# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001852353
**File Stem:** 0001104659-25-066150
**Filing Date:** 2025-7
**Character Count:** 867804
**Document Hash:** c5e9f941c850acb38a39307efef979ee
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001104659-25-066150.hdr.sgml**: 20250707

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001104659-25-066150

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 8-K

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 113

**CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT**: 20250707

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Regulation FD Disclosure

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Other Events

**ITEM INFORMATION**: Financial Statements and Exhibits

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20250707

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20250707

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** Dakota Gold Corp.
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001852353
- **STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:** METAL MINING [1000]
- **ORGANIZATION NAME:** 01 Energy & Transportation
- **EIN:** 000000000
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** DE
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1231

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 8-K
- **SEC ACT:** 1934 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 001-41349
- **FILM NUMBER:** 251108600

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 106 GLENDALE DRIVE, SUITE A
- **CITY:** LEAD
- **STATE:** SD
- **ZIP:** 57754
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 605-717-2540

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** 106 GLENDALE DRIVE, SUITE A
- **CITY:** LEAD
- **STATE:** SD
- **ZIP:** 57754

**FORMER COMPANY:**
- **FORMER CONFORMED NAME:** JR Resources Corp.
- **DATE OF NAME CHANGE:** 20210319

?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): **July 7, 2025**

**<u>DAKOTA GOLD CORP.</u>** (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **<u>Delaware</u>** | **<u>001-41349</u>** | **<u>85-3475290</u>** |
| (State or other jurisdiction of<br> incorporation) | (Commission<br> File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer<br> Identification No.) |
| **106 Glendale Drive, Suite A,**<br> **<u>Lead, South Dakota, United States 57754</u>**<br> (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) | **106 Glendale Drive, Suite A,**<br> **<u>Lead, South Dakota, United States 57754</u>**<br> (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) | **106 Glendale Drive, Suite A,**<br> **<u>Lead, South Dakota, United States 57754</u>**<br> (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) |
| **(<u>605</u>)** **<u>906-8363</u>**<br> (Registrant's telephone number, <br> including area code) | **(<u>605</u>)** **<u>906-8363</u>**<br> (Registrant's telephone number, <br> including area code) | **(<u>605</u>)** **<u>906-8363</u>**<br> (Registrant's telephone number, <br> including area code) |

---

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;Trading Symbol(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Name of each exchange on which registered |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**DC** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NYSE American LLC** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Warrants, each warrant exercisable for one share of the Registrant's common stock at an exercise price of $2.08** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**DC.WS** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**NYSE American LLC** |

---

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&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; x

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.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ◻

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Item 7.01.** | **Regulation FD Disclosure.** |

---

On July 7, 2025, Dakota Gold Corp. (the "Company") issued a press release announcing the results and publication of an updated and revised S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Technical Report with economic analysis for the Company's Richmond Hill Gold Project (the "2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow"). The 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, dated July 7, 2025, was prepared in accordance with Item 1300 of Regulation S-K. A copy of the press release is furnished with this Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1.

In accordance with General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K, the information set forth in this Item 7.01 and in the press release is deemed to be "furnished" and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Item 8.01.** | **Other Events.** |

---

A copy of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow is attached as Exhibit 96.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Item 9.01** | **Financial Statements and Exhibits.** |
|  | **(d) Exhibits** |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Exhibit No.** | **Description** |
| [23.1](tm2518672d1_ex23-1.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – M3 Engineering and Technology Corp.](tm2518672d1_ex23-1.htm) |
| [23.2](tm2518672d1_ex23-2.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – M3 Engineering and Technology Corp.](tm2518672d1_ex23-2.htm) |
| [23.3](tm2518672d1_ex23-3.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – Independent Mining Consultants, Inc.](tm2518672d1_ex23-3.htm) |
| [23.4](tm2518672d1_ex23-4.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – Woods Process Service, LLC](tm2518672d1_ex23-4.htm) |
| [23.5](tm2518672d1_ex23-5.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – RESPEC Company, LLC](tm2518672d1_ex23-5.htm) |
| [23.6](tm2518672d1_ex23-6.htm) | [Consent of Qualified Person – RESPEC Company, LLC](tm2518672d1_ex23-6.htm) |
| [96.1](tm2518672d1_ex96-1.htm) | [S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project, dated July 7, 2025](tm2518672d1_ex96-1.htm) |
| [99.1](tm2518672d1_ex99-1.htm) | [Press Release dated July 7, 2025](tm2518672d1_ex99-1.htm) |
| 104 | Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document) |

---

**SIGNATURE**

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

---

| |
|:---|
| **DAKOTA GOLD CORP.** |
| */s/ Shawn Campbell* |
| Name: Shawn Campbell |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |

---

Date: July 7, 2025

## Exhibit 23.1

**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary
titled "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025 as an exhibit and referenced in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399, and 333-267210) (collectively, the "Registration
Statements");

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of and references to the undersigned's
name, including the undersigned's status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation
S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any
information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared
by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that
is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Section 1, 1.11, 2, 15, 15.1-15.3, 16, 21, 22, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 23, 23.1, 23.6, 24, and 25.

Dated July 7, 2025

For M3 Engineering and Technology Corp.

/s/ Matthew Sletten

## Exhibit 23.2

**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary
titled "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025 as an exhibit and referenced in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399 and 333-267210) (collectively, the "Registration
Statements");

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of and references to the undersigned's
name, including the undersigned's status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation
S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any
information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared
by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that
is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Section 1.8-1.10, 14, 18, 18.1-18.3, 18.5, 18.6, and 19.

Dated July 7, 2025

For M3 Engineering and Technology Corp.

/s/ Benjamin Bermudez

## Exhibit 23.3

**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary titled "S-K 1300
Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025 as an exhibit and referenced in
the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Gash Flow in the Registration
 Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399, and
 333-267210) (collectively,
the "Registration Statements");

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of and references to the undersigned's name, including the undersigned's
status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined
in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment
with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference
in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the
2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the
preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Section 1.1-1.3, 1.5, 3-8, 9.1, 11, 20.

Dated July 7, 2025

For Independent Mining Consultants, Inc.

/s/ Michael G. Hester

## Exhibit 23.4

**Exhibit 23.4**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary
titled "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025 as an exhibit and referenced in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399, and 333-267210) (collectively, the "Registration
Statements");

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of and references to the undersigned's
name, including the undersigned's status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation
S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any
information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared
by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that
is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Sections 1.4, 9.2, 10, 22.2, 23.2, and 23.3.

Dated July 7, 2025

For Woods Process Services, LLC

/s/ Jeffrey Woods

## Exhibit 23.5

**Exhibit 23.5**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary titled "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical
Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025
as an exhibit and referenced in the Form 8-K;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow in the Registration
 Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399, and
 333-267210) (collectively, the "Registration
Statements");

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the use of and references to the undersigned's name, including the undersigned's
status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined
in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment
with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference
in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the
2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the
preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Section 1.6, 12-13, 15.4, 18.4, 18.7, and 23.5.

Dated July 7, 2025

For RESPEC Company, LLC

/s/ Thomas Dyer

## Exhibit 23.6

**Exhibit 23.6**

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

In connection with the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 7, 2025 and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (the "Form 8-K"), the undersigned consents to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· the filing and use of the technical report summary
titled "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary for Richmond Hill Gold Project" (the "2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow") dated July 7, 2025 as an exhibit and referenced in the Form 8-K;

· the incorporation by reference of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-263883 and 333-266155) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-287606, 333-265399, and 333-267210) (collectively, the "Registration
Statements");

· the use of and references to the undersigned's
name, including the undersigned's status as an expert or "qualified person" (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation
S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) in connection with the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, the Form 8-K
and the Registration Statements; and

· Any extracts or summaries of the 2025 Initial
Assessment with Cash Flow included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements, and the use of any
information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow, or portions thereof, that was prepared
by the undersigned, that the undersigned supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by the undersigned, that
is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements.

The undersigned is the qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, Sections of the 2025 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow: Section 1.7, 17, and 23.4.

Dated July 7, 2025

For RESPEC Company, LLC

/s/ Crystal Hocking

## Exhibit 96.1

**Exhibit 96.1**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1img001.jpg)

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**DATE AND SIGNATURES PAGES**

This report is current as of July 7, 2025.

"Signed"

M3 Engineering & Technology Corp.

- Matthew Sletten, P.E. – Sections 1, 1.11, 2, 15, 15.1-15.3, 16, 21, 22, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 23, 23.1, 23.6, 24, and 25. <br> - Benjamin Bermudez, P.E. – Sections 1.8-1.10, 14, 18, 18.1-18.3, 18.5, 18.6, and 19.

"Signed"

Independent Mining Consultants, Inc.

- Michael Hester, FAusIMM. – Sections 1.1-1.3, 1.5, 3-8, 9.1, 11, and 20.

"Signed"

Woods Process Services, LLC

- Jeffrey L. Woods, SME MMSA QP – Sections 1.4, 9.2, 10, 22.2, 23.2, and 23.3.

"Signd"

RESPEC Company, LLC

- Thomas Dyer, P.E. – Sections 1.6, 12-13, 15.4, 18.4, 18.7, and 23.5. <br> - Crystal Hocking, P.E. P.G. – Sections 1.7, 17, and 23.4.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>ii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**RICHMOND HILL PROJECT**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table of Contents**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **SECTION** | **SECTION** | **SECTION** | **PAGE** |
| **Date and Signatures Pages** | **Date and Signatures Pages** | **Date and Signatures Pages** | **II** |
| **Table of Contents** | **Table of Contents** | **Table of Contents** | **III** |
| **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **List of Figures and Illustrations** | **X** |
| **List of Tables** | **List of Tables** | **List of Tables** | **XIII** |
| **1** | **Executive Summary** | **Executive Summary** | **1** |
|  | **1.1** | **Geology and Mineralization** | **1** |
|  | **1.2** | **Exploration, Development, and Operations** | **2** |
|  | **1.3** | **Sample Preparation, Analysis, Security, and Data Verification** | **2** |
|  | **1.4** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgy** | **2** |
|  | **1.5** | **Mineral Resource Estimate** | **2** |
|  | **1.6** | **Mining Methods** | **4** |
|  | **1.7** | **Environmental** | **5** |
|  | **1.8** | **Capital Cost Summary** | **5** |
|  | **1.9** | **Operating Cost Summary** | **6** |
|  | **1.10** | **Economic Analysis Summary** | **7** |
|  | **1.11** | **Conclusion and Recommendations** | **7** |
| **2** | **Introduction** | **Introduction** | **10** |
|  | **2.1** | **Registrant** | **10** |
|  | **2.2** | **Project Scope and Terms of Reference** | **10** |
|  | **2.3** | **Qualified Persons** | **12** |
|  | **2.4** | **Date** | **12** |
|  | **2.5** | **Sources of Information** | **12** |
|  | **2.6** | **Previous Technical Report Summaries** | **12** |
|  | **2.7** | **Acronyms and Abbreviations** | **12** |
|  | **2.8** | **Units of Measure and Metric Equivalents** | **16** |
| **3** | **Property Description** | **Property Description** | **17** |
|  | **3.1** | **Project Location** | **17** |
|  | **3.2** | **Ownership** | **17** |
|  | **3.3** | **Mineral Tenure Holdings** | **17** |
|  | **3.4** | **Richmond Hill Option Agreement** | **25** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>iii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **3.5** | **Surface Rights** | **Surface Rights** | **26** |
|  | **3.6** | **Water Rights** | **Water Rights** | **26** |
|  | **3.7** | **Royalties** | **Royalties** | **26** |
|  | **3.8** | **Permitting** | **Permitting** | **34** |
|  |  | **3.8.1** | **Existing Permitting** | **34** |
|  |  | **3.8.2** | **Future Permitting** | **35** |
|  | **3.9** | **Potential Significant Encumbrances** | **Potential Significant Encumbrances** | **37** |
|  | **3.10** | **Violation and Fines** | **Violation and Fines** | **37** |
|  | **3.11** | **Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs** | **Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs** | **37** |
| **4** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** | **38** |
|  | **4.1** | **Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation** | **Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation** | **38** |
|  | **4.2** | **Property Access** | **Property Access** | **39** |
|  | **4.3** | **Climate** | **Climate** | **39** |
|  | **4.4** | **Local Resources and Infrastructure** | **Local Resources and Infrastructure** | **39** |
| **5** | **History** | **History** | **History** | **41** |
|  | **5.1** | **Explorations** | **Explorations** | **41** |
|  | **5.2** | **Mining** | **Mining** | **44** |
|  | **5.3** | **Dakota Gold Corp** | **Dakota Gold Corp** | **45** |
| **6** | **Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit** | **Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit** | **Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit** | **46** |
|  | **6.1** | **Local Geology** | **Local Geology** | **46** |
|  | **6.2** | **Regional Geology** | **Regional Geology** | **53** |
|  | **6.3** | **Lithology** | **Lithology** | **55** |
|  | **6.4** | **Landforms and Structures** | **Landforms and Structures** | **60** |
|  | **6.5** | **Deposit Type** | **Deposit Type** | **60** |
|  | **6.6** | **Mineralization** | **Mineralization** | **60** |
| **7** | **Exploration** | **Exploration** | **Exploration** | **63** |
|  | **7.1** | **Airborne Geophysics** | **Airborne Geophysics** | **63** |
|  | **7.2** | **Gravity Compilation and Survey** | **Gravity Compilation and Survey** | **64** |
|  | **7.3** | **Induced Polarization Survey** | **Induced Polarization Survey** | **65** |
|  | **7.4** | **Geological Mapping** | **Geological Mapping** | **67** |
|  | **7.5** | **Drilling** | **Drilling** | **69** |
|  |  | **7.5.1** | **Summary** | **69** |
|  |  | **7.5.2** | **Freeport (1981 – 1983)** | **71** |
|  |  | **7.5.3** | **St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake (1984 – 1994)** | **71** |
|  |  | **7.5.4** | **Coeur (2019 – 2020)** | **71** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>iv |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  |  | **7.5.5** | **Dakota Gold (2022 – 2024)** | **72** |
|  |  | **7.5.6** | **Opinion** | **74** |
|  | **7.6** | **Hydrogeology and Geotechnical** | **Hydrogeology and Geotechnical** | **74** |
| **8** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** | **76** |
|  | **8.1** | **Drilling Programs** | **Drilling Programs** | **76** |
|  | **8.2** | **Procedures for Historical Drilling Programs from 1981 to 1994** | **Procedures for Historical Drilling Programs from 1981 to 1994** | **76** |
|  |  | **8.2.1** | **Freeport (1981-1983)** | **76** |
|  |  | **8.2.2** | **St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake (1984-1994)** | **76** |
|  | **8.3** | **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2019 to 2020** | **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2019 to 2020** | **78** |
|  |  | **8.3.1** | **Drilling Programs** | **78** |
|  |  | **8.3.2** | **Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security** | **78** |
|  |  | **8.3.3** | **Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures** | **79** |
|  | **8.4** | **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2022 to 2024** | **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2022 to 2024** | **79** |
|  |  | **8.4.1** | **Drilling Programs** | **79** |
|  |  | **8.4.2** | **Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security** | **79** |
|  |  | **8.4.3** | **Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures** | **80** |
|  | **8.5** | **Summary** | **Summary** | **88** |
| **9** | **Data Verification** | **Data Verification** | **Data Verification** | **93** |
|  | **9.1** | **Drillhole Sampling Data** | **Drillhole Sampling Data** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.1.1** | **Dakota Gold Drilling** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.1.2** | **Coeur Drilling** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.1.3** | **St. Joe/Bond Gold, LAC and Homestake Drilling** | **93** |
|  |  | **9.1.4** | **Other Reviews** | **94** |
|  | **9.2** | **Mineral Processing** | **Mineral Processing** | **97** |
| **10** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** | **98** |
|  | **10.1** | **Preliminary Geometallurgical Data Model Development** | **Preliminary Geometallurgical Data Model Development** | **98** |
|  | **10.2** | **Historical Oxide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** | **Historical Oxide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** | **99** |
|  |  | **10.2.1** | **Historical Bottle Roll Tests** | **99** |
|  |  | **10.2.2** | **Historical Metallurgical Testing: Oxide & Transition Heap Leach** | **102** |
|  | **10.3** | **Sulfide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** | **Sulfide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** | **104** |
|  |  | **10.3.1** | **Historical Metallurgical Reports: Sulfide & Mixed Flotation** | **104** |
|  |  | **10.3.2** | **Metallurgical Report – BL1244** | **105** |
|  |  | **10.3.3** | **Metallurgical Report – BL1346** | **108** |
|  | **10.4** | **Richmond Hill Historical Operating Data** | **Richmond Hill Historical Operating Data** | **113** |
|  | **10.5** | **Recovery Estimates** | **Recovery Estimates** | **114** |
|  | **10.6** | **Summary and Recommendations** | **Summary and Recommendations** | **114** |
| **11** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** | **115** |
|  | **11.1** | **Mineral Resource** | **Mineral Resource** | **115** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>v |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **11.2** | **Price Sensitivity** | **Price Sensitivity** | **117** |
|  | **11.3** | **Mineral Resource Parameters** | **Mineral Resource Parameters** | **119** |
|  | **11.4** | **Additional Information** | **Additional Information** | **121** |
|  | **11.5** | **Description of the Block Model** | **Description of the Block Model** | **121** |
|  |  | **11.5.1** | **General** | **121** |
|  |  | **11.5.2** | **Drilling Data** | **121** |
|  |  | **11.5.3** | **Geologic Controls** | **124** |
|  |  | **11.5.4** | **Cap Grades and Compositing** | **129** |
|  |  | **11.5.5** | **Summary Statistics** | **130** |
|  |  | **11.5.6** | **Variogram Analysis** | **134** |
|  |  | **11.5.7** | **Block Grade Estimation** | **143** |
|  |  | **11.5.8** | **Resource Classification** | **148** |
|  |  | **11.5.9** | **Bulk Density** | **153** |
|  | **11.6** | **Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources** | **Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources** | **154** |
|  |  | **11.6.1** | **Leach Mineral Resource** | **154** |
|  |  | **11.6.2** | **Mill Resource** | **155** |
|  |  | **11.6.3** | **Reconciliation Summary** | **164** |
| **12** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** | **165** |
| **13** | **Mining Methods** | **Mining Methods** | **Mining Methods** | **166** |
|  | **13.1** | **Economic Parameters & Cutoff Grades** | **Economic Parameters & Cutoff Grades** | **166** |
|  | **13.2** | **Cutoff Grades** | **Cutoff Grades** | **167** |
|  | **13.3** | **Pit Optimization** | **Pit Optimization** | **168** |
|  | **13.4** | **Pit Design** | **Pit Design** | **169** |
|  |  | **13.4.1** | **Road and Ramp Design** | **169** |
|  |  | **13.4.2** | **Slope Parameters** | **170** |
|  |  | **13.4.3** | **Pit Configuration** | **170** |
|  | **13.5** | **Waste Rock Storage Design** | **Waste Rock Storage Design** | **178** |
|  | **13.6** | **Production Schedule** | **Production Schedule** | **178** |
|  | **13.7** | **Equipment Requirements** | **Equipment Requirements** | **180** |
|  | **13.8** | **Mine Personnel** | **Mine Personnel** | **182** |
|  | **13.9** | **Pit Dewatering** | **Pit Dewatering** | **184** |
|  | **13.10** | **Groundwater Considerations** | **Groundwater Considerations** | **184** |
|  |  | **13.10.1** | **Groundwater Levels** | **185** |
|  |  | **13.10.2** | **Recharge and Discharge** | **185** |
|  | **13.11** | **Groundwater Inflow Estimates** | **Groundwater Inflow Estimates** | **186** |
|  | **13.12** | **Groundwater Inflow Results** | **Groundwater Inflow Results** | **186** |
|  |  | **13.12.1** | **Preliminary Dewatering Design** | **187** |
|  |  | **13.12.2** | **Recommendations for Future Studies** | **187** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>vi |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **14** | **Processing and Recovery Methods** | **Processing and Recovery Methods** | **Processing and Recovery Methods** | **188** |
|  | **14.1** | **Mine Production Schedule** | **Mine Production Schedule** | **188** |
|  | **14.2** | **Process Design** | **Process Design** | **188** |
|  | **14.3** | **Heap Leach Operation** | **Heap Leach Operation** | **188** |
|  |  | **14.3.1** | **Heap Leach Crushing Plant and Agglomeration** | **192** |
|  |  | **14.3.2** | **Stacking and Heap Leaching** | **192** |
|  |  | **14.3.3** | **Heap Leach Production Forecasting** | **194** |
|  | **14.4** | **Merril-Crowe Plant and Refinery** | **Merril-Crowe Plant and Refinery** | **195** |
|  | **14.5** | **Reagents** | **Reagents** | **196** |
|  |  | **14.5.1** | **Sodium Cyanide** | **196** |
|  |  | **14.5.2** | **Lime** | **196** |
|  |  | **14.5.3** | **Cement** | **196** |
|  |  | **14.5.4** | **Zinc** | **196** |
|  |  | **14.5.5** | **Lead Nitrate** | **197** |
|  |  | **14.5.6** | **Diatomaceous Earth** | **197** |
|  |  | **14.5.7** | **Flux** | **197** |
|  |  | **14.5.8** | **Antiscalant** | **197** |
|  | **14.6** | **Water Consumption** | **Water Consumption** | **198** |
|  | **14.7** | **Blowers and Compressors** | **Blowers and Compressors** | **198** |
|  | **14.8** | **Power Consumption** | **Power Consumption** | **198** |
|  | **14.9** | **Control Systems** | **Control Systems** | **198** |
|  | **14.10** | **Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories** | **Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories** | **199** |
| **15** | **Infrastructure** | **Infrastructure** | **Infrastructure** | **200** |
|  | **15.1** | **Site Access Road** | **Site Access Road** | **200** |
|  | **15.2** | **Power Supply** | **Power Supply** | **200** |
|  | **15.3** | **Project Buildings** | **Project Buildings** | **201** |
|  |  | **15.3.1** | **Security Building at Access Gate** | **201** |
|  |  | **15.3.2** | **Heap Leach Crushing Plant and Agglomeration** | **201** |
|  |  | **15.3.3** | **Merrill-Crowe Plant** | **202** |
|  |  | **15.3.4** | **Administration Building** | **202** |
|  |  | **15.3.5** | **Truck Shop Building** | **202** |
|  |  | **15.3.6** | **Laboratory** | **202** |
|  | **15.4** | **Water Management Infrastructure** | **Water Management Infrastructure** | **203** |
|  |  | **15.4.1** | **Water Supply** | **203** |
|  |  | **15.4.2** | **Surface Water Management** | **203** |
|  |  | **15.4.3** | **Ground Water Management** | **204** |
|  |  | **15.4.4** | **Water Treatment** | **205** |
| **16** | **Market Studies** | **Market Studies** | **Market Studies** | **206** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>vii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **17** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** | **207** |
|  | **17.1** | **Baseline Environmental Study Requirements** | **Baseline Environmental Study Requirements** | **207** |
|  | **17.2** | **Results of Environmental Studies** | **Results of Environmental Studies** | **208** |
|  | **17.3** | **Requirements and Plans for Waste Storage, Site Monitoring, and Water Management During Operations and After Mine Closure** | **Requirements and Plans for Waste Storage, Site Monitoring, and Water Management During Operations and After Mine Closure** | **210** |
|  | **17.4** | **Project Permitting Requirements, Permit Application Status, and Requirements to Post Performance or Reclamation Bonds** | **Project Permitting Requirements, Permit Application Status, and Requirements to Post Performance or Reclamation Bonds** | **211** |
|  | **17.5** | **Mine Closure, Remediation, and Reclamation Plans, and Associated Costs** | **Mine Closure, Remediation, and Reclamation Plans, and Associated Costs** | **212** |
|  | **17.6** | **Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** | **Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** | **214** |
|  | **17.7** | **Qualified Person's Opinion on the Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Any issues Related to Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Local Individuals or Groups** | **Qualified Person's Opinion on the Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Any issues Related to Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Local Individuals or Groups** | **214** |
|  | **17.8** | **Descriptions of Any Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring** | **Descriptions of Any Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring** | **214** |
| **18** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **Capital and Operating Costs** | **215** |
|  | **18.1** | **Process Capital** | **Process Capital** | **216** |
|  | **18.5** | **Process Operating Cost Summary** | **Process Operating Cost Summary** | **224** |
|  |  | **18.7.1** | **Mine General Services** | **228** |
|  |  | **18.7.2** | **Mine Maintenance** | **230** |
|  |  | **18.7.3** | **Drilling** | **232** |
|  |  | **18.7.4** | **Blasting** | **234** |
|  |  | **18.7.5** | **Loading** | **236** |
|  |  | **18.7.6** | **Hauling** | **238** |
|  |  | **18.7.7** | **Mine Support** | **240** |
| **19** | **Economic Analysis** | **Economic Analysis** | **Economic Analysis** | **242** |
|  | **19.1** | **Mining Physicals** | **Mining Physicals** | **242** |
|  | **19.2** | **Process Plant Production Statistics** | **Process Plant Production Statistics** | **242** |
|  | **19.3** | **Smelter Return Factors** | **Smelter Return Factors** | **245** |
|  | **19.4** | **Capital Expenditure** | **Capital Expenditure** | **245** |
|  | **19.5** | **Revenue** | **Revenue** | **247** |
|  | **19.6** | **Total Production Cost** | **Total Production Cost** | **247** |
|  | **19.7** | **Depreciation** | **Depreciation** | **247** |
|  | **19.8** | **Royalties** | **Royalties** | **247** |
|  | **19.9** | **Government Fees** | **Government Fees** | **247** |
|  | **19.10** | **Taxation** | **Taxation** | **247** |
|  | **19.11** | **Project Financing** | **Project Financing** | **248** |
|  | **19.12** | **Economic Indicators** | **Economic Indicators** | **248** |
|  | **19.13** | **Sensitivity Analysis** | **Sensitivity Analysis** | **249** |
|  | **19.14** | **Detailed Financial Model** | **Detailed Financial Model** | **249** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>viii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **20** | **Adjacent Properties** | **Adjacent Properties** | **261** |
|  | **20.1** | **The Homestake Mine** | **261** |
|  | **20.2** | **Wharf Mine** | **261** |
| **21** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** | **Other Relevant Data and Information** | **263** |
|  | **21.1** | **Homestake Mine Facilities** | **263** |
|  | **21.2** | **Sanford Underground Research Facility** | **263** |
|  | **21.3** | **Mining Methods – M+I Scenario** | **263** |
|  | **21.4** | **Production Schedule** | **263** |
|  | **21.5** | **Equipment Requirements** | **265** |
|  | **21.6** | **Mine Personnel** | **265** |
|  | **21.7** | **Operating Costs** | **268** |
|  | **21.8** | **Capital Costs** | **270** |
| **22** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** | **272** |
|  | **22.1** | **Mineral Resources** | **272** |
|  | **22.2** | **Processing** | **273** |
|  | **22.3** | **Mineral Tenure** | **274** |
|  | **22.4** | **Summary Conclusion** | **274** |
| **23** | **Recommendations** | **Recommendations** | **275** |
|  | **23.1** | **Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis** | **275** |
|  | **23.2** | **Metallurgical Testing and Process Design** | **276** |
|  | **23.3** | **Additional Drilling** | **275** |
|  | **23.4** | **Permitting and Environmental Data Collection** | **279** |
|  | **23.5** | **Geotechnical Surveys and Evaluation** | **279** |
|  | **23.6** | **Engineering Studies to Feasibility Level** | **279** |
| **24** | **References** | **References** | **280** |
| **25** | **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant** | **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant** | **286** |
|  | **25.1** | **Legal Matters** | **286** |
|  | **25.2** | **Tenure** | **286** |
|  | **25.3** | **Significant Encumbrances and Permitting** | **286** |
|  | **25.4** | **History** | **286** |
|  | **25.5** | **Exploration** | **286** |
|  | **25.6** | **Environment** | **286** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>ix |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**List of Figures and Illustrations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **FIGURE** | **DESCRIPTION** | **PAGE** |
| Figure 2-1: | Property Location | 11 |
| Figure 3-1: | Richmond Hill Project Location and Ownership | 19 |
| Figure 3-2: | Richmond Hill Project Royalties | 33 |
| Figure 4-1: | Richmond Hill Gold Property Location | 38 |
| Figure 4-2: | Richmond Hill Gold Project Access | 40 |
| Figure 6-1: | Exploration Zones | 47 |
| Figure 6-2: | Geology of Richmond Hill | 48 |
| Figure 6-3: | Richmond Hill Gold Project Target Zones on 0.01 oz/ton Grade Shell Plot | 49 |
| Figure 6-4: | Regional Geologic map of the Black Hills Uplift (from Lufking et. Al, 2009) | 54 |
| Figure 6-5: | Southwest to Northeast Structural Cross-Sections (modified from Redden and DeWitt 2008) | 55 |
| Figure 6-6: | Precambrian Stratigraphic Section of the Northern Black Hills | 57 |
| Figure 6-7: | Black Hills General Stratigraphic Section | 58 |
| Figure 7-1: | Airborne Magnetics Survey Flightline Limits | 63 |
| Figure 7-2: | Gravity Survey Station Locations | 65 |
| Figure 7-3: | Geophysical IP – Resistivity Survey Line Locations | 66 |
| Figure 7-4: | Dakota Gold Geologic Field Work | 68 |
| Figure 7-5: | Richmond Hill Gold Project Drillholes by Company | 70 |
| Figure 8-1: | Control Chart for CRM OXE182 Gold Assays | 83 |
| Figure 8-2: | Control Chart for CRM OXD183 Gold Assays | 84 |
| Figure 8-3: | Control Chart for CRM SJ121 Gold Assays | 85 |
| Figure 8-4: | Control Chart for CRM SG115 Gold Assays | 86 |
| Figure 8-5: | Control Chart for CRM Si96 Gold Assays | 87 |
| Figure 8-6: | Original Gold Assay versus Pulp Duplicate | 90 |
| Figure 8-7: | Original Gold Assay versus Crusher Duplicate | 91 |
| Figure 8-8: | Original Gold Assay versus Sample Duplicate | 92 |
| Figure 10-1: | Preliminary Cluster Analysis Interval Analytical KPI's by Cluster | 99 |
| Figure 10-2: | Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Calculated Heads Au opt | 100 |
| Figure 10-3: | Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Calculated Heads Ag opt | 100 |
| Figure 10-4: | Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Silver to Gold ratio distribution | 101 |
| Figure 10-5: | Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Gold Recovery Distribution | 101 |
| Figure 10-6: | Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Silver Recovery Distribution | 102 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>x |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 10-7: | Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Calculated Gold Head Grades Distribution (Au opt) | 102.0 |
| Figure 10-8: | Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Calculated Silver Head Grades Distribution (Ag opt) | 103.0 |
| Figure 10-9: | Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Silver to Gold Ratio (Ag:Au) | 103.0 |
| Figure 10-10: | Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Gold Recovery (Au%) | 104.0 |
| Figure 10-11: | Richmond Hill Column Test KPIs: Silver Recovery (Ag%) | 104.0 |
| Figure 10-12: | Rougher Flotation Flowsheet—BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 106.0 |
| Figure 10-13: | Rougher Mass vs. Gold Recovery—BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 107.0 |
| Figure 10-14: | Diagnostic Leach Test Flowsheet – BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 108.0 |
| Figure 10-15: | Gold Rougher Concentrate Recovery vs. Mass Recovery – BaseMet 2023, BL1346 | 110.0 |
| Figure 10-16: | Gold Rougher Concentrate Recovery vs. Mass Recovery – BaseMet 2023, BL1346 | 111.0 |
| Figure 10-17: | Gold Recovery vs. Sulfur Head Grade – BaseMet 2023, 1346 | 112.0 |
| Figure 10-18: | Gold Recovery vs. Gold Head Grade - BaseMet 2023, BL1346 | 113.0 |
| Figure 10-19: | Historical Richmond Hill Heap Leach KPI's Au and Ag Recovery, Recovered Ag:Au Ratio | 114.0 |
| Figure 11-1: | Constraining Shell for Mineral Resource Estimate | 117.0 |
| Figure 11-2: | Drillhole Locations by Company | 123.0 |
| Figure 11-3: | Rock Types on the Resource Shell | 125.0 |
| Figure 11-4: | Rock Types on Cross Section A-A' | 126.0 |
| Figure 11-5: | Rock Types on Section B-B' | 127.0 |
| Figure 11-6: | Oxidation Zones on the Resource Shell | 129.0 |
| Figure 11-7: | Probability Plot of Gold by Rock Type – 10 ft Composites (IMC, 2024) | 132.0 |
| Figure 11-8: | Probability Plot of Silver by Rock Type – 10 ft Composites (IMC, 2024) | 133.0 |
| Figure 11-9: | Variogram for Tertiary Breccia – Azimuth 90°, Dip 85° | 135.0 |
| Figure 11-10: | Variogram for Tertiary Breccia – Azimuth 22°, Dip -2° | 136.0 |
| Figure 11-11: | Variogram for Precambrian Greenstone – Azimuth 292°, Dip 67° | 137.0 |
| Figure 11-12: | Variogram for Precambrian Greenstone – Azimuth 202°, Dip 0° | 138.0 |
| Figure 11-13: | Variogram for Precambrian Flagrock – Azimuth 45° - Dip 0° | 139.0 |
| Figure 11-14: | Variogram for Precambrian Flagrock – Azimuth 135° – Dip 45° | 140.0 |
| Figure 11-15: | Variogram for Cambrian Deadwood – Azimuth 0° – Dip 12° | 141.0 |
| Figure 11-16: | Variogram for Cambrian Deadwood – Azimuth 270° – Dip 0° | 142.0 |
| Figure 11-17: | Gold Grade on Cross Section A-A' (See Figure 11-2) | 145.0 |
| Figure 11-18: | Gold Grades on Cross Section B-B' (See Figure 11-2) | 146.0 |
| Figure 11-19: | Silver Grades on Cross Section A-A' (See Figure 11-2) | 147.0 |
| Figure 11-20: | Probability Plot of Average Distance to Nearest 3 and 4 Holes – Tertiary Breccia | 149.0 |
| Figure 11-21: | Probability Plot of Average Distance to Nearest 3 and 4 Holes – Cambrian Deadwood | 150.0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>xi |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Figure 11-22: | Resource Classification on Cross Section A-A' | 151.0 |
| Figure 11-23: | Resource Classification on Cross Section B-B' | 152.0 |
| Figure 13-1: | Ultimate Pit Design | 171.0 |
| Figure 13-2: | Phase 1 | 172.0 |
| Figure 13-3: | Phase 2 | 173.0 |
| Figure 13-4: | Phase 3 | 174.0 |
| Figure 13-5: | Phase 4 | 175.0 |
| Figure 13-6: | Phase 5 | 176.0 |
| Figure 13-7: | Phase 6 | 177.0 |
| Figure 14-1: | Simplified Flow Sheet of the Richmond Hill Project Heap Leach Facility | 190.0 |
| Figure 14-2: | General Layout of the Richmond Hill Project Process Facilities | 191.0 |
| Figure 15-1: | End of Mine Life Surface Water Management | 204.0 |
| Figure 17-1: | Proposed Groundwater Sample Locations | 209.0 |
| Figure 17-2: | LAC's Reclamation Liability Release Map (SDBME, 2016) | 213.0 |
| Figure 23-1: | Recommended Richmond Hill 2024 Diamond Drill-Hole Locations | 278.0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>xii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**List of Tables**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **TABLE** | **DESCRIPTION** | **PAGE** |
| Table 1-1: | Mineral Resource Estimate | 3 |
| Table 1-2: | Summary of Reconciliation Analysis for Contained Gold Ounces | 4 |
| Table 1-3: | Capital Cost Summary for M&I Case | 6 |
| Table 1-4: | Capital Cost Summary for MI&I Case | 6 |
| Table 1-5: | Operating Cost Summary for M&I Case | 6 |
| Table 1-6: | Operating Cost Summary for MI&I Case | 7 |
| Table 1-7: | Key Economic Results for M&I Case | 7 |
| Table 1-8: | Key Economic Results for MI&I Case | 7 |
| Table 1-9: | Budget for Recommended Work | 8 |
| Table 2-1: | Qualified Persons Responsibilities | 12 |
| Table 3-1: | Richmond Hill Gold Property Claims | 19 |
| Table 3-2: | Richmond Hill Project Parcels with Holding Costs and Royalties | 28 |
| Table 3-3: | Current Exploration Permits | 34 |
| Table 3-4: | Current Environmental Permits | 34 |
| Table 3-5: | Potential Future Environmental Permits | 35 |
| Table 5-1: | Summary of Richmond Hill's Recent History | 43 |
| Table 7-1: | Drilling by Company | 69 |
| Table 8-1: | Groups of Drilling Programs at Richmond Hill Gold Project | 76 |
| Table 9-1: | Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Dakota and Coeur Drilling | 94 |
| Table 9-2: | Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Legacy Drilling – Gold | 95 |
| Table 9-3: | Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Legacy Drilling – Silver | 96 |
| Table 10-1: | Preliminary Geometallurgical Cluster Analysis Summary | 98 |
| Table 10-2: | Historical Metallurgical Reports | 105 |
| Table 10-3: | Master Composite Head Assays – BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 106 |
| Table 10-4: | Rougher Flotation Results – BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 107 |
| Table 10-5: | Diagnostic Leach – BaseMet 2023, BL1244 | 108 |
| Table 10-6: | Rougher Flotation Grind Series MC-TT-S – BaseMet 2023, BL1346 | 109 |
| Table 10-7: | Rougher Flotation Results – BaseMet 2023, BL1346 | 112 |
| Table 10-8: | Projected Precious Metal Recoveries | 114 |
| Table 11-1: | Mineral Resource Estimate | 115 |
| Table 11-2: | Mineral Resource at Various Prices – Leach Resources | 118 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>xiii |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 11-3: | Mineral Resource at Various Prices – Mill Resources | 119.0 |
| Table 11-4: | Economic Parameters for Mineral Resource Estimate | 120.0 |
| Table 11-5: | Drilling by Company in Model Limits | 122.0 |
| Table 11-6: | Model Rock Types | 124.0 |
| Table 11-7: | Model Oxidation Zones | 128.0 |
| Table 11-8: | Cap Grades and Number of Assays Capped | 130.0 |
| Table 11-9: | Summary Statistics of Assays | 130.0 |
| Table 11-10: | Summary Statistics of 10 ft Composites | 131.0 |
| Table 11-11: | Estimation Parameters | 144.0 |
| Table 11-12: | Specific Gravity Measurements | 153.0 |
| Table 11-13: | Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources – Leach Resource | 158.0 |
| Table 11-14: | Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources – Mill Resource | 161.0 |
| Table 11-15: | Summary of Reconciliation Analysis for Contained Gold Ounces | 164.0 |
| Table 13-1: | Economic Parameters | 167.0 |
| Table 13-2: | Cutoff Grades (Oz AuEq/ton) | 168.0 |
| Table 13-3: | Pit Optimizations | 169.0 |
| Table 13-4: | Geotechnical Design Criteria by Lithology | 170.0 |
| Table 13-5: | Production Schedule MI&I | 179.0 |
| Table 13-6: | Yearly Equipment Requirements | 181.0 |
| Table 13-7: | Mining Personnel by Time Period | 183.0 |
| Table 13-8: | Estimated HSUs within the Project Area | 185.0 |
| Table 13-9: | Summary of Parameters Utilized for the Groundwater Inflow Calculation | 186.0 |
| Table 13-10: | Estimated LOM Groundwater inflows to the Proposed Richmond Hill Open | 187.0 |
| Table 14-1: | Heap Leach Major Design Criteria | 189.0 |
| Table 14-2: | List of Main Mechanical Equipment for the Heap Leach Crushing Plant | 192.0 |
| Table 14-3: | List of Conveying and Stacking Equipment for the Heap Leach Pad | 193.0 |
| Table 14-4: | Heap Leach Gold and Silver Production Forecasts for M&I Case | 194.0 |
| Table 14-5: | Heap Leach Gold and Silver Production Forecasts for MI&I Case | 195.0 |
| Table 14-6: | Main Process Reagents and Consumables | 197.0 |
| Table 14-7: | List of Blowers and Compressors for Supply Plant and Instrument Air | 198.0 |
| Table 14-8: | Summary of Connected Power for Heap Leach Operations | 198.0 |
| Table 18-1: | Capital Cost Summary for M&I Case | 215.0 |
| Table 18-2: | Capital Cost Summary for MI&I Case | 215.0 |
| Table 18-3: | Operating Cost Summary for M&I Case | 216.0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>xiv |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Table 18-4: | Operating Cost Summary for MI&I Case | 216.0 |
| Table 18-5: | Initial Capital Process Plant Cost Summary | 217.0 |
| Table 18-6: | Up Front Capital Costs | 220.0 |
| Table 18-7: | Equipment Costs by Year | 221.0 |
| Table 18-8: | Capital Costs by Year | 223.0 |
| Table 18-9: | Process Consumables Average Annual Consumptions | 225.0 |
| Table 18-10: | Mine Operations Cost Summary | 227.0 |
| Table 18-11: | Cost Estimate by Period for General Mine Services | 229.0 |
| Table 18-12: | Mine Maintenance Costs | 231.0 |
| Table 18-13: | Drilling Costs, Consumables, and Maintenance | 233.0 |
| Table 18-14: | Blasting Costs | 235.0 |
| Table 18-15: | Loading Costs | 237.0 |
| Table 18-16: | Haul Costs | 239.0 |
| Table 18-17: | Mine Support Costs | 241.0 |
| Table 19-1: | Yearly Mine & Process Physicals for M&I Case | 243.0 |
| Table 19-2: | Yearly Mine & Process Physicals for MI&I Case | 244.0 |
| Table 19-3: | Life of Mine Process Statistics | 245.0 |
| Table 19-4: | Capital Expenditure Schedule for M&I Case | 246.0 |
| Table 19-5: | Capital Expenditure Schedule for MI&I Case | 246.0 |
| Table 19-6: | LOM Operating Costs | 247.0 |
| Table 19-7: | Key Economic Results for M&I Case | 248.0 |
| Table 19-8: | Key Economic Results for MI&I Case | 248.0 |
| Table 19-9: | Sensitivity Analysis for M&I Case | 249.0 |
| Table 19-10: | Sensitivity Analysis for MI&I Case | 249.0 |
| Table 19-11: | Detailed Financial Model for M&I Case | 250.0 |
| Table 19-12: | Detailed Financial Model for MI&I Case | 254.0 |
| Table 21-1: | Production Schedule | 264.0 |
| Table 21-2: | Yearly Equipment Requirements | 265.0 |
| Table 21-3: | Mining Personnel by Time Period | 267.0 |
| Table 21-4: | Mine Operations Cost Summary | 269.0 |
| Table 21-5: | Capital Purchases by Year | 270.0 |
| Table 21-6: | Capital Costs by Year | 271.0 |
| Table 22-1: | Mineral Resource | 272.0 |
| Table 23-1: | Budget for Recommended Work | 275.0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>xv |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

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

---

The Project property is comprised of more than 3,000 acres of private surface and mineral rights (the Property). The Project includes the past-producing Richmond Hill mine and the historical mines of the Carbonate District, as well as multiple prospective areas where gold has been drill-intersected.

The Project is in the western portion of Lawrence County, South Dakota (Figure 2-1), approximately 4.5 miles northwest of Lead, South Dakota. The former Richmond Hill mine is approximately 44° 22' 45" N latitude and 103° 51' 30" W longitude.

In 2021, Dakota Territory Resources Corp, now DTRC LLC, entered into a three-year option agreement (the Option) with Barrick subsidiaries Homestake Mining Company of California and LAC Minerals (for convenience referred to collectively at times as Barrick) to acquire their interests in the Richmond Hill Project area. In 2022, the Option was amended to extend the Option period until March 7, 2026. The Option was again amended in February 2025, extending the option until December 31, 2028. Most parcels in the Option area include both surface and mineral rights, but in some instances the Option only includes mineral rights, as discussed further in Section 3 of this Report. Under the Option, Dakota Gold is obligated to file a 1% royalty against the Option properties upon exercise of the Option. Certain portions of the Project are subject to additional royalties, as described further in Section 3 of this Report.

**1.1** **Geology and Mineralization** 

The Project is near the northwest end of the Black Hills which is an oval-shaped north-northwest-striking mountain range approximately 45 miles by 90 miles in extent along the western side of South Dakota and extending into Wyoming. The Black Hills is a domal uplift where erosion has exposed a window of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks flanked by a 6,500 to 7,000 ft deep sequence of Paleozoic to Mesozoic-aged sedimentary rocks dipping off in all directions on the margin of the uplift, all subjected to intrusive activity in the Tertiary.

The Project is located on the northwestern portion of the Lead dome, a subsidiary dome north of the main Black Hills uplift. The Lead dome developed in response to a major Tertiary intrusive event that also led to development of the Tertiary-aged gold deposits. These Tertiary intrusive rocks have a wide range of compositions and occur as stocks, sills, dikes, laccoliths, and breccia pipes. The Property forms a circular area approximately 2 miles in diameter.

Two major terranes underlie the claims. Precambrian metamorphic rocks outcrop on the southern portions of the Property and consist of metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The western portion of this terrane contains primarily extrusive metavolcanic rocks that appear to be mostly mafic in composition. The metasedimentary rocks on the eastern side consist of phyllite, iron formations, and quartzites. Overlying the Precambrian rock on the north end of the Property is a nearly complete Paleozoic section, which includes the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation; Ordovician to Mississippian Englewood and the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations; Mississippian Pahasapa Limestone; and the Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation. Tertiary igneous rocks of varying composition have intruded extensively into both terranes.

Several gold–silver deposits and prospective areas exist within the Project boundary. Within the Precambrian terrane, Tertiary-aged mineralization occurs within breccia pipes and altered Precambrian rocks, with minor mineralization in the Tertiary intrusive rocks. Examples include the Richmond Hill deposit, Twin Tunnels, Turnaround, Richmond Hill North, West Thumb, Huskie West, Cleveland, Calvin P, Cole Creek Heights, and Earle.

Within the Paleozoic terrane, mineralization occurs in the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation along two primary horizons containing the most consistent mineralization. Examples within the Deadwood Formation are Cole Creek in the upper portion and MW-3 Main, MW-3 East, and Chism Gulch in the lower portion. Localized gold mineralization also occurs in the Pahasapa Limestone but is limited to narrow veins and structures in the old Carbonate Camp area.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>1</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**1.2** **Exploration, Development, and Operations** 

Prior to Dakota Gold's tenure, the Property was drilled by at least 1,056 rotary, RC, and core holes testing multiple prospective areas within the claim boundary. Several of these holes are excluded from the final database due to missing collar coordinates, downhole surveys, or other issues. Since optioning the Property in 2021 to the effective date of this report, Dakota Gold has included an additional 148 diamond drill holes in this resource estimate, representing 157,504 ft of core drilling. As of the date of this Report, the Project remains open in multiple directions and Dakota Gold continues to conduct exploratory drilling of the Property.

Prior to entering into the Option agreement for the Property, Dakota Gold also flew a high-resolution helicopter-borne magnetic and gamma-ray spectrometric survey over the Homestake District. The survey covered an area of 962.4 km<sup>2</sup> and included the Project area, with the objective of mapping Precambrian lithologies and structure as well as Tertiary intrusive rocks and associated alteration in outcrop, subsurface, and beneath cover. The results of this survey are not publicly available.

**1.3** **Sample Preparation, Analysis, Security, and Data Verification** 

From 1984 to 1994, project drilling was completed by St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake. Current industry QA/QC standards were not part of these programs. However, IMC has compared historical drilling data against more recent data using current QA/QC protocols and found that the two populations of historical and current data are similar with no evident errors or biases.

From 2019 to the present, current industry standards for QA/QC have been followed. It is the opinion of the QP for this section that the Richmond Hill assay database of historical and current data is adequate for the estimation of mineral resources and subsequent mineral reserves.

**1.4** **Mineral Processing and Metallurgy** 

Historical oxide metallurgical testing was conducted primarily at St. Joe's Technical Center and on-site at the Richmond Hill Metallurgical Testing laboratory. Additional work was conducted at Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Bondar-Clegg, Kappes Cassiday & Associates and Heinen Lindstrom and Associates. This data was used to support the design and engineering of the production processing facility at Richmond Hill which operated from 1988 to 1993. Recent metallurgical testing focused on froth flotation of the transition and sulfide material and was completed at BaseMet laboratories in 2024.

The metallurgical test work shows that Richmond Hill oxide material is amenable to cyanide heap processing for the recovery of precious metals. Oxide heap leach recoveries are projected at 89% and 30% for gold and silver respectively. Testing of the transition material indicates it is possible to process low sulfide transition material via heap leaching with gold and silver recoveries of 65% gold and 18% for silver.

Additional metallurgical test work is planned to further define geometallurgical domains, associated metallurgical response, processing requirements and facilitate development of the Richmond Hill process geometallurgical model.

**1.5** **Mineral Resource Estimate** 

The mineral resource estimate for Richmond Hill includes mineral resources amenable to heap leaching and mineral resources amenable to milling. The mineral resource amenable to heap leaching consists of the oxide and transition material types, and the mineral resource amenable to milling consists of the sulfide material. Table 1-1 presents the mineral resource estimate. The measured and indicated mineral resource amenable to leaching amounts to 269.8 million tons at 0.0135 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver for 3.65 million ounces of contained gold and 38.1 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource amenable to leaching is an additional 254.2 million tons at 0.0103 oz/t gold and 0.090 oz/t silver for 2.61 million ounces of contained gold and 22.8 million ounces of contained silver.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>2</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The measured and indicated mineral resource amenable to milling amounts to 69.6 million tons at 0.0141 oz/t gold and 0.139 oz/t silver for 982,100 ounces of contained gold and 9.68 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource amenable to milling is an additional 202.2 million tons at 0.0121 oz/t gold and 0.145 oz/t silver for 2.45 million ounces of contained gold and 29.3 million ounces of contained silver.

The measured and indicated mineral resource for leach and mill material amounts to 339.4 million tons at 0.0137 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver for 4.64 million ounces of contained gold and 47.8 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource for leach and mill material is an additional 456.4 million tons at 0.0111 oz/t gold and 0.114 oz/t silver for 5.06 million ounces of contained gold and 52.1 million ounces of contained silver.

**Table 1-1: Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Resource Category** | **AuEq Cut off<br> Grade<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** |
| **Leach Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured Mineral Resource** |  | **113748** | **0.0164** | **0.0158** | **0.160** | **1793.4** | **18208** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 94537 | 0.0165 | 0.0158 | 0.167 | 1493.7 | 15788 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 19211 | 0.0161 | 0.0156 | 0.126 | 299.7 | 2421 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated Mineral Resource** |  | **156019** | **0.0125** | **0.0119** | **0.128** | **1860.0** | **19884** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 127237 | 0.0122 | 0.0117 | 0.128 | 1488.7 | 16286 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 28783 | 0.0134 | 0.0129 | 0.125 | 371.3 | 3598 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **269768** | **0.0141** | **0.0135** | **0.141** | **3653.3** | **38092** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 221774 | 0.0140 | 0.0134 | 0.145 | 2982.4 | 32074 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 47994 | 0.0145 | 0.0140 | 0.125 | 671.0 | 6018 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred Mineral Resource** |  | **254186** | **0.0106** | **0.0103** | **0.090** | **2613.4** | **22787** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 211994 | 0.0101 | 0.0098 | 0.085 | 2077.5 | 18019 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 42192 | 0.0131 | 0.0127 | 0.113 | 535.8 | 4768 |
| **Mill Resource (Sulfides):** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 20703 | 0.0184 | 0.0165 | 0.151 | 341.6 | 3126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 48893 | 0.0147 | 0.0131 | 0.134 | 640.5 | 6552 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | **0.0050** | **69596** | **0.0158** | **0.0141** | **0.139** | **982.1** | **9678** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 202221 | 0.0139 | 0.0121 | 0.145 | 2446.9 | 29322 |
| **Leach and Mill Mineral Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 134452 | 0.0167 | 0.0159 | 0.159 | 2135.0 | 21334 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 204912 | 0.0130 | 0.0122 | 0.129 | 2500.5 | 26436 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **339364** | **0.0145** | **0.0137** | **0.141** | **4635.4** | **47770** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 456407 | 0.0121 | 0.0111 | 0.114 | 5060.3 | 52109 |

---

**Notes:**

1. The Mineral Resource estimate has an effective date of February 3, 2025.

2. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore numbers may not appear to add precisely.

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

4. Mineral Resources are based on prices of $2000/oz gold and $25/oz silver.

5. Mineral Resources for leach material are based on a gold equivalent cut-off of 0.0026 oz/t for oxide material and 0.0041 oz/t for transition material. Mineral Resources for mill material are based on a gold equivalent cut-off of 0.0050 oz/t.

6. The gold equivalent value for each material is as follows:

Oxide (Leach): Gold equivalent (oz/t) = gold (oz/t) + 0.00418 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 89% and silver recovery of 30%.

Transition (Leach): Gold equivalent = gold (oz/t) + 0.00382 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 65% and silver recovery of 20%.

Sulfide (Mill): Gold equivalent = gold (oz/t) + 0.0127 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 85% and silver recovery of 85%.

7. The gold equivalent values account for metal recoveries, treatment charges, refining costs, and refinery payable percentages.

8. Table 11-4 accompanies this Mineral Resource statement and shows all relevant parameters for mineral resources.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>3</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

9. Includes a preliminary estimated royalty rate of 3.8% averaged across the Project property. The QP has determined that the resource is not sensitive to nominal changes in the royalty rate but has recommended that this estimate be updated for the Project economic and cash flow analysis.

10. Mineral Resources are reported in relation to a conceptual constraining pit shell to demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction, as required by the definition of Mineral Resource in S-K 1300; mineralization lying outside of the pit shell is excluded from the Mineral Resource.

11. The Mineral Resource estimate is also constrained by the Richmond Hill Project Boundary. Only mineralization inside this boundary is included in the Mineral Resource Estimate, though waste removal outside the boundary is allowed.

12. The Mineral Resources reported are contained on mineral titles owned or controlled by Dakota Gold.

13. The Mineral Resources are reported in-situ without any dilution or loss considerations, as a point of reference.

Table 1-2 presents a reconciliation of the January 2025 mineral resource estimate with the S-K 1300 Initial Assessment published in April 2024 (analysis dated current as of October 5, 2023) estimate for mineral resources amenable to leaching. This includes the oxide and transition material. Notable changes include conversion of hard grade estimation boundaries to soft boundaries based on additional data and analysis and updated domains for oxide, transition, and sulfide materials. Updates to cut off grade, recovery rates, costs, gold price, and addition of silver also positively impacted the model.

**Table 1-2: Summary of Reconciliation Analysis for Contained Gold Ounces**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Oxide/Transition (Leach)** | **Oxide/Transition (Leach)** | **Sulfide (Mill)** | **Sulfide (Mill)** | **All Mineral Resource** | **All Mineral Resource** |
| <br>**Parameter** | **Meas/Indic**<br> **Au (koz)** | **Inferred**<br> **Au (koz)** | **Meas/Indic**<br> **Au (koz)** | **Inferred**<br> **Au (koz)** | **Meas/Indic**<br> **Au (koz)** | **Inferred**<br> **Au (koz)** |
| **Start - October 2023 Mineral Resource** | **859** | **836** | **469** | **296** | **1328** | **1132** |
| Due to Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains | 453 | 461 | (302) | (197) | 151 | 264 |
| Due to Internal versus Breakeven Cut-off Grade | 35 | 69 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 75 |
| Due to Updated Recoveries | 5 | 37 | 65 | 138 | 70 | 175 |
| Due to $2,000/oz Price | 11 | 47 | 1.6 | 5 | 13 | 53 |
| Due to Dakota Gold Costs | 51 | 182 | (0.4) | (10) | 51 | 172 |
| Due to Updated Resource Model (Note 1) | 2215 | 910 | 698 | 1855 | 2914 | 2765 |
| Due to Silver (Note 2) | 24 | 72 | 41 | 353 | 64 | 425 |
| **Cumulative Change for All Parameters** | **2794** | **1778** | **513** | **2151** | **3307** | **3929** |
| **Final - January 2025 Mineral Resource** | **3653** | **2613** | **982** | **2447** | **4635** | **5060** |

---

Note 1: Only gold used to develop resource shell.

Note 2: Silver economics allowed to contribute to resource shell

**1.6** **Mining Methods** 

The Initial Assessment (IA) presented in this report considers open-pit mining of the Richmond Hill gold deposit in the Black Hills region of South Dakota. Mining will utilize a 29 cubic yard hydraulic shovel with support of a 30 cubic yard front end loader, which will load 150-ton haul trucks. Haul trucks will transport both ore and waste material to designated locations, including waste rock storage facilities (WRSFs) and process facilities. Waste rock will be deposited in a WRSF located north of the pit or used for progressive backfilling of mined out phases to reduce the disturbance footprint and haul distances. Additionally, spent leach material will be moved from the leach pads to the pits as backfill.

Mine planning and design were completed using Geovia Whittle™ (Lerchs-Grossman algorithm) and Surpac™ (version 2024) software. Pit optimization was conducted at a base case metal price of $2,200/oz Au and $25/oz Ag, with designs developed for six mining phases. Production scheduling was completed using MineSched™ software, targeting 10.95 million tons per year of ore delivered to the heap leach facility. Backfilling of pits with leached ore and waste material will commence after completion of Phase 1 and continue through the mine life, with additional regrading and closure activities extending through Year 31.

Open-pit slope designs incorporate 40 ft high benches with 20 ft catch benches, achieving inter-ramp slope angles between 46 and 49 degrees depending on lithology. Haul roads have been designed for two-way traffic using 150-ton haul trucks and include 103 ft road widths and 5.5 ft high safety berms. Roads external to the pit are designed to 120 ft to accommodate dual berms.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>4</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Mining operations will be performed using an owner-operated fleet of primarily leased equipment. Peak production will require up to 16 haul trucks, two blasthole drills, two water trucks, two 600 hp dozers, and a suite of support and maintenance equipment. Up to 186 personnel will be employed during peak operations, including mine operations, maintenance, engineering, and technical support staff, working 24/7 in rotating shifts.

The IA assumes owner-operated mining, and equipment productivity factors, performance curves, and first principles calculations were used to derive required equipment hours, from which operating costs were derived. Operating costs and reflect leased equipment with associated maintenance and labor costs. Mining costs are based on a detailed cost model incorporating consumables, labor, fuel, and maintenance.

Dewatering of the pits will focus on managing meteoric water only, as groundwater inflows will be intercepted and removed through perimeter wells prior to mining. Sumps will be in low points of the pit and surface water management infrastructure will direct contact water to the onsite water treatment plant (WTP).

Cutoff grades for material routing considered the internal cutoff grade. While the economic internal break-even cutoff grade of 0.003 oz/ton of equivalent gold was developed using economic and recovery parameters, 0.005 oz/ton of equivalent gold was applied to prioritize higher-grade material and enhance project economics. Gold equivalent grades were calculated considering both gold and silver values using recovery and metal price assumptions.

**1.7** **Environmental** 

In the 1980s and 1990s, considerable environmental baseline information was collected to support historical mine permitting and to support reclamation and closure activities. This information, along with new and additional or updated data, will be required to support future mine development and permitting efforts.

Dakota Gold collects select environmental baseline information required to support planned exploration permitting and assist with reclamation of disturbed sites. Key environmental baseline disciplines required to support exploration drilling permitting include: vegetation, wildlife, cultural, archaeology, and historical. Dakota Gold will also be negotiating additional baseline requirements with South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SDDANR) as part of its permitting process for a new mine at Richmond Hill.

As part of LAC's closure program at Richmond Hill Mine, all material classified as acid generating was removed from the Spruce Gulch waste dump and placed in truck compacted lifts back into the historical Richmond Hill mining area. Following placement of that material, the material was capped with clay to minimize oxygen and water infiltration into the compacted potentially acid-generating material. LAC also used this method to remediate the ore material on the heap leach pads, isolating the pads with a similar clay cap. The leach pad and backfilled historical Richmond Hill mining area impoundment covers have met or exceeded original design specifications for limiting infiltration.

Any potentially impacted groundwater from the former process area, pit impoundment, or Spruce Gulch waste dump facility is actively managed by two on-site water management and treatment systems that have continued to operate throughout the post-closure period. Continued water treatment at these sites would be the responsibility of Dakota Gold once the Option is exercised. The associated costs are subject to post-closure bonding, the obligation for which would be assumed by Dakota Gold upon exercise of the Option.

**1.8** **Capital Cost Summary** 

Capital costs were developed for the mine by RESPEC, for the heap leach facility by Welsh Hagan, and for the process plant by M3. Table 1-3 shows the estimated capital costs for the project under the Measured & Indicated (M&I) case. This includes $384 million in Year -1 and $220 million for sustaining capital. Total capital costs are estimated at $604 million.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>5</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 1-3: Capital Cost Summary for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **Units** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Total** |
| **Mine Capital including Pre-Production** | K USD | $49428 | $71163 | $120591 |
| **Process Plant including Heap Leach Pad** | K USD | $334661 | $148457 | $483118 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL CAPITAL COST** | K USD | $**384088** | $**219620** | $**603708** |

---

Table 1-4 shows the estimated capital costs for the project under the Measured, Indicated, & Inferred (MI&I) case. This includes $383 million in Year -1 and $233 million for sustaining capital. Total capital costs are estimated at $616 million.

**Table 1-4: Capital Cost Summary for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **Units** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Total** |
| **Mine Capital including Pre-Production** | K USD | $48718 | $84106 | $132591 |
| **Process Plant including Heap Leach Pad** | K USD | $334661 | $148457 | $483118 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL CAPITAL COST** | K USD | $**383379** | $**232563** | $**615942** |

---

**1.9** **Operating Cost Summary** 

Operating costs include mine operations, process plant operations, general and administrative costs, and refining charges. Table 1-5 shows the estimated operating costs for the project LOM under the M&I case. Operating costs were estimated at $2.0 billion for the LOM. This is equivalent to $10.73 per ton processed or $764 per ounce of payable gold.

**Table 1-5: Operating Cost Summary for M&I Case**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Production Cost** | **Production Cost** |
| <br>**Category** |<br>**K USD** | **$/ ton<br> Processed** | **$/ Au oz<br> Payable** |
| Mining Costs | $887322 | $4.78 | $341 |
| Process Plant | $874490 | $4.71 | $336 |
| G&A | $201722 | $1.09 | $77 |
| Refining | $26068 | $0.14 | $10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL OPERATING COST** | $**1989602** | $**10.73** | $**764** |

---

Table 1-6 shows the estimated operating costs for the project LOM under the MI&I case. Operating costs were estimated at $3.3 billion for the LOM. This is equivalent to $10.82 per ton processed or $924 per ounce of payable gold.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>6</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 1-6: Operating Cost Summary for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Production Cost** | **Production Cost** |
| <br>**Category** |<br>**K USD** | **$/ ton**<br> **Processed** | **$/ Au oz Payable** |
| Mining Costs | $1464004 | $4.85 | $414 |
| Process Plant | $1427042 | $4.73 | $404 |
| G&A | $332248 | $1.10 | $94 |
| Refining | $39856 | $0.13 | $11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL OPERATING COST** | $**3263151** | $**10.82** | $**924** |

---

**1.10** **Economic Analysis Summary** 

The economic analyses for the project under the M&I case are summarized in Table 1-7 below. The base case metal prices are $2,350 per ounce of gold and $29 per ounce of silver.

**Table 1-7: Key Economic Results for M&I Case**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Indicators** | **Before-Tax** | **After-Tax** |
| LOM Cash Flow ($000) | $3409526 | $2605557 |
| NPV @ 5% ($000) | $2093385 | $1622071 |
| NPV @ 10% ($000) | $1359054 | $1060048 |
| IRR | 61.4% | 55.0% |
| Payback (years) | 1.6 | 1.7 |

---

The economic analyses for the project under the MI&I case are summarized in Table 1-8 below. The base case metal prices are $2,350 per ounce of gold and $29 per ounce of silver.

**Table 1-8: Key Economic Results for MI&I Case**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Indicators** | **Before-Tax** | **After-Tax** |
| LOM Cash Flow ($000) | $5387903 | $4205852 |
| NPV @ 5% ($000) | $2691729 | $2112725 |
| NPV @ 10% ($000) | $1558857 | $1225667 |
| IRR | 66.5% | 59.4% |
| Payback (years) | 1.5 | 1.5 |

---

**1.11** **Conclusion and Recommendations** 

Under the assumptions presented in this Initial Assessment Technical Report, and based on the available data, the Mineral Resource Estimates show reasonable prospects of economic extraction. In addition, due to the nature of the Project and the ability to advance Richmond Hill towards production, the recommendation section also outlines an estimate for a complete feasibility level work program.

The recommended program is for the company to complete a Feasibility Study.

The following are recommendations for the next stages of work to advance the Project:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Advance the Project to a Feasibility Study level.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional metallurgical testwork and process
design.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>7</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional drilling to infill the current mineral
resource and test additional prospective areas. This will also improve definition of geological domains and provide material for metallurgical
testing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Continue advancement of baseline environmental
data collection and planned permit engineering analyses to support initiation of Project permitting.

Table 1-9 summarizes the budget cost for these items.

**Table 1-9: Budget for Recommended Work**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **2025** | **2026** | **2027** | **Total** |
| 1. Program to Feasibility Study | $1000000 | $2000000 | $1000000 | $4000000 |
| 2. Program For Feasibility Study Metallurgy and Environmental |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase I, Flowsheet Confirmation | $1200000 | $1200000 |  | $2400000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase II, Spatial Variability Testing |  | $450000 | $450000 | $900000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase III, Payback Period Annual Composites |  | $270000 | $270000 | $540000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program: ROM Heap Leach |  | $250000 |  | $250000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Monitoring Wells | $1650000 |  |  | $1650000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Geochemistry | $150000 | $150000 | $150000 | $450000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Samples/Analytics | $930000 | $730000 |  | $1660000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Studies/Modeling/Other | $513240 | $973225 | $190000 | $1676465 |
| 3. Drilling Program |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgical | $864500 | $532000 |  | $1396500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Condemnation | $2660000 | $3391500 |  | $6051500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Infill | $4721500 | $7049000 |  | $11770500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Geotech |  | $2660000 |  | $2660000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Exploration | - | $1330000 | - | $1330000 |
| **Total** | $**13689240** | $**20985725** | $**2060000** | $**36734965** |

---

It is anticipated that these items would be performed over the next two years. Given the robust nature of the resource identified, Dakota Gold may choose to defer some portion of additional exploration drilling.

Based on the findings of the initial assessment study, the authors are of the opinion that the Richmond Hill property represents a project of significant merit. The results indicate sufficient potential to justify proceeding with the proposed exploration and development program, along with the associated level of expenditures previously outlined. This program should specifically target the gold-bearing zones within the Richmond Hill portion of the property, which have shown favorable indications of economic viability.

To progress the project toward a feasibility-level study, the authors recommend the implementation of a comprehensive and strategically phased program. The recommended scope of work includes, but is not limited to, advanced exploration activities, environmental and regulatory permitting processes, metallurgical testing and analysis, engineering design, and preliminary development planning. The objective of this multi-disciplinary approach is to further delineate the resource, assess technical and economic parameters, and address the critical components required to support a future decision on project development and potential production.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>8</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The authors believe that this next phase of work is both justified and necessary, given the encouraging results of the initial assessment and the prospective nature of the Richmond Hill property.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>9</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

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

---

M3 Engineering and Technology Corp. (M3) has prepared this technical report on the Richmond Hill Project ("Richmond Hill", the "Richmond Hill Mine", or the "Project"), located in Lawrence County, South Dakota, for Dakota Gold. The purpose of this report is to disclose the results of an updated Mineral Resource estimate. This report, with an effective date of July 7, 2025 (the "Effective Date"), conforms to S-K 1300 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The Mineral Resource estimate presented in this Technical Report supersedes all prior resource estimates for the Project.

**2.1** **Registrant** 

Dakota Gold Corp. (Dakota Gold) is a Delaware-incorporated company traded on the NYSE American and with a head office in Lead, South Dakota. Dakota Gold is focused on revitalizing the Homestake District in South Dakota. Dakota Gold has multiple gold mineral projects surrounding the historical Homestake mine, including the Richmond Hill Gold Project, which is the subject of this technical report summary. The Project hosts the former Richmond Hill gold mine that operated from 1988 to 1993 as an open pit mine with heap leach facilities. The Project location is shown in Figure 2-1.

**2.2** **Project Scope and Terms of Reference** 

The scope of this study encompasses a comprehensive review and evaluation of relevant technical reports and datasets supplied by Dakota Gold. These materials pertain to the general project setting, geological framework, historical context, exploration activities and their corresponding results, methodologies employed, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures, interpretive analyses, drilling programs, metallurgical testing, and estimates of mineral resources at the Richmond Hill property.

In conducting this assessment, the authors have relied primarily on data and information provided by Dakota Gold and, where applicable, by its predecessor. A significant portion of the information utilized in this study originates from historical records and technical work conducted directly by these entities.

The authors have thoroughly reviewed the available documentation and performed on-site inspections to assess the veracity and reliability of the underlying data. In cases where data were determined to be inadequate, inconsistent, or otherwise unreliable, such data were either excluded from the analysis or adjusted for through modifications in methodology to mitigate potential impacts on the conclusions drawn.

Where necessary and appropriate, the authors have undertaken independent verification and investigations in accordance with industry best practices and professional standards. These efforts were made to ensure the accuracy and defensibility of the interpretations, findings, and conclusions presented herein.

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>10</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp02img001.jpg)

Source: Carter et al. (2002)

**Figure 2-1: Property Location**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>11</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**2.3** **Qualified Persons** 

Table 2-1 shows the Qualified Persons (QPs) for this technical report and their respective areas of responsibility.

**Table 2-1: Qualified Persons Responsibilities**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Qualified Person** | **Company** | **Report Section(s) of Responsibility** |
| Matthew Sletten, P.E. | M3 | 1, 1.11, 2, 15, 15.1-15.3, 16, 21, 22, 22.1, 22.3, 22.4, 23, 23.1, 23.6, 24, 25 |
| Benajmin Bermudez, P.E. | M3 | 1.8-1.10, 14, 18, 18.1-18.3, 18.5, 18.6, 19 |
| Michael G. Hester, FAusIMM | IMC | 1.1-1.3, 1.5, 3-8, 9.1, 11, 20 |
| Jeffrey L. Woods, SME MMSA QP | WPS | 1.4, 9.2, 10, 22.2, 23.2, 23.3 |
| Thomas Dyer, P.E. | RESPEC | 1.6, 12-13, 15.4, 18.4, 18.7, 23.5 |
| Crystal Hocking, P.E. P.G. | RESPEC | 1.7, 17, 23.4 |

---

\*Wherever there is a section listed, as well as subsections, the section number refers to the introductory content before the subsections.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Matthew Sletten visited the Property on February 21,
2025, to review site conditions.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Benjamin Bermudez has not visited the site.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Michael G. Hester visited the Property on January 16
and 17, 2025 to review site conditions and interview site personnel. This included the core logging, processing and storage facilities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Jeffrey L. Woods visited the Property on April 23,
2025. There is currently no on-site process-related infrastructure to examine.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Thomas Dyer visited the Property on April 23,
2025. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Crystal Hocking visited the Property on September 11,
2024, to review site conditions.

**2.4** **Date** 

Information in this Report is current as of July 7, 2025.

**2.5** **Sources of Information** 

The main sources of information for this technical report include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The drillhole database was compiled and maintained
by Dakota Gold.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Various geologic and ore type solids developed
by Dakota Gold and Woods personnel.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The report "S-K 1300 Initial Assessment
and Technical Report Summary – Richmond Hill Gold Project, South Dakota, U.S.A" dated April 30, 2024.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Reports and documents cited in Sections 24 and
25 were used to support the preparation of this Report.

**2.6** **Previous Technical Report Summaries** 

The Registrant filed a technical report summary on the Project, dated February 3, 2025 that included an Initial Assessment and mineral resource estimate. There was also a technical report summary dated April 30, 2024, that included a maiden mineral resource estimate for the Project.

**2.7** **Acronyms and Abbreviations** 

---

| |
|:---|
| $U.S. dollar |
| three-dimensional |
| atomic absorption spectroscopy |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>12</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Ag | silver |
| AKF | AKF Mining Services Inc. |
| AOI | Area of Interest |
| ARD | acid-rock drainage |
| ARSD | Administrative Rules of South Dakota |
| Au | gold |
| Aueq | Gold equivalent |
| BC | Bondar-Clegg |
| B.C. | British Columbia |
| Barrick | Barrick Gold Corporation |
| BaseMet | Base Metallurgical Laboratories |
| BLK | blank |
| BLM | Bureau of Land Management |
| BMA | bulk mineral analysis |
| BVMM | Bureau Veritas Metals and Minerals |
| BWi | Bond ball mill work index |
| CC | Cole Creek |
| CDP | crushed duplicate |
| CF | Chism Flat |
| CG | Chism Gulch |
| CN | Cyanide |
| COd | Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation |
| COdcs | Deadwood Formation basal conglomerate-sandstone |
| COG | Cut off Grade |
| Core | Central Crystalline Core |
| CP | Calvin Point |
| CRM | certified reference material |
| Cu | copper |
| CUP | Conditional Use Permit |
| CV | Cleveland |
| Dakota Gold | Dakota Gold Corp. |
| DO | dissolved oxygen |
| DTRC | Dakota Territory Resource Corp. |
| DUP | duplicate |
| ERM | Environmental Resources Management |
| EXNI | Exploration Notice of Intent |
| Fe | iron |
| Freeport | Freeport Exploration Company |
| GRG | gravity-recoverable gold |
| HARD | Half Absolute Relative Deviation |
| Homestake | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| HRD | Half Relative Deviation |
| ICP-ES | inductively coupled plasma-emission spectroscopy |
| ID<sup>2</sup> | inverse distance squared |
| IMC | Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. |
| IP | induced polarization |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>13</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| IRR | internal rate of return |
| JV | joint venture |
| Koz | 1000 troy ounces |
| K-Met | K-Met Consultants Inc. |
| LAC | LAC Minerals |
| LDL | lower detection limit |
| Magee | Magee Geophysical Surveys LLC |
| MC | master composite |
| Mia | coarse ore index |
| MRE | mineral resource estimate |
| MTO | material take-off |
| NaCN | sodium cyanide |
| NPV | net present value |
| NOI | Notice of Intent |
| NSR | net smelter return |
| NWS | National Weather Service |
| OK | ordinary kriging |
| P<sub>80</sub> | 80% passing |
| PAX | potassium amyl xanthate |
| pC | undivided Precambrian |
| PDP | pulp duplicate |
| PEA | preliminary economic assessment |
| Pef | Precambrian Ellison |
| Pfl | Precambrian Flagrock |
| Pgn | Precambrian Greenstone |
| POX | pressure oxidation |
| Property | Richmond Hill Gold Project |
| QA/QC | quality assurance and quality control |
| Q/C | quality control |
| QP | qualified person |
| RC | reverse circulation |
| RH | Richmond Hill |
| RHN | Richmond Hill North |
| RO | reverse osmosis |
| RQD | rock quality designation |
| S | sulfur |
| SAG | semi-autogenous grinding |
| SCSE | SAG circuit specific energy |
| SD | standard deviation |
| SDBME | South Dakota Board of Minerals & Environment |
| SDCL | South Dakota Codified Law |
| SDDANR | South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources |
| SDDENR | South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources |
| SDP | sample duplicate |
| SD SHPO | South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office |
| SMC | SAG mill comminution |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; M3-PN240322 7 July 2025 Revision 0<sub>14</sub> |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| |
|:---|
| Scale Mine Permit |
| St. Joe Gold Corporation |
| Sanford Underground Research Facility |
| surface water discharge |
| Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan |
| Turn Around |
| Tertiary hydrothermal breccia |
| Richmond Hill Tertiary hydrothermal breccia |
| Richmond Hill North No Name Tertiary hydrothermal breccia |
| total constructed cost |
| Tertiary dike |
| Tertiary intrusive |
| Tertiary sill |
| Twin Tunnels |
| United States of America |
| United States Forest Service |
| Viable Resources Inc. |
| whole ore leach |
| Woods Process Services |
| Waste Rock Storage Facility |
| micrometer (micron) |
| degrees azimuth |
| degrees Fahrenheit |
| percent |
| $United States dollar |
| cubic yard |
| foot |
| cubic feet per US ton |
| gram |
| grams per cubic meters |
| grams per tonne |
| giga-annum (billion years) |
| U.S. gallons per minute |
| hour |
| kilogram |
| kilogram per tonne |
| kilometer squared |
| 1000 US tons |
| 1000 metric tonnes |
| kilovolt |
| kilowatt |
| kilowatt hours per cubic meter |
| kilowatt hour per tonne |
| liter |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>15 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| m<sup>3</sup> | cubic meter |
| m | meter |
| Ma | mega-annum (one million years) |
| mg | milligram |
| mg/L | milligram per liter |
| ml | milliliter |
| mm | millimeter |
| Moz | million ounces |
| ms | millisecond |
| Mton | megaton (one million tons) |
| Opt | ounces per short ton |
| oz | troy ounce |
| oz/t | ounces per short ton |
| oz/ton | ounces per short ton |
| ppm | parts per million |
| t | tonne |
| ton | short ton |
| ton/ft<sup>3</sup> | tons per cubic foot |
| t/m<sup>3</sup> | tonnes per cubic meter |
| wt% | weight percentage |

---

***2.8 UNITS OF MEASURE AND METRIC EQUIVALENTS***

 ****

***Currency***

Currency is expressed in United States dollars ($).

***<u>Units of Measure and Metric Equivalents</u>***

All units of measure used in this Report are United States (US) customary units unless otherwise noted.

***Linear Measure***

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| 1 centimeter | = 0.3937 inches |  |
| 1 meter | = 3.2808 feet | = 1.0936 yards |
| 1 kilometer | = 0.6214 miles |  |
| ***Area Measure*** | ***Area Measure*** |  |
| 1 hectare | = 2.471 acres | = 0.0039 square miles |
| ***Capacity Measure (liquid)*** | ***Capacity Measure (liquid)*** |  |
| 1 liter | = 0.2642 United States (US) gallons | = 0.2642 United States (US) gallons |
| ***Weight*** |  |  |
| 1 tonne | = 1.1023 tons | = 2,205 pounds |
| 1 kilogram | = 2.205 pounds |  |
| 1 troy ounce (oz) | = 31.1034768 grams |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>16 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

3 Property Description

Dakota Gold's Richmond Hill Gold Project comprises 3,002.07 acres, including 3,000.62 acres of private surface and mineral rights. The Project includes the past-producing Richmond Hill mine and the historical mines of the Carbonate District, as well as multiple prospective areas where gold has been drill-intersected.

**3.1** **Project Location** 

The Project is in the western portion of Lawrence County, South Dakota approximately 4.5 miles northwest of Lead, South Dakota.

The center of the main claim block for the Project is at approximately 44° 23' N latitude and 103° 51' W longitude. The former Richmond Hill mine is approximately 44° 22' 45" N latitude and 103° 51' 30" W longitude.

**3.2** **Ownership** 

St. Joe Gold Corporation (St. Joe) developed the former Richmond Hill gold mine in 1987. Bond Gold Corporation (Bond Gold) acquired the St. Joe Gold Corporation gold division in 1988. The mine was permitted, and construction of the mine facilities began in April 1988 under the ownership of Bond Gold.

In November 1989, LAC Minerals Ltd. Acquired Bond Gold. After the merger, the Project was held by the LAC subsidiary Richmond Hill Inc. In 1993, Richmond Hill Inc merged into LAC Minerals (USA) Inc. LAC Minerals (USA) Inc. converted to LAC Minerals (USA) LLC in 1999. Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) acquired LAC Minerals Ltd., the parent of LAC Minerals (USA) LLC in November 1994.

The Homestake Mining Company was acquired by Barrick in 2001. LAC Minerals (USA) LLC (hereafter "LAC") and Homestake Mining Company of California (hereafter "Homestake"), a subsidiary of Homestake Mining Company, merged in October 2023, with Homestake as the surviving entity. Homestake is the current owner of the properties formerly held separately by LAC and Homestake.

Dakota Territory Resources Corp, now DTRC LLC, entered into a three-year Option agreement with Homestake and LAC (for convenience referred to collectively at times as Barrick) in 2021 to acquire the Homestake/LAC interests in the Richmond Hill Project area, with the mineral tenure primarily held in the names of LAC and Homestake (see discussion in Section 3.3 and 3.4). In 2022, the Option was amended to extend the Option period until March 7, 2026. In February 2025, the Option was again amended to extend the Option until December 31, 2028.

In addition to the optioned Property, DTRC LLC, acquired ~324 acres of private property in the Richmond Hill Project area of which ~76 acres are of surface interest only on Property included in the Richmond Hill Option Agreement.

**3.3** **Mineral Tenure Holdings** 

Within the western portion of Lawrence County, South Dakota, the Property covers portions of Sections 9 to 11, 13 to 16, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, and 33 to 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Black Hills Meridian, plus portions of Sections 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13, Township 4 North, Range 2 East, Black Hills Meridian, and a portion of Section 31, Township 5 North, Range 3 East, Black Hills Meridian, plus portions of Sections 6 and 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, Black Hills Meridian (Dakota Gold n.d. c 2023) (Table 3-1). The Property is contiguous with Dakota Gold's West Corridor and Blind Gold Properties and is approximately two and a half miles north of the producing Wharf Gold mine owned by Coeur Mining.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>17 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The Richmond Hill Project consists of both property subject to the Option (further discussed below) comprising of 94 Lawrence County, South Dakota, Land parcels and two unpatented mining claims as well as 3 additional Lawrence County, South Dakota, Land Parcels owned by DTRC LLC. The 94 land parcels of the Option agreement comprise 246 mineral survey patented lode claims, purchased government lots, and subdivided lots. Twenty-nine (29) parcels consist only of the mineral rights, with the surface belonging to various owners. The 3 additional land parcels comprise 16 mineral survey patented lode claims. Table 3-1 contains a claims listing.

In October 2023, LAC and Homestake merged, and Homestake now owns or controls the entire Option property. At the Report date, Homestake and LAC remain listed in the agreement as owning their respective claims.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>18 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1img002.jpg)

**Figure 3-1: Richmond Hill Project Location and Ownership**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>19 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 3-1: Richmond Hill Gold Property Claims**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |
| 1 | 16000-00502-110-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 10 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 2 | 16000-00502-130-12 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 12 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 4 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 7 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 8 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 9 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 10 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 3 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 9 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 10 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 12 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 13 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 5 | 16000-00502-150-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Tract 0102-A | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 5 | 16000-00502-150-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Tract 0102-B | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 5 | 16000-00502-150-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Tract 0103-B | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 5 | 16000-00502-150-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Tract 0103-A | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 6 | 16000-00502-220-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 7 | 16000-00502-220-04 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 7 | 16000-00502-220-04 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 4 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 8 | 16000-00502-220-10 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 5 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 9 | 16000-00502-230-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 9 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 9 | 16000-00502-230-00 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 10 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 4 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 5 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 6 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 7 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 8 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 11 | 16000-00502-240-12 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 12 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 11 | 16000-00502-240-12 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 13 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 11 | 16000-00502-240-12 | Patented Mineral Properties |  | Govt. Lot 14 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 12 | 26280-00348-000-00 | Minerals Only | 348 | Old Reliable | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 13 | 26280-00407-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 407 | Enterprise | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 14 | 26280-00408-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 408 | Surprise | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 15 | 26280-00417-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 417 | Carbonate | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 16 | 26280-00425-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 425 | Jay Gould | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 17 | 26280-00426-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 426 | Garfield | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 18 | 26280-00428-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 428 | Far West | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 19 | 26280-00437-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 437 | Katie | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 20 | 26280-00438-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 438 | Arthur | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 21 | 26280-00440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 440 | Hartshorn | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 22 | 26280-00441-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 441 | Minnie | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 23 | 26280-00442-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 442A | Ultimo | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 24 | 26280-00443-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 443 | Tidiout | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 25 | 26280-00447-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 447A | Utica | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>20 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |
| 26 | 26280-00448-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 448A | Antietam | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 27 | 26280-00449-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 449 | Blue Bird | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 28 | 26280-00450-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 450 | Carbonate Fraction #1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 29 | 26280-00451-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 451 | Carbonate Fraction #2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 30 | 26280-00465-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 465 | Mutual | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 31 | 26280-00466-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 466 | Washington | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 32 | 26280-00473-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 473 | May Queen | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 33 | 26280-00474-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 474 | Hercules | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 34 | 26280-00489-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 489 | Adelphi | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 35 | 26280-00675-000-00 | Minerals Only | 675 | General Grant | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 36 | 26280-00679-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 679 | Spanish | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 37 | 26280-00680-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 680 | Richmond | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 38 | 26340-00839-000-00 | Minerals Only | 839 | Boss | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 39 | 26340-00874-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 874 | Brooklyn | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Big Sam | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Francis | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Marseillase | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Minnie | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Ruby Hill | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | 930 | Glenwood | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 41 | 26340-00935-000-20 | Minerals Only | 935 | South Lyon | Homestake Mining Company of California;<br> Parcel # 26340-00935-000-20 excludes Gov't Lot 5. |
| 44 | 26342-00935-010-00 | Minerals Only | 935 | South Lyon | Homestake Mining Company of California;<br> Parcel # 26340-00935-000-20 excludes Gov't Lot 5. |
| 45 | 26342-00935-020-00 | Minerals Only | 935 | South Lyon | Homestake Mining Company of California;<br> Parcel # 26340-00935-000-20 excludes Gov't Lot 5. |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | J.M. | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Todd | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Earle | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Minnie C | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Lyda B | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Sister | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Arthur L | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Cass | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Newell | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Calvin P | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Emma | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Virginia | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Juliett | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Donald W | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Helen | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Atwood | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Little Bonanze | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Ella | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 977 | Ralph K | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>21 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |
| 43 | 26340-01022-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1022 | Chloride Fr. | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 43 | 26340-01022-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1022 | Calkins | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 43 | 26340-01022-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1022 | Logan | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 43 | 26340-01022-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1022 | Anis | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 46 | 26380-01043-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1043 | Rattler | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 46 | 26380-01043-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1043 | Gilroy | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 47 | 26380-01092-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1092 | Dakota | Homestake Mining Company of California & Willis Aye |
| 47 | 26380-01092-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1092 | Granite | Homestake Mining Company of California & Willis Aye |
| 47 | 26380-01092-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1092 | Columbia | Homestake Mining Company of California & Willis Aye |
| 47 | 26380-01092-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1092 | Union | Homestake Mining Company of California & Willis Aye |
| 48 | 26380-01109-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1109 | Argenta | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 48 | 26380-01109-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1109 | Oro | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 48 | 26380-01109-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1109 | Oro Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 49 | 26380-01109-000-05 | Minerals Only | 1109 | Glyn | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 50 | 26380-01109-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1109 | Lemans | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | West Wedge Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | West End | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | Jackson | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | Moonlight | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | Sunrise | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | Sunset Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1114 | Lizzie | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 52 | 26420-01141-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1141 | Camden | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 52 | 26420-01141-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1141 | Ford | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 52 | 26420-01141-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1141 | Georgia | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 53 | 26460-01168-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1168 | Blue | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 53 | 26460-01168-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1168 | Rocklyn | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 54 | 26540-01247-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1247 | White House | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 54 | 26540-01247-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1247 | Congress | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 54 | 26540-01247-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1247 | China Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 54 | 26540-01247-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1247 | Japan Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 55 | 26540-01278-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1278 | Nanki-Poo | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 55 | 26540-01278-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1278 | Dalaunay | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 56 | 26540-01283-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1283 | May | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 57 | 26540-01283-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1283 | Deadwood | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 58 | 26540-01283-000-30 | Minerals Only | 1283 | Buffalo | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 58 | 26540-01283-000-30 | Minerals Only | 1283 | Link Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 59 | 26540-01288-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1288 | Longpoint Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 60 | 26540-01288-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1288 | Cardinal | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 61 | 26540-01289-000-05 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Ames | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 61 | 26540-01289-000-05 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Ames Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 62 | 26540-01289-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Cloud | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 62 | 26540-01289-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Dick | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 62 | 26540-01289-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Lightning | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 62 | 26540-01289-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Thunder | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 63 | 26540-01289-000-15 | Minerals Only | 1289 | Ester | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 64 | 26580-01349-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1349 | James G. Blaine | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 65 | 26580-01376-000-88 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Tract PR2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>22 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |

---

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Aliance | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Sucker | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Little Ellen | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Black Bird | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Golden Eagle No. 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Rubicon | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Rubicon No. 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Rubicon No. 4 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Dakota | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Darboy | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Havana No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1376 | Havana No. 3 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 67 | 26580-01382-000-00 | Leased Mineral Rights | 1382 | Rubicon | PETERSON, JAMES E |
| 67 | 26580-01382-000-00 | Leased Mineral Rights | 1382 | Cleveland | PETERSON, JAMES E |
| 67 | 26580-01382-000-00 | Leased Mineral Rights | 1382 | Lizzie Johnson | PETERSON, JAMES E |
| 67 | 26580-01382-000-00 | Leased Mineral Rights | 1382 | Standard | PETERSON, JAMES E |
| 68 | 26580-01382-000-10 | Leased Mineral Rights | 1382 | Grayback | PETERSON, JAMES E |
| 69 | 26580-01398-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1398 | Independent | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 69 | 26580-01398-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1398 | Independent No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 69 | 26580-01398-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1398 | Republik | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Yankee Boy | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Yankee Boy No. 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Yankee Boy No. 4 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Alliance No 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Little Bonanza No. 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | Magna Charta | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1406 | General Joe Hooker | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 71 | 26620-01406-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1406 | Arthur No. 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 71 | 26620-01406-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1406 | Little Hill | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 71 | 26620-01406-000-10 | Minerals Only | 1406 | Little Hill No. 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1436 | Joplin No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1436 | Joplin No. 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1436 | Joplin No. 3 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1436 | Julia-Etta | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1436 | Magnetic | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Crest | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Samoa | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Co-moa | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Sylvanite No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Sylvanite No. 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Grove | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Volt | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Seven-B | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Storm King | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1440 | Vigor | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 74 | 26620-01468-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1468 | Loyd | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 75 | 26620-01469-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1469 | Cashier | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 75 | 26620-01469-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1469 | LaPlata | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>23 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1529 | Maryland | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1529 | Baltimore | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1529 | Maverick | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1529 | Badger | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1529 | North Side Fraction | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 77 | 26680-01569-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1569 | Lola | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 78 | 26680-01616-000-60 | Minerals Only | 1616 | Genessee | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 78 | 26680-01616-000-60 | Minerals Only | 1616 | Grenada | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 78 | 26680-01616-000-60 | Minerals Only | 1616 | Peerless | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 79 | 26680-01616-000-70 | Minerals Only | 1616 | Trenton | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 80 | 26680-01617-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1617 | Los Angeles No. 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 80 | 26680-01617-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1617 | Los Angeles No. 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 80 | 26680-01617-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1617 | Los Angeles No. 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 81 | 26680-01643-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1643 | Snorter | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 81 | 26680-01643-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1643 | Snorter Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Zelpha Mable | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Josephine | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | St. Cloud No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | St. Cloud No. 3 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Comstock | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Victor Fraction #3 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Grand Deposit No. 2 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Tartar | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Red Cloud | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Red Cloud Frac. | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | Valley Frac. | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 83 | 26680-01655-000-20 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1655 | St. Cloud No. 5 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 84 | 26680-01659-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1659 | Maid of Erin | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 84 | 26680-01659-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1659 | Telegram | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 84 | 26680-01659-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1659 | Gannon | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 84 | 26680-01659-000-20 | Minerals Only | 1659 | B&M Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1673 | Belligerent | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1673 | Belligerent Fraction | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1673 | Belligerent No. 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1673 | Belligerent No. 4 | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1673 | Bull Hill | Homestake Mining Company of California & Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) Surface |
| 86 | 26760-01769-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1769 | Edmonia | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 87 | 26760-01792-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1792 | Marconi | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Bessie | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Cross No. 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Dixie | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Geneva | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Hattie | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | 1822 | Tan | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 89 | 26760-01829-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1829 | Tract 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 90 | 26760-01851-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1851 | Mars No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 91 | 26760-01862-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1862 | Stella No. 3 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 91 | 26760-01862-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1862 | Stella No. 5 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 91 | 26760-01862-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1862 | Margarite No. 6 | Homestake Mining Company of California |
| 91 | 26760-01862-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1862 | Margarite No. 7 | Homestake Mining Company of California |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>24 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map <br> ID** | **County Tax Parcel ID** | **Mineral Property Type** | **Mineral <br> Survey #** | **Patented Lode or <br> Government Lot** | **Property Owner** |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1872 | Legal Tender | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1872 | Diamond Point | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1872 | Joe Craig | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1872 | Gremmel No. 1 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1872 | Cotton Tail Frac. | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 93 | 26800-01910-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1910 | Dante | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 93 | 26800-01910-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1910 | Creston | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 93 | 26800-01910-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1910 | Morning Glory | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 93 | 26800-01910-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1910 | Vindicator | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 94 | 26880-02033-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 2033 | Bison | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 94 | 26880-02033-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 2033 | Trent | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC |
| 95 | N/A | Unpatented Mining Lodes | N/A | L&O No. 1 | St. Joe Minerals |
| 96 | N/A | Unpatented Mining Lodes | N/A | NJB 7 | Bond Gold Richmond |
| 97 | 26620-01401-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1401 | Mammouth | Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) |
| 98 | 26680-01709-000-20 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1709 | Dague #1 | Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) |
|  |  |  |  | Dague #2 |  |
| 99 | 26760-01862-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | 1862 | Stella | Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) |
|  |  |  |  | Stella #1 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Stella #2 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Stella #4 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Stella #6 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Stella #7 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite #1 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite #2 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite #3 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite $4 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite #5 |  |
|  |  |  |  | Margarite #8 |  |

---

Notes: LAC = Homestake; as of early October 2023, LAC Minerals (USA) LLC and Homestake merged, and the Option property interests are now owned or controlled entirely by Homestake.

**3.4** **Richmond Hill Option Agreement** 

On October 14, 2021, Dakota Territory Resource Corp (now DTRC, LLC) entered into an Option agreement with Barrick to acquire the Richmond Hill Gold Project jointly held in the names of Barrick's wholly owned subsidiaries, LAC and Homestake. Under the terms of the Option agreement, DTRC LLC was provided a three-year option to acquire the surface and mineral rights with attendant facilities comprising the Richmond Hill Project.

On signing, Dakota Territory Resources Corp. issued 400,000 shares to Barrick and agreed to make three $100,000 payments (all paid) during the Option period. The Option could be exercised at any time before September 7, 2024, by assuming all the liabilities and bonds currently held by LAC and Homestake for the Richmond Hill Gold Project. In addition, upon exercise of the Option, Dakota Gold will issue Barrick an additional 400,000 shares and grant Barrick a 1% net smelter return (NSR) concerning any gold recovered from the Project.

On September 8, 2022, Dakota Gold announced an amendment to the original Richmond Hill Option agreement whereby the Option period was extended by 18 months to March 7, 2026. In addition, more than 560 acres of 100% mineral rights owned by Homestake were added to the properties subject to the Option, and Dakota Gold issued an additional 180,000 shares to Barrick. All other terms and obligations under the original Option agreement remained unchanged. The Option was again amended on February 3, 2025, extending the Option period until December 31, 2028, in return for Dakota Gold agreeing to make three annual payments of $170,000, with the first of these due on March 1, 2026.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>25 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The current Richmond Hill Option agreement (as amended) is summarized as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Option to purchase all of the mineral rights, surface rights, attendant facilities,
and patented properties owned by Homestake or Lac in the Project area.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Issue an aggregate of 980,000 Dakota Gold shares to Barrick through a combination
of shares issued at signing and upon exercise of the Option (580,000 shares have been issued to date).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Assume all property liabilities and bonds upon exercise of Option.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Issue a 1% NSR upon executing the Option to Barrick from any gold production
from the Option property.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three annual payments of $100,000 have been paid previously. Dakota Gold
will make three additional annual payments $170,000 to Barrick beginning on March 1, 2026.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Unless further extended, the Option period extends until December 31,
2028. Dakota Gold was current with all Option agreement terms and conditions as of the Report date.

**3.5** **Surface Rights** 

The Option agreement included surface rights to many of the properties included in the Project area. Table 3-2 details parcels that include mineral rights, surface rights, or both. Pursuant to SDCL 45-5-1, surface rights are subservient to the development of mineral rights.

**3.6** **Water Rights** 

Dakota Gold and its subsidiaries do not own any water rights in the Project area. Water for exploration drilling programs has been sourced locally and either pumped or trucked to the drills. One of three wells that supplied water to the Richmond Hill mine is still active, and Homestake maintains the water right.

**3.7** **Royalties** 

In addition to the 1% NSR that Dakota Gold must grant to Barrick, several claims have underlying royalties. Table 3-2 lists the claims and any extra royalties payable to underlying claim owners. Figure 3-2 identifies claims with underlying royalties.

The document numbers for deeds, warranty deeds, agreements, and others refer to documents recorded at the Lawrence County Court House in Deadwood, South Dakota. The following information regarding royalties is extracted from these public documents (Dakota Gold, pers. Comm.):

***Aye/Gali Royalty***

The original Aye/Gali royalty is defined in Warranty Deed, 82-05846, dated June 2, 1976, between Iwalana L. Gali (Grantor, formally Aye, a married woman) and Homestake Mining (Grantee). The 5% Gross Royalty on all minerals produced is calculated less sales, severance and other similar taxes, charges for transportation from mine to treatment, smelting and/or refining, as well as cost for treatment, smelting and/or refining. In the event royalties are paid, the aggregate paid to the Grantor shall not exceed the sum of $200.00 per acre times the total number of acres conveyed by the Grantor to the Grantee. Dakota Gold calculated a total 416.8 acres are under the Aye (Gali) royalty agreement in 8 land parcels. At $200.00 cap per acre, that would mean the maximum royalty would be $83,360.00 if all parcels were impacted.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>26 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

***Bohlen/Hoffman Royalty***

The Bohlen/Hoffman royalty is defined in a Grant, Bargain and Sale Deed, 2014-01458, dated April 11, 2014, between Sharlene J. Hoffman and Earl D. and Helen L. Bohlen (Grantor) and Homestake Mining (Grantee). The 4% Net Smelter Returns Royalty on all minerals produced is calculated less refining and delivery costs and taxes but does not allow for deduction of costs related to trading activities or mining, milling, leaching, or any other on-site processing costs.

***Fillmore Royalty***

The Fillmore royalty is defined in a Mining Deed, 84-01176, dated May 24, 1968, between Fillmore and Company, Inc, W. O. and Lillian G. Filmore (Grantor) and Congo Uranium Company (Grantee). The Filmore Royalty is a 5% Net Smelter Returns Royalty on all minerals produced. Under earlier agreements, the royalty was initially established at 10% but was bought down to 5% in 1974.

***Peterson Royalty***

The Peterson royalty is defined in a First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 15, 1984, between James E. and Arlene Peterson (Grantor) and St. Joe American Corporation (Grantee). The 5% Net Smelter Returns Royalty on all minerals produced is due within 30 days of each calendar quarter end, and is calculated less any weighing, sampling, penalty, processing, or other charges assessed by purchaser, selling charges, any sales, severance, gross production, privilege or similar taxes assessed or in connection with the ore measured by the value thereof, and less cost of transportation. The cost of leaching or other solution techniques shall be also deducted from the selling price.

***Whitehouse Royalty***

The Whitehouse royalties are defined by two agreements, Mining Deed, 76-01230, dated June 1, 1976, and Warranty Deed, 76-01231, dated June 1, 1976, between White House Congress, Inc. (Grantor) and Homestake Mining (Grantee). The 5% Gross Royalty on all minerals produced is calculated less sales, severance and other similar taxes, charges for transportation from mine to treatment, smelting and/or refining, as well as cost for treatment, smelting and/or refining. In the event royalties are paid, the aggregate paid to the Grantor shall not exceed the sum of $200 per acre times the total number of acres conveyed by the Grantor to the Grantee. The property subject to the Whitehouse Royalty currently sits outside of the resource evaluated in this Initial Assessment. The claims under the Whitehouse Royalty are scattered and mostly not contiguous. There are approximately 27 parcels for a total of 486.26 acres at $200 cap per acre, the maximum royalty would be $97,252 if all parcels were impacted.

***Orion Future Royalty***

Upon the exercise of the Richmond Hill Option, a 1% NSR Royalty shall come into effect in favor of OMF Fund IV SPV A LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for the lode claims in Mineral Surveys 1406 and 1822 (Chism Gulch).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>27 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 3-2: Richmond Hill Project Parcels with Holding Costs and Royalties**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map**<br> **ID** | **County Parcel ID<br> Number** | **Mineral Property<br> Type** | **Legal Description** | **Property Owner** | **Annual Property<br> Maintenance** | **2024 Taxes<br> Paid** | **Other<br> Cost** | **Royalty%** | **Second Royalty Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Third<br> Royalty<br> Owner** | **Royalty %<br> Total** | **Comments** |
| 1 | 16000-00502-110-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | Lot 10 11-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $12.68 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 2 | 16000-00502-130-12 | Patented Mineral Properties | Lot 12 13-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $2.34 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 3 | 16000-00502-140-02 | Patented Mineral Properties | Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 &10 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $165.12 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 4 | 16000-00502-150-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | Govt Lots 3, 9, 10,12 & 13 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals(USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $23.48 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 5 | 16000-00502-150-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | Tracts 0102-A & 0102-B of NE1/4, Tract 0103-B of NW1/4 & Tract 103A of NW1/4 15- | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $11.40 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 6 | 16000-00502-220-01 | Patented Mineral Properties | Govt Lot 1 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $4.42 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
| 7 | 16000-00502-220-04 | Patented Mineral Properties | Govt Lots 2 & 4 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $29.22 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 8 | 16000-00502-220-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | Govt Lot 5 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $20.34 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 9 | 16000-00502-230-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | Govt Lots 9 & 1023-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $0.48 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 10 | 16000-00502-230-01 | Patented Mineral Properties | Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 & 8 23-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $153.06 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 11 | 16000-00502-240-12 | Patented Mineral Properties | Lots 12, 13 & 14 24-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $23.94 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 12 | 26280-00348-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 348 Old Reliable Lode 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 13 | 26280-00407-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 407 Enterprise Lode 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $8.04 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 14 | 26280-00408-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 408 pt Surprise Lode 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $12.46 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 15 | 26280-00417-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 417 Carbonate Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $12.22 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 16 | 26280-00425-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 425 Jay Gould Lode 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $13.48 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 17 | 26280-00426-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 426 Garfield Lode 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $11.30 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 18 | 26280-00428-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 428 Far West Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $9.36 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 19 | 26280-00437-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 437 Katie Lode10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $13.08 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 20 | 26280-00438-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 438 Arthur Lode 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $13.08 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 21 | 26280-00440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 440 Hartshorn Lode 09-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $11.20 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 22 | 26280-00441-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 441 Minnie Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $9.36 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 23 | 26280-00442-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 442ª Ultimo Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $13.38 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>28 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map**<br> **ID** | **County Parcel ID<br> Number** | **Mineral Property<br> Type** | **Legal Description** | **Property Owner** | **Annual Property<br> Maintenance** | **2024 Taxes<br> Paid** | **Other<br> Cost** | **Royalty%** | **Second Royalty Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Third<br> Royalty<br> Owner** | **Royalty %<br> Total** | **Comments** |
| 24 | 26280-00443-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 443 Tidiout Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $12.58 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 25 | 26280-00447-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 447ª Utica Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $14.60 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 26 | 26280-00448-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 448A Antietam Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $14.32 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 27 | 26280-00449-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 449 Blue Bird Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $2.62 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 28 | 26280-00450-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 450 Carbonate Fraction #1 Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $2.12 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 29 | 26280-00451-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 451 Carbonate Fraction #2 Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $0.60 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 30 | 26280-00465-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 465 Mutual Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $10.64 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 31 | 26280-00466-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 466 Washington Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $8.90 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 32 | 26280-00473-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 473 May Queen Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $6.56 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 33 | 26280-00474-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 474 Hercules Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $4.14 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 34 | 26280-00489-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 489 Adelphi Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $13.96 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 35 | 26280-00675-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 675 General Grant Lode 01-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 36 | 26280-00679-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 679 Spanish Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $10.86 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 37 | 26280-00680-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 680 Richmond Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $11.80 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 38 | 26340-00839-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 839 Boss Lode 06-004-03 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 39 | 26340-00874-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 874 Brooklyn Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $11.86 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 40 | 26340-00930-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 930 Big Sam Lode etc. 07-004-03 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 41 | 26340-00935-000-20 | Minerals Only | M.S. 935 Tract 1 pt of South Lyon Lode | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty; Excluding Govt Lot 5 being a part of Tract 1 |
| 42 | 26340-00977-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 977 Donald W, Ella & Virginia Lodes Etal 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $239.02 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 43 | 26340-01022-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1022 Chloride Fraction Lode Etal 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $15.18 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 44 | 26342-00935-010-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 935 Lost Irishman Lot 1 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 45 | 26342-00935-020-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 935 Lost Irishman Lot 2 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 46 | 26380-01043-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1043 Rattler & Gilroy Lodes 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $15.68 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>29 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map**<br> **ID** | **County Parcel ID<br> Number** | **Mineral Property<br> Type** | **Legal Description** | **Property Owner** | **Annual Property<br> Maintenance** | **2024 Taxes<br> Paid** | **Other<br> Cost** | **Royalty%** | **Second Royalty Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Third<br> Royalty<br> Owner** | **Royalty %<br> Total** | **Comments** |
| 47 | 26380-01092-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1092 Union Lode Etal 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 48 | 26380-01109-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1109 Oro, Oro Frac. & Argenta Lodes 12-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 49 | 26380-01109-000-05 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1109 Glyn Lode 12-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 50 | 26380-01109-000-10 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1109 Lemars Lode 12-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 51 | 26380-01114-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1114 Jackson Lode etc. 12-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 52 | 26420-01141-000-20 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1141 Camden, Ford & Georgie, etc. | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 53 | 26460-01168-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1168 Rocklyn & Blue Lodes 34-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $19.20 | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 54 | 26540-01247-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1247 Whitehouse & Congress Lodes Etal 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 55 | 26540-01278-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1278 Delaunay & Nanki- Poo Lodes 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $25.34 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 56 | 26540-01283-000-10 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1283 May Lode 33-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 57 | 26540-01283-000-20 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1283 Deadwood Lode 33-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 58 | 26540-01283-000-30 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1283 Buffalo & Link Frac. Lodes 33- 005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 59 | 26540-01288-000-10 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1288 Long Point Frac Lode 35-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 60 | 26540-01288-000-20 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1288 Cardinal Lode 35-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 61 | 26540-01289-000-01 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1289 Cloud, Thunder, Lighting & Dick Lodes | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 62 | 26540-01289-000-05 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1289 Ames & Ames Frac. Lodes | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 63 | 26540-01289-000-15 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1289 Ester Lode 27-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 64 | 26580-01349-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1349 James g. Blain Lode 34-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 65 | 26580-01376-000-88 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1376 Tract PR2 of Porto Rico #2 & Porto Rico Lodes 10, 11, 14, & 15- 005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $22.28 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 66 | 26580-01376-000-90 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1376 Darboy Rubicon & Dakota Lodes Etal 14-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $5202.04 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 67 | 26580-01382-000-00 | Leased Mineral Rights | M.S. 1382 Cleveland & Rubicon Lodes Etal 23-005-02 | PETERSON, JAMES E |  | $1647.36 | $4000.00 HMC | 1 | Peterson | 5 |  | 6 | Lease Term 10 years (1984) $4000 annual extended by payment. See comments in parcel #26580-01382-000-10 |
| 68 | 26580-01382-000-10 | Leased Mineral Rights | M.S. 1382 Grayback Lode 23-005-02 | PETERSON, JAMES E |  | $299.72 | HMC | 1 | Peterson | 5 |  | 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lease Term 10 years (1984)<br> $4000 annual extended by payment. This annual cost is already calculated in parcel #26580-01382-000-00 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>30 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map**<br> **ID** | **County Parcel ID<br> Number** | **Mineral Property<br> Type** | **Legal Description** | **Property Owner** | **Annual Property<br> Maintenance** | **2024 Taxes<br> Paid** | **Other<br> Cost** | **Royalty%** | **Second Royalty Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Third<br> Royalty<br> Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Royalty %<br> Total** | **Comments** |
| 69 | 26580-01398-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1398 Independent Lode Etal 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $71.00 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 |  |  | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 70 | 26620-01406-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1406 Yankee Boy, Yankee Boy #3 & #4, Manga Charta, Alliance #2, Little Bonanza #2 & General Joe Hooker Lodes 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $97.00 | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 | OMF Fund | 1 | 7 | Capped Royalty |
| 71 | 26620-01406-000-10 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1406 Little Hill, Little Hill #2 & Arthur #1 Lodes 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 | OMF Fund | 1 | 7 | Capped Royalty |
| 72 | 26620-01436-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1436 Julie Ette Lode Etal 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $75.72 | HMC | 1 |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 73 | 26620-01440-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1440 Vigor Lode Etal 21-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $137.16 | HMC | 1 |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 74 | 26620-01468-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1468 Loyd Lode 33-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 | 6 | Capped Royalty |  |  |
| 75 | 26620-01469-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1469 Cashier & La Plata Lodes 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $17.00 | HMC | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |
| 76 | 26620-01529-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1529 Badger Lode Etal 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $66.02 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 77 | 26680-01569-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1569 Lola Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $24.78 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 78 | 26680-01616-000-60 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1616 Grenada, Genesee & Peerless Lodes 03-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 | 6 | Capped Royalty |  |  |
| 79 | 26680-01616-000-70 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1616 Phonolite & Trenton Lodes 03-004-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 | 6 | Capped Royalty; Excludes Phonolite lode in this parcel #. |  |  |
| 80 | 26680-01617-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1617 Los Angeles #1, #2 & #3 Lodes 23-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $62.86 | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 | 6 | Capped Royalty |  |  |
| 81 | 26680-01643-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1543 Snorter & Snorter Frc Lodes 33-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 | 6 | Capped Royalty |  |  |
| 82 | 26680-01655-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1655 Victor #3 Lode Etal 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $166.42 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 83 | 26680-01655-000-20 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1655 pt St. Cloud #5 Lode 22-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $17.04 | HMC | 1 | Fillmore | 5 | 6 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |  |  |
| 84 | 26680-01659-000-20 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1659 Telegram, Maid of Erin, Gannon etc | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |
| 85 | 26680-01673-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1673 Blue Hill Frac, Belligerent, etc. | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $54.80 | HMC | 1 | Whitehouse | 5 |  |  | 6 | Capped Royalty |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>31 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Map**<br> **ID** | **County Parcel ID<br> Number** | **Mineral Property<br> Type** | **Legal Description** | **Property Owner** | **Annual Property<br> Maintenance** | **2024 Taxes<br> Paid** | **Other<br> Cost** | **Royalty%** | **Second Royalty Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Third<br> Royalty<br> Owner** | **Royalty %**<br> | **Royalty %<br> Total** | **Comments** |
| 86 | 26760-01769-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1769 Edmonia Lode 14-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $21.24 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 87 | 26760-01792-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1792 Marconi #2 Lode 31-005-03 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 88 | 26760-01822-000-00 | Minerals Only | M.S. 1822 Hattie Lode Etal 14-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California |  |  | HMC | 1 | Aye/Gali | 5 | OMF Fund | 1 | 7 | Capped Royalty |
| 89 | 26760-01829-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1829 Tract 1 27-005-02 Plat 2014-01022 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $47.16 | HMC | 1 | Bohlen/Hoffman | 4 |  |  | 5 |  |
| 90 | 26760-01851-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1851 Mars #1 Lode 15-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $14.44 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 91 | 26760-01862-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1862 Stella #3 & #5 & Margarite #6 & #7 Lodes 26-005-02 | Homestake Mining Company of California | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $72.32 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 92 | 26760-01872-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1872 Cotton Tail Fraction Lode Etal 22-05-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $53.06 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 93 | 26800-01910-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1910 Dante, Creston, Morning Glory & Vindicator Lodes 23-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $56.18 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 94 | 26880-02033-000-00 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 2033 Bison & Trent Lodes 10-005-02 | LAC Minerals (USA) LLC | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $35.96 | HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 | Subject to potential reversion of property if not used for mining purposes |
| 95 | N/A | Unpatented Mining Lodes | L&O No. 1 – BLM SN MMC74914 sec. 15 | St. Joe Minerals | Annual BLM maintenance fee |  | $200.00 HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 96 | N/A | Unpatented Mining Lodes | NJB 7 – BLM SN MMC165019 sec. 15 | Bond Gold Richmond | Annual BLM maintenance fee |  | $200.00 HMC | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
| 97 | 26680-01709-00-20 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1401 Mammouth Lode 22-005-02 | Dakota Gold Corp. (DTRC LLC) | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $224.24 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 98 | 26680-01709-000-20 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1709 Dague #1 & Dague #2 Lodes 22-005-02 | Dakota Gold Corp (DTRC LLC) | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $305.12 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 99 | 26760-01862-000-10 | Patented Mineral Properties | M.S. 1862 Stella, Stella #1, #2, #4, #6, & #7, Margarite, Margarite #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, & #8 Lodes 26-005-02 | Dakota Gold Corp (DTRC LLC) | Annual Lawrence Co. property tax | $237.22 | HMC | 2 |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>32 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Figure 3-2: Richmond Hill Project Royalties**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>33 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**3.8** **Permitting** 

Dakota Gold, through its subsidiary DTRC LLC, has proposed to develop a new mining operation in the area of the existing Richmond Hill Mine in Lawrence County, South Dakota. With recent success in the advancement of the Resource, Dakota Gold seeks to evaluate the permitting of a large-scale mining operation in the area of the former Richmond Hill Mine. The final permit footprint is assumed to be located entirely on private land and excludes disturbance to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.

**3.8.1** **Existing Permitting** 

3.8.1.1 Exploration Notices of Intent

Table 3-3 includes all currently active permits required by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SDDANR) for conducting exploration activities at the Richmond Hill site under current approved Exploration Notice(s) of Intent(s) (EXNI) permits.

**Table 3-3: Current Exploration Permits**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Authority** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Program** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-440 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-444 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-446 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-456 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-457 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;EXNI-460 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill 6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining Program |

---

DTRC LLC's current requirements, restrictions, and obligations are set out by the SDDANR. Some of these restrictions only apply to the most recent EXNI permits; individual permit restriction letters should be consulted for variances. In general, obligations and restrictions applied to the exploration permits address reclamation, surface discharges, erosion control measures, drilling parameters, recommendations for working around cultural resources, and communications requirements.

3.8.1.2 Active Permits at Richmond Hill Mine

Table 3-4 includes all currently active permits for the historic Richmond Hill Mine. Inactive or closed permits are not included in this list.

**Table 3-4: Current Environmental Permits**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Authority** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Program** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Large-Scale Mine Permit (SMP) No. 445 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Water Discharge Permit SD0026883 | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Water Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Conditional Use Permit Nos. 116, 125, and 202 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lawrence County Planning and Zoning | &nbsp;&nbsp;Land Use |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Rights Permit No. 1372-1 (supply wells 2, 8, and 15) |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Rights Permit No. 1422-1 (stormwater and leach pad effluent in stormwater pond) |  |  |

---

- The Richmond Hill Mine was originally permitted in 1988 under large-scale mine permit SMP No. 445.

- Construction of the mine also began in 1988.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>34 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

- SMP No. 460, permitted in 1994 and associated with the limestone pit used for reclamation work, is no longer active.

- Permit No. 445 for Richmond Hill includes approximately 74 acres of active disturbance, primarily associated with water treatment facilities.

- There are approximately 260 reclaimed acres that meet post-mine land use and are available for use as surface disturbance under a SMP No. 445.

**3.8.2** **Future Permitting** 

In general, permitting a potential gold mine at the Richmond Hill site may require the permits listed in Table 3-5, below. The final Project's features, design, and location for construction may necessitate additional permitting considerations to those listed in this table.

**Table 3-5: Potential Future Environmental Permits**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Permit** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Authority** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Program** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Conditional Use Permit (CUP) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lawrence County Planning and Zoning | &nbsp;&nbsp;Land Use |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Notice of Intent and Request for Determination of Special, Exceptional, Critical or Unique Lands | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Large-Scale Mine Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Minerals and Mining |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Air Quality Construction Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Air Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Title V Air Quality Operational Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Air Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ground Water Discharge Permit(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;NPDES Surface Water Discharge Permit(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surface Water Discharge Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;NPDES | &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Quality |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Solid Waste Permit | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Waste Management |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Right Permit(s) | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Rights |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Hazardous Waste – Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form | &nbsp;&nbsp;SDDANR | &nbsp;&nbsp;Waste Management |

---

3.8.2.1 Addressing Potential Obstacles during Permitting Process

Permits obtained from SDDANR go through a formal department review and approval process. The Notice of Intent, Air Quality, and Large Scale Mine Permits consist of departmental completeness and technical review; public notices serve to inform the public, who can then submit comments and may request a contested case hearing in front of the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment. Groundwater discharge, surface water discharge, and water rights permit applications can also all be contested if public comments are received. Final hearings on these permits are held by the South Dakota Water Management Board. From submitting the first state permit (i.e. the Notice of Intent), to final approval for all permits: the review and approval process is anticipated to be two years.

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 45-6B-95 limits a new mine permit to 320 acres of surface mining disturbance. The existing reclaimed acres at Richmond Hill are also available (see Section 17.5). Therefore, new surface mining disturbance for the Project, under a single new large-scale mine permit in association with active SMP No. 445, would be limited to approximately 580 acres. To mine beyond the initial 580 acres, the Company has two options: 1) reclaim existing disturbed acres to allow for one-to-one additional disturbance; or 2) apply for an additional large-scale mine permit for an additional 320 acres of net disturbance.

Conditional Use Permits (CUP) through the Lawrence County Office of Planning and Zoning go through a review and approval process, beginning with a Planning and Zoning Department review and informal information meeting and potential site visit with the Planning and Zoning Board. Notification letters are sent, and a public hearing is held by the Planning and Zoning Board, which allows for a public comment period. The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to the Lawrence County Board of Adjustment.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>35 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The public has a second opportunity to provide comment on or to appeal the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation at the Board of Adjustment meeting. The CUP regulatory review and approval process is anticipated to be six months following submittal of the complete CUP.

3.8.2.2 Pre-Mining Land Use

The pre-mining land use in the area of the Richmond Hill site includes mineral exploration, logging, wildlife habitat, and recreation. A portion of the proposed Richmond Hill Permit Boundary also includes historic mine disturbance, including reclaimed heap leach facilities, dumps and pits, two water treatment plants, lined ponds, and other sites of former support facilities.

3.8.2.3 Permitting Requirements

In general, the SDDANR and Lawrence County permit applications require:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Property Location and Description

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Mine Plan (construction, development, gold processing, and backfilling)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Reclamation Plan

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Project Schedule

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Current and proposed post mining land use; adjacent land use

Conditional Use Permit Requirements can include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Proposed land uses

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Setbacks

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed structures, design specifications, and location of
all facilities

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed grading, drainage patterns, and landscaping

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed improvements, including sewer and water facilities,
parking, and roads

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed signs with locations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Proposed timeline for completion of plans

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Proposed parking and loading plans

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Adjacent land use

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Relationship of the proposed development to the surrounding area

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Property lines and lot dimensions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed wells

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Existing and proposed septic systems and drain fields.

Additional information that the Planning and Zoning Administrator may request could include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A description of the activity or operation being proposed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Hours of operation, number of employees, number of employees reporting to
site

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Traffic in and out of business

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Number of vehicles on site

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Number of parking places, including handicap accessible

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Use of existing and proposed structures

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>36 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Outdoor storage needs

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Water, sewage disposal, and waste management service

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Proposed signage including size, type, and location

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Socioeconomic Report

**3.9** **Potential Significant Encumbrances** 

Three potentially significant encumbrances may affect the Project.

In 2017, Homestake sold several claims in M.S. 1862 (Stella, Stella No.1, Stella No.2, Stella No.4, Stella No 6, Stella No. 7, Margarite, Margarite, Margarite Nos. 1 through 5, Margarite No. 8) to Terrence T. Tyler (the Tyler Property) subject to an Area of Interest (AOI) buyback right reserved by Homestake. Under this AOI, Homestake had a right to buy back 51% of the property subject to the AOI if a resource of no less than 1 Moz Au is declared with the AOI. In May 2021, Dakota Gold purchased the Tyler Property. The AOI overlaps with the southeastern portion of the Richmond Hill Option Area, which is also owned by Homestake. This buyback right runs for a period of nine months from the declaration of a 1M+ oz resource within the AOI.

The Lakota Sioux assert ownership of the Black Hills of South Dakota. In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the United States government had "effected a taking of tribal property, property which had been set aside for the exclusive occupation of the Sioux by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868." Although compensation was awarded for this unconstitutional taking, the Lakota have not accepted the award (reportedly in excess of $2 billion) and continue to claim rights to the Black Hills.

Dakota Gold has indicated that they do not believe that the former Richmond Hill Mine either helps or hinders continued exploration in any significant manner. Once the Option is exercised and the Property is purchased from Barrick, all Richmond Hill mine site water-management obligations, along with other post-closure operations, would become Dakota Gold's responsibility.

**3.10** **Violation and Fines** 

Currently, there are no violations or fines.

**3.11** **Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs** 

To the extent known to the QP, no other known significant factors and risks may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the properties that comprise the Richmond Hill Project discussed in this Report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>37 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **4** | **Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography** |

---

**4.1** **Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation** 

The Black Hills of southwestern South Dakota is an isolated mountain range rising from the Great Plains of North America and extending north-northwest into Wyoming (Figure 4-1). The hills are so-called because of their dark appearance from a distance, as they are covered in a pine–spruce coniferous forest. Black Elk Peak (formerly Harney Peak) rises to 7,244 ft (2,208 meters) and is the range's highest summit and the highest mountain in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. The Black Hills have been described as an island in the plains, since they rise 3,000 to 4,000 ft above their surroundings—the Thunder Basin National Grassland of Wyoming lies to the west and the Buffalo Gap National Grassland to the east.

Several small rivers cut through the range, describing a roughly radial pattern, though most drainage is to the east—most notably Spearfish Creek in the north, Rapid Creek in the central region, and the Fall River in the south. Regardless of the original drainage direction, all rivers flow into either the Belle Fourche River, which wraps around the Hills to the north, or the Cheyenne River, wrapping around to the south. The Belle Fourche connects to the Cheyenne River east of the Black Hills; the Cheyenne in turn joins the southeast-flowing Upper Missouri River in central South Dakota.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img002.jpg)

Source: Dakota Gold (2024).

**Figure 4-1: Richmond Hill Gold Property Location**

The Black Hills is home to varied landscapes, such as prairie grasslands; rolling hills; badlands; karst features such as caves and sinkholes; craggy peaks; and granite spires. The hills are also noted for several unique topographic features, including the Badlands, Devils Tower, Missouri Buttes, Bear Butte, Cathedral Spires, and Mount Rushmore.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>38 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

An ecological crossroad, the Black Hills contains wildlife and plant species typical of habitats of the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, northern boreal forests, and eastern deciduous forests. The local forest is dominated by ponderosa pine, but also includes dense spruce stands and areas of aspen, birch, and oak (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2023). White-tailed deer and mule deer are common, and elk are encountered less often. Mountain lion sightings are rare, but coyotes are relatively common. Goshawk and osprey nest in the forest, and bald eagles may visit in the winter. Many songbird species are present, including brilliantly colored mountain bluebirds and western tanagers.

The Richmond Hill gold mine sits at an altitude of 6,000 ft, and the historical leach pad area is 5,600 ft, about one mile north of the pit area.

**4.2** **Property Access** 

Access to the Property is gained by traveling 1 mile southwest of Lead, South Dakota, on Highway 85/14A, to State Highway 473, then west approximately 3.2 miles to the Wharf Mine Road, continuing west approximately 1.2 miles before turning and traveling 1 mile north on the Richmond Hill Road (Figure 4-2).

**4.3** **Climate** 

The Black Hills climate is one of cool-to-cold snowy winters, and warm-to-hot dry summers, with four full seasons.

Precipitation amounts vary due to mountain influence, and Richmond Hill is rated as subhumid, with approximately 30 inches of rain annually. Average monthly snowfall ranges from 5 inches in Rapid City to 15 inches in the Black Hills. The snow on the plains usually melts within a few days, with deeper snow in the Black Hills lasting much longer.

Any future mining operations are expected to be year-round. During January and February, daytime temperatures average in the 30s Fahrenheit, but Chinook winds can warm temperatures into the 50s and 60s. Occasional intrusions of Arctic air are short-lived, and temperature inversions sometimes produce warmer conditions in the Black Hills.

July and August are the warmest months of the year, when daytime temperatures climb into the 70s and 80s Fahrenheit—and sometimes the 90s. Breezy winds and low humidity help make the hot days comfortable.

**4.4** **Local Resources and Infrastructure** 

The Project is within 5 miles of the twin towns of Lead and Deadwood. Dakota Gold has its base of operations in Lead, with separate facilities for office and core processing. Historical Richmond Hill Project documents are housed in secured storage at the Armories in Lead. Two other towns, Central City and Sturgis, are within 20 miles of the Project. The larger cities of Spearfish and Rapid City are within 40 miles of the Project, and most supplies can be obtained from one of these two centers. Personnel for exploration or development programs may be sourced from or housed in the four nearby communities.

Major transportation systems, including road, rail, and air, exist proximally to the northern Black Hills. Rapid City has a major rail freight station and regional airport, while an Interstate highway passes through the city and wraps around the northern end of the Black Hills.

Multiple facilities related to the historical Richmond Hill Mine still exist on the Property, including a water treatment plant and maintenance and storage buildings. Containment ponds are still operational, although an impermeable clay membrane has capped the open pit and leach pads.

Water for exploration drilling programs has been sourced locally and either pumped or trucked to the drills. One of three wells that supplied water to the Richmond Hill mine is still active.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>39 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

A 69 Kv transmission line supplies power to communities, and internal power is supplied by a 12.47 Kv line to the Project site.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img003.jpg)

Source: Dakota Gold (2023).

**Figure 4-2: Richmond Hill Gold Project Access**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>40 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **5** | **HISTORY** |

---

Gold was first recorded in the Black Hills in 1874, although prior rumors existed of prospectors discovering placer gold. The ensuing 1875 gold rush produced limited success, except in the Whitewood and Deadwood Creeks area. Other prospectors sought the hard-rock source of the placer gold upstream of the placer workings, and in 1876, the Homestake lode was discovered; it was mined almost continuously until 2001. Numerous gold deposits were subsequently discovered in the Black Hills in different geologic environments, with several turning into significant mining camps.

**5.1** **Explorations** 

The Richmond Hill mine is in the historical Carbonate Mining District approximately five miles northwest of Lead, South Dakota, in the northern Black Hills. Mining in the area started in the 1870s, during the gold-rush era. The only known production from the Property was from the Carbonate camp, which was primarily mined for lead and silver. The bulk of this production was from the Iron Hill mine. The mining was such that it supported a nearby town and smelter. Mining continued in this area until the silver price collapsed in the 1880s. About 2,500 ounces of gold were produced from the Spanish R mine on the western side of the camp in the late 1800s.

Prior to 1981, Viable Resources Inc. (Viable) assembled a land package that included most of the Carbonate camp. The bulk of the Richmond Hill deposit lies on Mineral Survey 977, obtained by a lease from Richard McQuire that included a 2.6% NSR royalty. LAC subsequently bought out this royalty in the early 1990s. In 1981, Freeport Exploration Company (Freeport) leased several claims from various individuals within the area now known as the Property. Also in 1981, Freeport formed both a lease agreement and joint venture (JV) agreement with Viable and drilled 52 rotary and core holes near the Richmond Hill topographical high and near the Carbonate camp several thousand feet to the north. The drilling project did not return the results Freeport needed to continue exploration, and the JV was terminated in 1983. Freeport subsequentially allowed their leases to lapse.

St. Joe American, owned by the Fluor Corporation, first started reviewing the Black Hills for its mineral potential in 1982 (St. Joe, 1986). They noted that total gold production in the area was over 39 Moz, with the Homestake mine accounting for 36 Moz. St. Joe determined that historical gold production came from five different geological ages and mineralizing processes. From oldest to youngest stratigraphically (mine or prospect examples) they are Precambrian (Homestake, Keystone, Bullion, Holy Terror, and Clover Leaf); Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation (Cod) (Golden Reward, Bald Mountain, Maitland, and Wasp); Mississippian Pahasapa Formation (Spearfish Gold, Ragged Top, and Deadwood Standard); Tertiary porphyry related (Guilt Edge and Hoodoo-Union Hill); and Placer Deposits (Deadwood and Rockerville) (St. Joe, 1986).

Many of these mineralizing systems seemed to be present on the ground controlled by Viable, so in January 1984, St. Joe American entered into a JV with Viable to explore land around the Richmond Hill topographical high. They determined that this area held the greatest promise to host a minable gold deposit, and that year, they started drilling a breccia body 1,500 ft south of the hilltop; that breccia body contained the Richmond Hill gold deposit (St. Joe, 1987). The Richmond Hill mine history is summarized in Section 5.2.

An active exploration program continued elsewhere on the claims through the life of the Richmond Hill mine, primarily looking for gold-rich oxide rock that could supplement the feed to the Richmond Hill heap leach processing facility. In July 1987, Bond International Gold (Bond Gold) acquired St. Joe American. In 1990, Bond Gold explored thirteen prospective areas on the Property; only MW-3, Richmond Hill North, and Cole Creek returned positive results. The MW-3 Main deposit was discovered in the third hole drilled, 6,000 ft northeast of Richmond Hill, and later that year the MW3 East deposit was discovered 800 ft east-northeast of MW-3 Main, which contains higher grades. Due to the gold commodity price, at the end of 1990 several prospective areas were dropped from further exploration. These included the Earle, West Thumb, Twin Tunnels (TT), and Cleveland (CV) prospective areas. In 1991, seven additional prospective areas were explored, including Richmond Hill North (RHN), Cole Creek (CC), Eagle Bird, Helena, Huskie West, Perkins–Goodell, and Cleopatra Creek. Despite somewhat encouraging results, LAC did not develop any of these prospective areas due to low gold prices and environmental concerns. The MW-3 deposits were also excluded from further exploration due to being closed off in all directions, except those portions that trend off claims into ground held by others.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>41 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

In November 1989, LAC Minerals Ltd. Acquired Bond Gold. After the merger, the Project was held by the LAC subsidiary Richmond Hill Inc. In 1993, Richmond Hill Inc merged into LAC Minerals (USA) Inc. LAC Minerals (USA) Inc. converted to LAC Minerals (USA) LLC in 1999. Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) acquired LAC Minerals Ltd., the parent of LAC Minerals (USA) LLC in November 1994.

The Homestake Mining Company was acquired by Barrick in 2001. LAC Minerals (USA) LLC (hereafter "LAC") and Homestake Mining Company of California (hereafter "Homestake"), a subsidiary of Homestake Mining Company merged in October 2023, with Homestake as the surviving entity. Homestake is the current owner of the properties formerly held separately by LAC and Homestake.

Dakota Territory Resources Company, now DTRC LLC, a subsidiary of Dakota Gold, entered into a three-year option agreement (the Option) with Barrick in 2021 to acquire the Homestake/LAC interests in the Richmond Hill Project area, with the mineral tenure primarily held in the names of LAC and Homestake (see discussion in 3.3 and 3.4). In 2022, the Option was amended to extend the Option period until March 7, 2026. In February 2025, the Option was further extended until December 31, 2028.

Table 5-1 provides a summary of Richmond Hill's recent history.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>42 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 5-1: Summary of Richmond Hill's Recent History**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Viable | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre 1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Assembled land package. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport Exploration Company | &nbsp;&nbsp;1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leased several claims in Richmond Hill area. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport Exploration Company | &nbsp;&nbsp;1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Joint venture (JV) and lease agreement with Viable. Conducted drilling on several prospects. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport Exploration Company | &nbsp;&nbsp;1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JV with Viable terminated and leases allowed to lapse. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JV with Viable. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Started drilling on Richmond Hill deposit breccia body. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1985-1986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Continued drilling Richmond Hill deposit. Began property-wide drilling program. Added additional claims to the property position. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill positive feasibility study. Continued property-wide exploration program. Identified significant gold mineralization in the Cole Creek, Twin Tunnels, and Turnaround prospective areas. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987-1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill deposit permitted for mining. Added the Turnaround deposit to the Mine Permit Application. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acquired St. Joe gold division. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Developed Richmond Hill as an open-cut heap leach operation. Exploration continued with discovery of Cleveland prospective area. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;First gold and silver doré poured. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acquired Bond Gold. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1990–1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Multiple prospective areas explored with some positive results, including MW-3 prospective area; but all rejected as possible feed sources for Richmond Hill. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1992 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acid mine-drainage detected; studies began for determining reclamation plan for acid-rock drainage (ARD). |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1993 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Final mineralized material hauled from Richmond Hill mine pit and efforts shifted to reclamation activities. Final exploration activities by LAC Minerals at the site. Final report on prospective areas completed. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Permit Amendment approved and reclamation work commenced. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Barrick Acquired LAC Minerals. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1995 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation of pit backfill and waste-rock dump completed. Last gold poured in June. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1996 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach pad closure plan submitted and approved. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;1997 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Pad closure completed, and water-treatment plant construction and operation start-up. Water treatment and monitoring are primary on-site activities. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Biological selenium-treating water-treatment plant added to system. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Wharf Resources options property and begins exploration program. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Wharf Resources drops Option with Barrick.<br>Richmond Hill Gold Project optioned by Dakota Territory Resource Corp from Barrick including adjacent lands owned by Homestake which is also owned by Barrick. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals (USA/Barrick Gold) | &nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dakota Gold formed as a merger of Dakota Territory Resource Corp and JR Resources. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC and Homestake merged into single company to become Homestake Mining Company of California. |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>43 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Limited formal reporting of exploration activities on the Richmond Hill property was completed as needed for corporate reporting, so the history presented herein has been gleaned from a limited number of letter reports and memos that were written by employees of the day and saved from destruction after flooding destroyed nearly all historical documents (Dakota Gold Corporation, pers. Comm.). Much of the exploration status presented in this Report is from project summary reports that the exploration staff compiled in 1993 as exploration wound down. Due to that flooding, most records of ground exploration other than drilling were destroyed.

Exploration activities included geologic mapping, soil sampling, rock-chip sampling, airborne and ground geophysical surveys, and drilling. Drilling was mainly by reverse-circulation (RC) methods; however, a few percussion holes were completed in the early 1980s, and core holes were drilled in the more intensively mineralized areas.

**5.2** **Mining** 

The Richmond Hill deposit was discovered in 1984; and St. Joe Gold Corporation filed an application to mine in 1987, following receipt in 1986 of a positive St. Joe feasibility report (St. Joe, 1987). In March 1988 a mining permit was granted. In late 1988, mining started as an open-pit heap leach operation (Duex and Anderson, 1994).

Richmond Hill mine facilities construction began in April 1988 under the ownership of Bond Gold. In fall 1988, production began from the Richmond Hill pit, with the first bar of gold and silver doré poured in December 1988. In November 1989, LAC acquired Bond Gold Corporation.

Mine production was from a single open pit with a valley-fill waste dump and three heap leach pads. Zones of mined sulfide-bearing mineralized rock placed on the waste-rock pile caused acid mine-drainage by June 1992. Thus, in July 1992, LAC was issued a Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Order from the Department and was required to submit an application to amend its mine permit to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) and the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment (SDBME), outlining a new reclamation plan as the result of ARD detected at the toe of the waste-rock dump. The permit amendment was approved in February 1994, and reclamation work commenced in April 1994. The approved plan consisted of constructing a retention pond, treating the waste-dump discharge, and hauling all potentially ARD waste rock back to the pit and placing it under a multilayer capping system.

Mining continued intermittently until late 1993, and processing of heap leach pads continued until June 1995. Total production for the life of the mine was 5.24 Mton, with non-mineralized-rock production of 3.75 Mton. The final ore was hauled from the Richmond Hill pit in October 1993. In all, 172,294 ounces of gold were produced from the mine, along with 212,610 ounces of silver (Dakota Gold, pers. Comm.).

Barrick acquired LAC in November 1994. Reclamation of the engineered pit backfill facility and former waste-rock dump was completed in September 1995.

In conjunction with the permit amendment, a leach pad closure plan was submitted and approved in June 1996. Closure of the leach pads consisted of amending Leach Pad 3 with limestone to mitigate ARD and recontouring the pads and constructing a multilayer capping system similar to the capping system at the pit impoundment. Leach pad closure was completed in July 1997. The capping system was successful in significantly reducing ARD generation and water infiltration and, accordingly, the amount of leach pad effluent requiring treatment.

Since the leach pad effluent and the water stored in the process ponds did not meet discharge standards, primarily due to elevated levels of selenium, construction of a water-treatment plant began in 1995. The primary system consisted of a 200 gal/min selenium removal system. Due to issues with scale-up, a 200 gal/min reverse-osmosis (RO) unit operating at 50% recovery was installed at the site in 1997. The original selenium treatment circuit was used to treat the brine from the RO unit, which allowed a portion of the concentrate to be blended with the RO permeate and discharged to the environment. The water-treatment plant began operation in July 1997 and ran full-time year-round until December 1999 (Dakota Gold, pers. Comm.).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>44 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The original water-treatment plant then ran seasonally from 2002 until 2008 when a biological selenium-treating water-treatment plant was constructed to treat the concentrate stream. This biological water-treatment operates in conjunction with the reverse-osmosis unit to treat and discharge the effluent collected from the leach pads. Water treatment, environmental monitoring, and continued reclamation activities are ongoing at the site.

**5.3** **Dakota Gold Corp** 

On September 7, 2021, Dakota Territory Resource Corp (DTRC), now DTRC LLC, signed the Option agreement with Barrick for the Property. In addition to the Richmond Hill land package, the Option includes lands adjacent to the Richmond Hill Property and owned by Homestake (also owned by Barrick). On March 30, 2022, DTRC (49%) completed a merger with JR Resources Corp (51%), resulting in Dakota Gold Corp. and its subsidiary DTRC LLC. Dakota Gold's exploration in and around the Richmond Hill historical pit has continued to the present, primarily focusing on material amendable to conventional heap leach.

On February 3, 2025, the term of the Option was extended by agreement with Barrick until December 31, 2028.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>45 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

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

---

**6.1** **Local Geology** 

The Property is on the northwestern portion of the Lead dome, a subsidiary dome north of the main Black Hills uplift. The Lead dome developed in response to a major Tertiary intrusive event that also led to the development of the Tertiary-aged gold deposits. These Tertiary intrusive rocks have a wide range of compositions and occur as stocks, sills, dikes, laccoliths, and breccia pipes. The Property's patented and unpatented claims form a roughly circular area about 2 miles in diameter (Figure 6-1).

Two major terranes underlie the claims. Precambrian metamorphic rocks outcrop on the southern portions of the Property and consist of metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The western portion of this terrane contains primarily extrusive metavolcanic rocks that appear to be mostly mafic in composition. The metasedimentary rocks on the eastern side consist of phyllite, iron formations, and quartzites. Overlying the Precambrian rock on the north end of the Property is a nearly complete Paleozoic section, which includes the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation; Ordovician to Mississippian Englewood and the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations; Mississippian Pahasapa Formation; and the Pennsylvanian Minnelusa Formation. Tertiary igneous rocks of varying composition have intruded extensively into both terranes. Property geology is depicted in Figure 6-2.

Several gold–silver deposits and prospective areas exist on the Property. Descriptions of these have been grouped relative to their host geologic environment and style of mineralization.

Within the Precambrian terrane, Tertiary mineralization occurs within breccia pipes and altered Precambrian rocks, with minor mineralization in Tertiary intrusive rocks. Examples include the Richmond Hill deposit, Twin Tunnels, Turnaround, Richmond Hill North, West Thumb, Huskie West, Cleveland, Calvin P, Cole Creek Heights, and Earle prospective areas.

Within the Paleozoic terrane, mineralization occurs in the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation along two primary horizons containing the most consistent mineralization. Examples within the Deadwood Formation are Cole Creek in the upper portion and MW-3 Main, MW-3 East, and Chism Gulch in the lower portion. Localized gold mineralization also occurs in the Pahasapa Formation but is limited to narrow veins and structures in the old Carbonate Camp area.

Carbonate Camp is several thousand feet north of the Richmond Hill Gold deposit, comprising two east–west fractures separated by 1,100 ft, with numerous showings and workings (LAC, 1993). Mainly known for its silver, lead, and gold mineralization, mining occurred over several short periods between 1881 and 1940, with the Spanish R mine on the western side of the camp accounting for most of the gold production. Individual deposits along the main (southern) fracture include Segregated Iron Hill, Seabury Calkins, Iron Hill, Combination, Able Holmes, and Adelphia. The north fracture includes Darboy, Farwest, Rattler, Surprise, and Hartshorn deposits. Deposits off the main fractures are the Spanish R, Buntz, and Homerun.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>46 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img004.jpg)

**Figure 6-1: Exploration Zones**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>47 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img005.jpg)

**Figure 6-2: Geology of Richmond Hill**

Other zones within the Property include Chism Gulch, Rocky Point, Iron Hill, and Cleopatra Creek. Each of these areas contains gold and silver mineralization and has exploration potential. Targets included in the mineral resource estimate and zones for which historical write-ups exist are described in more detail below.

Several gold deposits and zones exist in the Project area. Figure 6-3 is a 0.01 oz/ton grade shell showing the distribution of zones within the global resource estimate calculated for this Report. The grade shell measures approximately 13,000 ft north-south by 10,000 ft east-west and 3,000 ft vertically and is close to gold mineralization's known limits. The type and character of these zones are discussed individually below.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>48 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img006.jpg)

Source: S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary – April 30, 2024.

**Figure 6-3: Richmond Hill Gold Project Target Zones on 0.01 oz/ton Grade Shell Plot**

The Richmond Hill Gold mine is centered on an elongate Tertiary breccia pipe intruded into Precambrian phyllite and amphibolite, with stockwork zones fracturing and mineralization surrounding the pipe. The mine is the only site within the Project that has had recent mining. Mining activities were limited primarily to the oxidized cap, although some sulfide-bearing material was also mined. The geology of the Richmond Hill gold mine is as follows:

The (Richmond Hill) breccia pipe contains angular clasts of Tertiary intrusive rock and Precambrian metavolcanic rocks in a matrix of rock flour, iron oxides, barite, and adularia. Accessory minerals in the breccia include quartz, alunite, jarosite, kaolinite, fluorite, and rutile. The breccia is argillically altered and weakly silicified. Pyrite and marcasite occur in unoxidized rock. The deposit (that was mined) was primarily in the oxidized zone which extended to a depth of 250 ft. Gold grain sizes were determined by scanning electron microscope studies to be less than 2 microns (µm) occurring in quartz, feldspar, kaolinite, and iron oxides. (Paterson et al., 1988)

The breccia pipe and enclosing rocks are oxidized up to 250 ft deep, resulting in a hematitic–jarositic cap. The hydrothermal breccia pipe hosts gold, two zones of altered and stockwork-fractured Precambrian schist lying on the eastern and northwestern edges of the pipe, and one zone of stockwork-fractured trachyte porphyry intrusion southwest of the pipe. Gold is widespread, occurring as small native particles near oxidized-pyrite sites. Alteration is mainly argillic with local silicification, and numerous quartz–barite–adularia veins cut the deposit. The Precambrian amphibolite schist east and northwest of the breccia pipe has undergone intense argillic alteration and contains fine-grained gold in oxidized pyrite sites. In unoxidized material, pyrite and arsenical marcasite appear to be associated with gold (Paterson, 1988). The oxidized breccia pipe has historically been the most attractive gold host within the mine. Sulfide mineralization lying beneath the oxidized cap also carries gold, but in 1986 was not deemed suitable to mine using heap leach recovery processes; therefore, the relatively flat-lying oxide–sulfide contact was used as the floor to the deposit for mining.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>49 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The sulfide resource underlying the Richmond Hill deposit's westernmost zone of oxidized and fractured Precambrian rocks is a zone of mineralized sulfide-bearing rock not suitable for heap leaching. The host rock contains pyrite and arsenical marcasite averaging 5% to 10%, locally reaching 25% (Duex's, 1988 edit of Paterson, 1988). The best grades intercepted to 1986 were 0.22 oz/ton Au over 135 ft, which is approximately 150 ft below the oxide–sulfide interface (St. Joe, 1986).

The Richmond Hill North zone Is approximately 3,000 ft north-east of the Richmond Hill gold mine. A 1990 radiometric airborne geophysical survey identified the Richmond Hill North zone as having the potential for Richmond Hill deposit-style mineralization. The area has three intrusive bodies and a large breccia pipe where early drilling returned mixed results. The geology comprises Proterozoic metavolcanic and sedimentary rocks overlain by the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation and intruded by Tertiary porphyritic intrusive rocks (LAC, 1993). Proterozoic rocks are mapped as amphibolite and mica schist, which have been deformed by three stages of folding, and metamorphosed to greenschist facies. Rock units strike north–south and dip vertically.

The Deadwood Formation rocks comprise basal sandstone, conglomerate, and shale units dipping north-northwest at 10 to 15 degrees. Tertiary intrusive rocks are mineralized breccia bodies with fragments up to 30 ft in diameter, comprising Paleozoic sediments and Tertiary porphyry fragments cemented by a finer matrix and rock flour. The Turnaround and Twin Tunnels prospects are within this area and are described in more detail below.

The Twin Tunnels zone is within the Richmond Hill North area and is described in more detail below. The Twin Tunnels zone is 2,900 ft northeast of the Richmond Hill gold deposit at the headwaters of Cole Creek. It is named for a pair of adits driven on the breccia zone comprising the Southern Extension and Northern Extension zones. The Southern Extension is a mineralized Tertiary breccia whereas the Northern Extension is a Tertiary intrusive complex (Watson, 1990).

Gold mineralization at the Twin Tunnels Southern Extension is within silicified Precambrian rocks surrounding a jasperoidal core (St. Joe, 1986). Gold grades in jasperoidal rocks range from 0.15 to 0.25 oz/ton Au. Only the southern portion of the breccia is mineralized, although the breccia continues to the north beyond drill-tested ground. In 1990, the mineralized material in the drilled portion of the Southern Extension was thought to be about 330,000 tons at 0.055 oz/ton Au (Watson, 1990). Dakota Gold is not treating this amount of mineralized material as current and the author has not determined what work, if any, would be required to verify or upgrade or if such verification or upgrading would be possible. The amount of mineralized material thought present at Twin Tunnels has been included to give the reader a sense of what was found, which at the time was not thought to be of economic interest.

The Twin Tunnels Northern Extension Is a sericite- and argillic-altered complex that is mineralized with pyrite containing gold and silver. The rocks comprise a mineralized metavolcanic, a poorly mineralized coarse- and fine-grained amphibolite unit, and an unmineralized Tertiary porphyry intrusive. Altered metavolcanic rocks are oxidized, vuggy, kaolin-rich, with about 5% finely disseminated pyrite. The metavolcanic unit has a massive and glassy matrix, few vugs, and carries higher-grade gold mineralization up to 0.09 oz/ton. Data from 1990 show mineralization open to the north and south suggesting a low-grade sulfide deposit (0.03 to 0.035 oz/ton Au) of undetermined size. Later drilling showed that the extensions to the north and south were lower grade than first speculated (Dakota Gold, pers. Comm.).

The Turnaround prospect is 1,000 ft northeast of the Richmond Hill gold deposit and is a breccia pipe overlain by an unmineralized porphyry cap. Bedrock oxidation extends to over 400 ft below the overburden–bedrock interface, and sulfide pods are found randomly throughout the host stratigraphy, suggesting that primary sulfide mineralization was oxidized during the late stages of hydrothermal alteration and more recent weathering (Paterson, 1988). The pipe is weakly mineralized throughout, with a higher-grade section along the southeast margin. Alteration and clast compositions are different from the pipe at the Richmond Hill deposit, as there are abundant Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation clasts that contain higher-grade mineralization. Drilling was conducted from 1985 to 1987, comprising 40 holes into the pipe and adjacent rocks. In September 1986, St. Joe used a polygonal model to estimate that the pipe contained as much as 8.5 Mton of oxide mineralized material at 0.021 oz/ton Au. St Joe noted that there was a smaller, higher-grade zone within the modeled pipe. Dakota Gold is not treating the 1985 polygonal oxide model as current and the author has not determined what work, if any, would be required to verify or upgrade or if such verification or upgrading would be possible. The 1980s exploration results have been included to give the reader a sense of what was found at the Turnaround prospect.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>50 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The West Thumb area is immediately west of the Richmond Hill gold deposit and was drilled in 1990 to increase potential resources for the Richmond Hill mining operation. The drill program identified about 488,000 tons of oxide material grading about 0.043 oz/ton Au. Dakota Gold is not treating the historical West Thumb work as current and the author has not determined what work, if any, would be required to verify or upgrade or if such verification or upgrading would be possible. The results of the historical work have been included to give the reader the ultimate outcome of exploration of the West Thumb prospect in the early 1990s. Exploration was curtailed due to the expense of drilling on the very steep terrain.

The Huskie West area is 1,500 ft southwest of the Richmond Hill gold deposit on the east side of Cleopatra Creek; it is a gold-in-soil anomaly trending 700 ft north–south and 300 ft east–west. It is underlain by altered meta-igneous rocks cut by numerous Tertiary dikes (St. Joe, 1986). A total of 12 exploration holes drilled into the Deadwood and Flagrock Formations did not return encouraging results. Bond Gold revisited the area in 1991, and constructed drill trails along the steep terrain but did not find significant mineralization.

The Cleveland area is about 2,000 ft northeast of the Richmond Hill gold deposit. It contains high-grade Homestake-type mineralization in Precambrian iron formation amphibole schist and metasediments affected by three periods of later folding. Most gold mineralization is controlled by east–west fault systems (Duex, 1989). The drilling program indicated that mineralization is cut off along strike, thinned, and became erratic to the north; heap leachable metallurgical recoveries decreased with depth. The preliminary drill program suggested that the Cleveland area deposit may contain 730,000 tons at 0.047 oz/ton Au (Horton, 1989). Dakota Gold is not treating the Cleveland historical exploration results as current and the author has not determined what work, if any, would be required to verify or upgrade or if such verification or upgrading would be possible. The outcome of historical inventory has been included to give the reader a sense of the outcome of explorations ending in late 1989.

Exploration identified an attractive zone grading 0.3 oz/ton Au over 5 ft, within an amphibole schist similar to that hosting Homestake mineralization. Exploration ceased in 1990 after five holes drilled into the prospect had minimal success (Duex, 1990).

The Calvin P area is near the Cleveland prospective area and has similar underlying geology. One hole was drilled into the prospect in 1990 and intersected anomalous gold mineralization near the bottom of the hole. The intersection's grade was not high enough to warrant further work (Duex, 1990).

The Cole Creek Heights area is north of the Cleveland prospect area and has similar geology and mineralization in Precambrian iron formation. Three RC holes drilled in 1990 failed to identify significant mineralization (Duex, 1990).

The Earle area is 3,000 ft southeast of the Richmond Hill gold deposit and is the southern extension of the Cleveland prospect area. Four holes drilled in 1990 returned no significant intercepts, resulting in no further work being planned (Duex, 1990).

The MW-3 area is approximately 6,000 ft northeast of the Richmond Hill mine and comprises two zones—Main and East—which were reported to have bulk-mineable oxide resources, but were never mined (LAC, 1991). The zone contains the Richmond Hill mine's processing facility on the northern portion. The prospective area contains the Richmond Hill mine's processing facility in the northern portion. Historical exploration included numerous prospect pits, four shafts, and an adit about 260 ft long. Other collapsed adits were identified, but no past production is known from the area.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>51 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The southern part of the MW-3 area is underlain by Precambrian metasediments containing iron formations, whereas the northern portion is overlain by the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood and Winnipeg Formations, which dip northerly at 15 to 20 degrees. Intruding the sediments are Tertiary monzonitic porphyry dikes and sills, as well as stocks and associated breccia bodies.

Gold mineralization at MW-3 occurs throughout the Deadwood Formation, and less so within unconformably underlying Precambrian metasediments. Potential bulk-mineable material is disseminated in the basal conglomerate and sandstone members of the Deadwood Formation, and uppermost Precambrian schists (LAC, 1991). Steeply dipping and north-northwest-striking fractures known locally as verticals also control replacement gold-mineralization to a lesser extent. The basal contact between Cambrian and Precambrian rocks is strongly oxidized glauconitic limestone, shale, and occasionally massive limestone beds. Underlying Precambrian metasediments comprise mica schist, iron formation, and clastic quartzites with interbedded mica schists. The best gold grades are found within iron formation rocks, and most continuously in oxidized schists. Gold occurs erratically within structures up to 50 ft below the zone of oxidation.

Exploration in the late 1980s and early 1990s comprised geological mapping, soil and rock chip sampling, ground geophysics, and 248 drill holes, which included condemnation drilling over the Richmond Hill deposit processing facility. Metallurgical testing and detailed resource estimates were completed following discovery of the Main and East deposits. Beyond the deposits, widely spaced drilling confirmed low probability for additional mineralization in areas where surface mapping had indicated limited potential.

The MW-3 Main deposit mineralization is hosted mainly in Deadwood Formation basal sandstone and conglomerate, and a minor amount in Precambrian oxidized-iron-formation schists and lower contact unit. Consistent gold mineralization is found between two north-northwest-trending fractures or faults (verticals). East of the verticals the grade decreases quickly, and west of the verticals gold is present, but structurally controlled, including a major structure 500 ft to the west that is 30 ft wide and more than 400 ft down dip (strike length not stated in LAC, 1991). Oxidation of the Precambrian schists is thought to have occurred during the Cambrian and prepared the rocks for Tertiary gold mineralizing solutions to penetrate along faults or fractures into the schists.

The Main deposit is closed in all surface directions, and potential tonnage is limited by the thickness of the host rocks due to erosion of the host stratigraphy to the south, and a westward fault offset to the north. The faulted continuation occurs as the Cole Creek prospect, which is discussed below. The gold grade also decreases to the east and west of the controlling verticals.

The MW-3 East deposit is about 800 ft east-northeast of the Main deposit and is hosted in the Deadwood Formation lower contact zone altered to a ferruginous clay (LAC, 1991). The underlying Precambrian clastic quartzite and mica schist were not oxidized in the Cambrian and were not receptive to the gold mineralizing fluids. Gold mineralization in the lower contact zone is controlled by north-northwest-striking verticals, with best grades between two Tertiary porphyry dikes. The zone is 50 ft thick and overlain by Deadwood Formation shale and Tertiary sills. The mineralization continues to the east on land once controlled by Homestake, which drilled the eastern extension in 1994 and named this area Chism Gulch.

LAC deemed both MW-3 Main and MW-3 East to be uneconomical to mine based upon the drilled tonnage using the 1990s gold price.

The Cole Creek area is 4,000 ft north of the Richmond Hill gold deposit on the north side of Cole Creek, within the northern third of the old Carbonate camp. The prospect contains replacement-style mineralization in the uppermost part of shallow Deadwood Formation limestone, sandstone, and shale, dipping 15 to 20 degrees to the northwest. The sedimentary rocks are intruded by Tertiary porphyritic igneous (monzonite to phonolite) rocks as sills dikes, stocks, and breccias. Mineralization is controlled by two northwest-trending faults separated by approximately 120 ft, with mineralization continuous between the faults and as an irregular halo outward from the faults (St. Joe, 1986). All near-surface bulk-mineable prospects were evaluated, but deeper zones were not explored (Dakota Gold, pers. Comm.)

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>52 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The Iron Hill area is part of the old Carbonate camp, just north of the Cole Creek prospect, and has mine dumps containing gold mineralization believed to reflect the underlying structure that crosscuts an east–west fault hosting silver mineralization. No significant mineralization was found, and no further exploration was conducted.

The Spanish R mine is a past gold producer hosted by the north–south structures seen in the Cole Creek area. The mine is on the western side of the two structures present at Iron Hill. No significant mineralization was found, and no further exploration was conducted.

The Cleopatra Creek area is north of the Huskie West prospect and defined by a large, low-grade, gold-in-soil anomaly. Two east–west-trending structures within lower units of the Deadwood Formation control replacement-gold mineralization, which is similar to the MW-3 or Golden Reward areas. No significant mineralization was found, and no further exploration was conducted.

The Eagle Bird area is 2,500 ft south of the Richmond Hill gold mine, and was explored historically by many pits, adits, and a few shafts. One adit at the Eagle Bird mine is reported to have had 2,600 ft of underground workings, but no known production. The area is underlain by Precambrian meta-igneous and metasedimentary rocks overlain by the Deadwood Formation and intruded by Tertiary porphyry bodies. There are similarities to the rocks of the Richmond Hill mine area, but Eagle Bird rocks are more mafic, are flows rather than intrusive, and have less foliation. Overlying the basal unit are metasedimentary rocks, including iron formation (LAC, 1993).

Gold mineralization at Eagle Bird occurs in narrow, east-northeast fault structures within the Precambrian metamorphic and Tertiary porphyritic rocks. Mineralization occurs more extensively in the basal sandstone and conglomerate of the Deadwood Formation, with hand samples grading up to 0.046 oz/ton Au and a second zone with 0.06 oz/ton Au. Grades were too low to encourage LAC to continue exploring the area, although less exploration was conducted here than other prospective areas on the Property.

The Richmond Hill Gold Property is host to multiple gold–silver prospects and deposits, many of which Dakota Gold determined warranted further exploration. Following option of the Property in 2021, Dakota started a property-wide exploration program including geology, geochemical, geophysical, and drilling surveys described in more detail in Section 7.

**6.2** **Regional Geology** 

The Black Hills Uplift is an elongate Laramide-aged structural dome, located in western South Dakota and easternmost Wyoming, where erosion has exposed a core of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks flanked by Paleozoic- to Mesozoic-aged sedimentary that dip away from the core of the dome (Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5). Figure 6-4 is a generalized geologic map of the Black Hills Uplift showing the locations of the Property cross sections A–A' and D–D' are provided in Figure 6-5.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>53 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img007.jpg)

Source: Geology of Wyoming (n.d.)

Explanation: Xg—Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks; lPz—lower Paleozoic (Cambrian–Mississippian); uPz—Upper Paleozoic (Pennsylvanian-Permian); T—Triassic, J—Jurassic; Uk1-Uk3—undesignated Cretaceous (oldest to youngest); Ti—Tertiary igneous rocks; Twr—Tertiary White River Group; Tp—Tertiary Pliocene (Upper Miocene-Pliocene Ogallala Formation). Cross-sections A–A' and D–D' are shown in Figure 6-5.

**Figure 6-4: Regional Geologic map of the Black Hills Uplift (from Lufking et. Al, 2009)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>54 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img008.jpg)

Explanation: A–A'—(northern Black Hills); D–D'—(southern Black Hills) (shown in Figure 6-4)

Southwest to northeast structural cross sections AA' (northern Black Hills) and DD' (southern Black Hills). The "Great Unconformity" between Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks indicated by solid red line.

**Figure 6-5: Southwest to Northeast Structural Cross-Sections (modified from Redden and DeWitt 2008)**

The dome formed during the Laramide Orogeny from 66 to 56 Ma episodic tectonic events (Lisenbee, 1993). The northern part on the dome is cross-cut by a WNW-trending belt of Tertiary-aged intrusive rock that form a number of subsidiary domes related to laccoliths, stocks, dikes and sills that range in age from 58 to 46 Ma (Lisenbee and DeWitt, 1993, and Lisenbee, 2010).

The Early Proterozoic Homestake Formation is the main host for gold mineralization in the Black Hills uplift. Tertiary aged gold mineralization is hosted Early Proterozoic metasedimentary units, Paleozoic sedimentary units, Tertiary breccias, and Tertiary intrusive rock. The blocks of Archean crust in the southern Black Hills (D–D' in Figure 6-5) may be rafted portions of the Superior craton. The complexity of folding and metamorphism within the Precambrian rocks indicates these ancient units were subjected to multiple deformational events before, during, and after the Trans-Hudson tectonic event (Redden and DeWitt, 2008).

**6.3** **Lithology** 

There are three main age groups of rocks including Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks, Paleozoic to Tertiary sedimentary rocks, and Tertiary igneous rocks. The foliated metamorphic rocks that form the northern Black Hills central core are elevated up to 4,000 ft above the surrounding flatlands and are mainly composed of quartzite, phyllite, and schist that were metamorphosed from lower greenschist to amphibolite facies; these are radiometrically dated to between 2.5 and 1.7 Ga. The metamorphic core has been complexly folded, faulted, and locally intruded by the 1.7 Ga Harney Peak Granite. These rocks partly underly the Property and are discussed in more detail in Section 6.5. A stratigraphic section of the northern part of the Precambrian core of the Black Hills uplift is presented as Figure 6-6. For a complete description of Black Hills Precambrian rocks, see Redden and Dewitt (2008).

Geologic mapping, stratigraphic relationships and geochronologic data indicate that rocks comprising the metamorphic core were deposited as sand silt, clay, volcanogenic sediments, and lava flows in intracontinental basins or on the eastern margin of the Wyoming Craton from > 2.56 Ga to 1.88 Ga (Redden et al., 1990, Redden and Dewitt, 2008, and reference therein, Dahl, 2010 and references therein). These sedimentary and volcanic rocks experienced protracted orogenic-related polyphase metamorphism and deformation (1.76-1.715) that culminated in the intrusion of S-type granite and pegmatite (1.715-1.695) Ga during the Black Hills Orogeny (Dahl et al., 2005a and 2005b, Dahl, 2010, and references within). These events created quartzite, phyllite, schist, greenstone, and amphibolite that experienced burial depths between approximately 10 and 23 kilometers (6-15 miles) and temperatures of from approximately 350 to 600°C with locally much hotter conditions in proximity to the S-type granite (Terry and Friberg, 1990, and Dahl et al., 2005a).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>55 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Metamorphic conditions associated with the emplacement of the S-type granites indicate the Precambrian rocks experienced approximately 6 miles of post-exhumation prior to the deposition of Paleozoic sediments. In the Paleozoic, the Precambrian rocks were inundated by a sea that deposited 6,500 to 7,000 ft of sandstone, shale, and limestone sedimentary rock during the Cambrian through Permian periods. These Paleozoic strata thin from north to south and dip east on the Black Hills' eastern side and west on the western side. Figure 6-6 displays a Precambrian–Paleozoic stratigraphic section and Figure 6-7 provides general stratigraphic section of the Black Hills.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>56 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img009.jpg)

**Figure 6-6: Precambrian Stratigraphic Section of the Northern Black Hills**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>57 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp4img010.jpg)

**Figure 6-7: Black Hills General Stratigraphic Section**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>58 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

In the Cambrian, tropical marine clastic rocks were deposited from north to south during a marine transgression—mainly sandstone and shale of the Deadwood Formation. The subsequent northward regression created a southward thinning wedge of strata from 400 ft thick in the north to 7 ft thick in the south.

The Deadwood Formation comprises two layers of quartz arenite separated by glauconitic sandstone, shale, limestone, and intraformational conglomerate layers. Deposition of the Deadwood Formation extends into the Ordovician and is overlain by shale and dolomite of the Winnipeg Formation and Whitewood Dolomite. No Silurian rocks are found in the Black Hills, which represents a period of emergence and erosion. In the Upper Devonian to Mississippian, the area was covered by tropical seas, which deposited shale and limestone of the Englewood Limestone and then the (Pahasapa) Limestone.

The Pahasapa Limestone is 850 ft thick in the north and 350 ft in the south. From the late Mississippian to early Pennsylvanian, the Pahasapa Formation was subject to 20 Ma of erosion and subsequent karst development in its upper layers, creating open spaces available for later mineralizing fluids.

Lower Pennsylvanian subsidence led to the deposition of the overlying Minnelusa Formation, which includes a lower marine shale, sandstone, and limestone sequence, upper layers of sandstone and siltstone, and gypsum near the top of the formation. Near the mid-Permian, the Minnelusa Formation is succeeded by the Opeche Formation shale, sandstone, and siltstone. Overlying this is the Minnekahta Formation thin-bedded limestone.

The Deadwood and Pahasapa Formations are the main Paleozoic mineralized geological units on the Richmond Hill Gold Project. The units deposited subsequently are considered cover rocks and include, in decreasing age, the Minnelusa Formation, Opeche Formation, Minnekahta Formation, and Spearfish Formation. These rocks are mainly shale, sandstone, siltstone, and limestone.

Following deposition of the Spearfish Formation, the Black Hills was again emergent and eroded for about 70 Ma, precluding deposition of any early-Mesozoic strata. The erosion continued to the mid-Jurassic, after which the area was again inundated by seawater, which allowed the Sundance Formation to be deposited.

The erosion continued to the mid-Jurassic, after which the area was again inundated by seawater, which allowed the Sundance Formation to be deposited. The Sundance Formation is a fossiliferous unit comprising siltstone, sandstone, white limestone, and shale.

Overlying the Sundance Formation is the upper Jurassic Unkpapa Formation non-marine sandstone, and Morrison Formation shale and sandstone. The latter formation likely experienced erosion, as its upper contact is an unconformity that marks the division between the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

At the close of the Jurassic and into the Cretaceous, much of central North America from north to south was submerged in seawater known as the Western Interior Seaway. Between 130 and 65 Ma a thick sequence of shale, limestone, and sandstone was deposited. Included from oldest to youngest are the Lakota Formation, Fall River Sandstone, Skull Creek Shale, Newcastle Sandstone, Mowry Shale, Belle Fourche Shale, Niobrara Formation, Carlile Shale, Greenhorn Limestone, Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, and Lance Formation to close out the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era. By the end of the Cretaceous, between 6,500 and 7,000 ft of sedimentary strata had accumulated over what was to become the Black Hills.

Early in the following Tertiary Period the Black Hills experienced uplift and erosion related to the Laramide orogeny. This was most notable during the Paleocene and Eocene Epochs, with the sediments being shed to the west into the Powder River Basin. Volcanic activity occurred in a WNW-trending belt across the northern part of the Black Hills uplift resulted in numerous shallow igneous intrusions in the northern Black Hills, with well-known examples being Devils Tower, Missouri Buttes, and Bear Butte. The igneous bodies trend younger from east (58 Ma) to west (46 Ma).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>59 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Other Tertiary rocks include the White River Group—divided into the lower Chadron and upper Brule Formations—and are seen primarily along the eastern side of the Black Hills. They formed during fluvial deposition in the late Eocene and Oligocene Epochs and comprise channel fillings of sandstone, claystone, and minor limestone.

**6.4** **Landforms and Structures** 

The geographic occurrence of Black Hills uplift geologic formations is controlled by various landforms. Black Hills landforms are divided into five main types: Central Crystalline Core (Core); Limestone Plateau; Red Valley; Cretaceous (Dakota) Hogback; and Buttes. Bordering the undulating Core is the Limestone Plateau, which covers a greater area on the west side of the Core than the east due to a much gentler westward rock dip in comparison to the steeper dips on the east side of the Core. Outboard of the Limestone Plateau is the Red Valley, a broad lowland that developed by erosion of the Spearfish and Sundance red-bed formations. The Richmond Hill Gold Project is characterized by these first two landforms.

Outboard of the Limestone Plateau is the Red Valley, a broad lowland that developed by erosion of Spearfish and Sundance red-bed formations. Like the Limestone Plateau, the Red Valley width is controlled by bedding, with shallower dips producing a wider valley on the west and a narrower valley on more-steeply dipping eastern exposures. The Cretaceous Hogback is a 300- to 400 ft-high ridge outboard of the Red Valley, formed by Lakota Sandstone that is resistant to erosion, along with dip-slope rocks of the Fall River Sandstone Formation. Rocks of the underlying strata are exposed on the steep cliff faces below the ridge crests. Evidence for the timing of erosion to create the current landform favors initiation in early Tertiary time, though some valleys likely were carved within the last five million years.

Buttes occur in the Northern Black Hills Igneous Province and are formed by a west- to northwest-striking zone of intrusive rocks cutting across the Black Hills uplift. Erosion of the enclosing strata has exposed the igneous rocks, which occur as dikes, sills, laccoliths, stocks, ring dikes, and diatremes. Due to greater resistance to weathering and erosion, the igneous rocks forming these structures stand out as positive topographical features such as Devils Tower and Bear Butte. Within the Northern Black Hills, the laccoliths generally cause the greatest disruption of the existing lithological layers into which they are intruded. The laccoliths cause doming and fault-bounded uplift, with the Deadwood Formation being the preferred host.

The Laramide uplift of the Paleozoic and Proterozoic basement started in the Laramide Orogeny about 70 Ma ago. Timing of the uplift can be constrained to the early Tertiary, since undeformed and horizontal Tertiary White River Group rocks lie unconformably above tilted Mesozoic strata, which was disrupted by doming Proterozoic basement. West vergent monoclines separate the Black Hills uplift from the Powder River Basin to the west. The eastern flank of the Black Hills uplift is caused by doming of the Proterozoic basement which forms asymmetric anticlines.

**6.5** **Deposit Type** 

Mineralization at the Richmond Hill Gold Project is dominantly replacement style within Tertiary aged breccias of host Precambrian metasedimentary and Cambrian-Ordovician sedimentary rocks. Gold bearing fluids possibly derived from Tertiary intrusions migrated along steeply dipping fractures called verticals, and gold was deposited in favorable structural or chemical traps as replacement deposits. Breccia pipes within Precambrian metasediments and the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation are the most common gold-bearing host rocks. The historical Richmond hill gold mine produced ore from Tertiary breccias dominantly hosted within Precambrian units that were processed as an open pit, heap leach operation.

**6.6** **Mineralization** 

Gold was first recorded in the Black Hills in 1874, although prior rumors existed of prospectors discovering placer gold. The ensuing 1875 gold rush produced limited success, except in the Whitewood and Deadwood creeks area. Other prospectors sought the hard-rock source of the placer gold upstream of the placer workings, and in 1876 the Homestake lode was discovered; it was mined almost continuously until 2001. Numerous other gold deposits were subsequently discovered in the Black Hills in differing geologic environments, with several turning into significant mining camps. Gold mineralization settings in the Black Hills are complex, and gold has been found in many geologic settings, including Archean Paleoplacer, Proterozoic Vein related Carbonate Iron Formation, Proterozoic Vein, Cambrian Placer, Tertiary Epithermal, and Quaternary Placer.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>60 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Archean Paleoplacer deposits formed 2.5 Ga ago in alluvial fans along rift valleys that are now beds of metamorphosed conglomerate, quartz arenite, and hematite-chert banded-iron formation, which have been rotated and are now overturned (Paterson and Lisenbee, 1990). The paleoplacer deposits comprise pyritiferous and well-sorted quartz-pebble conglomerates. No recorded amount of gold has been produced from these deposits.

Vein related deposits hosted by Early Proterozoic Carbonate Iron Formation are represented by the Homestake mine in the northern Black Hills, which produced approximately 40 Moz of gold and 10 Moz of silver, making it one of the largest deposits of its type in the world. Host rocks are seafloor sediments of the Precambrian Homestake Formation, which were buried by later Precambrian strata, then complexly folded and metamorphosed during the Black Hills Orogeny. After about 1.7 Ga of erosion, what was left of the Homestake Formation was buried again by Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata prior to the most recent uplift and erosion that formed the Black Hills. Current thinking is that most of the gold was originally deposited as an orogenic gold system along shear zones, then subsequent fluid flow associated with later metamorphism resulted in gold precipitated in a favorable chemical environment (Caddey et al. 1991, Frei et al. 2009, Morelli et al. 2010). Gold grades at Homestake varied from 1 oz/ton in the upper levels to 0.25 oz/ton when the mine closed in 2001. From 1953 to 1971, the mine produced more than 500,000 ounces of gold per year.

Other Proterozoic Vein deposits occur in several locations within the Precambrian core and comprise quartz veins hosted by meta-graywacke and minor amphibolite—iron formation rocks. Veins that contain gold and minor silver range from a few inches to over 10 ft wide and are associated with faults, shears, and folds. Other veins contain gold, silver, antimony, lead, zinc, and copper, which imply that two sets of gold-bearing veins exist, one with and one without the other minerals. The latter veins are thought to be younger or shallowly emplaced. Most mining of these deposits occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Examples include Keystone, Bullion, Holy Terror, and Clover Leaf mines (Paterson and Lisenbee, 1990).

Cambrian Placer deposits were formed when gold was eroded from the Homestake Formation or other Precambrian gold occurrences, and concentrated within stream-channel gravels on the Precambrian surface (Irving, 1904, Paterson and Lisenbee, 1990). These gravels later became conglomerates at the base of the Deadwood Formation. An ancient channel lies east of the Homestake open pit, and although no recorded production is known, remnants of the mines contain up to an ounce of gold per ton. Other Deadwood conglomerate placer deposits to the southeast have never been traced to the lode source.

Tertiary epithermal deposits in the northern Black Hills are hosted by Precambrian metamorphic, Paleozoic sedimentary, and Tertiary intrusive rocks. Gold- and silver-bearing fluids possibly derived from the intrusions were concentrated in steeply dipping fractures called verticals, and gold was deposited in favorable structural or chemical traps (Connolly, 1927, Paterson et al. 1988). The most favorable environment for gold deposition is the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation, where mineralization is primarily controlled by chemical or physical traps in the sedimentary rocks.

Quaternary Placer deposits comprise gold-bearing gravels along Deadwood and Whitewood creeks. Placer mining by shaft and drifts occurred until 1883 when floodwaters washed away many of the workings. Best known of these placer workings are the Deadwood and Rockerville mines.

On the Richmond Hill Gold Project, Tertiary-aged replacement gold mineralization, and Precambrian iron formation-hosted gold mineralization were drilled during exploration programs in the 1980s and 1990s. Subsequent drilling in 2023 identified the iron formation to be within the Proterozoic Flagrock Formation magnetite and sulfide-bearing iron formation containing Tertiary gold-silver mineralization but no classic Homestake style siderite iron-formation mineralization.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>61 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The current genetic model Is that Tertiary-aged gold and silver-bearing fluids possibly derived from the Tertiary intrusions migrated along steeply dipping fractures called verticals, and gold was deposited in favorable structural or chemical traps as replacement deposits. Breccia pipes within Precambrian metasediments and the Cambro-Ordovician Deadwood Formation are the most common gold-bearing host rocks. These breccia pipes are associated with Tertiary alkalic magmatism that generated most of the Tertiary-aged gold deposits in the Homestake District.

Gold mineralization in the breccia pipes had previously been identified in various targets within the Project area, including Richmond Hill, Richmond Hill North, Twin Tunnels, and Turnaround. Dakota Gold followed up on this earlier work, and drill tested three of the six known breccia pipes within Twin Tunnels, Turnaround, and Richmond Hill zones. To this Report date, drilling has not defined the limits of mineralization in these breccia pipes.

Dakota Gold's current exploration program seeks to confirm and expand upon known oxide gold resources and test the extent of gold sulfide resources. The zones included within the mineral resource estimate are Richmond Hill, Richmond Hill North, Cleveland, Turnaround, Twin Tunnels, Cole Creek, and MW3.

Historical production prior to the 1980s in the Project area was primarily from the underground mining of high-grade structures. With the advent of heap leaching technologies, a resurgence of mining occurred, and open pit mining of these resources began. The Richmond Hill gold mine and Wharf deposits to the south are examples, with the Wharf open pit mine being the only mine currently operating the Black Hills. Most gold is associated with pyrite at depth, and near-surface gold is liberated by natural oxidation. Sulfide-rich deposits have been processed historically using fine grinding and cyanidation, along with roasting, to recover the gold and silver. The Deadwood Formation hosts numerous historical mines, including Golden Reward, Bald Mountain, Maitland, and Wasp. Further north and west in the Carbonate and Ragged Top districts, fluids related to Tertiary intrusions have localized gold, silver, lead, zinc, and tungsten along faults or breccia pipes within the Pahasapa Limestone. Tertiary porphyry-hosted gold deposits include the Gilt Edge and Hoodoo-Union Hill mines.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>62 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

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

---

Dakota Territory Resource Corp., now DTRC LLC, entered into the Option with Barrick on October 14, 2021, and began ground exploration on the Project, including gravity, induced polarization (IP) survey and drilling. Prior to optioning the Project, an airborne geophysical survey over a wide area of the Homestake district was performed. These are summarized in the following sections from data sheets provided by Dakota Gold (Berry, 2023a and 2023b).

**7.1** **Airborne Geophysics** 

From June 26 to August 1, 2020, New Sense Geophysics Ltd. conducted a high-resolution helicopter-borne magnetic and gamma-ray spectrometric survey over the Homestake District of Northern Black Hills, South Dakota. The survey consisted of 11,636-line km covering an area of 962.4 km<sup>2</sup> and included the Property (Figure 7-1). The purpose of the survey was to map Precambrian lithologies and structure, as well as Tertiary intrusive rocks and associated alteration in outcrop, subsurface, and beneath cover. A report detailing the contractor's work is dated August 31, 2020. Results of the survey are not publicly available.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img001.jpg)

**Figure 7-1: Airborne Magnetics Survey Flightline Limits**

The airborne magnetic survey was able to identify the Tertiary intrusive centers and possibly larger feeder dikes. Most of the intrusive centers had previously been identified by surface mapping either by exposed intrusive rocks or by doming of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata. Inversions of the magnetic data set were also useful for identifying potential alteration associated with breccias and faults in the Richmond Hill Property. The radiometric survey, especially thorium, identifies the larger Tertiary intrusive centers.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>63 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

It is the opinion of the QP for this section that the airborne geophysical survey informed the selection of the Richmond Hill Gold Project area to option and also aided interpreting the extent of the geological units under areas of cover.

**7.2** **Gravity Compilation and Survey** 

In December 2021, geophysical contractor Robert B. Ellis, Allan Spector and Associates, Ltd. and Magee Geophysical Surveys LLC (Magee) completed a report titled Gravity Compilation and Processing (2021 Merge) Homestake District. Their work entailed compiling and merging historical Homestake gravity data with National Geophysical Data Center gravity data and Magee gravity data for the Black Hills region.

During May and June 2022, Magee collected additional gravity data to be added to the Dakota Gold data set. The survey acquired data from 550 gravity stations across the Black Hills to fill in gaps in the regional data set and to replace older readings that potentially had elevation- or terrain-correction problems. The survey area included Lawrence, Pennington, Butte, and Custer Counties of South Dakota, and Crook, Weston, and Niobrara Counties of Wyoming (Figure 7-2). Although the survey encompassed a large area, additional stations were surveyed near Richmond Hill. No report was completed summarizing this work, but maps and cross-sections were produced to assist with ongoing geologic interpretations.

The gravity survey was used to map out differences in density of the various rock units. The Tertiary intrusive rocks generally have lower densities than the Precambrian metamorphic host rocks. For example, there is a large intrusive body east of the Project area known as the Cutting Stock that is a distinctive gravity low. The larger metamorphosed basalt units commonly generate gravity highs. The eastern contact of the metamorphosed basalt running through the center of the Project does not generate a large density contrast. The lack of density contrast may be because of the heavy alteration of the metamorphosed basalt adjacent to the north-south trending Tertiary breccia pipes or that the lower-density breccias tend to intrude along this structure.

The gravity survey aided in interpreting the extent of geological units in areas of cover, and drill-hole collars were spotted using a combination of this and other airborne and ground-based surveys.

The QP responsible for this section of the Report believes that the gravity survey aided Dakota Gold in interpreting the extent of geological units in areas of cover, and spotting drill-hole collars benefited from a combination of this and other airborne and ground-based surveys.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>64 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img002.jpg)

Source: Robert B. Ellis, Alan Spector and Associates, Ltd. And Magee Geophysical Surveys LLC (2021)

Notes: Index maps showing compiled gravity stations for the Black Hills regional area (left) and a focus area (right). Black dots are National Geophysical Data Center stations. Green dots are historical Homestake (Spector) stations. Red dots are stations acquired for Dakota Gold in 2020 and 2021. Black Polygons are outlines of Dakota Gold's 2020 airborne geophysical survey and the primary gravity focus area. Blue polygons are County Lines.

**Figure 7-2: Gravity Survey Station Locations**

**7.3** **Induced Polarization Survey** 

From September 15 to October 2, 2022, KLM Geoscience LLC conducted IP and resistivity geophysical surveys across four lines for 8.1 miles (13.1 km) of survey lines at the Project (Figure 7-3). The survey was a dipole–dipole-type array with a 200 m dipole size using a 5 Kw transmitter and 16 channel IP receiver. The survey generated an IP response with parameters two seconds, time domain, 12 window, 150 ms, 55 ms delay after turn-off. Pseudo-sections were generated initially, then inverted to model true sections. Using the survey results, Dakota Gold was able to plan drill holes more accurately to intersect intended zones. KLM produced the Dakota Gold Richmond Hill DCIP Survey Logistical Report on October 2, 2022.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>65 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img003.jpg)

**Figure 7-3: Geophysical IP – Resistivity Survey Line Locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>66 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The IP survey identified possible breccias and iron formation as identified by the resistivity and chargeability response. Several drill holes tested the chargeability anomaly that was interpreted to be iron formation. The holes intersected Proterozoic Flagrock Formation magnetic and sulfide-bearing iron formation containing Tertiary gold-silver mineralization but no classic Homestake-style siderite iron formation mineralization. Resistivity highs corresponded to Proterozoic Ellison Formation quartzites and unaltered Proterozoic greenstones, and these were excluded from drill testing.

The QP responsible for this section of the Report believes that the IP survey aided Dakota Gold in mapping iron formation and other non-mineralized rock formations at depth and that a more detailed survey could be considered in areas lacking outcrop and needing additional subsurface information.

**7.4** **Geological Mapping** 

Small-scale geological mapping was conducted over the Project starting November 1, 2021, and continuing to the end of 2024. Dakota Gold geologists mapped an area of 3.3 square miles (8.6 km<sup>2</sup>) (Figure 7-4) to help guide drill-hole targeting, with the ultimate goal of integrating surface geology with drill-hole lithography to produce a three-dimensional (3D) geological model. Much of the work has consisted of field-checking St. Joe Minerals, Bond Gold, and LAC mapping and sample programs from the 1980s and 1990s. The recent mapping has yet to be compiled and is still in field note form. Dakota Gold has stated that the mapping confirms earlier work by others (James Berry, pers. Comm.) and that the map provided as Figure 7-4 is the most accurate as of the Report date.

The opinion of the QP for this section of the Report is that the map provided in Figure 7-4 is of sufficient detail to allow targeted drilling.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>67 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img004.jpg)

**Figure 7-4: Dakota Gold Geologic Field Work**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>68 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**7.5** **Drilling** 

**7.5.1** **Summary** 

Prior to Dakota Golds' tenure, the Property was drilled by at least 1,056 rotary, RC, and core holes testing multiple prospective areas within the claim boundary. Several of these holes are excluded from the final database due to missing collar coordinates, downhole surveys, or other reasons. From optioning the Property in 2021 to February 3, 2025, to the effective date of the current mineral resource estimate, Dakota Gold has drilled an additional 148 diamond drill holes representing 157,504 ft of core drilling.

The drilling database provided to IMC consisted of 1,058 drillholes and 457,392 ft of drilling. This was after IMC removed hole RH-87-125C that was a duplication of RH-86-125C. Table 7-1 shows drilling by company. Figure 7-5 shows the distribution of drill holes by the company.

**Table 7-1: Drilling by Company**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Final Database** | **Final Database** |
| <br>**Company** |<br>**Total Holes** | **No. of Holes** | **Feet** |
| Freeport | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| Legacy Drilling | 951 | 836 | 272608 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe / Bond Gold | 903 | 788 | 266928 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | 48 | 48 | 5680 |
| Coeur | 75 | 74 | 27280 |
| Pre-Dakota Gold Drilling | 1056 | 910 | 299888 |
| Dakota | 148 | 148 | 157504 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2022 | 13 | 13 | 27954 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2023 | 61 | 61 | 98610 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2024 | 74 | 74 | 30940 |
| **Total** | **1204** | **1058** | **457392** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>69 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img005.jpg)

**Figure 7-5: Richmond Hill Gold Project Drillholes by Company**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>70 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**7.5.2** **Freeport (1981 – 1983)** 

Freeport completed 30 conventional rotary drill holes. These holes were excluded from the final database as the collar locations are not known and contamination between samples was likely.

**7.5.3** **St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake (1984 – 1994)** 

St. Joe, Bond Gold (while independently operated), and Bond Gold (while owned by LAC), and Homestake completed multiple RC and core-drilling programs on various prospects across the Project area. Separate drill-hole numbering series were used for each prospect area and were sequentially carried on between program operators. There are no core or pulp samples available from these drilling programs. The April 2024 Technical Report states that 951 drill holes were completed, however only 874 drill holes were acceptable for geological and resource modeling as 77 were excluded due to incomplete collar and/or downhole surveys or large discrepancies between data sources. The database provided to IMC included 836 of these holes. Accounting for the 77 excluded holes and the duplicated hole, there were an additional 37 holes that were not in the database provided to IMC; IMC has no information on where these holes were located or why they were removed from the database.

Drill hole collar locations were surveyed at the time of drilling into the Richmond Hill mine grid, which is a property specific grid. The original surveyed collar and control point coordinates were obtained from scanned paper sheets with tabulated digital and handwritten survey coordinates under Scott Engineering Letterhead, or directly from drill log headers. The Scott Engineering survey tickets are typical of survey instrument printouts from that time period, although no instruments were specified in any of the historical documentation. Documentation comprising drill hole collar coordinate listings from later in the programs indicates that Geodimeter Surveying Software was being used to manage surveying data.

The Richmond Hill mine grid was originally established using a 1' x 1' true north grid with the US Locating Monument #41 assigned coordinates of X = 100,000 ft and Y = 100,000 ft. Key control points for this grid were relocated by Dakota Gold personnel and Ponderosa Land Surveys, re-surveyed in US State Plane Coordinates System, and a custom projection created for transferring between the Richmond Hill mine, US State Plane, UTM NAD 83, and Homestake mine coordinate systems (Ponderosa, 2024).

Drill hole dips were obtained directly from drill log headers and applied only to the drill hole collar as most drill holes were relatively short. No instruments were specified for any of the downhole surveys.

Drill logs comprise mostly handwritten sheets with a header section for hole details and a description section for from-to intervals and geological descriptions plus varying amounts of supporting information. A small number of drill logs from later holes comprise spreadsheets. Information from handwritten logs was transferred to standardized digital drill logs containing hole number, collar coordinates, azimuth, dip, dates started and completed, from-to depth intervals, sample numbers, gold values in oz/ton, silver values in ppm and codes for lithology, oxide or sulphide mineralization, and alteration.

**7.5.4** **Coeur (2019 – 2020)** 

Coeur (Wharf Division) completed two drilling campaigns comprising 75 RC holes (R19R-4674 to 4683 and R20R-4684 to -4747 & 4690A). There are no core or pulp samples available from these drilling programs. Only 74 of the Coeur drill holes are acceptable for geological and resource modeling as one hole was excluded due to a missing downhole survey.

The Coeur drilling was concentrated in the north of the deposit area in the Chism Flat, MW3 East, and Cole Creek areas.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>71 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Drill hole collar locations were surveyed at the time of drilling into the UTM NAD 83 coordinate system. These were then converted to Richmond Hill mine grid coordinate system by Dakota Gold using the procedures described by Ponderosa Land Surveys (Ponderosa, 2024).

Drill hole dips were obtained by surveys completed every 50 ft downhole starting at the collar and also at the end of each hole. A Surface Recording Gyro (SRG) instrument was used for the downhole surveys, but the actual instrument brand name was not specified. All data was exported to a spreadsheet provided by Coeur to Dakota Gold.

Drill logs comprise colored acQuire strip logs based on geological data stored in acQuire database software and exported to spreadsheets comprising hole numbers, collar coordinates, azimuths, dips, dates started and completed, from-to depth intervals, sample numbers, gold and silver values, ABA, alteration, lithology, mineralogy, oxidation, rock type, sulphide, and texture.

**7.5.5** **Dakota Gold (2022 – 2024)** 

7.5.5.1 2022 Drilling

J. Berry (2023b) assembled the drilling summaries for 2022 and 2023 drilling from Dakota Gold news releases and is presented in whole with minor edits for clarity.

Dakota Gold began core drilling with one drill rig on March 28, 2022. A second drill was added to the drilling project on November 9, 2022. The two drills have been working since then, except for June 15 to September 30, 2022, when only one drill was in use. Thirteen holes were completed in 2022, totaling 27,954.1 ft. The deepest hole was RH22C-001, which was drilled to 4,509 ft. The average hole depth was 2,150 ft.

The first two holes of the 2022 program tested the stratigraphy of the northern portion of the Project area, looking for Homestake Formation in the core of the Bald Mountain Anticline. Instead, only Ellison Formation was encountered below the Cambrian unconformity, indicating that the plunge of the Bald Mountain Anticline was steeper than expected.

Drill holes RH22C-003 through RH22C-007 were drilled in the Twin Tunnels area to test for high-grade gold mineralization in possible iron formation near the contact with a large greenstone unit. These holes did not encounter any Precambrian iron formation-hosting gold mineralization, but did encounter broad zones of Tertiary alteration in the greenstone and adjacent phyllites.

Drill holes RH22C-008 and RH22C-010 were drilled west of Twin Tunnels to test for replacement-style mineralization in the Paleozoic section and to test a geophysical target. Both holes yielded disappointing results. Drill holes RH22C-009 and RH22C-011 were drilled to test the area north of RH22C-005 at Twin Tunnels and had good results; RH22C-012 and RH22C-013 were drilled to confirm the high-grade mineralization encountered in historical hole TT-86-26. RH22C-013 confirmed the high-grade gold mineralization.

7.5.5.2 2023 Drilling

Sixty-one holes totaling 98,610 ft were completed at Richmond Hill during 2023. Hole depths varied from 429.5 to 6,046 ft. The average hole depth was 1,617 ft.

Drill holes RH23C-014 and RH23C-017 were drilled at Twin Tunnels. RH23C-015 and RH23C-016 were drilled to test for deeper mineralization below the MW3 Main zone. Both holes encountered gold mineralization in Precambrian phyllite and Tertiary iron formation-hosting breccias and fracture zones.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>72 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Drill holes RH23C-019, RH23C-021, RH23C-022, RH23C-023, RH23C-024, RH23C-025, RH23C-026, and RH23C-027 were drilled at the Turnaround breccia pipe. It was determined from these holes that the breccia zone was extensive and went to depth, although not all portions of the breccia were well mineralized.

Drill holes RH23C-028 through RH23C-056 were drilled as dual-purpose holes to confirm historical drilling results and obtain metallurgical test samples. The following holes were drilled at Turnaround: RH23C-028, RH23C-029, RH23C-031, RH23C-035, RH23C-046, and RH23C-047.

Drill holes RH23C-028 and RH23C-046 were drilled at the north end of the Turnaround breccia. Both holes encountered mineralization 800 ft below the surface. Both holes encountered gold mineralization.

Drill holes RH23C-029, RH23C-031, and RH23C-035 were drilled in the central portion of the Turnaround breccia. RH23C-031 and RH23C-035 encountered gold mineralization.

Drill hole RH23C-047 was drilled at the south end of the Turnaround breccia. This hole intersected gold mineralization in the breccia pipe and the adjacent Precambrian phyllite country rock.

Eight confirmation-metallurgical holes were drilled at the Twin Tunnels breccia area: RH23C-030, RH23C-032, RH23C-033, RH23C-034, RH23C-036, RH23C-039, RH23C-041, and RH23C-048. Most of the holes at Twin Tunnels breccia were drilled from the western portion of the breccia pipe over to the eastern side and fanned from north to south. RH23C-048 was drilled from the southeastern side of the breccia to the west. RH23C-030 was lost during drilling and was offset with RH23C-032.

Four holes were drilled at the Richmond Hill breccia and historical pit area: RH23C-044, RH23C 050, RH23C-054, and RH23C-056.

Drill hole RH23C-044 was 1,030 ft east of the Richmond Hill breccia pipe. It intersected gold mineralization in Deadwood Formation, Tertiary breccia, and Tertiary-altered Flagrock Formation.

Drill holes RH23C-050, RH23C-054, and RH23C-056 were drilled from the east side of the Richmond Hill mine historical pit and angled under the pit to confirm the mineralization that was left below the pit. Elevated gold grades were encountered.

Drill holes RH23C-040, RH23C-042, and RH23C-043 were all drilled at the Cole Creek area, targeting Tertiary gold mineralization within the Deadwood Formation. RH23C-040 also encountered Tertiary epithermal mineralization below the unconformity, hosted within Precambrian greenstone. All of the drill holes encountered gold mineralization.

The following holes were drilled at the MW3 Main prospective area: RH23C-049 and RH23C-051. RH23C-049 intersected gold mineralization. These intercepts were in Tertiary-mineralized Precambrian phyllites and iron formation. RH23C-051 intersected gold mineralization in oxidized, lower Deadwood Formation, in Tertiary trachyte, and also in Tertiary-mineralized Precambrian phyllite.

The following holes were drilled at the MW3 East prospective area: RH23C-052, RH23C-053, and RH23C 055. RH23C-052 intersected gold mineralization in oxidized Deadwood Formation and in Tertiary-mineralized Precambrian phyllite. RH23C-053 intersected gold mineralization in oxidized Deadwood Formation. RH23C-055 intersected gold mineralization in oxidized Deadwood Formation, and in Precambrian-hosted Tertiary breccia.

7.5.5.3 2024 Drilling

The 2024 drilling consisted of 74 holes and 30,940 ft of drilling. Three holes, RH24C-075, RH24C-076 and RH24C-077 were in the Cole Creek area of the deposit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>73 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Twelve holes, RH24C-078 to RH24C-082, RHC24C-086 to RH24C-088 and -088A, RH24C-099, RH24C-101 and RH24C-102 were in the Richmond Hill North area.

Two holes, RH24C-083 and RH24C-084 were in the Cleveland area and one hole, RH24C-085 was in the Twin Tunnels area. The Cole Creek, Richmond Hill North, Cleveland, and Twin Tunnels drilling were to fill in gaps in the drill coverage.

The remaining 56 holes, RH24C-089 to RH24C-098, RHC24-100, and RH24C-103 to RH24C-147 were in the Chism Gulch area and were for the purpose of adding near surface, oxide, mineral resource to the Project. This was a successful project, with most of the holes encountering mineralized material. Most of the mineralization was in the Deadwood Formation and the drilling also encountered higher silver grades than are common in most of the deposit.

7.5.5.4 Procedures

Drill holes were lined up to the proposed hole positions using a Reflex TN14 Gyrocompass, which recorded the surface azimuth and dip of the drill hole. Drill hole collar locations were surveyed by a licensed surveyor at the time of drilling into the Homestake mine coordinate system. These coordinates were converted to Richmond Hill mine grid coordinate system by Dakota Gold using the procedures described by Ponderosa Land Surveys (Ponderosa, 2024).

Drill hole dips were obtained by surveys completed every 50 ft downhole starting at the collar and also at the end of each hole. North-Seeking Gyro (NSG) instruments comprising Reflex TN14 and Sprint_IQ tools were used. All data was exported to a spreadsheet provided by Dakota Gold.

Drill logs comprise mostly handwritten sheets with a header section for hole details and a description section for from-to intervals and geological descriptions plus varying amounts of supporting information. Information from handwritten logs was transferred to spreadsheets containing hole number, collar coordinates, azimuths, dips, dates started and completed, from-to depth intervals, sample numbers, gold and silver values, lithology, mineralization, geotechnical, geophysics, density, and breccia.

**7.5.6** **Opinion** 

The QP responsible for Section 7.5 has reviewed the drilling results and found that they are correctly represented as compared to the drilling results presented on geochemical laboratory certificates. In addition, the following comments can be made regarding drilling results:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The procedures for the drilling programs followed
standard industry procedures available at the time that the work was completed.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There is no currently known relationship between
recoveries and grades that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results.

**7.6** **Hydrogeology and Geotechnical** 

Dakota Gold has not initiated either hydrogeology or advanced geotechnical characterization studies. Homestake is conducting ongoing hydrology and hydrogeology water quality testing related to Richmond Hill mine post-closure operations. The QP responsible for Section 7.6 was not provided with information related to methodologies or results of the sampling, but Dakota Gold would assume liability to continue with post-closure operations should they complete the Option. The extent to which these studies affect this Report is covered further in Chapter 17. However, the reader is cautioned that ongoing reclamation of the historical Richmond Hill mine represents a significant liability to the Project unless the mine site is included in new mining operations.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>74 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Dakota Gold has acquired no geotechnical data such as rock strength parameters, as the Project is still in the early stages of exploratory drilling. However, Dakota Gold is collecting recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) data as part of the drill-logging process. Drill core is assembled at the drill as it slides out of the core tube before being placed into core boxes. The driller's recovery measurements are double-checked during the core-logging process, along with measuring and calculating the RQD. The QP responsible for Section 7.6 observed core handling at the drills and core-logging facilities and confirmed that Dakota Gold and their drill contractor are following industry standard procedures.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>75 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **8** | **Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security** |

---

**8.1** **Drilling Programs** 

Table 8-1 summarizes the historical and current Project drilling programs in four chronological groups by which the sample preparation, analyses, and security procedures described in this chapter are organized.

**Table 8-1: Groups of Drilling Programs at Richmond Hill Gold Project**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Company** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Comment** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Viable Resources | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre 1981 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Assembled land package. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Freeport Exploration Company | &nbsp;&nbsp;1981–1983 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Joint venture (JV) and lease agreement with Viable Resources |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;JV with Viable. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conducted drilling program on Richmond Hill deposit breccia body. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1985–1986 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conducted drilling programs on Richmond Hill deposit and property. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;St. Joe | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987–1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill and Turnaround deposits permitted for mining. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acquired St. Joe gold division. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Bond Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp; Developed Richmond Hill as an open-cut heap leach operation.<br> Conducted drilling with discovery at Cleveland. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acquired Bond Gold and continued work through Bond. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1990–1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Conducted drilling programs on multiple prospects with positive results at MW3. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals | &nbsp;&nbsp;1993 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Final exploration activities at the site. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Homestake | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Chism Gulch Drilling |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Barrick Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;1994 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Acquired LAC Minerals. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coeur Mining Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2019–2020 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Optioned property from Barrick Gold and conducted drilling program. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Coeur Mining Inc. | &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Terminated property option. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dakota Territory Resources | &nbsp;&nbsp;2021 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dakota Territory Resources optioned Property. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dakota Gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;2022–2024 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dakota Gold formed from merger of Dakota Territory and JR Resources. |

---

**8.2** **Procedures for Historical Drilling Programs from 1981 to 1994** 

**8.2.1** **Freeport (1981-1983)** 

Freeport completed 30 conventional rotary drill holes and submitted samples of varying lengths to an unknown laboratory for gold and silver analyses. As there are no supporting laboratory certificates, these samples were excluded from the database for the Project.

**8.2.2** **St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake (1984-1994)** 

8.2.2.1 Drilling Program

St. Joe, Bond Gold (while independently operated), Bond Gold (while owned by LAC), and Homestake completed multiple RC and core-drilling programs on various prospective areas across the Project area. Separate drill-hole numbering series were used for each prospect area and were sequentially carried on between program operators. There are no core or pulp samples available from these drilling programs. In all, 951 drill holes were completed for which information is available. The number of these holes in the final database is 836.

8.2.2.2 Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security

The first four core holes drilled in 1984 at Richmond Hill were shipped in their entirety to a metallurgical laboratory in Viburnum, Missouri, for testwork. The core was crushed to 0.75 inches, split to obtain representative samples, prepared, then analyzed. Core from later holes was cut lengthwise, one-half was kept for reference at St. Joe's field office, and the other half sampled in 5 ft intervals, and shipped for preparation and analyses.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>76 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Dry RC drilling chips were sampled in 5 ft intervals and split on site under supervision of company geologists to create two samples of equal weight. One of these samples was shipped for preparation and analyses, and the other sample stored for reference at the company's field office. When water was encountered, it was used during drilling, which necessitated using a wet splitter to split samples down to a manageable size. Samples were then dried and split into two samples, and one was sent for preparation and analysis.

Most of the samples were shipped to Bondar-Clegg laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado, and assayed there or at the Bondar-Clegg laboratory in North Vancouver, B.C. The security procedures used for the shipments are not known. Bondar-Clegg was independent of St. Joe and Bond Gold, and was acquired by ALS Limited in 2002. It is not known if Bondar-Clegg had any accreditations at the time the analytical work was completed between 1984 and 1993. A small number of samples were sent to Nevada GSI laboratory in Sparks, Nevada. The history of this laboratory is not known with regards to independence and accreditations.

Sample preparation procedures followed a standard industry process of taking submitted samples through successive stages of reducing particle sizes and weights to obtain representative subsamples for assaying. Procedures comprised drying, crushing (jaw or rolls), splitting (riffle), pulverizing (spindle, plate, bowl), splitting (scoops), and analyses. Based on IMC file data, the standard Bondar-Clegg sample preparation consisted of drying the sample, crushing to ¾ inch with a jaw crusher and crush to 75% passing -10 mesh with a cone crusher. A 250 g split was pulverized for analysis. No details are available regarding sample preparation procedures used by Nevada GSI.

Gold assays were conducted by Bondar-Clegg and Nevada GSI using 1-assay-ton samples; fusing using a standard lead collector fire assay; cupelling of the lead button to obtain a gold–silver bead; removing silver by a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids; weighing of the final gold-only bead by a gravimetric balance; and reporting results in ounces per ton, with lower detection limits (LDL) of 0.001, 0.002. or 0.0025. There were no over-limit analyses for gold.

Silver analyses conducted by Bondar-Clegg and Nevada GSI were determined using 10-gram samples, dissolving samples with a mixture of hot nitric and hydrochloric acids (aqua regia), instrument reading using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), and reporting of results in parts per million with LDLs of 0.1 or 0.2 ppm. Samples with results over 30 ppm Ag were re-assayed, and results were reported in ounces per ton for Bondar-Clegg or parts per million for Nevada GSI.

Most of the assay certificates are available and were used to check against the existing database.

There is no information available for Homestake sampling or analytical procedures. However, the area drilled by Homestake was also extensively drilled by Dakota Gold during their 2024 campaign.

8.2.2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures

Current industry standard QA/QC programs were not part of any of the drilling completed by St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Homestake from 1984 to 1994, which is not unusual for that era of exploration work.

However, St. Joe and Bond Gold did employ three types of check assays with their drilling programs: first on 10% of the original samples using the same pulps at Bondar-Clegg; second were third splits the company took every 50 ft of drilling in the field and submitted to Bondar-Clegg; third were random checks done at Skyline Labs (Skyline), Tucson, Arizona (St. Joe, 1986). In addition, the first 20 holes included splits taken by the company and submitted to Bondar-Clegg and Cone Geochemical Lab in Denver, Colorado (Cone).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>77 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Skyline was independent of St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Lac Minerals. It is not known if Skyline had any accreditations at the time the analytical work was completed; however, it is currently accredited under ISO 17025:2017. Cone was a highly regarded testing facility and was independent of St. Joe, Bond Gold, and Lac Minerals. It is not known if there were any applicable accreditations.

Pulp samples submitted to Skyline and Cone for checking gold assays used the following procedure: 1-assay-ton samples; fusing using a standard lead collector fire assay; cupelling of the lead button to obtain a gold–silver bead; removing silver by a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids; instrument reading using an AAS; and reporting of results in parts per million.

A check was conducted by IMC by pairing up 10 ft composites from the St. Joe/Bond Gold, and Homestake drilling with the Dakota Gold drilling. At a maximum separation distance of 30 ft there were 484 composite pairs. The mean gold grade of the St. Joe/Bond Gold/Homestake data was 0.025 oz/t versus 0.021 oz/t for the Dakota Gold drilling. Examining a binomial statistic, the St. Joe/Bond/Homestake drilling was higher than the Dakota Gold drilling for 251 of the composite pairs and the Dakota Gold composite was higher for 233 of the pairs. This difference of 19 pairs passes a hypothesis test at the 95% level of confidence; the critical value for the statistic is 44 pairs. This indicates the two populations are similar with no evident biases.

**8.3** **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2019 to 2020** 

**8.3.1** **Drilling Programs** 

Coeur (Wharf Division) completed two drilling campaigns comprising 75 RC holes (R19R-4674 to 4683 and R20R-4684 to -4747). Seventy-four of the holes are included in the final database for the Project; one was excluded due to missing downhole survey information. There are no core or pulp samples available from these drilling programs. The Coeur drilling was concentrated in the north of the deposit area in the Chism Flat, MW3 East, and Cole Creek areas.

**8.3.2** **Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security** 

RC drilling chips were sampled in 10 ft intervals, and a total of 2,721 samples were collected. Samples were initially shipped to Bureau Veritas Metals and Minerals in Vancouver; later the shipping was switched to Sparks, Nevada. The security procedures used for the shipments are not known. Bureau Veritas is independent of Coeur and Dakota Gold and is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025:2017.

Sample preparation procedures followed a standard industry process of taking submitted samples through successive stages of reducing particle sizes and weights to obtain representative subsamples for assaying. Procedures comprised drying if required, crushing to 70% passing (P<sub>70</sub>) 2 mm (jaw), splitting of 1 kg (riffle), pulverizing to P<sub>85</sub> 200 mesh (bowl), splitting 30 g (scoops), and analysis.

Gold assays (code FA430) were conducted using 30 g samples; fusing using a standard lead collector fire assay; cupelling of the lead button to obtain a gold-silver bead; removing silver by a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids; instrument reading using an AAS; and reporting results in ounces per ton with an LDL of 0.0001. There were no over-limit analyses for gold.

Silver analyses (code AQ300) were determined as part of a multielement suite using 0.5 g samples; dissolving samples with a mixture of hot nitric and hydrochloric acids (aqua regia); instrument reading using an inductively couple plasma–emission spectroscopy (ICP–ES); and reporting results in ounces per ton with an LDL of 0.009. Samples with results over 30 ppm Ag were re-assayed, and results were reported in ounces per ton.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>78 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Gold and silver analyses (code CN401) were also conducted by cyanide leach using 15 g samples; dissolving samples with 30 ml of reagent; instrument reading using an AAS; and reporting results in ounces per ton with an LDL of 0.001. As of the Report date, the Coeur gold and silver cyanide soluble assays are not in the official database.

**8.3.3** **Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures** 

Current industry standard QA/QC programs were not part of the drilling completed by Coeur from 2019 to 2020.

Approximately 10% of samples were sent for checking to McClelland Laboratories, Inc., in Reno, Nevada. McClelland is independent of Coeur and is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025:2017. Pulp samples submitted to McClelland for checking gold assays used the following procedure: 1-assay-ton samples; fusing using a standard lead collector fire assay; cupelling of the lead button to obtain a gold–silver bead; removing silver by a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids; instrument reading using an AAS; and reporting results in ounces per ton with an LDL of 0.001. There were no over-limit analyses for gold.

There is not much spatial overlap between the Coeur drilling and the other drilling campaigns. A check was conducted by pairing up 10 ft composites from the St. Joe/Bond Gold drilling with the Coeur drilling. At a separation distance of 30 ft there were only 58 composite pairs. The mean gold grade of the Coeur drilling is 0.012 oz/t versus 0.008 oz/t for the St. Joe/Bond Gold data. Examining a binomial statistic, the St. Joe/Bond drilling is higher than the Coeur drilling for 21 of the composite pairs and the Dakota Gold composite is higher for 33 of the pairs, and they are the same value for 4 pairs. This difference of 12 pairs passes a hypothesis test at the 95% level of confidence; the critical value for the statistic is 16 pairs.

Comparing the Coeur drilling with the Dakota Gold drilling resulted in 27 composite pairs at a 30 ft separation distance. The mean gold grade of the Coeur drilling was 0.005 oz/t versus 0.009 oz/t for the Dakota Gold drilling. The Coeur composite is higher for 10 of the pairs and the Dakota Gold composite is higher for 17 of the pairs. This difference of 7 pairs passes a hypothesis test at the 95% level of confidence; the critical value for the statistic is 11 pairs.

Though the available data is sparse, the Coeur is comparable with the other drilling campaigns. There is no evidence of a bias between the various drilling programs.

**8.4** **Procedures for Drilling Programs from 2022 to 2024** 

**8.4.1** **Drilling Programs** 

Dakota Gold completed three drilling campaigns comprising 148 core holes: RH22C-001 to -0013, RH23C014 to -058, and RH23C-059 to RH24C-147 (including RH24C-088 and RH24C-088A). There were four additional holes drilled in 2024, but they were not available in time to be included in this mineral resource update.

**8.4.2** **Sampling, Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security** 

Core was cut in half lengthwise along one side of the logging orientation line, and halves were stacked vertically for adequate drainage prior to sampling. Sample lengths varied based on geological criteria and averaged roughly 5 ft. One-half of the core from each sample interval was kept for reference, and the other half was placed in a smaller prenumbered polyweave sample bag. Multiple smaller bags were placed together in larger polyweave sample bags that were sealed using numbered ziplock tags, and the larger polyweave bags were placed into numbered shipping bins. Each bin was accompanied by a sample shipment form and sent for preparation and analysis. Initially a secure company truck shipped samples to ALS in Twin Falls, Idaho; later tracked shipments used FedEx secure transportation to ALS in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>79 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

ALS is independent of Dakota Gold and is accredited under ISO/IEC 17025:2017 for selected analytical techniques. Sample preparation procedures followed a standard industry process of taking submitted samples through successive stages of reducing particle sizes and weights to obtain representative subsamples for assaying. Procedures comprised drying, crushing to P<sub>70</sub> -2 mm (jaw), splitting of 250 g (riffle), pulverizing to P<sub>85</sub> -75 μm (bowl), splitting (scoops), and analyses.

Gold assays (code Au-AA23) were conducted using 30 g samples; fusing using a standard lead collector fire assay; cupelling of the lead button to obtain a gold-silver bead; digesting the gold-silver bead with a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids and preparing for analysis using an AAS; and reporting results in parts per million with an LDL of 0.005. There were no over-limit analyses for gold.

Silver analyses (code ME-MS61) were determined as part of a multielement suite using 1 g samples; dissolving samples with a four-acid digestion; instrument reading using an inductively coupled plasma-emission spectroscopy (ICP-ES), and reporting results in ppm with a LDL of 0.01 ppm. Samples with results greater than 100 ppm were reanalyzed, and results were reported in parts per million with an LDL of 1 ppm (Ag-OG62).

Gold analyses (code Au-AA13) were also conducted by cyanide leach using 30 g samples; dissolving samples with 30 ml of reagent; instrument reading using an AAS; and reporting results in parts per million with an LDL of 0.03.

**8.4.3** **Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures** 

8.4.3.1 Sample Preparation

Dakota inserted certified reference materials (CRM), blanks (BLK), and duplicates (DUP) into the batches of samples to be submitted for analyses using the following procedures.

CRMs were purchased commercially in bulk from Klen International Pty Ltd, and from Rocklabs (a division of Scott Automation). Twenty-three separate CRMs were used, with grades ranging from 0.453 to 14.6 ppm, and those up to 2.715 ppm were most commonly used. CRMs were chosen based on the character of mineralization (oxide or sulfide) and lithology. Approximately 200 g were manually transferred to tin-top-sealed kraft bags, then placed in plastic ziplock bags for protection.

Most of the BLKs comprised locally obtained coarsely crushed marble at a nominal value of 0.005 ppm Au. Approximately 1 to 2 kg was manually transferred to polyweave sample bags similar to those used for routine core samples. About 4% of the BLKs were a locally sourced rhyolite.

DUPs comprised field material, crushed material, and pulverized material. Sample duplicates (SDP) were obtained from quarter-core splits of the parent core sample; crushed duplicates (CDP) from a 50% split of the crushed parent sample; and pulp duplicates (PDP) from a 50% split of the pulverized parent sample.

CRMs and BLKs were inserted after roughly every 11<sup>th</sup> routine sample, alternating between the two, although this sometimes varied depending on mineralization. A sequence of DUPs comprising one SDP, one CDP, and one PDP, was inserted after roughly every 36<sup>th</sup> routine sample.

The same consecutive numbering sequence was used for the core and quality control (QC) samples. CRMs and BLKs were inserted at an overall rate of approximately 5% for each sample type; SDPs, CDPs, and PDPs were inserted at roughly 3% for each sample type.

The QA/QC data based reviewed by IMC consisted of 1,828 CRMs, 1071 BLKs, 129 SDPs, 127 CDPs, and 127 PDPs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>80 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

8.4.3.2 Blanks

The QA/QC database included 1701 BLKs. This amounts to about 5.3% of the Dakota Gold sample intervals. Most of the gold assays were at, or near, the detection limit of 0.005 ppm. Only nine of the samples were greater than or equal to 0.02 ppm (0.0006 oz/t). The highest gold assay was 0.064 ppm (0.0018 oz/t). These are excellent results, indicating minimal contamination from higher grade samples during sample preparation.

The results for silver were also good. Only five of the samples were greater than or equal to 0.5 ppm (0.015 oz/t) and the highest assay was 1.07 ppm (0.031 oz/t). In particular, the rhyolite material used for a blank appears to have silver above detection limits.

8.4.3.3 Certified Reference Materials (Standards)

The QA/QC database included 1828 CRM samples. This amounts to about 5.7% of the Dakota Gold sample intervals. The top 6 most utilized CRMs amounted to 70% of the data.

Figure 8-1 shows the control chart for gold for OXE182. The certified mean and standard deviation gold values are 0.663 ppm and 0.012 ppm respectively. The control line for the mean (red), <u>+</u>2 standard deviations (green), and <u>+</u>3 standard deviations (magenta) are shown on the chart.

There are 301 samples for this CRM of which 28 (9.3%) are outside the 2 standard deviation limits and 10 (3.3%) are outside of the 3 standard deviation limits.

Dakota Gold used CRM tolerance limits of <u>+</u>2 standard deviations and <u>+</u>8% of the certificate mean value to assess laboratory performance. Only the two low values on the right side of the chart are outside the <u>+</u>8% control limits.

Figure 8-2 shows the control chart for gold for OXD183. The certified mean and standard deviation gold values are 0.453 ppm and 0.008 ppm respectively. There are 276 samples for this CRM of which 30 (10.8%) are outside the 2 standard deviation limits and 8 (2.9%) are outside of the 3 standard deviation limits. Only 1 of the samples is outside the <u>+</u>8% of the certified mean value.

Figure 8-3 shows the control chart for gold for SJ121. The certified mean and standard deviation gold values are 2.715 ppm and 0.062 ppm respectively. There are 253 samples for this CRM of which 12 (4.7%) are outside the 2 standard deviation limits and 6 (2.4%) are outside of the 3 standard deviation limits. Four of the 6 samples are less than 2 ppm and are not shown on the chart. The assay values were 1.01, 0.995, 0.448, and 0.0025 ppm. It seems that these may have been labeled incorrectly for insertion into the assay stream. The 0.448 ppm gold assay is likely OXD183; the silver assay is also consistent with that CRM. The 0.995 ppm sample is likely SG115; the silver assay is consistent with that. The 0.0025 ppm sample is probably BLK. The 1.01 ppm assay is also consistent with CRM SG115, but there was not a silver assay for that sample. Only 1 of the samples shown on the chart is outside the <u>+</u>8% of the certified mean value limit.

Figure 8-4 shows the control chart for gold for SG115. The certified mean and standard deviation gold values are 1.017 ppm and 0.015 ppm respectively. There are 213 samples for this CRM of which 50 (23.4%) are outside the 2 standard deviation limits and 32 (15.0%) are outside of the 3 standard deviation limits. This is a large number of samples outside of the control limits. It seems possible that the certified standard deviation of 0.015 ppm is lower than the actual value. Thirteen samples are outside the <u>+</u>8% of the certified mean value limit.

Figure 8-5 shows the control chart for gold for Si96. The certified mean and standard deviation gold values are 1.801 ppm and 0.031 ppm respectively. There are 137 samples for this CRM of which 13 (9.5%) are outside the 2 standard deviation limits and 6 (4.4%) are outside of the 3 standard deviation limits. There is one sample of 1.075 ppm gold that is not shown on the chart. There is a good chance that this was a mis-labeled sample. It did not have a silver assay to assist in correlating it with a different standard. Two of the samples on the chart are outside the <u>+</u>8% of the certified mean value limit.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>81 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The results of the assays for CRMs are good. The number of samples outside of the <u>+</u>3 standard deviation control limits are typical for gold assays on CRMs. Also, there are relatively few samples outside of the <u>+</u>8% of the mean control limits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>82 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img006.jpg)

**Figure 8-1: Control Chart for CRM OXE182 Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>83 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img007.jpg)

**Figure 8-2: Control Chart for CRM OXD183 Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>84 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img008.jpg)

**Figure 8-3: Control Chart for CRM SJ121 Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>85 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img009.jpg)

**Figure 8-4: Control Chart for CRM SG115 Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>86 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img010.jpg)

**Figure 8-5: Control Chart for CRM Si96 Gold Assays**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>87 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

8.4.3.4 Check Assays

As discussed in Section 8.4.3.1, Dakota Gold conducted three types of duplicate samples for their drilling program:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Pulp duplicate: a check assay using the same
pulp as the original sample.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Crusher duplicate: an additional pulp is developed
from the course crushed material.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Sample duplicate: a quarter of the original drill
core is submitted as a check sample.

Figure 8-6 presents results for the pulp duplicates versus the original assays. The top graph is an xy plot of the data. All the samples cluster relatively closely to the 1:1 line plotted on the graph. They are also relatively evenly distributed above and below the line indicating there is no apparent bias in the results.

The middle graph is a %HRD (Half Relative Deviation) plot of the data. Each point of the x-axis is the average of the original and pulp duplicate for each sample pair. The y-axis represents half of the difference in the assay pairs as a percentage of the mean value of the pair. It is a positive value when the check assay is higher than the original assay. For %HRD plots there are typically high relative errors at low values, particularly near detection limits. The table at the bottom shows that for all data there are 127 sample pairs with a mean gold grade of 0.443 ppm for the original assay and 0.441 ppm for the check assay. The average %HRD value for the sample pairs in 0.26% and is an estimate of bias. There is negligible bias between the original samples and the pulp checks. The table at the bottom shows results for assay pairs greater than 0.1 ppm to filter the lowest sample pairs. It also shows results for assay pairs above and below 0.5 ppm.

%HARD (Half Absolute Relative Deviation) is derived from taking the absolute value of the %HRD values and averaging them. This is a measure of assay precision. For all data this is interpreted that any one assay is estimated to be +5.56% of the true value. Precision is better (lower %HARD value) for assays above 0.1 and 0.5 ppm.

These are good results, showing it is relatively easy to replicate assays. This implies relatively fine-grained gold particles that are relatively easy to sample.

Figure 8-7 presents results for the crusher duplicate versus the original assays. The xy plot shows good results with the assays clustered relatively closely to the 1:1 line and relatively evenly distributed above and below the line.

The %HRD graph and the table show that for the 127 sample pairs the %HRD (bias) is 0.35% and the %HARD (precision) is 5.04%, i.e. any one assay can be expected to be within 5% of the true value. This is a slightly better precision (lower number) than the estimate for the pulp data. Normally it would be expected that the pulp check assays would have better precision than the crusher checks. However, the difference is the results is not material.

Figure 8-8 presents results for the sample duplicate versus the original assays. The xy plot results are good, though there is more scatter in the data. This is expected since the duplicate sample is based on a quarter split of the original core. The %HARD estimate for all data is 9.77% meaning any one assay can be expected to be within 9.77% of the true value.

This is a very good result for a sample duplicate, especially in the case where the duplicate was a quarter core instead of the half core sample the original sample was based on. The reduction in the sample size is expected to add variability to the assay result.

**8.5** **Summary** 

The QP for this section is of the opinion that the procedures for sampling, sample shipping, sample preparation, and for analyzing gold and silver for the 1984 to 2020 drilling programs followed acceptable standard analytical laboratory procedures available at the time the work was completed. Although current industry standard QA/QC monitoring programs were not part of these drilling programs, the historical drilling data are acceptable for geological and resource modeling. A comparison of the St. Joe/Bond Gold data with Dakota Gold data for 10 ft composites within 30 ft of each other indicates the St. Joe/Bond Gold drilling data are sufficiently similar to current Dakota Gold drilling data. There is not much overlap between the Coeur drilling and the other drilling campaigns, but comparisons of composite pairs that are relatively close indicate the Coeur drilling data is similar to the St. Joe/Bond Gold data and also the Dakota Gold data.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>88 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The QP Is of the opinion that for the 2022 to 2024 Dakota Gold drilling programs, the procedures used for sampling, sample shipping, sample security, sample preparation, analyzing gold and silver, and QA/QC monitoring are appropriate for obtaining reliable data that is acceptable for geological and resource modeling.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>89 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img011.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img012.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img013.jpg)

**Figure 8-6: Original Gold Assay versus Pulp Duplicate**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>90 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img014.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img015.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img016.jpg)

**Figure 8-7: Original Gold Assay versus Crusher Duplicate**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>91 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img017.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img018.jpg)

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp05img019.jpg)

**Figure 8-8: Original Gold Assay versus Sample Duplicate**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>92 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **9** | **Data Verification** |

---

**9.1** **Drillhole Sampling Data** 

The sampling data was verified by comparing the database entries with assay certificates or other available data listings for a representative portion of the data. The drilling data can be separated into three groups:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Dakota Gold drilling from 2022 to the present.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Coeur drilling from 2019 to 2020.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· St. Joe, Bond Gold, LAC, and Homestake drilling
1984 to 1994.

**9.1.1** **Dakota Gold Drilling** 

The Dakota Gold holes in the database were compared with assay certificates for 19 holes, as shown in the upper portion of Table 9-1. This represents about 13% of the Dakota Gold holes. Certificates were available for all the requested holes. There were no errors for gold or silver assays versus the certificates for the holes reviewed.

**9.1.2** **Coeur Drilling** 

The Coeur holes in the database were compared with assay certificates for six holes, as shown in the lower portion of Table 9-1. This represents about 8% of the 74 Coeur holes. Certificates were available for all the requested holes. There were no errors for gold or silver assays versus the certificates for the holes reviewed. The Coeur drilling was reverse circulation (RC) drilling and the sample length was 10 ft, so there tends to be fewer samples per hole than the Dakota Gold and St. Joe/Bond Gold drilling.

**9.1.3** **St. Joe/Bond Gold, LAC and Homestake Drilling** 

Assay certificates were requested for 57 of the holes. This represents about 7% of the 836 legacy holes drilled between 1984 to 1994. Table 9-2 summarizes the results of the comparisons for gold. The following is noted:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Complete assay certificates were available for
35 of the holes. Most of the assays were done by Bondar-Clegg, though two of the holes were assayed by Nevada GSI, Inc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There were 16 holes without certificates, but
did have data printouts that showed the database as of 1990. These show that there has been no tampering with the database since the time
of the printouts. Some of these holes were assayed at an internal Bond Gold laboratory on the Property.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There were four holes, CV-90-43, RH-86-92, RCM-19,
and RCM-5 with no available certificate data.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· There were two holes, RH-85-52 and TT-90-51 with
only partial certificate data available.

There were three large errors in the data that were due to missing decimal points in the data entry. These were corrected. Other than these, there were no other assays in the data that were over 1 oz/t gold. There were also nine smaller discrepancies encountered. These are mostly due to re-assays inserted into the database to replace original values. For RH-84-3 there are certificates for check assays performed by Cone Geochemical and some Bondar-Clegg repeat assays.

Table 9-3 summarizes the results for silver. The April 2024 Technical Report did not include mineral resources for silver and it is assumed the silver database has not been previously verified. The silver assays generally compared well with the assay certificates, or the 1990 printouts for holes without certificates. However, there were also some significant (order of magnitude errors). The most significant errors, in holes CC-87-55 and CV-90-39, were due to missing decimal places in the data entry and resulted in erroneous values exceeding 1,000 ppm.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>93 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

As a result of the errors encountered, all the remaining assays in the St. Joe/Bond Gold data greater than 1,000 ppm were verified with certificates. This was six additional assays, of which five were incorrect. There is only one legitimate silver assay above 1,000 ppm in the data, an assay of 1,139 ppm in hole MW3-90-152.

Silver assays were not done for about eight of the holes that were reviewed.

**9.1.4** **Other Reviews** 

As discussed in Section 8.2.2.3 and 8.3.3, 10 ft drillhole composites from the various drilling campaigns were compared at separation distances up to a maximum of 30 ft. The comparisons indicated a good comparison of Dakota Gold drilling data with St. Joe/Bond Gold data. Comparison of Coeur drilling with Dakota Gold and St. Joe/Bond Gold drilling also indicated reasonable results, though there is not a lot of spatial overlap of the Coeur drilling with the other campaigns. The drilling data was reviewed in detail on cross sections.

Drillhole collars were also checked against topography. With the significant topographic relief at the Richmond Hill site, mis-located drill holes should stand out on the sections. No significant issues were noted.

It is the opinion of the QP for this section that the Richmond Hill assay database is adequate for the estimation of mineral resources and mineral reserves.

**Table 9-1: Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Dakota and Coeur Drilling**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Sample Number Range** | **Sample Number Range** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Comments** |
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Begin** | **End** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Major** | **Minor** | **Comments** |
| **Dakota Drilling:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| RH22C-004 | 578 | E591334 | E591970 | ALS | Y |  |  | No errors for Dakota gold or silver assays versus certificates for any of the holes reviewed. |
| RH22C-005 | 590 | E585001 | E585648 | ALS | Y |  |  | No errors for Dakota gold or silver assays versus certificates for any of the holes reviewed. |
| RH22C-006 | 787 | E585650 | E586525 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-014 | 483 | H590118 | H590705 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-016 | 227 | C818002 | C818267 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-017 | 348 | H590706 | H591118 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-021 | 498 | C818270 | H591541 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-031 | 415 | C822295 | K050254 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-034 | 409 | K052001 | K052455 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-039 | 378 | K055651 | K056070 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH23C-063 | 278 | K053680 | H780398 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-083 | 93 | H765147 | H765255 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-091 | 33 | H788549 | H788584 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-101 | 86 | H788851 | H788947 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-105 | 78 | H766145 | H766229 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-114 | 35 | H789527 | H789565 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-123 | 41 | H774671 | H774715 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-132 | 68 | K591049 | K591123 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| RH24C-141 | 63 | K591266 | K591335 | ALS | Y |  |  |  |
| **Coeur Drilling:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| R19R-4678 | 42 | 24956 | 25004 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  | No errors for Coeur gold or silver assays versus certificates for any of the holes reviewed. |
| R20R-4690 | 72 | 25581 | 25666 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  | No errors for Coeur gold or silver assays versus certificates for any of the holes reviewed. |
| R20R-4702 | 72 | 26269 | 26354 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  |  |
| R20R-4729 | 42 | 27287 | 27335 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  |  |
| R20R-4743 | 70 | 27759 | 27839 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  |  |
| R20R-4745 | 60 | 27914 | 27982 | Bureau Veritas | Y |  |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>94 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 9-2: Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Legacy Drilling – Gold**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Sample Number Range** | **Sample Number Range** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Comments** |
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Begin** | **End** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Major** | **Minor** | **Comments** |
| **Legacy Drilling:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| BZ-92-21 | 200 | 306901 | 307100 |  | No, Note 1. | 1 |  | Sample 306964, 0.004 opt entered as 4 opt. |
| CC-86-11 | 60 | 30081 | 30140 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CC-86-16 | 76 | 30491 | 30566 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CC-87-55 | 76 | 59601 | 59676 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CCH-89-8 | 104 | 76661 | 76764 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CP-86-2 | 83 | 40101 | 40183 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-88-4 | 88 | 62171 | 62258 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-89-19 | 89 | 74571 | 74659 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-89-23 | 100 | 78491 | 75080 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-90-39 | 69 | 78351 | 78419 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-90-43 | 81 | 86201 | 86281 | No Data | No |  |  | No certificate data provided |
| DB-91-6 | 59 | 302851 | 302909 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| EB-91-4 | 68 | 306421 | 306488 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| HE-91-2 | 131 | 303881 | 304011 |  | No, Note 1. | 1 |  | Sample 303984, 0.002 opt entered as 2 opt. |
| HI-88-2 | 139 | 66351 | 66489 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| HW-86-4 | 100 | 45731 | 45830 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| LP-86-10 | 70 | 41501 | 41570 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-88-6 | 90 | 61091 | 61180 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-17 | 51 | 77891 | 77941 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-33 | 74 | 80181 | 80254 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-45 | 65 | 87321 | 87385 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-115 | 79 | 98331 | 98409 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-135 | 55 | 99461 | 99515 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-136 | 70 | 99521 | 99590 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-151 | 30 | 92271 | 92300 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-152 | 34 | 92311 | 92344 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-155 | 51 | 92431 | 92481 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-22 | 56 | 79781 | 79836 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-52 | 75 | 80671 | 80745 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-93 | 129 | 91561 | 91689 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y |  |  | No certificate data for first 13 samples. |
| PG-88-1 | 112 | 62341 | 62452 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| PG-91-13 | 91 | 305001 | 305091 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| RCM-19 | 18 | 2473 | 2490 |  | No |  |  | Only data provided was Excel spreadsheet. |
| RCM-5 | 30 | 2150 | 2179 |  | No |  |  | Only data provided was Excel spreadsheet. |
| RH-84-3 | 70 | 20541 | 20610 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  | 6 | Some Cone check assays and BC repeats included. |
| RH-84-16 | 70 | 22741 | 22810 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-84-18 | 70 | 23031 | 23100 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  | 3 | Sample 23035, 0.222 opt on certificate, 0.201 opt in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 23058, 0.047 opt on certificate, 0.036 opt in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 23072, 0.055 opt on certificate, 0.064 opt in database. |
| RH-85-52 | 109 | 26701 | 51759 | Bondar-Clegg | Partial |  |  | No errors, but also no certificate data for bottom half of hole. |
| RH-85-66 | 60 | 28631 | 28690 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-86-75C | 74 | N.A. | N.A. |  | No, Note 1. | 1 |  | From 44 to 49 ft, 0.008 opt entered as 8 opt. |
| RH-86-92 | 68 | 42811 | 42878 | No Data | No |  |  | No certificate data provided |
| RH-86-102 | 70 | 43091 | 43160 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-86-108 | 100 | 41221 | 49826 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| RH-86-123C | 372 | 54201 | 55572 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-87-128C | 197 | 55791 | 55988 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-91-168 | 87 | 303541 | 303627 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| RHN-90-7 | 121 | 85591 | 85711 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y |  |  |  |
| RP-85-2 | 68 | 33581 | 33648 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-85-2 | 80 | 35221 | 35399 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-86-21 | 88 | 39031 | 39118 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-86-26 | 52 | 41291 | 41342 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-85-11 | 60 | 35051 | 35110 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-85-2 | 70 | 28441 | 28510 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-86-24 | 64 | 51511 | 51574 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-90-47 | 100 | 77121 | 77220 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-90-51 | 95 | 30101 | 30195 | Bondar-Clegg | Partial |  |  | Certificate only available for 44 of the samples. |
| WD-87-16 | 96 | 58401 | 58496 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>95 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 9-3: Comparison of Assay Certificates with Database for Legacy Drilling – Silver**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Sample Number Range** | **Sample Number Range** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Assay Discrepancies** | **Comments** |
| **Hole Id** | **No. of**<br> **Samples** | **Begin** | **End** | **Assay Lab** | **Certificate?** | **Major** | **Minor** | **Comments** |
| **Legacy Drilling:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| BZ-92-21 | 200 | 306901 | 307100 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| CC-86-11 | 60 | 30081 | 30140 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CC-86-16 | 76 | 30491 | 30566 | Bondar-Clegg | Y | 1 |  | Sample 30557, 6.2 ppm on certificate, 27.77 ppm in database. |
| CC-87-55 | 76 | 59601 | 59676 | Bondar-Clegg | Y | 2 |  | Sample 59646, 3.1 ppm on certificate, 3120 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 59665, 2.0 ppm on certificate, 19.89 ppm in database. |
| CCH-89-8 | 104 | 76661 | 76764 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CP-86-2 | 83 | 40101 | 40183 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-88-4 | 88 | 62171 | 62258 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-89-19 | 89 | 74571 | 74659 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-89-23 | 100 | 78491 | 75080 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| CV-90-39 | 69 | 78351 | 78419 | Bondar-Clegg | Y | 2 |  | Sample 78365, 2.8 ppm on certificate, 2811 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 78404, 1.8 ppm on certificate, 18.18 ppm in database. |
| CV-90-43 | 81 | 86201 | 86281 | No Data | No |  |  | No certificate data provided |
| DB-91-6 | 59 | 302851 | 302909 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| EB-91-4 | 68 | 306421 | 306488 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| HE-91-2 | 131 | 303881 | 304011 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| HI-88-2 | 139 | 66351 | 66489 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| HW-86-4 | 100 | 45731 | 45830 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| LP-86-10 | 70 | 41501 | 41570 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-88-6 | 90 | 61091 | 61180 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  | No certificate data for first 9 samples. |
| MW3-90-17 | 51 | 77891 | 77941 | Bondar-Clegg | Y | 1 |  | Database has 50 ppm (upper limit), 3.53 opt re-assay (121 ppm). |
| MW3-90-33 | 74 | 80181 | 80254 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-45 | 65 | 87321 | 87385 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-115 | 79 | 98331 | 98409 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-135 | 55 | 99461 | 99515 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-136 | 70 | 99521 | 99590 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-151 | 30 | 92271 | 92300 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-152 | 34 | 92311 | 92344 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-155 | 51 | 92431 | 92481 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-22 | 56 | 79781 | 79836 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| MW3-90-52 | 75 | 80671 | 80745 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in upper half of hole. |
| MW3-90-93 | 129 | 91561 | 91689 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y | 1 |  | Sample 91677, 2.0 ppm on certificate, 23.04 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | No certificate data for first 13 samples. |
| PG-88-1 | 112 | 62341 | 62452 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| PG-91-13 | 91 | 305001 | 305091 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| RCM-19 | 18 | 2473 | 2490 |  | No |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| RCM-5 | 30 | 2150 | 2179 |  | No |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| RH-84-3 | 70 | 20541 | 20610 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-84-16 | 70 | 22741 | 22810 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  | 1 | Sample 22801, 7.8 ppm on certificate, 7.47 ppm in database. |
| RH-84-18 | 70 | 23031 | 23100 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  | 3 | Sample 23035, 24 ppm on certificate, 23 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 23039, 4.1 ppm on certificate, 5.31 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Sample 23062, 6.5 ppm on certificate, 5.93 ppm in database. |
| RH-85-52 | 109 | 26701 | 51759 | Bondar-Clegg | Partial |  | 1 | Sample 26750, 28 ppm on certificate, 22 ppm in database. |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | No certificate data for bottom half of hole. |
| RH-85-66 | 60 | 28631 | 28690 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  | 1 | Sample 28650, 1.63 opt (55.9 ppm) on certificate, 53.8 ppm in data. |
| RH-86-75C | 74 | N.A. | N.A. |  | No, Note 1. |  | 1 | 244 to 249 ft. printout was 0.07 opt (2.4 ppm), database is 1.37 ppm. |
| RH-86-92 | 68 | 42811 | 42878 | No Data | No |  |  | No certificate data provided |
| RH-86-102 | 70 | 43091 | 43160 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-86-108 | 100 | 41221 | 49826 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  |  |
| RH-86-123C | 372 | 54201 | 55572 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-87-128C | 197 | 55791 | 55988 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| RH-91-168 | 87 | 303541 | 303627 |  | No, Note 1. |  |  | No silver assays in database. |
| RHN-90-7 | 121 | 85591 | 85711 | Nevada GSI, Inc | Y |  |  |  |
| RP-85-2 | 68 | 33581 | 33648 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-85-2 | 80 | 35221 | 35399 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-86-21 | 88 | 39031 | 39118 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TA-86-26 | 52 | 41291 | 41342 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-85-11 | 60 | 35051 | 35110 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-85-2 | 70 | 28441 | 28510 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-86-24 | 64 | 51511 | 51574 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-90-47 | 100 | 77121 | 77220 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| TT-90-51 | 95 | 30101 | 30195 | Bondar-Clegg | Partial |  |  | Certificate only available for 44 of the samples. |
| WD-87-16 | 96 | 58401 | 58496 | Bondar-Clegg | Y |  |  |  |
| Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. | Note 1: Data compared with historical data printout from Bond Gold. |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>96 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**9.2** **Mineral Processing** 

For the purpose of this Technical Report, Woods Process Services (WPS) has reviewed historical process information provided by Dakota Gold as discussed in more detail in Section 10. Historical test work has been completed by well-known and reputable metallurgical testing laboratories. It is the QPs opinion that the metallurgical test work is suitable to support this level of study. Additional test work is required to advance the project to the next level.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>97 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **10** | **Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing** |

---

The Project hosts the former Richmond Hill gold mine, operated from 1988 to 1993 as an open pit mine with heap leach facilities. The heap leach flow sheet was based on several column test programs primarily in-house at the St. Joe Technical Center metallurgical laboratory. Additional metallurgical testing was conducted while Richmond Hill was in operation at the on-site metallurgical testing laboratory. Since termination of operations at Richmond Hill, no significant cyanidation heap leach testing programs have been undertaken. That said, it is the opinion of the QP that the existing test work data is sufficient for the scope of this technical report.

The following discussion is segmented into two sections based on the available metallurgical test work. The first covers the historical Oxide heap leach cyanide testing, namely bottle roll and column tests used as the design basis for the original operations. The second segment on Transition (formerly referred to as Mixed) and Sulfide material flotation based on recent metallurgical testing (2023) at *Base Metallurgical Laboratories (BaseMet) in Kamloops, B.C*.

**10.1** **Preliminary Geometallurgical Data Model Development** 

The RH deposit, as expected, has three primary geometallurgical domains, namely: Oxide, Mixed (transition), and Sulfide. This is evident in core logging, geochemical analysis and metallurgical specific analyses. As a preliminary run, a cluster analysis subroutine was run based on the drill core interval analyses: fire assay Au and Ag, cyanide soluble Au (CNAu), ICP geochemical analysis and metallurgical specific data, Ag:Au ratio and cyanide soluble Au to fire assay Au (CNAu:FAAu).

**Table 10-1: Preliminary Geometallurgical Cluster Analysis Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster Means** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster Means** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster Means** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster Means** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster Means** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cluster** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Count** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**FA Au ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CN Au ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**CNAu:FAAu** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**FA Ag ppm** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag:Au** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;A | &nbsp;&nbsp;11872 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.90 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.83 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.35 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;B | &nbsp;&nbsp;8505 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;C | &nbsp;&nbsp;1122 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.88 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.95 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.89 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.71 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;D | &nbsp;&nbsp;335 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.49 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;173.86 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;E | &nbsp;&nbsp;72 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.73 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.58 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.60 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>98 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img03.jpg)

**Figure 10-1: Preliminary Cluster Analysis Interval Analytical KPI's by Cluster**

**10.2** **Historical Oxide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** 

Historical Oxide metallurgical testing was conducted primarily at St. Joe's Technical Center and on-site at the Richmond Hill Metallurgical Testing laboratory. Additional work was conducted at Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Bondar Clegg, Kappes, Cassiday & Associates and Heinen Linstrom and Associates. This data was used to support the design and engineering of the production processing facility at Richmond Hill which operated from 1988 to 1993.

Metallurgical test work results have been compiled into a common database to facilitate data analysis and incorporation into the geometallurgical model. The following discussion focuses on the historical cyanidation bottle roll and column tests.

**10.2.1** **Historical Bottle Roll Tests** 

Figure 10-2 presents the gold calculated head grades for Richmond Hill bottle roll tests. The calculated Au head grades ran between 0.0027 opt to 0.699 opt with a mean of 0.052 opt and median of 0.035 opt.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>99 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img04.jpg)

**Figure 10-2: Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Calculated Heads Au opt**

The bottle roll test silver head grade distribution and statistics are presented in Figure 10-3. Median and Mean silver calculated heads grades are 0.22 opt and 0.472 respectively.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img05.jpg)

**Figure 10-3: Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Calculated Heads Ag opt**

Bottle roll test Silver to Gold ratio of the Richmond Hill has a significant variance with range of 0.21 to 803.3.

Median and Mean Ag:Au ratio of 6.52 and 15.99 respectively suggest that a Merrill-Crowe circuit should be used for heap leach solution processing for precious metal recovery.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>100 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img06.jpg)

**Figure 10-4: Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Silver to Gold ratio distribution**

Bottle roll tests for Richmond Hill had median and mean gold recoveries of 79.0% and 70.2% respectively. It should be noted that the data is skewed on the low side owing to the inclusion of non-oxide bottle roll test data in the population. Where noted, non-oxide bottle roll tests were culled from the population for analysis.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img07.jpg)

**Figure 10-5: Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Gold Recovery Distribution**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>101 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Silver recoveries for the bottle tests had mean value of 40.8% mean of 39.7%. As with the gold recovery, the distribution is skewed owing to the presence of non-oxide material included in the population.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img08.jpg)

**Figure 10-6: Richmond Hill Bottle Roll Test KPIs: Silver Recovery Distribution**

**10.2.2** **Historical Metallurgical Testing: Oxide & Transition Heap Leach** 

The Richmond Hill oxide material is amenable to cyanide heap processing for the recovery of precious metals. Individual Column test work data was combined into a common data set for analysis of the KPI's. Where non-oxide column tests were identified, the corresponding data was excluded from the analysis. Consequently, non-oxide column tests that were not identified as such, tend to skew the results on the low side.

Figure 10-7 presents the column test gold calculated head grades for the oxide column tests. These ranged between 0.016 Au opt to 0.126 Au opt. Median and Mean gold calculated head grades were 0.044 opt and 0.0416 opt respectively.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img09.jpg)

**Figure 10-7: Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Calculated Gold Head Grades Distribution (Au opt)**

The oxide column test silver calculated head grade distribution and pertinent statistics are shown in Figure 10-8. The silver grades ranged between 0.014 opt and 1.063 opt with median and mean values of 0.165 and 0.214 opt Ag respectively.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>102 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img10.jpg)

**Figure 10-8: Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Calculated Silver Head Grades Distribution (Ag opt)**

Oxide column test silver to gold ratios are presented in Figure 10-9. These range between 0.48 Ag:Au up to 14.13 Ag:Au. Median and Mean values for Ag:Au were 4.15 and 5.07 respectively. These ratios indicate that a Merrill-Crow circuit is warranted and recommended for solution processing and Richmond Hill.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img11.jpg)

**Figure 10-9: Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Silver to Gold Ratio (Ag:Au)**

Oxide column test gold recoveries, as shown in Figure 10-10, ranged between 1.79% to 95.1% with median and mean values of 84.9% and 65.5% respectively. As with the bottle roll tests, the distribution is skewed owing to the presence of high-sulfide transition and sulfide material in the sample population.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>103 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img12.jpg)

**Figure 10-10: Richmond Hill Oxide Column Test KPIs: Gold Recovery (Au%)**

The distribution and statistics for the oxide column tests' Silver recoveries are shown in Figure 10-11. Recoveries ranged from 0.25% to 65.2% with a median Ag recovery of 16.7% and mean Ag recovery of 20.17%.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img13.jpg)

**Figure 10-11: Richmond Hill Column Test KPIs: Silver Recovery (Ag%)**

**10.3** **Sulfide and Mixed Metallurgical Testing** 

Although the current operating plan for Richmond Hill does not include processing of the high sulfide transition and sulfide material, discussion of recent metallurgical test work focusing on these materials follows.

**10.3.1** **Historical Metallurgical Reports: Sulfide & Mixed Flotation** 

Between 1987 and 1991, five historical metallurgical test programs were conducted on sulfide material from the Richmond Hill gold deposit. These programs, which included investigations into mineralogy, gravity separation, roasting, bioleaching, flotation, and leaching, are summarized in Table 10-2. Notably, Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories in Murray, Utah, reported results in 1988 that closely align with those obtained during the 2023 test work performed by Base Metallurgical Laboratories (BaseMet) in Kamloops, B.C.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>104 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 10-2: Historical Metallurgical Reports**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test Program** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Year** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample ID** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Mineralogy and CN Leach Tests of Sulfide Ore Samples from Richmond Hill Project, No. 5H06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1987 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RH 85-54, 83, 102, 108 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc., Cyanide Leaching with Intensive Pre-aeration on a Sample from the Richmond Hill Project, No. P-1395 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Not available |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, Inc., Results of Preliminary Cyanide Leach Test on 8 Samples from South Dakota, No. P 1590 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1988 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CV4-1A to 4A, CV5-1A to 4A |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Extractive Technologies Metallurgical Laboratories, Agitation Cyanidation Test work, No. 0161 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1989 | &nbsp;&nbsp;CV-88-6, 8, 23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;LAC Minerals-Richmond Hill Inc., Report on Samples Submitted by Tod Duex for Bottle Roll Analysis | &nbsp;&nbsp;1991 | &nbsp;&nbsp;BR-1H1, BR-1H2, BRB-W1, BR-SR1, BR-DB1, BR-BD2, BR-SC1, BR-SC2, BR-B1, BR-W2, BR-SR2, BR-SR3, BR-B2 |

---

Source: K-Met 2023.

The mineralogical analysis shows that that the RH sulfide material contains fine gold locked within coarse gangue, as well as significant quantities of gold associated with fine- to medium-grained iron sulfides encapsulated in gangue minerals. Consistent with the 2023 test work, historical gravity concentration tests yielded modest gold recoveries ranging from 7% to 23%, and as a result, were not pursued as a primary processing method at this stage.

Whole ore leaching (WOL) demonstrated limited effectiveness, with average gold extraction of just 46%. However, improved recoveries were achieved through pre-treatment methods such as roasting, bioleaching, and pressure oxidation (POX) of the flotation concentrate, followed by cyanide leaching. Roasting and bioleaching increased gold recovery to between 74% and 80%.

The application of autoclaving (POX) prior to cyanide leaching significantly enhanced metallurgical performance, resulting in gold extraction of approximately 93% and silver extraction of 74%. Cyanide consumption during leaching remained low at 1.5 kg/t, though lime consumption was relatively high, averaging 7 kg/t.

**10.3.2** **Metallurgical Report – BL1244** 

In August 2023, Base Metallurgical Laboratories (BaseMet) completed test program BL1244 on drill-core material from the Richmond Hill zone. This preliminary metallurgical investigation focused on evaluating gold and silver extraction across three distinct mineralogical classifications: oxide, mixed, and sulfide. The head assays for the master composite (MC) samples are summarized in Table 10-3. Gold concentrations range from 0.65 to 0.82 grams per tonne (g/t), while sulfur content varies significantly across the mineralogical classifications—from 1.64% in the RH22 Ox composite to 6.21% in the RH22 Sul (sulfide) composite results and methods from this program are detailed in BaseMet's December 4, 2023, report titled *BL1244: Preliminary Metallurgical Assessment of the Richmond Hill Deposit*.

10.3.2.1 Head Assays

The head assays for the master composite (MC) samples are summarized in Table 10-3. Gold concentrations range from 0.65 to 0.82 g/t, while sulfur content varies significantly across the oxidation classifications—from 1.64% in the RH22 Ox (oxide) composite to 6.21% in the RH22 Sul (sulfide) composite.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>105 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 10-3: Master Composite Head Assays – BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assays** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Cu (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**C (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**TOC (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22 Sul | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.013 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.18 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.21 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.07 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22 Mix | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.85 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.82 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.16 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.09 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22 Ox | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.014 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.74 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.64 | &nbsp;&nbsp;<0.01 | &nbsp;&nbsp;<0.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Method | &nbsp;&nbsp;FAAS | &nbsp;&nbsp;FAAS | &nbsp;&nbsp;ICP | &nbsp;&nbsp;FAAS | &nbsp;&nbsp;LECO | &nbsp;&nbsp;LECO | &nbsp;&nbsp;LECO |

---

Notes: FAAS = Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy; LECO = Infrared Combustion; TOC = Total Organic Carbon.

10.3.2.2 Gravity-Recoverable Gold

Gravity-recoverable gold (GRG) test work was conducted on the three master composites showing relatively low GRG values across all samples. The test work utilized three nominal grind sizes: 80% passing (P<sub>80</sub>) 1,700 µm, P<sub>80</sub> 212 µm, and P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm. Among the samples, the oxide MC exhibited the highest GRG at 33%, while the sulfide MC showed the lowest at 8.7%. Given the low recoveries, no additional gravity concentration testing was pursued at the time since the work was focused on a primary processing method. It should be noted that gravity gold recovery may be beneficial as part of a hybrid flowsheet.

10.3.2.3 Flotation Test Results

**Rougher Flotation**

Rougher flotation tests were carried out on the master composites at a grind size of approximately P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm and under natural pH conditions ranging from 5.6 to 7.0. Potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) was used as the primary collector, and methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) was added to ensure consistent froth formation throughout the process.

Two PAX dosage levels were evaluated: a relatively low dosage of 80 g/t and a higher dosage of 200 g/t. The higher-dosage tests were conducted at a lower pulp density of 25% to 27% solids by weight, as increased viscosity was encountered during the initial flotation runs at higher densities. The overall flotation flowsheet employed for these tests is depicted in Figure 10-12.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img14.jpg)

**Figure 10-12: Rougher Flotation Flowsheet—BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

Gold recovery to the rougher flotation concentrates under the test conditions ranged from 62% to 69% across all three master composites, with the sulfide MC achieving the highest recovery at 69%. The increased PAX dosage, applied at a lower pulp density, resulted in a reduced mass pull for the sulfide MC and a corresponding increase in gold grade within the concentrate. For the oxide MC, however, the second rougher test (with higher PAX) showed minimal improvement.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>106 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Silver recovery generally mirrored gold, falling within a similar range of 66% to 69% for the mixed and sulfide MCs. In contrast, the oxide MC demonstrated significantly lower silver recovery, ranging from 39% to 44%.

Despite these recovery rates, the rougher flotation concentrate grades remained relatively low, between 2 and 6 g/t gold. As such, further test work is necessary to evaluate whether the concentrate can be upgraded to a saleable quality. Potential processing enhancements to increase concentrate grade or enable efficient gold extraction via leaching could include additional flotation stages, continuous gravity concentration, spiral concentration, or the use of shaking tables.

The detailed flotation recovery results and corresponding mass versus recovery performance curves are presented in Table 10-4 and Figure 10-13.

**Table 10-4: Rougher Flotation Results – BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **PAX**<br> **(g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Weight**<br> **(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Sample** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **PAX**<br> **(g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp; **Weight**<br> **(%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22—Sul | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;29.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;14.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22—Mix | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RN22—Ox | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67 | &nbsp;&nbsp;41 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22—Sul | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;19.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;69 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RH22—Mix | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;66 | &nbsp;&nbsp;62 | &nbsp;&nbsp;71 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;RN22—Ox | &nbsp;&nbsp;200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68 | &nbsp;&nbsp;43 |

---

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img15.jpg)

**Figure 10-13: Rougher Mass vs. Gold Recovery—BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

10.3.2.4 Diagnostic Leach

To evaluate leach performance across the master composites and to better understand how gold is associated with various mineral groups, a five-stage diagnostic leach test was performed. The test sequence began with a standard cyanide leach applied to each MC, ground to a primary grind size of P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>107 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Subsequent stages involved treating the tailings from the previous leach step with specific reagents or acids to break down progressively more refractory mineral phases, followed by an additional cyanide leach after each treatment. This stepwise approach enabled identification of gold locked within different mineralogical contexts, such as oxides, sulfides, and silicates.

The full diagnostic leach procedure is illustrated in Figure 10-14, outlining the sequence of chemical treatments and corresponding cyanide leach stages used to quantify the gold deportment across mineral groups.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp06img16.jpg)

**Figure 10-14: Diagnostic Leach Test Flowsheet – BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

At each stage of the test, various minerals and mineral groups are dissolved by the acid used. The results are listed in Table 10-5.

**Table 10-5: Diagnostic Leach – BaseMet 2023, BL1244**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Stage** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description of Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au Stage Extraction (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au Stage Extraction (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au Stage Extraction (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Stage** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description of Gold** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RH22—Sul** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RH22—Mix** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**RH22—Ox** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;A: High-Intensity CN Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cyanide amenable gold | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;B/C: HCl Digestion/Cyanidation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Carbonate locked | &nbsp;&nbsp;18.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;D/E: HNO<sub>3</sub> Digestion/Cyanidation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Arsenical minerals (arsenopyrite) | &nbsp;&nbsp;29.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;F: Aqua Regia Digestion | &nbsp;&nbsp;Pyritic sulfide locked | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tailings | &nbsp;&nbsp;Silicate (gangue) encapsulated | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** |  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**100** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**100** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**100** |

---

The results show that the majority of gold in the oxide material is free or exposed, making it highly responsive to whole ore leaching (WOL), with an expected gold extraction of approximately 91%. For the mixed master composite (MC), gold extraction reached 72.9%, aligning with the WOL outcomes described in Section 10.2.7. Notably, 12.5% of the gold was recovered during the D/E stage (nitric acid digestion), although bulk mineral analysis (BMA) did not reveal significant arsenopyrite content. This suggests the presence of refractory gold not associated with arsenopyrite. The mixed MC also contained the highest proportion of gold encapsulated within silicate or gangue minerals. The sulfide MC demonstrated poor gold recovery in the initial cyanide leach stage; however, significant gold dissolution occurred during both the hydrochloric and nitric acid stages. Across all three composites, only minor amounts of gold were found to be locked in pyrite.

**10.3.3** **Metallurgical Report – BL1346** 

In September 2023, intervals from 29 drill holes across seven distinct zones were collected to support metallurgical evaluation of the Richmond Hill deposit. The zones sampled include Twin Tunnels, Turn Around, Monitoring Well 3, Richmond Hill, Cleveland, Cole Creek, and Richmond Hill North. For each zone, master composites (MCs) were developed to represent the oxide, mixed, and sulfide mineralization layers. The corresponding MCs and their head grades are detailed in Table 10-3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>108 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

According to the mine plan established at the time, the majority of the projected mined material is sourced from four primary zones: Twin Tunnels is expected to contribute approximately 40%, followed by Turn Around at 30%, Monitoring Well 3 at 20%, and Richmond Hill at 10%.

10.3.3.1 Flotation Grind Series

Three preliminary rougher flotation tests were conducted on the sulfide master composite from the Twin Tunnels zone (MC-TT-S) to evaluate the impact of primary grind size on flotation performance. The sample was milled to target grind sizes of P<sub>80</sub> 50 µm, P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm, and P<sub>80</sub> 106 µm. Flotation was carried out at natural pH over a total duration of eight minutes. Potassium amyl xanthate (PAX), a nonselective collector for gold and sulfides, was applied at a dosage of 80 g/t based on feed mass.

Among the three grind sizes, the P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm condition yielded the most favorable results for both gold and silver recovery. Under these conditions, approximately 21% of the feed was recovered in the rougher concentrate.

The rougher concentrate test results are presented in Table 10-6, and the relationship between gold recovery and mass recovery is illustrated in Figure 10-15.

**Table 10-6: Rougher Flotation Grind Series MC-TT-S – BaseMet 2023, BL1346**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grind<br> Size<br> (P<sub>80</sub> µm)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Weight** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Weight** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Assay** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Distribution (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test No.** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Grind<br> Size<br> (P<sub>80</sub> µm)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**%** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**g** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BL1346-22 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;27.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;557.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.93 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;72.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BL1346-23 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;419.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.87 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;22.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;25.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;65.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;68.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;BL1346-24 | &nbsp;&nbsp;106 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;330.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.04 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;56.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64.6 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>109 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img001.jpg)

**Figure 10-15: Gold Rougher Concentrate Recovery vs. Mass Recovery – BaseMet 2023, BL1346**

10.3.3.2 Preliminary Flotation Optimization

To further enhance flotation recovery from the MC-TT-S composite, a series of optimization tests were conducted incorporating three primary changes: an extended rougher flotation time of 10 minutes, an increased PAX dosage of 200 g/t, and a reduced pulp density ranging from 25% to 27%.

The results indicate these adjustments collectively influenced gold recovery to the rougher concentrate. Among the variables tested, the higher PAX dosage had the most significant effect, resulting in both the highest gold recovery and the greatest mass pull to the rougher concentrate. This suggests improved collector efficiency and increased recovery of gold/sulfides.

Conversely, operating at a lower pulp density appeared to reduce mass recovery, likely due to reduced particle-particle collision frequency and froth carrying capacity in the more dilute slurry.

The relationship between gold recovery and mass recovery for these optimization tests is presented in Figure 10-16, illustrating the effects of the modified flotation conditions on overall performance.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>110 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img002.jpg)

**Figure 10-16: Gold Rougher Concentrate Recovery vs. Mass Recovery – BaseMet 2023, BL1346**

10.3.3.3 Mixed and Sulfide Master Composite Flotation

The final rougher flotation flowsheet used on the 13 transition and sulfide master composites incorporated optimized conditions based on previous testing. These parameters included a primary grind size of P<sub>80</sub> 75 µm, a PAX collector dosage of 200 g/t, a 10-minute flotation residence time, and operation at a reduced pulp density.

Under these optimized conditions, gold recovery to the rougher concentrate ranged from 31.5% to 94.0% across the tested composites, highlighting the variability in flotation response among different material types. Full recovery data is presented in Table 10-7.

Analysis of the results indicated, as expected, a positive relationship between sulfur content and gold recovery—composites with higher sulfide levels tended to yield better flotation performance, as illustrated in Figure 10-14. In contrast, the head grade of gold showed no clear correlation with recovery, suggesting that mineralogical characteristics, particularly sulfide content, play a more critical role in flotation efficiency. This lack of correlation is demonstrated in Figure 10-18.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>111 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 10-7: Rougher Flotation Results – BaseMet 2023, BL1346**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Head Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Head Grade** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery to Rougher Concentrates (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery to Rougher Concentrates (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery to Rougher Concentrates (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery to Rougher Concentrates (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recovery to Rougher Concentrates (%)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Zone** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Test** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au (g/t)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mass** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Ag** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Fe** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**S** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-TA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;28 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;61.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;34.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;82.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-TA | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;29 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;16.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;80.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;53.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-TT | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;15.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;67.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;64.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;79.4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-TT | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;31 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;12.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;52.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;47.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.7 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-MW3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;37 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;13.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;75.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;89.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-MW3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;38 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;17.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;94.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;87.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;39.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;91.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-RH | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;31.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;36.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;8.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-RH | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;11.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;55.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;37.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-CV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;32 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;10.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;59.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;44.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;26.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;85.8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-CV | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;33 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;9.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;35.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;23.3 | &nbsp;&nbsp;74.0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-CC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mixed | &nbsp;&nbsp;34 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2.8 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;60.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;54.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;33.6 | &nbsp;&nbsp;92.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-CC | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;35 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.7 | &nbsp;&nbsp;6.5 | &nbsp;&nbsp;24.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;88.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;93.1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;MC-RHN | &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;36 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.9 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;21.2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;73.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;78.4 | &nbsp;&nbsp;50.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;84.7 |

---

Notes: CC = Cole Creek; CV = Cleveland; MW3 = Monitoring Well 3; RH = Richmond Hill; RHN = Richmond Hill North; TA = Turn Around; TT = Twin Tunnels.

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img03.jpg)

**Figure 10-17: Gold Recovery vs. Sulfur Head Grade – BaseMet 2023, 1346**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>112 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img04.jpg)

**Figure 10-18: Gold Recovery vs. Gold Head Grade - BaseMet 2023, BL1346**

**10.4** **Richmond Hill Historical Operating Data** 

Historical operating data was made available to the QP for review and analysis. Figure 10-19 presents the commercial heap leach gold and silver recoveries as well as the production doré silver to gold ratio. Heap leach recoveries maxed out at 62.3% and 16.9% for gold and silver respectively and are reflective of operational issues encountered during production. Also, it is reported that significant transition and sulfide ore types were stacked on the heap resulting in lower overall gold and silver recoveries. To compound the recovery issues, leaching was terminated prematurely owing to the termination of operations. As the recoveries are considerably lower than would be expected using proper ore control methods and current heap leach operating procedures developed over the last 30 plus years. Reported issues with the historical operations include:

● Processing of lower grade material,

● Processing of sulfide material,

● Processing of high-sulfide transition material

● Issues with pH control, and,

● Problems with solution management during winter operations.

It is the QP's opinion that that the projected recovery can be attained with mitigation of the above issues and a proper ore control program.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>113 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img005.jpg)

**Figure 10-19: Historical Richmond Hill Heap Leach KPI's Au and Ag Recovery, Recovered Ag:Au Ratio**

**10.5** **Recovery Estimates** 

Projected recoveries are based on the available metallurgical test work data and generally reflect the median of the respective test work results.

**Table 10-8: Projected Precious Metal Recoveries**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Metallurgical Recovery Estimates** | **Metallurgical Recovery Estimates** | **Metallurgical Recovery Estimates** | **Metallurgical Recovery Estimates** | **Metallurgical Recovery Estimates** |
| **Material Type<br> Process** | **Oxide<br> Heap Leach** | **Low Sulfide<br> Transition<br> Heap Leach** | **Low Sulfide<br> Transition<br> Flotation Mill** | **Sulfide<br> Flotation Mill** |
| Gold | 89% | 65% | 80% | 85% |
| Silver | 30% | 20% | 70% | 85% |

---

**10.6** **Summary and Recommendations** 

The Richmond Hill oxide material is amenable to cyanidation heap leach processing. The Richmond Hill sulfide material is amenable to bulk sulfide froth flotation. Transition material can be processed through either method but requires determination of a cut-over grade for optimum economics.

It is the QP's opinion that the existing test work is suitable for this level of study and projected recoveries are more than reasonable.

Additional metallurgical testing is required to support future studies. This work will likely result in a better definition of metal recoveries and reagent consumptions. This will improve the accuracy of future capital and operating cost estimates as well as production forecasting.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>114 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **11** | **Mineral Resource Estimates** |

---

**11.1** **Mineral Resource** 

The mineral resource estimate for Richmond Hill includes mineral resources amenable to heap leaching and mineral resources amenable to milling. The mineral resource amenable to leaching consists of the oxide and transition material types, and the mineral resource amenable to milling consists of the sulfide material. Table 11-1 presents the mineral resource estimate. The measured and indicated mineral resource amenable to leaching amounts to 269.8 million tons at 0.0135 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver for 3.65 million ounces of contained gold and 38.1 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource amenable to leaching is an additional 254.2 million tons at 0.0103 oz/t gold and 0.090 oz/t silver for 2.61 million ounces of contained gold and 22.8 million ounces of contained silver.

The measured and indicated mineral resource amenable to milling amounts to 69.6 million tons at 0.0141 oz/t gold and 0.139 oz/t silver for 982,100 ounces of contained gold and 9.68 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource amenable to milling is an additional 202.2 million tons at 0.0121 oz/t gold and 0.145 oz/t silver for 2.45 million ounces of contained gold and 29.3 million ounces of contained silver.

The measured and indicated mineral resource for leach and mill material amounts to 339.4 million tons at 0.0137 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver for 4.64 million ounces of contained gold and 47.8 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resource for leach and mill material is an additional 456.4 million tons at 0.0111 oz/t gold and 0.114 oz/t silver for 5.06 million ounces of contained gold and 52.1 million ounces of contained silver.

The measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources reported herein are contained within a conceptual constraining pit shell to demonstrate "reasonable prospects for economic extraction" to meet the definition of mineral resources in S-K 1300. Figure 11-1 shows the pit shell that is based on measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resource. The constraining pit shell is also constrained by the Richmond Hill Project Boundary. Only mineralization inside the boundary was allowed to contribute to the economics for development of the shell, though waste mining outside of the boundary, to extract mineralization inside the boundary, was allowed.

**Table 11-1: Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Resource Category** | **AuEq COG<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** |
| **Leach Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured Mineral Resource** |  | **113748** | **0.0164** | **0.0158** | **0.160** | **1793.4** | **18208** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 94537 | 0.0165 | 0.0158 | 0.167 | 1493.7 | 15788 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 19211 | 0.0161 | 0.0156 | 0.126 | 299.7 | 2421 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated Mineral Resource** |  | **156019** | **0.0125** | **0.0119** | **0.128** | **1860.0** | **19884** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 127237 | 0.0122 | 0.0117 | 0.128 | 1488.7 | 16286 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 28783 | 0.0134 | 0.0129 | 0.125 | 371.3 | 3598 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **269768** | **0.0141** | **0.0135** | **0.141** | **3653.3** | **38092** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 221774 | 0.0140 | 0.0134 | 0.145 | 2982.4 | 32074 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 47994 | 0.0145 | 0.0140 | 0.125 | 671.0 | 6018 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred Mineral Resource** |  | **254186** | **0.0106** | **0.0103** | **0.090** | **2613.4** | **22787** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 211994 | 0.0101 | 0.0098 | 0.085 | 2077.5 | 18019 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 42192 | 0.0131 | 0.0127 | 0.113 | 535.8 | 4768 |
| **Mill Resource (Sulfides):** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 20703 | 0.0184 | 0.0165 | 0.151 | 341.6 | 3126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 48893 | 0.0147 | 0.0131 | 0.134 | 640.5 | 6552 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | **0.0050** | **69596** | **0.0158** | **0.0141** | **0.139** | **982.1** | **9678** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 202221 | 0.0139 | 0.0121 | 0.145 | 2446.9 | 29322 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>115 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Resource Category** | **AuEq COG<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** |
| **Leach and Mill Mineral Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 134452 | 0.0167 | 0.0159 | 0.159 | 2135.0 | 21334 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 204912 | 0.0130 | 0.0122 | 0.129 | 2500.5 | 26436 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **339364** | **0.0145** | **0.0137** | **0.141** | **4635.4** | **47770** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 456407 | 0.0121 | 0.0111 | 0.114 | 5060.3 | 52109 |

---

Notes:

1. The Mineral Resource estimate has an effective date of February 3, 2025.

2. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore numbers may not appear to add precisely.

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

4. Mineral Resources are based on prices of $2,000/oz gold and $25/oz silver.

5. Mineral Resources for leach material are based on a gold equivalent cut-off of 0.0026 oz/t for oxide material and 0.0041 oz/t for transition material. Mineral Resources for mill material are based on a gold equivalent cut-off of 0.0050 oz/t.

6. The gold equivalent value for each material is as follows:

Oxide (Leach): Gold equivalent (oz/t) = gold (oz/t) + 0.00418 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 89% and silver recovery of 30%.

Transition (Leach): Gold equivalent = gold (oz/t) + 0.00382 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 65% and silver recovery of 20%.

Sulfide (Mill): Gold equivalent = gold (oz/t) + 0.0127 x silver (oz/t), based on gold recovery of 85% and silver recovery of 85%.

7. The gold equivalent values account for metal recoveries, treatment charges, refining costs, and refinery payable percentages.

8. Table 11-4 accompanies this Mineral Resource statement and shows all relevant parameters for mineral resources.

9. Includes 3.8% NSR royalty.

10. Mineral Resources are reported in relation to a conceptual constraining pit shell to demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction, as required by the definition of Mineral Resource in S-K 1300; mineralization lying outside of the pit shell is excluded from the Mineral Resource.

11. The Mineral Resource estimate is also constrained by the Richmond Hill Project Boundary. Only mineralization inside this boundary is included in the Mineral Resource Estimate, though waste removal outside the boundary is allowed.

12. The Mineral Resources reported are contained on mineral titles controlled by Dakota Gold.

13. The Mineral Resources are reported in-situ without any dilution or loss considerations, as a point of reference.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>116 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img006.jpg)

**Figure 11-1: Constraining Shell for Mineral Resource Estimate**

**11.2** **Price Sensitivity** 

A sensitivity analysis of metal prices was conducted for the mineral resource estimate at the following prices:

● $1,600/oz gold and $20.00/oz silver,

● $1,800/oz gold and $22.25/oz silver,

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>117 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

● $2,000/oz gold and $25.00/oz silver (base case),

● $2,200/oz gold and $27.50/oz silver, and

● $2,400/oz gold and $30.00/oz silver.

Restraining pit shells were developed for each case and resources calculated at gold equivalent cut-off grades appropriate for the case. Table 11-2 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis for the leach resource. Total kilotons for each case are also provided to gauge the increase in the size of the constraining pit shells. The leach mineral resource is insensitive to prices. A relatively large amount of the available mineral resource is extracted at the $1,600/oz gold price and the increase in resource at higher prices is modest, even up to the $2,400/oz price. Note that total tons increased from 1.1 billion tons to 1.5 billion tons with a small impact on the mineral resource.

Table 11-3 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis for mill resource. Measured and indicated mineral resources are insensitive to price. Inferred mineral resource increased from 141.2 million tons in the $1,600/oz case to 240.9 million tons for the $2,400/oz case, an increase of about 70%. Contained gold ounces increased about 43% between the $1,600/oz and $2,400/oz case for inferred mineral resources.

**Table 11-2: Mineral Resource at Various Prices – Leach Resources**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **AuEq COG<br> (oz/t)** | <br>**Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **$1600 Gold, $20.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 108414 | 0.0170 | 0.0164 | 0.166 | 1778.0 | 17997 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0032 | 143593 | 0.0131 | 0.0126 | 0.132 | 1809.3 | 18954 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **252007** | **0.0148** | **0.0142** | **0.147** | **3587.3** | **36951** | **1095300** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0052 | 211774 | 0.0117 | 0.0113 | 0.097 | 2393.0 | 20542 |  |
| **$1800 Gold, $22.50 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 111432 | 0.0167 | 0.0160 | 0.163 | 1782.9 | 18163 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0029 | 149415 | 0.0128 | 0.0122 | 0.130 | 1822.9 | 19424 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **260847** | **0.0145** | **0.0138** | **0.144** | **3605.8** | **37587** | **1209836** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0046 | 231589 | 0.0111 | 0.0107 | 0.093 | 2478.0 | 21538 |  |
| **$2000 Gold, $25.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 113748 | 0.0164 | 0.0158 | 0.160 | 1793.4 | 18208 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 156019 | 0.0125 | 0.0119 | 0.128 | 1860.0 | 19884 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **269767** | **0.0141** | **0.0135** | **0.141** | **3653.3** | **38092** | **1367025** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 254186 | 0.0106 | 0.0103 | 0.090 | 2613.4 | 22787 |  |
| **$2200 Gold, $27.50 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 115438 | 0.0162 | 0.0156 | 0.159 | 1800.8 | 18355 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0023 | 159556 | 0.0122 | 0.0117 | 0.126 | 1866.8 | 20104 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **274994** | **0.0139** | **0.0133** | **0.140** | **3667.6** | **38459** | **1416143** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0038 | 264912 | 0.0104 | 0.0100 | 0.087 | 2649.1 | 23047 |  |
| **$2400 Gold, $30.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 116806 | 0.0161 | 0.0154 | 0.157 | 1798.8 | 18339 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0021 | 162506 | 0.0121 | 0.0116 | 0.124 | 1885.1 | 20151 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **279312** | **0.0138** | **0.0132** | **0.138** | **3683.9** | **38489** | **1505715** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0034 | 277569 | 0.0101 | 0.0097 | 0.085 | 2692.4 | 23593 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>118 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-3: Mineral Resource at Various Prices – Mill Resources**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **AuEq COG<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **$1600 Gold, $20.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 19115 | 0.0194 | 0.0174 | 0.158 | 332.6 | 3020 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | Sulfide | 41215 | 0.0158 | 0.0141 | 0.138 | 581.1 | 5688 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0063 | **60330** | **0.0169** | **0.0151** | **0.144** | **913.7** | **8708** | **1095300** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 141239 | 0.0153 | 0.0135 | 0.152 | 1906.7 | 21468 |  |
| **$1800 Gold, $22.50 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 19989 | 0.0188 | 0.0169 | 0.154 | 337.8 | 3078 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | Sulfide | 44472 | 0.0152 | 0.0136 | 0.134 | 604.8 | 5959 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0056 | **64461** | **0.0163** | **0.0146** | **0.140** | **942.6** | **9038** | **1209836** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 170316 | 0.0146 | 0.0128 | 0.149 | 2180.0 | 25377 |  |
| **$2000 Gold, $25.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 20703 | 0.0184 | 0.0165 | 0.151 | 341.6 | 3126 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | Sulfide | 48893 | 0.0147 | 0.0131 | 0.134 | 640.5 | 6552 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **69596** | **0.0158** | **0.0141** | **0.139** | **982.1** | **9678** | **1367025** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 202221 | 0.0139 | 0.0121 | 0.145 | 2446.9 | 29322 |  |
| **$2200 Gold, $27.50 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 21165 | 0.0181 | 0.0163 | 0.149 | 345.0 | 3154 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | Sulfide | 51015 | 0.0143 | 0.0127 | 0.131 | 647.9 | 6683 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0046 | **72180** | **0.0154** | **0.0138** | **0.136** | **992.9** | **9837** | **1416143** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 218806 | 0.0135 | 0.0117 | 0.141 | 2560.0 | 30852 |  |
| **$2400 Gold, $30.00 Silver:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 21589 | 0.0178 | 0.0160 | 0.147 | 345.4 | 3174 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | Sulfide | 53408 | 0.0140 | 0.0124 | 0.128 | 662.3 | 6836 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0042 | **74997** | **0.0151** | **0.0134** | **0.133** | **1007.7** | **10010** | **1505715** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 240938 | 0.0130 | 0.0113 | 0.136 | 2722.6 | 32768 |  |

---

**11.3** **Mineral Resource Parameters** 

Metal prices for the Mineral Resource estimate are $2,000/oz gold and $25/oz silver. These prices are reasonable based on: 1) historical 3-year trailing averages, 2) prices used by other companies for comparable projects, and 3) long range consensus price forecasts prepared by various bank analysts.

Table 11-4 shows the economic parameters for the mineral resources estimate. The mining cost is estimated at $2.15 per total ton. This cost is based on a review of comparable projects in the western US.

The unit processing costs were estimated by Woods for the various material types at $3.39/t for oxide leach material, $4.14/t for transition leach material and $6.82/t for sulfide mill material. The costs are based on a nominal process production rate of 30,000 tons per day or about 10.95 million tons per year. The gold and silver recovery estimates were also estimated by Woods based on the available testing data.

The unit G&A cost of $1.00/t amounts to $912,500 per month which is a reasonable estimate for this mineral resource estimate.

IMC assumed refinery payables of 100% for gold and 100% for silver and refining costs of $5.00/oz gold and $0.25/oz silver for leach material. Woods estimated payable amounts of 95.5% for gold and 95.0% for silver for mill material, based on the mill producing a marketable gold sulfide concentrate by flotation. Treatment and refining costs for mill material are estimated at $6.00/oz gold and $0.40/oz silver. The Project is also subject to a 3.8% NSR royalty.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>119 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Due to two products, and variable recoveries by material type, a gold equivalent value was calculated for each block to tabulate proposed quantities of resource. First, the gold and silver NSR factors are calculated as follows for oxide:

Gold NSR Factor = ($2,000 – $5.00) x 0.89 x 1.00 x 0.962 = $1,708/t<br> Silver NSR Factor = ($25 – $0.25) x 0.20 x 1.00 x 0.962 = $7.14/t

The units are US$ per ounce. The 0.962 term represents an allowance for the royalty.

The silver factor for the gold equivalent calculation is:

Ag Factor for Gold Equivalent = Silver NSR Factor / Gold NSR Factor

Ag Factor for Gold Equivalent = $7.14 / $1,708 = 0.00418

AuEq (oz/t) = gold (oz/t) + 0.00418 x silver (oz/t)

For oxide the breakeven gold equivalent cut-off grade is 0.0038 oz/t, and the internal cut-off grade is 0.0026 oz/t. Internal cut-off applies to blocks that must be removed from the pit, so mining is a sunk cost.

The parameters and cut-offs for the other material types are also shown on Table 11-4. The gold equivalent cut-off grades vary by material type.

**Table 11-4: Economic Parameters for Mineral Resource Estimate**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Material Type**<br> **Process** | **Units** | **Oxide**<br> **Leach** | **Trans**<br> **Leach** | **Sulfide**<br> **Mill** | **Waste** |
| Commodity Prices |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Price Per Ounce | (US$) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Silver Price Per Ounce | (US$) | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 |  |
| Plant Production Rate | (ktpy) | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 |  |
| Mining Cost Per Total Tonne |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining Cost | (US$) | 2.150 | 2.150 | 2.150 | 2.150 |
| Process and G&A Cost Per Tonne |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Processing | (US$) | 3.390 | 4.150 | 6.830 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | (US$) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Process and G&A | (US$) | 4.390 | 5.150 | 7.830 |  |
| Plant Recovery |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | (%) | 89% | 65% | 85% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver | (%) | 30% | 20% | 85% |  |
| Treatment/Refining Payables and Costs |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Payable | (%) | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.5% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Payable | (%) | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Treatment/Refining Per Ounce | (US$) | 5.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Treatment/Refining Per Ounce | (US$) | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.40 |  |
| Royalties |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | (%) | 3.8% | 3.8% | 3.8% |  |
| NSR Factors |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold NSR Factor | ($/oz) | 1708 | 1247 | 1557 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver NSR Factor | ($/oz) | 7.14 | 4.76 | 19.11 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Factor for Gold Equivalent | (none) | 0.00418 | 0.00382 | 0.01227 |  |
| Gold Equivalent Cutoff Grade |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Breakeven Cutoff Grade | (oz/t) | 0.0038 | 0.0059 | 0.0064 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Internal Cutoff Grade | (oz/t) | 0.0026 | 0.0041 | 0.0050 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>120 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.4** **Additional Information** 

The mineral resources are classified in accordance with the requirements of S-K 1300. The mineral resource estimate reflects the reasonable expectation that all necessary permits and approvals will be obtained and maintained. It is the opinion of the QP for this section that technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction can be resolved with additional work. In particular, more metallurgical testing will better define process methods, metal recoveries and costs. More drilling will better define geologic domains in some areas of the deposit.

There is uncertainty in the estimates of measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources. Some of the sources of uncertainty are common to all projects and all classes of the mineral resources and include: the spatial location of the samples, sample recovery in the drilling and sampling processes, assaying methods and results, data processing and handling, assumptions of geologic interpretations and continuity of grades between samples.

Uncertainty in the estimation of measured mineral resources should be relatively low. The sampling density is sufficient that the potential sources of uncertainty listed above should largely by mitigated by various sampling from various time periods and companies.

The uncertainty related to indicated mineral resources is higher than measured mineral resources due to lower sampling density and lower confidence in geologic interpretation. However, the data density is adequate for reasonable interpretations of geologic conditions and grade quality and continuity.

Uncertainty in the estimation of inferred mineral resources can be high since sampling data is more limited and geologic uncertainty higher. However, given the relatively disseminated nature of the deposit, the QP for this section is confident that the inferred mineral resources meet the criteria that the majority of the inferred mineral resource can be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with additional exploration.

There is no guarantee that any of the mineral resources will be converted to mineral reserve. There is also no guarantee that any of the inferred mineral resources will be upgraded to measured or indicated mineral resources or to mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The Project is subject to the normal risks that mining projects face including changes to metal prices, changes to government regulations, social risks, uncertainty in mineral resource and recovery estimates, permitting risks, financing risks, and costs higher than forecast.

**11.5** **Description of the Block Model** 

**11.5.1** **General** 

The resource model is based on 20 ft x 20 ft x 20 ft high blocks. The coordinate system for the Project is a local system initiated by Homestake Mining Company. This will be referenced as the January 2025 model.

The previous mineral resource estimate for the project is dated effective October 5, 2023, and is reported in a technical report summary dated April 30, 2024. The resource model for that report will be referenced as the October 2023 model.

**11.5.2** **Drilling Data** 

The drilling database provided to IMC consisted of 1058 drillholes and 457,392 ft of drilling. Ten of the holes were outside of the model limits. Drilling data in the model limits by company is shown on Table 11-5. This represents the drilling data used for the resource model update.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>121 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-5: Drilling by Company in Model Limits**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Company** | **No. of Holes** | **Feet** | **Sample Intervals** |
| St. Joe, Bond Gold, Homestake | 828 | 269463 | 54012 |
| Coeur | 74 | 27280 | 2722 |
| Dakota Gold | 146 | 149410 | 30743 |
| All Drilling | 1048 | 446153 | 87477 |

---

Figure 11-2 shows drillholes by company and also shows the locations for cross sections A-A' and B-B' that are referenced in this report section.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>122 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img007.jpg)

**Figure 11-2: Drillhole Locations by Company**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>123 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.5.3** **Geologic Controls** 

11.5.3.1 Rock Types

Rock type interpretations for seven major rock types have been developed as 3D solids and incorporated into the resource model. Table 11-6 shows the rock types.

**Table 11-6: Model Rock Types**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Rock Type** | **Code** | **Description** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Breccia |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tsl | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Sills |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tdk | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Dikes |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pzu | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Paleozoics-Undifferentiated |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cdw | &nbsp;&nbsp;50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cambrian Deadwood |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pgn | &nbsp;&nbsp;60 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Greenstone |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pff | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Flagrock |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pef | &nbsp;&nbsp;80 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Ellison |

---

Figure 11-3 shows the rock types projected on the resource shell walls and surface topography. Figure 11-4 and Figure 11-5 show the rock types on the A-A' and B-B' cross sections respectively.

All the rock types host economic mineralization. The contacts between the Precambrian units are steep and trend north-south. The Precambrian Flagrock is between the Precambrian Greenstone to the west and Precambrian Ellison to the east. The Tertiary breccia and Tertiary dikes are steep north-south trending units. The Cambrian Deadwood and Tertiary sills are flatter lying units.

The 3D solids were used to assign rock codes to the model blocks and rock codes were also assigned to the assay database by back-assignment from the solids. There were rock type designations in the database, but the back-assigned values were used for the resource model so the assay assignments would be consistent with the block they were located.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>124 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img008.jpg)

**Figure 11-3: Rock Types on the Resource Shell**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>125 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img009.jpg)

**Figure 11-4: Rock Types on Cross Section A-A'**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>126 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp7img010.jpg)

**Figure 11-5: Rock Types on Section B-B'**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>127 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

11.5.3.2 Oxidation Zones

Interpretation of oxidations zones were developed as surfaces and incorporated into the resource model. The surfaces were developed based on ratio of cyanide soluble to total gold assays in the Dakota Gold drilling and cyanide soluble to total gold ratios in bottle roll tests conducted for the St. Joe and Bond Gold drilling. Table 11-7 shows the zones and definition.

**Table 11-7: Model Oxidation Zones**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Oxidation Type** | **Code** | **Definition** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | &nbsp;&nbsp;10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ratio of CNAu/Au >70% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;70% < CNAu/Au < 40% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sulfide | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ratio of CnAu/Au < 40% |

---

Figure 11-6 shows the oxidation zones on the walls of the resource shell. The oxidation zones did not impact grade estimation but are important for metallurgical purposes.

This is a significant change from the model used for the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. For that model the domains were designed based on picks of oxide, transition, and sulfide minerals as noted in the drilling logs. Most of the holes were drilled using reverse circulation, so only chips were available for logging. The updated zones increased the size of the oxide zone and reduced the size of the sulfide zone. Analytical data has confirmed that the transition zone is thinner than previously estimated.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>128 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img01.jpg)

**Figure 11-6: Oxidation Zones on the Resource Shell**

**11.5.4** **Cap Grades and Compositing** 

Probability plots and sorted lists of the higher-grade assay intervals for gold and silver were examined to determine cap grades. Table 11-8 shows the cap grades and the number of assays capped by rock type. A relatively small numbers of assays were capped for each metal in each population. The cap grades generally correspond to the upper 99.9 percentile of the populations.

The assay database was composited to regular 10 ft downhole composites. It is noted this is one-half of the 20 ft bench height used for the model. The smaller composite length allows capturing some of the narrower dikes and sills and also tends to result in less grade smoothing during block grade estimation. The rock type was not respected during compositing; the composite rock type was based on the majority rock type.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>129 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-8: Cap Grades and Number of Assays Capped**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | | | **Number of Assays** | **Number of Assays** |
| **Lithology**<br>**Code** | <br>**Lithology** | **Au Cap**<br>**(oz/t)** | **Ag Cap**<br>**(ppm)** | **Ag Cap**<br>**(oz/t)** | **Gold** | **Silver** |
| 20 | Tertiary Breccia | 0.30 | 65 | 1.90 | 19 | 19 |
| 30 | Tertiary Sills | 0.15 | 95 | 2.77 | 6 | 7 |
| 40 | Tertiary Dikes | 0.23 | 70 | 2.04 | 12 | 11 |
| 45 | Paleozoic (undif) | 0.09 |  |  | 4 |  |
| 50 | Cambrian Deadwood | 0.20 | 180 | 5.25 | 16 | 13 |
| 60 | Precambrian Greenstone | 0.33 | 85 | 2.48 | 19 | 16 |
| 70 | Precambrian Flagrock | 0.30 | 200 | 5.83 | 9 | 14 |
| 80 | Precambrian Ellison | 0.15 | 80 | 2.33 | 6 | 5 |

---

**11.5.5** **Summary Statistics** 

Table 11-9 shows summary statistics for gold and silver for the assay intervals. The table shows values by the major rock types. The left side of the table shows uncapped values and the right side shows capped values. For gold the Tertiary sills and the Precambrian Ellison are lower in grade than the other units. The Paleozoic rock types are adjacent to the main deposit area and don't have much drilling. For silver, the Cambrian Deadwood is considerably higher than the other units. Minimum values for the samples represented on the table are 0.0001 oz/t for gold and 0.001 oz/t for silver. Also, the statistics are limited to samples in the model limits.

Table 11-10 shows summary statistics for 10 ft composites. The statistics are based on composites with a minimum gold value of 0.0001 oz/t and silver value of 0.001 oz/t, but lower grade assays, including 0, are incorporated into the composites.

Figure 11-7 shows a probability plot of gold in the composites for the various rock types. The lower grade nature of the Tertiary sills and Precambrian Ellison are evident on the plot. Figure 11-8 shows the probability plot for silver. The higher-grade nature of the Deadwood is evident.

**Table 11-9: Summary Statistics of Assays**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** |
| <br>**Metal Rock Type** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max**<br>**(oz/t)** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max <br> (oz/t)** |
| Gold: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All Samples | 77826 | 0.0135 | 0.0248 | 0.955 | 77826 | 0.0133 | 0.0224 | 0.330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tbx-Breccia | 17047 | 0.0152 | 0.0262 | 0.955 | 17047 | 0.0151 | 0.0238 | 0.300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tsl-Sills | 4959 | 0.0089 | 0.0150 | 0.381 | 4959 | 0.0089 | 0.0138 | 0.150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tdk-Dikes | 10026 | 0.0121 | 0.0214 | 0.653 | 10026 | 0.0119 | 0.0194 | 0.230 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pzu-Paleozoic | 1640 | 0.0068 | 0.0228 | 0.685 | 12715 | 0.0145 | 0.0192 | 0.200 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cdw-Deadwood | 12715 | 0.0146 | 0.0205 | 0.420 | 15162 | 0.0149 | 0.0283 | 0.330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pgn-Greenstone | 15162 | 0.0150 | 0.0312 | 0.830 | 13193 | 0.0130 | 0.0225 | 0.300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pff-Flagrock | 13193 | 0.0131 | 0.0248 | 0.732 | 3084 | 0.0079 | 0.0147 | 0.150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pef-Ellison | 3084 | 0.0082 | 0.0194 | 0.497 | 3117 | 0.0079 | 0.0146 | 0.150 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>130 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** |
| <br>**Metal Rock Type** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max**<br>**(oz/t)** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max <br> (oz/t)** |
| Silver: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All Samples | 69627 | 0.128 | 0.402 | 44.77 | 69627 | 0.124 | 0.263 | 5.83 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tbx-Breccia | 16320 | 0.107 | 0.180 | 8.00 | 16320 | 0.105 | 0.146 | 1.90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tsl-Sills | 3716 | 0.110 | 0.393 | 15.00 | 3716 | 0.102 | 0.236 | 2.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tdk-Dikes | 9084 | 0.107 | 0.206 | 7.38 | 9084 | 0.105 | 0.160 | 2.04 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pzu-Paleozoic | 824 | 0.065 | 0.084 | 0.58 | 824 | 0.065 | 0.084 | 0.58 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cdw-Deadwood | 9272 | 0.238 | 0.471 | 11.68 | 9272 | 0.237 | 0.445 | 5.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pgn-Greenstone | 14501 | 0.103 | 0.286 | 25.78 | 14501 | 0.100 | 0.173 | 2.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pff-Flagrock | 13185 | 0.136 | 0.650 | 44.77 | 13185 | 0.126 | 0.337 | 5.83 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pef-Ellison | 2725 | 0.098 | 0.538 | 24.03 | 2725 | 0.086 | 0.209 | 2.33 |

---

**Table 11-10: Summary Statistics of 10 ft Composites**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Not Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** | **Capped** |
| <br>**Metal Rock Type** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max**<br>**(oz/t)** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **Mean<br> (oz/t)** | **Std Dev<br> (oz/t)** | **Max<br> (oz/t)** |
| Gold: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All Samples | 40576 | 0.0129 | 0.0213 | 0.488 | 40576 | 0.0128 | 0.0197 | 0.330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tbx-Breccia | 8475 | 0.0152 | 0.0242 | 0.488 | 8475 | 0.0150 | 0.0220 | 0.300 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tsl-Sills | 2834 | 0.0086 | 0.0133 | 0.193 | 2834 | 0.0085 | 0.0126 | 0.149 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tdk-Dikes | 5250 | 0.0116 | 0.0189 | 0.431 | 5250 | 0.0114 | 0.0171 | 0.223 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pzu-Paleozoic | 929 | 0.0061 | 0.0162 | 0.351 | 929 | 0.0054 | 0.0077 | 0.067 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cdw-Deadwood | 7094 | 0.0137 | 0.0178 | 0.324 | 7094 | 0.0136 | 0.0168 | 0.200 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pgn-Greenstone | 7572 | 0.0146 | 0.0260 | 0.441 | 7572 | 0.0144 | 0.0246 | 0.330 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pff-Flagrock | 6734 | 0.0125 | 0.0202 | 0.369 | 6734 | 0.0124 | 0.0192 | 0.285 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pef-Ellison | 1688 | 0.0079 | 0.0164 | 0.371 | 1688 | 0.0076 | 0.0125 | 0.149 |
| Silver: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All Samples | 35431 | 0.127 | 0.303 | 18.03 | 35431 | 0.123 | 0.232 | 5.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tbx-Breccia | 8005 | 0.106 | 0.139 | 3.63 | 8005 | 0.105 | 0.126 | 1.90 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tsl-Sills | 2090 | 0.101 | 0.308 | 7.53 | 2090 | 0.094 | 0.202 | 2.77 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Tdk-Dikes | 4616 | 0.105 | 0.174 | 5.19 | 4616 | 0.103 | 0.140 | 2.01 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pzu-Paleozoic | 453 | 0.061 | 0.079 | 0.47 | 453 | 0.061 | 0.079 | 0.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cdw-Deadwood | 5276 | 0.229 | 0.426 | 9.20 | 5276 | 0.226 | 0.399 | 5.25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pgn-Greenstone | 7043 | 0.101 | 0.197 | 8.52 | 7043 | 0.098 | 0.147 | 2.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pff-Flagrock | 6526 | 0.132 | 0.439 | 18.03 | 6526 | 0.124 | 0.273 | 5.47 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pef-Ellison | 1422 | 0.098 | 0.373 | 10.34 | 1422 | 0.087 | 0.187 | 2.33 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>131 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img02.jpg)

**Figure 11-7: Probability Plot of Gold by Rock Type – 10 ft Composites (IMC, 2024)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>132 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img03.jpg)

**Figure 11-8: Probability Plot of Silver by Rock Type – 10 ft Composites (IMC, 2024)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>133 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.5.6** **Variogram Analysis** 

A variogram analysis for gold mineralization was completed for the major rock types. First, approximately 60 directional variograms were calculated to search the entire sphere in about 22.5-degree increments for each rock type. These were examined to find longest range, highest clarity, variograms that might be considered to define the primary direction. Given a candidate, or candidates, for a primary direction, a series of eight variograms were calculated to search the plane perpendicular to the primary direction, to look for the secondary and tertiary axes directions. Usually, good candidates were evident for primary directions that seemed reasonable based on the geology. It is often difficult to define secondary and tertiary directions because variogram ranges in those directions are similar to the spacing between the available samples. The variograms were calculated on the 10 ft composites and a modified covariance method was used for the calculations.

Figure 11-9 and Figure 11-10 show the variograms for Tertiary breccia. The variograms represent the primary and secondary directions of mineralization as interpreted by the QP for this section. The primary direction has an azimuth of 90° and a steep dip of 85°. This direction is consistent with the orientation of the tertiary dikes that are prevalent. The secondary direction has an azimuth of 22° with a slight upward dip of 2°. The ranges of the two variograms are about 250 ft to 275 ft. The secondary variogram shows a slightly longer range, as fit, but the primary direction variogram has much better clarity. The directions indicated by these variograms are also appropriate for the Tertiary dikes.

Figure 11-11 and Figure 11-12 show variograms for Precambrian Greenstone. The primary direction is at an azimuth of 292° with a downward dip of 67°. The secondary axis has an azimuth of 202° and no dip. The variogram for the primary direction is fit as two structures with ranges of 300 ft and 500 ft, respectively. The range of the secondary variogram is fit as 600 ft, but the variogram has less clarity than the primary direction.

Figure 11-13 and Figure 11-14 show variograms for Precambrian Flagrock. The primary direction is at an azimuth of 45° with a no dip. The secondary axis has an azimuth of 135° and downward dip of 45°. The variogram for the primary direction is fit as two structures with ranges of 300 ft and 500 ft, respectively. The range of the secondary variogram is fit as 300 ft.

Figure 11-15 and Figure 11-16 show variograms for the Cambrian Deadwood. The primary direction is at an azimuth of 0° with a downward dip of 12°. The secondary axis has an azimuth of 270° (or 90°) and no dip. The ranges of the two variograms are 275 ft and 300 ft, respectively. These variograms are also appropriate for the Tertiary sills.

Variograms for silver were also examined and there did not appear to be significant differences in the orientations for silver versus gold. It is also considered that the directions are reasonable given the geology and perceived orientation of mineralization as observed on sections.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>134 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img04.jpg)

**Figure 11-9: Variogram for Tertiary Breccia – Azimuth 90°, Dip 85°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>135 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img05.jpg)

**Figure 11-10: Variogram for Tertiary Breccia – Azimuth 22°, Dip -2°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>136 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img06.jpg)

**Figure 11-11: Variogram for Precambrian Greenstone – Azimuth 292°, Dip 67°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>137 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img07.jpg)

**Figure 11-12: Variogram for Precambrian Greenstone – Azimuth 202°, Dip 0°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>138 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img08.jpg)

**Figure 11-13: Variogram for Precambrian Flagrock – Azimuth 45° - Dip 0°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>139 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img09.jpg)

**Figure 11-14: Variogram for Precambrian Flagrock – Azimuth 135° – Dip 45°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>140 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img10.jpg)

**Figure 11-15: Variogram for Cambrian Deadwood – Azimuth 0° – Dip 12°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>141 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img11.jpg)

**Figure 11-16: Variogram for Cambrian Deadwood – Azimuth 270° – Dip 0°**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>142 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.5.7** **Block Grade Estimation** 

Block grades for gold and silver were estimated with inverse distance with a power weight of 2 (ID<sup>2</sup>). The ID<sup>2</sup> method was chosen because it generally results in less smoothing (smearing) than ordinary kriging (OK). As previously discussed, the estimates are based on 10 ft downhole composites. All estimates were done using a maximum of 15 composites, a minimum of three composites, and a maximum of three composites per hole. A minimum of one hole was allowed to estimate grades. This is a change from the AKF model that required a minimum of two holes. For the updated model, blocks estimated with only one or two drillholes are classified as inferred mineral resources. The QP for this section believes this change is reasonable and within industry practices.

Table 11-11 shows the estimation parameters for gold and silver. The parameters show the orientation of the composite search ellipse and the search radii in the major, minor, and tertiary axis directions. The search orientations for the Tertiary breccia, Tertiary dikes, Precambrian Greenstone, and Precambrian Flagrock are relatively steep. The orientations for the Tertiary sills, Cambrian Deadwood, Precambrian Ellison and Undifferentiated Paleozoic units are relatively flat with a slight plunge to the north. Much of the Precambrian Ellison sampling data is adjacent to, and below, the Cambrian Deadwood. The search orientations and search radii were the same for gold and silver.

There were relatively few hard boundaries for the estimations. For gold the hard boundaries were between the Deadwood and the Tertiary sills, the Deadwood and the Ellison, and the Tertiary dikes and the Ellison. There were also hard boundaries between the Paleozoic units and the Tertiary breccia, Precambrian Greenstone, Precambrian Flagrock, and Precambrian Ellison.

For silver the hard boundaries are between the Deadwood and the Tertiary dikes and the Deadwood and the Ellison. There were also hard boundaries between the Paleozoic units and the Tertiary breccia, Precambrian Greenstone, Precambrian Flagrock, and Precambrian Ellison.

The boundaries were evaluated independently for gold and silver. The evaluation was based on pairing samples relatively short distances apart across the various boundaries and reviewing statistics of the sample pairs to determine if a hard boundary was indicated. The analysis was done with assay data and 10 ft composites. A maximum separation distance of 30 ft was used. For assays the data was examined in 5 ft distance intervals and composites were examined in 10 ft intervals.

Figure 11-17 and Figure 11-18 show gold grades on cross sections A-A' and B-B' respectively. In Figure 11-18 it can be seen where mining was conducted in the high-grade portion of Richmond Hill. The area was also backfilled with the waste material from the prior mining.

Figure 11-19 shows silver grades on cross section A-A'. Note the relatively high silver grades in the flat lying Deadwood Formation in Chism Gulch on the far right of the figure.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>143 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-11: Estimation Parameters**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | | **Rotation Angles (Note 1)** | **Rotation Angles (Note 1)** | **Rotation Angles (Note 1)** | **Search Radii** | **Search Radii** | **Search Radii** | **Number of Composites** | **Number of Composites** | **Number of Composites** | |
| <br>**Lithology Code** | <br>**Lithology** | <br>**Allowable Lith Codes** | **Theta<br> (deg)** | **Phi <br> (deg)** | **Psi<br> (deg)**  | **Major<br> (ft)** | **Minor<br> (ft)**  | **Tertiary<br> (ft)**  | **Max** | **Min** | **Max/** <br> **Hole** | <br>**ID<br> Power** |
| **Gold** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 20 | Tertiary Breccia | All, except 45 | 90 | -85 | -20 | 250 | 250 | 62.5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 30 | Tertiary Sills | All except 50 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 40 | Tertiary Dikes | All except 80 | 90 | -85 | -20 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 45 | Paleozoic (undif) | 30, 40, 45, 50 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 50 | Cambrian Deadwood | All except 30, 80 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 60 | Precambrian Greenstone | All, except 45 | -68 | -67 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 62.5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 70 | Precambrian Flagrock | All, except 45 | 45 | 0 | -45 | 250 | 125 | 125 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 80 | Precambrian Ellison | All except 40, 45, 50 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| **Silver** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 20 | Tertiary Breccia | All, except 45 | 90 | -85 | -20 | 250 | 250 | 62.5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 30 | Tertiary Sills | All | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 40 | Tertiary Dikes | All except 50 | 90 | -85 | -20 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 45 | Paleozoic (undif) | 30, 40, 45, 50 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 50 | Cambrian Deadwood | All except 40, 80 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 60 | Precambrian Greenstone | All, except 45 | -68 | -67 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 62.5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 70 | Precambrian Flagrock | All, except 45 | 45 | 0 | -45 | 250 | 125 | 125 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 80 | Precambrian Ellison | All except 45, 50 | 0 | -12 | 0 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 |

---

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| Note 1: GSLIB Convention for Angles | Note 1: GSLIB Convention for Angles |
|  | theta - rotation of y (north) axis clockwise to principal direction in horizontal plane. |
|  | phi - dip of principal axis, negative is down. |
|  | psi - rotation around principal axis, clockwise is negative. |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>144 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img12.jpg)

**Figure 11-17: Gold Grade on Cross Section A-A' (See Figure 11-2)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>145 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img13.jpg)

**Figure 11-18: Gold Grades on Cross Section B-B' (See Figure 11-2)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>146 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img14.jpg)

**Figure 11-19: Silver Grades on Cross Section A-A' (See Figure 11-2)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>147 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.5.8** **Resource Classification** 

To classify measured and indicated versus inferred mineral resources, two additional block estimates were done to measure the average distance of each block to the nearest three and four drillholes. These were based on the same search orientations and search radii as the gold grade estimates. The first estimate was based on a maximum of four composites, a minimum of four, and a maximum of one composite per hole. The second estimate was based on a maximum of three composites, a minimum of three, and a maximum of one composite per hole. These estimates provide the average distance to the nearest three and four holes to each block and the distances were stored in the block model. Note the grades from these estimates were not used.

Blocks with an average distance to the nearest four holes less than 125 ft were assigned as measured mineral resources. Blocks with an average distance to the nearest three holes less than 175 ft (and not measured) were assigned as indicated mineral resource. This includes all blocks estimated with only one or two drillholes. Remaining blocks with an estimated gold grade were assigned to inferred mineral resource. Generally (not specific to Richmond Hill) an average distance to the nearest four holes of 125 ft corresponds to an average drill spacing of about 150 ft, and an average distance to the nearest three holes of 175 ft corresponds to an average drill spacing of about 230 ft. These estimates are approximate. Due to many angle holes from common drilling pads, the Richmond sample spacing fluctuates widely.

Figure 11-20 and Figure 11-21 show probability plots of the average distance to the nearest three and four holes. Figure 11-22 and Figure 11-23 show the resource classification on cross sections A-A' and B-B' respectively.

After calculating the average distances to the blocks and assigning an initial classification a filtering algorithm was applied to the classification. The purpose of the filtering was to remove small clusters of blocks surrounded by blocks of different classification and to smooth out the boundaries of the various categories. The filtering identified blocks that were contacted on three or four edges by blocks of a different resource category. Five filtering passes were done, and each pass consisted of the following steps:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Measured
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent indicated blocks were set to indicated.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Measured
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent inferred blocks were set to inferred (rare case).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Indicated
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent measured blocks were set to measured.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Indicated
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent inferred blocks were set to inferred.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Inferred
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent measured blocks were set to measured (rare case).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Inferred
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent indicated blocks were set to indicated.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Measured
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent indicated or inferred blocks were set to indicated.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Indicated
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent measured or inferred blocks were set to inferred.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;• Inferred
 blocks with 3 or 4 adjacent measured or indicated blocks were set to indicated.

The QP for this section is of the opinion that the classifications of measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources are adequate. When examined on cross sections, the measured mineral resources correspond to a high density of sampling information, sufficient to allow accurate geologic interpretation and confirm grade quality and continuity.

When examined on cross sections, the indicated mineral resources correspond to a reasonable level of data density, though less than the measured mineral resources. The data density is adequate for reasonable interpretations of geologic conditions and grade quality and continuity.

Inferred mineral resources are based on some, but more limited sampling data, sometimes only one drillhole. However, given the relatively disseminated distribution of grades in the deposit, the QP for this section is confident that the majority of the inferred mineral resource can be upgraded to measured or indicated mineral resource with additional exploration.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>148 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img15.jpg)

**Figure 11-20: Probability Plot of Average Distance to Nearest 3 and 4 Holes – Tertiary Breccia**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>149 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Figure 11-21: Probability Plot of Average Distance to Nearest 3 and 4 Holes – Cambrian Deadwood**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>150 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img17.jpg)

**Figure 11-22: Resource Classification on Cross Section A-A'**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>151 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp8img18.jpg)

**Figure 11-23: Resource Classification on Cross Section B-B'**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>152 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.5.9** **Bulk Density** 

The drilling database included about 13,700 specific gravity measurements for Dakota Gold drill core that were conducted by Dakota personnel. The measurements were by the water immersion method. The weights in air and in water, along with the specific gravity calculations, were provided with the drilling database.

These were analyzed by rock type and oxide zone. Table 11-12 summarizes the data for the samples where a rock type and oxide zone could be assigned. The data was trimmed for the analysis; 10 samples greater than 4.0 and 23 samples less than 1.2 were excluded. The average specific gravity was reduced by 2% (0.98 bulk factor) to allow for voids at a larger scale than the available samples and also a general tendency to measure more competent samples. The tonnage factors and ktons/block values on the table reflect this reduction.

**Table 11-12: Specific Gravity Measurements**

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Lith<br> Code** | **Lithology/Oxidation** | **No. of<br> Samples** | **<br> **Mean (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | **Std Dev**<br> **(g/cm<sup>3</sup>)**  | **Max<br> (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | **Min<br> (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)** | **Bulk<br> Factor** | **<br> **Ton Fact ft<sup>3</sup>/ton** | **Ktons/**<br> **Block** |
| 20 | Tertiary Breccia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 766 | 2.453 | 0.240 | 3.293 | 1.645 | 0.980 | 13.33 | 0.600 |
|  | 20 - Transition | 266 | 2.596 | 0.242 | 3.341 | 1.900 | 0.980 | 12.60 | 0.635 |
|  | 30 - Sulfide | 2651 | 2.694 | 0.213 | 3.981 | 1.281 | 0.980 | 12.14 | 0.659 |
| 30 | Tertiary Sills |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 479 | 2.540 | 0.153 | 3.750 | 1.720 | 0.980 | 12.88 | 0.621 |
|  | 20, 30 - Trans/Sulfide | 44 | 2.474 | 0.145 | 2.832 | 2.132 | 0.980 | 13.22 | 0.605 |
| 40 | Tertiary Dikes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 281 | 2.524 | 0.221 | 3.243 | 1.356 | 0.980 | 12.96 | 0.617 |
|  | 20, 30 - Trans/Sulfide | 1166 | 2.664 | 0.240 | 3.827 | 1.218 | 0.980 | 12.28 | 0.652 |
| 45 | Undifferentiated Paleozoic |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 14 | 2.370 | 0.205 | 2.891 | 2.077 | 0.980 | 13.80 | 0.580 |
| 50 | Cambrian Deadwood |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 1133 | 2.485 | 0.200 | 3.670 | 1.658 | 0.980 | 13.16 | 0.608 |
|  | 20 - Transition | 82 | 2.562 | 0.237 | 3.331 | 1.927 | 0.980 | 12.77 | 0.627 |
|  | 30 - Sulfide | 155 | 2.584 | 0.175 | 3.022 | 2.139 | 0.980 | 12.66 | 0.632 |
| 60 | Precambrian Greenstone |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 497 | 2.574 | 0.256 | 3.256 | 1.299 | 0.980 | 12.71 | 0.630 |
|  | 20 - Transition | 384 | 2.677 | 0.231 | 3.977 | 1.591 | 0.980 | 12.22 | 0.655 |
|  | 30 - Sulfide | 2516 | 2.760 | 0.229 | 3.876 | 1.322 | 0.980 | 11.85 | 0.675 |
| 70 | Precambrian Flagrock |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 126 | 2.643 | 0.223 | 3.970 | 2.040 | 0.980 | 12.37 | 0.646 |
|  | 20 - Transition | 355 | 2.761 | 0.220 | 3.383 | 1.587 | 0.980 | 11.85 | 0.675 |
|  | 30 - Sulfide | 1714 | 2.801 | 0.212 | 3.807 | 1.223 | 0.980 | 11.68 | 0.685 |
| 80 | Precambrian Ellison |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | 10 - Oxide | 276 | 2.687 | 0.175 | 3.517 | 1.714 | 0.980 | 12.17 | 0.657 |
|  | 20 - Transition | 196 | 2.766 | 0.124 | 3.222 | 2.017 | 0.980 | 11.82 | 0.677 |
|  | 30 - Sulfide | 441 | 2.753 | 0.122 | 3.896 | 1.793 | 0.980 | 11.88 | 0.673 |
|  | **Total** | **13542** | **2.671** | **0.242** | **3.981** | **1.218** | **0.980** | **12.24** | **0.653** |
| 14 | Leach Pad |  | 1.800 |  |  |  | 1.000 | 17.81 | 0.449 |
| 15 | Waste Rock |  | 2.000 |  |  |  | 1.000 | 16.03 | 0.499 |

---

Note 1: Data is trimmed. Values < 1.2 (23 samples) and values > 4.0 (10 samples) are excluded.

Note 2: Tonnage factor is 32.05218/sg.

Specific gravities of 1.8 and 2.0 were assigned for the existing leach pad and waste rock area.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>153 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.6** **Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources** 

**11.6.1** **Leach Mineral Resource** 

Table 11-13 presents a reconciliation of the January 2025 mineral resource estimate with the October 2023 estimate for mineral resources amenable to leaching. This includes the oxide and transition material. Item 1 on the table is the October 2023 mineral resource estimate for oxide and transition material as stated in the April 2024 technical report summary. Items 2 through 11 are calculations done by IMC, using the October 2023 resource model, to show the impact of changes in the various parameters. In most cases, a new resource shell was developed by IMC to measure the prospective change. Items 12 through 13 are based on the updated resource model developed by IMC.

Item 1 is the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. There were no measured mineral resources reported. The indicated mineral resource was 41.7 million tons at 0.0206 oz/t gold for 859,000 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 52.2 million tons at 0.0160 oz/t gold for 835,900 contained gold ounces. Oxide and transition material are not reported separately on the table, but the gold cut-off grades for each are shown and were 0.0062 oz/t for oxide and 0.0085 oz/t for transition, due to differences in estimated gold recovery. IMC was able to validate these results based on the October 2023 resource block model and the economic parameters used to develop the resource shell. Note that total tons in the various resource shells are also presented on Table 11-13 to show changes for each case.

Item 3 on Table 11-13 shows the impact of replacing the oxide, transition, and sulfide domains used for the October 2023 model with the updated interpretation. A new pit shell was developed based on the new domains and same economic parameters used for the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. This resulted in 64.0 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0205 oz/t gold for 1.31 million contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 84.7 million tons at 0.0153 oz/t gold for 1.30 million ounces of contained gold. Item 2 shows that using the new domains, indicated mineral resource would have increased by 22.3 million tons and 453,000 contained ounces and inferred mineral resources would have increased by 32.5 million tons and 460,500 contained ounces. Much of this gain represents sulfide material reclassified as oxide or transition material.

The October 2023 mineral resource was reported at breakeven gold cut-off grades. The January 2025 mineral resource is reported at internal cut-off grades. Item 4 shows for indicated mineral resource this change in cut-off grades would have increased the October 2023 resource by 5.43 million tons and 35,000 contained gold ounces and inferred mineral resources by 12.1 million tons and 69,100 contained ounces. Item 5 shows the impact of reporting at internal cut-off grades, 0.0050 oz/t for oxide and 0.0085 oz/t for transition material.

Item 7 on Table 11-13 shows the impact of updated gold recoveries. The October 2023 mineral resource estimate was based on recoveries of 87% for oxide, 65% for transition, and 42% for sulfide. This is based on grinding the mineral resource and leaching in tanks. The updated recoveries are 89% for oxide, 65% for transition material, and 85% for sulfide. This is based on crushing and heap leaching for oxide and transition material and grinding followed by flotation to produce a gold sulfide concentrate for the sulfides. The recoveries for the two estimates are similar for oxide and transition material. A new pit shell was developed based on the new recoveries, but with the same cost parameters as the October 2023 estimate. This would have resulted in 70.4 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0192 oz/t gold for 1.35 million contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource would have been 101.6 million tons at 0.0138 oz/t gold for 1.40 million ounces of contained gold. Item 6 shows that the indicated mineral resource would have increased by 999,000 tons and 5,300 contained ounces and the inferred mineral resources would have increased by 4.76 million tons and 36,700 contained ounces.

Item 9 on Table 11-13 shows the impact of an increase in gold price on the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 mineral resource estimate was based on a gold price of $1,900/oz. Increasing the gold price to $2,000/oz, along with the cumulative changes in parameters discussed above, would have resulted in 71.7 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0190 oz/t gold for 1.36 million contained gold ounces for the October 2023 model (calculated by IMC). Inferred mineral resource would have been 107.4 million tons at 0.0135 oz/t gold for 1.45 million ounces of contained gold. Item 8 shows for indicated mineral resource this change would have increased the resource by 1.32 million tons and 11,000 contained ounces, and for inferred mineral resources this change would have increased the resource by 5.76 million tons and 47,200 contained ounces. The increased gold price resulted in a small decrease in the gold cut-off grades.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>154 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Item 11 on Table 11-13 shows the impact of updated unit costs on the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 estimate was based on a mining cost of $1.80/t versus $2.15/t for the updated mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 unit costs for processing and G&A were $8.00/t for all material types. For the updated estimate the unit costs for processing and G&A are $4.39/t for oxide leach, $5.15/t for transition leach, and $7.83/t for sulfide milling. The updated estimate also includes some treatment and refining charges that were not broken out separately for the October 2023 estimate. The lower process costs for heap leaching reduced the gold internal cut-off grades to 0.0026 oz/t for oxide and 0.0041 oz/t for transition material. This change would have resulted in 83.7 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0169 oz/t gold for 1.41 million contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource would have been 145.6 million tons at 0.0112 oz/t gold for 1.63 million ounces of contained gold. Item 10 shows that indicated mineral resource would have increased the October 2023 resource by 11.9 million tons and 51,100 contained ounces and increased inferred mineral resources by 38.3 million tons and 181,900 contained ounces.

All the previous mineral resource tabulations in this section are based on the model used for the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. Item 13 on the table shows the impact of the updated January 2025 resource model and the economic parameters for the current mineral resource estimate. This item is based on a resource shell developed with gold only; silver is reported but did not contribute to economics for the case. This resulted in 264.6 million tons of measured and indicated mineral resource at 0.0137 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver for 3.63 million contained gold ounces and 37.4 million contained silver ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 244.4 million tons at 0.0104 oz/t gold and 0.089 oz/t silver for 2.54 million ounces of contained gold and 21.7 million ounces of contained silver. Item 12 shows the incremental tons and contained ounces due to the updated model.

Item 14 shows the impact of adding silver to the resource estimate is modest. Item 15 is the final mineral resource estimate, with silver contributing to the economics. However, it is important to have estimates of the amount of silver that might be produced for process plant design.

The sensitivity analysis shows a large difference between the October 2023 and January 2025 mineral resources, and that the difference is mostly due to the resource models. Additional drilling and analysis have eliminated the need for the conservative assumptions in the October 2023 model regarding hard geologic boundaries and the requirement for two holes for a block grade estimation. Based on this additional data and analysis, the QP has added blocks to the resource model that were not evaluated in the October 2023 model. It is interesting to note that Item 11 on the table is based on the October 2023 model and all the economic and recovery parameters used for the current mineral resource. Note that the sum of indicated and inferred mineral resources for that item amounts to 229.3 million tons at 0.0133 oz/t gold for 3.05 million ounces of contained gold. This result is reasonably consistent with the measured and indicated mineral resources in the updated mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 resource model can be interpreted as a model of measured and indicated mineral resources (though not reported that way) with limited inferred mineral resources included.

**11.6.2** **Mill Resource** 

Table 11-14 shows the reconciliation for mineral resources amenable to milling that is comprised of sulfide material. This is parallel to the analysis for mineral resources amenable to leaching; the impact of all the same parameters is measured in the analysis.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>155 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Item 1 on the table is the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. There were no measured mineral resources reported. The indicated mineral resource was 15.4 million tons at 0.0304 oz/t gold for 469,200 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 11.8 million tons at 0.0252 oz/t gold for 296,300 contained gold ounces. The gold cut-off grade for the mineral resource amenable to milling was 0.0128 oz/t. IMC was able to validate these results based on the October 2023 resource block model and the economic parameters used to develop the resource shell.

Item 3 on the table shows the impact of replacing the oxide, transition, and sulfide domains used for the October 2023 model with the updated domain interpretation. A new pit shell was developed by IMC based on the new domains and same economic parameters used for the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. This resulted in 6.54 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0256 oz/t gold for 167,300 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resources were 4.30 million tons at 0.0232 oz/t gold for 99,700 ounces of contained gold. Item 2 shows for indicated mineral resource this is a decrease of 8.90 million tons and 301,900 contained ounces and for inferred mineral resources this is a decrease of 7.46 million tons and 196,600 contained ounces. Much of this decrease represents sulfide material reclassified as oxide or transition material.

The October 2023 mineral resource was reported at breakeven gold cut-off grades. The January 2025 mineral resource is reported at internal cut-off grades. Item 5 shows the impact of reporting at internal cut-off grade of 0.0104 oz/t. Item 4 shows for indicated mineral resource this is an increase of 850,000 tons and 9,900 contained gold ounces and for inferred mineral resources this is an increase of 561,000 tons and 6,200 contained ounces.

Item 7 on the table shows the impact of updated gold recoveries. The October 2023 mineral resource estimate was based on a recovery of 42% for sulfide material, based on grinding the mineral resource and leaching in tanks. The updated recovery for sulfide is 85% based grinding followed by flotation to produce a gold sulfide concentrate. This reduced the internal cut-off grade mill material to 0.0051 oz/t. A new pit shell was developed based on the new recoveries, but with the same cost parameters as the October 2023 estimate. This resulted in 13.1 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0185 oz/t gold for 242,200 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resources were 14.9 million tons at 0.0164 oz/t gold for 243,600 ounces of contained gold. Item 6 shows for indicated mineral resource this is an increase of 5.71 million tons and 65,000 contained ounces and for inferred mineral resources this is an increase of 10.0 million tons and 137,600 contained ounces.

Item 9 on the table shows the impact of an increase in gold price on the mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 mineral resource estimate was based on a gold price of $1,900/oz. Increasing the gold price to $2,000/oz, along with the cumulative changes discussed above, results in 13.3 million tons of indicated mineral resources at 0.0183 oz/t gold for 243,800 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource is 15.4 million tons at 0.0162 oz/t gold for 248,900 ounces of contained gold. Item 8 shows for indicated mineral resource this change would have resulted in an increase of 229,000 tons and 1,600 contained ounces and for inferred mineral resources this change would have resulted in an increase of 514,000 tons and 5,400 contained ounces. The increased gold price resulted in a small decrease in the gold cut-off grade to 0.0049 oz/t.

Item 11 on the table shows the impact of updated unit costs on the mineral resource estimate. The October 2023 unit costs for processing and G&A were $8.00/t for sulfide material. For the updated estimate the unit costs for processing and G&A are $7.83/t for sulfide milling. The updated estimate also includes treatment and refining charges of $6.00/oz and a payable amount of 95.5% that was not broken out separately for the October 2023 estimate. This resulted in 13.2 million tons of indicated mineral resource at 0.0185 oz/t gold for 243,400 contained gold ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 14.7 million tons at 0.0162 oz/t gold for 238,900 ounces of contained gold. Item 10 shows a slight decrease for indicated and inferred mineral resources due to the treatment charges.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>156 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

All the previous mineral resource tabulations in this section are based on the model used for the October 2023 mineral resource estimate. Item 13 on the table shows the impact of the updated January 2025 resource model and the economic parameters for the current mineral resource estimate. This item is based on a resource shell developed with gold only; silver is reported but did not contribute to economics for the case. This resulted in 63.9 million tons of measured and indicated mineral resources at 0.0147 oz/t gold and 0.140 oz/t silver for 941,500 contained gold ounces and 8.92 million contained silver ounces. Inferred mineral resource was 161.1 million tons at 0.0130 oz/t gold and 0.143 oz/t silver for 2.09 million ounces of contained gold and 23.0 million ounces of contained silver. Item 12 shows the incremental tons and contained ounces due to the updated model.

Item 15 is the final mineral resource estimate, with silver contributing to the economics. Item 14 shows the impact of adding silver to the resource estimate is modest for measured and indicated mineral resources but resulted in a significant increase in inferred mineral resources.

As with leach material, the sensitivity analysis shows a large difference between the October 2023 and January 2025 mineral resources, and that the difference is mostly due to the resource models.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>157 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-13: Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources – Leach Resource**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Gold**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Silver**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Gold**<br> **(koz)** | **Silver**<br> **(koz)** | **Total**<br> **Ktons** |
| **1. October 2023 Oxide/Mixed Mineral Resource** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0062 | 41699 | 0.0000 | 0.0206 | 0.000 | 859.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **41699** | **0.0000** | **0.0206** | **0.000** | **859.0** | **0** | **295000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0085 | 52243 | 0.0000 | 0.0160 | 0.000 | 835.9 | 0 |  |
| **2. Due to Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0062 | 22301 | 0.0000 | 0.0203 | 0.000 | 453.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **22301** | **0.0000** | **0.0203** | **0.000** | **453.0** | **0** | **53067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0085 | 32485 | 0.0000 | 0.0142 | 0.000 | 460.5 | 0 |  |
| **3. Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0062 | 64000 | 0.0000 | 0.0205 | 0.000 | 1312.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **64000** | **0.0000** | **0.0205** | **0.000** | **1312.0** | **0** | **348067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0085 | 84728 | 0.0000 | 0.0153 | 0.000 | 1296.3 | 0 |  |
| **4. Due to Internal versus Breakeven Cut-off Grade** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 5431 | 0.0000 | 0.0064 | 0.000 | 35.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **5431** | **0.0000** | **0.0064** | **0.000** | **35.0** | **0** | **0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0067 | 12110 | 0.0000 | 0.0057 | 0.000 | 69.1 | 0 |  |
| **5. Updated Domains, Internal Cut-off Grades** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 69431 | 0.0000 | 0.0194 | 0.000 | 1347.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **69431** | **0.0000** | **0.0194** | **0.000** | **1347.0** | **0** | **348067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0067 | 96838 | 0.0000 | 0.0141 | 0.000 | 1365.4 | 0 |  |
| **6. Due to Updated Recoveries** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0049 | 999 | 0.0000 | 0.0053 | 0.000 | 5.3 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **999** | **0.0000** | **0.0053** | **0.000** | **5.3** | **0** | **65122** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0067 | 4762 | 0.0000 | 0.0077 | 0.000 | 36.7 | 0 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>158 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **7. Updated Process Recoveries** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0049 | 70430 | 0.0000 | 0.0192 | 0.000 | 1352.3 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **70430** | **0.0000** | **0.0192** | **0.000** | **1352.3** | **0** | **413189** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0067 | 101600 | 0.0000 | 0.0138 | 0.000 | 1402.1 | 0 |  |
| **8. Due to $2,000/oz Price** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0047 | 1319 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.000 | 11.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **1319** | **0.0000** | **0.0083** | **0.000** | **11.0** | **0** | **16743** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0064 | 5757 | 0.0000 | 0.0082 | 0.000 | 47.2 | 0 |  |
| **9. $2,000/oz Gold - DGC Resource Price** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0047 | 71749 | 0.0000 | 0.0190 | 0.000 | 1363.2 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **71749** | **0.0000** | **0.0190** | **0.000** | **1363.2** | **0** | **429932** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0064 | 107357 | 0.0000 | 0.0135 | 0.000 | 1449.3 | 0 |  |
| **10. Due to Dakota Gold Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 11940 | 0.0000 | 0.0043 | 0.000 | 51.1 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **11940** | **0.0000** | **0.0043** | **0.000** | **51.1** | **0** | **30095** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 38285 | 0.0000 | 0.0048 | 0.000 | 181.9 | 0 |  |
| **11. Dakota Gold Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 83689 | 0.0000 | 0.0169 | 0.000 | 1414.3 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **83689** | **0.0000** | **0.0169** | **0.000** | **1414.3** | **0** | **460027** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 145642 | 0.0000 | 0.0112 | 0.000 | 1631.2 | 0 |  |
| **12. Due to Updated Resource Model (Only Gold Used to Determine Resource Shell)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 112566 | 0.0000 | 0.0159 | N.A. | 1789.8 | 18123 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 68376 | 0.0000 | 0.0062 | N.A. | 425.6 | 19312 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **180942** | **0.0000** | **0.0122** | **N.A.** | **2215.4** | **37435** | **739636** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 98720 | 0.0000 | 0.0092 | N.A. | 910.2 | 21748 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>159 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **13. January 2025 Resource Model (Only Gold Used to Determine Resource Shell)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 112566 | 0.0000 | 0.0159 | 0.161 | 1789.8 | 18123 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 152065 | 0.0000 | 0.0121 | 0.127 | 1840.0 | 19312 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **264631** | **0.0000** | **0.0137** | **0.141** | **3629.8** | **37435** | **1199663** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 244362 | 0.0000 | 0.0104 | 0.089 | 2541.4 | 21748 |  |
| **14. Due to Silver** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 1182 | 0.0000 | 0.0030 | 0.072 | 3.6 | 85 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 3954 | 0.0000 | 0.0051 | 0.145 | 20.0 | 572 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **5136** | **0.0000** | **0.0046** | **0.128** | **23.6** | **657** | **167362** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 9824 | 0.0000 | 0.0073 | 0.106 | 72.0 | 1039 |  |
| **15. Final January 2025 Mineral Resource** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | Oxide | 113748 | 0.0164 | 0.0158 | 0.160 | 1793.4 | 18208 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0026 | 156019 | 0.0125 | 0.0119 | 0.128 | 1860.0 | 19884 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | Transition | **269768** | **0.0141** | **0.0135** | **0.141** | **3653.3** | **38092** | **1367025** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0041 | 254186 | 0.0106 | 0.0103 | 0.090 | 2613.4 | 22787 |  |
| Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. | Note 1: Oxide and Transition Material is Combined on this Table, But Applicable Cut-off Grades for Each are Shown. <br>Note 2: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent. |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>160 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 11-14: Reconciliation of January 2025 and October 2023 Mineral Resources – Mill Resource**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **1. October 2023 Oxide/Mixed Mineral Resource** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 15434 | 0.0304 | 0.000 | 469.2 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0128 | **15434** | **0.0304** | **0.000** | **469.2** | **0** | **295000** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 11759 | 0.0252 | 0.000 | 296.3 | 0 |  |
| **2. Due to Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | -8899 | 0.0339 | 0.000 | -301.9 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0128 | **-8899** | **0.0339** | **0.000** | **-301.9** | **0** | **53067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | -7460 | 0.0264 | 0.000 | -196.6 | 0 |  |
| **3. Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 6535 | 0.0256 | 0.000 | 167.3 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0128 | **6535** | **0.0256** | **0.000** | **167.3** | **0** | **348067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 4299 | 0.0232 | 0.000 | 99.7 | 0 |  |
| **4. Due to Internal versus Breakeven Cut-off Grade** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 850 | 0.0117 | 0.000 | 9.9 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0104 | **850** | **0.0117** | **0.000** | **9.9** | **0** | **0** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 561 | 0.0111 | 0.000 | 6.2 | 0 |  |
| **5. Updated Domains, Internal Cut-off Grades** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 7385 | 0.0240 | 0.000 | 177.2 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0104 | **7385** | **0.0240** | **0.000** | **177.2** | **0** | **348067** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 4860 | 0.0218 | 0.000 | 105.9 | 0 |  |
| **6. Due to Updated Recoveries** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 5707 | 0.0114 | 0.000 | 65.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0051 | **5707** | **0.0114** | **0.000** | **65.0** | **0** | **65122** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 9991 | 0.0138 | 0.000 | 137.6 | 0 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>161 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **7. Updated Process Recoveries** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 13092 | 0.0185 | 0.000 | 242.2 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0051 | **13092** | **0.0185** | **0.000** | **242.2** | **0** | **413189** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 14851 | 0.0164 | 0.000 | 243.6 | 0 |  |
| **8. Due to $2,000/oz Price** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 229 | 0.0069 | 0.000 | 1.6 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0049 | **229** | **0.0069** | **0.000** | **1.6** | **0** | **16743** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 514 | 0.0104 | 0.000 | 5.4 | 0 |  |
| **9. $2,000/oz Gold - DGC Resource Price** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 13321 | 0.0183 | 0.000 | 243.8 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0049 | **13321** | **0.0183** | **0.000** | **243.8** | **0** | **429932** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 15365 | 0.0162 | 0.000 | 248.9 | 0 |  |
| **10. Due to Dakota Gold Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | -165 | 0.0024 | 0.000 | -0.4 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **-165** | **0.0024** | **0.000** | **-0.4** | **0** | **30095** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | -620 | 0.0162 | 0.000 | -10.0 | 0 |  |
| **11. Dakota Gold Costs** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 0 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 13156 | 0.0185 | 0.000 | 243.4 | 0 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **13156** | **0.0185** | **0.000** | **243.4** | **0** | **460027** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 14745 | 0.0162 | 0.000 | 238.9 | 0 |  |
| **12. Due to Updated Resource Model (Only Gold Used to Determine Resource Shell)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 19884 | 0.0170 | N.A. | 338.0 | 3062 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 30895 | 0.0117 | N.A. | 360.1 | 5859 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **50779** | **0.0137** | **N.A.** | **698.1** | **8921** | **739636** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 146331 | 0.0127 | N.A. | 1855.1 | 23034 |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>162 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Price/Resource Category** | **Cut-off<br> (oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **Gold<br> (oz/t)** | **Silver<br> (oz/t)** | **Gold<br> (koz)** | **Silver<br> (koz)** | **Total<br> Ktons** |
| **13. January 2025 Resource Model (Only Gold Used to Determine Resource Shell)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 19884 | 0.0170 | 0.154 | 338.0 | 3062 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 44051 | 0.0137 | 0.133 | 603.5 | 5859 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **63935** | **0.0147** | **0.140** | **941.5** | **8921** | **1199663** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 161076 | 0.0130 | 0.143 | 2094.0 | 23034 |  |
| **14. Due to Silver** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 819 | 0.0044 | 0.078 | 3.6 | 64 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 4842 | 0.0076 | 0.143 | 37.0 | 693 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **5661** | **0.0072** | **0.134** | **40.6** | **757** | **167362** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 41145 | 0.0086 | 0.153 | 352.9 | 6288 |  |
| **15. Final January 2025 Mineral Resource** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 20703 | 0.0165 | 0.151 | 341.6 | 3126 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 48893 | 0.0131 | 0.134 | 640.5 | 6552 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | 0.0050 | **69596** | **0.0141** | **0.139** | **982.1** | **9678** | **1367025** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 202221 | 0.0121 | 0.145 | 2446.9 | 29322 |  |

---

Note 1: Cases 1 - 13 Are Based on Gold Cut-off Grades, Case 15 is Gold Equivalent.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>163 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**11.6.3** **Reconciliation Summary** 

Table 11-15 summarizes the reconciliation results from the January 2025 and October 2023 resource models in terms of contained gold ounces. The items on the table show incremental changes due to various changes in modeling parameters as discussed above.

**Table 11-15: Summary of Reconciliation Analysis for Contained Gold Ounces**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | **Oxide/Transition (Leach)** | **Oxide/Transition (Leach)** | **Sulfide (Mill)** | **Sulfide (Mill)** | **All Mineral Resource** | **All Mineral Resource** |
| <br>**Parameter** | **Meas/Indic<br> Au (koz)** | **Inferred<br> Au (koz)** | **Meas/Indic<br> Au (koz)** | **Inferred<br> Au (koz)** | **Meas/Indic<br> Au (koz)** | **Inferred<br> Au (koz)** |
| **Start - October 2023 Mineral Resource** | **859** | **836** | **469** | **296** | **1328** | **1132** |
| Due to Updated Oxide/Transition/Sulfide Domains | 453 | 461 | (302) | (197) | 151 | 264 |
| Due to Internal versus Breakeven Cut-off Grade | 35 | 69 | 10 | 6 | 45 | 75 |
| Due to Updated Recoveries | 5 | 37 | 65 | 138 | 70 | 175 |
| Due to $2,000/oz Price | 11 | 47 | 1.6 | 5 | 13 | 53 |
| Due to Dakota Gold Costs | 51 | 182 | (0.4) | (10) | 51 | 172 |
| Due to Updated Resource Model (Note 1) | 2215 | 910 | 698 | 1855 | 2914 | 2765 |
| Due to Silver (Note 2) | 24 | 72 | 41 | 353 | 64 | 425 |
| **Cumulative Change for All Parameters** | **2794** | **1778** | **513** | **2151** | **3307** | **3929** |
| **Final - January 2025 Mineral Resource** | **3653** | **2614** | **982** | **2447** | **4636** | **5061** |

---

Note 1. Only gold used to develop resource shell.

Note 2. Silver economics allowed to contribute to resource shell

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>164 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **12** | **Mineral Reserve Estimates** |

---

This chapter is not required for this Initial Assessment, but will be addressed in a future Feasibility Study.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>165 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **13** | **Mining Methods** |

---

The IA presented in this report examines open-pit mining of the Richmond Hill Gold project. Note that an IA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied that would enable them to be classified as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the economic results of the IA will be realized.

The proposed open-pit mining methods have been selected due to the large tonnage and aerial extents of the deposit, as well as the low stripping ratio of 0.44 tons of waste per ton of ore.

The methodology used for mine planning to define the economics for the IA includes:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define assumptions for the economic parameters;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Input geometric parameters and constraints;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Run pit optimizations to determine the ultimate
pit limits and sequencing;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define pit design parameters;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Create pit designs;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Identify waste-rock storage locations;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Produce mine and process production schedules;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Define personnel and equipment requirements;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Estimate mining costs; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Perform an economic analysis

All topics listed above are discussed in Section 13 with the exception of the mining cost estimates and economic analysis which are presented in Sections 18 and 19, respectively.

**13.1** **Economic Parameters & Cutoff Grades** 

The economic parameters used for this IA have been developed between M3 Engineering, Woods Process Services, Dakota Gold, and RESPEC. Table 13-1 presents the economic parameters used for mining, processing and general and administrative (G&A) costs. Mining costs assume owner-operator activities utilizing leased equipment. Processing costs were provided by Woods Process Services, LLC of Sparks, Nevada. G&A costs were provided by M3 Engineering and Dakota Gold based on a fixed cost of $912,500 per month for site management, environmental, general site maintenance, insurance, human resources, and other administrative costs. A G&A cost per ton processed by dividing the yearly G&A cost by the anticipated annual throughput to be processed. Mine planning is an iterative process, and initial costs and recoveries were assumed to determine ultimate pit limits.

There are several claims which will require royalty payments, which were included in the pit optimization runs by area. Royalties range from 1% to 6%.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>166 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-1: Economic Parameters**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Type** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Units** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mining cost per Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Mined |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Cost per Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;$3.39 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$4.15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton Processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A Cost per Year | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10950 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$10950 | &nbsp;&nbsp;KUSD/Year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Yearly Throughput | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;18000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Ktpa/year |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;G&A Cost per Ton | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.61 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/ton processed |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining-Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$5.00 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining-Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$0.50 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;89% | &nbsp;&nbsp;65% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag Rec | &nbsp;&nbsp;30% | &nbsp;&nbsp;20% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area | &nbsp;&nbsp;By Area |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Selling Price Au | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$2200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Selling Price Ag | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$25 | &nbsp;&nbsp;$/oz Ag |

---

**13.2** **Cutoff Grades** 

Cutoff grades were used to distinguish material that would be processed from subgrade material.

Table 13-2 presents economic cutoff grades by price environment, material type, and cutoff scenario. Both internal and external break-even cutoff grades were calculated. The external cutoff grade uses all the operating costs shown in the economic parameters. The internal cutoff grade calculation eliminates the mining cost in the calculation, which is used for the determination of material to be processed. The pit designs are based on economical pits and the materials inside of the pits are assumed to be mined whether the material is waste or mineralized material. Thus, the decision on whether to process the material is made at the point where the truck needs to turn either to the waste dump or the process facility and the mining cost is a sunk cost. The basic equation for the cutoff grade calculation is shown in Equation 13-1. Cutoff Grade Calculation (oz Au/ton).

Once material has been mined, mining operations including loading and hauling can be considered a sunk cost. For the purposes of material routing, mining costs should be discounted from the cutoff grade calculation. This method refers to the "internal" cutoff grade, as opposed to the "external" cutoff grade which includes mining costs.

**Equation 13-1: Cutoff Grade Calculation (oz Au/ton)**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img01.jpg)

Where:

G&A =Site General and Administrative costs in $/ton processed

Gold Price = the price of gold used for optimization in $/oz Au

Refining cost = the cost for refining in $/oz Au

Royalty = the NSR percentage royalty rate by area

Using an average 3.8% royalty, the break-even cutoff grade of 0.003 oz Au/ton is calculated using the inputs in Table 13-2. A minimum cutoff grade of .005 oz AuEq/ton was used to advance processing of higher-grade material and improve the project economics.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>167 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-2: Cutoff Grades (Oz AuEq/ton)**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**$Au/oz** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Internal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**External** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Internal** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**External** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.011 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.010 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.009 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.008 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.007 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.004 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.006 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.005 |

---

As noted above, cutoff grades are stated in gold equivalent (Oz AuEq/ton). This takes into account the value of the recoverable silver. The formula for gold equivalent is shown in Equation 13-2 and Equation 13-3.

**Equation 13-2: Gold Equivalent**

![](tm2519594d5_424b2img001.jpg)

**Equation 13-3: Gold Factored**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img03.jpg)

Where:

Au<sub>eq</sub> = Gold Equivalent oz/ton

Au = Gold grade in oz/ton

Ag = Gold Grade in oz/ton

Au<sub>price</sub> = Gold Price in $/oz Au;

Ag<sub>price</sub>= Gold price in $/oz Ag;

Rec<sub>Au</sub> = Gold recovery in percent; and

Rec<sub>Ag</sub> = Silver recovery in percent.

**13.3** **Pit Optimization** 

Production physicals were considered when specifying mine parameters for pit optimization and subsequent pit design and production scheduling. Pit optimizations were done using Geovia's Whittle Software's (Version 2024) Lerchs-Grossman (LG) algorithm to create 3-dimensional pit shells. Metal selling prices used for this analysis are $2,200/oz Au and $25.00/oz Ag. Pit optimizations were generated using ranges of gold prices from $300 to $2,600 per ton in increments of $25 per ton. Silver prices were locked into a constant ratio of $2,200:$25.00 per ounce gold to silver. Only Measured, Indicated, and Inferred material above cutoff grade was allowed to be processed for the optimization. The pit optimization results using gold prices of $1,000 to $2,600 Au in $100.00 increments are shown in Table 13-3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>168 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-3: Pit Optimizations**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Processed** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Processed** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Material Processed** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Waste<br> K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Strip<br> Ratio** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**$Au/oz** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Oz Au/ton** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**K Ozs Au** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Waste<br> K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total<br> K Tons** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Strip<br> Ratio** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;287120 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0160 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4586 | &nbsp;&nbsp;103748 | &nbsp;&nbsp;390868 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;316957 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0153 | &nbsp;&nbsp;4849 | &nbsp;&nbsp;113387 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430344 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.36 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;339113 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0149 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5048 | &nbsp;&nbsp;124703 | &nbsp;&nbsp;463816 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.37 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;357653 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0146 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5212 | &nbsp;&nbsp;138542 | &nbsp;&nbsp;496194 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.39 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;370582 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0144 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5321 | &nbsp;&nbsp;149592 | &nbsp;&nbsp;520174 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.40 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;381998 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0142 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5418 | &nbsp;&nbsp;163658 | &nbsp;&nbsp;545656 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.43 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;392929 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;176564 | &nbsp;&nbsp;569493 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1700 | &nbsp;&nbsp;401942 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0139 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5577 | &nbsp;&nbsp;186613 | &nbsp;&nbsp;588555 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1800 | &nbsp;&nbsp;408633 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0138 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5629 | &nbsp;&nbsp;196507 | &nbsp;&nbsp;605140 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.48 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$1900 | &nbsp;&nbsp;414184 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0137 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5670 | &nbsp;&nbsp;204596 | &nbsp;&nbsp;618781 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2000 | &nbsp;&nbsp;419133 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5707 | &nbsp;&nbsp;212851 | &nbsp;&nbsp;631984 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.51 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;422547 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0136 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5732 | &nbsp;&nbsp;218860 | &nbsp;&nbsp;641406 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.52 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2200 | &nbsp;&nbsp;425402 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5752 | &nbsp;&nbsp;224181 | &nbsp;&nbsp;649583 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.53 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2300 | &nbsp;&nbsp;428328 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5774 | &nbsp;&nbsp;230675 | &nbsp;&nbsp;659003 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.54 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2400 | &nbsp;&nbsp;430253 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0135 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5787 | &nbsp;&nbsp;234637 | &nbsp;&nbsp;664891 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.55 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;433100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5808 | &nbsp;&nbsp;241876 | &nbsp;&nbsp;674975 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;$2600 | &nbsp;&nbsp;434832 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0134 | &nbsp;&nbsp;5821 | &nbsp;&nbsp;246749 | &nbsp;&nbsp;681581 | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.57 |

---

**13.4** **Pit Design** 

Detailed pit designs were completed for Richmond Hill using Surpac™ software (Version 2024).

**13.4.1** **Road and Ramp Design** 

The ramps were designed for the use of 150-ton haul trucks with an operating width of 24.72 ft. For two-way access, the goal of road design is to allow a running width of near-3.5 times the width of the trucks. MSHA requirements specify that safety berms be maintained at least ½ the diameter of the tires of the haul trucks that will travel on roads. The ½ height of the 150-ton truck is approximately 5.0 ft. An extra 10% was added to the berm height design to ensure that all berms are sufficient in height, resulting in a total berm height of 5.5 ft.

Safety berms assume a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. Considering that ramps in the pit only require one berm, the design road width of 103 ft was determined for two-way traffic, which allows for 3.5 times the operating width of the haul trucks along with the single berm. Single-lane traffic roads are estimated to require 65 ft, which allows 2.0 times the operating width of the 150-ton haul trucks. Haul roads grades have been designed at a maximum of 10% with the exception of some short distances.

Roads outside of the pit will require two berms and design widths are estimated to be 120 ft, allowing 3.5 times the truck width of the 150-ton haul trucks along with the berms.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>169 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**13.4.2** **Slope Parameters** 

The designs utilize 40 ft high benches with 20 ft wide catch benches. The bench face angle used varies from 65 to 70 degrees. The resulting inter-ramp slope is 46 to 49 degrees.

Geotechnical design criteria vary slightly based on lithology as shown in Table 13-4.

**Table 13-4: Geotechnical Design Criteria by Lithology**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Lithology** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Code** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Face<br> Angle (Deg)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Height<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Bench Width<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Inter-Ramp<br> Angle (deg)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Breccia | &nbsp;&nbsp;tbx | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Sill | &nbsp;&nbsp;tsl | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Dike | &nbsp;&nbsp;tdk | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Paleozoic Undifferentiated | &nbsp;&nbsp;pzu | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cambrian Deadwood FM | &nbsp;&nbsp;cdw | &nbsp;&nbsp;65 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;46 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Greenstone FM | &nbsp;&nbsp;pgn | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Flagrock FM | &nbsp;&nbsp;poff | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian Ellison FM | &nbsp;&nbsp;pef | &nbsp;&nbsp;70 | &nbsp;&nbsp;40 | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;49 |

---

**13.4.3** **Pit Configuration** 

Richmond Hill pit designs were completed in 6 Phases. Phase 1 begins on the easternmost portion of the deposit and is closest to the subgrade stockpiles and process facilities. Phase 2 mines directly to the west, connecting to Phase 1. Phase 3 mines directly to the west and connects to Phase 2. Phase 4 mines to the west, connecting to Phase 3. Phase 5, mines to the south, connecting to Phases 3 and 4. Phase 5 also has an unconnected, smaller subphase to the west of its main body. Finally, Phase 6 mines directly to the south of, and connecting to, Phase 5. Phase 6 has two subphases directly to its east. It should be noted that backfilling of the pits begins near the beginning of mine life once Phase 1 is completed. This helps to minimize haul times, reclamation costs, and the disturbance footprint. The Phase 1 and 2 backfill areas are merged with the north WRSF with a flat surface. This area will be used for construction of Heap Leach pad 2 further reducing the disturbance area.

The ultimate pit along with pre-closure backfill is shown in Figure 13-1. Figure 13-2 to Figure 13-7 pit Phases 1 through 6 as they are developed. Additional end of year maps show the development of the pits through the life of mine.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>170 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img04.jpg)

**Figure 13-1: Ultimate Pit Design**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>171 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img05.jpg)

**Figure 13-2: Phase 1**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>172 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img06.jpg)

**Figure 13-3: Phase 2**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>173 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img07.jpg)

**Figure 13-4: Phase 3**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>174 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img08.jpg)

**Figure 13-5: Phase 4**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>175 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img09.jpg)

**Figure 13-6: Phase 5**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>176 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp09img10.jpg)

**Figure 13-7: Phase 6**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>177 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**13.5** **Waste Rock Storage Design** 

A preliminary waste rock storage facility (WRSF) has been created to the north of the pit. This was designed to be placed in 40' lifts, with a dump face angle of 34 degrees, and using catch-bench widths to accommodate a final reclaimed slope angle of 18.5 degrees, or a 3:1 slope.

During production pit backfill will be utilized in order to minimize haulage and to bring the pit to final grade. Additionally, spent leach material will backfilled into the pit during and after mine-life as part of the reclamation process.

**13.6** **Production Schedule** 

Production scheduling was completed using MineSched software (Version 2024). The production was primarily driven by targeting 10,950 k tons to the leach pad every year after the first year.

The resulting production schedule delivers 2,070 ktons of material to the pad in the first year and 10,950 ktons/year thereafter. Processing is assumed to start in Q4 of Year -1.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>178 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-5: Production Schedule MI&I**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Pit to Crush Stk Pl | K Tons | 1714 | 2230 | 2981 | 4229 | 4127 | 3559 | 21359 | 24156 | 19122 | 16035 | 7388 |  | 106899 |
|  | Oz Au/ton | 0.019 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.008 |  | 0.007 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 33 | 16 | 21 | 30 | 28 | 25 | 151 | 174 | 143 | 117 | 58 |  | 797 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.627 | 0.154 | 0.090 | 0.101 | 0.089 | 0.096 | 0.077 | 0.064 | 0.076 | 0.054 | 0.094 |  | 0.084 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 1075 | 344 | 269 | 428 | 367 | 340 | 1636 | 1545 | 1461 | 867 | 691 | - | 9023 |
| Pit to Crush | K Tons | 1816 | 8302 | 7268 | 7256 | 6823 | 7391 | 32649 | 31478 | 35281 | 38138 | 18593 |  | 194994 |
|  | Oz Au/ton | 0.022 | 0.020 | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.020 | 0.019 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.020 | 0.023 | 0.020 |  | 0.020 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 40 | 166 | 139 | 136 | 136 | 140 | 572 | 596 | 699 | 876 | 373 |  | 3872 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.800 | 0.451 | 0.403 | 0.396 | 0.226 | 0.230 | 0.188 | 0.115 | 0.124 | 0.129 | 0.160 |  | 0.186 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 1453 | 3745 | 2930 | 2870 | 1542 | 1699 | 6135 | 3616 | 4365 | 4929 | 2978 | - | 36262 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 3531 | 10532 | 10249 | 11486 | 10950 | 10950 | 54008 | 55634 | 54402 | 54172 | 25980 |  | 301893 |
| Above COG | Oz Au/ton | 0.021 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.018 | 0.017 |  | 0.015 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 73 | 182 | 160 | 165 | 164 | 165 | 723 | 770 | 842 | 993 | 431 |  | 4668 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.716 | 0.388 | 0.312 | 0.287 | 0.174 | 0.186 | 0.144 | 0.093 | 0.107 | 0.107 | 0.141 |  | 0.150 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 2529 | 4089 | 3199 | 3298 | 1909 | 2040 | 7771 | 5161 | 5826 | 5796 | 3668 | - | 45285 |
| Waste Mined | K Tons | 1920 | 8120 | 6302 | 5956 | 7836 | 6677 | 26271 | 19600 | 28742 | 17719 | 4090 | - | 133234 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 5450 | 18652 | 16551 | 17442 | 18786 | 17627 | 80279 | 75234 | 83145 | 71891 | 30071 | - | 435127 |
| Strip Ratio | K Tons | 0.54 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.16 |  | 0.44 |
| Operation Rehandle | K Tons | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 46590 | 54780 | 54780 | 26460 | - | 182610 |
| Closure Rehandle (Waste) | K Tons | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 28320 | 4641 | 28320 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>179 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

As shown in Figure 13-1, the pit will be mined in 6 Phases, which include sub-phasing for Phases 4, 5, and 6. Operational rehandle of leach pad material into the pit will begin in Year 11 and will continue through the end of mine life. Closure rehandle is used to regrade the pits and leach pads begin at the end of mine life in Year 28 and is completed in Year 31.

**13.7** **Equipment Requirements** 

Mining is planned to be done using 150-ton capacity haul trucks and a 29-yard hydraulic shovel capable of loading haul trucks in three passes, with support from a 30-yard front-end-loader. Additional primary mining equipment is required for drilling and blasting, and supplemental equipment will be needed to support primary mining equipment. This equipment will be leased by the operator. It is anticipated that the project will require the following equipment during peak operations:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two blasthole drills for waste and processed
material;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 29 cubic yard hydraulic shovel run concurrently
with one 30-cubic yard wheel loader during production mining;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 16 150-ton haul trucks are required at
peak production for hauling of material;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 20,000-gallon water trucks are required throughout
the mine life for dust suppression;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 600-HP dozers are required as support equipment
for general road, pit, and stockpile maintenance;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 18 ft motor graders are required during peak
mining to provide road maintenance;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A single truck and lowboy are required for movement
of various support equipment throughout the project;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 130-ton crane, to aid in maintenance of equipment
fleet and infrastructure;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 4-7 cubic yard backhoe will be required for
various utility work throughout the mine life;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three 1,450 gallon per minute portable pit pumps
for surface water dewatering: and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Four light plants.

Table 13-6 presents the annual equipment requirements by equipment type.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>180 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-6: Yearly Equipment Requirements**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Max** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Production Drill | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;30-yrd Loader | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;29-yrd Hyd. Shovel | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;150-ton Haul Trucks | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 16 | 13 | 12 | 4 | 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;600 HP Dozer (D10) | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;680 HP RTD (844) | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18' Motor Grader (D18) | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Truck - 20,000 Gallon | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Truck and Lowboy | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4.7-7.3 cu yd backhoe | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pit Pumps (1,450 gpm) | # | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;132-ton Crane | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Skid Loader | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lube/Fuel Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics Truck | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Flatbed | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Light Plant | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>181 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**13.8** **Mine Personnel** 

Mining personnel will be hired by the company, starting in preproduction. After the initial ramp-up, up to 186 employees will be required during peak production years.

The peak personnel requirements per department during production years is as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A maximum of 20 Mining General Personnel will
be required, including a Mine Manager, Mine Superintendent, Mine Foremen, and assorted technical services.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 105 operators will be required, including
Blasting Crews and Equipment Operators.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 42 mechanics will be required.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 23 assorted maintenance personnel have
been estimated, including a Maintenance Planner, Maintenance.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The project is expected to operate 24 hours per
day and 7 days per week. Two crews are expected to work each day, with a total of four crews required.

Mine personnel by year is shown in Table 13-7.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>182 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-7: Mining Personnel by Time Period**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mining General Personnel** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Max** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Manager | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Superintendent | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Foreman | # | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Trainer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Chief Mine Engineer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Engineer | # | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Geotech Engineer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Surveyor | # | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ore Control Geologist | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dispatchers | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mine Business Assistant | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mine General | # | 18 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 20 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 2 | 20 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Blasters | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Blaster's Helpers | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Drill Operators | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |  | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Loader Operators | # | 8 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Haul Truck Operators | # | 32 | 32 | 32 | 28 | 28 | 36 | 48 | 64 | 52 | 48 | 16 | 64 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Support Equipment Operators | # | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;General Mine Labors | # | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operators | # | 71 | 73 | 71 | 69 | 67 | 77 | 89 | 105 | 93 | 89 | 38 | 105 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mechanics** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics - Drilling | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics - Loading | # | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics - Haulage | # | 13 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 26 | 21 | 19 | 6 | 26 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics - Support | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Mechanics | # | 28 | 29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 30 | 35 | 42 | 37 | 35 | 15 | 42 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Maintenance** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Superintendent | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Foreman | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |  | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Planners | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Light Vehicle Mechanic | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Welder | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Servicemen | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tireman | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance Labor | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | - | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Maintenance | # | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 17 | 23 | 16 | 15 | 7 | 23 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Total Personnel – Mining Personnel | # | 131 | 136 | 131 | 128 | 125 | 141 | 157 | 186 | 161 | 154 | 62 | 186 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>183 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**13.9** **Pit Dewatering** 

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (Geofirma) was retained by RESPEC to assist with hydrogeological aspects of an S-K 1300-compliant Initial Assessment (IA) for the Richmond Hill Gold Project (the Project).

At this stage of the project, only meteoric water is considered in the open pit dewatering estimates. This is because groundwater inflows will be proactively managed and removed ahead of mining activities encountering the water table. Through targeted dewatering strategies including pumping from perimeter wells, groundwater will be effectively cleared from the pit zones prior to active mining.

The Black Hills Area is characterized by a cool continental climate, with cold winters, warm summers, and moderate precipitation that increases with elevation. Mean annual precipitation typically ranges from 20 to 30 inches, with higher values observed in the central upland areas (Driscoll et al., 2002). RESPEC completed a review of the climatic conditions of the Richmond Hill Gold Project and has estimated mean annual precipitation at 29 inches per year (RESPEC, 2025a).

Pit dewatering sumps are planned to be installed within the deepest portions of the pit, with mine dewatering completed in advance of the bench excavations. Outside of the pit, a series of engineered drainage channels, sumps, and perimeter ditches will control contact versus non-contact water and pump to the WTP (Water Treatment Plant) for treatment and then discharge.

**13.10** **Groundwater Considerations** 

Geofirma Engineering Ltd. (Geofirma) was retained by RESPEC to assist with hydrogeological aspects of an S-K 1300 compliant Initial Assessment (IA) for the Richmond Hill Gold Project (the Project).

The Black Hills Area is characterized by a cool continental climate, with cold winters, warm summers, and moderate precipitation that increases with elevation. Mean annual precipitation typically ranges from 20 to 30 inches, with higher values observed in the central upland areas (Driscoll et al., 2002). RESPEC completed a review of the climatic conditions of the Richmond Hill Gold Project and has estimated mean annual precipitation at 29 inches per year (RESPEC, 2025a).

Conceptually, the Richmond Hill site is situated near the apex of the Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rock core, where both the Madison Limestone (also referred to as Pahasapa Limestone) and Deadwood aquifers are exposed at surface. These aquifers are likely to contribute to headwater flow via natural springs which may sustain stream baseflow during dry seasons. Further east of the Project area, the Deadwood and Madison Limestone aquifers are confined at depth and provide a potable drinking water source for residents throughout western South Dakota.

Table 13-8 indicates a preliminary depiction of the main Hydrostratigraphic Units (HSUs) within the Project area using publicly available data. Hydrogeology information for each major formation in the Richmond Hill Area was summarized from publicly available regional groundwater studies as well as studies completed for mines located near the Project. Site specific data was not available for review but is likely to be collected during additional study phases of the Project.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>184 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-8: Estimated HSUs within the Project Area**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydrogeological Characteristics** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydrogeological Characteristics** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Notes** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Formation** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic Conductivity<br> (ft/s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Effective <br> Porosity (%)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Notes** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Alluvium/Colluvium | &nbsp;&nbsp;Appreciable thickness of unconsolidated material within topographic depressions | &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.3<br> (Estimate) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Locally saturated and likely to be conductive. Occurrence is discontinuous throughout the Project. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Precambrian<br> (Greenstone, Flagrock, Ellison) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Basement complex metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary units. | &nbsp;&nbsp;Dependent on the encounter of structural features. | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.01<br> (Driscoll et al., 2002) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Likely an aquitard unit, with occasional permeability associated with structural features. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Deadwood Formation | &nbsp;&nbsp;Basal sandstone, conglomerate, and shale. | &nbsp;&nbsp;· 2 × 10<sup>–5</sup><br> (Montgomery,1996) · 3 × 10<sup>–6</sup> (Klohn Leonoff <br> Consulting <br> Engineers, 1986) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05<br> (Driscoll et al., 2002) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Probable moderate to high groundwater yielding aquifer |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Volcanics <br> (Breccia, Sills, Dykes) | &nbsp;&nbsp;Intrusions through the Precambrian and Deadwood Formations | &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;Unknown | &nbsp;&nbsp;Due to their limited extent and size, not likely to be a groundwater source for the Project. |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Paleozoic Limestone | &nbsp;&nbsp;Locally referred to as the Pahasapa Limestone, consists of limestone, sandy limestone and dolomite | · 9 x 10<sup>-6</sup> (Imam, 1991) | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.05 to 0.1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Groundwater flow in the Madison Formation near Wharf is unconfined and occurs mainly in fractures and small dissolution cavities in the upper part of the formation (RESPEC, 2022) |

---

**13.10.1** **Groundwater Levels** 

The proposed Richmond Hill open pit is situated on a topographic high that forms the headwater catchment for Cole Creek, Cleopatra Creek, and tributaries of False Bottom Creek to the east. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells have been installed across the project area, with water level data spanning from the 1980s and 1990s to the present. Water levels range from near surface, within monitoring wells installed with shallow alluvium soils, to water levels that are hundreds of feet deep (e.g. MW-24 at 223 ft below ground surface). The depressed water levels are likely contributed by the high relief over the project area and the limited recharge area to the permeable features within the bedrock rock mass.

**13.10.2** **Recharge and Discharge** 

The Richmond Hill Project is located on elevated terrain, surrounded by incised stream valleys. This physiography suggests that groundwater recharge within the deposit area is primarily derived from direct meteoric infiltration, with minor contributions possible from stream-induced infiltration or leakage from shallow alluvial and colluvial deposits in nearby valleys.

Recharge estimates for the Project Area have been developed using a water balance approach. According to Cartier et al. (2002) from the Black Hills Hydrology Study, approximately 91.6% of annual precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration, 3.5% contributes to aquifer recharge, and 4.9% becomes surface runoff. Based on a mean annual precipitation of approximately 29 inches (RESPEC, 2025a), estimated recharge is estimated at about 1.0 inch per year.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>185 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**13.11** **Groundwater Inflow Estimates** 

The proposed Richmond Hill open pit is a single open pit, irregular in shape variable in depth. Analytical solutions to estimate groundwater inflows are largely idealized, assuming a circular open pit with simple arrangement of saturated thickness, hydraulic conductivity, and radius of influence. This limitation is recognized and is reflective of the preliminary nature of the current study. The area of the Richmond Hill Pit was conceptualized into an equivalent-sized circular open pit, with similar pit wall slope ranges, average pit depths, and average saturated thickness. The Marinelli equation (Marinelli and Niccoli, 2000) was utilized for this study to estimate the groundwater inflow to the proposed Richmond Hill Open Pit. The Marinelli equation is a radial inflow approach which assumes that groundwater flows radially towards the walls of the pit (Zone 1) and vertically upward through the base of the pit (Zone 2).

The hydraulic parameters utilized to represent the pit walls (Zone 1) and pit floor (Zone 2) for the proposed open pits are summarized in Table 13-9. Given the unknown nature of the hydraulic conductivity of lithologies within the open pit area, three cases were completed (low, base and high) to estimate the range of potential groundwater pit inflows. The range of hydraulic conductivity values utilized in the calculations span an order of magnitude. The pit floor hydraulic conductivity value was set at a constant value that is generally lower than the pit side walls.

**Table 13-9: Summary of Parameters Utilized for the Groundwater Inflow Calculation**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pit Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recharge to <sup>[2]</sup> <br> Water Table <br> (inch/yr)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic Conductivity (K) <sup>[3]</sup><br> Zone 1 (Pit Side Walls)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic Conductivity (K) <sup>[3]</sup><br> Zone 1 (Pit Side Walls)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic Conductivity (K) <sup>[3]</sup><br> Zone 1 (Pit Side Walls)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic <br> Conductivity (K) <sup>[3]</sup><br> Zone 2 (Pit Floor) <br> (ft/s)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp; **Pit Name** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Recharge to <sup>[2]</sup> <br> Water Table <br> (inch/yr)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low <br> (ft/s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base<br> (ft/s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High <br> (ft/s)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Hydraulic <br> Conductivity (K) <sup>[3]</sup><br> Zone 2 (Pit Floor) <br> (ft/s)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill Gold Pit | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3E-08 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1E-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;3E-07 | &nbsp;&nbsp;7E-08 |

---

**Notes:**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Ultimate pit configuration provided by RESPEC (2025b).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Annual groundwater recharge estimated at 3.5% of annual precipitation. source: USGS black hills hydrology study (Cartier et al., 2002). Mean annual precipitation estimated at 29 inches (RESPEC, 2025a).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Hydraulic conductivity values represent an equivalent porous media (EPA) average of the Precambrian/Paleozoic/Volcanic lithologies.

**13.12** **Groundwater Inflow Results** 

The estimated steady-state groundwater inflows to the proposed Richmond Hill Open Pit under end-of-mine (EOM) conditions are summarized in Table 13-10. Inflows are estimated to range from 190 to 300 gallons per minute (gpm). While these values may appear low for a pit of this size, they are considered reasonable given the relatively limited saturated thickness in the deposit area, the absence of a large water body (lake) to sustain recharge into the open pit, and the likely impermeable nature of the precambrian bedrock which accounts for the majority of the pit lithology.

Daily or transient inflows may exceed these values, especially if a permeable feature is encountered during the development of the pit, however it is expected that the higher inflows will subside over a period of time (i.e. days to weeks) as the permeable feature is drained (via effective porosity).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>186 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 13-10: Estimated LOM Groundwater inflows to the Proposed Richmond Hill Open**

---

| | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pit <br> Reference** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pit Depth<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimated <br> Saturated <br> Thickness (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Groundwater Inflow (Ultimate Pit) <sup>[1]</sup> <br> from Pit Sidewalls & Pit Base** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Groundwater Inflow (Ultimate Pit) <sup>[1]</sup> <br> from Pit Sidewalls & Pit Base** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Groundwater Inflow (Ultimate Pit) <sup>[1]</sup> <br> from Pit Sidewalls & Pit Base** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pit <br> Reference** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Pit Depth<br> (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Estimated <br> Saturated <br> Thickness (ft)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Low <br> (gpm)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Base <br> (gpm)** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**High <br> (gpm)** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Richmond Hill Pit (EOM) | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 - 500 | &nbsp;&nbsp;<250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;190 | &nbsp;&nbsp;250 | &nbsp;&nbsp;300 |

---

**NOTES:**

1. Groundwater inflows are steady-state for the ultimate pit configuration. Inflows estimated using the Marinelli and Niccoli (2000) methodology.

**13.12.1** **Preliminary Dewatering Design** 

Pit dewatering of the Richmond Hill Open Pit can likely be achieved through a combination of vertical and horizontal dewatering wells depending on the geotechnical requirements and the proximity to recharge sources (i.e., faults or alluvial channels). At a minimum, pit dewatering sumps are proposed to be installed within the deepest portions of the pit, with mine dewatering completed in advance of the bench excavations.

**13.12.2** **Recommendations for Future Studies** 

Given that the project is currently at an IA level, the following are recommendations for the collection of additional data during more advanced project stages (Pre-Feasibility):

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Collect hydraulic data for the various lithologic
units through site-specific core recovery, drilling observations (e.g., water losses), and hydraulic testing. This data collection is
recommended to be coordinated with additional resource drilling as the project advances.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Install hydrometric flow monitoring stations
along Cole Creek, Cleopatra Creek, and other nearby streams to understand groundwater baseflow contributions downgradient of the proposed
open pit.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Develop a bedrock structural model to assess
the potential for groundwater inflows from fault zones across the deposit area (if applicable).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Install additional monitoring wells within the
open pit area, as well as dedicated pit wall vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs), to improve the resolution of water level measurements
and anticipated pit wall pore pressures.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Equip monitoring wells with water level transducers
and dataloggers to allow for more frequent data collection (e.g., every six hours).

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>187 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **14** | **Processing and Recovery Methods** |

---

The proposed process facilities for the Richmond Hill Project comprise a heap leach operation to process oxide and mixed (transition) ores. The heap leach operation will have a nominal capacity of 30,000 tons per day.

The heap leach operation will employ a conventional heap leach process, which will include three-stage crushing, agglomeration, and stacking on multi-lift dedicated leach pads.

Pregnant leach liquors from heap leach will be processed by common Merrill-Crowe and refinery facilities, to precipitate gold and silver from solution and smelt the precipitate to produce doré bullion.

**14.1** **Mine Production Schedule** 

The processing facilities for the Richmond Hill Project will be developed to accommodate the mining sequences of the Richmond Hill deposit. Preliminary mine schedules are included in Section 19.1 for the M&I case, as well as the MI&I case. The LOM average head grades to the heap leach operations are estimated to be 0.016 oz/ton Au and 0.163 oz/ton Ag. The mine schedule indicates that the heap leach will operate throughout the mine life, receiving ore deliveries through Year 17 for the M&I case and through Year 28 for the MI&I case.

**14.2** **Process Design** 

The flowsheets developed for the Richmond Hill Project IA are based on the metallurgical testing and interpretation presented in Section 10. Oxide metallurgical testing was conducted and supervised in-house at St. Joe Technical Center metallurgical laboratory, while flotation testing of mixed and sulfide materials was performed by Base Metallurgical Laboratories (BaseMet) in Kamloops, B.C.

The following subsections provide a summary of the main components of the process design criteria, a description of the IA process flowsheets, the major process equipment selected for the Project, the primary buildings required to support the major process equipment, a description of the primary process support infrastructure including the water systems, power, and process air systems.

The crushing system mass flow rates are based on 75% plant availability through ore stacking on the pad. For simplicity, the estimated availability used in sizing each process equipment is a combination of mechanical availability and equipment utilization and, therefore, reflect estimated operating times. Every operation may have its own definitions that may differ according to its needs.

**14.3** **Heap Leach Operation** 

The proposed initial processing facility is designed to process the Richmond Hill oxide ore using conventional heap leaching for the extraction of precious metals and solution recovery using Merrill-Crowe zinc cementation process. Table 14-1 lists the major design criteria for the heap leach process. The proposed process is depicted in the simplified flow sheet shown in Figure 14-1. The arrangement of the heap leach facilities is shown in Figure 14-1.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>188 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 14-1: Heap Leach Major Design Criteria**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Parameter** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Richmond Hill** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Processing Scheme | &nbsp;&nbsp;Crush/Heap Leach |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing Circuit Configuration | &nbsp;&nbsp;Three Stage Crushing |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crush Size | &nbsp;&nbsp;80% -13.1 mm |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Stacking Method | &nbsp;&nbsp;Overland Conveyor with Radial Stacker |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach Cycle, days | &nbsp;&nbsp;120 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lift Height, ft | &nbsp;&nbsp;30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Solution Application Rate, gpm/ft<sup>2</sup> | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.0025 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Nominal Barren Solution Flow, gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp;6000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Solution Application Method | &nbsp;&nbsp;Drip |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Precious Metal Recovery Method | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe Zinc Precipitation |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Nominal PLS Flow Rate to Plant, gpm | &nbsp;&nbsp;5800 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Au Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;85% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ag Recovery | &nbsp;&nbsp;28% |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>189 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp10img2.jpg)

**Figure 14-1: Simplified Flow Sheet of the Richmond Hill Project Heap Leach Facility**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>190 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp10img3.jpg)

**Figure 14-2: General Layout of the Richmond Hill Project Process Facilities**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>191 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**14.3.1** **Heap Leach Crushing Plant and Agglomeration** 

The Richmond Hill heap leach crushing plant will comprise three stages of crushing, starting with a jaw crusher for primary crushing, followed by a standard cone crusher for secondary crushing, and finally, two short-head cone crushers for tertiary crushing. Table 14-2 below is a list of the major equipment in the crushing plant.

**Table 14-2: List of Main Mechanical Equipment for the Heap Leach Crushing Plant**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Installed <br> kW** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Crusher | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Jaw Crusher, C200 METSO (o/e); 7.3 inches CSS\* | &nbsp;&nbsp;411 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Crusher | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Standard Head Cone Crusher; Metso MP1000 (o/e)\*; CSS\* = 40 mm (~1-9/16 inches) | &nbsp;&nbsp;933 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Crusher | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Short Head Cone Crusher; Metso MP1000 (o/e); CSS = 19 mm (~3/4 inches) | &nbsp;&nbsp;933 (each) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Screen | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inclined, Vibrating, Double Deck; 1,667 dMTPH; 12 ft x 24 ft (est); Apertures: 3/4 inches | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Screens | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Inclined, Vibrating, Single Deck; 560.8 dMTPH;12 ft x 24 ft (est); Apertures: 3/4 inches | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 (each) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Crusher Discharge Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH, 237 ft long, 17 ft lift | &nbsp;&nbsp;224 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Crushing Feed Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH (Flow Sheet); 934 ft L, 80 ft Lift | &nbsp;&nbsp;746 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Secondary Screen Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1667 dMTPH; w/ VFD; Belt | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tertiary Screen Feeder | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1219 dMTPH; w/ VFD; Belt | &nbsp;&nbsp;45 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Transfer Conveyors | &nbsp;&nbsp;2 | &nbsp;&nbsp;2,438 dMTPH; 628 ft L, 50 ft Lift | &nbsp;&nbsp;373 & 299 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Crushing Circuit Product Transfer Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH (Flow Sheet); 555 ft L, 80 ft Lift | &nbsp;&nbsp;933 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Agglomeration Drum | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH; 12 ft Dia x 40 ft Length, Tire Driven; w/ VFD | &nbsp;&nbsp;261 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Agglomerated Product Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Batch Use, 1,563 dMTPH | &nbsp;&nbsp;75 |

---

Mine trucks deliver run-of-mine (ROM) material to the coarse ore bin at the primary crushing plant. Material is withdrawn from the bin by an apron feeder and fed to a vibrating grizzly feeder. The grizzly undersize bypasses the primary jaw crusher, while oversize reports the primary jaw crusher operating at a 7.3-inch CSS for size reduction. Jaw crusher product is conveyed to the secondary crushing feed bin, which discharges to a double-deck secondary screen. Material finer than 19 mm (3/4") bypasses further crushing and is sent directly to the crushing circuit product transfer conveyor feeding the agglomeration drum. Material between 19 mm and 51 mm bypasses the secondary crusher and reports to the transfer conveyer feeding the tertiary crushing feed bin. Secondary screen oversize is directed to the secondary cone crusher, operating at a 40 mm CSS. The secondary crusher product rejoins the screen undersize on the transfer conveyor.

The tertiary crushing feed bin distributes material to two parallel tertiary crushing lines, each consisting of a tertiary screen feeder, a single-deck tertiary screen, and a short head tertiary cone crusher operating at a 19 mm CSS. Screen oversize is recirculated to the tertiary crushers, while undersize moves forward to the crushing circuit product transfer conveyor. The crushing plant product, targeting a P<sub>80</sub> of 13.1 mm (0.5"), is conveyed to the agglomeration drum. En route, lime is added from a lime silo and cement is dosed at 5 kg/t from its dedicated silo. Raw water or barren solution is added to the ore at the agglomeration drum to promote particle binding. The resulting material is then conveyed to the heap leach stacking system.

**14.3.2** **Stacking and Heap Leaching** 

The agglomerated product reports to the stacking system feed conveyor that feeds the first of the grasshopper conveyors. The initial stacking system will comprise 20 grasshopper conveyors, and an index feed conveyor and a horizontal index feed conveyor that feeds the heap leach stacker conveyor. The initial conveying and stacking equipment are listed in Table 14-3 below.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>192 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 14-3: List of Conveying and Stacking Equipment for the Heap Leach Pad**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equipment** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Number** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Description** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Installed <br> kW** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Stacking System Feed Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH | &nbsp;&nbsp;299 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Grasshopper Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;20 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Mobile type; 1,667 dMTPH | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 (each) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Index Feed Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH; | &nbsp;&nbsp;150 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Horizontal Index Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH; | &nbsp;&nbsp;112 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach Stacker Conveyor | &nbsp;&nbsp;1 | &nbsp;&nbsp;1,667 dMTPH; | &nbsp;&nbsp;299 |

---

The initial heap leach pads will be dedicated pads, which will be built in stages as mining progresses. Heap Leach Pad #1 will be constructed south of Pit #1 and will be lined in accordance with approved lining systems for leach pads in South Dakota. HLP #1 will cover 132 acres and will have an operating capacity of 51.5 million tons of ore; including a 5 ft thick cover layer of crushed ore placed as a single lift on the primary high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. A network of perforated pipes will be installed within the cover layer to collect leach solutions after they have passed through the ore. The collection piping will drain by gravity to an operating pond at the base of the pad. The leaching facility will consist of multiple leach pads in order to meet the mine's 185 million tons over its mine life for the M&I case or the 302 million tons for the MI&I case. Operating ponds and Storm Event ponds will be sized and provided for each of the pads as they are constructed in sequence. The pregnant solution ponds will be sized to contain the operating volume, a 6-hour drain down volume, and freeboard. The Event Ponds will be sized to contain a Probable Maximum Flood event which has been determined to be the runoff from a precipitation event of 19.6 inches within 6 hours, plus 1 foot of freeboard.

Heap Leach Pad #2 will be constructed within the excavations for mine pits #1 and #2, following placement of some compacted mine waste rock to provide a graded surface. HLP #2 will be lined in a similar fashion as HLP #1 and will have an operating pond within the heap. Where the ore will intersect the pit walls, a 6-inch layer of shotcrete will be applied to the in situ rock surface prior to installing the approved lining system. HLP #2 will have an operating capacity of 44.5 million tons.

Heap Leach Pad #3 will be constructed in the general area of the original Richmond Hill Mine heap leach pads with an expanded footprint. The legacy heap leach material will be removed and placed on HLP #2 and the footprint will be regraded. The pad will be lined in a similar manner as HLP #1 and HLP #2. The capacity of HLP #3 will be 35.6 million tons. During the operation of HLP #3, barren ore from HLP #1 will be off-loaded into a previously-mined pit with a separate fleet of mining equipment for final disposal. Following completion of HLP #3 stacking, Pads #1 and #2 will be re-used for leaching with the use of an on-off concept to minimize mine disturbance.

After stacking each lift, pipe headers and drip irrigation lines will be added to the heap surface. Sodium cyanide solution will be applied to the heap surface via the header/drip system at a proposed application rate of 0.0025 gal/min/ft<sup>2</sup> for the preliminary leach cycle of 120 days. The cyanide solution, applied at a nominal flow rate of 6,000 gpm to the heap surface, will percolate though the heap until it reaches the impervious leach pad liner at the bottom of the heap. The pregnant leach solution (PLS) will flow by gravity to the collection point of the leach pad and on to the pregnant solution pond for each leach pad. From the pregnant ponds, the PLS will be pumped to the clarifier filter feed tank in the Merrill-Crowe plant. The heap-leach solution application rate may be adjusted during the leach cycle depending on the available area for irrigation.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>193 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The upper-end sustained flow rates of barren solution and pregnant solution will be approximately 6,000 and 5,800 gpm, respectively. These flow rates are predicted for the period when the heaps are stacked with ore at about 30,000 t/d. The difference of 200 gpm between the flows arises from evaporation plus uptake of solution by the ore for initial wetting. The design of the Merrill-Crowe metal recovery circuit must accommodate the predicted pregnant solution flow rate of 6,000 gpm. With an added 10% design margin, the hydraulic sizing basis for the Merrill-Crowe circuit would be 6,600 gpm. M3 Engineering has selected a flow rate of 7,260 gpm for purposes of completing the initial assessment.

**14.3.3** **Heap Leach Production Forecasting** 

Gold and silver production forecasts for the heap leach pads were derived from the mine plan, which incorporates a time delay for the full recovery of recoverable ounces. The figures reflect expected recovery estimates based on scheduled ore placement and leach pad development, prior to the application of any detailed leaching program or kinetic modeling. These values represent a preliminary planning basis and incorporate assumptions typical of a pre-program delay phase, where production is estimated before formal metallurgical modeling and program-specific leach kinetics are established.

A summary of the gold and silver forecasts for the heap leach pads is provided in Table 14-4 for the M&I case. The total forecast gold production is estimated to be 2,604,205 oz, while the total forecast silver production is estimated to be 8,736,820 oz.

**Table 14-4: Heap Leach Gold and Silver Production Forecasts for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Gold [k oz]** | **Gold [k oz]** | **Silver [k oz]** | **Silver [k oz]** |
|  | **Annual** | **Cumulative** | **Annual** | **Cumulative** |
| 1 | 171 | 171 | 1492 | 1492 |
| 2 | 146 | 316 | 875 | 2367 |
| 3 | 146 | 462 | 596 | 2963 |
| 4 | 147 | 609 | 588 | 3550 |
| 5 | 127 | 736 | 534 | 4085 |
| 6 | 126 | 862 | 352 | 4436 |
| 7 | 138 | 1000 | 339 | 4775 |
| 8 | 126 | 1126 | 371 | 5146 |
| 9 | 150 | 1275 | 582 | 5727 |
| 10 | 142 | 1417 | 568 | 6296 |
| 11 | 140 | 1558 | 271 | 6567 |
| 12 | 146 | 1704 | 221 | 6788 |
| 13 | 151 | 1854 | 264 | 7052 |
| 14 | 200 | 2054 | 377 | 7429 |
| 15 | 212 | 2266 | 422 | 7851 |
| 16 | 197 | 2463 | 459 | 8310 |
| 17 | 132 | 2595 | 395 | 8705 |
| 18 | 9 | 2604 | 32 | 8737 |
| **Total** | **2604** |  | **8737** |  |

---

A summary of the gold and silver forecasts for the heap leach pads is provided in Table 14-5 for the MI&I case. The total forecast gold production is estimated to be 3,981,658 oz, while the total forecast silver production is estimated to be 12,905,111 oz.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>194 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 14-5: Heap Leach Gold and Silver Production Forecasts for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Year** | **Gold [k oz]** | **Gold [k oz]** | **Silver [k oz]** | **Silver [k oz]** |
|  | **Annual** | **Cumulative** | **Annual** | **Cumulative** |
| 1 | 180 | 180 | 1623 | 1623 |
| 2 | 147 | 327 | 995 | 2618 |
| 3 | 146 | 473 | 1045 | 3663 |
| 4 | 141 | 614 | 600 | 4263 |
| 5 | 145 | 759 | 585 | 4848 |
| 6 | 151 | 910 | 541 | 5389 |
| 7 | 113 | 1023 | 408 | 5797 |
| 8 | 116 | 1139 | 360 | 6157 |
| 9 | 125 | 1264 | 505 | 6662 |
| 10 | 129 | 1393 | 496 | 7159 |
| 11 | 125 | 1518 | 249 | 7408 |
| 12 | 135 | 1653 | 407 | 7815 |
| 13 | 135 | 1788 | 269 | 8084 |
| 14 | 131 | 1919 | 247 | 8331 |
| 15 | 123 | 2043 | 270 | 8601 |
| 16 | 127 | 2170 | 354 | 8954 |
| 17 | 133 | 2303 | 459 | 9413 |
| 18 | 144 | 2446 | 304 | 9717 |
| 19 | 138 | 2584 | 220 | 9937 |
| 20 | 153 | 2737 | 247 | 10185 |
| 21 | 173 | 2910 | 296 | 10480 |
| 22 | 178 | 3088 | 316 | 10797 |
| 23 | 178 | 3266 | 341 | 11138 |
| 24 | 170 | 3436 | 352 | 11490 |
| 25 | 164 | 3600 | 370 | 11860 |
| 26 | 159 | 3759 | 396 | 12256 |
| 27 | 148 | 3908 | 421 | 12677 |
| 28 | 71 | 3979 | 218 | 12895 |
| 29 | 3 | 3982 | 10 | 12905 |
| **Total** | **3982** |  | **12905** |  |

---

**14.4** **Merril-Crowe Plant and Refinery** 

The pregnant leach solution (PLS) reporting to the pregnant solution pond will be pumped to the clarifier filter feed tank at the Merrill-Crowe plant.

Solution clarification will be performed by three clarifying filters arranged in parallel, with two operating and one on standby. The filters will be precoated with diatomaceous earth (DE) to aid in solids removal. Additional DE may be added as body feed to maintain filtration performance as needed. The clarified solution then flows to the deaeration tower, where it enters an evacuated chamber to remove dissolved oxygen.

Following deaeration, powdered zinc, cyanide, and lead nitrate are added to initiate a redox exchange reaction, in which zinc metal is oxidized and gold and silver are reduced to their metallic states. The resulting solution with precipitated solids is pumped to three recessed plate-and-frame filters, operated with two online and one on standby.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>195 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Precipitation continues as the solution travels through the filters and completes within them. The metallic gold and silver precipitate is retained in the filter presses and discharged when the filters are full or on a weekly basis. The resulting barren solution is collected in the barren solution tank.

Cyanide and milk-of-lime may be added to the barren solution prior to its return to the heap leach circuit for reuse.

The gold and silver precipitate collected in the filter presses is dried in a retort to remove moisture and mercury. The dried material is then fluxed and smelted in an induction furnace. Molten metal is poured into molds to produce doré bars, which constitute the final plant product and are packed for shipment.

The slag, poured first into a slag pot, is weighed, sampled, and stored for potential reprocessing, or alternately transferred to the heap or fed to the ball mill if milling operations are active.

Off-gases from the retort furnace are treated to condense and remove mercury. Off-gases from the induction furnace are filtered, scrubbed with water sprays, and then passed through a sulfur-impregnated carbon bed for final polishing.

**14.5** **Reagents** 

The primary reagents used in the heap leach process are sodium cyanide, lime, and cement. Additional reagents are used in the Merrill-Crowe and refining circuits. Table 14-6 summarizes the projected reagent usage for the Richmond Hill Project, including estimated consumption rates and points of addition.

**14.5.1** **Sodium Cyanide** 

Sodium cyanide (NaCN) will be used as the primary lixiviant in the heap leach circuit. It will be delivered as a 30% by weight liquid solution (specific gravity 1.15) in tanker trucks and stored in a steel tank within secondary containment at the Merrill-Crowe plant. Distribution to the leach circuit will be via metering pumps.

All cyanide pipelines will use double-containment systems, either "pipe-within-pipe" or "pipe-over-liner," to mitigate environmental risk. Cyanide consumption is estimated at 0.75 lb per short ton (ST) of ore.

**14.5.2** **Lime** 

Pebble quicklime (CaO) will be used to maintain an alkaline pH in the leach solution and to improve agglomeration. Lime will be delivered in bulk by 20-ton pneumatic trucks and stored in a dedicated silo. A variable-speed feeder will meter lime onto the product transfer conveyor in the crushing circuit, where it will mix with ore during agglomeration.

Lime consumption is estimated at 4.0 lb/ST of crushed ore.

**14.5.3** **Cement** 

Portland Type II cement will be added during the agglomeration stage to promote permeability and heap stability. Cement will be pneumatically off-loaded from 20-ton bulk trucks into a storage silo and metered onto the agglomeration conveyor belt using variable-speed feeders, proportionate to ore tonnage.

Cement consumption is estimated at 1.0 lb/ST of crushed ore.

**14.5.4** **Zinc** 

Zinc powder will be used in the Merrill-Crowe process as a reducing agent to precipitate dissolved gold and silver from the clarified pregnant leach solution. Zinc is added after deaeration, where oxygen is removed to improve precipitation efficiency. The zinc reacts with the metal cyanide complexes to form solid gold and silver particles, which are then collected through filtration.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>196 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Zinc will be stored in a secure, dry area and metered into the process via dedicated feeders. Actual consumption will vary depending on metal tenor in solution.

**14.5.5** **Lead Nitrate** 

Lead nitrate (PbNO<sub>3</sub>) will be used in the Merrill-Crowe plant to improve the efficiency of precious metal precipitation. Lead nitrate will be added as a dilute solution directly to the pregnant solution prior to the addition of zinc. The typical concentration in the circuit is approximately 15 ppm, but this may be adjusted based on operating conditions and metallurgical performance.

**14.5.6** **Diatomaceous Earth** 

Diatomaceous earth (DE) will be used as a filter aid in the Merrill-Crowe plant to remove fine solids from the solution before dearation. DE enhances the formation of a precoat and improves cake permeability, helping to retain precipitated gold and silver particles while minimizing blinding of the filter media.

DE will be added as a slurry to the filter feed tank or directly onto the filter surface prior to filtration. Estimated consumption is approximately 100 lb per filter batch, though usage rates may vary depending on solution clarity and precipitation load.

**14.5.7** **Flux** 

Fluxes will be added during doré smelting to facilitate the removal of base metal impurities in the form of slag. Typical flux components include silica sand, borax, and sodium carbonate (soda ash). Additional additives such as fluorspar or potassium nitrate (niter) may be used as required. Fluxes will be delivered in 50 lb bags.

**14.5.8** **Antiscalant** 

Antiscalant will be added to leach and strip solutions to prevent scaling in process pipelines and heap irrigation systems. The reagent will be delivered in 1 m<sup>3</sup> tote bins and applied directly using variable-speed chemical metering pumps. Antiscalant will be added directly from the supplier tote bins into the pregnant and barren pumping systems using variable speed, chemical-metering pumps.

**Table 14-6: Main Process Reagents and Consumables**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Reagent** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Area or Point of Addition** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dosage** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Dosage unit** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Sodium Cyanide | &nbsp;&nbsp;Leach, Barren Solution Pond & Merrill-Crowe | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.75 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/ST |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lime | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leach | &nbsp;&nbsp;4.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/ST |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cement | &nbsp;&nbsp;Heap Leap – Agglomeration | &nbsp;&nbsp;1.0 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/ST |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Zn Dust, estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.06 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/Oz Au |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Zn Dust, estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.10 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/Oz Ag |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lead Nitrate, estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe | &nbsp;&nbsp;15 | &nbsp;&nbsp;ppm in preg sol'n |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Diatomaceous Earth (DE), estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe | &nbsp;&nbsp;100 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/filter batch |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Melting Flux, estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/ST |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Antiscalant, estimate | &nbsp;&nbsp;Process Water Pump, Barren Solution Pump | &nbsp;&nbsp;0.02 | &nbsp;&nbsp;lb/ST |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>197 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**14.6** **Water Consumption** 

As with most mining operations, the project is designed to maximize water recycling wherever possible. Water is recovered from heap leach operations and other process circuits, with raw water used to offset losses due to evaporation, ore retention, and dust suppression. Additional raw water is also used for wet scrubbers and other utility services.

The Richmond Hill project is projected to require a total average of 472 gal/min of raw water makeup to sustain the operation. The actual requirement will fluctuate according to the season.

**14.7** **Blowers and Compressors** 

The design of the leach pad and mill facilities includes blowers and compressors to provide general plant air, leach, detoxification, dust control, and instrument air. A list of air equipment is given in Table 14-7 below.

**Table 14-7: List of Blowers and Compressors for Supply Plant and Instrument Air**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Equipment <br> Tag** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Service Area** | &nbsp;&nbsp;**Power, <br> kW** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;100-CM-001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Primary Crusher Area Supply | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200-BL-001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Lime Truck Offloading Blower | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200-CM-001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Reclaim Area Supply & Dust Collectors | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;200-CM-002 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Fine Crushing Area Supply & Dust Collectors | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;250-BL-001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Cement Truck Offloading Blower | &nbsp;&nbsp;11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;900-CM-001 | &nbsp;&nbsp;Merrill-Crowe Area Supply & Dust Collectors | &nbsp;&nbsp;56 |

---

**14.8** **Power Consumption** 

The total connected power load is 18,635 kW for the heap leach operation. The connected power, power demand, and annual demand in each process area is given in Table 14-8.

**Table 14-8: Summary of Connected Power for Heap Leach Operations**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Area** | **Description** | **Connected Load, <br> kW** | **Demand, <br> kW** | **Annual, <br> kW** |
| 100 | Primary Crushing | 1693 | 990 | 8669675 |
| 200 | Fine Crushing | 4960 | 2946 | 25804293 |
| 250 | Agglomeration | 371 | 220 | 1928341 |
| 300 | Leach Pad Stacking | 3227 | 1939 | 16986844 |
| 350 | Heap Leach Pad & Ponds | 651 | 303 | 2653381 |
| 400 | Merrill-Crowe | 3387 | 1621 | 14197795 |
| 500 | Refinery | 372 | 280 | 2455509 |
| 650 | Water Systems | 3807 | 1802 | 15785126 |
| 800 | Reagents | 26 | 16 | 142079 |
| 900 | Ancillary Facilities | 141 | 98 | 857082 |
| **Total** | **Total** | **18635** | **10215** | **89480125** |

---

**14.9** **Control Systems** 

A crusher control room in the primary crusher area will be the operating and control center for the crushing plants.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>198 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

A central control room (CCR) will be inside the Merrill-Crowe Plant building. From the CCR control consoles, crushing, screening, material handling systems, reagents, pumping systems, aeration system, Merrill-Crowe plant, and utility systems will be monitored or controlled.

A computer room adjacent to the CCR will contain engineering workstations (EWS), a supervisory computer, historical trend system, management information systems (MIS) server, programming terminal, network and communications equipment, and documentation printers. This is primarily used for distributed control system (DCS) development and support activities by plant and control systems engineers.

Although the facilities are normally controlled from the CCRs, local video display terminals are selectively provided on the plant floor for occasional monitoring and control of certain process areas. Any local control panels that are supplied by equipment vendors will be interfaced with the DCS for remote monitoring or control.

**14.10** **Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories** 

A laboratory building has been provided for the capital cost estimate. Provision has been made for facilities that include sample receiving, sample drying, sample preparation, metallurgical laboratory, wet laboratory, and fire assay for mine and process plant samples.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>199 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **15** | **Infrastructure** |

---

The infrastructure at Richmond Hill has been developed to support and sustain mining and heap leaching operations. Key components of this infrastructure include an existing access road that ensures reliable transportation to and from the facility, as well as a stable grid power supply designed to meet the energy demands of continuous operations.

The site will include heap leach pads, engineered to accommodate ore processing in compliance with environmental and safety regulations, which are further discussed elsewhere within this report. Supporting this is a process plant equipped with the necessary technology to extract valuable minerals efficiently. Both the heap leach facility and the process plant are described in detail in Section 14. A range of ancillary buildings, including administrative offices, maintenance facilities, and storage units, further support the day-to-day operational requirements of the site.

This integrated infrastructure ensures that Richmond Hill is well-positioned to carry out mining and leaching activities effectively and sustainably.

**15.1** **Site Access Road** 

The primary access to the Richmond Hill Project site will be established via existing public roadways originating from Lead, South Dakota. This access route has been selected to leverage current infrastructure while minimizing environmental and logistical impacts.

From the city of Lead, the designated route will proceed southwest along U.S. Route 85—also known as the CanAm Highway—for approximately one mile, reaching the intersection with Nevada Gulch Road. From this point, the route will continue westward on Nevada Gulch Road for an estimated three miles until it intersects with Richmond Hill Road. The final leg of the route will follow Richmond Hill Road northward for approximately 3.5 miles, passing the existing Wharf Mine, and arriving at the Richmond Hill Project's security office.

All vehicular traffic, including personal vehicles, delivery trucks, and contractor transport, will be required to report to the security office for check-in prior to being granted access to the site. This measure is intended to maintain site security, monitor personnel movement, and ensure regulatory compliance.

The entire transportation of personnel, operational equipment, consumable materials, and construction-related machinery will be conducted via this primary access corridor. By utilizing a single, controlled entry route, the project will enhance site management efficiency, promote traffic safety, and support streamlined logistical operations throughout all phases of development and operation.

**15.2** **Power Supply** 

Electrical utility service is currently available at the Richmond Hill Project site, providing a foundational element for supporting future mining and processing operations. Electrical power for the site will be supplied by Black Hills Energy, a regional utility provider, through enhancements to the existing transmission infrastructure. These upgrades will ensure a reliable power supply capable of delivering up to 13 megawatts (MW) of electrical capacity—sufficient to meet the demands of mining, processing, and support facilities during both construction and full-scale operations.

The planned improvements will involve upgrades to the existing substation, as well as enhancements along the current transmission line corridor that extends from the substation to the Richmond Hill site. These upgrades will strengthen the system's capacity and reliability, supporting continuous and stable power delivery. As part of the electrical infrastructure planning, provisions have also been made for the installation or enhancement of voltage regulators along the transmission line to maintain voltage stability across varying load conditions.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>200 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

In addition, the project design includes the re-routing of certain sections of overhead power lines that currently intersect proposed pit areas and process facilities. This reconfiguration is essential to prevent operational conflicts and ensure safety and accessibility throughout the site.

All anticipated costs associated with these electrical infrastructure improvements have been incorporated into the Project's Capital and Operating Cost Estimates. These proactive planning measures reflect the Project's commitment to maintaining a robust and efficient energy supply while aligning with regulatory requirements and operational needs.

**15.3** **Project Buildings** 

A dedicated truck shop is planned for operations to the west of the heap leach facility and to the south of the open pits, in close proximity to the property's main access point and the administrative facilities. This strategic location has been selected to optimize logistical efficiency and to ensure seamless connectivity between key operational zones.

Immediately to the south of the proposed truck shop, a fuel island will be constructed to facilitate convenient refueling of heavy equipment and haul trucks, minimizing downtime and enhancing operational productivity. The administrative building will house designated safety and training areas, providing a centralized location for workforce orientation, ongoing training programs, and compliance with occupational health and safety standards.

Integrated within the truck shop complex will be offices for mine services personnel, ensuring close coordination between equipment maintenance, operational support, and field activities. Directly north of the truck shop, a laydown yard is proposed, which will serve as a staging and storage area for equipment, spare parts, and construction materials, further supporting maintenance and operational functions.

All pit areas will be connected to their respective waste rock dumps and maintenance facilities through a network of well-designed haul roads. These roads will be engineered to accommodate the movement of mining equipment, ensuring safe and efficient transportation of material across the site.

This planned infrastructure reflects a comprehensive approach to supporting the full scope of mining operations, with an emphasis on safety, efficiency, and long-term functionality.

**15.3.1** **Security Building at Access Gate** 

The site's Security Building will be strategically located approximately half a mile inside the main access road from the southern property boundary. Positioned on elevated terrain, the building provides optimal visibility of incoming and outgoing traffic. This facility will serve as the primary control point for all site ingress and egress. A secure, monitored access gate will be integrated into the building's design to regulate and document all personnel and vehicle movement. Beyond this entry point, a continuous security perimeter fence will enclose all active operational areas to ensure site safety, protect personnel, and safeguard critical infrastructure.

**15.3.2** **Heap Leach Crushing Plant and Agglomeration** 

The crushing circuit infrastructure will consist of three dedicated buildings: the Primary Crushing Building, the Fine Crushing Building, and the Agglomeration Building. These structures will be engineered steel buildings, purpose-built to shelter the crushing and screening equipment from adverse weather conditions while ensuring operational reliability. Although uninsulated, each building will be fully enclosed on all four sides, with strategically positioned access points for maintenance personnel. These buildings will be designed to balance protection from environmental exposure with the necessary accessibility for equipment servicing and routine inspections.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>201 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**15.3.3** **Merrill-Crowe Plant** 

Located directly east of the Phase 1 Heap Leach Pad, the Merrill-Crowe Plant will be a critical component of the gold and silver recovery process. Pregnant leach solution (PLS) from the heap leach pad will be conveyed to the plant for treatment. The recovery process will involve clarification and deaeration of the PLS, followed by zinc dust cementation—commonly known as the Merrill-Crowe process—to precipitate precious metals.

The facility will be housed within a fully insulated, engineered steel building designed to support year-round operation. The structure will incorporate all necessary process and refinery circuits, as well as auxiliary amenities including office space, a break/lunch room, and gender-separated locker and restroom facilities. For operational flexibility, the building will be equipped with two roll-up doors to allow access for forklifts and maintenance vehicles, along with multiple man doors for personnel entry. A secure, restricted-access man door and armored vehicle roll-up door will be provided for the refinery area to ensure controlled movement of valuable materials. The plant will also be equipped with required safety infrastructure, including eyewash stations, emergency showers, and comprehensive fire protection systems.

**15.3.4** **Administration Building** 

The Administration Building will be situated just beyond the Security Building along the main site access road. This modular complex will be constructed from fifteen (15) 12' x 60' mobile units, professionally assembled into a cohesive, functional facility. The layout will be divided to accommodate a wide variety of uses, including administrative offices, project coordination spaces, and general management operations. Dedicated areas will be included for a large conference room and a fully equipped training room, allowing for on-site meetings, workforce development sessions, and regulatory training.

**15.3.5** **Truck Shop Building** 

Continuing northwest along the main access road, the Truck Shop will be located just beyond the Truck Wash and the Fueling Station. This state-of-the-art maintenance facility will measure 300 ft by 100 ft and will include six (6) service bays, two of which will be specially equipped with embedded rails to accommodate tracked vehicles and loaders with tire chains.

The facility will also house the Mine Warehouse, which will be situated at the ground floor opposite the service bay area. This warehouse will serve as a centralized storage hub for parts, tools, and consumables required for equipment maintenance. Adjacent to the warehouse, the Mine Services Office and a dedicated light vehicle maintenance bay will be constructed to streamline operations and facilitate the upkeep of support vehicles used across the site.

**15.3.6** **Laboratory** 

The Laboratory will be housed in a purpose-built, stand-alone building located in close proximity to the Merrill-Crowe Plant to allow for efficient sample analysis and process support. The facility will be equipped with specialized systems including fume scrubbers, acid containment structures, and dust collection units to ensure safe and compliant handling of chemical reagents and analytical samples. The lab will also be outfitted with state-of-the-art equipment necessary for assay testing and metallurgical analysis.

In addition to its technical functions, the laboratory building will include office space, restrooms, and change facilities, providing a safe and comfortable working environment for laboratory personnel.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>202 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**15.4** **Water Management Infrastructure** 

**15.4.1** **Water Supply** 

Initial water supply for the project will be sourced from an existing groundwater monitoring well. As the project advances, water sourced from the pit dewatering will provide necessary water supply to the project in an effort to reduce the overall water volume delivered to the water treatment plant (WTP).

**15.4.2** **Surface Water Management** 

The proposed mine is located on Richmond Hill, generally along a north – south watershed divide. The area naturally drains to both the west and east. The west side of the site drains into Cole Creek and Cleopatra Creek, which flow into Spearfish Creek. The east side of the site drains via several unnamed streams that flow into False Bottom Creek.

As the pit and other mine infrastructure is located at the top of Richmond Hill, surface water management for the mine is relatively simple. The surface water management system will segregate contact and non-contact water. Due to the nature of the mine location minimal surface water inflows are present, requiring minimal non-contact water diversion needs. The system will be designed to contain and process all contact water, provide consistent water supply for ore processing, and accommodate storm events.

The water management system will include the following components:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Non-contact water diversion ditches

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Contact water collection ditches

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Culverts

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Pumps / Lined Storage Ponds

Figure 15-1 presents the proposed water management features at the end of mine life. Note that the pump locations within the pit are approximate and will be determined based on pit phasing and mining activity.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>203 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp11img001.jpg)

**Figure 15-1: End of Mine Life Surface Water Management**

Further analysis and design should include the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Sizing of ditches, pumps and culverts.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Varied layouts for each pit phase.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Pipeline routing and sizing from pumps to the
(WTP).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Minor modifications to pit design to eliminate
the need for the various short collection ditches.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The runoff analysis should be revised to vary
based on pit phasing.

**15.4.3** **Ground Water Management** 

Hydrogeological conditions within the open pit are described in Section 14. The contact water captured within the pit sumps will be pumped to the surface water management system and piped to the WTP for treatment and discharge.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>204 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

15.4.4 **Water Treatment** 

Historical water quality information obtained from the retention pond at the reclaimed Richmond Hill mine indicates that the contact water for the project will include elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) including elevated metal content and sulfate. It is anticipated that active water treatment will be required to meet effluent discharge standards utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) methods. The WTP will be located adjacent to the existing water treatment plant, which would be decommissioned once the new plant is operational. The WTP will process both surface water and groundwater to meet effluent discharge standards along with an aeration cycle prior to discharge.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>205 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **16** | **Market Studies** |

---

The proposed flowsheet for the Richmond Hill gold project produces a finished product of doré, which is a highly marketable product with numerous refining options. The Initial Assessment assumes a 99.90% payability for gold and a refining charge of $10 per ounce of gold, and payability of 99.00% for silver.

The Initial Assessment cash flow uses a base case gold price of $2,350 per ounce. In determining a reasonable base case gold price, the Company has reviewed and considered: 1) the 36-month trailing average gold price; 2) the consensus forecast prices from analysts; and 3) the current price of gold.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>206 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **17** | **Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** |

---

*Please note that the information in this chapter may change once a new Dakota Gold mine plan is in place.*

From an environmental and permitting standpoint, the proposed Project is making steady progress. Analysis is required to satisfy state permits administered by the SDDANR.

**17.1** **Baseline Environmental Study Requirements** 

Baseline conditions need assessment, and a sampling plan have been developed to review the project and requisite environmental analysis and baseline resource inventories. The detailed baseline sampling plan, including a socioeconomic impact study plan and cultural resource study plan, currently underway for the project. Meetings were held with SDDANR and South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) to review the Project and baseline sampling plan in March and April of 2025.

Baseline environmental studies necessary to satisfy State laws and regulations and County regulations for the SDDANR Large Scale Mine Permit Application and Lawrence County CUP Application include the following study categories:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Geology and Geochemistry

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Groundwater Hydrogeology and Water Quality

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Air Quality

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Meteorology

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Soils

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Vegetation

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Wetlands

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Wildlife

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Aquatic Resources

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Cultural Resources

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Sound / Noise

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Visual Resources

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Socioeconomics

These studies will begin to provide data that will inform several future permit applications, operating plans, and a reclamation plan.

Additional studies, such as geotechnical stability, blasting vibration, and water treatment, may also be required under the discretion of the SDDANR. The Lawrence County CUP application requires operational information and a socioeconomic impact assessment. Other non-environmental permit requirements are listed in Section 3.

Dakota Gold has retained multiple third-party specialists to conduct the necessary baseline analysis and provide reporting for SDDANR and Lawrence County reviews. As of the effective date of this IACF, Dakota Gold has scheduled several baseline evaluations; most field work will be conducted beginning in the spring 2025 and concluding in mid-2026. With the exception of kinetic geochemical testing, Dakota Gold forecasts that all other baseline studies will be completed by late 2026, facilitating the preparation of the Notice of Intent and Request for Determination of Special, Exceptional, Critical or Unique Lands for submittal to the SDDANR in the fourth quarter of 2026. After that time, the remaining environmental studies and operational/reclamation plans will be completed and Dakota Gold will initiate state and county permitting for the Project.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>207 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**17.2** **Results of Environmental Studies** 

In the 1980s and 1990s, considerable environmental baseline information was collected to support historical mine permitting and reclamation and closure activities. This information, along with new and additional or updated data, will be required to support future mine development and permitting efforts.

Surface water quality and flow monitoring programs have been in place near Richmond Hill since the early 1980s. Many historical surface water monitoring locations have been discontinued from Barrick's Richmond Hill monitoring program following reclamation activities. Surface water monitoring in 2024 occurred at eight locations (including: #001, FD-1, #004, FD-2, OEA-1, OEA-3B, Waste Dump Toe, and Retention Pond Below).

Groundwater quality and groundwater level monitoring programs have been in place at Richmond Hill since at least 1988. Many wells have been discontinued from the Barrick Richmond Hill monitoring program as part of the closure and restoration of the Richmond Hill Mine. Ongoing groundwater monitoring has continued near the former pit, waste dump, and process areas (Figure 17-1). Groundwater monitoring wells sampled in 2024 include: MW-9B, MW-14, MW-17, MW-19, MW-20, and MW-24 through MW-30. At least the last 5 to 10 years of data for the historical Richmond Hill LP3MW, South Gulch monitoring wells will be presented in the large-scale mine permit application and the baseline groundwater report.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>208 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp11img002.jpg)

**Figure 17-1: Proposed Groundwater Sample Locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>209 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Historically, various wildlife inventories, including game bird, raptor, and breeding bird nest surveys, have been performed on Richmond Hill Mine property and adjacent lands (typically within a 0.5-mile buffer around the property boundary), including standard surveys and incidental sightings. Except for small-scale wildlife surveys (totaling approximately 596 acres) for exploration drilling projects in 2022, 2023, and 2024, few wildlife surveys have been conducted for the mine since the mid 90s with the cessation of mining and completion of reclamation activities.

Baseline aquatic biological monitoring for the Richmond Hill Mine began in 1985 by OEA Research, and from 1991 through 2016, annual monitoring was performed by KNK Aquatic Ecology (2006) and GEI Consultants, Inc. (2007-2017, 2023). Aquatic resources at Barrick's Richmond Hill Mine are currently monitored and analyzed following the 2017 Aquatic Biological Monitoring Plan with sites on Cleopatra Creek and Rubicon Gulch and a reference site at Labrador Gulch. Within the 2017 plan, GEI summarized current conditions for the streams sampled near the Richmond Hill Mine and compared the data to baseline conditions to evaluate the effects of past and current mining activities on aquatic biological resources (GEI, 2017). That report presented the pre-mining data collected in 1985 and 1986 compared to data collected from 2006 through 2016.

A Level I cultural resource records review was completed in March 2025, covering approximately 2,389 acres of Dakota Gold property plus a 1-mile study area buffer. A total of 24 previous cultural resource inventories have been conducted overlapping portions of the project area. Eight of the previous surveys are considered adequate, accounting for 790 acres, and the remaining 1,600 acres will receive a Level III pedestrian survey in 2025. The records search also revealed two known sites that are eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listing, therefore SD SHPO will be contacted for determinations of eligibility and mitigation.

Dakota Gold also collects environmental information required to support planned exploration permitting and assist with reclamation of disturbed sites. Key environmental studies that have been completed by Dakota Gold to support exploration drilling permits include cultural resources, wildlife (specifically raptor nests and bat habitat), and special plant species. These studies are limited in extent to proposed exploration disturbance footprints.

**17.3** **Requirements and Plans for Waste Storage, Site Monitoring, and Water Management During Operations and After Mine Closure** 

Since the Richmond Hill Gold Mine is closed, requirements and plans during operations are not currently applicable; this section focuses on post-closure requirements and plans for the mine. Plans for the new Project, including general mine plans, overburden and spent ore disposal, monitoring, and water management during and after closure are being developed and will be included in future permit applications.

As part of LAC's (now merged into Homestake) closure program at Richmond Hill Mine, all material classified as acid generating was removed from the Spruce Gulch waste dump and placed in truck compacted lifts back into the historical Richmond Hill mining area. In addition, the most reactive spent ore from Leach Pad 3 was also removed and placed in the former pit. Following placement, the material was capped with a multilayered capping system to minimize oxygen and water infiltration into the compacted potentially acid-generating material and to protect the capping system from erosion, bioturbation, and frost heaving. LAC used a similar capping system to remediate the spent ore material on the heap leach pads. LAC also added and mixed limestone into most of the Pad 3 material to mitigate potential Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) in that material.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>210 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Monitoring activities by Barrick at the current Richmond Hill site include monthly site inspections of the reclaimed acreage, as well as the water treatment operations and support facilities. Annual visual inspections of the leach pad and backfilled historical Richmond Hill mining area impoundment covers are carried out to monitor for stability, erosion control, and prevention of deep-rooting vegetation through the clay caps. Visual inspections also include observations of potential surface cracking, subsidence, stressed vegetation, and erosion rills or slumping of the impoundment covers.

Fencing and signage along the remaining highwalls and along mine access roads are routinely monitored and maintained, as needed, to restrict access and provide public safety. LAC annually completes an annual noxious weed treatment program at the site. Stormwater management structures are monitored and repaired as needed to prevent extensive erosion and sediment loading into surrounding drainages. LAC maintains a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the surface-water discharge (SWD) permit for the site. The SWPPP ensures roads are graded and sediment-control structures are maintained at the site. Buildings are maintained as needed, and public access to them is restricted to LAC employees, their contractors, and upon request, to SDDANR. Site maintenance would be the responsibility of Dakota Gold once the Option is exercised.

Any potentially impacted water from the former process area, pit impoundment, or Spruce Gulch waste dump facility is actively managed by two on-site water management and treatment systems that have continued to operate throughout the post-closure period. The Spruce Gulch water management facility manages water from the former Spruce Gulch waste rock facility and South Gulch. The treated water is released into Spruce Gulch at the permitted SWD compliance point. The process-area water management facility manages water from the reclaimed leach pads and stormwater pond. This water may be treated in one of three ways before being released to the permitted SWD compliance point. The first treatment option is reverse osmosis (RO) with additional biological treatment. The second option is biological treatment without RO. The third treatment option is biological treatment and chemical precipitation.

Continued water treatment at these sites would be the responsibility of Dakota Gold once the Property is purchased. The associated costs are subject to post-closure bonding, the obligation for which would be assumed by Dakota Gold upon exercise of the Option.

LAC also performs surface water and groundwater quality monitoring and aquatic biological monitoring consistent with the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan. The Hydrologic Monitoring Plan includes monitoring of 13 groundwater wells and 10 surface-water locations to assess water quality and trends in pH, sulfate, and metal concentrations. "Sentinel" monitoring locations are positioned at surface-water and groundwater flow locations downgradient of the historic operations areas (i.e., backfilled mining area, Spruce Gulch, and leach pads) and are representative of the water quality in those locations. A post-closure Groundwater Quality Contingency Plan has been implemented that identifies site-specific performance criteria that LAC uses for triggering additional actions if water quality at defined sentinel monitoring locations indicates a potential change in groundwater conditions that could cause an exceedance of surface-water quality standards at permitted discharge points. Aquatic biological monitoring continues to be conducted in Cleopatra Creek, Labrador Gulch, and Rubicon Gulch in accordance with the SWD permit. The Aquatic Biological Monitoring Plan stipulates that LAC performs this monitoring every five years until 2032, at which time aquatic biological monitoring will be discontinued. All site monitoring would be the responsibility of Dakota Gold once the property is purchased.

The leach pad and backfilled historical Richmond Hill mining area impoundment covers have met or exceeded original design specifications for limiting infiltration.

**17.4** **Project Permitting Requirements, Permit Application Status, and Requirements to Post Performance or Reclamation Bonds** 

Project permit requirements and status are summarized in Section 3.

LAC has posted the Post-Performance and Reclamation bonds required by the SDDANR for SMP No. 445, and the SDDANR has updated bonds as required. Maintenance of the bonds would be the responsibility of Dakota Gold once the Option is exercised.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>211 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

South Dakota Board of Minerals & Environment (SDBME) required the face value of the surety bond for 2025 that serves as the post-closure financial assurance to be $41,773,222. This was adjusted upwards from $30,838,220 (2022) based on increases in the assumed rate of inflation by SDBME.

Dakota Gold has posted the necessary state-wide reclamation bond of $100,000 for Exploration Notices of Intent (EXNI) issued by the SDDANR.

**17.5** **Mine Closure, Remediation, and Reclamation Plans, and Associated Costs** 

The Richmond Hill Gold Mine is currently inactive and mostly reclaimed, except for water treatment facilities, as shown in Figure 17-2. Water treatment continues to be conducted at the former Spruce Gulch waste rock disposal site to treat water emanating from Spruce Gulch and South Gulch, and at the former process area to treat seepage from the closed leach pads. LAC received a replacement RO unit for the water treatment plant in September 2023 which was operational in 2024. The new RO unit is smaller, more efficient, and can treat water at cooler temperatures. Water treatment will be required at these sites until water quality effluent limits and water quality standards are met pursuant to the Richmond Hill permits and South Dakota laws and regulations. If Dakota Gold exercises the option to purchase the property, continued water treatment at the Spruce Gulch waste rock disposal site would be their responsibility.

Additionally, if Dakota Gold elects to move forward with the project and redevelop the mining operation, a new mine closure plan and standard reclamation cost estimate (RCE) would be developed and submitted to the appropriate state regulatory agencies. Proposed reclamation for the project would include management of three primary mining areas, three heap leaches, overburden storage stockpiles, developed roadways, facilities, additional disturbance adjacent to facilities, and short- and long-term water monitoring.

The Richmond Hill reclamation and closure plan would include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Concurrent backfilling and grading of three primary mining areas.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Overprinting of mining areas for two of three heap leaches.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Decommissioning, drain down, and regrading of the three heap leaches.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Decommissioning of surface infrastructure and roadways.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Dismantling of all facilities, with sales/recycling of assets and disposal
of waste.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Final scarification, grading, and revegetation of all disturbance areas.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Post-closure groundwater monitoring.

This approach with concurrent reclamation would result in minimal post-reclamation landform impacts and is anticipated to be completed within five years of ceasing operation. Post-reclamation monitoring, including groundwater quality, storm water management, and revegetation success, would be designed to meet State requirements and would be continued for up to ten years following reclamation.

Current mining regulations require that financial guarantees cover all reclamation costs including dismantling of facilities, abandonment of roadways, regrading and revegetation of disturbed areas, and water monitoring. The amount of the guarantee, which is in the form of a surety bond, corresponds to the total estimated costs for the reclamation of the entire mine site. The RCE would be developed using average costs based on the Nevada Standardized Reclamation Cost Estimator (SRCE Version 2.0) and includes direct and indirect costs, contingency, and post-reclamation monitoring assuming third-party costs.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>212 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp11img003.jpg)

**Figure 17-2: LAC's Reclamation Liability Release Map (SDBME, 2016)**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>213 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**17.6** **Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups** 

Other than a pending offer to a surface right owner and coordination with surface rights owners, and general plans regarding permitting strategy or land position, Dakota Gold does not have any current plans, negotiations, or agreements with local individuals or groups. Depending on how the mine plan develops, waivers may be required from adjacent landowners to waive the 500-ft surface disturbance buffer required by Lawrence County.

**17.7** **Qualified Person's Opinion on the Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Any issues Related to Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Local Individuals or Groups** 

The QP is of the opinion that the environmental studies, permitting, and social aspects of the project are being appropriately managed and planned to support the proposed mine and mineral processing operation on Dakota Gold's claims.

Dakota Gold will continue to work with state and local agencies to ensure that all permitting will be sufficient to ensure that future mining and processing will be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations. Additionally, Dakota Gold will develop community engagement plans to identify and ensure an understanding of the needs of the surrounding communities and to determine appropriate programs for addressing those needs.

The QP is of the opinion that the adequacy of the current plans and any potential issues should not prevent the Richmond Hill Gold Project from becoming a mine, especially given that the adjacent Wharf Mine owned by Coeur Mining has been in continuous operation for over 40 years and further considering the history of mining activity in the Homestake District.

**17.8** **Descriptions of Any Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring** 

Dakota Gold is committed to hiring and procurement from the local community, prioritizing the city, region, and state, followed by out-of-state and out-of-country.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>214 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **18** | **Capital and Operating Costs** |

---

Capital and operating costs were estimated for the IA study by RESPEC (mine development), M3 (process plant, site development, power transmission and distribution, and ancillaries), and Welsh Hagan (heap leach facilities). Table 18-1 shows the estimated capital costs for the project under the M&I case. Table 18-2 shows the estimated capital costs for the project under the MI&I case.

**Table 18-1: Capital Cost Summary for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **Units** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Total** |
| Ore Preparation (Crush, Agglomerate, Stack) | K USD | $83533 | $0 | $83533 |
| Heap Leach Pad & Ponds | K USD | $23324 | $80700 | $104025 |
| Merrill Crowe & Refinery | K USD | $22662 | $0 | $22662 |
| Process Support Systems (Water, Reagents, Power) | K USD | $18955 | $0 | $18955 |
| Ancillaries | K USD | $24711 | $0 | $24711 |
| Freight | K USD | $7793 | $888 | $8681 |
| **Sub-Total Direct Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | K USD | $**180978** | $**81588** | $**262567** |
| Contractor Indirect Costs | K USD | $22100 | $16242 | $38342 |
| EPCM | K USD | $30462 | $14675 | $45136 |
| Vendor Support & Spare Parts | K USD | $5725 | $0 | $5725 |
| Contingency | K USD | $52650 | $28126 | $80776 |
| Owner's Costs, Including First Fills | K USD | $17746 | $7826 | $25572 |
| Water Treatment Plant | K USD | $25000 | $0 | $25000 |
| **Sub-Total Indirect Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | K USD | $**153682** | $**66869** | $**220551** |
| **Sub-Total Process Plant** | K USD | $**334661** | $**148457** | $**483118** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sub-Total Mine Capital (RESPEC)** | K USD | $**49428** | $**71163** | $**120591** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL CAPITAL COST** | K USD | $**384088** | $**219620** | $**603708** |

---

**Table 18-2: Capital Cost Summary for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category** | **Units** | **Initial** | **Sustaining** | **Total** |
| Ore Preparation (Crush, Agglomerate, Stack) | K USD | $83533 | $0 | $83533 |
| Heap Leach Pad & Ponds | K USD | $23324 | $80700 | $104025 |
| Merrill Crowe & Refinery | K USD | $22662 | $0 | $22662 |
| Process Support Systems (Water, Reagents, Power) | K USD | $18955 | $0 | $18955 |
| Ancillaries | K USD | $24711 | $0 | $24711 |
| Freight | K USD | $7793 | $888 | $8681 |
| **Sub-Total Direct Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | K USD | $**180978** | $**81588** | $**262567** |
| Contractor Indirect Costs | K USD | $22100 | $16242 | $38342 |
| EPCM | K USD | $30462 | $14675 | $45136 |
| Vendor Support & Spare Parts | K USD | $5725 | $0 | $5725 |
| Contingency | K USD | $52650 | $28126 | $80776 |
| Owner's Costs, Including First Fills | K USD | $17746 | $7826 | $25572 |
| Water Treatment Plant | K USD | $25000 | $0 | $25000 |
| **Sub-Total Indirect Cost (Process Plant & Support)** | K USD | $**153682** | $**66869** | $**220551** |
| **Sub-Total Process Plant** | K USD | $**334661** | $**148457** | $**483118** |
| **Sub-Total Mine Capital (RESPEC)** | K USD | $**48718** | $**84106** | $**132824** |
| **TOTAL CAPITAL COST** | K USD | $**383379** | $**232563** | $**615942** |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>215 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Table 18-3 shows the estimated operating costs for the LOM of the project under the M&I case. Operating costs were estimated at $2.0 billion for the LOM. This is equivalent to $10.73 per ton processed or $764 per ounce of payable gold.

**Table 18-3: Operating Cost Summary for M&I Case**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Production Cost** | **Production Cost** |
| <br>**Category** | <br>**K USD** | **$/ ton** | **$/ Au oz** |
| Mining Costs | $887322 | $4.78 | $341 |
| Process Plant | $874490 | $4.71 | $336 |
| G&A | $201722 | $1.09 | $77 |
| Refining | $26068 | $0.14 | $10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL OPERATING COST** | $**1989602** | $**10.73** | $**764** |

---

Table 18-4 shows the estimated operating costs for the project LOM under the MI&I case. Operating costs were estimated at $3.3 billion for the LOM. This is equivalent to $10.82 per ton processed or $924 per ounce of payable gold.

**Table 18-4: Operating Cost Summary for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Production Cost** | **Production Cost** |
| <br>**Category** |<br>**K USD** | **$/ ton** | **$/ Au oz** |
| Mining Costs | $1464004 | $4.85 | $414 |
| Process Plant | $1427042 | $4.73 | $404 |
| G&A | $332248 | $1.10 | $94 |
| Refining | $39856 | $0.13 | $11 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**TOTAL OPERATING COST** | $**3263151** | $**10.82** | $**924** |

---

**18.1** **Process Capital** 

**18.1.1** **Process Capital Cost Summary** 

The process plant costs are comprised of costs for the process facilities, infrastructure development, power systems and ancillaries. The direct costs are developed from labor, materials, plant equipment, sub-contracts, construction equipment, and freight. Indirect costs are applied to the direct costs to account for items such as: construction support; engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM); vendor support during specialty construction and commissioning; spare parts; contingency; and owner's costs. Together, the direct and indirect costs form the capital costs.

The process plant includes the Merrill-Crowe plant, as well as the refinery and reagents. The ancillaries include components such as the truck shop and warehouse, truck wash, laboratory, mine dry, and the fuel station.

Indirect costs were then calculated following industry accepted methodologies, including application of contingency based on the completed level of design on a scope or individual work type basis. The agglomerate contingency for the process plant is estimated at 22% of total contracted cost. This is a combination of 15% contingency for plant equipment, where budgetary quotes were sourced for the main components, and 25% contingency for all other cost components. Total contracted costs include all process plant direct costs, plus construction support costs, EPCM costs, vendor support costs, and spare parts costs. First fills were calculated by M3. Owner's Costs were developed in collaboration with Dakota Gold.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>216 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Process plant capital costs were independently developed, and all capital cost estimates are based on the purchase of new equipment.

The total evaluated project cost is projected to be in the accuracy range of -25%/+30%. The process plant capital is the same for the M&I case as well as the MI&I case, as the nominal annual production rates are essentially equivalent. Regarding the design of the process plant, the primary difference between the M&I and the MI&I cases are the overall years of plant operation.

**Table 18-5: Initial Capital Process Plant Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Category (all costs are in USD 1,000)** | **Plant<br> Equip.** | **Material** | **Labor** | **Sub<br> Contract** | **Const.<br> Equip.** | **Total** |
| General Site | $0 | $1889 | $1319 | $0 | $484 | $3692 |
| Primary Crushing | $5754 | $5579 | $4743 | $0 | $1144 | $17219 |
| Fine Crushing | $23179 | $11742 | $9187 | $0 | $1279 | $45387 |
| Agglomeration | $3976 | $1490 | $823 | $0 | $97 | $6386 |
| Heap Stacking | $9145 | $2963 | $2276 | $0 | $157 | $14541 |
| Heap Leach Pad & Ponds | $493 | $4999 | $10096 | $0 | $7737 | $23324 |
| Merrill Crowe | $8443 | $5441 | $3678 | $0 | $648 | $18209 |
| Refinery | $2735 | $901 | $742 | $0 | $75 | $4453 |
| Water Systems | $3366 | $1047 | $1092 | $0 | $192 | $5697 |
| Power Systems | $4850 | $1020 | $396 | $1000 | $29 | $7296 |
| Reagents | $423 | $792 | $910 | $0 | $145 | $2270 |
| Ancillaries | $3991 | $11824 | $5036 | $0 | $3860 | $24711 |
| Freight | $5308 | $2484 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $7793 |
| **Sub-Total Direct Cost (Process Plant)** | $71663 | $52171 | $40298 | $1000 | $15847 | $**180978** |
| Construction Support (inc. Mobilization) |  |  |  |  |  | $22100 |
| Engineering, Procurement, & Const. Mgmt. |  |  |  |  |  | $30462 |
| Vendor Support & Commissioning |  |  |  |  |  | $3734 |
| Spare Parts (Capital, Commissioning) |  |  |  |  |  | $1991 |
| First Fills |  |  |  |  |  | $1500 |
| Contingency |  |  |  |  |  | $52650 |
| Owner's Cost |  |  |  |  |  | $16246 |
| Water Treatment Plant |  |  |  |  |  | $25000 |
| **Sub-Total Indirect Cost (Process Plant)** |  |  |  |  |  | $**153682** |
| **TOTAL CAPITAL COST (Process Plant)** |  |  |  |  |  | $**334661** |

---

**18.1.2** **Freight** 

Estimates for equipment and material freight costs are based on bulk freight loads and have been estimated at 8% of the equipment cost and 5% of the material cost.

**18.1.3** **Construction Support** 

Contractor labor indirect costs and contractor non-labor are included 20.5% and 12.8% of the total direct labor hours times an average rate of $58.21 per hour. Services required through construction execution are included at $2.62 million.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>217 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.1.4** **EPCM** 

Engineering, procurement, and construction management is included at 15% of total constructed cost (TCC) for the process plant scope. This includes project management and administration, project services, project controls, and EPCM fee, temporary construction facilities, and temporary construction power.

**18.1.5** **Vendor Support** 

Vendor supervision of specialty construction is included at 1.5% of plant equipment supply costs. Vendor pre-commissioning is included at 0.7% of plant equipment supply costs. Vendor commissioning is included at 0.7% of plant equipment supply costs.

Commissioning is included at 1% of Total Direct Field Costs.

**18.1.6** **Spare Parts** 

Capital spare parts are included at 2.0% of plant equipment supply costs. Commissioning spare parts are included at 1.0% of plant equipment supply costs. Two-year operating spare parts are excluded.

**18.2** **Owner's Costs** 

Owner's Costs were developed in collaboration with Dakota Gold. The Owner's Costs include items such as salaries and wages for the project personnel, housing, and accommodations for owner's team during project development, transportation for owner's team during project development, owner's team vehicles, office services, and travel during project development. There is also an allowance for external services, such as geotechnical investigation and permit support.

The Owner's Costs are estimated at 8% of Total Constructed Cost.

**18.3** **HLF and Associated Infrastructure, Water Management, and Closure Capital Costs** 

**18.3.1** **Unit Rates** 

Unit rates were estimated using a combination of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Supply vendor quotes for specific materials such
as piping and geosynthetics.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Contractor labor rates built up using South Dakota
Prevailing Wages, with additional factors to account for per diem rates (given the remote project site), estimated contractor markup,
a small hand tool allowance, and a separate tax for the contractor's labor.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Production rates for each unit rate were calculated
based on similar project experience and estimates of contractors' unit rates. The Caterpillar Performance Handbook Edition 49 was
refenced for equipment specifications and capabilities.

**18.3.2** **Quantities/Material Take-Offs** 

The CAPEX is quantity-based using engineering-derived material take-off (MTO) quantities from the IA-level designs. The MTO was generated from AutoCAD Civil 3D design surfaces, as well as typical layouts, sections, and details developed for this project.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>218 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

This estimate includes site preparation, earthworks, geosynthetics, piping, and associated surface water management infrastructure such as diversions, sediment ponds, and applicable erosion protection measures. Additional allowances have been made for indirect costs such as engineering, construction management, quality control, and surveying, as well as contractor costs to mobilize, demobilize, and provide temporary stormwater controls during construction.

**18.4** **Mining Capital Costs** 

Capital costs for this project represent the upfront investment needed to bring the operation to a state of production readiness, and continuing equipment purchases to either replace worn equipment or to meet the needs of the mine plan. Most of the capital costs associated with this project are due to equipment purchases in the form of Primary and Support equipment. Table 18-6 presents equipment purchase costs, while Table 18-10 presents equipment purchases by time period. Costs in the following section for mining are specific to the MI&I case. Refer to section 21 for costs for the M&I case.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>219 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-6: Up Front Capital Costs**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Primary Mining Equipment** | **Unit Cost** | **Assembly** | **Taxes** | **Total** |
| Production Drill - CAT MD6250 | $2200000 |  | $136400 | $2336400 |
| CAT 995 30-yrd Loader | $6950000 |  | $430900 | $7380900 |
| Cat6040 - 22 cu m Hyd. Shovel | $6500000 |  | $403000 | $6903000 |
| Cat 785 150-ton Haul Trucks | $2900000 |  | $179800 | $3079800 |
| **Support Equipment** |  |  |  |  |
| 600 HP Dozer (D10) | $2300000 |  | $142600 | $2442600 |
| 680 HP RTD (844) | $2500000 |  | $155000 | $2655000 |
| **18' Motor Grader (D18)** | $1690000 |  | $104780 | $1794780 |
| **Water Truck - 20,000 Gallon** | $1935700 |  | $120013 | $2055713 |
| **Truck and Lowboy** | $5661177 |  | $350993 | $6012170 |
| 4.7-7.3 cu yd backhoe | $1561400 |  | $96807 | $1658207 |
| Pit Pumps (1,450 gpm) | $55100 |  | $3416 | $58516 |
| 132-ton Crane | $1354000 |  | $83948 | $1437948 |
| Flatbed | $86900 |  | $5388 | $92288 |
| **Blasting** |  |  |  |  |
| Skid Loader | $100400 |  | $6225 | $106625 |
| **Mine Maintenance** |  |  |  |  |
| Lube/Fuel Truck | $950000 |  | $58900 | $1008900 |
| Mechanics Truck | $333300 |  | $20665 | $353965 |
| Tire Truck | $423400 |  | $26251 | $449651 |
| **Other Mine Capital** |  |  |  |  |
| Light Plant | $15500 |  | $961 | $16461 |
| Explosives Storage Site Prep | $75000 |  |  | $75000 |
| ANFO Storage Bins | $83800 | $41900 | $5196 | $130896 |
| Powder Magazines | $11400 | $2280 | $707 | $14387 |
| Cap Magazine | $6100 | $1220 | $378 | $7698 |
| Mobile Radios | $1500 |  | $93 | $1593 |
| Shop Equipment |  |  |  | $750000 |
| Engineering & Office Equipment |  |  |  | $505000 |
| Water Storage (Dust Suppression) |  |  |  | $20000 |
| GPS Stations and Survey Equipment |  |  |  | $150000 |
| Unspecified Miscellaneous Equipment |  |  |  | $500000 |
| Dispatch |  |  |  | $833600 |
| Mine Shop |  |  |  | $5637000 |
| Ambulance & Fire Equipment | $150000 |  |  | $150000 |
| Critical spares | $1000 |  |  | $1000 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>220 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-7: Equipment Costs by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Primary Mining Equipment** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Total** |
| Production Drill - CAT MD6250 | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| CAT 995 30-yrd Loader | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Cat6040 - 22 cu m Hyd. Shovel | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 2 |
| Cat 785 150-ton Haul Trucks | # | 8 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 3 | 4 |  |  | 16 |
| **Support Equipment** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 600 HP Dozer (D10) | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| 680 HP RTD (844) | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 18' Motor Grader (D18) | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| Water Truck - 20,000 Gallon | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| Truck and Lowboy | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 4.7-7.3 cu yd backhoe | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Pit Pumps (1450 gpm) | # | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |
| 132-ton Crane | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Flatbed | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| **Blasting** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Explosives Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Skid Loader | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| **Mine Maintenance** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Lube/Fuel Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Mechanics Truck | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| Tire Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| **Other Mine Capital** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Light Plant | # | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |
| Explosives Storage Site Prep | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| ANFO Storage Bins | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Powder Magazines | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Cap Magazine | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Mobile Radios | # | 33 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 3 | 4 |  |  | 41 |
| Shop Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Engineering & Office Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Water Storage (Dust Suppression) | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Base Radio & GPS Stations | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Unspecified Miscellaneous Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Dispatch | # |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Shop Building | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Ambulance & Fire Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Critical Spares | # | 631 | 405 |  |  | 230 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1266 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>221 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Table 18-8 represents total capital costs by year. Pre-production is shown as operating costs however this is split out in the financial analysis as capital costs.

For the first 5 years of mine life, equipment is planned to be purchased using a finance lease, meaning that the equipment will be financed for 5 years, after which a purchase option will be exercised. The principal for these leases is included as a capital expense, while interest is included as an operating cost.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>222 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-8: Capital Costs by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mine Op Capital Summary** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Primary Equipment | K USD | $9853 | $6052 | $6527 | $7039 | $7592 | $6534 | $3080 | $16142 | $12319 | $- | $- | $- | $75137 |
| Support Equipment | K USD | $7495 | $3221 | $3474 | $3747 | $4041 | $2731 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $24710 |
| Blasting Equipment | K USD | $107 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $107 |
| Mine Maintenance Equipment | K USD | $2166 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $2166 |
| Other Mine Capital | K USD | $8689 | $1239 | $- | $- | $230 | $- | $2 | $131 | $6 | $- | $- | $- | $10297 |
| Total Mine Capital | K USD | $28310 | $10511 | $10001 | $10786 | $11863 | $9265 | $3081 | $16274 | $12326 | $- | $- | $- | $112417 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>223 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.5** **Process Operating Cost Summary** 

Process operating costs have been estimated by M3 from first principles. Labor costs were estimated using project specific staffing, salary and wage, and benefit requirements. Unit consumptions of materials, supplies, power, and delivered supply costs were also estimated. LOM overall average processing costs are estimated at an average cost of $4.71 per ton for the M&I case and $4.73 per ton for the MI&I case.

Operating costs were estimated based on 2<sup>nd</sup> quarter 2025 US dollars and are presented with no added contingency based upon the design and operating criteria present in this Technical Report. Operating costs are considered to have an accuracy of +/- 25%.

The process operating costs presented are based upon the ownership of all process production equipment and site facilities. The owner will employ and direct all operating maintenance and support personnel for all site activities.

Operating costs estimates have been based upon information obtained from the following sources:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Project metallurgical test work and process engineering

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Development of a detailed equipment list and
demand calculations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· M3 In-house data for reagent pricing

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Experience with other similar operations

Where specific data do not exist, cost allowances have been based upon consumption and operating requirements from other similar properties for which reliable data exist.

**18.5.1** **Personnel and Staffing** 

Staffing requirements for process personnel have been estimated by M3 based on experience with similar-sized operations in the region. Total process personnel requirements are estimated at 75 persons for the crushing operation. Personnel requirements and costs are estimated at $9.44 million per year for the crushing operation.

**18.5.2** **Power** 

Power usage for the process and process-facilities was derived from estimated connected loads assigned to powered equipment from the mechanical equipment list. Equipment power demands under normal operation were assigned and coupled with estimated on-stream times to determine the average energy usage and cost. Power is available via transmission line connected to the South Dakota Power grid; the estimated power cost of $0.105/kWh, based on input from Dakota Gold.

**18.5.3** **Consumable Items** 

Operating supplies have been estimated based upon unit costs and consumption rates projected by metallurgical tests. Freight costs are included in all operating supply and reagent estimates. Reagent consumptions have been derived from test work and from design criteria considerations. Other consumable items have been estimated by M3 based on experience with other similar operations. Table 18-9 presents average consumptions for major consumables.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>224 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-9: Process Consumables Average Annual Consumptions**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **Form** | **Average Annual <br> Consumption (tons)** |
| Sodium Cyanide | Liquid at 30% NaCN by Weight | 4106 |
| Lime | Bulk Delivery (20 tons) | 21900 |
| Cement | Bulk Delivery (20 tons) | 5475 |
| Antiscalant | Liquid Tote (IBC) | 110 |
| Zinc | 1,000 lb Supersacks | 208 |
| Caustic | Liquid at 50% NaOH by Weight | 164 |
| Refinery Fluxes | Dry Solid Bags | 110 |

---

Operating costs for consumable items have been distributed based on tonnage and gold production or smelting batches, as appropriate.

**18.5.4** **Maintenance** 

Annual maintenance costs have been included for the process facilities. The maintenance costs are estimated from the capital cost of the plant equipment at an allowance of 5% for parts repair or replacement. Maintenance labor is also included. The maintenance labor includes one maintenance supervisor, six mechanics, and s electricians. These personnel are included as part of the overall process personnel quantity. An allowance for outside repairs is also included at 10% of the maintenance parts allowance. The total annual maintenance is estimated at $5.32 million.

**18.5.5** **Supplies and Services** 

Estimates for supplies and services have been included for items such as lubricants, third-party services for the process plant, safety items, and minor supplies and tools outside of maintenance. The total annual supplies and services is estimated at $1.31 million.

**18.5.6** **Process Operating Cost Exclusions** 

The following operating costs are excluded from the process plant operating cost estimate:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· G&A costs (see section below)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Access road and internal roads maintenance

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Operating cost contingency

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Escalation costs

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Currency exchange fluctuations

**18.6** **G&A Costs** 

G&A costs were included based on benchmarks for similar-sized facilities in the surrounding region.

G&A costs are included at $11.9 million per year for each year of operation. This includes an estimate of 41 people, as well as an allowance for non-labor related expenses.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>225 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7** **Mine Operating Costs** 

Costs were built using a first-principles cost model, which is created from the ground up based on fundamental inputs. Mining costs have been estimated based on equipment hours required and equipment costs per hour, as well as personnel/labor costs, materials, and energy. The personnel costs are based on salaried and hourly personnel to provide engineering, survey, management, and geology support for the mine, as well as staffing crews required to conduct required mining activities. At the initial assessment stage, mine operating costs will have an accuracy of plus or minus 50%.

Consumables make up a large part of the mining cost. Consumables considered in the cost model include fuel, lubricants, drilling and blasting consumables, wear parts and Ground Engaging Tools (GET), safety and general supplies and maintenance and workshop supplies.

Mining costs by year are shown in Table 18-10. Note that these costs include rehandle of leach material from the pad to the pit during and after mine life. Also note that the interest for the assumed lease payments is included in the operating cost and add $0.03 /ton to the total mining unit cost.

Diesel costs are assumed to be $3.25 per gallon.

Costs in the following section for mining are specific to the MI&I case. Refer to section 24 for costs for the M&I case.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>226 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-10: Mine Operations Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mine Op Cost Summary** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Mine General Service | K USD | $1352 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $11481 | $11481 | $11338 | $10055 | $5300 | $141 | $62628 |
| Mine Maintenance | K USD | $2290 | $3716 | $3716 | $3721 | $3716 | $3716 | $18584 | $20235 | $22006 | $19930 | $16841 | $1431 | $119900 |
| Engineering | K USD | $572 | $821 | $793 | $793 | $793 | $793 | $3387 | $1853 | $1853 | $1853 | $1322 | $83 | $14915 |
| Geology | K USD | $107 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $919 | $919 | $919 | $919 | $444 | $- | $5149 |
| Drilling | K USD | $1003 | $3090 | $2878 | $2968 | $3104 | $2987 | $14142 | $13633 | $14431 | $13296 | $5955 | $- | $77489 |
| Blasting | K USD | $2250 | $5846 | $5397 | $5588 | $5875 | $5627 | $26455 | $25377 | $27068 | $24662 | $10920 | $- | $145065 |
| Loading | K USD | $2045 | $6494 | $5394 | $5268 | $5709 | $5291 | $25598 | $39058 | $44580 | $41599 | $28538 | $1647 | $211223 |
| Hauling | K USD | $5761 | $18071 | $16450 | $15366 | $14174 | $14013 | $79088 | $112366 | $147844 | $136956 | $79342 | $4199 | $643631 |
| Mine Support | K USD | $4023 | $8293 | $8289 | $8297 | $8285 | $8285 | $40595 | $41092 | $41035 | $41116 | $38652 | $3718 | $251681 |
| Total Mining Cost | K USD | $19402 | $48812 | $45397 | $44481 | $44135 | $43192 | $220251 | $266016 | $311076 | $290387 | $187315 | $11218 | $1531681 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | K USD | $1006 | $3627 | $2899 | $2114 | $1267 | $380 | $427 | $96 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $11815 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | K USD | $20408 | $52439 | $48296 | $46595 | $45402 | $43572 | $220677 | $266112 | $311076 | $290387 | $187315 | $11218 | $1543496 |
| **<u>Cost per Ton</u>** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General Service | $/ton | $0.25 | $0.12 | $0.14 | $0.13 | $0.12 | $0.13 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.18 | $- | $0.14 |
| Mine Maintenance | $/ton | $0.42 | $0.20 | $0.22 | $0.21 | $0.20 | $0.21 | $0.23 | $0.27 | $0.26 | $0.28 | $0.56 | $- | $0.28 |
| Engineering | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $- | $0.03 |
| Geology | $/ton | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 |
| Drilling | $/ton | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.20 | $- | $0.18 |
| Blasting | $/ton | $0.41 | $0.31 | $0.33 | $0.32 | $0.31 | $0.32 | $0.33 | $0.34 | $0.33 | $0.34 | $0.36 | $- | $0.33 |
| Loading | $/ton | $0.38 | $0.35 | $0.33 | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.32 | $0.52 | $0.54 | $0.58 | $0.95 | $- | $0.49 |
| Hauling | $/ton | $1.06 | $0.97 | $0.99 | $0.88 | $0.75 | $0.79 | $0.99 | $1.49 | $1.78 | $1.91 | $2.64 | $- | $1.48 |
| Mine Support | $/ton | $0.74 | $0.44 | $0.50 | $0.48 | $0.44 | $0.47 | $0.51 | $0.55 | $0.49 | $0.57 | $1.29 | $- | $0.58 |
| Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $3.56 | $2.62 | $2.74 | $2.55 | $2.35 | $2.45 | $2.74 | $3.54 | $3.74 | $4.04 | $6.23 | $- | $3.52 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | $/ton | $0.18 | $0.19 | $0.18 | $0.12 | $0.07 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $0.03 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $3.74 | $2.81 | $2.92 | $2.67 | $2.42 | $2.47 | $2.75 | $3.54 | $3.74 | $4.04 | $6.23 | $- | $3.55 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>227 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.1** **Mine General Services** 

Mine general services includes mining supervision along with engineering and geology services. Supervision allows for a mine superintendent, mine general foreman and mine shift foremen. Engineering personnel include a chief engineer along with engineers and surveying crew to support mine planning and operations. Geology is intended to support ore control, geological mapping, and sampling requirements.

Table 18-11 shows the cost estimates by period for the mine general services.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>228 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-11: Cost Estimate by Period for General Mine Services**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Mine General Services*** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Supervision | K USD | $986 | $1352 | $1352 | $1352 | $1352 | $1352 | $6759 | $6759 | $6616 | $5333 | $2940 | $85 | $36235 |
| Hourly Personnel (in individual groups) | K USD | $301 | $832 | $832 | $832 | $832 | $832 | $4161 | $4161 | $4161 | $4161 | $1799 | $- | $22905 |
| Total | K USD | $1286 | $2184 | $2184 | $2184 | $2184 | $2184 | $10920 | $10920 | $10777 | $9494 | $4739 | $85 | $59141 |
| ***Engineering*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Salaried Personnel | K USD | $442 | $645 | $628 | $628 | $628 | $628 | $2539 | $1027 | $1027 | $1027 | $496 | $- | $9713 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $112 | $146 | $135 | $135 | $135 | $135 | $696 | $674 | $674 | $674 | $674 | $67 | $4257 |
| Total | K USD | $554 | $791 | $762 | $762 | $762 | $762 | $3235 | $1701 | $1701 | $1701 | $1170 | $67 | $13970 |
| ***Mine Geology*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Salaried Personnel | K USD | $86 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $734 | $734 | $734 | $734 | $355 | $- | $4113 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total | K USD | $86 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $147 | $734 | $734 | $734 | $734 | $355 | $- | $4113 |
| ***Supplies & Other*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General Services Supplies | K USD | $7.12 | $12.20 | $12.20 | $12.20 | $12.20 | $12.20 | $61.00 | $61.00 | $61.00 | $61.00 | $61.00 | $6.10 | $379.22 |
| Engineering Supplies | K USD | $17.73 | $30.40 | $30.40 | $30.40 | $30.40 | $30.40 | $152.00 | $152.00 | $152.00 | $152.00 | $152.00 | $15.20 | $944.93 |
| Geology Supplies | K USD | $21.58 | $37.00 | $37.00 | $37.00 | $37.00 | $37.00 | $185.00 | $185.00 | $185.00 | $185.00 | $89.42 | $- | $1036.00 |
| Software Maintenance & Support | K USD | $29 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $49 | $245 | $245 | $245 | $245 | $118 | $- | $1372 |
| Outside Services | K USD | $58 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $100 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $50 | $3108 |
| Office Power | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Light Vehicles | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total | K USD | $133 | $229 | $229 | $229 | $229 | $229 | $1143 | $1143 | $1143 | $1143 | $921 | $71 | $6840 |
| ***Totals - Mining General*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General | K USD | $1352 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $2296 | $11481 | $11481 | $11338 | $10055 | $5300 | $141 | $62628 |
| Engineering | K USD | $572 | $821 | $793 | $793 | $793 | $793 | $3387 | $1853 | $1853 | $1853 | $1322 | $83 | $14915 |
| Geology | K USD | $107 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $919 | $919 | $919 | $919 | $444 | $- | $5149 |
| Totals | K USD | $2031 | $3301 | $3273 | $3273 | $3273 | $3273 | $15787 | $14253 | $14111 | $12827 | $7067 | $223 | $82692 |
| ***Cost per Ton Mined*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General | $/ton | $0.25 | $0.12 | $0.14 | $0.13 | $0.12 | $0.13 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.18 | $- | $0.14 |
| Engineering | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $- | $0.03 |
| Geology | $/ton | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 |
| Totals | $/ton | $0.37 | $0.18 | $0.20 | $0.19 | $0.17 | $0.19 | $0.20 | $0.19 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.24 | $- | $0.19 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>229 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.2** **Mine Maintenance** 

Mine maintenance costs include the cost of personnel for maintenance, supervision, and planning, along with shop support personnel, including light vehicle mechanics, welders, servicemen, tire men, and maintenance labor. The estimated mine maintenance costs are shown in Table 18-12. Note that these costs do not include the maintenance labor directly allocated to the various equipment, which is accounted for in other mining cost categories.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>230 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-12: Mine Maintenance Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Wages & Salaries*** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Supervision | K USD | $418 | $591 | $591 | $591 | $591 | $591 | $2953 | $2953 | $2953 | $2363 | $1071 | $- | $15664 |
| Planners | K USD | $106 | $141 | $141 | $141 | $141 | $141 | $707 | $1308 | $1415 | $1415 | $1002 | $71 | $6731 |
| Hourly Personnel | K USD | $615 | $1021 | $1021 | $1021 | $1021 | $1021 | $5105 | $6151 | $7821 | $6335 | $4950 | $381 | $36465 |
| Total | K USD | $1140 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $8766 | $10412 | $12189 | $10112 | $7023 | $452 | $58859 |
| ***Other Costs*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Supplies | K USD | $84 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $72 | $4476 |
| Total | K USD | $84 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $144 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $720 | $72 | $4476 |
| Consumables & Other Costs | K USD | $1017 | $1735 | $1735 | $1739 | $1735 | $1735 | $8678 | $8683 | $8678 | $8678 | $8678 | $865 | $53956 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $134 | $228 | $228 | $228 | $228 | $228 | $1140 | $1140 | $1140 | $1140 | $1140 | $114 | $7085 |
| Wages & Salaries | K USD | $1140 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $1753 | $8766 | $10412 | $12189 | $10112 | $7023 | $452 | $58859 |
| Total | K USD | $2290 | $3716 | $3716 | $3721 | $3716 | $3716 | $18584 | $20235 | $22006 | $19930 | $16841 | $1431 | $119900 |
| Consumables | $/ton | $0.19 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.12 | $0.10 | $0.12 | $0.29 | $- | $0.12 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.02 | $0.04 | $- | $0.02 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $0.21 | $0.09 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.23 | $- | $0.14 |
| Total | $/ton | $0.42 | $0.20 | $0.22 | $0.21 | $0.20 | $0.21 | $0.23 | $0.27 | $0.26 | $0.28 | $0.56 | $- | $0.28 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>231 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.3** **Drilling** 

Drilling costs include the cost for labor to run the drills, as well as consumables and maintenance. The drilling cost estimate is shown in Table 18-13.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>232 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-13: Drilling Costs, Consumables, and Maintenance**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Drilling Operating Costs*** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Prod Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 65 | 223 | 198 | 208 | 224 | 211 | 959 | 899 | 993 | 859 | 359 |  | 5197 |
| Prod Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $212 | $724 | $642 | $677 | $729 | $684 | $3116 | $2920 | $3228 | $2791 | $1167 | $- | $16891 |
| Prod Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $61 | $210 | $187 | $197 | $212 | $199 | $906 | $849 | $938 | $811 | $339 | $- | $4909 |
| Prod Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Prod Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $124 | $423 | $375 | $395 | $426 | $400 | $1819 | $1705 | $1884 | $1629 | $682 | $- | $9862 |
| Prod Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $397 | $1357 | $1204 | $1269 | $1367 | $1283 | $5841 | $5474 | $6050 | $5231 | $2188 | $- | $31662 |
| Prod Drill Parts | K USD | $153 | $524 | $465 | $490 | $528 | $495 | $2256 | $2115 | $2337 | $2021 | $845 | $- | $12231 |
| Prod Drill Maintenance Labor | K USD | $227 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $1461 | $- | $16798 |
| Pioneer Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Pioneer Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Pioneer Drill Maintenance Labor | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total Drill Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 65 | 223 | 198 | 208 | 224 | 211 | 959 | 899 | 993 | 859 | 359 |  | 5197 |
| Total Drill Fuel Cost | K USD | $212 | $724 | $642 | $677 | $729 | $684 | $3116 | $2920 | $3228 | $2791 | $1167 | $- | $16891 |
| Total Drill Lube & Oil | K USD | $61 | $210 | $187 | $197 | $212 | $199 | $906 | $849 | $938 | $811 | $339 | $- | $4909 |
| Total Drill Undercarriage | K USD | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Total Drill Drill Bits & Steel | K USD | $124 | $423 | $375 | $395 | $426 | $400 | $1819 | $1705 | $1884 | $1629 | $682 | $- | $9862 |
| Total Drill Total Consumables | K USD | $397 | $1357 | $1204 | $1269 | $1367 | $1283 | $5841 | $5474 | $6050 | $5231 | $2188 | $- | $31662 |
| Total Drill Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $153 | $524 | $465 | $490 | $528 | $495 | $2256 | $2115 | $2337 | $2021 | $845 | $- | $12231 |
| Total Drill Maintenance Labor | K USD | $227 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $1461 | $- | $16798 |
| Total Drill Total Maint. Allocation | K USD | $380 | $1129 | $1070 | $1095 | $1132 | $1100 | $5279 | $5137 | $5359 | $5043 | $2306 | $- | $29029 |
| Total Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $227 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $604 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $3022 | $1461 | $- | $16798 |
| Total Drilling Cost | K USD | $1003 | $3090 | $2878 | $2968 | $3104 | $2987 | $14142 | $13633 | $14431 | $13296 | $5955 | $- | $77489 |
| ***Drilling Cost per Ton Mined by Item*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $- | $0.04 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 |
| Undercarriage | $/ton | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- |
| Drill Bits & Steel | $/ton | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $- | $0.02 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $- | $0.07 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $- | $0.03 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $- | $0.04 |
| Total Maintenance Allocation | $/ton | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $- | $0.07 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $- | $0.04 |
| Total Drilling Cost | $/ton | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.20 | $- | $0.18 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>233 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.4** **Blasting** 

Blasting costs are shown in Table 18-14. These costs assume that the owner provides labor for a powder crew who will load initiation systems, tie in shots, and complete decking and stemming operations, while loading of bulk explosives (ANFO, Emulsions, etc.) will be completed by a third-party blasting contractor (Outside Services). ANFO costs for blasting assumed to be $600 per ton plus another $35 per ton for transportation costs. Blasting accessories including boosters, downhole delays, lead-in lines, and connectors are assumed to be $28.43 per hole.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>234 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-14: Blasting Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Production*** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Fuel | K Gal | 31 | 79 | 73 | 75 | 79 | 76 | 358 | 344 | 366 | 334 | 148 |  | 1963 |
| Blasting Consumables | K USD | $1165 | $3987 | $3538 | $3728 | $4016 | $3768 | $17161 | $16082 | $17774 | $15368 | $6428 | $- | $93016 |
| Equipment Consumables | K USD | $53 | $90 | $90 | $90 | $90 | $90 | $449 | $449 | $449 | $449 | $217 | $- | $2513 |
| Equipment Maint. Allocations | K USD | $2 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $4 | $20 | $20 | $20 | $20 | $10 | $- | $114 |
| Personnel | K USD | $335 | $575 | $575 | $575 | $575 | $575 | $2875 | $2875 | $2875 | $2875 | $1390 | $- | $16102 |
| Supplies | K USD | $7 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $12 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $60 | $29 | $- | $336 |
| Outside Services | K USD | $687 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $1178 | $5890 | $5890 | $5890 | $5890 | $2847 | $- | $32984 |
| Total Blasting Costs | K USD | $2250 | $5846 | $5397 | $5588 | $5875 | $5627 | $26455 | $25377 | $27068 | $24662 | $10920 | $- | $145065 |
| **<u>Cost per Ton</u>** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Blasting Consumables | $/ton | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $0.21 | $- | $0.21 |
| Equipment Consumables | $/ton | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 |
| Equipment Maint. Allocations | $/ton | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $- | $0.00 |
| Personnel | $/ton | $0.06 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $- | $0.04 |
| Supplies | $/ton | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $- | $0.00 |
| Outside Services | $/ton | $0.13 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.08 | $0.09 | $- | $0.08 |
| Total | $/ton | $0.41 | $0.31 | $0.33 | $0.32 | $0.31 | $0.32 | $0.33 | $0.34 | $0.33 | $0.34 | $0.36 | $- | $0.33 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>235 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.5** **Loading** 

Loading costs are based on a 29 cy excavator with support from a 30 cy loader for primary production. The loader will also rehandle the spent leach material from the leach pad during and after the mine life. The loading cost estimate by period is shown in Table 18-15.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>236 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-15: Loading Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| ***Shovel Cost*** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 157 | 529 | 477 | 502 | 524 | 503 | 2259 | 2168 | 2396 | 2072 | 867 |  | 12455 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $510 | $1721 | $1550 | $1631 | $1705 | $1636 | $7341 | $7047 | $7788 | $6733 | $2817 | $- | $40479 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $141 | $476 | $428 | $451 | $471 | $452 | $2029 | $1947 | $2152 | $1861 | $778 | $- | $11187 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $48 | $161 | $145 | $153 | $159 | $153 | $686 | $659 | $728 | $630 | $263 | $- | $3785 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $699 | $2357 | $2124 | $2235 | $2335 | $2241 | $10057 | $9653 | $10668 | $9224 | $3858 | $- | $55451 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $565 | $1903 | $1715 | $1804 | $1885 | $1810 | $8120 | $7794 | $8614 | $7448 | $3115 | $- | $44773 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $1264 | $4260 | $3838 | $4039 | $4220 | $4051 | $18177 | $17447 | $19282 | $16672 | $6974 | $- | $100224 |
| ***Loader Cost*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 7 | 59 | 21 | 3 | 15 | 4 | 91 | 1226 | 1533 | 1493 | 1436 | 122 | 6010 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $22 | $191 | $69 | $10 | $50 | $13 | $297 | $3985 | $4981 | $4852 | $4668 | $395 | $19532 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $8 | $68 | $25 | $3 | $18 | $5 | $106 | $1423 | $1778 | $1732 | $1667 | $141 | $6974 |
| Loader Lease Payments | K USD | $20 | $174 | $63 | $9 | $46 | $12 | $271 | $3641 | $4551 | $4433 | $4265 | $361 | $17846 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $0 | $3 | $1 | $0 | $1 | $0 | $4 | $56 | $70 | $68 | $65 | $6 | $273 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $49 | $436 | $157 | $22 | $114 | $31 | $678 | $9105 | $11380 | $11085 | $10665 | $904 | $44626 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $13 | $113 | $41 | $6 | $30 | $8 | $176 | $2362 | $2952 | $2876 | $2767 | $234 | $11578 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $62 | $550 | $198 | $28 | $144 | $39 | $854 | $11467 | $14333 | $13961 | $13431 | $1138 | $56203 |
| ***Total Loading Cost*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 164 | 588 | 498 | 505 | 540 | 508 | 2350 | 3394 | 3929 | 3565 | 2303 | 122 | 18465 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $532 | $1912 | $1619 | $1641 | $1755 | $1650 | $7638 | $11032 | $12768 | $11585 | $7484 | $395 | $60011 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $149 | $544 | $453 | $454 | $489 | $457 | $2135 | $3370 | $3931 | $3593 | $2445 | $141 | $18161 |
| Tires / Under Carriage | K USD | $20 | $174 | $63 | $9 | $46 | $12 | $271 | $3641 | $4551 | $4433 | $4265 | $361 | $17846 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $48 | $164 | $146 | $153 | $160 | $153 | $691 | $715 | $798 | $698 | $329 | $6 | $4058 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $749 | $2793 | $2281 | $2257 | $2449 | $2272 | $10735 | $18758 | $22048 | $20309 | $14523 | $904 | $100077 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $577 | $2016 | $1755 | $1810 | $1915 | $1818 | $8296 | $10156 | $11566 | $10324 | $5882 | $234 | $56350 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $1326 | $4810 | $4036 | $4067 | $4364 | $4090 | $19031 | $28914 | $33614 | $30632 | $20405 | $1138 | $156427 |
| Maintenance Labor | K USD | $189 | $453 | $365 | $327 | $365 | $327 | $1788 | $2796 | $3022 | $3022 | $2241 | $139 | $15035 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $530 | $1231 | $993 | $874 | $980 | $874 | $4780 | $7348 | $7944 | $7944 | $5892 | $371 | $39760 |
| Total Loading Costs | K USD | $2045 | $6494 | $5394 | $5268 | $5709 | $5291 | $25598 | $39058 | $44580 | $41599 | $28538 | $1647 | $211223 |
| ***Cost per Ton*** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.16 | $0.25 | $- | $0.14 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.08 | $- | $0.04 |
| Tires / Under Carriage | $/ton | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.14 | $- | $0.04 |
| Wear Items & GET | $/ton | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $- | $0.01 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.13 | $0.13 | $0.13 | $0.13 | $0.25 | $0.27 | $0.28 | $0.48 | $- | $0.23 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $0.11 | $0.11 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.13 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.20 | $- | $0.13 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | $/ton | $0.24 | $0.26 | $0.24 | $0.23 | $0.23 | $0.23 | $0.24 | $0.38 | $0.40 | $0.43 | $0.68 | $- | $0.36 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.07 | $- | $0.03 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.20 | $- | $0.09 |
| Total Loading Cost | $/ton | $0.38 | $0.35 | $0.33 | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.32 | $0.52 | $0.54 | $0.58 | $0.95 | $- | $0.49 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>237 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.6** **Hauling** 

Hauling operations will be conducted with 150-ton haul trucks. Costs are based on estimated truck hours discussed in Section 13. The haul cost by period is shown in Table 18-16. Total costs include both operational and closure rehandle haulage.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>238 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-16: Haul Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Total Truck Hours** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Productive Hours | Prod Hrs | 12577 | 39660 | 34391 | 33200 | 29537 | 29015 | 163833 | 242601 | 325373 | 302349 | 177830 | 8984 | 1399349 |
| Operating Efficiency | % | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% | 83% |
| Operating Hours | Op Hrs | 15093 | 47592 | 41269 | 39840 | 35444 | 34818 | 196599 | 291121 | 390448 | 362819 | 213396 | 10781 | 1679219 |
| Equipment Hours | Eq Hrs | 17249 | 54391 | 47165 | 45531 | 40508 | 39792 | 224685 | 332709 | 446226 | 414650 | 243881 | 12321 | 1919107 |
| Number of Trucks | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 16 | 13 | 12 | 4 | 16 |
| Truck Availability | % | 90% | 90% | 89% | 88% | 87% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 87% | 86% | 85% | 85% |  |
| Available Equipment Hours | Op Hrs | 17917 | 54931 | 54318 | 47707 | 46468 | 45931 | 257121 | 338862 | 429863 | 394078 | 221340 | 12995 | 1921530 |
| Use of Available Hours | % | 84% | 87% | 76% | 84% | 76% | 76% | 76% | 86% | 91% | 92% | 96% | 83% | 87% |
| **Haulage Cost** | **Units** | **Yr-1** | **Yr1** | **Yr2** | **Yr3** | **Yr4** | **Yr5** | **Yr6-10** | **Yr11-15** | **Yr16-20** | **Yr21-25** | **Yr26-30** | **Yr31-35** | **Total** |
| Fuel Consumption | K Gal | 478 | 1506 | 1306 | 1261 | 1122 | 1102 | 6222 | 9214 | 12358 | 11483 | 6754 | 341 | 53148 |
| Fuel Cost | K USD | $1552 | $4895 | $4245 | $4098 | $3646 | $3581 | $20223 | $29946 | $40163 | $37321 | $21951 | $1109 | $172731 |
| Lube & Oil | K USD | $609 | $1921 | $1666 | $1608 | $1431 | $1405 | $7936 | $11751 | $15761 | $14645 | $8614 | $435 | $67783 |
| Tires | K USD | $839 | $2646 | $2294 | $2215 | $1970 | $1935 | $10929 | $16183 | $21704 | $20169 | $11862 | $599 | $93345 |
| Wear Items & GET | K USD | $216 | $680 | $590 | $569 | $506 | $497 | $2809 | $4159 | $5578 | $5183 | $3049 | $154 | $23989 |
| Total Consumables | K USD | $3216 | $10142 | $8795 | $8490 | $7553 | $7420 | $41896 | $62039 | $83206 | $77318 | $45475 | $2297 | $357848 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $654 | $2062 | $1788 | $1726 | $1536 | $1509 | $8518 | $12613 | $16916 | $15719 | $9246 | $467 | $72753 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | K USD | $3870 | $12204 | $10583 | $10216 | $9089 | $8928 | $50414 | $74652 | $100122 | $93037 | $54721 | $2765 | $430601 |
| Maintenance Labor | K USD | $543 | $1695 | $1695 | $1456 | $1434 | $1434 | $8247 | $10811 | $13691 | $12539 | $6932 | $391 | $60869 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | K USD | $1347 | $4172 | $4172 | $3694 | $3651 | $3651 | $20427 | $26903 | $34031 | $31380 | $17689 | $1043 | $152161 |
| Total Haulage Costs | K USD | $5761 | $18071 | $16450 | $15366 | $14174 | $14013 | $79088 | $112366 | $147844 | $136956 | $79342 | $4199 | $643631 |
| **Cost per Ton Moved** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Fuel Cost | $/ton | $0.28 | $0.26 | $0.26 | $0.23 | $0.19 | $0.20 | $0.25 | $0.40 | $0.48 | $0.52 | $0.73 | $- | $0.40 |
| Lube & Oil | $/ton | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.08 | $0.08 | $0.10 | $0.16 | $0.19 | $0.20 | $0.29 | $- | $0.16 |
| Tires | $/ton | $0.15 | $0.14 | $0.14 | $0.13 | $0.10 | $0.11 | $0.14 | $0.22 | $0.26 | $0.28 | $0.39 | $- | $0.21 |
| Wear Items & GET | $/ton | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.10 | $- | $0.06 |
| Total Consumables | $/ton | $0.59 | $0.54 | $0.53 | $0.49 | $0.40 | $0.42 | $0.52 | $0.82 | $1.00 | $1.08 | $1.51 | $- | $0.82 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | $/ton | $0.12 | $0.11 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $0.08 | $0.09 | $0.11 | $0.17 | $0.20 | $0.22 | $0.31 | $- | $0.17 |
| Total Equip. Allocation (no labor) | $/ton | $0.71 | $0.65 | $0.64 | $0.59 | $0.48 | $0.51 | $0.63 | $0.99 | $1.20 | $1.29 | $1.82 | $- | $0.99 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.09 | $0.10 | $0.08 | $0.08 | $0.08 | $0.10 | $0.14 | $0.16 | $0.17 | $0.23 | $- | $0.14 |
| Operator Wages & Burden | $/ton | $0.25 | $0.22 | $0.25 | $0.21 | $0.19 | $0.21 | $0.25 | $0.36 | $0.41 | $0.44 | $0.59 | $- | $0.35 |
| Total Haulage Costs | $/ton | $1.06 | $0.97 | $0.99 | $0.88 | $0.75 | $0.79 | $0.99 | $1.49 | $1.78 | $1.91 | $2.64 | $- | $1.48 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>239 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**18.7.7** **Mine Support** 

Mine support costs are the costs associated with support equipment and personnel as discussed in Section 13. Mine support costs by period are shown in Table 18-17.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>240 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 18-17: Mine Support Costs**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Total Mine Support Costs** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Yr 31-35** | **Total** |
| Consumables | K USD | $1547 | $3257 | $3254 | $3259 | $3250 | $3250 | $15947 | $16213 | $16199 | $16217 | $15416 | $1482 | $99291 |
| Parts / MARC Cost | K USD | $527 | $1070 | $1069 | $1071 | $1068 | $1068 | $5231 | $5305 | $5297 | $5307 | $4897 | $461 | $32370 |
| Maintenance Labor | K USD | $538 | $1096 | $1096 | $1096 | $1096 | $1096 | $5364 | $5408 | $5398 | $5412 | $5066 | $490 | $33157 |
| Operating Labor | K USD | $1410 | $2871 | $2871 | $2871 | $2871 | $2871 | $14053 | $14167 | $14141 | $14179 | $13272 | $1284 | $86863 |
| Total | K USD | $4023 | $8293 | $8289 | $8297 | $8285 | $8285 | $40595 | $41092 | $41035 | $41116 | $38652 | $3718 | $251681 |
| **Cost per Ton Mined** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Consumables | $/ton | $0.28 | $0.17 | $0.20 | $0.19 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.20 | $0.22 | $0.19 | $0.23 | $0.51 | $- | $0.23 |
| Maintenance Allocations | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.16 | $- | $0.07 |
| Maintenance Labor | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.06 | $0.08 | $0.17 | $- | $0.08 |
| Operating Labor | $/ton | $0.26 | $0.15 | $0.17 | $0.16 | $0.15 | $0.16 | $0.18 | $0.19 | $0.17 | $0.20 | $0.44 | $- | $0.20 |
| Total Costs | $/ton | $0.74 | $0.44 | $0.50 | $0.48 | $0.44 | $0.47 | $0.51 | $0.55 | $0.49 | $0.57 | $1.29 | $- | $0.58 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>241 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **19** | **Economic Analysis** |

---

The economic analysis in this study includes an initial assessment study-compliant modeling of the annual cash flows based on projected production volume, sales revenue, initial capital, operating cost, and sustaining capital with resulting evaluation of key economic indicators such as internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), and payback period (time in years to recapture the initial capital investment) for the Project. The sales revenue is based on the production of gold in doré bullion. The estimates of the capital expenditures and site production costs have been developed specifically for this project and have been presented in Section 18 of this Technical Report.

**19.1** **Mining Physicals** 

The cash-flow model uses the mining and production schedules as discussed in Section 13 and summarized in Table 19-1 for the M&I case and Table 19-2 for the MI&I case. Results from the heap leach metal production model are included with this table to facilitate direct comparison between placed ounces, recoverable ounces, and recovered ounces. Placed ounces are per the mine plan and stacking plan. Recoverable ounces are placed ounces that are amenable to a positive response to leaching after cyanide-bearing solution has started being applied. Recovered ounces incorporate time-based constraints for the time it takes leached ounces to reach the pad liner and report to the metal recovery plant. Ore is placed on the pad during a seventeen-year period for the M&I case and over a twenty-eight-year period for the MI&I case. Solution application continues for an additional 1 year to allow recovery of the solubilized ounces.

**19.2** **Process Plant Production Statistics** 

Ore will be processed by 3-stage crushing, conveyor stacking system, and cyanide heap leaching. Metal values (gold and silver) will be recovered via a Merrill-Crowe facility as described in Section 14 of this Technical Report. Overall production over the life of mine is summarized in Table 19-3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>242 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-1: Yearly Mine & Process Physicals for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Material Mined** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Yr 13** | **Yr 14** | **Yr 15** | **Yr 16** | **Yr 17** | **Total** |
|  | K Tons | 2068 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 8103 | 185491 |
| Total Ore | Au oz/t | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
|  | K oz Au | 48 | 179 | 169 | 168 | 165 | 145 | 151 | 155 | 150 | 185 | 186 | 164 | 172 | 184 | 237 | 256 | 224 | 126 | 3063 |
| Total Waste | K Tons | 2157 | 8103 | 7613 | 10391 | 7585 | 6764 | 9485 | 9770 | 8188 | 3157 | 5969 | 9609 | 10203 | 9311 | 4850 | 4513 | 3571 | 2092 | 168276 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 4224 | 19053 | 18563 | 21371 | 18535 | 17714 | 20435 | 20750 | 19138 | 14107 | 16919 | 20589 | 21153 | 20261 | 15800 | 15493 | 14521 | 10195 | 308823 |
| Strip Ratio | W : O | 1.04 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.95 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.75 | 0.29 | 0.55 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.66 |
| **Total Ore Processed** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Yr 13** | **Yr 14** | **Yr 15** | **Yr 16** | **Yr 17** | **Total** |
| Total Ore Processed | K Tons | 2068 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 8103 | 185491 |
|  | Au oz/t | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Total Placed | K oz Au | 48 | 179 | 169 | 168 | 165 | 145 | 151 | 155 | 150 | 185 | 186 | 164 | 172 | 184 | 237 | 256 | 224 | 126 | 3063 |
| Total Recoverable | K oz Au | 42 | 155 | 148 | 148 | 146 | 120 | 134 | 134 | 128 | 151 | 141 | 143 | 145 | 156 | 206 | 219 | 190 | 100 | 2607 |
| Total Recovered | K oz Au |  | 171 | 146 | 146 | 147 | 128 | 126 | 138 | 126 | 150 | 142 | 140 | 146 | 151 | 200 | 212 | 197 | 132 | 2607 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>243 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-2: Yearly Mine & Process Physicals for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Material Mined** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Yr 13** | **Yr 14** |
|  | K Tons | 2070 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 |
| Total Ore | Au oz/t | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
|  | K oz Au | 46 | 201 | 165 | 162 | 164 | 165 | 180 | 123 | 137 | 145 | 144 | 152 | 160 | 156 | 153 |
| Total Waste | K Tons | 1920 | 8120 | 6302 | 5956 | 7836 | 6677 | 2647 | 6688 | 7073 | 5003 | 4860 | 5190 | 3977 | 2998 | 3470 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 3990 | 19070 | 17252 | 16936 | 18786 | 17627 | 13597 | 17668 | 18023 | 15953 | 15810 | 16170 | 14927 | 13948 | 14420 |
| Strip Ratio | W : O | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.24 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.32 |
| **Total Ore Processed** | **Units** | **Pre-Prod** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6** | **Yr 7** | **Yr 8** | **Yr 9** | **Yr 10** | **Yr 11** | **Yr 12** | **Yr 13** | **Yr 14** |
| Total Ore Processed | K Tons | 2070 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 |
|  | Au oz/t | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Total Placed | K oz Au | 46 | 201 | 165 | 162 | 164 | 165 | 180 | 123 | 137 | 145 | 144 | 152 | 160 | 156 | 153 |
| Total Recoverable | K oz Au | 41 | 174 | 146 | 141 | 142 | 145 | 152 | 103 | 121 | 127 | 127 | 126 | 136 | 137 | 129 |
| Total Recovered | K oz Au |  | 180 | 147 | 147 | 141 | 145 | 151 | 113 | 116 | 125 | 129 | 125 | 135 | 135 | 132 |
| **Material Mined** | **Units** | **Yr 15** | **Yr 16** | **Yr 17** | **Yr 18** | **Yr 19** | **Yr 20** | **Yr 21** | **Yr 22** | **Yr 23** | **Yr 24** | **Yr 25** | **Yr 26** | **Yr 27** | **Yr 28** | **Total** |
|  | K Tons | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10863 | 10950 | 10979 | 3875 | 301717 |
| Total Ore | Au oz/t | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
|  | K oz Au | 143 | 151 | 179 | 180 | 157 | 178 | 202 | 199 | 204 | 198 | 194 | 193 | 178 | 59 | 4667 |
| Total Waste | K Tons | 3965 | 2580 | 1602 | 6763 | 8927 | 8870 | 4516 | 3736 | 3640 | 3172 | 2654 | 1997 | 1395 | 698 | 133234 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 14945 | 13530 | 12552 | 17713 | 19907 | 19820 | 15466 | 14686 | 14620 | 14122 | 13517 | 12947 | 12374 | 4573 | 434950 |
| Strip Ratio | W : O | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.44 |
| **Total Ore Processed** | **Units** | **Yr 15** | **Yr 16** | **Yr 17** | **Yr 18** | **Yr 19** | **Yr 20** | **Yr 21** | **Yr 22** | **Yr 23** | **Yr 24** | **Yr 25** | **Yr 26** | **Yr 27** | **Yr 28** | **Total** |
| Total Ore Processed | K Tons | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10950 | 10950 | 10980 | 10950 | 10863 | 10950 | 10979 | 3875 | 301717 |
|  | Au oz/t | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Total Placed | K oz Au | 143 | 151 | 179 | 180 | 157 | 178 | 202 | 199 | 204 | 198 | 194 | 193 | 178 | 59 | 4667 |
| Total Recoverable | K oz Au | 121 | 128 | 138 | 143 | 139 | 155 | 180 | 175 | 176 | 169 | 164 | 163 | 140 | 46 | 3986 |
| Total Recovered | K oz Au | 123 | 127 | 133 | 144 | 138 | 153 | 173 | 178 | 178 | 170 | 164 | 160 | 149 | 71 | 3986 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>244 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-3: Life of Mine Process Statistics**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Parameter** | **M&I Case** | **MI&I Case** |
| **Total Ore (kt)** | **185490** | **301717** |
| Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Contained Gold (kozs) | 3063 | 4667 |
| Gold Recovery % | 85.1 | 85.4 |
| Recovered Gold (kozs) | 2607 | 3986 |
| Payable Gold (kozs) | 2604 | 3982 |

---

**19.3** **Smelter Return Factors** 

No contractual payable metal rates have yet been negotiated with smelters. M3 used typical rates based on industry experience or published guidelines. Payable rates for metals used were 99.90% for gold and 99.00% for silver. A bullion refining, transportation and insurance charge of $10 per troy ounce of gold was applied.

**19.4** **Capital Expenditure** 

The capital expenditure schedule for the life-of-mine for the M&I case is shown in Table 19-4 and for the MI&I case is shown in Table 19-5.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>245 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-4: Capital Expenditure Schedule for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** |
| **Capital Expenditure,**<br>**$000** | **Initial**<br>**Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | **Year 5** | **Year 6** | **Year 7** | **Year 8** | **Year 9** | **Year 10** | **Year 11** | **Year 12** | **Year 13** | **Year 14** | **Year 15** | **Year 16** | **Year 17** |
| Mine Pre-Production | $20500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Mine Capital | $28928 | $10933 | $10455 | $11276 | $12391 | $11070 | $842 | $909 | $980 | $1057 | $4221 | $0 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $125 | $0 | $0 |
| Process | $318415 | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Owner's Cost | $16246 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total | $384088 | $58696 | $10455 | $11276 | $63797 | $11070 | $842 | $909 | $50268 | $1057 | $4221 | $0 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $125 | $0 | $0 |

---

**Table 19-5: Capital Expenditure Schedule for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| | | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** | **Sustaining, $000** |
| **Capital Expenditure,**<br>**$000** | **Initial**<br>**Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | **Year 5** | **Year 6** | **Year 7** | **Year 8** | **Year 9** | **Year 10** | **Year 11** | **Year 12** | **Year 13** | **Yr 14** | **Yr 15-17** | **Year 18** | **Yr 19-28** |
| Mine Pre-Production | $20408 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Mine Capital | $28310 | $10511 | $10001 | $10786 | $11863 | $9265 | $0 | $3081 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $9369 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $0 | $12326 | $0 |
| Process | $318415 | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Owner's Cost | $16246 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Total | $383379 | $58275 | $10001 | $10786 | $63268 | $9265 | $0 | $3081 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $9369 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $0 | $12326 | $0 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>246 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**19.5** **REVENUE** 

Annual revenue is determined by applying metal prices to the annual payable metal estimated for each operating year. Sales prices have been applied to all life-of-mine production without escalation or hedging. Gold bullion revenue is based on the gross value of the payable metals sold before refining and transportation charges. Gold and silver metal pricing is based on a market study by the Owner:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | $2,350 per troy ounce |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver | $29 per troy ounce |

---

**19.6** **Total Production Cost** 

The total production cost includes mine operations, process plant operations, general administration, reclamation and closure, and government fees. Table 19-6 shows the estimated operating costs by area based on payable metals for the life of mine.

**Table 19-6: LOM Operating Costs**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **LOM Operating Cost ($000)** | **M&I Case** | **MI&I Case** |
| Mining | $887322 | $1464004 |
| Process Plant | $874490 | $1427042 |
| G&A | $201702 | $332248 |
| Refining | $26068 | $39856 |
| **Total Operating Cost** | $**1989602** | $**3263151** |
| Royalty | $241193 | $368269 |
| Salvage Value | $0 | $0 |
| Reclamation/Closure | $129221 | $73041 |
| **Total Production Cost** | $**2360016** | $**3704461** |

---

**19.7** **Depreciation** 

The depreciation cost was calculated using a 7-year modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) depreciation method for project initial and sustaining capital and for development costs, which consist primarily of the heap leach expansion costs.

**19.8** **Royalties** 

Certain existing royalties are in place. The royalties are equivalent to 3.80% of the gross revenue minus treatment and refining charges.

**19.9** **Government Fees** 

No government fees have been applied to the financial model.

**19.10** **Taxation** 

South Dakota Severance Tax is applied based on the gold and gold equivalent ounces. An annual exemption of 20 ounces is deducted from the annual gold and gold equivalent ounces. Considering the price of gold is over $800 per ounce, a gross production tax of $4 per ounce is applied for taxation purposes.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>247 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Net revenue is calculated as the gross revenue, minus the exemption on the first 20 ounces per year, minus operating costs and depreciation costs per year. Net profit taxes of 10% against net revenue are applied.

Federal corporate tax of 21% is applied to taxable corporation income after adjustments for state severance tax minus loss carryforward. Dakota Gold has informed M3 of an initial tax carryforward equivalent to $100 million.

**19.11** **Project Financing** 

It is assumed that the project will be all equity financed.

**19.12** **Economic Indicators** 

The economic analyses for the project are summarized in Table 19-7 for the M&I case and in Table 19-8 for the MI&I case. The NPV calculations have been conducted per the Year-End discounting method.

**Table 19-7: Key Economic Results for M&I Case**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Indicators** | **Before-Tax** | **After-Tax** |
| LOM Cash Flow ($000) | $3409526 | $2605557 |
| NPV @ 5% ($000) | $2093385 | $1622071 |
| NPV @ 10% ($000) | $1359054 | $1060048 |
| IRR | 61.4% | 55.0% |
| Payback (years) | 1.6 | 1.7 |

---

**Table 19-8: Key Economic Results for MI&I Case**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Indicators** | **Before-Tax** | **After-Tax** |
| LOM Cash Flow ($000) | $5387903 | $4205852 |
| NPV @ 5% ($000) | $2691729 | $2112725 |
| NPV @ 10% ($000) | $1558857 | $1225667 |
| IRR | 66.5% | 59.4% |
| Payback (years) | 1.5 | 1.5 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>248 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**19.13** **Sensitivity Analysis** 

Table 19-9 shows the sensitivity analysis of the key economic indicators (cash flow, NPV, IRR, and payback) to changes in gold prices for the M&I case. Table 19-10 shows the sensitivity analysis of the key economic indicators (cash flow, NPV, IRR, and payback) to changes in gold prices for the MI&I case.

**Table 19-9: Sensitivity Analysis for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Financial Indicators** | **Spot<br> Case** | Base <br>+$600 | Base <br>+$400 | Base <br>+$200 | **Base<br> Case** | Base <br>-$200 | Base <br>-$400 | Base <br>-$600 |
| Gold Price (per troy oz) | $3350 | $2950 | $2750 | $2550 | $2350 | $2150 | $1950 | $1750 |
| Pre-tax Cash Flow, $M | $6018 | $4975 | $4453 | $3931 | $3410 | $2888 | $2366 | $1844 |
| Pre-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | $3801 | $3118 | $2776 | $2435 | $2093 | $1752 | $1410 | $1069 |
| Pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 110.7% | 90.8% | 80.9% | 71.1% | 61.4% | 51.9% | 42.5% | 33.4% |
| Pre-tax Payback (Years) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 2.8 |
| After-tax Cash Flow, $M | $4573 | $3786 | $3393 | $2999 | $2606 | $2210 | $1814 | $1414 |
| After-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | $2929 | $2407 | $2145 | $1884 | $1622 | $1359 | $1096 | $828 |
| After-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 99.5% | 81.2% | 72.3% | 63.6% | 55.0% | 46.6% | 38.3% | 30.1% |
| After-tax Payback (Years) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3.0 |

---

**Table 19-10: Sensitivity Analysis for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Financial Indicators** | **Spot <br> Case** | Base <br>+$600 | Base <br>+$400 | Base <br>+$200 | **Base<br> Case** | Base <br>-$200 | Base <br>-$400 | Base <br>-$600 |
| Gold Price (per troy oz) | $3350 | $2950 | $2750 | $2550 | $2350 | $2150 | $1950 | $1750 |
| Pre-tax Cash Flow, $M | $9293 | $7731 | $6950 | $6169 | $5388 | $4607 | $3826 | $3045 |
| Pre-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | $4796 | $3954 | $3533 | $3113 | $2692 | $2271 | $1850 | $1429 |
| Pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 118.7% | 97.6% | 87.2% | 76.8% | 66.5% | 56.3% | 46.3% | 36.3% |
| Pre-tax Payback (Years) | 0.8 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2 | 2.5 |
| After-tax Cash Flow, $M | $7186 | $5994 | $5398 | $4802 | $4206 | $3610 | $3012 | $2410 |
| After-tax Net Present Value (5%) in $M | $3733 | $3085 | $2761 | $2437 | $2113 | $1789 | $1463 | $1134 |
| After-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 106.9% | 87.4% | 77.9% | 68.6% | 59.4% | 50.4% | 41.5% | 32.7% |
| After-tax Payback (Years) | 0.8 | 1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.7 |

---

**19.14** **Detailed Financial Model** 

The detailed financial model, as shown in Table 19-11 for the M&I case and Table 19-12 for the MI&I case, were developed in compliance with the IA requirement. These models have captured all the parameters of the mine production volume, annual sales revenue, and all the associated costs. These models were used to calculate the economics of the project, as well as for the sensitivity analysis for each case.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>249 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-11: Detailed Financial Model for M&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | <br>**Year 5** | <br>**Year 6** | <br>**Year 7** | <br>**Year 8** | <br>**Year 9** | <br>**Year 10** | <br>**Year 11** | <br>**Year 12** | <br>**Year 13** | <br>**Year 14** | <br>**Year 15** | <br>**Year 16** | <br>**Year 17** | <br>**Year 18-22** |
| **Mine** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tons) | 185490560 | 2067560 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 8103000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tonnes) | 168275932 | 1875678 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 7350994 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.017 | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.566 | 0.716 | 0.508 | 0.480 | 0.477 | 0.468 | 0.413 | 0.428 | 0.438 | 0.426 | 0.527 | 0.527 | 0.463 | 0.489 | 0.522 | 0.673 | 0.724 | 0.636 | 0.485 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.168 | 0.751 | 0.333 | 0.241 | 0.163 | 0.158 | 0.155 | 0.097 | 0.092 | 0.123 | 0.184 | 0.182 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.087 | 0.113 | 0.129 | 0.137 | 0.147 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.751 | 25.755 | 11.401 | 8.273 | 5.592 | 5.414 | 5.319 | 3.333 | 3.137 | 4.230 | 6.300 | 6.236 | 2.277 | 2.253 | 2.994 | 3.886 | 4.412 | 4.682 | 5.052 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 3063 | 48 | 179 | 169 | 168 | 165 | 145 | 151 | 155 | 150 | 185 | 186 | 164 | 172 | 184 | 237 | 256 | 224 | 126 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 31115 | 1712 | 4014 | 2913 | 1974 | 1906 | 1872 | 1173 | 1108 | 1489 | 2218 | 2195 | 804 | 793 | 1054 | 1368 | 1558 | 1648 | 1316 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tons) | 123332444 | 2156684 | 8103350 | 7613346 | 10390762 | 7584604 | 6764380 | 9485349 | 9770303 | 8187682 | 3157359 | 5968563 | 9609200 | 10203208 | 9311423 | 4850188 | 4512826 | 3571005 | 2092212 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tonnes) | 111886459 | 1956530 | 7351311 | 6906782 | 9426438 | 6880707 | 6136605 | 8605053 | 8863561 | 7427816 | 2864337 | 5414645 | 8717409 | 9256290 | 8447267 | 4400061 | 4094009 | 3239595 | 1898042 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tons) | 308823004 | 4224243 | 19053350 | 18563346 | 21370762 | 18534604 | 17714380 | 20435349 | 20750303 | 19137682 | 14107359 | 16918563 | 20589200 | 21153208 | 20261423 | 15800188 | 15492826 | 14521005 | 10195212 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tonnes) | 280162391 | 3832209 | 17285086 | 16840557 | 19387428 | 16814482 | 16070380 | 18538827 | 18824552 | 17361591 | 12798112 | 15348420 | 18678400 | 19190065 | 18381042 | 14333836 | 14055000 | 13173370 | 9249036 |  |
| **Process Plant** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tons)** | 156060813 | 2067560 | 9994825 | 10383488 | 10578275 | 10740415 | 8595919 | 10933108 | 10109741 | 9674758 | 7953681 | 5868885 | 10409679 | 8989957 | 8209798 | 9397334 | 9260482 | 8393537 | 4499370 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tonnes)** | 141577440 | 1875678 | 9067246 | 9419838 | 9596548 | 9743641 | 7798167 | 9918451 | 9171497 | 8776883 | 7215532 | 5324217 | 9443599 | 8155635 | 7447880 | 8525206 | 8401054 | 7614567 | 4081802 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.016 | 0.023 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.018 | 0.023 | 0.024 | 0.022 | 0.016 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.564 | 0.789 | 0.559 | 0.529 | 0.526 | 0.516 | 0.417 | 0.472 | 0.466 | 0.450 | 0.552 | 0.498 | 0.509 | 0.528 | 0.630 | 0.791 | 0.821 | 0.753 | 0.562 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.172 | 0.828 | 0.381 | 0.267 | 0.179 | 0.174 | 0.165 | 0.107 | 0.100 | 0.133 | 0.212 | 0.210 | 0.069 | 0.075 | 0.102 | 0.126 | 0.151 | 0.170 | 0.158 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.891 | 28.388 | 13.055 | 9.170 | 6.151 | 5.976 | 5.663 | 3.672 | 3.422 | 4.547 | 7.266 | 7.202 | 2.361 | 2.569 | 3.480 | 4.336 | 5.185 | 5.822 | 5.406 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 2568 | 48 | 163 | 160 | 162 | 162 | 104 | 151 | 137 | 127 | 128 | 85 | 155 | 138 | 151 | 217 | 222 | 184 | 74 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 26814 | 1712 | 3806 | 2777 | 1898 | 1872 | 1420 | 1171 | 1009 | 1283 | 1686 | 1233 | 717 | 674 | 833 | 1189 | 1400 | 1425 | 709 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.1% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 2286 | 42 | 145 | 142 | 145 | 144 | 93 | 134 | 122 | 113 | 114 | 76 | 138 | 123 | 134 | 193 | 197 | 164 | 66 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 8050 | 514 | 1142 | 833 | 570 | 562 | 426 | 352 | 303 | 385 | 506 | 370 | 215 | 202 | 250 | 357 | 420 | 428 | 213 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 2285 |  | 162 | 140 | 141 | 145 | 104 | 123 | 132 | 108 | 120 | 77 | 126 | 126 | 130 | 187 | 191 | 171 | 97 | 6 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 8045 |  | 1476 | 860 | 583 | 585 | 468 | 343 | 332 | 336 | 511 | 402 | 229 | 204 | 231 | 349 | 397 | 424 | 292 | 20 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tons)** | 29429748 | 0 | 955175 | 566512 | 401725 | 209585 | 2354081 | 16892 | 870259 | 1275242 | 2996319 | 5081115 | 570321 | 1960043 | 2740202 | 1552666 | 1719518 | 2556463 | 3603630 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tonnes)** | 26698492 | 0 | 866529 | 513936 | 364443 | 190134 | 2135608 | 15324 | 789494 | 1156892 | 2718243 | 4609557 | 517392 | 1778140 | 2485895 | 1408569 | 1559936 | 2319208 | 3269192 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.008 | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.015 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.577 |  | 0.562 | 0.547 | 0.493 | 0.513 | 0.596 | 0.278 | 0.683 | 0.624 | 0.656 | 0.677 | 0.542 | 0.592 | 0.412 | 0.446 | 0.675 | 0.532 | 0.501 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.146 | 0.150 | 0.198 | 0.217 | 0.172 | 0.148 | 0.174 | 0.126 | 0.103 | 0.147 | 0.161 | 0.172 | 0.138 | 0.055 | 0.073 | 0.105 | 0.083 | 0.079 | 0.153 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.011 | 5.139 | 6.774 | 7.439 | 5.900 | 5.059 | 5.980 | 4.325 | 3.525 | 5.025 | 5.525 | 5.892 | 4.735 | 1.894 | 2.505 | 3.595 | 2.844 | 2.712 | 5.238 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 495 |  | 16 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 41 | 0 | 17 | 23 | 57 | 100 | 9 | 34 | 33 | 20 | 34 | 40 | 53 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 4301 | 0 | 208 | 135 | 76 | 34 | 453 | 2 | 99 | 206 | 532 | 963 | 87 | 119 | 221 | 179 | 157 | 223 | 607 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 65.0% |  | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 18.1% |  | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 18.1% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 322 |  | 10 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 27 | 0 | 11 | 15 | 37 | 65 | 6 | 22 | 21 | 13 | 22 | 26 | 34 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 780 |  | 38 | 25 | 14 | 6 | 82 | 0 | 18 | 37 | 97 | 175 | 16 | 22 | 40 | 33 | 29 | 40 | 110 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 322 |  | 9 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 24 | 3 | 6 | 18 | 30 | 65 | 14 | 20 | 21 | 13 | 21 | 26 | 35 | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 781 |  | 30 | 23 | 18 | 9 | 72 | 12 | 10 | 38 | 76 | 172 | 44 | 19 | 37 | 32 | 29 | 39 | 107 | 12 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>250 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |<br>**Year 16** |<br>**Year 17** |<br>**Year 18-22** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tons)** | 185490560 | 2067560 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 8103000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tonnes)** | 168275932 | 1875678 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 7350994 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.017 | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.566 | 0.716 | 0.508 | 0.480 | 0.477 | 0.468 | 0.413 | 0.428 | 0.438 | 0.426 | 0.527 | 0.527 | 0.463 | 0.489 | 0.522 | 0.673 | 0.724 | 0.636 | 0.485 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.168 | 0.751 | 0.333 | 0.241 | 0.163 | 0.158 | 0.155 | 0.097 | 0.092 | 0.123 | 0.184 | 0.182 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.087 | 0.113 | 0.129 | 0.137 | 0.147 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.751 | 25.755 | 11.401 | 8.273 | 5.592 | 5.414 | 5.319 | 3.333 | 3.137 | 4.230 | 6.300 | 6.236 | 2.277 | 2.253 | 2.994 | 3.886 | 4.412 | 4.682 | 5.052 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 3063 | 48 | 179 | 169 | 168 | 165 | 145 | 151 | 155 | 150 | 185 | 186 | 164 | 172 | 184 | 237 | 256 | 224 | 126 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 31115 | 1712 | 4014 | 2913 | 1974 | 1906 | 1872 | 1173 | 1108 | 1489 | 2218 | 2195 | 804 | 793 | 1054 | 1368 | 1558 | 1648 | 1316 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.1% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 2607 | 42 | 155 | 148 | 148 | 146 | 120 | 134 | 134 | 128 | 151 | 141 | 143 | 145 | 156 | 206 | 219 | 190 | 100 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 8830 | 514 | 1180 | 858 | 584 | 568 | 508 | 352 | 321 | 423 | 602 | 545 | 231 | 224 | 290 | 389 | 449 | 468 | 323 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 2607 |  | 171 | 146 | 146 | 147 | 128 | 126 | 138 | 126 | 150 | 142 | 140 | 146 | 151 | 200 | 212 | 197 | 132 | 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 8825 |  | 1507 | 884 | 602 | 594 | 540 | 355 | 342 | 374 | 587 | 574 | 274 | 223 | 267 | 381 | 427 | 463 | 399 | 32 |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tons)** | 185490560 | 2067560 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 8103000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tonnes)** | 168275932 | 1875678 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 7350994 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.017 | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.021 | 0.019 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.566 | 0.716 | 0.508 | 0.480 | 0.477 | 0.468 | 0.413 | 0.428 | 0.438 | 0.426 | 0.527 | 0.527 | 0.463 | 0.489 | 0.522 | 0.673 | 0.724 | 0.636 | 0.485 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.168 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.751 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 3063 | 48 | 179 | 169 | 168 | 165 | 145 | 151 | 155 | 150 | 185 | 186 | 164 | 172 | 184 | 237 | 256 | 224 | 126 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 31115 | 1712 | 4014 | 2913 | 1974 | 1906 | 1872 | 1173 | 1108 | 1489 | 2218 | 2195 | 804 | 793 | 1054 | 1368 | 1558 | 1648 | 1316 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.1% | 89.0% | 86.9% | 87.7% | 88.2% | 88.5% | 82.2% | 89.0% | 86.3% | 85.3% | 81.6% | 76.0% | 87.7% | 84.3% | 84.7% | 87.0% | 85.8% | 84.7% | 79.0% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.4% | 30.0% | 29.4% | 29.5% | 29.6% | 29.8% | 27.2% | 30.0% | 29.0% | 28.4% | 27.2% | 24.8% | 28.8% | 28.3% | 27.5% | 28.5% | 28.8% | 28.4% | 24.5% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 2607 | 42 | 155 | 148 | 148 | 146 | 120 | 134 | 134 | 128 | 151 | 141 | 143 | 145 | 156 | 206 | 219 | 190 | 100 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 8830 | 514 | 1180 | 858 | 584 | 568 | 508 | 352 | 321 | 423 | 602 | 545 | 231 | 224 | 290 | 389 | 449 | 468 | 323 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 2607 |  | 171 | 146 | 146 | 147 | 128 | 126 | 138 | 126 | 150 | 142 | 140 | 146 | 151 | 200 | 212 | 197 | 132 | 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 8825 |  | 1507 | 884 | 602 | 594 | 540 | 355 | 342 | 374 | 587 | 574 | 274 | 223 | 267 | 381 | 427 | 463 | 399 | 32 |
| **Payable Metals** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (kozs) | 2604 |  | 171 | 146 | 146 | 147 | 127 | 126 | 138 | 126 | 150 | 142 | 140 | 146 | 151 | 200 | 212 | 197 | 132 | 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (kozs) | 8737 |  | 1492 | 875 | 596 | 588 | 534 | 352 | 339 | 371 | 582 | 568 | 271 | 221 | 264 | 377 | 422 | 459 | 395 | 32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 108 |  | 18 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 2712 |  | 189 | 156 | 153 | 154 | 134 | 130 | 142 | 130 | 157 | 149 | 144 | 149 | 154 | 205 | 217 | 202 | 137 | 10 |
| **Metal Prices** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold ($/oz) | $2350.00 |  | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver ($/oz) | $29.00 |  | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 |
| **Revenues ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | $6119882 |  | $400760 | $342189 | $342154 | $345882 | $299518 | $295815 | $323447 | $295339 | $351436 | $334290 | $329715 | $342734 | $354709 | $469925 | $497687 | $461974 | $310192 | $22113 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver | $253368 |  | $43262 | $25373 | $17282 | $17045 | $15494 | $10199 | $9825 | $10751 | $16864 | $16485 | $7853 | $6404 | $7669 | $10932 | $12249 | $13298 | $11461 | $922 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Revenues | $6373249 |  | $444023 | $367562 | $359436 | $362928 | $315013 | $306013 | $333272 | $306090 | $368301 | $350774 | $337568 | $349139 | $362377 | $480857 | $509937 | $475272 | $321653 | $23035 |
| **Operating Cost ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $887322 |  | $52278 | $50653 | $49436 | $47749 | $48825 | $52476 | $52907 | $51142 | $43989 | $50798 | $59998 | $60418 | $57929 | $50454 | $53677 | $57598 | $46996 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | $874490 |  | $57941 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $42783 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | $201722 |  | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | $26068 |  | $1707 | $1458 | $1457 | $1473 | $1276 | $1260 | $1378 | $1258 | $1497 | $1424 | $1404 | $1460 | $1511 | $2002 | $2120 | $1968 | $1321 | $94 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | $1989602 |  | $123792 | $115536 | $114412 | $112648 | $113526 | $117162 | $117803 | $115826 | $108912 | $115647 | $124921 | $125303 | $122866 | $115882 | $119316 | $122992 | $102966 | $94 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | $241193 |  | $16808 | $13912 | $13603 | $13735 | $11922 | $11581 | $12612 | $11584 | $13939 | $13275 | $12774 | $13212 | $13713 | $18196 | $19297 | $17986 | $12173 | $872 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | $129221 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $129221 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Production Cost | $2360016 |  | $140600 | $129448 | $128015 | $126383 | $125448 | $128742 | $130415 | $127409 | $122850 | $128923 | $137695 | $138515 | $136578 | $134078 | $138613 | $140977 | $115138 | $130186 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Income** | $4013234 |  | $303423 | $238114 | $231421 | $236544 | $189564 | $177271 | $202857 | $178681 | $245451 | $221852 | $199873 | $210624 | $225799 | $346778 | $371324 | $334295 | $206514 | $-107152 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>251 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |<br>**Year 16** |<br>**Year 17** |<br>**Year 18-22** |
| **Depreciation ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $603708 |  | $76818 | $84975 | $87066 | $89321 | $96940 | $22336 | $17930 | $16020 | $18890 | $16623 | $15253 | $11503 | $11321 | $12506 | $7154 | $6335 | $6335 | $6385 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Depreciation | $603708 |  | $76818 | $84975 | $87066 | $89321 | $96940 | $22336 | $17930 | $16020 | $18890 | $16623 | $15253 | $11503 | $11321 | $12506 | $7154 | $6335 | $6335 | $6385 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income after Depreciation | $3409526 |  | $226605 | $153140 | $144356 | $147223 | $92625 | $154935 | $184928 | $162661 | $226561 | $205229 | $184620 | $199121 | $214478 | $334273 | $364170 | $327960 | $200179 | $-113536 |
| **Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Severance Tax | $399608 |  | $25848 | $17952 | $17015 | $17327 | $11522 | $17688 | $20884 | $18462 | $25299 | $23040 | $20884 | $22417 | $24048 | $36879 | $40078 | $36208 | $22325 | $1734 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Corporate Income Tax | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Federal Corporate Tax | $404360 |  | $5274 | $15963 | $14703 | $15092 | $7348 | $17900 | $22214 | $19196 | $28278 | $25160 | $22048 | $24177 | $26405 | $43382 | $47632 | $42470 | $25085 | $2033 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Taxes | $803968 |  | $31122 | $33915 | $31718 | $32418 | $18870 | $35588 | $43098 | $37657 | $53577 | $48199 | $42932 | $46594 | $50453 | $80261 | $87710 | $78678 | $47411 | $3767 |
| **Net Income after Taxes ($000)** | $2605557 |  | $195483 | $119225 | $112638 | $114805 | $73755 | $119347 | $141830 | $125003 | $172984 | $157029 | $141688 | $152527 | $164025 | $254011 | $276460 | $249282 | $152769 | $-117304 |
| **Cash Flow ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income before Taxes | $3409526 | $0 | $226605 | $153140 | $144356 | $147223 | $92625 | $154935 | $184928 | $162661 | $226561 | $205229 | $184620 | $199121 | $214478 | $334273 | $364170 | $327960 | $200179 | $-113536 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Add back Depreciation | $603708 | $0 | $76818 | $84975 | $87066 | $89321 | $96940 | $22336 | $17930 | $16020 | $18890 | $16623 | $15253 | $11503 | $11321 | $12506 | $7154 | $6335 | $6335 | $6385 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Flow | $4013234 | $0 | $303423 | $238114 | $231421 | $236544 | $189564 | $177271 | $202857 | $178681 | $245451 | $221852 | $199873 | $210624 | $225799 | $346778 | $371324 | $334295 | $206514 | $-107152 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | $0 | $0 | $-12165 | $2095 | $223 | $-96 | $1313 | $247 | $-747 | $745 | $-1704 | $480 | $362 | $-317 | $-363 | $-3246 | $-797 | $950 | $4209 | $8182 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | $0 | $47353 | $-24855 | $-6965 | $-37 | $6258 | $-6392 | $-813 | $87 | $5842 | $-6920 | $1221 | $623 | $47 | $551 | $-1712 | $439 | $438 | $-2469 | $-12694 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventory (parts) | $0 | $0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Working Capital | $0 | $47353 | $-37020 | $-4871 | $185 | $6162 | $-5080 | $-566 | $-660 | $6586 | $-8624 | $1701 | $985 | $-270 | $188 | $-4958 | $-358 | $1388 | $1740 | $-3882 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | $20500 | $20500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $28928 | $28928 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $318415 | $318415 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $16246 | $16246 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Expansion Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $71163 |  | $10933 | $10455 | $11276 | $12391 | $11070 | $842 | $909 | $980 | $1057 | $4221 | $0 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $125 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 |  | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $603708 | $384088 | $58696 | $10455 | $11276 | $63797 | $11070 | $842 | $909 | $50268 | $1057 | $4221 | $0 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $125 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** | $3409526 | $-336735 | $207707 | $222789 | $220331 | $178909 | $173415 | $175862 | $201289 | $135000 | $235770 | $219331 | $200858 | $210354 | $219082 | $341820 | $370841 | $335682 | $208254 | $-111034 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  | $-336735 | $-129028 | $93761 | $314091 | $493001 | $666416 | $842278 | $1043567 | $1178567 | $1414337 | $1633668 | $1834526 | $2044880 | $2263962 | $2605782 | $2976623 | $3312305 | $3520559 | $3409526 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Taxes Payable | $803968 | $0 | $0 | $31122 | $33915 | $31718 | $32418 | $18870 | $35588 | $43098 | $37657 | $53577 | $48199 | $42932 | $46594 | $50453 | $80261 | $87710 | $78678 | $51178 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** | $2605557 | $-336735 | $207707 | $191667 | $186416 | $147192 | $140996 | $156992 | $165701 | $91902 | $198113 | $165755 | $152658 | $167422 | $172489 | $291367 | $290580 | $247972 | $129576 | $-162212 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  | $-336735 | $-129028 | $62639 | $249055 | $396247 | $537243 | $694235 | $859936 | $951838 | $1149951 | $1315706 | $1468364 | $1635786 | $1808274 | $2099642 | $2390221 | $2638193 | $2767769 | $2605557 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow Parameters** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Year (Year-End Discounting) |  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18-22 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 0% | 0.0% | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 5% | 5.0% | 1.000 | 0.952 | 0.907 | 0.864 | 0.823 | 0.784 | 0.746 | 0.711 | 0.677 | 0.645 | 0.614 | 0.585 | 0.557 | 0.530 | 0.505 | 0.481 | 0.458 | 0.436 | 0.416-0.342 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 10% | 10.0% | 1.000 | 0.909 | 0.826 | 0.751 | 0.683 | 0.621 | 0.564 | 0.513 | 0.467 | 0.424 | 0.386 | 0.350 | 0.319 | 0.290 | 0.263 | 0.239 | 0.218 | 0.198 | 0.180-0.123 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>252 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |<br>**Year 16** |<br>**Year 17** |<br>**Year 18-22** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $3409526 | $-336735 | $-129028 | $93761 | $314091 | $493001 | $666416 | $842278 | $1043567 | $1178567 | $1414337 | $1633668 | $1834526 | $2044880 | $2263962 | $2605782 | $2976623 | $3312305 | $3520559 | $3409526 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $2093385 | $-336735 | $-138919 | $63157 | $253487 | $400676 | $536551 | $667782 | $810835 | $902208 | $1054187 | $1188838 | $1306275 | $1423408 | $1539592 | $1712235 | $1890615 | $2044395 | $2135256 | $2093385 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1359054 | $-336735 | $-147911 | $36212 | $201750 | $323948 | $431625 | $530894 | $634187 | $697166 | $797155 | $881717 | $952116 | $1019142 | $1082602 | $1172614 | $1261390 | $1334445 | $1375647 | $1359054 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $2605557 | $-336735 | $-129028 | $62639 | $249055 | $396247 | $537243 | $694235 | $859936 | $951838 | $1149951 | $1315706 | $1468364 | $1635786 | $1808274 | $2099642 | $2390221 | $2638193 | $2767769 | $2605557 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $1622071 | $-336735 | $-138919 | $34929 | $195962 | $317057 | $427531 | $544681 | $662442 | $724645 | $852350 | $954109 | $1043365 | $1136592 | $1228066 | $1375227 | $1515000 | $1628599 | $1685133 | $1622071 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1060048 | $-336735 | $-147911 | $10492 | $150549 | $251083 | $338631 | $427249 | $512280 | $555152 | $639172 | $703077 | $756583 | $809929 | $859893 | $936619 | $1006181 | $1060147 | $1085783 | $1060048 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $3409526 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $2093385 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1359054 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 61.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.6 |  | 1 | 0.6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $2605557 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $1622071 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1060048 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 55.0% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.7 |  | 1 | 0.7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Payable Au (kozs) | 2604 |  | 171 | 146 | 146 | 147 | 127 | 126 | 138 | 126 | 150 | 142 | 140 | 146 | 151 | 200 | 212 | 197 | 132 | 9 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 108 |  | 18 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 2712 |  | 189 | 156 | 153 | 154 | 134 | 130 | 142 | 130 | 157 | 149 | 144 | 149 | 154 | 205 | 217 | 202 | 137 | 10 |
| Mining | $887322 | $0 | $52278 | $50653 | $49436 | $47749 | $48825 | $52476 | $52907 | $51142 | $43989 | $50798 | $59998 | $60418 | $57929 | $50454 | $53677 | $57598 | $46996 | $0 |
| Process Plant | $874490 | $0 | $57941 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $51560 | $51560 | $51652 | $51560 | $42783 | $0 |
| G&A | $201722 | $0 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $0 |
| Refining | $26068 | $0 | $1707 | $1458 | $1457 | $1473 | $1276 | $1260 | $1378 | $1258 | $1497 | $1424 | $1404 | $1460 | $1511 | $2002 | $2120 | $1968 | $1321 | $94 |
| Royalty | $241193 | $0 | $16808 | $13912 | $13603 | $13735 | $11922 | $11581 | $12612 | $11584 | $13939 | $13275 | $12774 | $13212 | $13713 | $18196 | $19297 | $17986 | $12173 | $872 |
| Cash Cost before By-Product Credit | $2230795 | $0 | $140600 | $129448 | $128015 | $126383 | $125448 | $128742 | $130415 | $127409 | $122850 | $128923 | $137695 | $138515 | $136578 | $134078 | $138613 | $140977 | $115138 | $966 |
| $/Au oz | $857 | $0 | $824 | $889 | $879 | $859 | $984 | $1023 | $948 | $1014 | $821 | $906 | $981 | $950 | $905 | $670 | $655 | $717 | $872 | $103 |
| Silver Credit | $253368 | $0 | $43262 | $25373 | $17282 | $17045 | $15494 | $10199 | $9825 | $10751 | $16864 | $16485 | $7853 | $6404 | $7669 | $10932 | $12249 | $13298 | $11461 | $922 |
| Cash Cost after By-Product Credit | $1977427 | $0 | $97338 | $104075 | $110733 | $109338 | $109954 | $118544 | $120590 | $116659 | $105986 | $112438 | $129842 | $132111 | $128910 | $123146 | $126363 | $127679 | $103678 | $44 |
| $/Au oz | $759 | $0 | $571 | $715 | $761 | $743 | $863 | $942 | $876 | $928 | $709 | $790 | $925 | $906 | $854 | $616 | $597 | $649 | $785 | $5 |
| Sustaining Capital Expenditures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $71163 | $0 | $10933 | $10455 | $11276 | $12391 | $11070 | $842 | $909 | $980 | $1057 | $4221 | $0 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $125 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 | $0 | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Reclamation/Closure | $129221 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $129221 |
| US State Severance Tax | $399608 | $0 | $25848 | $17952 | $17015 | $17327 | $11522 | $17688 | $20884 | $18462 | $25299 | $23040 | $20884 | $22417 | $24048 | $36879 | $40078 | $36208 | $22325 | $1734 |
| AISC | $2725875 | $0 | $181882 | $132481 | $139023 | $190462 | $132546 | $137075 | $142382 | $185388 | $132341 | $139699 | $150726 | $154528 | $159862 | $160025 | $166566 | $163887 | $126003 | $130999 |
| $/Au oz | $1047 | $0 | $1067 | $910 | $955 | $1294 | $1040 | $1089 | $1034 | $1475 | $885 | $982 | $1074 | $1060 | $1059 | $800 | $786 | $834 | $955 | $13922 |
| $/AuEq oz | $1005 | $0 | $963 | $847 | $909 | $1233 | $989 | $1053 | $1004 | $1423 | $844 | $936 | $1049 | $1040 | $1037 | $782 | $768 | $810 | $921 | $13364 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | $20500 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $100091 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $466872 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $16246 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total | $603708 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Strip & Mining | $120591 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process & Owner's Cost | $483118 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>253 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 19-12: Detailed Financial Model for MI&I Case**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |
| **Mine** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tons) | 301716547 | 2069978 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tonnes) | 273715456 | 1877871 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.697 | 0.571 | 0.469 | 0.458 | 0.466 | 0.467 | 0.512 | 0.347 | 0.390 | 0.412 | 0.408 | 0.431 | 0.454 | 0.443 | 0.434 | 0.406 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.729 | 0.400 | 0.275 | 0.271 | 0.160 | 0.169 | 0.157 | 0.108 | 0.114 | 0.145 | 0.131 | 0.072 | 0.134 | 0.070 | 0.072 | 0.082 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 24.978 | 13.703 | 9.441 | 9.279 | 5.482 | 5.799 | 5.380 | 3.716 | 3.906 | 4.961 | 4.506 | 2.474 | 4.601 | 2.399 | 2.457 | 2.820 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 46 | 201 | 165 | 162 | 164 | 165 | 180 | 123 | 137 | 145 | 144 | 152 | 160 | 156 | 153 | 143 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1662 | 4824 | 3324 | 3276 | 1930 | 2042 | 1894 | 1312 | 1375 | 1747 | 1586 | 873 | 1620 | 844 | 865 | 995 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tons) | 133233806 | 1919720 | 8120275 | 6302120 | 5956252 | 7836029 | 6677193 | 2647153 | 6687629 | 7072906 | 5003000 | 4860147 | 5189803 | 3977316 | 2997807 | 3470232 | 3964851 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tonnes) | 120868916 | 1741559 | 7366665 | 5717246 | 5403476 | 7108799 | 6057510 | 2401482 | 6066977 | 6416498 | 4538691 | 4409096 | 4708158 | 3608198 | 2719593 | 3148174 | 3596890 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tons) | 434950353 | 3989698 | 19070275 | 17252120 | 16936252 | 18786029 | 17627193 | 13597153 | 17667629 | 18022906 | 15953000 | 15810147 | 16169803 | 14927316 | 13947807 | 14420232 | 14944851 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tonnes) | 394584372 | 3619430 | 17300440 | 15651021 | 15364467 | 17042574 | 15991285 | 12335257 | 16027968 | 16350273 | 14472466 | 14342871 | 14669149 | 13541972 | 12653368 | 13081949 | 13557880 |
| **Process Plant** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tons)** | 262213465 | 2069978 | 9969120 | 10530645 | 10590862 | 10106178 | 10686645 | 9247883 | 9535953 | 10660212 | 10581098 | 10734821 | 8561533 | 9205597 | 10723692 | 9413987 | 9175537 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tonnes)** | 237878495 | 1877871 | 9043926 | 9553339 | 9607967 | 9168265 | 9694860 | 8389624 | 8650960 | 9670881 | 9599110 | 9738565 | 7766972 | 8351263 | 9728469 | 8540313 | 8323992 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.022 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.016 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.519 | 0.768 | 0.624 | 0.523 | 0.490 | 0.499 | 0.514 | 0.541 | 0.355 | 0.424 | 0.449 | 0.451 | 0.444 | 0.492 | 0.479 | 0.447 | 0.441 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.803 | 0.456 | 0.308 | 0.294 | 0.171 | 0.185 | 0.178 | 0.106 | 0.123 | 0.157 | 0.144 | 0.064 | 0.129 | 0.076 | 0.081 | 0.090 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.203 | 27.533 | 15.648 | 10.547 | 10.090 | 5.855 | 6.355 | 6.090 | 3.626 | 4.226 | 5.376 | 4.937 | 2.201 | 4.431 | 2.619 | 2.789 | 3.101 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 3970 | 46 | 181 | 161 | 151 | 147 | 160 | 146 | 99 | 132 | 138 | 141 | 111 | 132 | 150 | 123 | 118 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 39789 | 1662 | 4550 | 3240 | 3117 | 1726 | 1981 | 1643 | 1008 | 1314 | 1659 | 1546 | 550 | 1190 | 819 | 766 | 830 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3533 | 41 | 161 | 143 | 135 | 131 | 143 | 130 | 88 | 117 | 123 | 126 | 99 | 118 | 133 | 109 | 105 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 11946 | 499 | 1365 | 972 | 935 | 518 | 595 | 493 | 303 | 395 | 498 | 464 | 165 | 357 | 246 | 230 | 249 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3533 |  | 171 | 141 | 144 | 126 | 142 | 138 | 89 | 113 | 120 | 127 | 107 | 110 | 131 | 117 | 105 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 11941 |  | 1612 | 970 | 1043 | 554 | 580 | 516 | 343 | 354 | 491 | 493 | 216 | 319 | 258 | 236 | 244 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tons)** | 39503082 | 0 | 980880 | 419355 | 389138 | 843822 | 263355 | 1702117 | 1444047 | 289788 | 368902 | 215179 | 2418467 | 1744403 | 226308 | 1536013 | 1804463 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tonnes)** | 35836961 | 0 | 889849 | 380436 | 353024 | 765510 | 238914 | 1544151 | 1310031 | 262894 | 334665 | 195209 | 2194018 | 1582512 | 205306 | 1393461 | 1636998 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.018 | 0.029 | 0.020 | 0.010 | 0.027 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.019 | 0.018 | 0.012 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.027 | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.605 |  | 0.681 | 0.354 | 0.922 | 0.698 | 0.557 | 0.688 | 0.569 | 0.651 | 0.606 | 0.404 | 0.584 | 0.545 | 0.920 | 0.670 | 0.480 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.153 | 0.091 | 0.254 | 0.182 | 0.370 | 0.219 | 0.209 | 0.134 | 0.191 | 0.192 | 0.215 | 0.170 | 0.121 | 0.224 | 0.101 | 0.059 | 0.083 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.236 | 3.125 | 8.695 | 6.239 | 12.682 | 7.524 | 7.179 | 4.594 | 6.532 | 6.566 | 7.371 | 5.823 | 4.161 | 7.664 | 3.470 | 2.011 | 2.851 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 697 |  | 19 | 4 | 10 | 17 | 4 | 34 | 24 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 41 | 28 | 6 | 30 | 25 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 6033 | 0 | 274 | 84 | 159 | 204 | 61 | 251 | 303 | 61 | 87 | 40 | 324 | 430 | 25 | 99 | 165 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 65.0% |  | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 18.1% |  | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 18.1% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 18.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 453 |  | 13 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 3 | 22 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 27 | 18 | 4 | 20 | 16 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 1095 |  | 50 | 15 | 29 | 37 | 11 | 46 | 55 | 11 | 16 | 7 | 59 | 78 | 5 | 18 | 30 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 453 |  | 9 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 3 | 13 | 24 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 18 | 25 | 5 | 15 | 19 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 1095 |  | 28 | 35 | 13 | 52 | 11 | 31 | 69 | 10 | 19 | 8 | 35 | 92 | 14 | 13 | 29 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tons)** | 301716547 | 2069978 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tonnes)** | 273715456 | 1877871 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.697 | 0.571 | 0.469 | 0.458 | 0.466 | 0.467 | 0.512 | 0.347 | 0.390 | 0.412 | 0.408 | 0.431 | 0.454 | 0.443 | 0.434 | 0.406 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.729 | 0.400 | 0.275 | 0.271 | 0.160 | 0.169 | 0.157 | 0.108 | 0.114 | 0.145 | 0.131 | 0.072 | 0.134 | 0.070 | 0.072 | 0.082 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 24.978 | 13.703 | 9.441 | 9.279 | 5.482 | 5.799 | 5.380 | 3.716 | 3.906 | 4.961 | 4.506 | 2.474 | 4.601 | 2.399 | 2.457 | 2.820 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 46 | 201 | 165 | 162 | 164 | 165 | 180 | 123 | 137 | 145 | 144 | 152 | 160 | 156 | 153 | 143 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1662 | 4824 | 3324 | 3276 | 1930 | 2042 | 1894 | 1312 | 1375 | 1747 | 1586 | 873 | 1620 | 844 | 865 | 995 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 41 | 174 | 146 | 141 | 142 | 145 | 152 | 103 | 121 | 127 | 127 | 126 | 136 | 137 | 129 | 121 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 13040 | 499 | 1415 | 987 | 964 | 555 | 606 | 539 | 358 | 406 | 514 | 471 | 224 | 435 | 251 | 248 | 279 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3986 |  | 180 | 147 | 147 | 141 | 145 | 151 | 113 | 116 | 125 | 129 | 125 | 135 | 135 | 132 | 123 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 13035 |  | 1639 | 1005 | 1056 | 606 | 591 | 547 | 412 | 364 | 510 | 501 | 252 | 411 | 271 | 249 | 273 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>254 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** |<br>**Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tons)** | 301716547 | 2069978 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tonnes)** | 273715456 | 1877871 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.697 | 0.571 | 0.469 | 0.458 | 0.466 | 0.467 | 0.512 | 0.347 | 0.390 | 0.412 | 0.408 | 0.431 | 0.454 | 0.443 | 0.434 | 0.406 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 46 | 201 | 165 | 162 | 164 | 165 | 180 | 123 | 137 | 145 | 144 | 152 | 160 | 156 | 153 | 143 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1662 | 4824 | 3324 | 3276 | 1930 | 2042 | 1894 | 1312 | 1375 | 1747 | 1586 | 873 | 1620 | 844 | 865 | 995 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.4% | 89.0% | 86.7% | 88.4% | 87.4% | 86.5% | 88.4% | 84.4% | 84.3% | 88.0% | 87.9% | 88.6% | 82.5% | 84.8% | 88.1% | 84.3% | 84.8% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.5% | 30.0% | 29.3% | 29.7% | 29.4% | 28.8% | 29.7% | 28.4% | 27.3% | 29.5% | 29.4% | 29.7% | 25.6% | 26.9% | 29.7% | 28.7% | 28.1% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 41 | 174 | 146 | 141 | 142 | 145 | 152 | 103 | 121 | 127 | 127 | 126 | 136 | 137 | 129 | 121 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 13040 | 499 | 1415 | 987 | 964 | 555 | 606 | 539 | 358 | 406 | 514 | 471 | 224 | 435 | 251 | 248 | 279 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3986 |  | 180 | 147 | 147 | 141 | 145 | 151 | 113 | 116 | 125 | 129 | 125 | 135 | 135 | 132 | 123 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 13035 |  | 1639 | 1005 | 1056 | 606 | 591 | 547 | 412 | 364 | 510 | 501 | 252 | 411 | 271 | 249 | 273 |
| **Payable Metals** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (kozs) | 3982 |  | 180 | 147 | 146 | 141 | 145 | 151 | 113 | 116 | 125 | 129 | 125 | 135 | 135 | 131 | 123 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (kozs) | 12905 |  | 1623 | 995 | 1045 | 600 | 585 | 541 | 408 | 360 | 505 | 496 | 249 | 407 | 269 | 247 | 270 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 159 |  | 20 | 12 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 4141 |  | 200 | 159 | 159 | 148 | 153 | 158 | 118 | 120 | 131 | 135 | 128 | 140 | 138 | 134 | 127 |
| **Metal Prices** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold ($/oz) | $2350.00 |  | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver ($/oz) | $29.00 |  | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 |
| **Revenues ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | $9356895 |  | $421888 | $345934 | $344079 | $330457 | $341540 | $354581 | $265915 | $271633 | $293616 | $302804 | $294419 | $317369 | $317556 | $308840 | $289807 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver | $374248 |  | $47062 | $28862 | $30311 | $17390 | $16964 | $15692 | $11829 | $10452 | $14650 | $14395 | $7230 | $11813 | $7789 | $7150 | $7829 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Revenues | $9731143 |  | $468949 | $374796 | $374390 | $347846 | $358504 | $370273 | $277744 | $282085 | $308266 | $317199 | $301649 | $329182 | $325345 | $315991 | $297637 |
| **Operating Cost ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $1464004 |  | $52439 | $48296 | $46595 | $45402 | $43572 | $40089 | $47309 | $46727 | $43269 | $43284 | $48391 | $57664 | $52888 | $52561 | $54609 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | $1427042 |  | $57873 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | $332248 |  | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | $39856 |  | $1797 | $1474 | $1466 | $1408 | $1455 | $1510 | $1133 | $1157 | $1251 | $1290 | $1254 | $1352 | $1353 | $1316 | $1234 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | $3263151 |  | $123976 | $113138 | $111521 | $110178 | $108395 | $104968 | $111902 | $111252 | $107888 | $107942 | $113106 | $122384 | $117609 | $117245 | $119304 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | $368269 |  | $17752 | $14186 | $14171 | $13165 | $13568 | $14013 | $10511 | $10675 | $11667 | $12005 | $11415 | $12458 | $12312 | $11958 | $11263 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | $73041 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Production Cost | $3704461 |  | $141727 | $127325 | $125692 | $123343 | $121963 | $118981 | $122414 | $121928 | $119555 | $119946 | $124521 | $134842 | $129921 | $129202 | $130567 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Income** | $6026682 |  | $327222 | $247472 | $248698 | $224504 | $236541 | $251293 | $155330 | $160157 | $188711 | $197252 | $177127 | $194340 | $195424 | $186788 | $167070 |
| **Depreciation ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $615942 |  | $76676 | $84748 | $86749 | $88906 | $96419 | $21596 | $17106 | $15722 | $18493 | $16121 | $14268 | $12559 | $11943 | $13324 | $8184 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Depreciation | $615942 |  | $76676 | $84748 | $86749 | $88906 | $96419 | $21596 | $17106 | $15722 | $18493 | $16121 | $14268 | $12559 | $11943 | $13324 | $8184 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income after Depreciation | $5410740 |  | $250546 | $162723 | $161949 | $135598 | $140122 | $229697 | $138225 | $144436 | $170218 | $181131 | $162860 | $181781 | $183481 | $173464 | $158886 |
| **Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Severance Tax | $618191 |  | $28421 | $18962 | $18882 | $16056 | $16585 | $25627 | $15814 | $16467 | $19233 | $20389 | $18449 | $20540 | $20682 | $19613 | $18023 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Corporate Income Tax | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Federal Corporate Tax | $641759 |  | $8634 | $17381 | $17262 | $13540 | $14016 | $28752 | $15844 | $16772 | $20407 | $22004 | $19347 | $21794 | $22182 | $20747 | $18786 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Taxes | $1259951 |  | $37055 | $36343 | $36143 | $29595 | $30601 | $54379 | $31658 | $33238 | $39640 | $42392 | $37796 | $42334 | $42864 | $40360 | $36809 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>255 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | **Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** |<br>**Year 4** |<br>**Year 5** |<br>**Year 6** |<br>**Year 7** |<br>**Year 8** |<br>**Year 9** |<br>**Year 10** |<br>**Year 11** |<br>**Year 12** |<br>**Year 13** |<br>**Year 14** |<br>**Year 15** |
| **Net Income after Taxes ($000)** | $4150790 |  | $213491 | $126380 | $125806 | $106003 | $109521 | $175318 | $106567 | $111197 | $130577 | $138739 | $125063 | $139447 | $140617 | $133104 | $122077 |
| **Cash Flow ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income before Taxes | $5410740 | $0 | $250546 | $162723 | $161949 | $135598 | $140122 | $229697 | $138225 | $144436 | $170218 | $181131 | $162860 | $181781 | $183481 | $173464 | $158886 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Add back Depreciation | $615942 | $0 | $76676 | $84748 | $86749 | $88906 | $96419 | $21596 | $17106 | $15722 | $18493 | $16121 | $14268 | $12559 | $11943 | $13324 | $8184 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Flow | $6026682 | $0 | $327222 | $247472 | $248698 | $224504 | $236541 | $251293 | $155330 | $160157 | $188711 | $197252 | $177127 | $194340 | $195424 | $186788 | $167070 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | $0 | $0 | $-12848 | $2580 | $11 | $727 | $-292 | $-322 | $2535 | $-119 | $-717 | $-245 | $426 | $-754 | $105 | $256 | $503 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | $0 | $47266 | $-24797 | $-7288 | $-103 | $6305 | $-6878 | $-1565 | $1235 | $5617 | $-6491 | $7 | $1792 | $-11 | $263 | $-896 | $254 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventory (parts) | $0 | $0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Working Capital | $0 | $47266 | $-37645 | $-4708 | $-91 | $7032 | $-7170 | $-1887 | $3770 | $5498 | $-7209 | $-238 | $2218 | $-766 | $368 | $-640 | $757 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | $20408 | $20408 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $28310 | $28310 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $318415 | $318415 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $16246 | $16246 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Expansion Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $84106 |  | $10511 | $10001 | $10786 | $11863 | $9265 | $0 | $3081 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $9369 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 |  | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 |  | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $615942 | $383379 | $58275 | $10001 | $10786 | $63268 | $9265 | $0 | $3081 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $9369 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** | $5410740 | $-336113 | $231303 | $232763 | $237820 | $168267 | $220106 | $249405 | $156019 | $116367 | $181503 | $197014 | $169976 | $193575 | $188887 | $186148 | $167826 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  | $-336113 | $-104810 | $127953 | $365773 | $534040 | $754146 | $1003552 | $1159571 | $1275938 | $1457441 | $1654455 | $1824431 | $2018006 | $2206893 | $2393041 | $2560867 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Taxes Payable | $1259951 | $0 | $0 | $37055 | $36343 | $36143 | $29595 | $30601 | $54379 | $31658 | $33238 | $39640 | $42392 | $37796 | $42334 | $42864 | $40360 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** | $4150790 | $-336113 | $231303 | $195708 | $201477 | $132124 | $190511 | $218804 | $101640 | $84709 | $148264 | $157374 | $127584 | $155778 | $146553 | $143285 | $127466 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  | $-336113 | $-104810 | $90898 | $292375 | $424499 | $615010 | $833814 | $935454 | $1020164 | $1168428 | $1325802 | $1453386 | $1609164 | $1755718 | $1899002 | $2026468 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow Parameters** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Year (Year-End Discounting) |  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 0% | 0.0% | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 5% | 5.0% | 1.000 | 0.952 | 0.907 | 0.864 | 0.823 | 0.784 | 0.746 | 0.711 | 0.677 | 0.645 | 0.614 | 0.585 | 0.557 | 0.530 | 0.505 | 0.481 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 10% | 10.0% | 1.000 | 0.909 | 0.826 | 0.751 | 0.683 | 0.621 | 0.564 | 0.513 | 0.467 | 0.424 | 0.386 | 0.350 | 0.319 | 0.290 | 0.263 | 0.239 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $5387903 | $-336113 | $-104810 | $127953 | $365773 | $534040 | $754146 | $1003552 | $1159571 | $1275938 | $1457441 | $1654455 | $1824431 | $2018006 | $2206893 | $2393041 | $2560867 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $2691729 | $-336113 | $-115825 | $95298 | $300736 | $439170 | $611629 | $797739 | $908619 | $987381 | $1104379 | $1225329 | $1324710 | $1432500 | $1532671 | $1626688 | $1707416 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1558857 | $-336113 | $-125838 | $66528 | $245206 | $360135 | $496804 | $637587 | $717649 | $771935 | $848910 | $924867 | $984443 | $1046122 | $1100836 | $1149854 | $1190031 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $4205852 | $-336113 | $-104810 | $90898 | $292375 | $424499 | $615010 | $833814 | $935454 | $1020164 | $1168428 | $1325802 | $1453386 | $1609164 | $1755718 | $1899002 | $2026468 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $2112725 | $-336113 | $-115825 | $61688 | $235732 | $344431 | $493701 | $656976 | $729210 | $786545 | $882117 | $978731 | $1053327 | $1140070 | $1217790 | $1290159 | $1351472 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1225667 | $-336113 | $-125838 | $35904 | $187277 | $277520 | $395812 | $519321 | $571479 | $610996 | $673875 | $734549 | $779267 | $828902 | $871354 | $909085 | $939599 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $5387903 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $2691729 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1558857 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 66.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.5 |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>256 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Dakota Gold - Richmond Hill Project - Financial Model (IAwCF)**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year -1** | **Year 1** | **Year 2** | **Year 3** | **Year 4** | **Year 5** | **Year 6** | **Year 7** | **Year 8** | **Year 9** | **Year 10** | **Year 11** | **Year 12** | **Year 13** | **Year 14** | **Year 15** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $4205852 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $2112725 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1225667 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 59.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.5 |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Payable Au (kozs) | 3982 |  | 180 | 147 | 146 | 141 | 145 | 151 | 113 | 116 | 125 | 129 | 125 | 135 | 135 | 131 | 123 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 159 |  | 20 | 12 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 4141 |  | 200 | 159 | 159 | 148 | 153 | 158 | 118 | 120 | 131 | 135 | 128 | 140 | 138 | 134 | 127 |
| Mining | $1464004 | $0 | $52439 | $48296 | $46595 | $45402 | $43572 | $40089 | $47309 | $46727 | $43269 | $43284 | $48391 | $57664 | $52888 | $52561 | $54609 |
| Process Plant | $1427042 | $0 | $57873 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 |
| G&A | $332248 | $0 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 |
| Refining | $39856 | $0 | $1797 | $1474 | $1466 | $1408 | $1455 | $1510 | $1133 | $1157 | $1251 | $1290 | $1254 | $1352 | $1353 | $1316 | $1234 |
| Royalty | $368269 | $0 | $17752 | $14186 | $14171 | $13165 | $13568 | $14013 | $10511 | $10675 | $11667 | $12005 | $11415 | $12458 | $12312 | $11958 | $11263 |
| Cash Cost before By-Product Credit | $3631420 | $0 | $141727 | $127325 | $125692 | $123343 | $121963 | $118981 | $122414 | $121928 | $119555 | $119946 | $124521 | $134842 | $129921 | $129202 | $130567 |
| $/Au oz | $912 | $0 | $789 | $865 | $858 | $877 | $839 | $789 | $1082 | $1055 | $957 | $931 | $994 | $998 | $961 | $983 | $1059 |
| Silver Credit | $374248 | $0 | $47062 | $28862 | $30311 | $17390 | $16964 | $15692 | $11829 | $10452 | $14650 | $14395 | $7230 | $11813 | $7789 | $7150 | $7829 |
| Cash Cost after By-Product Credit | $3257172 | $0 | $94666 | $98462 | $95381 | $105953 | $104999 | $103289 | $110585 | $111475 | $104905 | $105551 | $117292 | $123029 | $122131 | $122052 | $122738 |
| $/Au oz | $818 | $0 | $527 | $669 | $651 | $753 | $722 | $685 | $977 | $964 | $840 | $819 | $936 | $911 | $904 | $929 | $995 |
| Sustaining Capital Expenditures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $84106 | $0 | $10511 | $10001 | $10786 | $11863 | $9265 | $0 | $3081 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $9369 | $0 | $6905 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 | $0 | $47764 | $0 | $0 | $51406 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $49288 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Reclamation/Closure | $73041 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| US State Severance Tax | $618191 | $0 | $28421 | $18962 | $18882 | $16056 | $16585 | $25627 | $15814 | $16467 | $19233 | $20389 | $18449 | $20540 | $20682 | $19613 | $18023 |
| AISC | $4180968 | $0 | $181362 | $127425 | $125049 | $185277 | $130849 | $128915 | $129480 | $177230 | $124138 | $125940 | $145110 | $143569 | $149718 | $141665 | $140761 |
| $/Au oz | $1050 | $0 | $1010 | $866 | $854 | $1318 | $900 | $854 | $1144 | $1533 | $994 | $977 | $1158 | $1063 | $1108 | $1078 | $1141 |
| $/AuEq oz | $1010 | $0 | $909 | $799 | $785 | $1252 | $858 | $818 | $1096 | $1476 | $946 | $933 | $1130 | $1025 | $1081 | $1054 | $1111 |

---

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year 16** | **Year 17** | **Year 18** | **Year 19** | **Year 20** | **Year 21** | **Year 22** | **Year 23** | **Year 24** | **Year 25** | **Year 26** | **Year 27** | **Year 28** | **Year 29-32** |
| **Mine** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tons) | 301716547 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10862883 | 10950000 | 10979125 | 3874562 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ore (tonnes) | 273715456 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9854743 | 9933775 | 9960197 | 3514979 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.428 | 0.510 | 0.511 | 0.444 | 0.506 | 0.574 | 0.566 | 0.577 | 0.561 | 0.555 | 0.548 | 0.504 | 0.474 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.115 | 0.153 | 0.094 | 0.062 | 0.076 | 0.085 | 0.087 | 0.098 | 0.105 | 0.111 | 0.124 | 0.139 | 0.138 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 3.949 | 5.242 | 3.225 | 2.110 | 2.590 | 2.925 | 2.988 | 3.365 | 3.589 | 3.799 | 4.246 | 4.758 | 4.743 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 151 | 179 | 180 | 157 | 178 | 202 | 199 | 204 | 198 | 194 | 193 | 178 | 59 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1390 | 1845 | 1135 | 745 | 912 | 1030 | 1052 | 1188 | 1263 | 1327 | 1495 | 1680 | 591 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tons) | 133233806 | 2579950 | 1601583 | 6763249 | 8927141 | 8870327 | 4516016 | 3736454 | 3640135 | 3171705 | 2654338 | 1997312 | 1395155 | 698006 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Waste (tonnes) | 120868916 | 2340515 | 1452947 | 6135580 | 8098649 | 8047108 | 4096903 | 3389689 | 3302309 | 2877352 | 2408000 | 1811950 | 1265677 | 633227 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tons) | 434950353 | 13529950 | 12551583 | 17713249 | 19907141 | 19820327 | 15466016 | 14686454 | 14620135 | 14121705 | 13517221 | 12947312 | 12374280 | 4572568 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Material Mined (tonnes) | 394584372 | 12274290 | 11386722 | 16069354 | 18059640 | 17980883 | 14030678 | 13323464 | 13263300 | 12811127 | 12262742 | 11745725 | 11225873 | 4148206 |  |
| **Process Plant** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tons)** | 262213465 | 9249304 | 6425202 | 7316616 | 10815493 | 10504705 | 10918944 | 10451330 | 9876155 | 9295046 | 8759555 | 8615616 | 6097182 | 2094577 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Oxide (tonnes)** | 237878495 | 8390913 | 5828905 | 6637591 | 9811751 | 9529806 | 9905601 | 9481384 | 8959589 | 8432411 | 7946616 | 7816036 | 5531327 | 1900188 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.016 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.015 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.519 | 0.460 | 0.477 | 0.506 | 0.492 | 0.540 | 0.634 | 0.620 | 0.630 | 0.622 | 0.625 | 0.622 | 0.576 | 0.510 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.128 | 0.160 | 0.070 | 0.066 | 0.079 | 0.094 | 0.097 | 0.111 | 0.122 | 0.133 | 0.147 | 0.147 | 0.151 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.203 | 4.386 | 5.500 | 2.383 | 2.274 | 2.715 | 3.226 | 3.319 | 3.814 | 4.194 | 4.558 | 5.039 | 5.033 | 5.164 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 3970 | 124 | 89 | 108 | 155 | 165 | 202 | 189 | 181 | 169 | 160 | 156 | 102 | 31 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 39789 | 1183 | 1031 | 509 | 717 | 832 | 1027 | 1012 | 1099 | 1137 | 1164 | 1266 | 895 | 316 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 89.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.1% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3533 | 110 | 80 | 96 | 138 | 147 | 180 | 168 | 161 | 150 | 142 | 139 | 91 | 28 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 11946 | 355 | 309 | 153 | 216 | 250 | 309 | 304 | 330 | 341 | 350 | 380 | 269 | 95 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3533 | 111 | 84 | 85 | 134 | 145 | 172 | 175 | 166 | 150 | 143 | 135 | 107 | 43 | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 11941 | 325 | 342 | 164 | 208 | 236 | 297 | 315 | 331 | 332 | 345 | 362 | 307 | 141 | 6 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>257 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year 16** | **Year 17** | **Year 18** | **Year 19** | **Year 20** | **Year 21** | **Year 22** | **Year 23** | **Year 24** | **Year 25** | **Year 26** | **Year 27** | **Year 28** | **Year 29-32** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tons)** | 39503082 | 1700696 | 4524798 | 3633384 | 164507 | 445295 | 31056 | 498670 | 1103845 | 1654954 | 2103328 | 2334384 | 4881943 | 1779985 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Transition (tonnes)** | 35836961 | 1542862 | 4104870 | 3296184 | 149239 | 403969 | 28174 | 452390 | 1001402 | 1501364 | 1908126 | 2117739 | 4428870 | 1614791 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.018 | 0.016 | 0.020 | 0.020 | 0.009 | 0.028 | 0.012 | 0.021 | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.016 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.605 | 0.537 | 0.682 | 0.680 | 0.319 | 0.975 | 0.425 | 0.709 | 0.690 | 0.600 | 0.553 | 0.534 | 0.529 | 0.537 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.153 | 0.110 | 0.163 | 0.157 | 0.151 | 0.163 | 0.070 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.069 | 0.070 | 0.089 | 0.146 | 0.140 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.236 | 3.788 | 5.599 | 5.366 | 5.176 | 5.583 | 2.402 | 2.496 | 2.511 | 2.374 | 2.403 | 3.047 | 4.998 | 4.812 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 697 | 27 | 90 | 72 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 10 | 22 | 29 | 34 | 36 | 75 | 28 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 6033 | 207 | 815 | 627 | 27 | 80 | 2 | 40 | 89 | 126 | 162 | 229 | 785 | 275 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 65.0% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.1% | 0.0% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 453 | 17 | 58 | 47 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 7 | 14 | 19 | 22 | 24 | 49 | 18 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 1095 | 38 | 148 | 114 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 7 | 16 | 23 | 29 | 42 | 142 | 50 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 453 | 16 | 48 | 59 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 21 | 24 | 42 | 28 | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 1095 | 33 | 121 | 143 | 15 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 23 | 28 | 39 | 119 | 80 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tons)** | 301716547 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10862883 | 10950000 | 10979125 | 3874562 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Crushed (tonnes)** | 273715456 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9854743 | 9933775 | 9960197 | 3514979 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.428 | 0.510 | 0.511 | 0.444 | 0.506 | 0.574 | 0.566 | 0.577 | 0.561 | 0.555 | 0.548 | 0.504 | 0.474 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 | 0.115 | 0.153 | 0.094 | 0.062 | 0.076 | 0.085 | 0.087 | 0.098 | 0.105 | 0.111 | 0.124 | 0.139 | 0.138 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 3.949 | 5.242 | 3.225 | 2.110 | 2.590 | 2.925 | 2.988 | 3.365 | 3.589 | 3.799 | 4.246 | 4.758 | 4.743 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 151 | 179 | 180 | 157 | 178 | 202 | 199 | 204 | 198 | 194 | 193 | 178 | 59 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1390 | 1845 | 1135 | 745 | 912 | 1030 | 1052 | 1188 | 1263 | 1327 | 1495 | 1680 | 591 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 128 | 138 | 143 | 139 | 155 | 180 | 175 | 176 | 169 | 164 | 163 | 140 | 46 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 13040 | 393 | 457 | 267 | 220 | 264 | 309 | 311 | 346 | 364 | 379 | 422 | 411 | 145 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 127 | 133 | 144 | 138 | 153 | 173 | 178 | 178 | 170 | 164 | 160 | 149 | 71 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 13035 | 357 | 463 | 307 | 223 | 250 | 299 | 320 | 344 | 356 | 374 | 400 | 425 | 220 | 10 |
| **Total Processing** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tons)** | 301716547 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10950000 | 10980000 | 10950000 | 10862883 | 10950000 | 10979125 | 3874562 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Ore (tonnes)** | 273715456 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9933775 | 9960991 | 9933775 | 9854743 | 9933775 | 9960197 | 3514979 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (oz/t) | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.014 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (gpt) | 0.530 | 0.428 | 0.510 | 0.511 | 0.444 | 0.506 | 0.574 | 0.566 | 0.577 | 0.561 | 0.555 | 0.548 | 0.504 | 0.474 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (oz/t) | 0.152 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (gpt) | 5.207 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Gold (kozs) | 4667 | 151 | 179 | 180 | 157 | 178 | 202 | 199 | 204 | 198 | 194 | 193 | 178 | 59 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Contained Silver (kozs) | 45822 | 1390 | 1845 | 1135 | 745 | 912 | 1030 | 1052 | 1188 | 1263 | 1327 | 1495 | 1680 | 591 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold Recovery % | 85.4% | 84.8% | 77.0% | 79.4% | 88.8% | 87.3% | 89.0% | 87.8% | 86.4% | 85.5% | 84.8% | 84.5% | 78.8% | 77.7% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver Recovery % | 28.5% | 28.3% | 24.8% | 23.5% | 29.6% | 29.0% | 30.0% | 29.6% | 29.1% | 28.8% | 28.6% | 28.2% | 24.5% | 24.5% |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 128 | 138 | 143 | 139 | 155 | 180 | 175 | 176 | 169 | 164 | 163 | 140 | 46 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recoverable Silver (kozs) | 13040 | 393 | 457 | 267 | 220 | 264 | 309 | 311 | 346 | 364 | 379 | 422 | 411 | 145 |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Gold (kozs) | 3986 | 127 | 133 | 144 | 138 | 153 | 173 | 178 | 178 | 170 | 164 | 160 | 149 | 71 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recovered Silver (kozs) | 13035 | 357 | 463 | 307 | 223 | 250 | 299 | 320 | 344 | 356 | 374 | 400 | 425 | 220 | 10 |
| **Payable Metals** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold (kozs) | 3982 | 127 | 133 | 144 | 138 | 153 | 173 | 178 | 178 | 170 | 164 | 159 | 148 | 71 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver (kozs) | 12905 | 354 | 459 | 304 | 220 | 247 | 296 | 316 | 341 | 352 | 370 | 396 | 421 | 218 | 10 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 159 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 4141 | 132 | 138 | 147 | 141 | 156 | 177 | 182 | 182 | 174 | 168 | 164 | 154 | 74 | 3 |
| **Metal Prices** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold ($/oz) | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 | $2350.00 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver ($/oz) | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 | $29.00 |
| **Revenues ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gold | $9356895 | $298822 | $311837 | $337364 | $324925 | $358401 | $406726 | $418040 | $418736 | $398919 | $384877 | $374764 | $348888 | $166834 | $7324 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver | $374248 | $10261 | $13299 | $8816 | $6393 | $7166 | $8582 | $9177 | $9879 | $10217 | $10726 | $11497 | $12215 | $6320 | $283 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Revenues | $9731143 | $309083 | $325136 | $346180 | $331317 | $365567 | $415308 | $427217 | $428615 | $409136 | $395603 | $386261 | $361103 | $173154 | $7608 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>258 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| M3-PN240322 | **LOM** | **Year 16** | **Year 17** | **Year 18** | **Year 19** | **Year 20** | **Year 21** | **Year 22** | **Year 23** | **Year 24** | **Year 25** | **Year 26** | **Year 27** | **Year 28** | **Year 29-32** |
| **Operating Cost ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $1464004 | $53025 | $51553 | $66339 | $70936 | $69222 | $61233 | $57320 | $58070 | $56905 | $56859 | $55259 | $53148 | $31042 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process Plant | $1427042 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51234 | $51503 | $51592 | $29726 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;G&A | $332248 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Refining | $39856 | $1273 | $1328 | $1437 | $1384 | $1527 | $1732 | $1781 | $1784 | $1699 | $1639 | $1596 | $1486 | $711 | $31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Operating Cost | $3263151 | $117667 | $116250 | $131145 | $135781 | $134117 | $126334 | $122469 | $123314 | $121973 | $121599 | $120224 | $118092 | $73345 | $31 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Royalty | $368269 | $11697 | $12305 | $13100 | $12537 | $13834 | $15716 | $16167 | $16220 | $15483 | $14971 | $14617 | $13665 | $6553 | $288 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Reclamation/Closure | $73041 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $73041 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Production Cost | $3704461 | $129363 | $128554 | $144245 | $148319 | $147951 | $142050 | $138635 | $139534 | $137455 | $136570 | $134841 | $131757 | $79898 | $73361 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Operating Income** | $6026682 | $179720 | $196581 | $201935 | $182999 | $217616 | $273258 | $288582 | $289081 | $271681 | $259034 | $251419 | $229345 | $93256 | $-65753 |
| **Depreciation ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $615942 | $8184 | $6310 | $6310 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Depreciation | $615942 | $8184 | $6310 | $6310 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income after Depreciation | $5410740 | $171536 | $190272 | $195625 | $180534 | $215151 | $270792 | $286117 | $286616 | $271681 | $259034 | $251419 | $229345 | $93256 | $-65753 |
| **Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Severance Tax | $618191 | $19371 | $21360 | $22046 | $20430 | $24138 | $30060 | $31678 | $31738 | $30104 | $28742 | $27914 | $25526 | $10565 | $779 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;US State Corporate Income Tax | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Federal Corporate Tax | $641759 | $20607 | $23328 | $23668 | $21528 | $26433 | $34459 | $36717 | $36764 | $34773 | $33008 | $31977 | $28937 | $11068 | $1024 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Taxes | $1259951 | $39978 | $44688 | $45714 | $41958 | $50571 | $64519 | $68395 | $68502 | $64877 | $61750 | $59890 | $54462 | $21633 | $1803 |
| **Net Income after Taxes ($000)** | $4150790 | $131558 | $145584 | $149911 | $138576 | $164579 | $206273 | $217721 | $218114 | $206804 | $197284 | $191529 | $174883 | $71622 | $-67556 |
| **Cash Flow ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Net Income before Taxes | $5410740 | $171536 | $190272 | $195625 | $180534 | $215151 | $270792 | $286117 | $286616 | $271681 | $259034 | $251419 | $229345 | $93256 | $-65753 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Add back Depreciation | $615942 | $8184 | $6310 | $6310 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $2465 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Operating Cash Flow | $6026682 | $179720 | $196581 | $201935 | $182999 | $217616 | $273258 | $288582 | $289081 | $271681 | $259034 | $251419 | $229345 | $93256 | $-65753 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Working Capital ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Receivable | $0 | $-314 | $-440 | $-577 | $407 | $-938 | $-1363 | $-326 | $-38 | $534 | $371 | $256 | $689 | $5149 | $4744 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accounts Payable | $0 | $-202 | $-175 | $3356 | $-948 | $-205 | $-960 | $-477 | $104 | $-165 | $-46 | $-169 | $-263 | $-5517 | $-9043 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventory (parts) | $0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Working Capital | $0 | $-515 | $-614 | $2779 | $-541 | $-1143 | $-2322 | $-803 | $66 | $368 | $325 | $86 | $426 | $-367 | $-4299 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Initial Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | $20408 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $28310 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $318415 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $16246 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Expansion Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Sustaining Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $84106 | $0 | $0 | $12326 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Capital | $615942 | $0 | $0 | $12326 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** | $5410740 | $179204 | $195967 | $192389 | $182458 | $216472 | $270935 | $287779 | $289147 | $272049 | $259358 | $251506 | $229772 | $92888 | $-70052 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  | $2740072 | $2936039 | $3128427 | $3310885 | $3527358 | $3798293 | $4086072 | $4375219 | $4647268 | $4906626 | $5158132 | $5387903 | $5480792 | $5410740 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cash Taxes Payable | $1259951 | $36809 | $39978 | $44688 | $45714 | $41958 | $50571 | $64519 | $68395 | $68502 | $64877 | $61750 | $59890 | $54462 | $23437 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** | $4150790 | $142395 | $155989 | $147701 | $136744 | $174514 | $220364 | $223260 | $220752 | $203547 | $194481 | $189756 | $169881 | $38426 | $-93488 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Cumulative Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  | $2168863 | $2324852 | $2472553 | $2609297 | $2783811 | $3004175 | $3227434 | $3448186 | $3651733 | $3846214 | $4035970 | $4205852 | $4244278 | $4150790 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>259 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **M3-PN240322** | **LOM** | **Year 16** | **Year 17** | **Year 18** | **Year 19** | **Year 20** | **Year 21** | **Year 22** | **Year 23** | **Year 24** | **Year 25** | **Year 26** | **Year 27** | **Year 28** | **Year 29-32** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow Parameters** | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Year (Year-End Discounting) |  | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29-32 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 0% | 0.0% | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 5% | 5.0% | 0.458 | 0.436 | 0.416 | 0.396 | 0.377 | 0.359 | 0.342 | 0.326 | 0.310 | 0.295 | 0.281 | 0.268 | 0.255 | 0.243-0.210 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factor @ 10% | 10.0% | 0.218 | 0.198 | 0.180 | 0.164 | 0.149 | 0.135 | 0.123 | 0.112 | 0.102 | 0.092 | 0.084 | 0.076 | 0.069 | 0.063-0.047 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $5387903 | $2740072 | $2936039 | $3128427 | $3310885 | $3527358 | $3798293 | $4086072 | $4375219 | $4647268 | $4906626 | $5158132 | $5387903 | $5480792 | $5410740 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $2691729 | $1789511 | $1875011 | $1954952 | $2027157 | $2108743 | $2205994 | $2304371 | $2398509 | $2482862 | $2559452 | $2630185 | $2691729 | $2715424 | $2698934 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1558857 | $1229031 | $1267802 | $1302405 | $1332238 | $1364415 | $1401027 | $1436379 | $1468671 | $1496291 | $1520228 | $1541331 | $1558857 | $1565299 | $1561141 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Discounted Cash Flow after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 0% | $4205852 | $2168863 | $2324852 | $2472553 | $2609297 | $2783811 | $3004175 | $3227434 | $3448186 | $3651733 | $3846214 | $4035970 | $4205852 | $4244278 | $4150790 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 5% | $2112725 | $1416705 | $1484762 | $1546135 | $1600249 | $1666022 | $1745120 | $1821441 | $1893311 | $1956425 | $2013856 | $2067223 | $2112725 | $2122527 | $2100363 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DCF @ 10% | $1225667 | $970589 | $1001450 | $1028016 | $1050374 | $1076315 | $1106093 | $1133519 | $1158172 | $1178838 | $1196787 | $1212709 | $1225667 | $1228332 | $1222707 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators before Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $5387903 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $2691729 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1558857 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 66.5% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Financial Indicators after Taxes ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 0% | $4205852 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 5% | $2112725 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;NPV @ 10% | $1225667 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IRR | 59.4% |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Payback (years) | 1.5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Payable Au (kozs) | 3982 | 127 | 133 | 144 | 138 | 153 | 173 | 178 | 178 | 170 | 164 | 159 | 148 | 71 | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Silver as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 159 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total Metal as Gold Equivalent (kozs) | 4141 | 132 | 138 | 147 | 141 | 156 | 177 | 182 | 182 | 174 | 168 | 164 | 154 | 74 | 3 |
| Mining | $1464004 | $53025 | $51553 | $66339 | $70936 | $69222 | $61233 | $57320 | $58070 | $56905 | $56859 | $55259 | $53148 | $31042 | $0 |
| Process Plant | $1427042 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51503 | $51503 | $51595 | $51503 | $51234 | $51503 | $51592 | $29726 | $0 |
| G&A | $332248 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $11866 | $0 |
| Refining | $39856 | $1273 | $1328 | $1437 | $1384 | $1527 | $1732 | $1781 | $1784 | $1699 | $1639 | $1596 | $1486 | $711 | $31 |
| Royalty | $368269 | $11697 | $12305 | $13100 | $12537 | $13834 | $15716 | $16167 | $16220 | $15483 | $14971 | $14617 | $13665 | $6553 | $288 |
| Cash Cost before By-Product Credit | $3631420 | $129363 | $128554 | $144245 | $148319 | $147951 | $142050 | $138635 | $139534 | $137455 | $136570 | $134841 | $131757 | $79898 | $319 |
| $/Au oz | $912 | $1017 | $969 | $1005 | $1073 | $970 | $821 | $779 | $783 | $810 | $834 | $846 | $887 | $1125 | $102 |
| Silver Credit | $374248 | $10261 | $13299 | $8816 | $6393 | $7166 | $8582 | $9177 | $9879 | $10217 | $10726 | $11497 | $12215 | $6320 | $283 |
| Cash Cost after By-Product Credit | $3257172 | $119102 | $115256 | $135430 | $141926 | $140785 | $133468 | $129458 | $129655 | $127238 | $125844 | $123345 | $119543 | $73578 | $36 |
| $/Au oz | $818 | $937 | $869 | $943 | $1026 | $923 | $771 | $728 | $728 | $750 | $768 | $773 | $805 | $1036 | $12 |
| Sustaining Capital Expenditures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $84106 | $0 | $0 | $12326 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $148457 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Reclamation/Closure | $73041 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $73041 |
| US State Severance Tax | $618191 | $19371 | $21360 | $22046 | $20430 | $24138 | $30060 | $31678 | $31738 | $30104 | $28742 | $27914 | $25526 | $10565 | $779 |
| AISC | $4180968 | $138473 | $136615 | $169801 | $162356 | $164923 | $163528 | $161136 | $161393 | $157342 | $154586 | $151258 | $145068 | $84143 | $73856 |
| $/Au oz | $1050 | $1089 | $1030 | $1183 | $1174 | $1081 | $945 | $906 | $906 | $927 | $944 | $948 | $977 | $1185 | $23696 |
| $/AuEq oz | $1010 | $1053 | $987 | $1153 | $1152 | $1060 | $925 | $886 | $885 | $904 | $918 | $920 | $944 | $1142 | $22814 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Total Capital Expenditures ($000)** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-stripping | $20408 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mining | $112417 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process | $466872 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owner's Cost | $16246 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total | $615942 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pre-Strip & Mining | $132824 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Process & Owner's Cost | $483118 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>260 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **20** | **Adjacent Properties** |

---

**20.1** **The Homestake Mine** 

The Homestake Mine was discovered in 1876 and operated until December 2001 (Mitchell, 2009). The mine produced over 40 million ounces of gold and 9 million ounces of silver from 11 ore ledges, or mineralized plunging fold structures. Recovered gold grades averaged 8.16 grams/tonne over the mine life. Mining occurred from the surface to a depth of 2,440 meters. The deposit is over 5.7 km long and 1.6 km wide. The mine is divided into two general areas: eastern ore ledges and western ore ledges. The eastern ore ledges trend N35°W and have an average plunge of 40° SE. The western ore ledges have an average trend of N80°E with plunges ranging from 40° SE to 60° NE (Caddey et. al, 1991).

The gold mineralization is hosted within quartz veined, sulfide rich portions of an Early Proterozoic, carbonate-facies iron formation within a sequence of calcareous, pelitic, and quartz rich sediments. These units were complexly deformed and metamorphosed to upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies metamorphism at 1757+30 Ma (Chasten, 2009). Grunerite and garnet are found in the eastern ledges. Rhenium-osmium geochronology of arsenopyrite yields a mineralization age of 1,736+8 Ma (Morelli et. al, 2010). Gold mineralization occurs almost entirely within the Homestake Formation. The ore bodies consist of tabular to pipe-like segregations of quartz, siderite, ankerite, chlorite, pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, pyrite, and native gold. Historically, the ore bodies constitute less than 3% of the Homestake iron Formation within the mine area.

**20.2** **Wharf Mine** 

The Wharf mine is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coeur Mining Inc. and is an active producing gold/silver heap leach operation located approximately 2 miles south of the Richmond Hill Project (the centroid for the Wharf Project is 44°20'03"N Latitude, 103°50'06"W Longitude and the centroid for the Richmond Hill Project is 44°52'28"N Latitude, 103°23'35"W Longitude).

The Wharf mine property consists of 771 patented lode claims, government lots, etc. and 93 unpatented Federal mining claims for a total of 5,149 surface acres and 9,308 mineral acres. The mineral acres are a complex mix of rights to extract minerals in all rock types and severed minerals where mineralization in the Precambrian basement rocks is excluded. Royalties, NSR's and advanced royalty payments encumber most of the mineral estate on both reserves in and outside the current life of mine plans (Coeur Mining Inc., 2021).

Gold mineralization was discovered in the Wharf area in 1877 with underground production commencing in 1901. Modern exploration in the area was initiated in the 1970's with commercial production starting at what is considered the Wharf mine in late 1983. Coeur acquired the Wharf mine from GoldCorp in 2015. As of the end of 2023, Wharf is estimated to have produced 3,114,375 million ounces of gold at a recovered grade of 0.0298 oz/ton and a strip ratio of 2.177 (Dakota Gold Corp, 2025).

In July of 2023, Wharf was granted approval for the Boston Expansion, a continuation of the open pit, truck and front-end loader operations existing at the mine. The total production from this expansion is estimated to be an additional 6,694,000 tons of ore and an estimated 7-year mine life with operations ending in 2030 (Wharf Resources Inc., 2023).

On December 31, 2024, Coeur Mining Inc. reported the following mineral reserve and mineral resource numbers for the Wharf mine Property (Coeur, 2025):

Total Proven/Probably reserves = 29,556,000 tons @ 0.026 oz/ton containing 757,000 oz

Total Measured and Indicated resources = 59,335,000 tons @ 0.017 oz/ton containing 1,019,000 oz

Total Inferred resources = 26,735,000 tons @ 0.018 oz/ton containing 470,000 oz

Total 2024 production = 98,042 ounces of gold.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>261 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The QP for this report section has been unable to verify the mineral reserves and mineral resources and they are not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the property that is the subject of this technical report summary.

Wharf is described as a Tertiary age, epithermal gold deposit with structurally controlled and disseminated gold mineralization hosted in Tertiary age sills and dikes, overlying Paleozoic sedimentary rock units, and rarely metamorphosed pre-Cambrian basement rocks. There are many geologic and mineralogic similarities between parts of Richmond Hill and the Wharf mine, particular in minerology, structural controls and host rocks. The biggest difference is that the historical Richmond Hill deposit and the southern portions of the Dakota Golds resources are dominantly hosted and controlled by breccia pipes and structural bodies within the pre-Cambrian basement rocks. This may be partly due to level of exposure into the basement between the two deposits.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>262 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **21** | **OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION** |

---

Information provided in this chapter does not pertain directly to the Richmond Hill Gold Project; rather, the items discussed may add benefit to the Project should positive exploration results lead to a potential mining scenario.

**21.1** **Homestake Mine Facilities** 

In addition to the Option for Richmond Hill, Dakota Gold also holds a separate option with Barrick that includes exclusive access to 145 years of Homestake exploration records throughout South Dakota, Homestake mine data, and surface rights to 4,261 acres and contained facilities from the historical Homestake mine site.

As the Homestake property was previously disturbed by mining, Dakota Gold believes that a potential exists for Dakota Gold to repurpose this remaining infrastructure for future operations, potentially including the Richmond Hill Project.

**21.2** **Sanford Underground Research Facility** 

At the 4850 level of the former Homestake mine, the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) houses world-leading physics experiments with an aim of achieving a better understanding of the universe. SURF provides sufficient depth and rock stability for experiments that need to escape the constant bombardment of cosmic radiation, which can interfere with the detection of rare physics events. The facility also hosts experiments in biology, geology, and engineering.

SURF maintains underground dewatering to the 4850 level of the mine. Should future underground gold mining be contemplated proximal to SURF Project, certain synergies exist that may provide benefit to both Dakota Gold and SURF with regard to water treatment and the reuse of water pumped from the SURF underground facilities.

**21.3** **Mining Methods – M+I Scenario** 

Sections 13 provided details as to the methods used to create the Initial Assessment Measured, Indicated and Inferred (MI+I) mining case. This section discusses the Measured and Indicated (M+I) mining case, using the same planning methodologies, economic and design parameters, general site layout, and other general assumptions as the MI&I mining case, with the exception of the following:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Only Measured and Indicated resources were considered
for pit optimization, mine design, and material routing.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Updated pit designs were created based on Measured
and Indicated resource pit optimizations

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· An updated schedule was run which utilized the
same equipment types, but with different equipment and personnel requirements

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Operational and Closure rehandle requirements
were modified accordingly

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· As a result of only mining M+I resources, the
strip ratio increases from 0.44 to 0.66

**21.4** **Production Schedule** 

As was the case for the MI+I case, the production scheduling was completed using MineSched software (Version 2024). The production was primarily driven by targeting 10,950 k tons per day to the leach pad.

The resulting production schedule delivers 2,070 ktons of material to the pad in the first year and 10,950 ktons/year thereafter. Processing is assumed to start in Q4 of Year -1.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>263 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 21-1: Production Schedule**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
|  | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Total** |
| Pit to Crush StkPl | K Tons | 1448 | 2784 | 4127 | 3932 | 3167 | 3999 | 18713 | 15844 | 4719 |  | 58736 |
|  | Oz Au/ton | 0.017 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.008 |  | 0.008 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 24 | 20 | 29 | 27 | 22 | 29 | 137 | 122 | 37 |  | 445 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.571 | 0.104 | 0.108 | 0.095 | 0.099 | 0.093 | 0.084 | 0.059 | 0.093 |  | 0.095 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 826 | 290 | 444 | 373 | 315 | 373 | 1574 | 930 | 439 |  | 5565 |
| Pit to Crush | K Tons | 1998 | 7518 | 7320 | 7048 | 7744 | 6231 | 36670 | 39400 | 12827 |  | 126757 |
|  | Oz Au/ton | 0.023 | 0.019 | 0.020 | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 0.023 | 0.024 |  | 0.021 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 46 | 142 | 144 | 141 | 143 | 112 | 695 | 894 | 302 |  | 2618 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.827 | 0.400 | 0.343 | 0.225 | 0.204 | 0.221 | 0.178 | 0.116 | 0.183 |  | 0.198 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 1653 | 3009 | 2509 | 1589 | 1582 | 1379 | 6531 | 4554 | 2346 | - | 25151 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 3446 | 10303 | 11447 | 10980 | 10912 | 10231 | 55383 | 55245 | 17547 | - | 185493 |
| Above COG | Oz Au/ton | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.018 | 0.019 |  | 0.017 |
|  | K Ozs Au | 70 | 161 | 172 | 168 | 165 | 140 | 832 | 1015 | 339 |  | 3063 |
|  | Oz Ag/ton | 0.720 | 0.320 | 0.258 | 0.179 | 0.174 | 0.171 | 0.146 | 0.099 | 0.159 |  | 0.166 |
|  | K Ozs Ag | 2479 | 3299 | 2953 | 1962 | 1896 | 1752 | 8105 | 5485 | 2785 |  | 30716 |
| Waste Mined | K Tons | 2157 | 8103 | 7613 | 10391 | 7585 | 6764 | 36569 | 38487 | 5663 | - | 123332 |
| Total Mined | K Tons | 5603 | 18406 | 19061 | 21371 | 18496 | 16995 | 91953 | 93732 | 23210 | - | 308825 |
| Strip Ratio | K Tons | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.95 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.32 |  | 0.66 |
| Operation Rehandle | K Tons |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3893 | 50887 |  | 54780 |
| Closure Rehandle | K Tons |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3863 | 20100 | 23963 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>264 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**21.5** **Equipment Requirements** 

As in the M+I case, Mining is planned to be done using 150-ton capacity haul trucks and a 29-yard hydraulic shovel capable of loading haul trucks in three passes, with support from a 30-yard front-end-loader. Additional primary mining equipment is required for drilling and blasting, and supplemental equipment will be needed to support primary mining equipment. This equipment will be leased by the operator. It is anticipated that the project will require the following equipment during peak operations:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two blasthole drills for waste and processed
material;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 29 cubic yard hydraulic shovel run concurrently
with one 30-cubic yard wheel loader during production mining;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 12 150-ton haul trucks are required at
peak production for hauling of material;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 20,000-gallon water trucks are required throughout
the mine life for dust suppression;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 600-HP dozers are required as support equipment
for general road, pit, and stockpile maintenance;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Two 18ft motor graders are required during peak
mining to provide road maintenance;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A single truck and lowboy are required for movement
of various support equipment throughout the project;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 130-ton crane, to aid in maintenance of equipment
fleet and infrastructure;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· One 4-7 cubic yard backhoe will be required for
various utility work throughout the mine life;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Three 1,450 gallon per minute portable pit pumps
for surface water dewatering: and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Four light plants.

Table 21-2 presents the annual equipment requirements by equipment type.

**Table 21-2: Yearly Equipment Requirements**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Equipment** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Max** |
| Production Drill | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 30-yrd Loader | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 29-yrd Hyd. Shovel | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 150-ton Haul Trucks | # | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 12 |
| 600 HP Dozer (D10) | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 680 HP RTD (844) | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18' Motor Grader (D18) | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Water Truck - 20,000 Gallon | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Truck and Lowboy | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4.7-7.3 cu yd backhoe | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Pit Pumps (1,450 gpm) | # | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 132-ton Crane | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Explosives Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Skid Loader | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lube/Fuel Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mechanics Truck | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tire Truck | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Flatbed | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Light Plant | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

---

**21.6** **Mine Personnel** 

Mining personnel will be hired by the company, starting in preproduction. After the initial ramp-up, up to 158 employees will be required during peak production years.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>265 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

The peak personnel requirements per department during production years is as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· A maximum of 19 Mining General Personnel will
be required, including a Mine Manager, Mine Superintendent, Mine Foremen, and assorted technical services.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 89 operators will be required, including
Blasting Crews and Equipment Operators.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 35 mechanics will be required.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Up to 15 assorted maintenance personnel have
been estimated, including a Maintenance Planner, Maintenance.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· The project is expected to operate for 24 hours
per day and 7 days per week. Two crews are expected to work each day, with a total of four crews required.

Mine personnel by year is shown in Table 21-3.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>266 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 21-3: Mining Personnel by Time Period**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mining General Personnel** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Max** |
| Mine Manager | # |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Mine Superintendent | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| Mine Foreman | # | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| Mine Trainer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| Chief Mine Engineer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
| Mine Engineer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |  | 2 |
| Geotech Engineer | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
| Surveyor | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Ore Control Geologist | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |
| Dispatchers | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  | 4 |
| Mine Business Assistant | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 |
| Total Mine General | # | 17 | 17 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 15 | 15 | 2 | 19 |
| **Mine Operations Hourly Personnel Operators** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Blasters | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  | 2 |
| Blaster's Helpers | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  | 2 |
| Drill Operators | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |  | 8 |
| Loader Operators | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 |
| Haul Truck Operators | # | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 44 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 16 | 64 |
| Support Equipment Operators | # | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 19 |
| General Mine Labors | # | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Total Operators | # | 75 | 75 | 75 | 77 | 77 | 85 | 89 | 89 | 89 | 38 | 89 |
| **Mechanics** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mechanics - Drilling | # | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  | 4 |
| Mechanics - Loading | # | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| Mechanics - Haulage | # | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 6 | 26 |
| Mechanics - Support | # | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 |
| Total Mechanics | # | 29 | 29 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 34 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 15 | 35 |
| **Maintenance** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Maintenance Superintendent | # |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| Maintenance Foreman | # | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |  | 4 |
| Maintenance Planners | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Light Vehicle Mechanic | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Welder | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Servicemen | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Tireman | # | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Maintenance Labor | # | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | 4 |
| Total Maintenance | # | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 15 |
| Total Personnel - Mining Personnel | # | 133 | 133 | 133 | 138 | 138 | 153 | 158 | 154 | 154 | 62 | 158 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>267 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**21.7** **Operating Costs** 

Assumptions and methodologies for determining operating costs are the same as those used for the MI+I plan. For further detail refer to Section 18.

Mining costs per year are shown in Table 21-4. Total costs and unit costs are lower than those in the MI&I case, mostly due to the reduced Operational and Closure Rehandle requirements.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>268 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**Table 21-4: Mine Operations Cost Summary**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mine Op Cost Summary** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Total** |
| Mine General Service | K USD | $1076 | $2011 | $2011 | $2011 | $2011 | $2011 | $10055 | $10055 | $4140 | $347 | $35728 |
| Mine Maintenance | K USD | $2204 | $3568 | $3568 | $3573 | $3568 | $3665 | $19427 | $19787 | $16270 | $5492 | $81122 |
| Engineering | K USD | $572 | $793 | $793 | $849 | $821 | $849 | $2472 | $1853 | $1203 | $317 | $10522 |
| Geology | K USD | $107 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $184 | $919 | $919 | $337 | $- | $3203 |
| Drilling | K USD | $1018 | $3066 | $3132 | $3365 | $3075 | $2923 | $15320 | $15499 | $3802 | $- | $51199 |
| Blasting | K USD | $2282 | $5793 | $5933 | $6427 | $5813 | $5492 | $28951 | $29331 | $8369 | $- | $98393 |
| Loading | K USD | $1945 | $6330 | $5625 | $6531 | $5974 | $5887 | $29154 | $31671 | $26634 | $6991 | $126741 |
| Hauling | K USD | $6093 | $18434 | $18069 | $15967 | $16672 | $19109 | $102682 | $131856 | $76917 | $17471 | $423271 |
| Mine Support | K USD | $4196 | $8296 | $8296 | $8308 | $8296 | $8296 | $41284 | $41504 | $37214 | $14354 | $180045 |
| Total Mining Cost | K USD | $19494 | $48475 | $47611 | $47215 | $46413 | $48417 | $250265 | $282477 | $174886 | $44971 | $1010224 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | K USD | $1006 | $3803 | $3042 | $2221 | $1336 | $408 | $1046 | $- | $- | $- | $12861 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | K USD | $20500 | $52278 | $50653 | $49436 | $47749 | $48825 | $251311 | $282477 | $174886 | $44971 | $1023085 |
| **Cost per Ton** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Mine General Service | $/ton | $0.20 | $0.11 | $0.12 | $0.12 | $0.11 | $0.11 | $0.13 | $0.13 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $0.12 |
| Mine Maintenance | $/ton | $0.40 | $0.19 | $0.22 | $0.20 | $0.19 | $0.21 | $0.24 | $0.26 | $0.20 | $0.08 | $0.26 |
| Engineering | $/ton | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.03 |
| Geology | $/ton | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $- | $0.01 |
| Drilling | $/ton | $0.19 | $0.16 | $0.19 | $0.19 | $0.16 | $0.17 | $0.19 | $0.21 | $0.05 | $- | $0.17 |
| Blasting | $/ton | $0.42 | $0.31 | $0.36 | $0.37 | $0.31 | $0.31 | $0.36 | $0.39 | $0.10 | $- | $0.32 |
| Loading | $/ton | $0.36 | $0.34 | $0.34 | $0.37 | $0.32 | $0.33 | $0.36 | $0.42 | $0.32 | $0.10 | $0.41 |
| Hauling | $/ton | $1.12 | $0.99 | $1.09 | $0.92 | $0.89 | $1.08 | $1.28 | $1.75 | $0.93 | $0.24 | $1.37 |
| Mine Support | $/ton | $0.77 | $0.44 | $0.50 | $0.48 | $0.44 | $0.47 | $0.51 | $0.55 | $0.45 | $0.20 | $0.58 |
| Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $3.58 | $2.60 | $2.88 | $2.71 | $2.47 | $2.75 | $3.12 | $3.75 | $2.10 | $0.63 | $3.27 |
| Leased Equipment Interest | $/ton | $0.18 | $0.20 | $0.18 | $0.13 | $0.07 | $0.02 | $0.01 | $- | $- | $- | $0.04 |
| Net Total Mining Cost | $/ton | $3.76 | $2.80 | $3.06 | $2.83 | $2.54 | $2.77 | $3.13 | $3.75 | $2.10 | $0.63 | $3.31 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>269 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**21.8** **Capital Costs** 

Capital cost assumptions match those discussed in Section 18.19. Updates in Table 21-5 reflect changes in equipment requirements based on the M+I production schedule.

**Table 21-5: Capital Purchases by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Primary Mining Equipment** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Yr 26-30** | **Total** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Production Drill - CAT MD6250 | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;CAT 995 30-yrd Loader | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cat6040 - 22 cu m Hyd. Shovel | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cat 785 150-ton Haul Trucks | # | 9 |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 |  |  |  |  | 12 |
| **Support Equipment** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;600 HP Dozer (D10) | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;680 HP RTD (844) | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;18' Motor Grader (D18) | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Truck - 20,000 Gallon | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Truck and Lowboy | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;4.7-7.3 cu yd backhoe | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Pit Pumps (1450 gpm) | # | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;132-ton Crane | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Flatbed | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Blasting** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Skid Loader | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Mine Maintenance** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Lube/Fuel Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mechanics Truck | # | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Tire Truck | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| **Other Mine Capital** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Light Plant | # | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Explosives Storage Site Prep | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;ANFO Storage Bins | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Powder Magazines | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Cap Magazine | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Mobile Radios | # | 34 |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 38 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Shop Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Engineering & Office Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Water Storage (Dust Suppression) | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Base Radio & GPS Stations | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Unspecified Miscellaneous Equip. | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Dispatch | # |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Shop Building | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Ambulance & Fire Equipment | # | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;Critical Spares | # | 631 | 405 |  |  | 230 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1266 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>270 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Table 21-6 represents total capital costs by year. As in the M+I case, pre-production is shown as an operating cost.

**Table 21-6: Capital Costs by Year**

---

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Mine Op Capital Summary** | **Units** | **Yr -1** | **Yr 1** | **Yr 2** | **Yr 3** | **Yr 4** | **Yr 5** | **Yr 6-10** | **Yr 11-15** | **Yr 16-20** | **Yr 21-25** | **Total** |
| Primary Equipment | K USD | $10469 | $6473 | $6981 | $7529 | $8120 | $8335 | $8007 | $6903 | $- | $- | $62817 |
| Support Equipment | K USD | $7495 | $3221 | $3474 | $3747 | $4041 | $2731 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $24710 |
| Blasting Equipment | K USD | $107 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $107 |
| Mine Maintenance Equip. | K USD | $2166 | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $- | $2166 |
| Other Mine Capital | K USD | $8691 | $1239 | $- | $- | $230 | $3 | $2 | $127 | $- | $- | $10291 |
| Total Mine Capital | K USD | $28928 | $10933 | $10455 | $11276 | $12391 | $11070 | $8009 | $7030 | $- | $- | $100091 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>271 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **22** | **Interpretation and Conclusions** |

---

This Initial Assessment with cash flow builds upon the Initial Assessment published in February of 2025. Based on additional drilling, validation of geological interpretations, metallurgical reviews, and inclusion of heap leach methodology for the oxide and transition materials, the resource is a substantial upgrade from the maiden resource, however, unchanged from the Initial Assessment resource published in February of 2025. This heap leachable resource has the potential to be put into production quickly and at relatively low cost. There is also opportunity for expansion of the leachable resource and development of the sulfide resource.

Major factors contributing to the change in the maiden resource, which were identified in the February 2025 update, but referenced herewith include:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional drilling and analysis have eliminated
the need for the conservative assumptions in the October 2023 model regarding hard geologic boundaries and the requirement for two
holes for a block grade estimation. Based on this additional data and analysis, the QP has added blocks to the resource model that were
not evaluated in the October 2023 model;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Infill drilling added significant ounces to the
interior portion of the resource where adequate drill hole density was previously lacking and large gaps were found in the previous resource;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Step-out drilling extended the resource and added
significant ounces – in particular to the northeastern portion of the Project;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional metallurgical testwork was completed
resulting in refinement of geometallurgical domains;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· This additional metallurgical work allowed for
evaluation of alternative process methods - notably, heap leach of oxide and appropriate transition zones resulted in significant increases
in recovery and reduction in cutoff grades for these materials; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Silver was included in the updated resource.

**22.1** **Mineral Resources** 

This study has defined a measured and indicated mineral resource of 269.8 million tons at 0.0135 oz/t gold and 0.141 oz/t silver that is oxide and transition material amenable to crushing and heap leaching. This amounts to 3.65 million ounces of contained gold and 38.1 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resources amenable to heap leaching are an additional 254.2 million tons at 0.0103 oz/t gold and 0.090 oz/t silver for 2.61 million ounces of contained gold and 22.8 million ounces of contained silver.

In addition, a measured and indicated mineral resource of 69.6 million tons at 0.0141 oz/t gold and 0.139 oz/t silver that is sulfide material amenable to milling has been identified. This amounts to 982,100 ounces of contained gold and 9.68 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resources amenable to milling are an additional 202.2 million tons at 0.0121 oz/t gold and 0.145 oz/t silver amounting to 2.45 million ounces of contained gold and 29.3 million ounces of contained silver.

**Table 22-1: Mineral Resource**

---

| | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Resource Category** | **AuEq COG**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Ktons** | **AuEq**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Gold**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Silver**<br> **(oz/t)** | **Gold**<br> **(koz)** | **Silver**<br> **(koz)** |
| **Leach Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Measured Mineral Resource** |  | **113748** | **0.0164** | **0.0158** | **0.160** | **1793.4** | **18208** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 94537 | 0.0165 | 0.0158 | 0.167 | 1493.7 | 15788 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 19211 | 0.0161 | 0.0156 | 0.126 | 299.7 | 2421 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Indicated Mineral Resource** |  | **156019** | **0.0125** | **0.0119** | **0.128** | **1860.0** | **19884** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 127237 | 0.0122 | 0.0117 | 0.128 | 1488.7 | 16286 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 28783 | 0.0134 | 0.0129 | 0.125 | 371.3 | 3598 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **269768** | **0.0141** | **0.0135** | **0.141** | **3653.3** | **38092** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 221774 | 0.0140 | 0.0134 | 0.145 | 2982.4 | 32074 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 47994 | 0.0145 | 0.0140 | 0.125 | 671.0 | 6018 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Inferred Mineral Resource** |  | **254186** | **0.0106** | **0.0103** | **0.090** | **2613.4** | **22787** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oxide | 0.0026 | 211994 | 0.0101 | 0.0098 | 0.085 | 2077.5 | 18019 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Transition | 0.0041 | 42192 | 0.0131 | 0.0127 | 0.113 | 535.8 | 4768 |
| **Mill Resource (Sulfides):** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 20703 | 0.0184 | 0.0165 | 0.151 | 341.6 | 3126 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 48893 | 0.0147 | 0.0131 | 0.134 | 640.5 | 6552 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** | **0.0050** | **69596** | **0.0158** | **0.0141** | **0.139** | **982.1** | **9678** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource | 0.0050 | 202221 | 0.0139 | 0.0121 | 0.145 | 2446.9 | 29322 |
| **Leach and Mill Mineral Resource:** |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Measured Mineral Resource |  | 134452 | 0.0167 | 0.0159 | 0.159 | 2135.0 | 21334 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indicated Mineral Resource |  | 204912 | 0.0130 | 0.0122 | 0.129 | 2500.5 | 26436 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Meas/Indic Mineral Resource** |  | **339364** | **0.0145** | **0.0137** | **0.141** | **4635.4** | **47770** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Inferred Mineral Resource |  | 456407 | 0.0121 | 0.0111 | 0.114 | 5060.3 | 52109 |

---

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>272 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

There is a significant upside to the current mineral resource estimate. Several targets for additional drilling have been identified.

The main risks to the mineral resource estimate are the normal risks that all mining projects face including changes to metal prices, changes to government regulations, social risks, uncertainty in mineral resource and recovery estimates, permitting risks, financing risks, and costs higher than forecast. There is no guarantee that any of the mineral resources will be converted to mineral reserve. There is also no guarantee that any of the inferred mineral resources will be upgraded to measured or indicated mineral resources or to mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

**22.2** **Processing** 

Metallurgical test work has shown that the Richmond Hill oxide material is amenable to cyanidation heap leach processing. Owing to the relatively high silver to gold ratio of the deposit, Merrill-Crowe processing of the precious metal process solution is recommended for evaluation.

Low sulfide transition material is likely amenable to heap leach processing, but at lower recoveries and higher reagent consumptions. Additional testing of the transition material is required to determine the cut-over grade between heap leach and flotation processing and develop an ore control method to use during production. There may also be environmental concerns that should be taken into consideration.

Metallurgical testing of the sulfide material at Richmond Hill shows that it is amenable to froth flotation using bulk sulfide flotation methods resulting in a precious metal rich sulfide concentrate suitable for sale or off-site processing. It is recommended that additional test work be conducted on the flotation products. Cyanide leach testing of the flotation tailings would improve overall recovery for the sulfide material and may be an option for high sulfide content transition material. Also, bio-oxidation of the flotation concentrates may be beneficial as all processing would be on-site and result in producing a doré product for direct sale.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>273 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**22.3** **MINERAL TENURE** 

Dakota Gold's property tenure is based on the Option agreement to acquire the Homestake/LAC interests in the Richmond Hill Project area, with the mineral tenure primarily held in the names of LAC and Homestake (see discussion in 3.3 and 3.4). Unless further extended, Dakota Gold has until December 31, 2028 to exercise the Option. By assuming all property liabilities and bonds upon exercise of the Option, Dakota Gold will acquire the responsibility and liability to maintain the Richmond Hill mine post-closure requirements.

**22.4** **Summary Conclusion** 

In summary, the resource has been substantially upgraded from the maiden resource described in the 2024 Initial Assessment. The additional drilling and analysis during the ensuing period has resulted in a more robust resource and provides Dakota Gold with the conviction that the heap leachable resource can be advanced into production.

The next step is to complete a feasibility study, which the authors of this technical report expect will illustrate that the Project is economically sound and that the Project can be advanced to a construction decision and ultimately production.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>274 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **23** | **Recommendations** |

---

The following are recommendations for the next stages of work to advance the Project:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Advance the Project to a Feasibility Study that
includes an economic analysis.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional metallurgical testwork and process
design.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional drilling to infill the current mineral
resource and test additional prospective areas. This will also improve definition of geological domains and provide material for metallurgical
testing.

Continue advancement of baseline environmental data collection and planned permit engineering analyses to support initiation of Project permitting. Table 23-1 summarizes the budget cost for these items. More details for each item are provided below.

**Table 23-1: Budget for Recommended Work**

---

| | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Item** | **2025** | **2026** | **2027** | **Total** |
| 1. Program to Feasibility Study | $1000000 | $2000000 | $1000000 | $4000000 |
| 2. Program For Feasibility Study Metallurgy and Environmental |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase I, Flowsheet Confirmation | $1200000 | $1200000 |  | $2400000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase II, Spatial Variability Testing |  | $450000 | $450000 | $900000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program Phase III, Payback Period Annual Composites |  | $270000 | $270000 | $540000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgy Program: ROM Heap Leach |  | $250000 |  | $250000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Monitoring Wells | $1650000 |  |  | $1650000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Geochemistry | $150000 | $150000 | $150000 | $450000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Samples/Analytics | $930000 | $730000 |  | $1660000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Environmental Studies/Modeling/Other | $513240 | $973225 | $190000 | $1676465 |
| 3. Drilling Program |  |  |  |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Metallurgical | $864500 | $532000 |  | $1396500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Condemnation | $2660000 | $3391500 |  | $6051500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Infill | $4721500 | $7049000 |  | $11770500 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Geotech |  | $2660000 |  | $2660000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;- Exploration | - | $1330000 | - | $1330000 |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;**Total** | $**13689240** | $**20985725** | $**2060000** | $**36734965** |

---

**23.1** **Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis** 

Based on the current oxide resource and potential for heap leach processing of a portion of the transition material, it is recommended the company engage appropriate contractors to undertake the necessary engineering, drilling, and metallurgical studies to complete a Feasibility Study.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>275 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**23.2** **Metallurgical Testing and Process Design** 

Oxide heap leaching is recommended for the Oxide and the Heap Leach amenable Transition material. Additional metallurgical test work is required to update the Oxide and Transition material metallurgical performance and design criteria to advance the Project to feasibility.

Four metallurgical test work programs are recommended to improve understanding of the geometallurgical domains, associated metallurgical performance, identify and mitigate any metallurgical or process related risks and to better define the process flowsheet. Recommended metallurgical testing is laid out in three phases as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Phase I: Flowsheet confirmation and geometallurgical
domain response. This program will begin Q3 of 2025.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Phase II: Spatial Variability: Determine metallurgical
response using baseline testing methods to further define the geometallurgical model.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Phase III: Annual Production Composites: These
generally reflect the capital payback period minimizing risk and improving production forecasting.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· Additional Testing; ROM heap leach testing: Determine
ROM production and possible cutover grade for processing low grade oxide via heap leaching rather than reporting to waste.

**23.3** **Additional Drilling** 

Drilling to date has not defined the limits of mineralization and is required to improve the geology model and improve understanding of the sites geochemistry. Additional metallurgical drilling is recommended to continue to improve the geologic model and heap leach recoveries through metallurgical variability testwork. Condemnation drilling is recommended to further define limits of the resource and confirm facility locations. Additional infill drilling as well as step out drilling to test prospective areas for potential mineralization is recommended. A geotechnical drilling program is recommended to improve the structural geology model and optimize the pit highwall designs as well as facility and construction requirements. Additional exploration drilling should be considered in areas that have been deemed as high potential for mineralization with minimal drilling. The generalized areas for this drilling are shown in Figure 23-1. If successful, this drilling program will expand the extent of known mineralization and identify areas that warrant additional exploration, including additional breccia bodies and Tertiary replacement mineralization that remain undiscovered beneath the Paleozoic and Tertiary cover in the Carbonate Camp and Chism Gulch area of the Property.

**<u>Metallurgical Drilling</u>**: Intent to gather samples for metallurgical test work (primarily column test) to improve understanding of heap leach recovery. There are five initial target areas for metallurgical drilling in 2025 and 2026, these include: MW3 East, MW3 Main, Cole Creek, Chism Gulch, and Twin Tunnels. Metallurgical drilling in Q3 and Q4 of 2025 is projected at approximately 6,500 ft at a direct drill cost of $0.86M and in 2026 proposed drilling is at 4,000 ft and a direct drill cost of $0.53M.

**<u>Condemnation Drilling</u>**: Intent to target the boundaries of the resource shell and areas designated as potential sites for infrastructure and/or facilities including crushing and heap leach pad sites. Drilling in Q3 and Q4 of 2025 is projected at approximately 20,000 ft at a direct drill cost of $2.66M and in 2026 proposed drilling is at 25,500 ft and a direct drill cost of $3.39M.

**<u>Infill Drilling</u>**: Intent is to target the inferred portion of the resource where additional drilling is likely to convert the resource to measured or indicated. Infill drilling will also help to refine the geology model as well as the metallurgical model. Drilling in Q3 and Q4 of 2025 is projected at approximately 35,500 ft at a direct drill cost of $4.72M and in 2026 proposed drilling is at 53,000 ft and a direct drill cost of $7.05M.

**<u>Geotechnical program</u>**: It is estimated that up to 20,000 ft of geotechnical drilling targeting future highwall locations as well as targeted infrastructure locations will be required in 2026 at a direct drill cost of $2.66M.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>276 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**<u>Exploration program</u>**: Intent is to target the northern end of the property as well as the southeastern region of the property in areas that have not yet been adequately drilled and are currently considered to be good targets for additional resource. Drilling in 2026 is projected at approximately 10,000 ft at a direct drill cost of $1.33M. Potential additional drilling in 2027 will be evaluated in 2026.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>277 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1sp17img01.jpg)

**Figure 23-1: Recommended Richmond Hill 2024 Diamond Drill-Hole Locations**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>278 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

**23.4** **Permitting and Environmental Data Collection** 

It is recommended that baseline data assessments that have begun for site meteorological conditions, potential cultural resources, and wildlife surveys continue, as well as the planned implantation of a background total particulate monitoring station, new ground water well installation program and baseline water quality monitoring program be initiated as planned and scheduled. It is also recommended that the additional permit engineering studies that have been identified for permit engineering that have been planned for vegetation, soils and wetlands surveys, as well as analyses for site-wide water management, potential production blasting, visual, noise and socioeconomics impacts of the project to support permit engineering move forward in support of planned permitting pf the project. The preliminary cost estimates for closure and post-closure management of Richmond Hill should also be developed as planned for inclusion in an economic cash flow analysis for the Project.

**23.5** **Geotechnical Surveys and Evaluation** 

In order to sufficiently characterize the rock mass conditions, additional data regarding intact rock strength, discontinuity spacing, and discontinuity condition must be collected. The additional data collected through core logging will be used to determine the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of each lithology and is expected to be used in any subsequent slope stability modeling. Select samples of each lithology will need to be subjected to laboratory strength testing to determine the material's compressive strengths and discontinuity shear strength. Laboratory testing will also help define the unit weights, moisture content, and elastic properties of each lithology. In addition, A thorough subsurface investigation will be completed in the area of surface facilities including process facilities and leach pads.

**23.6** **Engineering Studies to Feasibility Level** 

Based on the findings of the initial assessment study, the authors are of the opinion that the Richmond Hill property represents a project of significant merit. The results indicate sufficient potential to justify proceeding with the proposed exploration and development program, along with the associated level of expenditures previously outlined. This program should specifically target the gold-bearing zones within the Richmond Hill portion of the property, which have shown favorable indications of economic viability.

To progress the project toward a feasibility-level study, the authors recommend the implementation of a comprehensive and strategically phased program. The recommended scope of work includes, but is not limited to, advanced exploration activities, environmental and regulatory permitting processes, metallurgical testing and analysis, engineering design, and preliminary development planning. The objective of this multi-disciplinary approach is to further delineate the resource, assess technical and economic parameters, and address the critical components required to support a future decision on project development and potential production.

The authors believe that this next phase of work is both justified and necessary, given the encouraging results of the initial assessment and the prospective nature of the Richmond Hill property.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>279 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **24** | **References** |

---

AKF Mining Services, April 30, 2024. S-K 1300 Initial Assessment and Technical Report Summary – Richmond Hill Gold Project, South Dakota, U.S.A.

Ballert, T. 2024. Methodology used to create custom projections for Homestake and Richmond Hill Grids (E.S.R.I. format). Memorandum from Ponderosa Land Surveys, LLC.

Berry, J. 2023a. Section 7 Dakota Gold Corp. Exploration and Drilling at Richmond Hill. Dakota Gold employee email correspondence November 20, 2023.

Berry, J. 2023b. Section 7 Dakota Gold Corp Exploration and Drilling at Richmond Hill. Dakota Gold employee email correspondence, December 19, 2023.

Caddey, S.W., Bachman, R.L., Campbell, T.J., Reid, R.R., and Otto, R.P., 1991. The Homestake Gold Mine, An Early Proterozoic Iron-Formation-Hosted Gold Deposit, Lawrence County, South Dakota. In Geology and Resources of Gold in the United States, edited by Daniel R. Shawe, Roger P. Ash-ley, and Lorna M.H. Carter, J1–J67. Geological Survey Bulletin 1857. Denver, CO: United States Geological Survey. Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/b1857.

Carter, J.M., Daniel G. Driscoll, and Joyce E. Williamson. 2002. The Black Hills Hydrology Study. USGS Fact Sheet FS-046-02. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available at <u>https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs04602/pdf/fs04602.pdf</u>.

Chasten, L. E., 2009, Electron microprobe (ultrachron) geochronology of monazite from the Homestake Iron Formation, Lead, the Black Hills, South Dakota, U.S.A, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, M. S. thesis.

Coeur Mining Inc., 2021. Wharf Operations, South Dakota, Technical Report Summary. December 31, 2021.

Coeur Mining Inc. 2022, February 16. Wharf Operations, South Dakota, Technical Report Summary. Form 10-K Mineral Property Disclosure Exhibit Current to December 31, 2021.

Coeur Mining Inc., 2024, Annual Report: Form 10-K Annual Report. December 31, 2024.

Coeur Mining Inc., 2025, Annual Report 2024, Form 10-K, February 19, 2025.

Connolly, J.P., 1927, The Tertiary mineralization of the northern Black Hills: South Dakota School of Mines Bull. 15, 130 p.

Dahl, P.S., Terry, M.P., Jercinovic, M.J., Williams, M.L., Hamilton, M.A., Foland, K.A., Clement, S.M., and Friberg, L.M., 2005b, Electron probe (Ultrachron) microchronometry of metamorphic monazite: Unraveling the timing of polyphase deformation in the eastern Wyoming craton (Black Hills, South Dakota): American Mineralogist, v. 90, p.1712–1728.

Dahl, P.S., Hamilton, M.A., Jercinovic, M.J., Terry, M.P., Williams, M.L., and Frei, R., 2005a, Comparative isotopic and chemical geochronometry of monazite, with implications for U-Th-Pb dating by electron microprobe: An example from metamorphic rocks of the eastern Wyoming craton (U.S.A.): American Mineralogist, v. 90, p. 619–638

Dakota Gold Corp, 2023a. Core Logging Manual, Internal company document, November 29, 2023.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>280 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Dakota Gold Corp, 2023b. Blind Gold Project. Available at https://dakotagoldcorp.com/portfolio/explore-our-gold-properties/blind-gold-property/. Accessed December 13, 2023.

Dakota Gold Corp, 2023c. Maitland Gold Project. Available at https://dakotagoldcorp.com/portfolio/explore-our-gold-properties/maitland-property/. Accessed December 13, 2023.

Dakota Gold Corp, 2023d. Richmond Hill Gold Project. Available at https://dakotagoldcorp.com/portfolio/explore-our-gold-properties/richmond-hill/. Accessed November 18, 2023.

Dakota Gold Corp, 2023e. West Corridor Gold Project. Available at https://dakotagoldcorp.com/portfolio/explore-our-gold-properties/west-corridor-property/. Ac-cessed December 13, 2023.

Dakota Gold Corp, 2025. Wharf Production Records, Internal Dakota Gold Corp Compilation from Public Records, February 18, 2025.

Dakota Territory Resource Corp, 2022a. Notice of Intent to Conduct Mineral Exploration Operation (EXNI 440), notice received by South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources from DTRC on January 13, 2022.

Dakota Territory Resource Corp, 2022b. Notice of Intent to Conduct Mineral Exploration Operation (EXNI 444), notice received by South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources from DTRC on December 5, 2022.

Dakota Territory Resource Corp, 2023. Notice of Intent to Conduct Mineral Exploration Operation (EXNI 446), notice received by South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources from DTRC on January 27, 2023.

Additional DTRC notices for 2024 (see below) are available but they are not listed here at this time.

Driscoll, D.G., Carter, J.M., Williamson, J.E., and Putnam, L.D., 2002. Hydrology of the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4094, 150 p.

Duex, T., 1989. November 16. St. Joe Minerals Corporation Internal Memo. Unpublished internal memorandum.

Duex, T., 1990. 1990 Exploration Update. Unpublished Bond Gold Internal Memo to Mike Schwabe.

Duex, T. A., and M. R. Andersen, 1994. Reclamation at the Richmond Hill Mine Lawrence County, South Dakota, LAC Minerals (USA), Inc. Internal report.

Environmental Resources Management, 2015a. Postclosure Plan and Financial Assurance. Environmental Resources Management report presented to LAC Minerals (USA), LLC, on May 28, 2015.

Environmental Resources Management, 2015b. Updated Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance. Environmental Resources Management report presented to LAC Minerals (USA), LLC, on May 28, 2015.

Environmental Resources Management, 2015c. Petition for Release of Reclamation Obligations. Environ-mental Resources Management report presented to LAC Minerals (USA), LLC, on May 28, 2015.

Frei, R., Dahl, P. S., Frandsson, M. M., Jensen, L. A., Hansen, T. R., Terry, M. P., & Frei, K. M., (2009). Lead-isotope and trace-element geochemistry of Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks in the Lead and Rochford basins (Black Hills, South Dakota, USA): implications for genetic models, mineralization ages, and sources of ore leads for the Homestake gold deposit. Precambrian Research, 172(1-2), 1-24.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>281 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Geology of Wyoming, n.d. Devils Tower and Black Hills Regional Geology, Devils Tower & Northern Black Hills Eocene Alkaline Magmatic Province. Available at https://www.geowyo.com/devils-tower--black-hills.html. Accessed February 28, 2024.

Horton, J., 1989. Status Report on the Cleveland Project Area, Bond Gold internal memorandum from Jack Horton to Todd Duex, November 16, 1989.

Imam, Mozaffer, 1991. Factors affecting the yield of Madison wells in the Black Hills: Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, unpublished M.S. thesis, 96 p.

Irving, J.D., 1904, Economic resources of the Northern Black Hills: with contributions by Emmons, S.F., and Jagger, T.A., Jr.: U. S. Geological Survey Paper 26, 222p.

Klohn Leonoff Consulting Engineers, 1986. Hydrogeology of Ross Valley, prepared by Klohn Leonoff Consulting Engineers, Vancouver, Canada, for Wharf Resources, Lead, SD, United States.

LAC Minerals Limited, 1991. Summary Report—MW-3 Target Area—Lawrence County, South Dakota. Internal report.

LAC Minerals Limited, 1993. Cole Creek Target Area Summary Report. Internal report.

LAC Minerals Limited, 2023, August 22. Richmond Hill Mine Annual Report to the Lawrence County Com-mission Conditional Use Permit Nos. 116, 125, and 202.

Lisenbee, A.L., 1981, Studies of the Tertiary intrusions of the northern Black Hills Uplift, South Dakota and Wyoming, a historical review: Geol. Soc. America, Rocky Mountain Section, 1981, Ann. Mtg, Rapid City, Geology of the Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, Guidebook, American Geol. Inst., p. 106-125.

Lisenbee, A., Redden J.A., and Fahrenbach, M., 2020. Geologic Map of the Spearfish Quadrangle, South Dakota, 1:24,000 scale, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Geologic Survey.

Lufkin, J.L., Redden, J.A., Lisenbee, A.L., and Loomis, T.A., 2009. Guidebook to Geology of the Black Hills, South Dakota, Golden Publishers, Golden, CO.

National Weather Service, 2023. Black Hills Climate Overview. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Available at https://www.weather.gov/unr/bhco. Accessed November 18, 2023.

Nations Online Project, 2023. South Dakota Map. Available at https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/USA/South_Dakota_map.jpg. Accessed January 23, 2024.

Marinelli, F., and W.L. Niccoli, 2000. Simple Analytical Equations for Estimating Ground Water Inflow to a Mine Pit. Ground Water. Vol, 38, No.2. pp 311-314.

Mitchell, S. T., 2009, Nuggets To Neutrinos: The Homestake Story, Xlibris Corporation, p. 558.

Montgomery Consulting Engineers Inc., 1996. Groundwater Characterization Study of the Clinton Extension Project Area, prepared by J. M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., Boise, ID, for Wharf Resources, Lead, SD.

Morelli, R.M., Bell, C.C., Creaser, R.A., and Simonetti, A., 2010, Constraints on the genesis of gold mineralization at the Homestake Gold Deposit, Black Hills, South Dakota from rhenium-osmium sulfide geochronology, Mineralium Deposita, June, 2010, vol 45 p.461-480.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>282 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Paterson, C. J. 1988. WGA Field Guide Notes for Wyoming Geological Association 1988 Field Conference. Department of Geology and Geological Engineering. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

Paterson, C.J., Lisenbee, A.L., and Redden, J.A., 1988. Gold deposits in the Black Hills, South Dakota, in 39th Field Conference Guidebook, Eastern Powder River Basin—Black Hills, edited by Robin P. Dietrich, Mary Ann K. Dyka, and W. Roger Miller, p. 295-304, Wyoming Geological Association, Casper, WY.

Paterson, C.J., and Lisenbee, A.L., 1990, Metallogeny of Gold in the Black Hills, South Dakota, Society of Economic Geologists Field Conference, Sept. 5-9, Guidebook Series Volume 7.

Nabelek, P.I., Labotka, T.C., Helms, T., and Wilke, M., 2006. Fluid mediated polymetamorphism related to Proterozoic collision of Archean Wyoming and Superior provinces in the Black Hills, South Dakota, American Mineralogist, v. 91, p. 1473-1487.

Redden, J.A., and DeWitt, E., 2008. Maps showing geology, structure, and geophysics of the Central Black Hills, South Dakota, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2777, scale 1:100,000.

Redden, J.A., Peterman, Z.E., Zartman, R.E., and DeWitt, E.R., 1990. U-Th-Pb geochronology and preliminary interpretation of Precambrian events in the Black Hills, South Dakota, in Lewry, J.F. and Stauffer, M.R., eds., The Early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson Orogen of North America, Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 37, Ottawa, p. 229-251.

RESPEC, 2022. Groundwater Characterization Study of the Wharf Boston Expansion Project, revision 3 topical report rsi-3137.

RESPEC, 2025a. Excel Files sent by Aiden Schmitt titled, 20250618_Richmond Hill Hydrology Results.xlsx. June 20.

RESPEC, 2025b. AutoCAD File sent by Tom Dyer titled, Richmond_Hill_2025_05_14.dxf. Sent May 29.

Sanford Underground Research Facility, 2020. Our History. Available at https://sanfordlab.org/feature/our-history.

SANtosito, 2021. Relief Location Map of South Dakota, USA, Wikimedia Commons. Available at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/USA_South_Dakota_relief_location_map.svg/1200px-USA_South_Dakota_relief_location_map.svg.png. Accessed February 23, 2021.

Shapiro, L.H., and Gries, J.P., 1970. Ore deposits in rocks of Paleozoic and Tertiary age of the northern Black Hills, South Dakota, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 70-300, Reston, VA. Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr70300.

St. Joe Gold Corporation. 1986. Feasibility Report, Volume II. St. Joe American. Unpublished In-House Re-port by St. Joe Gold Corporation 1986.

South Dakota Board of Minerals & Environment, 2016. Partial Release of Reclamation Liability & Release of Surety, South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources Board of Minerals & Environment Notice to Todd Duex of LAC Minerals (USA), LLC on January 22, 2016.

South Dakota Board of Minerals & Environment, 2023. Minutes of the Board of Minerals and Environment, South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment, notes for meeting on January 29, 2023.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>283 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2022a. EXNI 444 Restriction Letter to DTRC, notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Timm Comer of DTRC, dated January 18, 2022.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2022b. EXNI 440 Restriction Letter to DTRC, notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Gerald Aberle of DTRC, dated February 14, 2022.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2022c. LAC Minerals 2022 Annual Environ-mental Audit Report, South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources report dated June 21 and 22, 2022.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2022–2023. EXNI 440 Inspections, field inspection reports from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, September 26, 2022–January 11, 2023.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2023a. Richmond Hill Gold Mine Compliance Update, Letter from South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Michelle Ozarowski (consultant), dated November 20, 2023.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2023b. EXNI 446 Restriction Letter to DTRC, Notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Timm Comer of DTRC, dated February 28, 2023.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2023c. EXNI 444 Inspections, field inspection reports from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, February 10, 2023–March 3, 2023.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2024. EXNI 456 Restriction Letter to DTRC, notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Timm Comer of DTRC, dated July 31, 2024.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2024a. EXNI 457 Restriction Letter to DTRC, notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Timm Comer of DTRC, dated August 7, 2024.

South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2024b. EXNI 460 Restriction Letter to DTRC, notice from South Dakota Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources' Roberta Hudson to Timm Comer of DTRC, dated November 21, 2024.

Terry, M.P. and Friberg, L.M., 1990. Pressure-temperature-time path related to the thermotectonic evolution of an Early Proterozoic metamorphic terrane, Black Hills, South Dakota: Geology, v. 18, p. 786–789.

Terry, M. P., 2010. Geological Field Trips in the Black Hills Region, South Dakota. Field Trip Guide Book 2010. South Dakota School of Mines Technical Bulletin No. 21. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota Mines De-partment of Geology and Geological Engineering.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2023. Wildlife, Fish, & Rare Plants. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/blackhills/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRDB5114233&width=full.

Watson, J., 1990. Twin Tunnels Area. Internal Memo from Jim Watson to Pat Downey. Bond Gold, February 19, 1990.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>284 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

Wharf Resources Inc., 2023. Summary Document: Large Scale Mine Permit Application, Wharf Boston Expansion Project. March 10, 2023.

Zimmer, A, 2022. Summary of Work Completed on the Richmond Hill Project. April 29, 2022.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>285 |

---

**Richmond Hill Project**

**S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary**

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **25** | **Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant** |

---

The QPs have relied upon the Registrant for information for which the QPs were not experts, or where the QPs were unable to independently secure documents describing the Project as noted in the following subsections.

**25.1** **Legal Matters** 

The legal staff at Dakota Gold prepared a summary of the Dakota Gold–Barrick Option Agreement. The QPs did not have access to the complete agreement and are not experts in this discipline; therefore, they have relied wholly upon the Registrant to provide an accurate document summary as described in Sections 3.4 through 3.7 and Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. A comparison with the information provided on the Dakota Gold website agreed with the summary provided.

**25.2** **Tenure** 

The QPs have relied upon the Registrant to provide a complete and accurate list of claims comprising the Property, along with the holding costs and royalties associated with certain claims as set out in Section 3.3 and Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. The QPs have not independently verified the claim listing, royalties, and holding costs, but have no reason to doubt the information Dakota Gold's legal department provided.

**25.3** **Significant Encumbrances and Permitting** 

The QPs are relying on information provided by the Registrant for this summary of current active permits associated with the potential gold deposit at the Property as discussed in Section 3.8. The required permits seem consistent with those required in other jurisdictions; thus, the QPs have no reason to doubt that these are correct and complete.

**25.4** **History** 

The QPs have relied on the Registrant for the description of the history of the Project area.

**25.5** **Exploration** 

The QPs have relied upon the Registrant for summaries of non-drilling exploration programs carried out on the Property. The Registrant has not made public any results from exploration programs other than drilling; however, the Registrant has stated that while these other exploration results helped target drill-collar locations, they neither contributed nor detracted from the resource estimate reported in this Report.

**25.6** **Environment** 

The QPs are relying on information provided by the Registrant for this summary of all environmental information, private and public, associated with the potential gold deposit at the Property. The QPs have no reason to doubt that the required environmental information is correct and complete.

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| ![](tm2518672d1_ex96-1footer.jpg) | &nbsp;&nbsp; <br>M3-PN240322<br> 7 July 2025<br> Revision 0  | <br>286 |

---

## Exhibit 99.1

**Exhibit 99.1**

![](tm2518672d1_ex99-1img001.jpg)

July 7, 2025 News Release 25-11

**Initial Assessment with Cash Flow demonstrates robust economics for Richmond Hill**

**LEAD, SOUTH DAKOTA – Dakota Gold Corp. (NYSE American: DC) ("Dakota Gold" or the "Company")** is pleased to report its S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Technical Report with economic analysis ("S-K 1300 Initial Assessment with Cash Flow", "IACF" or "Report") for the Richmond Hill Oxide Heap Leach Gold Project ("Richmond Hill" or "Project") in South Dakota. The IACF was prepared for a Measured and Indicated production plan ("M&I plan") as well as a Measured, Indicated and Inferred plan ("MI&I plan"). The IACF highlights the potential for a profitable, technically straightforward, low capital, open pit, gold heap leach operation at Richmond Hill.

**IACF Highlights:**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Richmond Hill is one of the largest development stage oxide gold resources in the United States**: M&I plan identifies 168.3 million tonnes at a grade of 0.566 grams per tonne gold
("g/t Au") for a total of 2.6 million ounces produced over a 17-year life of mine. MI&I plan identifies 273.7 million tonnes
at a grade of 0.530 g/t Au for a total of 3.9 million ounces produced over a 28-year life of mine.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Strong Economics:** At a base case gold
price of $2,350 per ounce, the project has an after tax NPV<sub>5%</sub> of $1.6 billion and IRR of 55% for the M&I plan, and $2.1
billion and 59% respectively for the MI&I plan. At recent metal prices of $3,350 the NPV<sub>5%</sub>'s increase to $2.9 billion
and IRR of 99% and $3.7 billion and 107%, respectively.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Low-Cost:** Initial Capital of $384 million,
including $53 million contingency, with life of mine All-in Sustaining Costs ("AISC") averaging $1,047 for M&I plan and
$1,050 for MI&I plan.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Feasibility Underway:** Building on the
robust IACF, work has commenced on the Feasibility Study planned for completion in early 2027, construction in 2028 and production targeted
for 2029.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;· **Resource Expansion Opportunities:** A 24,384
meter (~80,000 feet) drill campaign underway to target higher grade areas for initial mining and the conversion of resources from inferred
to the measured and indicated categories.

Dr. Robert Quartermain, Co-Chair, Director and CEO of Dakota Gold said, "Delivering this robust IACF on the back of our heap leach resource announced four months ago in February, speaks to the quality of our Project and our teams' capabilities. This is a very positive outcome for Dakota Gold and its shareholders, and it forms the platform from which we can grow and expand our mining and exploration activities in the Homestake District. We now expect to advance through Feasibility and into production as soon as 2029, based on our current work and project understanding – firmly placing Dakota Gold as having one of the largest development gold assets in the U.S."

Jack Henris, President and COO of Dakota Gold commented, "Based on my experience of developing and operating gold mines globally, Richmond Hill is an exciting project. It's straightforward and comes with a wealth of data to be able to build a solid economic and environmental plan due to its location in an existing mining community. As a local South Dakotan resident living in the same county as our headquarters and Project, I could not be more pleased to see Richmond Hill being built in our backyard. The IACF M&I plan has outlined $400 million in state severance taxes over the life of mine for South Dakota and has the potential to generate hundreds of high-paying jobs and contribute to a strong economy for our community and state. I want to commend our team and contractors for completing the work for the IACF safely with zero lost time incidents or environmental incidents. Safety is our core value, and it will remain our focus as we advance through development."

**Table 1: IACF base case overview and key parameters**

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **(US$)** | **M&I plan** | **MI&I plan** |
| **Key Assumptions:** |  |  |
| Base Case Gold Price | $2,350/oz | $2,350/oz |
| Base Case Silver Price | $29.00/oz | $29.00/oz |
| **Production Profile:** |  |  |
| Total Tonnes Processed (Mt) | 168.3 | 273.7 |
| Strip Ratio | 0.66 | 0.44 |
| Heap Leach Feed Grade (oz/ton) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Heap Leach Feed Grade (g/t) | 0.566 | 0.530 |
| Mine Life (years) | 17 | 28 |
| Throughput (MTPA) | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| Gold Recovery (kozs) | 85.1% | 85.4% |
| Silver Recovery (kozs) | 28.4% | 28.5% |
| LOM Gold Payable (kozs) | 2604 | 3982 |
| LOM Silver Payable (kozs) | 8737 | 12905 |
| LOM Average Annual Gold Payable | 153000 | 142000 |
| **Unit Operating Costs:** |  |  |
| Total Operating Costs | $764 | $820 |
| Total Cash Costs | $857 | $912 |
| LOM AISC (Cash Cost plus Sustaining Cost) | $1047 | $1050 |
| **Capital Costs:** |  |  |
| Initial Capital Cost | $384.1 M | $383.4 M |
| Sustaining Capital Cost | $219.6 M | $232.6 M |
| Closure Capital Cost | $129.2 M | $73.0 M |
| After-tax NPV<sub>5%</sub> | $1.6 B | $2.1 B |
| After-tax IRR | 55% | 59% |

---

Abbreviations in the table include ounces ("oz"); measured and indicated plan ("M&I plan"); measured, indicated and inferred plan ("M&I plan") million tonnes ("Mt"); ounces per tonne ("oz/ton"); grams per tonne ("g/t"); million tonnes per annum ("MTPA"); thousand ounces ("Kozs"); life of mine ("LOM"); all-in sustaining costs ("AISC"); net present value ("NPV"); internal rate of return ("IRR").

**Table 2: IACF M&I plan sensitivity to gold price, costs and recovery**

(US$ where applicable)

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Gold Price<br> (US$/oz)** | **$1750** | **$1950** | **$2150** | **$2,350 <br> (Base<br> Case)** | **$2550** | **$2750** | **$2950** | **$3150** | **$3,350<br> (Recent)** |
| **After-Tax NPV<sub>(5%)</sub> (US$M)** | $828 M | $1,096 M | $1,359 M | $1,662 M | $1,884 M | $2,145 M | $2,407 M | $2,668 M | $2,929 M |
| **After-Tax IRR** | 30% | 38% | 47% | 55% | 64% | 72% | 81% | 90% | 99% |
| **After-Tax Payback** | 3.0 years | 2.4 years | 2.0 years | 1.7 years | 1.4 years | 1.2 years | 1.1 years | 1.0 years | 0.9 years |

---

Sensitivity to Operating Costs, Capital Costs, and Recovery (After-Tax NPV<sub>5%</sub> US$M)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sensitivity<br> Parameters** | **Base<br> Case** | **-15%** | **-10%** | **-5%** | **0% Base<br> Case** | **+5%** | **+10%** | **+15%** |
| **Operating Costs** | $11.82/t | $1,767 M | $1,718 M | $1,670 M | $1,662 M | $1,574 M | $1,525 M | $1,476 M |
| **Capital Costs (US$M)** | $384 | $1,667 M | $1,651 M | $1,637 M | $1,622 M | $1,607 M | $1,592 M | $1,577 M |
| **Gold Recovery** | 85.1% | $1,182 M | $1,329 M | $1,475 M | $1,622 M | \* | \* | \* |

---

\* Recoveries above 85% are not expected and have not been calculated

**Table 3: IACF MI&I plan sensitivity to gold price, costs and recovery**

(US$ where applicable)

---

| | | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Gold Price <br> (US$/oz)** | **$1750** | **$1950** | **$2150** | **$2,350 <br> (Base<br> Case)** | **$2550** | **$2750** | **$2950** | **$3150** | **$3,350 <br> (Recent)** |
| **After-Tax NPV<sub>(5%)</sub> (US$M)** | $1,113 M | $1,463 M | $1,789 M | $2,113 M | $2,437 M | $2,761 M | $3,085 M | $3,409 M | $3,733 M |
| **After-Tax IRR** | 33% | 42% | 50% | 59% | 69% | 78% | 87% | 97% | 107% |
| **After-Tax Payback** | 2.7 years | 2.2 years | 1.8 years | 1.5 years | 1.3 years | 1.1 years | 1.0 years | 0.9 years | 0.8 years |

---

Sensitivity to Operating Costs, Capital Costs, and Recovery (After-Tax NPV<sub>5%</sub> US$M)

---

| | | | | | | | | |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Sensitivity <br> Parameters** | **Base<br> Case** | **-15%** | **-10%** | **-5%** | **0% Base <br> Case** | **+5%** | **+10%** | **+15%** |
| **Operating Costs** | $11.92/t | $2,230 M | $2,238 M | $2,175 M | $2,113 M | $2,050 M | $1,988 M | $1,925 M |
| **Capital Costs (US$M)** | $383 | $2,157 M | $2,142 M | $2,127 M | $2,113 M | $2,098 M | $2,083 M | $2,068 M |
| **Gold Recovery** | 85.4% | $1,571 M | $1,752 M | $1,932 M | $2,113 M | \* | \* | \* |

---

\* Recoveries above 85% are not expected and have not been calculated

**Overview:**

Richmond Hill hosts a large near-surface heap leachable resource which was announced on February 6<sup>th</sup>, 2025. The S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Report outlined a resource of 3.65 million ounces of gold and 38.1 million ounces of silver in measured and indicated mineral resources. Additionally, the Report identified a heap leachable inferred mineral resource of 2.61 million ounces of gold and 22.8 million ounces of silver.

The resource is informed by a historical database containing 56,734 gold assays from 902 drill holes totaling 90,447 meters of drilling, and an additional 30,743 gold assays from 146 drill holes totaling 45,540 meters of drilling by Dakota Gold since 2022 to expand the resource.

The IACF study was led by M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation (M3) and RESPEC, independent engineering firms capable of delivering through Feasibility and into production as soon as 2029. Concurrently the Company is undertaking baseline environmental studies that will inform future permitting requirements.

The Richmond Hill project is expected to follow a mining operation model similar to that of the adjacent Wharf Mine, operated by Coeur Mining, which generated approximately $95 million in free cash flow in 2024 from the production of around 98,000 ounces of gold. Richmond Hill is situated primarily on previously mined, privately held land, which we believe will enable an efficient advancement through permitting, development, and ultimately into production. The non-binding financial proposal for up to $300 million for a development opportunity with Orion Mine Finance, our major shareholder, which was announced on October 12, 2023, could provide Dakota Gold with the financial pathway to a commercial gold operation.

The Report has been published on the Company's website and filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on EDGAR as an exhibit to its Current Report on Form 8-K dated Monday July 7, 2025. The Report was prepared by an independent group of Qualified Persons with M3 as the Study Manager.

Details of the IACF will be presented in a webcast conference call on Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 11am Eastern / 9am Mountain / 8am Pacific.

**Webcast Conference Call Information:**

Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Time: 11am Eastern / 9am Mountain / 8am Pacific

Webcast: https://event.choruscall.com/mediaframe/webcast.html?webcastid=gRS7SFvV

USA/Canada Toll Free: 1-844-763-8274

International Toll: +1-647-484-8814

Leadership from Dakota Gold is scheduled to host investors and analysts for a tour at its headquarters in Lead, South Dakota taking place from July 15, 2025, through July 17, 2025. An investor presentation will be available prior to the conference on the Company's website at www.dakotagoldcorp.com under "Events and Presentations."

**About Dakota Gold Corp.**

Dakota Gold is building on the legacy of the 145 year old Homestake Gold Mining District by advancing the Richmond Hill Oxide Heap Leach Gold Project and outlining a high-grade underground gold resource at the Maitland Gold Project located on private land in South Dakota.

Subscribe to Dakota Gold's e-mail list at <u>www.dakotagoldcorp.com</u> to receive the latest news and other Company updates.

**Shareholder and Investor Inquiries**

For more information, please contact:

Dr. Robert Quartermain

Co-Chair, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Tel: +1 778-655-9638

Jack Henris

President and COO

Tel: +1 605-717-2540

Shawn Campbell

Chief Financial Officer

Tel: +1 778-655-9638

Carling Gaze

VP of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications

Tel: +1 605-679-7429

Email: info@dakotagoldcorp.com

**Qualified Persons**

The Report was prepared by an independent group of Qualified Persons with M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation as the Study Manager and Lead. M3 has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.

**Forward-Looking Statements**

This communication contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. When used in this communication, the words "plan," "target," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "intend," "potential," "will" and "expect" and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Any express or implied statements contained in this communication that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: our expectations regarding additional drilling, metallurgy and modeling; our expectations for the improvement and growth of the mineral resources and potential for conversion of mineral resources into reserves; completion of a feasibility study, and/or permitting; our expectations regarding free cash flow and future financing, and our overall expectation for the possibility of near-term production at the Richmond Hill project. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and expectations that may not be realized and are inherently subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from these statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the execution and timing of our planned exploration activities; our use and evaluation of historic data; our ability to achieve our strategic goals; the state of the economy and financial markets generally and the effect on our industry; and the market for our common stock. The foregoing list is not exhaustive. For additional information regarding factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in our forward-looking statements, we refer you to the risk factors included in Item 1A of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, as updated by annual, quarterly and current reports that we file with the SEC, which are available at www.sec.gov. We caution investors not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this communication. These statements speak only as of the date of this communication, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law. We do not give any assurance that we will achieve our expectations.

All references to "$" in this communication are to U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated.