowsheet, comprises the current Mineral Reserves.**

**Figure 5. Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserves and mine infrastructure**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp1img06.jpg)

**Table 3. Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserves summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (thousand tonnes)** | **Total Copper<br> (%)** | **Contained Copper<br> (thousand tonnes)** |
| Santa Cruz | Probable | 132061 | 1.08 | 1430 |
| East Ridge | Probable | 4112 | 1.03 | 42 |
| **Total** | **Probable** | **136173** | **1.08** | **1472** |

---

Notes: **1.** The mineral reserves in this estimate are current to June 23, 2025 and were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc. They are reported in accordance with the definitions for mineral reserves in S-K 1300. **2.** The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the process facilities. **3.** The mineral reserves for the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits were completed using Deswik mining software. Mineral reserves are defined within stope designs that are prescribed by rock mechanics, considering the specific characteristics of deposits, mineral domains, mining methods, and the mining sequence. Transverse longhole stoping is the optimal mining method with uppers and cut & fill methods used where appropriate. Mining will occur in blocks, extracting ore from the bottom upwards, with paste backfill providing ground support to sustain a production rate of 20,000 tonnes per day for the first 15 years of operation. **4.** Mineral reserves are estimated at an NSR cutoff value of $43.95/t for longhole stoping and $60/t for longitudinal retreat stopes and drift and fill. The NSR values reflect the discrete metallurgical responses for each mineral reserve block using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb. **5.** Mineral reserves account for mining loss and dilution. **6.** Mineral reserves are a subset of the indicated mineral resource and do not include the inferred mineral resource. **7.** Rounding, as required by the guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

**Simplified Design and the Use of Modern Mining Technologies Contribute to a Faster Development Timeline, Targeting First Copper Cathode Production in 2028 and Ramp-up to Full Production From 2029**

**The Project's Mineral Reserves will be accessed by conventional twin decline drifts. The Study design includes the use of roadheader technology to construct the declines, measuring approximately 8 kilometers in combined length. Main intake and exhaust raises will be developed using blindbore shaft sinking to supply ventilation to the mine workings (Figure 6 and Figure 7).**

**The underground mine will utilize the latest mining equipment, including a tele- remote-operated electric fleet, mine telemetry, and grade control technologies. Underground mining will primarily use longhole stoping and local drift-and-fill, totaling approximately 201 kilometers of stope cuts completed across 16 main levels. Hydrogeological mitigation strategies during decline development and mining include grouting, hydrostatic lining, and silica gel injection. Groundwater modelling and mitigation result in residual passive inflow rates ranging from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 gallons per minute during peak mining periods.**

**Throughput will steadily increase from the start of production onward to achieve an average of 20,000 tonnes per day, producing an annual average of 72,000 tonnes of copper cathode over the first 15 years of the mine life (Figure 8).**

**Figure 6. Santa Cruz Copper Project underground mine design, orthogonal view**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img001.jpg)

**Figure 7. Santa Cruz Copper Project underground mine design, long-section**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img002.jpg)

**Figure 8. Santa Cruz Copper Project production profile**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img003.jpg)

**Study Supports High-Grade Heap Leach Operation that will Produce Pure Copper Cathode** **for United States' Consumption**

**Data analysis and trade-off studies related to the extensive drilling and associated metallurgical, hydrogeological, and geotechnical studies identified the material benefits of using a conventional chloride-assisted on/off heap leaching flowsheet to produce copper cathode. A simple leaching operation reduces** **surface processing and ramp-up complexities while maintaining the ability to balance mine feed. Heap leaching also lowers surface initial and sustaining capital and lowers operating costs, which in turn enhances Mineral Reserves.**

**Mined ore will be brought to the surface and processed through a conventional chloride-assisted on/off-heap leach process to produce copper cathode through solvent extraction and electrowinning (Figure 9). The high-grade nature of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge orebodies enables high copper recoveries averaging 92.2% over the life of mine, with low sulfuric acid consumption of 6 kilograms per tonne of treated ore. Up to 50% of the spent ore will be converted into paste and used as backfill underground.**

**Figure 9. Santa Cruz Copper Project simplified flowsheet showing the production of copper cathode**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img004.jpg)

**As is common in modern solvent extraction-electrowinning plants, London Metal Exchange Grade A copper production will be expected after an initial commissioning phase.**

**Private Land Enables Streamlined Permitting Process**

**The Santa Cruz Copper Project requires permits primarily from the City of Casa Grande, Pinal County, and the State of Arizona, with only one Federal permit required. Land use authorizations from the City of Casa Grande, including a General Plan Amendment and Major Amendment to a Planned Area Development Zone, have already been obtained and allow mining activities and infrastructure within the project site.**

**Table 4. Current Santa Cruz Copper Project permitting status and timeline**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Permit** | **Status** | **Submittal Timeline** |
| **The following permits have been obtained for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities:** | **The following permits have been obtained for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities:** | **The following permits have been obtained for exploration activities and are in the process of being amended for project construction activities:** |
| Arizona State Mine Inspector Mined Land Reclamation Plan | Active/amendment in progress | Q3 2025 |
| Pinal County Dust Control permit | Active/annual renewal | Ongoing |
| **The following permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted:** | **The following permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted:** | **The following permits for construction activities are in preparation or have been submitted:** |
| City of Casa Grande Major Site Plan and Development permit | In progress | Q3 2025 |
| Pinal County Air Quality Control District Class II Air permit | Submitted | Q1 2025 |
| Arizona Department of Environmental Quality General Aquifer Protection permits for construction | In progress | Q3 2025 |
| Arizona Department of Water Resources 45-513 Groundwater Withdrawal permit | In progress | Q4 2025 |
| **The following permits for construction and operation will be prepared and submitted as design and engineering details become available:** | **The following permits for construction and operation will be prepared and submitted as design and engineering details become available:** | **The following permits for construction and operation will be prepared and submitted as design and engineering details become available:** |
| Arizona Department of Transportation Encroachment permit for access off Highway 84 | Road improvements engineering in progress | Q4 2025 |
| US Environmental Protection Agency Class V Underground Injection Control permit | Engineering to inform application in progress | Q4 2025 |
| Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Individual Aquifer Protection permit | Engineering to inform application in progress | Q3 2026 |
| Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Recycled Water Discharge permit | Detailed engineering required for application, if necessary | Q1 2027 |

---

**The current Santa Cruz Copper Project development plan, subject to project financing and receipt of necessary permits, targets initial construction in the first half of 2026 and first copper cathode produced in 2028 (Figure 10). The indicative development plan is an illustrative timeline, subject to permitting and project financing.**

**Figure 10. Santa Cruz Copper Project indicative development plan**

![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img005.jpg)

**Additional Indicated Mineral Resources, Exclusive of Mineral Reserves, Provide Potential Opportunities for Future Expansion**

**Indicated Resources at Santa Cruz and East Ridge, exclusive of Mineral Reserves, comprise a total of 1.5 million tonnes of contained copper. Indicated Resources in mineralized domains amenable to heap leaching at Santa Cruz total** **0.8 million tonnes and 41,000 tonnes at East Ridge. These Indicated Resources at Santa Cruz and East Ridge are not included in the current mine plan, and if converted to Mineral Reserves, represent near-mine expansion potential. Santa Cruz also includes Indicated Resources of 0.5 million tonnes of contained copper grading 0.73% total copper in the Primary domain. The Primary domain comprises primary copper sulfide mineralization not amenable to the heap leach flowsheet. Additional testwork and studies on the Primary domain may provide longer-term expansion potential, requiring the development of additional processing infrastructure.**

**Additionally, the Santa Cruz Copper Project includes Inferred Resources, which are not included in the Study or the associated mine plan, which comprise a further 3.3 million tonnes of contained copper across the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco Deposits.**

**Table 5. Mineral Resource Estimate, Exclusive of Mineral Reserves Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Deposit** | **Classification** | **Tonnes<br> (thousand<br> tonnes)** | **Total<br> Copper<br> (%)** | **Gold<br> (grams<br> per<br> tonne)** | **Silver<br> (grams<br> per<br> tonne)** | **Contained Gold<br> (thousand troy<br> ounces)** | **Contained Silver<br> (thousand troy<br> ounces)** | **Contained Copper<br> (thousand tonnes)** |
| Santa Cruz | Indicated | 178451 | 0.80 | 0.024 | 1.43 | 139 | 8211 | 1435 |
|  | Inferred | 31998 | 0.73 | 0.021 | 1.78 | 21 | 1832 | 232 |
| East Ridge | Indicated | 4407 | 0.94 | 0.015 | 0.71 | 2 | 101 | 41 |
|  | Inferred | 48676 | 0.89 | 0.006 | 0.40 | 9 | 623 | 436 |
| Texaco | Inferred | 341345 | 0.78 | 0.028 | 0.81 | 302 | 8850 | 2664 |
| **All Deposits** | **Indicated** | **182859** | **0.81** | **0.024** | **1.41** | **141** | **8312** | **1476** |
| **All Deposits** | **Inferred** | **422020** | **0.79** | **0.025** | **0.83** | **333** | **11304** | **3332** |

---

Notes on mineral resources: **1.** The mineral resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA USA Inc., and are reported in accordance with the definition for mineral resources in S-K 1300. **2.** Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. **3.** Mineral resources are reported in situ, exclusive of mineral reserves. **4.** The mineral resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. **5.** The mineral resources are current at June 23, 2025. **6.** Mineral resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 f or concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift and fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the mineral resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb,gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, long hole or drift and fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, onsite processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. **7.** Mineral resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid soluble copper, 83% for cyanide soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold, and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid soluble copper, 90% for cyanide soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. **8.** Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. **9.** Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.

**Ivanhoe Electric to host conference call on the Santa Cruz Copper Project Preliminary Feasibility Study**

**On Monday, June 23, 2025, Ivanhoe Electric will host a conference call to discuss the results of the Santa Cruz Copper Project Preliminary Feasibility Study.**

**The call will include remarks from Ivanhoe Electric's Executive Chairman Robert Friedland, President, Chief Executive Officer Taylor Melvin, Senior Vice President of Mine Development Glen Kuntz, and other members of the Company's executive management team.**

**DATE: Monday, June 23, 2025**

**TIME: 10:00 am Eastern / 7:00 am Pacific / 7:00 am Arizona**

**LINK: <u>https://ivanhoe-electric-june-2025-webcast.open-exchange.net/</u>**

**A replay of the webcast, together with supporting presentation slides, will be made available on Ivanhoe Electric's website at <u>www.ivanhoeelectric.com</u> following the event.**

**Qualified Persons**

**The Study, entitled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona," is dated June 23, 2025, and was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 and Item 601 of Regulation S-K. The Study was prepared by the following firms: Fluor Canada Ltd. (Fluor), BBA USA Inc. (BBA), KCB Consultants Ltd. (KCB), Met Engineering, LLC (Met), INTERA Incorporated (INTERA), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich), Life Cycle Geo, LLC (Life Cycle Geo), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. (Paterson & Cooke), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech).**

**The Study will be available on the SEC's EDGAR website as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed by Ivanhoe Electric in connection with this news release. Ivanhoe Electric will have prepared and filed an independent technical report prepared under Canadian National Instrument 43-101 within 45 days of this news release. This report will be available on Ivanhoe Electric's website and on its SEDAR+ profile.**

**For the purposes of Canadian National Instrument 43-101, the independent Qualified Persons responsible for preparing the scientific and technical information disclosed in this news release announcing the Study are Todd McCracken, Shane Ghouralal, and David Willock (BBA), Ulises Arvayo (Burns & McDonnell), Subhamoy Dasgupta and Ivan Sanchez (Fluor), Kirk Craig (Geosyntec), Rick Frechette (Haley & Aldrich), Annelia Tinklenberg (INTERA), Jim** **Casey (KCB), Tom Meuzelaar (Life Cycle Geo), James Moore (Met), Casey Schmitt (Paterson & Cooke), Kim Trapani (Stantec), and Daryl Longwell (Tetra Tech). Each Qualified Person has reviewed and approved the information in this news release relevant to the portion of the scientific and technical information for which they are responsible.**

**Other disclosures of a scientific or technical nature included in this news release regarding the Santa Cruz Copper Project, have been reviewed, verified, and approved by Glen Kuntz, P.Geo., who is a Qualified Person as defined by Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and by Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Kuntz is an employee of Ivanhoe Electric Inc.**

**The Study and 43-101 technical report include relevant information regarding the assumptions, parameters and methods of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates on the Santa Cruz Copper Project, as well as information regarding data verification, exploration procedures and other matters relevant to the scientific and technical disclosure contained in this news release.**

**About Ivanhoe Electric**

**We are a U.S. company that combines advanced mineral exploration technologies with electric metals exploration projects predominantly located in the United States. We use our accurate and powerful Typhoon™ geophysical surveying system, together with advanced data analytics provided by our subsidiary, Computational Geosciences Inc., to accelerate and de-risk the mineral exploration process as we seek to discover new deposits of critical metals that may otherwise be undetectable by traditional exploration technologies. We believe the United States is significantly underexplored and has the potential to yield major new discoveries of critical metals. Our mineral exploration efforts focus on copper as well as other metals including nickel, vanadium, cobalt, platinum group elements, gold and silver. Through the advancement of our portfolio of electric metals exploration projects, headlined by the Santa Cruz Copper Project in Arizona and the Tintic Copper-Gold Project in Utah, as well as other exploration projects in the United States, we intend to support United States supply chain independence by finding and delivering the critical metals necessary for the electrification of the economy. We also operate a 50/50 joint venture with Saudi Arabian Mining Company Ma'aden to explore for minerals on ~48,500 km<sup>2</sup> of underexplored Arabian Shield in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.**

**Website: <u>www.ivanhoeelectric.com</u>**

**Contact Information**

**Mike Patterson**

**Vice President, Investor Relations and Business Development<br> Email: <u>mike@ivnelectric.com</u>**

**Phone: 1-480-601-7878**

**Follow us on ![](tm2518281d1_ex99-1sp02img006.jpg)**

**Ivanhoe Electric's Executive Chairman Robert Friedland: <u>@robert_ivanhoe</u>**

**Ivanhoe Electric: <u>@ivanhoeelectric</u>**

Ivanhoe Electric's investor relations website located at <u>www.ivanhoeelectric.com</u> should be considered Ivanhoe Electric's recognized distribution channel for purposes of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation FD.

**Forward-Looking Statements**

Certain statements in this news release constitute "forward-looking statements" or "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable U.S. and Canadian securities laws. Such statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Ivanhoe Electric, its projects, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may", "would", "could", "will", "intend", "expect", "believe", "plan", "anticipate", "estimate", "scheduled", "forecast", "predict", "target", "project" and other similar terminology, or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. These statements reflect Ivanhoe Electric's current expectations regarding future events, performance and results and speak only as of the date of this news release.

Such statements in this news release include, without limitation: the projections, assumptions and estimates contained in the Preliminary Feasibility Study related to the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including but not limited to those related to capital and operating costs, metal prices, cash flow, cash costs, revenue, net present value, internal rate of return, mine design and mining techniques and processes, copper production, grade and recoveries, development, throughput, life of mine, illustrative timelines related to mine construction, permitting and copper production, potential financing, including through Export-Import Bank of the United States, jobs during construction and operations, mine sequencing, mining technology, equipment, staffing and infrastructure, emissions, use of land, water management and estimates regarding groundwater flow, power and other resources, estimates of mineral resources and reserves, potential for expansion of mineral resources, copper grade and cash cost costs relative to other mines, use of renewable energy, use of energy storage technologies, the ability to produce pure copper cathode, the ability to secure state and local permits, and planned or potential developments in the businesses of Ivanhoe Electric.

Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to management. Such statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors, including changes in the prices of copper or other metals Ivanhoe Electric is exploring for; the results of exploration and drilling activities and/or the failure of exploration programs or studies to deliver anticipated results or results that would justify and support continued exploration, studies, development or operations; the final assessment of exploration results and information that is preliminary; the significant risk and hazards associated with any future mining operations, extensive regulation by the U.S. government as well as local governments; changes in laws, rules or regulations, or their enforcement by applicable authorities; the failure of parties to contracts with Ivanhoe Electric to perform as agreed; and the impact of political, economic and other uncertainties associated with operating in foreign countries, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global economy. These factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements and risk factors described in Ivanhoe Electric's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed and other disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

No assurance can be given that such future results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this news release. Ivanhoe Electric cautions you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Subject to applicable securities laws, Ivanhoe Electric does not assume any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this news release, and Ivanhoe Electric expressly disclaims any requirement to do so.

## Exhibit 99.2

**Exhibit 99.2**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img001.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NYSE American / TSX: IE ivanhoeelectric.com AMERICAN COPPER FOR A STRONGER FUTURE SANTA CRUZ COPPER PROJECT PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY JUNE 23, 2025 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img002.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Safe Harbor 2 Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this Presentation constitute "forward-looking statements" or "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable U.S. and Canadian securities laws. Such statements and information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Ivanhoe Electric, its projects, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may", "would", "could", "will", "intend", "expect", "believe", "plan", "anticipate", "estimate", "scheduled", "forecast", "predict", "target", "project" and other similar terminology, or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. These statements reflect Ivanhoe Electric's current expectations regarding future events, performance and results and speak only as of the date of this Presentation. Such statements in this Presentation include, without limitation: the projections, assumptions and estimates contained in the Preliminary Feasibility Study related to the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including but not limited to those related to capital and operating costs, metal prices, cash flow, cash costs, revenue, net present value, internal rate of return, mine design and mining techniques and processes, copper production, grade and recoveries, development, throughput, life of mine, illustrative timelines related to mine construction, permitting and copper production, potential financing, including through Export-Import Bank of the United States, jobs during construction and operations, mine sequencing, mining technology, equipment, staffing and infrastructure, emissions, use of land, water management and estimates regarding groundwater flow, power and other resources, estimates of mineral resources and reserves, potential for expansion of mineral resources, copper grade and cash cost costs relative to other mines, use of renewable energy, use of energy storage technologies, the ability to produce pure copper cathode, the ability to secure state and local permits, and planned or potential developments in the businesses of Ivanhoe Electric. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to management. Such statements are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors, including changes in the prices of copper or other metals Ivanhoe Electric is exploring for; the results of exploration and drilling activities and/or the failure of exploration programs or studies to deliver anticipated results or results that would justify and support continued exploration, studies, development or operations; the final assessment of exploration results and information that is preliminary; the significant risk and hazards associated with any future mining operations, extensive regulation by the U.S. government as well as local governments; changes in laws, rules or regulations, or their enforcement by applicable authorities; the failure of parties to contracts with Ivanhoe Electric to perform as agreed; and the impact of political, economic and other uncertainties associated with operating in foreign countries, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the global economy. These factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements and risk factors described in Ivanhoe Electric's Annual Report on Form 10-K and other disclosures filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. No assurance can be given that such future results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Presentation. Ivanhoe Electric cautions you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Subject to applicable securities laws, Ivanhoe Electric does not assume any obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this Press Release, and Ivanhoe Electric expressly disclaims any requirement to do so. Market and Industry Data This Presentation includes market and industry data and forecasts obtained from independent research reports, publicly available information, various industry publications, other published industry sources or internal data and estimates. Independent research reports, industry publications and other published industry sources generally indicate that the information contained therein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but do not guarantee the accuracy and completeness of such information. Although Ivanhoe Electric believes that the publications and reports are reliable, Ivanhoe Electric has not independently verified the data. Internal data, estimates and forecasts are based on information obtained from trade and business organizations and other contacts in the markets in which we operate and Ivanhoe Electric's understanding of industry conditions. Although Ivanhoe Electric believes that such information is reliable, we have not had such information verified by any independent sources. As a result, readers of this Presentation should be aware that any such information and data set forth in this Presentation, and estimates and beliefs based on such information and data, are uncertain and may not be reliable. |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img003.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical Information and Qualified Persons 3 The Preliminary Feasibility Study (Study), entitled "S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona," is dated June 23, 2025, and was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 and Item 601 of Regulation S-K. The Study was prepared by the following firms: Fluor Canada Ltd. (Fluor), BBA USA Inc. (BBA), KCB Consultants Ltd. (KCB), Met Engineering, LLC (Met), INTERA Incorporated (INTERA), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell), Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich), Life Cycle Geo, LLC (Life Cycle Geo), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. (Paterson & Cooke), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). The Study will be available on the SEC's EDGAR website as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed by Ivanhoe Electric in connection with its June 23, 2025 news release announcing the Study. Ivanhoe Electric will also have prepared and filed an independent technical report prepared under Canadian National Instrument 43-101 within 45 days of the June 23, 2025 news release. This report will be available on Ivanhoe Electric's website and on its SEDAR+ profile. For the purposes of Canadian National Instrument 43-101, the independent Qualified Persons responsible for preparing the scientific and technical information disclosed in this Presentation regarding the Study are Todd McCracken, Shane Ghouralal, and David Willock (BBA), Ulises Arvayo (Burns & McDonnell), Subhamoy Dasgupta and Ivan Sanchez (Fluor), Kirk Craig (Geosyntec), Rick Frechette (Haley & Aldrich), Annelia Tinklenberg (INTERA), Jim Casey (KCB), Tom Meuzelaar (Life Cycle Geo), James Moore (Met), Casey Schmitt (Paterson & Cooke), Kim Trapani (Stantec), and Daryl Longwell (Tetra Tech). Each Qualified Person has reviewed and approved the information in this Presentation relevant to the portion of the scientific and technical information for which they are responsible. Other disclosures of a scientific or technical nature included in this Presentation regarding the Santa Cruz Copper Project, have been reviewed, verified, and approved by Glen Kuntz, P.Geo., who is a Qualified Person as defined by Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and by Canadian National Instrument 43- 101. Mr. Kuntz is an employee of Ivanhoe Electric Inc. The Study and 43-101 technical report include relevant information regarding the assumptions, parameters and methods of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates on the Santa Cruz Copper Project, as well as information regarding data verification, exploration procedures and other matters relevant to the scientific and technical disclosure contained in this Presentation. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img004.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Conference Call Participants 4 Robert Friedland – Executive Chairman & Founder Taylor Melvin – President & Chief Executive Officer Glen Kuntz – Senior Vice President, Mine Development Jordan Neeser – Chief Financial Officer |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img005.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz Copper Project 5 High Quality Advanced Copper Project on Private Land in Arizona, USA High Grade Reserves, Modern Underground Mining, Heap Leach Process to Produce 100% Copper Cathode Excellent Access to Existing Infrastructure Low Project Capital Intensity and Operating Costs Project Team Led by Experienced Internal Team plus World-class Consultants Short Development Timeline Domestic Refined Copper to Help Meet U.S. Demand |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img006.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric – Experienced Project Leadership 6 TAYLOR MELVIN President and Chief Executive Officer 20+ years' experience investment banking and corporate development with J.P. Morgan and Freeport-McMoRan ROBERT FRIEDLAND Founder and Executive Chairman Industry-leading company builder, entrepreneurial explorer, and technology innovator MARK FENNEL Director, Processing Engineering 30+ years' experience mineral processing, previously Rio Tinto, BHP, SQM, Phelps Dodge, ASARCO, COMINCO COLIN SHAW Director, Underground Studies 18+ years' experience in underground mine operations and engineering, previously Rio Tinto, Freeport-McMoRan GLEN KUNTZ Senior Vice President, Mine Development 30+ years' experience mine development and operations, previously Nordmin, Yamana Gold, Placer Dome GLENN BARR Consulting Metallurgist 32+ years' experience mineral processing, previously Twin Metals/Antofagasta, Teck, Stantec KAMI BALLARD Director, Permitting, Environmental & Social Responsibility 18+ years' experience in mine permitting and environmental, previously Rio Tinto, Freeport-McMoRan JORDAN NEESER Chief Financial Officer CPA with 18+ years' experience corporate finance and development, previously Gold Standard Ventures, First Quantum Minerals |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img007.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Highly Engineered Study Supported by Detailed Testwork 7 > $100 million in new drilling, advanced testwork, and extensive engineering studies Additional 149 drill holes totaling approximately 120,000 meters, for a project total of 329 drill holes totaling 279,000 meters completed since 2021 Additional > 250 trade-off studies, and 100s of hydrogeological and metallurgical tests, including 3-D seismic mapping of underground faults Ivanhoe Electric's project team of more than 40 engineers, geologists, and technicians supported by world-class, industry-leading consultants U.S. Preliminary Feasibility Study / Canadian Feasibility Study |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img008.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Highlights of the Preliminary Feasibility Study 8 Low Initial Capital of $1.24 Billion and Low Unit Production Costs of $1.32 Per Pound of Copper Support Attractive Economics After-Tax Net Present Value8% of $1.9 Billion and 24% Internal Rate of Return at Current COMEX Copper Price After-Tax Net Present Value8% of $1.4 Billion and 20% Internal Rate of Return at $4.25 Copper Price 20,000 tonnes per day operation and conventional heap leach process with 92% copper recoveries and 23-year mine life First 15 years' average annual copper grade of 1.1% producing 72,000 tonnes of copper cathode per year |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img009.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$1.9B PRE-TAX NPV $13.1B LIFE OF MINE REVENUE 22.0% PRE-TAX IRR $17.1 k/tonne CAPITAL INTENSITY2 20.0% AFTER-TAX IRR $1.24B INITIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 4.4 Years AFTER-TAX PAYBACK PERIOD1 ~1.4MT LIFE OF MINE COPPER PRODUCTION $1.4B AFTER-TAX NPV $5.0B LIFE OF MINE AFTER-TAX FREE CASH FLOW $240M AFTER-TAX NPV PER $0.25/LB CHANGE 23 Years MINE LIFE 9 1. Payback period post-construction; 2. Initial capital expenditures per average annual paid copper produced during first 15 years of mining Robust Economics with Significant Leverage to Copper 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 2023 2024 2025 COMEX Copper ($/lb) LME Copper ($/lb) Copper Price ($/pound) Pre-tax After-tax LOM Free Cashflow ($ billon) NPV8% ($ billion) IRR (%) LOM Free Cashflow ($ billion) NPV8% ($ billion) IRR (%) 3.75 4.7 1.3 17.8% 3.9 0.9 16.3% 4.00 5.4 1.6 20.0% 4.4 1.1 18.2% 4.25 6.2 1.9 22.0% 5.0 1.4 20.0% 4.50 6.9 2.2 24.0% 5.5 1.6 21.8% 4.75 7.6 2.5 26.0% 6.1 1.8 23.5% 4.83 7.8 2.6 26.6% 6.3 1.9 24.0% 5.00 8.3 2.8 27.9% 6.6 2.1 25.2% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img010.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2025 Note: 2024 cash operating costs (C1) on a co-product basis for global copper mines, excluding processing facilities. 25% -- ¢100 ¢200 ¢300 ¢400 ¢500 ¢600 ¢700 ¢800 -- 910 1,968 2,422 3,798 4,942 5,738 6,902 7,877 8,995 9,936 10,983 11,944 12,868 13,840 14,949 15,827 16,996 Cash Operating Costs / C1 (cents per pound of copper) Paid Copper (thousand tonnes) First Quartile Unit Cash Costs 10 Santa Cruz Copper Project $1.32 per pound of copper Global 1st Quartile Production (%) 0% 50% 75% 100% |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img011.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;$10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $3,500 $4,500 $5,500 $6,500 Capital Intensity (US$/tpa CuEq.) Initial Capital (US$ mm) Near Term Build (Prior to 2028) Long Term Build (After 2028) Santa Cruz Santa Cruz is a part of a small group of low initial capital and low capital intensity projects that could be built in the near term across North and South America Low Projected Capital Intensity 11 Note: Capital intensity calculated as initial capital for greenfield projects divided by average annual life of mine copper production. Only includes projects with capital expenditures greater than US$750 million, average copper-equivalent production greater than 50,000 tonnes per year and copper as percentage of net revenue greater than 50%. Santa Cruz Copper Project Preliminary Feasibility Study average annual copper production during first 15 years Source: Wood Mackenzie, 2025 Capital Intensity Across Greenfield Copper Projects in North and South America |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img012.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;100%-Owned Private Land in Heart of America's Copper State 12 Premier mining jurisdiction with access to talented workforce Located between Phoenix and Tucson at the center of Arizona's rapidly industrial corridor ~ 6,000 acres of surface, mineral, and associated water rights Excellent existing infrastructure  |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img013.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Small Surface Footprint 13 Surface infrastructure requires ~ 2,600 acres (40% of total land package) Includes ~ 900 acres for planned solar facility and battery storage Efficient layout provides ample space for future expansion opportunities |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img014.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Initial Mineral Reserve Estimate 14 Probable Reserves: 136 million tonnes @ 1.08% total copper • Santa Cruz: 132 million tonnes @ 1.08% total copper • East Ridge: 4 million tonnes @ 1.03% total copper 1.5 million tonnes contained copper in Mineral Reserves Supports 23 - year mine life Only includes high - grade mineralization from Oxide and Chalcocite domains Infrastructure Oxide Chalcocite Mineral Reserves |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img015.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15 Top of Mineral Reserves at 310 meters beneath surface Mine access via twin decline drifts measuring ~8 kilometers Roadheaders used to drive twin declines Intake and exhaust shafts developed using blindbore shafts to supply ventilation Study utilizes autonomous and battery-operated fleet with mine telemetry and grade control technologies Study incorporates +200 kilometers of longhole stoping and local drift-and-fill across 16 levels Average daily throughput ramps up to 20,000 tonnes per day after year 3 First 15 years' average annual copper cathode production of 72,000 tonnes Optimized Underground Mine Design Box Cut Decline Ramp Stope Cut Shafts Main Levels Mine Infrastructure |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img016.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chloride-Assisted On/Off Heap Leaching Process 16 Reduces Processing Ramp-Up Complexities Simple Processing Flowsheet and Operations Enhances Ability to Balance Mine Feed Lowers Initial and Sustaining Capital Costs Lowers Operating Costs and Enhances Mineral Reserves Eliminates Tailings and Necessity for Tailings Storage Facilities Produces 100% of Copper Production in the Form of Copper Cathode |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img017.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Simple and Conventional Processing Flowsheet 17 Copper recoveries of 92.2% over life of mine Low net sulfuric acid consumption of 6 kilograms per tonne of treated ore Up to 50% of spent ore converted into paste and used as backfill underground |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img018.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Copper Production and Grade Profile 18 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Total Copper Grade (%) Copper Production (tonnes) Copper Cathode Production Total Copper Head Grade (%) Construction Production Potential to Access Existing Resources in Later Years |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img019.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Private Land Streamlines Permitting 19 Santa Cruz Copper Project primary permitting authorities: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Pinal County, and City of Casa Grande Indicative permitting timeline: Air Quality Control Class II (Submitted) Mined Land Reclamation Plan Amendment Major Site Plan Q3 2025 ANTICIPATED SUBMITTAL DATE Q4 2025 Q3 2026 Q1 2027 State of Arizona City of Casa Grande Pinal County Aquifer Protection Permits Groundwater Withdrawal Encroachment Permit Class V Underground Injection Control Permits (EPA) Individual Aquifer Protection Permit Recycled Water Discharge 10 PERMITS / RIGHTS COMPLETED TO SUPPORT ✓ Exploration Activities ✓ Land Use Conversion ✓ Land Reclamation |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img020.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mineral Resource Estimate: Indicated Resources 20 Indicated Resources inclusive of Mineral Reserves for Santa Cruz and East Ridge: 3.1 million tonnes of contained copper • Santa Cruz: 3.0 million tonnes of contained copper @ 0.95% total copper • East Ridge: 88,000 tonnes of contained copper @ 1.0% total copper 2.5 million tonnes of contained copper in Indicated Resources amenable to heap leaching: Oxide, Chalcocite • 1.5 million tonnes of the contained copper are included in the mine plan If converted to Mineral Reserves, potentially represents near-mine expansion potential East Ridge Santa Cruz Mine Infrastructure Oxide Chalcocite Primary Indicated Resource Domain |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img021.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mineral Resource Estimate: Inferred Resources 21 Santa Cruz and East Ridge: 0.6 million tonnes of contained copper • Santa Cruz: 0.2 million tonnes of contained copper @ 0.73% total copper • East Ridge: 0.4 million tonnes of contained copper @ 0.89% total copper Texaco: 2.7 million tonnes of contained copper @ 0.78% total copper 1.9 million tonnes of contained copper present in Primary copper sulfide domain across all deposits 1 Inclusive of Mineral Reserves East Ridge Santa Cruz Texaco Indicated Resources1 Oxide Chalcocite Primary Inferred Resource Domain |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img022.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Santa Cruz Copper Project – Indicative Development Plan 22 2025 2026 2027 2028 Detailed Engineering Initial Construction Permits Secure Project Financing Equipment Procurement Box Cut / Decline Construction Surface Infrastructure Construction Initial Cathode Production Target Window Final Construction / Operating Permits Mining & Stockpiling Heap Leach Processing |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img023.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Project Financing Overview 23 Strong market interest for project financing from multiple sources, including U.S. Government agencies, commercial lenders, and potential project partners U.S. Export-Import Bank Letter of Interest for $825 million of project debt received April 15, 2025 Strong projected free cashflow and debt service metrics indicate potential for up to 70% debt financing Project-level funding sources: potential strategic partner investment, U.S. Government agencies, offtake funding, specialist funds, equipment finance groups, and other export credit agencies Senior management team with extensive experience in mining finance and development, focused on securing most attractive financing package |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img024.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ivanhoe Electric Investment Highlights 24 Santa Cruz Copper Project - One of America's Next Copper Mines for Domestic Supply Chain Security with High Operating Margins and Low Capital Intensity Disruptive Technology-led Exploration Platform, Combining Typhoon and Computational Geoscience Inc. to Accelerate Mineral Discovery 50 / 50 Joint Venture with Maaden, the Middle East's Largest Mining Company, Exploring the Highly Prospective Arabian Shield 50 / 50 Exploration Alliance with BHP in the Southwest U.S., Utilizing Typhoon to Search for New Sources of Critical Metals in the United States Dynamic Portfolio of 100%-Owned Critical Metals Exploration Projects in the United States |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img025.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NYSE American / TSX: IE ivanhoeelectric.com 25 Q&A SANTA CRUZ COPPER PROJECT PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;![GRAPHIC](tm2518281d1_ex99-2img026.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ivanhoeelectric.com NYSEAmerican / TSX: IE |

---