Form 8-K
8-K — SSR MINING INC.
Accession: 0001104659-26-115173
Filed: 2026-10-13
Period: 2026-10-13
CIK: 0000921638
SIC: 6795 (MINERAL ROYALTY TRADERS)
Item: Regulation FD Disclosure
Item: Other Events
Item: Financial Statements and Exhibits
Documents
8-K — tm2627394d1_8k.htm (Primary)
EX-23.1 — EXHIBIT 23.1 (tm2627394d1_ex23-1.htm)
EX-99.1 — EXHIBIT 99.1 (tm2627394d1_ex99-1.htm)
EX-99.2 — EXHIBIT 99.2 (tm2627394d1_ex99-2.htm)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex23-1img001.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img001.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img002.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img01.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img100.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img101.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img102.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img103.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img104.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img105.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img106.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img107.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img108.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img11.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img71.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img72.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img73.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img74.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img75.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img76.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img77.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img78.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img79.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img80.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img81.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img95.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img96.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img97.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img98.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1img99.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img01.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img02.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img03.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img04.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img05.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img06.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img001.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img002.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img003.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img004.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img005.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img006.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img007.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img008.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img009.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img010.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img011.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img012.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img013.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img01.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img02.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img03.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img04.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img05.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img06.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img07.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img08.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img09.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img11.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img12.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img13.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img14.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img15.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img16.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img17.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img001.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img002.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img003.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img004.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img005.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img006.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img007.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img008.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img009.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img010.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img011.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img012.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img013.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img014.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img015.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img016.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img017.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img018.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img019.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img020.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img021.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img001.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img002.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img003.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img004.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img005.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img006.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img007.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img008.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img009.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img010.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img011.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img012.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img013.jpg)
GRAPHIC (tm2627394d1_ex99-2img014.jpg)
XML — IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT (R1.htm)
8-K — FORM 8-K
8-K (Primary)
Filename: tm2627394d1_8k.htm · Sequence: 1
false
0000921638
A1
0000921638
2026-10-13
2026-10-13
iso4217:USD
xbrli:shares
iso4217:USD
xbrli:shares
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):
October 13, 2026
SSR
Mining Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its
Charter)
British
Columbia
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
001-35455
(Commission File Number)
98-0211014
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
6900
E. Layton Ave., Suite
1300, Denver,
Colorado USA
80237
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip
code)
(303)
292-1299
(Registrant’s telephone number, including
area code)
Not Applicable
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since
Last Report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K
filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
¨
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the
Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
¨
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
¨
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b)
under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
¨
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c)
under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title
of each class
Trading
Symbol
Name
of each exchange on which registered
Common
Shares without par value
SSRM
The
Nasdaq Stock Market 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 ¨
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check
mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting
standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
ITEM 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
On October 13, 2026, SSR Mining Inc., a British Columbia corporation
(the “Company”), issued a news release announcing the results of a Technical Report Summary (“TRS”) for the Marigold
Complex in Nevada (the “2026 Marigold TRS”), a copy of which is furnished as Exhibit 99.2 to this Current Report on Form 8-K
and is incorporated by reference herein.
The information presented in Item 7.01 of this Current Report on Form
8-K and Exhibit 99.2 is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall
it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, regardless
of any general incorporation language in such filing, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
Use of Website as a Channel of Distribution for Material Information
The Company advises investors and the public that it intends to utilize
its corporate website as a channel of distribution for material information in compliance with its disclosure obligations under Regulation
FD, including, but not limited to, press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, earnings announcements, investor presentations,
financial and operational data, and other information regarding the Company, its business, financial condition, and results of operations.
The information the Company posts through this channel may be deemed material. Accordingly, the Company advises investors and the public
to monitor this channel. For more information, visit https://ir.ssrmining.com/.
ITEM 8.01. Other Events.
The Company is hereby filing the 2026 Marigold
TRS prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K. The 2026 Marigold TRS is filed as Exhibit 99.1 to this report, and the
corresponding consent of the qualified person is filed as Exhibit 23.1.
ITEM 9.01. Financial Statements and
Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits
Exhibit
Number
Description of Exhibit
23.1
Consent of Qualified Person for Technical Report Summary on Marigold Complex, Nevada USA.
99.1
Technical Report Summary on Marigold Complex, Nevada, USA.
99.2
News Release, dated October 13, 2026, announcing the results of a Technical Report Summary for Marigold Complex in Nevada, USA.
104
Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document)
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and 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.
SSR Mining Inc.
By:
/s/ Eric Gunning
Name:
Eric Gunning
Title:
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Dated: October 13, 2026
EX-23.1 — EXHIBIT 23.1
EX-23.1
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex23-1.htm · Sequence: 2
Exhibit 23.1
SLR International Corporation
165 S. Union Blvd., Suite 888, Lakewood, CO 80228
October 13, 2026
Consent of Qualified
Person
In connection with the SSR
Mining Inc. (the "Company") Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13,
2026 (the “Form 8-K”), the undersigned consents to:
· the
public filing by the Company of the technical report summary titled “S-K 1300 Technical
Report Summary, Marigold Complex, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report Summary”),
with an effective date of May 1, 2026 and dated October 9, 2026, that was prepared in accordance
with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
as an exhibit to the Form 8-K;
· the
incorporation by reference of the Technical Report Summary in the Form 8-K, the press release
attached as an exhibit to the Form 8-K (the “Press Release”) and in the Company’s
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-219848, 333-185498, 333-196116, 333-198092,
333-248813, 333-259280, 333-265661, and 333-283912) (collectively,
the “Registration Statements”);
· the
use of and references to our name in connection with the Technical Report Summary, the Press
Release, the Form 8-K, and the Registration Statements; and
· any
extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report Summary in the Form 8-K, the Press Release
and incorporated by reference in the Registration Statements and the use of any information
derived, summarized, quoted, or referenced from the Technical Report Summary, or portions
thereof, that was prepared by us, that we supervised the preparation of, and/or that was
reviewed and approved by us, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K,
the Press Release and the Registration Statements.
SLR International Corporation
is responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the entire Technical Report Summary.
SLR International
Corporation
Per:
/s/ Grant A. Malensek
Grant A. Malensek,
M.Eng., P.Eng.
Technical Director – Mining Advisory
Financial Sector Services (Americas)
1
EX-99.1 — EXHIBIT 99.1
EX-99.1
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1.htm · Sequence: 3
Exhibit 99.1
S-K 1300 Technical
Report Summary
Marigold Complex,
Nevada, USA
SSR Mining Inc.
SLR
Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Effective Date:
May 1, 2026
Signature Date:
October 9, 2026
Prepared by:
SLR International
Corporation
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking
Statements:
Certain statements contained in this
report are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
“Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”),
and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provided for under these sections. Forward looking statements can be identified with
words such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,”
“anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “projects,” “predict,”
“potential,” “continue” and similar expressions, as well as statements written in the future tense. Forward-looking
statements are based on information known at such time and/or with a good faith belief with respect to future events. Such statements
are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in the
forward-looking statements. Many of these risks and uncertainties cannot be controlled or predicted. Given these risks and uncertainties,
readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, among things: metal
price assumptions, cash flow forecasts, projected capital and operating costs, metal recoveries, mine life and production rates, and
other assumptions used in this report.
Such forward-looking information
and statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions, including, but not limited to: the inherent speculative nature
of exploration results; the ability to explore; communications with local stakeholders; maintaining community and governmental relations;
status of negotiations of joint ventures; weather conditions at our operations; commodity prices; the ultimate determination of and realization
of Mineral Reserves; existence or realization of Mineral Resources; the development approach; availability and receipt of required approvals,
titles, licenses and permits; sufficient working capital to develop and operate the mines and implement development plans; access to
adequate services and supplies; foreign currency exchange rates; interest rates; access to capital markets and associated cost of funds;
availability of a qualified work force; ability to negotiate, finalize, and execute relevant agreements; lack of social opposition to
our mines or facilities; lack of legal challenges with respect to our properties; the timing and amount of future production; the ability
to meet production, cost, and capital expenditure targets; timing and ability to produce studies and analyses; capital and operating
expenditures; economic conditions; availability of sufficient financing; the ultimate ability to mine, process, and sell mineral products
on economically favorable terms; and any and all other timing, exploration, development, operational, financial, budgetary, economic,
legal, social, geopolitical, regulatory and political factors that may influence future events or conditions. While we consider these
factors and assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to us, they may prove to be incorrect.
The above list is not exhaustive
list of the factors that may affect any of the forward-looking statements and information included in this report, and such statements
and information will not be updated to reflect events or circumstances arising after the date of such statements or to reflect the occurrence
of anticipated or unanticipated events.
This technical report summary also
contains financial measures which are not recognized under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
i
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive
Summary
1-1
1.1 Summary
1-1
1.2 Economic
Analysis
1-11
1.3 Technical
Summary
1-14
2.0 Introduction
2-1
2.1 Site
Visits
2-1
2.2 Sources
of Information
2-2
2.3 List
of Abbreviations
2-3
3.0 Property
Description
3-1
3.1 Location
3-1
3.2 Land
Tenure
3-3
3.3 Encumbrances
and Royalties
3-14
3.4 Required
Permits and Status
3-15
3.5 Other
Significant Factors and Risks
3-15
4.0 Accessibility,
Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
4-1
4.1 Accessibility
4-1
4.2 Climate
4-1
4.3 Local
Resources
4-1
4.4 Infrastructure
4-1
4.5 Physiography
4-2
5.0 History
5-1
5.1 Ownership,
Exploration, and Development History
5-1
5.2 Past
Production
5-7
6.0 Geological
Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
6-1
6.1 Regional
Geology
6-1
6.2 Local
Geology
6-3
6.3 Property
Geology
6-8
6.4 Deposit
Type
6-28
7.0 Exploration
7-1
7.1 Geophysical
and Geochemical Surveys
7-2
7.2 Drilling
7-4
8.0 Sample
Preparation, Analyses, and Security
8-1
8.1 Sample
Preparation and Analysis
8-1
i
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.2 Quality
Assurance and Quality Control
8-5
8.3 Sample
Security
8-14
8.4 QP
Opinion
8-15
9.0 Data
Verification
9-1
9.1 Marigold
Database Migration
9-1
9.2 QP
Opinion
9-2
10.0 Mineral
Processing and Metallurgical Testing
10-1
10.1 Marigold
10-1
10.2 Buffalo
Valley
10-5
10.3 QP
Opinion
10-6
11.0 Mineral
Resource Estimates
11-1
11.1 Summary
11-1
11.2 Marigold
11-3
11.3 Buffalo
Valley
11-25
12.0 Mineral
Reserve Estimates
12-1
12.1 Summary
12-1
12.2 Marigold
12-2
12.3 Buffalo
Valley
12-5
13.0 Mining
Methods
13-1
13.1 Geotechnical,
Hydrological, Pit, and Other Design Parameters
13-1
13.2 Pit
Phases and Timing
13-8
13.3 Production
Rates, Mine Life, Dimensions, and Dilution Factors
13-13
13.4 Stripping
Requirements
13-13
13.5 Required
Mining Fleet and Machinery
13-15
13.6 Ore
Control Drilling and Method
13-16
13.7 Drilling
and Blasting
13-17
13.8 Loading
Operations
13-17
13.9 Hauling
Operations
13-18
13.10 Mine
Support
13-32
13.11 Mine
Maintenance
13-32
13.12 Mine
General and Administration
13-33
13.13 Mine
Safety
13-33
13.14 Mine
Dewatering
13-33
13.15 Mine
Workforce
13-37
ii
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.16 QP
Opinion
13-37
14.0 Processing
and Recovery Methods
14-1
14.1 Marigold
14-1
14.2 Buffalo
Valley
14-6
14.3 QP
Opinion
14-9
15.0 Infrastructure
15-1
15.1 Marigold
Infrastructure
15-1
15.2 Buffalo
Valley Infrastructure
15-7
15.3 QP
Opinion
15-14
16.0 Market
Studies
16-1
16.1 Marketing
and Metal Prices
16-1
16.2 Contracts
16-1
17.0 Environmental
Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups
17-1
17.1 Summary
17-1
17.2 Marigold
17-1
17.3 Buffalo
Valley
17-6
18.0 Capital
and Operating Costs
18-1
18.1 Capital
Costs
18-1
18.2 Operating
Costs
18-2
19.0 Economic
Analysis
19-1
19.1 Economic
Criteria
19-1
19.2 Cash
Flow Analysis
19-2
19.3 Sensitivity
Analysis
19-4
20.0 Adjacent
Properties
20-1
21.0 Other
Relevant Data and Information
21-1
22.0 Interpretation
and Conclusions
22-1
22.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
22-1
22.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
22-2
22.3 Mineral
Processing
22-4
22.4 Infrastructure
22-6
22.5 Environment
22-7
22.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
22-8
23.0 Recommendations
23-1
23.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
23-1
iii
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
23.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
23-1
23.3 Mineral
Processing
23-2
23.4 Infrastructure
23-2
23.5 Environment
23-3
23.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
23-3
24.0 References
24-1
25.0 Reliance
on Information Provided by the Registrant
25-1
26.0 Date
and Signature Page
26-1
27.0 Appendix
1
27-1
Tables
Table
1-1: After-Tax Cash Flow Summary
1-13
Table
1-2: Summary of Marigold Mine and Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources
1-19
Table
1-3: Summary of Marigold Mineral Reserves Estimate as of May 1, 2026
1-20
Table
1-4: Capital Costs Summary
1-25
Table
1-5: Operating Costs Summary
1-26
Table
3-1: List of Land Package Areas (in hectares)
3-3
Table
3-2: MMC Surface Lands
3-5
Table
3-3: MMC-Owned Unpatented Mining Claims within the Marigold Mine Project Area
3-6
Table
3-4: MMC-Owned Unpatented Mining Claims within the Sterling Project Area
3-7
Table
3-5: Decker Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
3-10
Table
3-6: Vek & Andrus Lease Unpatented Mining and Millsite Claims
3-10
Table
3-7: Euro-Nevada Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
3-11
Table
3-8: Franco-Nevada Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
3-12
Table
3-9: Nevada North Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
3-13
Table
3-10: New Nevada 2006 Unpatented Mining Claims
3-13
Table
3-11: Hardrock Exploration 2024 Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
3-14
Table
5-1: Summary of Historical Exploration
5-5
Table
5-2: Marigold Historical Production from August 1989 to April 1, 2014
5-7
Table
5-3: Marigold Production from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2026
5-7
Table
7-1: Summary of Exploration Completed by SSR
7-1
Table
7-2: Summary of Drilling at Marigold
7-5
Table
7-3: Summary of Drilling at Buffalo Valley
7-5
iv
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
7-4: Summary of Drilling at Trenton Canyon
7-6
Table
8-1: Analytical Methods for Gold for the Marigold Assay Resource Database
8-3
Table
8-2: Comparison of Valmy Deposit NN Mean Gold Grades
8-9
Table
8-3: List of CRM Standards used between 2023 and June 2026
8-11
Table
10-1: Gold Recovery by Lithology
10-6
Table
11-1: Summary of Marigold Mine and Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources
11-2
Table
11-2: Capping and Outlier Restriction Values and Distance for Various Domains
11-5
Table
11-3: Statistics Raw vs. Composites inside Mineralized Envelope
11-6
Table
11-4: Variogram Parameters
11-7
Table
11-5: Block Model Parameters
11-8
Table
11-6: Block Model Attributes
11-8
Table
11-7: Search Parameters for In Situ Estimation
11-10
Table
11-8: Search Parameters for Mineralized Stockpile
11-10
Table
11-9: Summary of Density for Different Material
11-11
Table
11-10: Resource Classification Parameters
11-12
Table
11-11: Estimation Variance Statistics, not depleted
11-17
Table
11-12: Marigold Resource Pit Parameters and Cut-off Grade
11-21
Table
11-13: Details of Marigold Mineral Resources Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves as of May 1, 2026
11-22
Table
11-14: Length Weighted Gold Assays (g/t) Statistics of Raw Samples by Estimation Domain
11-28
Table
11-15: Capping Values AUBEST (g/t)
11-29
Table
11-16: Variogram Models (AUBEST)
11-30
Table
11-17: Length Weighted Gold Assays (g/t) Statistics of Composite Samples by Domain
11-31
Table
11-18: AUCE Regression Summary Applied to AUFA Values
11-36
Table
11-19: Block Model Parameters (Mine Grid X, Y, Z in meters)
11-36
Table
11-20: Estimated Variables
11-37
Table
11-21: Volumetric Models Generated for Estimation Domaining and Grade Estimation
11-37
Table
11-22: Estimation Domain Boundary Types
11-39
Table
11-23: Grade Interpolation Parameters for AUBEST/AUCE
11-40
Table
11-24: Density Assignments
11-40
Table
11-25: Classification Rules
11-41
Table
11-26: Statistical Summary of Gold Grade Estimates (g/t)
11-46
Table
11-27: Buffalo Valley Resource Pit Parameters and Cut-off Grades
11-51
v
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
11-28: Details of Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves as of May 1, 2026
11-52
Table
12-1: Summary of Marigold Mineral Reserves Estimate as of May 1, 2026
12-2
Table
12-2: Key Economic Parameters for Mineral Reserves Estimate - Marigold
12-4
Table
12-3: Key Economic Parameters for Mineral Reserves Estimate – Buffalo Valley
12-6
Table
13-1: Overall Slope Angles by Azimuth – Marigold Mine
13-6
Table
13-2: Overall Slope Angles by Azimuth – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-7
Table
13-3: Design Parameters by Each Area – Marigold Mine
13-7
Table
13-4: Design Parameters by Each Area – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-8
Table
13-5: Mining Phase Design Summary
13-9
Table
13-6: Annual Production Schedule Tonnes Mined
13-14
Table
13-7: Marigold Mining Complex - Fleet Equipment List
13-15
Table
13-8: LOM Average Maintenance KPI of the MMC Equipment Fleet
13-32
Table
13-9: RIB Design Criteria – Marigold Mine
13-36
Table
16-1: Economic Analysis Metal Price Assumptions
16-1
Table
17-1: Marigold Mine Baseline Studies Supporting the EA
17-2
Table
17-2: Marigold Mine Environmental Permits for Operation
17-2
Table
17-3: Marigold Mine Reclamation Cost Estimate/Bond
17-6
Table
17-4: Baseline Studies Supporting the EIS
17-7
Table
17-5: Buffalo Valley Environmental Permits for Operation
17-10
Table
18-1: Capital Costs Summary
18-1
Table
18-2: Operating Costs Summary
18-2
Table
18-3: Mine Operating Cost Summary
18-3
Table
18-4: Process Operating Cost Summary
18-3
Table
18-5: G&A Operating Cost Summary
18-4
Table
18-6: Current Workforce
18-4
Table
18-7: LOM Workforce Levels
18-4
Table
19-1: After-Tax Cash Flow Summary
19-3
Table
19-2: After-Tax Sensitivity Analyses
19-5
Table
20-1: Past Production and Mineral Resources for Adjacent Properties
20-1
Figures
Figure
3-1: Location Map
3-2
Figure
3-2: Marigold and Sterling Land Package Map
3-4
vi
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
5-1: View to the East–Southeast over the Cyanide Leach Tanks from the Marigold Mine prior to World War II
5-1
Figure
5-2: Location of Marigold Exploration Targets and Mining Areas
5-4
Figure
6-1: Location of the Marigold Mine in North-Central Nevada within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province
6-1
Figure
6-2: Location of Marigold and the Battle Mountain Mining District on the Battle Mountain-Eureka Mineral Trend
6-4
Figure
6-3: Stratigraphic Column for the Marigold Complex
6-7
Figure
6-4: Plan View Map Showing Distribution of Paleozoic Units at Marigold
6-10
Figure
6-5: Top Surface of the Valmy Formation with the Current Property Boundary
6-12
Figure
6-6: Cross Section 11,200N Highlighting Inferred Permian Growth Fault and Associated Antithetic Normal Faults with
a Steep West Dip
6-13
Figure
6-7: Plan View of the Marigold Mine Area showing the Spatial Distribution of 1.0 g/t Au Grade Shells Over an 8 km
Northerly Trend
6-15
Figure
6-8: Geologic Map of the Buffalo Valley Mine Area
6-18
Figure
6-9: Schematic Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit
6-20
Figure
6-10: Geologic Map of Trenton Canyon Area
6-23
Figure
6-11: Schematic Cross Section through Trenton Canyon
6-27
Figure
6-12: Model Illustrating Inferred Processes Related to Formation of Carlin-Type Gold Deposits (CTGD) and Distal
Disseminated Silver–Gold Deposits
6-29
Figure
7-1: Plan View of All Drilling to End of May 2026
7-7
Figure
8-1: Scatter Plot Between FA Gold Values with AA Finish and Gravimetric Finish
8-6
Figure
8-2: Q-Q Plot between FA Gold Values with AA Finish and Gravimetric Finish
8-6
Figure
8-3: Cross-Section with SSR Drill Holes and Historical Drill Holes Along Section 8000N
8-8
Figure
8-4: Cumulative Normal Distribution Comparing Composites from SSR Drilling and Historical Drilling
8-9
Figure
8-5: Z-Scores of all CRM Results (2023 – June 2026)
8-11
Figure
8-6: Field Duplicate HARD Plot for Fire Assay (AuFA)
8-12
Figure
8-7: Blank Results (January 2023 – June 2026)
8-13
Figure
8-8: Umpire Analytical Duplicate HARD Plot for Fire Assay (AuFA) of Original vs. Umpire Results
8-14
Figure
10-1: Column Test Results – Marigold
10-2
Figure
10-2: Bottle Roll vs. Column Recovery – Marigold
10-2
Figure
10-3: Exploration Database (2017) AuCN vs AuFA – All Data
10-4
Figure
10-4: Buffalo Valley Au Recovery by Size for each Lithology
10-6
vii
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
11-1: Mineralized Envelopes and Dynamic Anisotropy Trend, 10400N, Red Dot area
11-4
Figure
11-2: Valmy Classification Cross Section (1100N)
11-13
Figure
11-3: Visual Validation, >= 0.002 opt, Not Depleted, Section -3850N
11-15
Figure
11-4: Visual Validation, AUKR >= 0.002 (opt), not depleted, Level 4400
11-16
Figure
11-5: Swath Plot Along East, comparing Assay, Kriged Value and NN
11-18
Figure
11-6: Swath Plot Along North, comparing Assay, Kriged Value and NN
11-19
Figure
11-7: Swath Plot Along Elevation, comparing Assay, Kriged Value and NN
11-20
Figure
11-8: Buffalo Valley Estimation Domains (Plan View Elevation 5100)
11-26
Figure
11-9: Buffalo Valley Geology (Mine Grid Section -32,400 N)
11-27
Figure
11-10: Boxplot of AUFA by Domain (grade in opt)
11-32
Figure
11-11: Boxplot of AUCN by Domain (grade in opt)
11-33
Figure
11-12: Histograms of AUBEST By Domains (grade in opt)
11-34
Figure
11-13: Log Probability Plots of AUBEST By Domains (grade in opt)
11-35
Figure
11-14: Buffalo Valley-Dore Hills Mineralized Shell Boundary Conditions
11-38
Figure
11-15: FFOZ Boundary Conditions
11-39
Figure
11-16: Classification – Buffalo Valley Deposit (Looking N at 31550N With a 25’ Window)
11-42
Figure
11-17: Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit (-31550N, $2500 Resource Shell, 25ft Section Window, MII Only)
11-44
Figure
11-18: Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit (-32400N, $2500 Resource Shell, 25ft Section Window, MII Only)
11-45
Figure
11-19: Swath Plot X for AUBEST
11-48
Figure
11-20: Swath Plot Y for AUBEST
11-49
Figure
11-21: Swath Plot Elevation for AUBEST
11-50
Figure
13-1: End of Mine Life Reserve Pits- Marigold Mine
13-11
Figure
13-2: End of Mine Life Reserve Pits- Buffalo Valley Mine
13-12
Figure
13-3: Mine Annual Production Schedule
13-15
Figure
13-4: End of Production Year 2026 – Marigold Mine
13-19
Figure
13-5: End of Production Year 2027 – Marigold Mine
13-20
Figure
13-6: End of Production Year 2028 – Marigold Mine
13-21
Figure
13-7: End of Production Year 2029 – Marigold Mine
13-22
Figure
13-8: End of Production Year 2030 – Marigold Mine
13-23
Figure
13-9: End of Production Year 2031 – Marigold Mine
13-24
Figure
13-10: End of Production Year 2032 – Marigold Mine
13-25
Figure
13-11: End of Production Year 2040 (LOM) – Marigold Mine
13-26
viii
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-12: End of Production Year 2029 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-27
Figure
13-13: End of Production Year 2030 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-28
Figure
13-14: End of Production Year 2031 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-29
Figure
13-15: End of Production Year 2032 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-30
Figure
13-16: End of Production Year 2034 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-31
Figure
13-17: Marigold Dewatering Well Locations
13-35
Figure
13-18: Marigold RIB Locations and Monitoring System
13-36
Figure
14-1: Simplified Marigold Processing Flowsheet
14-1
Figure
14-2: Average Annual Reagent Consumption
14-5
Figure
14-3: Marigold Heap Leach Pad Gold Recovery (March 1990 through April 2026)
14-5
Figure
14-4: Buffalo Valley Process Flowsheet
14-7
Figure
14-5: Plan View of the Buffalo Valley Process Facility
14-8
Figure
15-1: Infrastructure Site Map
15-4
Figure
15-2: Freshwater Well Sites
15-5
Figure
15-3: LOM Site Schematic Showing Final Pit Limits, OBSA, and Leach Pad
15-6
Figure
15-4: Buffalo Valley Site Layout
15-8
Figure
15-5: Buffalo Valley Plan Boundary
15-10
Figure
15-6: Routing of Marigold to Buffalo Valley Connector Road
15-12
Figure
19-1: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis
19-4
Figure
20-1: Adjacent Properties
20-2
ix
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.0 Executive
Summary
1.1 Summary
SLR International Corporation (SLR)
was retained by SSR Mining Incorporated (SSR) to prepare an independent Technical Report Summary (TRS) on the Marigold Complex (Marigold
or the Property), located in Humboldt and Lander counties, Nevada, USA. The Marigold Complex includes the Marigold Mine (including Mackay,
Valmy, and New Millenium) and the Buffalo Valley and Trenton Canyon deposits. SSR holds a 100% interest in the Property through its wholly
owned subsidiary, Marigold Mining Company (MMC).
The purpose of this TRS is to disclose
the results of the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates for the Property with an effective date of May 1, 2026. This TRS conforms
to United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants
as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96)
Technical Report Summary. SLR visited the Property from June 10 to 12, 2026.
SSR has a diversified portfolio of operating,
development and exploration assets across the Americas, including four operating mines in the USA, Canada, and Argentina. SSR is listed
on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (NASDAQ:SSRM) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:SSRM).
SSR’s Marigold Complex is located
approximately five kilometers (km) south–southwest of the town of Valmy, and approximately 24 km northwest of Battle Mountain.
The open pit heap leach gold mine has been in production since 1989 and has produced over five million ounces of gold. The operation
consists of several open pits, overburden storage areas (OBSA), leach pads, a carbon-in-column (CIC) adsorption facility, and a carbon
processing and gold refining facility.
1.1.1 Conclusions
SLR offers the following conclusions
by area.
1.1.1.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
· The
Mineral Resource estimates for Marigold and Buffalo Valley have been prepared using accepted
industry practices and conform to the requirements of SEC Regulation S-K 1300.
· The
estimates are supported by extensive drilling, validated geological and assay databases,
appropriate metallurgical assumptions, robust estimation methodologies, and reasonable economic
parameters.
· The
assigned Mineral Resource classifications appropriately reflect the level of geological confidence
and estimation uncertainty inherent in each deposit.
· Additional
drilling and ongoing geological studies have the potential to expand the known mineralized
footprint, improve classification confidence, and support future conversion of Mineral Resources
to Mineral Reserves.
· The
Marigold Complex contains two distinct mineral deposit styles. Marigold and Trenton Canyon
are classified as Carlin-type gold deposits, while Buffalo Valley is classified as a distal
disseminated silver-gold deposit associated with felsic porphyry dikes, structural corridors,
and favorable host rocks.
1-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Geological
understanding of the Marigold Complex is supported by more than three decades of mining operations,
extensive exploration programs, geologic mapping, geophysical surveys, metallurgical testing,
production history, and ongoing resource definition drilling.
· The
current geological interpretations adequately define lithologic, structural, oxidation, alteration,
and mineralization controls and provide a suitable basis for Mineral Resource estimation
and classification.
· Exploration,
delineation, and resource development programs completed by SSR and predecessor operators
have resulted in more than 13,000 drill holes and over 2.6 million meters of drilling across
Marigold, Buffalo Valley, and Trenton Canyon. Recent drilling programs continue to support
resource growth, conversion, and refinement of geological models.
· The
drilling density and spatial distribution of drill holes are sufficient to support the current
geological interpretations and Mineral Resource classifications at both Marigold and Buffalo
Valley.
· The
SLR Qualified Person considers the drilling methods, sampling practices, sample preparation
procedures, analytical methods, quality assurance and quality control programs, and database
management systems to be consistent with accepted industry standards and suitable for Mineral
Resource estimation.
· Independent
verification procedures completed by SLR indicate that the geological, assay, density, and
survey databases are sufficiently accurate, complete, and reliable for use in Mineral Resource
estimation.
· There
are no Measured Resources at the Property.
· The
level of uncertainty has been adequately reflected in the classification of Mineral Resources
for the Property. The MRE presented may be materially impacted by any future changes in the
break-even cut-off grade, which may result from changes in mining method selection, mining
costs, processing recoveries and costs, metal price fluctuations, or significant changes
in geological knowledge.
· The
SLR QP is of the opinion that, with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Sections
1 and 23 of this TRS, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors
likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.
Marigold
· Mineral
Resources were constrained within an optimized open pit shell that reflects reasonable prospects
for eventual economic extraction using a gold price assumption of US$2,500/oz and a reporting
cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t Au.
· Effective
May 1, 2026, the Marigold Mineral Resource estimate exclusive of Mineral Reserves comprises
approximately 125.0 Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources at an average grade of 0.39 g/t Au
and 18.1 Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources at an average grade of 0.30 g/t Au. No Measured
Mineral Resources are reported.
· Validation
and reconciliation reviews demonstrate that the Marigold resource model provides reasonable
predictions of grade and tonnage and is appropriate for mine planning and Mineral Reserve
conversion activities.
1-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· The
SLR QP considers the geological interpretation, estimation methodology, classification criteria,
and validation results to appropriately support the reported Marigold Mineral Resources.
Buffalo Valley
· Mineral
Resources were constrained within optimized pit shells using lithology-specific cut-off grades
ranging from 0.10 g/t Au to 0.32 g/t Au and a gold price assumption of US$2,500/oz.
· Effective
May 1, 2026, the Buffalo Valley Mineral Resource estimate exclusive of Mineral Reserves comprises
approximately 5.6 Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources grading 0.53 g/t Au and 11.2 Mt of Inferred
Mineral Resources grading 0.31 g/t Au. No Measured Mineral Resources are reported.
· Metallurgical
testing confirms that gold recoveries vary by lithology and particle size and supports the
recovery assumptions used in the Mineral Resource estimate.
· The
SLR QP considers the Buffalo Valley geological model, estimation methodology, resource classification
criteria, and metallurgical assumptions to be appropriate for the style of mineralization
and sufficient to support the reported Mineral Resources.
1.1.1.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
Marigold
· Marigold
anchors the Complex with 240.44 Mt of Probable Reserves grading 0.46 g/t Au, containing 3.52
Moz. Including stockpiles and leach pad inventory, the total Mineral Reserve estimate is
3.96 Moz. The updated $2,200/oz gold price assumption triggered a 73% increase in contained
gold compared to previous estimates.
· Mining
at Marigold is executed across 15.2 m benches (or 7.6 m for smaller shovels to control dilution)
using automated blasthole sampling, rigorous fire assay-to-cyanide-soluble regression, and
continuous radar slope monitoring. Individual pit stripping varies, averaging 7.4:1 in North
Mackay and 6.2:1 in New Millenium, supported by established geotechnical design criteria
and active dewatering in deeper cutbacks like Mackay and Red Dot Phase 3.
Buffalo Valley
· Buffalo
Valley contributes 45.33 Mt of Probable Reserves grading 0.46 g/t Au, containing 0.67 Moz
of gold. Its lower strip ratio of 3.9:1 helps temper the broader Complex's overall stripping
requirements.
· Located
approximately 15 miles from the main Marigold operation, Buffalo Valley operates as a standalone
satellite facility complete with its own dedicated heap leach facility and separate Overburden
Storage Area (OBSA).
· Mining
at Buffalo Valley is planned using the same bench heights as at the Marigold Mine (15.2 m)
to maintain operational consistency and equipment synergies, enabling the planned transfer
of hydraulic shovels and haul trucks between the two operations.
· Mining
operations at Buffalo Valley are currently unpermitted, with the schedule assuming permitting
activities will be successfully completed to support active production which begins in 2029
for a 5.3-year operational window that slots directly into the middle years of the active
mining timeline.
1-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Structured
across three distinct geotechnical domains with inter-ramp angles ranging from 32° to
48° governed by structural bedding orientations, Buffalo Valley's operational success
is tightly bound to securing environmental permits ahead of 2029 and adapting proven grade
control and blasting methodologies to its unique sedimentary and dike-controlled lithology.
Integrated Operations
· Backed
by SSR’s extensive operational experience at the site, the Complex benefits from well-established
geotechnical parameters, active site-wide dewatering programs, and sufficient storage capacity
within the expanded OBSA to accommodate the higher LOM waste volumes.
· The
LOM plan targets an expanded average mining rate of 380,000 tpd (peaking at 505,000 tpd),
supporting 15 years of active mining followed by 5 years of processing the heap leach pad
inventory for a total 20-year LOM. During full production years, annual mine production averages
138.3 Mtpa (reaching 165.0 Mtpa over the first seven years), yielding a complex-wide LOM
strip ratio of 5.3:1 (waste-to-ore) over the 15-year active schedule (which includes the
partial start in 2026 and final wind-down in 2040).
· Sustaining
higher material movement and increased stripping requires a major capital fleet expansion,
including a LeTourneau L-1850 loader in 2026 as replacement, a Liebherr 9600-class shovel
in 2027, a second P&H 4100-sized shovel in Q1 2028, and scaling the 300 st haul truck
fleet with 19 additional units to reach a peak of 45 trucks. Rather than requiring an isolated
capital fleet, Buffalo Valley shares equipment synergy with Marigold, allowing two Komatsu
PC7000 hydraulic shovels and 8 to 10 haul trucks to transfer to Buffalo Valley in 2029 for
its duration before returning to Marigold.
· The
Complex operates with a total established workforce of 540 personnel, distributed across
Mine Operations (279), Mine Maintenance (119), Process & Laboratory (61), General &
Administration (51), and Technical Services (30). Success over the 20-year LOM relies on
maintaining disciplined short-term sequencing, executing the 2027–2028 equipment ramp-up
smoothly, successfully securing the Buffalo Valley permit ahead of 2029, and managing workforce
retention and skills training to support elevated material movement without compromising
mechanical availability or slope stability.
· The
LOM production schedule is reasonable and will be supported by robust short-term planning,
sequencing, and operational discipline to be successful.
· An
appropriate mining equipment fleet, maintenance facilities, and workforce are in place, with
various options for additions and replacements estimated to meet the LOM production schedule
requirements.
· The
SLR QP reviewed the assumptions, parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Reserves
Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Reserves are estimated and prepared in accordance
with S-K 1300 standards.
1-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.1.1.3 Mineral
Processing
Marigold
· The
Marigold processing facilities comprise conventional run-of-mine (ROM) cyanide heap leaching,
CIC adsorption, electrowinning, and refining circuits (ADR) to produce a final precious metal
product. The heap leach pad was originally constructed in 1990 and with ongoing expansions
has operated very consistently throughout the years providing an excellent library of operating
data.
· The
mineralogy of the ore and deportment of the gold along fracture surfaces of the rock rather
than in the rock matrix, provides rapid access of leach solutions to the gold particles and
relatively fast gold extraction independent of rock size. The SLR QP agrees that the ore
is uniquely favorable to ROM heap leaching, which has been employed for the life of the mine.
· Gold
recovery is determined from both historical operating performance and from laboratory column
and bottle roll leach testing. Gold recovery is consistent and is predicted using a relationship
between fire assay and cyanide soluble gold analyses. It is the SLR QP’s opinion that
the Marigold operating practices are consistent with industry standards, and the ROM method
of operation and the methods of determining gold recovery and reagent consumptions are appropriate
for this deposit.
· Average
LOM Au recovery at Marigold is 74% based on production records. The ratio of cyanide soluble
gold to total gold (AuCN/AuFA) using the 2017 database of assay pairs (i.e., samples that
have been assayed using both fire assay and cyanide-soluble gold assay methods) was approximately
0.8 (80%). Using the ratio to determine the actual LOM recovery of 74% results in a factor
of 0.92.
· The
current model to predict Marigold heap leach recovery is Heap Leach Recovery = (AuCN/AuFA)
x 0.92.
· Cumulative
gold production from the Marigold leach pad (through April 2026) is equivalent to 72.7% recovery.
· Gold
recovery from future ore from Marigold, including stockpile and leach pad inventory, is estimated
to be 72.4%, based on a review of historical assay and recovery data, as well as metallurgical
test work on future ore.
· Test
work has been conducted on a variety of Marigold ore samples, including representative pit
samples taken by ore-control geologists, leach pad grab samples from mine production, and
various pit blasthole drill cuttings. Bottle roll test work has also been conducted on exploration
reverse circulation (RC) drill samples to determine expected gold recovery from deposits
that will be mined in the future.
· A
large number of column leach tests and bottle roll tests have been performed on the same
samples to determine the relationship between their results. Column leach test work continues;
however, bottle roll tests can be performed to generate metallurgical data in days rather
than the months that are required for column leach tests.
· Permeability
testing has been performed on ore samples with varying fines content. The testing simulated
compaction under multiple lifts of ore stacked up to 200 m; the current maximum height of
the heap leach pads above the liner elevation is 122 m. Overall, the tested blends demonstrated
relatively consistent permeability on increasing loads over 50 m and acceptable permeabilities
with material blended to a 40% fines to 60% durable ratio. Flow rates for the blends ranged
from 178 L/h/m2 to 284 L/h/m2 under no load. Under 122
m effective height loading, flow rates ranged from 34 L/h/m2 up to 188
L/h/m2. All tests resulted in low, but acceptable permeabilities.
1-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Buffalo Valley
· SSR
designed Buffalo Valley metallurgical testing programs in 2023, 2024, and 2025 to build on
historical information, including new test areas and testing specific lithologies without
blending. The 2024 and 2025 programs also targeted lower-grade composites. Finally, the 2025
program expanded lithologic targets to previously untested units at depth, including base
limestone and a new sulfidic lithology, VDFX.
· Buffalo
Valley mineralization shows a strong crush-size dependence. This dependence is likely due
to gold particles being encapsulated by skarns and other silicate minerals, which can only
be liberated by grinding. A portion of the gold deportment is also refractory to cyanide.
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis shows that arsenopyrite can be a significant
host of submicron gold, even in samples with well-oxidized pyrite. In 200-mesh bottle roll
tests, almost all tests show more than 80% recovery of the contained gold, with only a few
sulfidic-refractory samples.
· The
laboratory test recoveries are scaled to the anticipated production size, either 38 mm
crushed or 304 mm ROM. Individual test recoveries are plotted to generate crush size versus
recovery curves for each lithology. The recoveries are then discounted by 4% to account for
heap leach inefficiency and other scale-up effects. The results are used to determine the
gold recovery for each material type for resource calculations.
1.1.1.4 Infrastructure
Marigold
· Marigold
is readily accessible via Interstate Highway 80 in northern Nevada and is approximately 5 km
south–south-west of Valmy in Humboldt County. The site access road supports two lanes
of traffic and consists of hard packed clay and gravel.
· The
infrastructure facilities at Marigold include ancillary buildings, offices and support buildings,
access roads into the plant site, power distribution, source of fresh water and water distribution,
fuel supply, storage and distribution, waste management and communications. The infrastructure
facilities are sufficient for supporting the current Marigold operations.
· The
power supply for Marigold is provided by NV Energy Inc. via a 120 kV transmission line
to site. Site power draw is 5 MW. After exiting the main substation, power is distributed
through a 25 kV distribution grid. Power supply is consistent and dependable and is
not a limiting factor for current operations.
· Marigold
has sufficient groundwater rights and water well capacity to support the ongoing process
operations. The water is primarily consumed by retention in the heap leach pad, evaporation,
processing operations and dust suppression.
· Marigold
has sufficient disposal capacity and non-consumptive water rights to manage dewatering flows
that are not consumed for operational needs. The water that is not consumed is returned to
the groundwater system through the rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) and considered non-consumptive
use.
1-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· It
is the SLR QP’s opinion that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by
SSR as outlined above for use in the TRS because the Property has been in operation for a
number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility in
these areas that have a good understanding of the operating requirements for the Property.
Buffalo Valley
· The
initial site layout for Buffalo Valley was developed from the Newmont Plan of Operations
acquired as part of the purchase of the property.
· The
need for a connector road from Marigold to Buffalo Valley was confirmed and fully engineered
by WSP during the feasibility study completed by SSR Mining in 2026 (SSR 2026b, the Feasibility
Study).
· Given
the short initial mine life of Buffalo Valley, SSR decided to use the Marigold truck shop
rather than build a new truck shop at Buffalo Valley. No other maintenance facilities are
planned at Buffalo Valley.
· Currently,
the North Peak substation is fed from the existing Marigold Mine substation, which is supplied
by NV Energy. Buffalo Valley will need to construct approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) of
24.9 kV power line from the existing North Peak power line to service the Project site. Line
power will be stepped down to 4,160 V, 480 V, and 110 V as required with power primarily
distributed at 4,160 V or 480 V to motor control centers serving the respective process areas.
· Three
site-area transformers will be required at different locations throughout Buffalo Valley.
The anticipated transformer-connected loads are 6.53 MW, and the calculated demand loads
are 4.61 MW (including the crushing circuit and pit dewatering pumps).
· The
new overhead power line from North Peak to Buffalo Valley will be routed along the new Marigold/Buffalo
Valley connector road.
1.1.1.5 Environment
Marigold
· Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements
apply to Marigold, including the following:
o The
Plan of Operations (PoO) permitted via the United States (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
o The
Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) issued by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
(NDEP)
o The
temporary discharge permit allowing for the discharge of dewatering water to rapid infiltration
basins (RIBs) issued by NDEP
o The
reclamation permit issued by the Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR)
1-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· MMC
currently holds and is in compliance with active, valid permits for all current facets of
the Marigold mining operation.
· At
present, there are no known environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral
Resources at the Property.
· All
activities associated with Marigold require an approved reclamation plan that includes a
Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. This was updated
and approved by federal and state agencies in 2026.
· MMC
is actively engaged with the local communities and stakeholders and there are no outstanding
negotiations or social commitments for the operation of the Marigold mine.
· The
SLR QP’s opinion is that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR
as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social analyses
have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation
for a number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility
in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory, and environmental
requirements for the Property.
Buffalo Valley
· Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt County and Lander County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting
requirements apply to Buffalo Valley, including the following:
o The
exploration PoO permitted via the U.S. BLM (active)
o PoO
for the Buffalo Valley mining operation permitted via the BLM (required)
o The
WPCP issued by the NDEP (required)
o The
temporary discharge permit allowing for the discharge of dewatering water to RIBs issued
by NDEP (required)
o The
reclamation permit issued by the BMRR (required)
· MMC
currently holds and is in compliance with active, valid permits for all current facets of
the exploration operation.
· At
present, there are no known environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral
Resources at the Property.
· Exploration
activities associated with Buffalo Valley require an approved reclamation plan, including
a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. This was updated
and approved by federal and state agencies in 2026.
· The
Buffalo Valley mining operation will require an RCE prior to commencing mining
· MMC
is actively engaged with the local communities and stakeholders and there are no outstanding
negotiations or social commitments for the operation of the mine.
· The
SLR QP’s opinion is that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR
as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social analyses
have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation
for a number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility
in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory, and environmental
requirements for the Property.
1-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.1.1.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
· SSR’s
forecasted capital and operating costs estimates related to the development of Mineral Reserves
are derived from annual budgets and historical actuals over the long life of the current
operation. These estimates were classified by SSR according to the American Association of
Cost Engineers (AACE) classifications as Class 1 with an accuracy range of -3% to -10% to
+3% to +15%.
· Future
growth capital costs are forecast to be $542 million, sustaining capital is forecast to be
$669 million, and reclamation costs are forecast to be $175 million for the life of mine,
for a total life of mine capital costs of $1,385 million.
· Construction
is ongoing for the growth capital projects, including the expansion of the mine fleet and
leach pads, and the development of Buffalo Valley. Costs prior to May 1, 2026, are considered
sunk.
1.1.2 Recommendations
SLR offers the following recommendations
by area.
1.1.2.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
The SLR QP offers the following recommendations
regarding advancement of the Property and improvement of the Resource model.
1 SSR
has proposed a two-year exploration drilling (2027 and 2028) program with a total budget
of US$10,000,000 to advance development of exploration target areas in Marigold Mine and
Buffalo Valley. The objective of the exploration program will be to target potential gold-bearing
structures to expand the mineralization footprint and convert the current Resource to Reserve.
The SLR QP agrees with the objectives and overall scope of this exploration program.
2 Conduct
an additional infill drilling of 10,000 m drilling at MMC every year, where there are opportunities
to increase orebody knowledge and confidence of Mineral Resource estimates.
3 Continue
pit mapping and use the data to refine structural and redox models.
4 Continue
to carry out preg-rob/LECO assays along the oxide-sulfide boundaries.
1.1.2.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
1 Continuously
optimize haulage profiles and pit sequencing across the Complex, prioritizing lower-strip-ratio
phases and targeted interior pit options, to smooth annual ore production profiles, reduce
operational volatility, and mitigate reliance on excessive fleet expansion while providing
an operational buffer against potential permitting delays at Buffalo Valley.
2 Advance
dewatering, depressurization programs, and pore pressure monitoring ahead of active mining
fronts in deeper Marigold pits like Mackay and Red Dot Phase 3 to maintain required slope
stability factors of safety.
3 Advance
geotechnical studies, ongoing groundwater monitoring, and structural modeling at Buffalo
Valley, specifically addressing pitward-dipping bedding in domains 1 through 3 and high-plasticity
clay horizons in the overburden, to ensure stable slope performance.
1-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
4 Maintain
rigorous grade control procedures, blasthole sampling, and fire-assay-to-cyanide-soluble
regressions across active Marigold areas, while establishing equivalent protocols for Buffalo
Valley prior to production.
5 Execute
the planned 2026–2028 fleet expansion and capital additions on schedule (including
the LeTourneau L-1850 loader, Liebherr 9600 shovel, second P&H 4100 shovel, and additional
300 short ton (st) haul trucks) to support the increased LOM mining rate and inter-pit equipment
transfers.
6 Prioritize
equipment maintenance, asset reliability, and proactive workforce retention to manage heavy
utilization rates, aging baseline assets, and the dynamic rotation of the shovel and truck
fleet between Marigold and Buffalo Valley.
1.1.2.3 Mineral
Processing
1 Conduct
regular assessments of the AuCN/AuFA ratio using updated exploration and blast hole data.
2 Continue
to conduct column and bottle roll metallurgical testing on heap leach feed composites to
determine maximum possible gold recovery.
3 Conduct
metallurgical test work on any future ore sources to develop a geometallurgical model including
material properties and metallurgical parameters.
4 Complete
further studies and assessment of heap leach recoverable gold inventory.
5 Complete
targeted technical and metallurgical studies on durable ore materials to better understand
their physical characteristics and leach kinetics, ensuring stacking performance, solution
percolation, and gold recovery reconcile closely with production forecasts.
1.1.2.4 Infrastructure
1 Continue
to maintain the infrastructure facilities in good working order to ensure that critical services
such as power and water management, pumping and storage facilities are fully available for
potential upset conditions.
2 Ensure
the storage volume available in the process ponds is regularly evaluated and increased when
required to maintain regulatory compliance and manage risks associated with increasing water
inventory due to growth of the heap and barren solution pumping capacity.
3 Ensure
that consumptive water rights holdings are periodically re-evaluated relative to the potential
growth in site water demands.
4 Confirm
HLF configuration and remaining capacity, including reconciliation of the current HLF footprint,
stack geometry, ore inventory, approved development limits, and remaining stacking capacity
with the LOM plan, and documentation of the relationship between available HLF capacity and
the Mineral Reserve production schedule.
5 Review,
and update where appropriate, SSR's governance policies related to the HLF, including maintaining
appropriate Engineer of Record (EOR) oversight, defining site ownership and technical responsibilities,
implementing management of change (MOC) procedures, conducting periodic independent reviews,
and incorporating risk assessments into facility management and decision-making.
1-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6 Expand
the current Operation, Maintenance, and Surveillance (OMS) framework to include additional
HLF-specific requirements, including inspection and maintenance requirements, performance
monitoring, including continuous survey slope stability monitoring, record keeping, escalation
procedures, and development of risk-based Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs) for key performance
indicators such as slope performance, seepage, drainage, pond freeboard, and extreme weather
events.
7 Develop
a Design Basis Report (DBR) document for the HLF, including consolidation of key design criteria,
design assumptions, liner configurations, stack geometry limitations, pond containment requirements,
and evaluation of the impacts of the current and planned HLF configuration on facility performance
(e.g., stability, drainage, seepage, solution management, and water balance).
8 Continue
to perform design verification and performance confirmation, including verification that
current operating conditions and ore characteristics remain consistent with the assumptions
used in the original design, and evaluating the implications of any material changes on HLF
performance.
9 Evaluate
options for additional heap leach facilities to allow further optimization of haulage networks.
10 Evaluate
water balance and capacity management, including maintaining a current site-wide HLF water
balance model that incorporates active and planned leach areas, solution inventories, pond
capacities, design storm events, evaporation, draindown, operational freeboard, and closure
assumptions. The model should support operating decisions, capacity evaluations, emergency
planning, and future expansion studies.
1.1.2.5 Environment
1 Progress
the environmental permitting process for Buffalo Valley to ensure approvals are secured ahead
of its scheduled 2029 operational entry, utilizing flexible Marigold internal sequencing
as a direct operational buffer against potential permitting delays.
1.1.2.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
SLR has no recommendations related to
capital and operating costs.
1.2 Economic
Analysis
An
after-tax Cash Flow Projection has been generated from the Life of Mine production schedule and capital and operating cost estimates
and is summarized in Table 1-1. A summary of the key criteria is provided below. The complete cash
flow is presented in Section 27.0 Appendix.
1.2.1 Economic
Criteria
1.2.1.1 Revenue
· Approximately
58,000 tonnes ore per day stacked (approximately 21 Mt per year) at an average stacked grade
of 0.44 g/t Au, for 4.26 Moz contained stacked.
· LOM
stacked ore recovery averages 72.0%, resulting in 3.06 Moz recoverable stacked during mining
(May 1, 2026, through 2040)
1-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· LOM
total of 3.34 Moz Au produced at an average of 196 koz per year during stacking. A total
of 392 koz Au are produced during the final five-year rinsing period after mining ceases.
Approximately 272 koz Au are recovered from work-in-progress inventory over the LOM.
· Metal
price: US$3,948 per ounce gold (LOM realized), US$3,710 per ounce gold long term price (2031+).
· Gold
at refinery 99.97% payable.
· Net
Smelter Return includes doré refining, transport, and insurance costs.
· Revenue
is recognized at the time of gold production.
1.2.1.2 Costs
· Mine
life: 20 years, including 2026 (fifteen years of mining and five years of heap leach pad
rinsing).
· Life
of Mine production plan is summarized in Table 13-6.
· LOM
growth capital totals $542.2 million.
· LOM
sustaining capital totals $668.6 million.
· Final
reclamation costs total $174.6 million.
· Average
operating cost, including royalties and offsite costs, over the mine life is $20.27 per tonne
stacked.
1.2.1.2.1 Taxation
and Royalties
Marigold is subject to Nevada Net Proceeds
of Minerals Tax, Nevada property and sales taxes, and U.S. federal income tax. The economic analysis calculates these taxes in accordance
with legislation enacted as of January 1, 2022. Property and sales taxes are accounted for in the operating costs of the mine.
Nevada Gross Proceeds Tax
In 2021, the State of Nevada enacted
Assembly Bill 495, effective July 1, 2021, which is an annual excise tax on gold and silver revenue. Under the bill, the tax rates vary
based on the taxpayer’s Nevada gross revenue. A 0.75% rate is imposed on Nevada gross revenue of more than $20 million but not
more than $150 million in a taxable year (defined as the calendar year). A rate of 1.10% applies to Nevada gross revenue exceeding $150
million in any tax year. The LOM average rate for Marigold Mining Complex during stacking is approximately 1.0% and averages $7.9 million
per year over the fifteen years of mine operation.
Nevada Net Proceeds Tax
The State of Nevada imposes a 5% net
proceeds tax on the value of all minerals extracted in the State. This tax is calculated and paid based on a prescribed net income formula
applied only to income and expenses from mining, disallowing deductions for exploration and related-party financing costs. This tax is
a deductible expense for U.S. federal income tax calculations and averages $17.8 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation.
1-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
US Federal Income Tax
Federal income tax is determined under
regulations that came into effect on January 1, 2022. Under these regulations, which removed alternative minimum tax, the mine is subject
to a federal income tax rate of 21%. SLR utilized Unit of Production depreciation, depletion allowances, and Net Operating Losses (NOL)
as deductions. Total U.S. federal tax payable averages $23.1 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation.
Royalties
Marigold is subject to a variety of
NSR royalty payments, payable to various parties under the terms of the leases, as described in Section 3. The annual average NSR royalty
payment is about 6.9% of gross revenue and averages $52.3 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation. Net Smelter Return
(NSR) royalty payments for the Buffalo Valley deposit are fixed at 3.5% of the value of production net of off-site refining costs.
1.2.2 Cash
Flow Analysis
Considering
the Complex on a stand-alone basis, the undiscounted pre-tax cash flow totals $5,747 million over the mine life. The after-tax Net Present
Value (NPV) at a 5% discount rate (midpoint with May 1, 2026, as time zero) is $3,334 million, as shown in Table
1-1.
Table 1-1: After-Tax Cash Flow Summary
Description
LOM
Realized
Market Prices
Au
($/oz) – Average
$3,948
Payable
Metal
Au
(koz)
3,335
Cash
Flow Summary
US$
million
Total
Gross Revenue
13,166
Mining
and Maintenance Cost
(3,741)
Process
Cost
(804)
G
& A Cost
(451)
Refining/Freight
(5)
Mining
Royalties
(903)
NGPT1
(131)
Total
Operating Costs
(6,034)
Operating
Margin (EBITDA)
7,132
Cash
Taxes Payable
(834)
Working
Capital2
0
Operating
Cash Flow
6,298
Development
(Growth) Capital
(542)
1-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Description
LOM
Sustaining
Capital
(669)
Total
Closure/Reclamation Capital
(175)
Pre-tax
Free Cash Flow
5,747
Pre-tax
NPV @ 5%
3,878
After-tax
Free Cash Flow
4,913
After-tax
NPV @ 5%
3,334
Notes:
1.
Nevada Gross Proceeds Tax
2.
All working capital adjustments net to zero at end of mine life.
The World Gold Council Adjusted Operating
Cost (AOC) is $1,809/oz Au. The mine life capital unit cost, including sustaining and closure/reclamation, is $253/oz, for an All in
Sustaining Cost (AISC) of $2,062/oz Au. The average annual gold production during operation, excluding rinsing phase, is 196 koz per
year over the fifteen year mine life and 78 koz per year during the five-year rinsing phase.
1.2.3 Sensitivity
Analysis
Project risks can be identified in both
economic and non-economic terms. Key economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities:
· Head
grade
· Metallurgical
recovery
· Gold
price
· Operating
costs
· Capital
costs
After-tax IRR sensitivity over the base
case has been calculated for -20% to +20% variations for head grade, recovery, and gold price and operating and capital costs. The Project
is most sensitive to changes in head grade, metallurgical recovery, and metal price (usually with same magnitude of impact) followed
by operating cost and finally capital costs.
Economics for the operating Marigold
gold mine complex are robust with respect to price, head grade, recovery, capital, and operating costs. The operations benefit from a
long history of experience with mining heap leach gold recovery operations, and higher gold prices than originally planned.
1.3 Technical
Summary
1.3.1 Property
Description
Marigold is located in southeastern
Humboldt County along the Interstate Highway 80 corridor in the northern foothills of the Battle Mountain Range, Nevada, U.S. Activities
at the Property are centered at approximately 40°45′ N Latitude and 117°8′ W Longitude.
1-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The Property is situated approximately
five kilometers south–southwest of the town of Valmy, Nevada, at Exit 216 off Interstate Highway 80. Other nearby municipalities
include Winnemucca and Battle Mountain, Nevada, which lie approximately 58 km to the northwest and 24 km to the southeast of the Property,
respectively.
1.3.2 Land
Tenure
The Marigold Complex includes two main
land packages, the Marigold Land Package and the Sterling Land Package, collectively, the Property or project areas.
The Marigold Land Package encompasses
approximately 10,440 hectares (ha), including the properties within the Marigold Mine Plan of Operations (PoO). The Sterling Land Package
(9,169 ha) includes properties associated with the Trenton Canyon Mine and Buffalo Valley Mine.
Land and mineral ownership within the
project areas are within the corridor initially governed by the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, and, as such, these areas generally have
a “checkerboard” ownership pattern. Mineral claims in Nevada are managed federally by the BLM. SSR holds a 100% interest
in the Property through its wholly-owned subsidiary, MMC. Surface and mineral rights at the Property comprise the following: real property
owned by MMC; unpatented mining claims owned by MMC; and leasehold rights held by MMC with respect to unpatented mining claims, mill
site claims, and certain surface lands.
Some of the leases require MMC to make
certain net smelter return (NSR) royalty payments to the lessors and comply with other obligations, including completing certain work
commitments or paying taxes levied on the underlying properties. The NSR royalty payments are based on the specific gold-extraction areas
and are payable when the corresponding gold ounces are extracted, produced, and sold. The NSR royalty payments vary between 0% and 10.0%
of the value of gold production, net of off-site refining costs, which equates to an annual average ranging from 3.3% to 10.0% and a
weighted average of 6.9% over the life-of-mine (LOM).
1.3.3 History
The first recorded gold production from
the Property near Valmy, Nevada, occurred in 1938 when the Marigold Mining Company, owned by Frank Horton, operated an underground mine
which came to be known as Marigold. The Horton family processed approximately 9,000 t of ore averaging about 6.85 g/t Au before World
War II halted production. In 1943, Mr. Horton’s estate sold its interest in the Property and claims. Several unsuccessful attempts
were made to open and operate the mine before exploration activities began again in 1968.
From 1968 through 1985, several companies
conducted exploration programs in the Marigold area and completed a total of 126 exploratory drill holes. Records document the activities
of Homestake (1968), St. Joe (1979), Decker Exploration (1979), Placer Amex (1979–1980), True North, Marigold Development Company
(MDC) (1981–1983), Welcome North (1984), and Nevada North Resources (USA) Inc. (1985–1986). Other groups that conducted work
in the area include Newmont, Kerr-McGee, SFP Minerals Corporation, Cordex/Rayrock Mines, and Vek/Andrus Associates (partnership between
Vic Kral, Ralph Roberts, Bob Reeve, and Bill Andrus composed of Vek Associates and Andrus Resources Corporation).
The operating partner Cordex, an exploration
syndicate composed of Dome Exploration (U.S.) Ltd., Lacana Gold Inc. (Lacana) and Rayrock Mines, leased the Vek/Andrus Associates claim
block in September 1985 and began a drilling program in November 1985. Drill holes NM-3 and NM-4 intersected 21.3 m of 2.40 g/t Au and
25.9 m of 7.54 g/t Au, respectively. These were the discovery holes for the 8 South (8S) orebody.
1-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Following further drilling in the 8S
deposit in the spring of 1986, a joint venture was formed between SFP Minerals and the Cordex group, which consolidated some of the land
holdings over the Marigold area.
In late-1986, the Cordex group leased
other claims, including the historical Marigold mine, Mackay (Top Zone, East Hill, and Red Rock) area from various claim holders.
In March 1988, Rayrock Mines (operating
company for Cordex) made a production decision on the 8S deposit, and, by September 1988, it began stripping on the 8S pit (McGibbon,
2004).
In August 1989, the first gold doré
bar was poured at the Marigold mill.
In March 1992, Rayrock Mines purchased
a two-thirds ownership interest in the Property, and Homestake Mining Company (Homestake), which had taken Lacana’s interest through
previous corporate mergers, held the remaining one third ownership interest in the Property.
In 1994, mining of the 8S deposit was
completed, and the Marigold mill was no longer used to process ore. At this point, Marigold became a ROM heap leach operation.
In March 1999, Glamis Gold Ltd. (Glamis
Gold) purchased all the assets of Rayrock Mines, resulting in Glamis Gold holding a two thirds ownership interest in Marigold, and Homestake
continuing to hold a one third ownership interest. By January 2001, a total of one million ounces of gold had been recovered from the
Property.
In 2006, Glamis Gold merged with Goldcorp
Inc. (Goldcorp), resulting in a Goldcorp subsidiary holding a two-thirds ownership interest in Marigold and being the operator. Homestake,
which had been acquired by Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) in 2001, continued to hold the remaining one-third ownership interest.
In 2007, discovery holes were drilled in the Red Dot deposit.
By mid-2009, two million ounces of gold
had been recovered from Marigold.
On April 4, 2014, SSR (formerly Silver
Standard Resources Inc.) completed the acquisition of Marigold from subsidiaries of Goldcorp and Barrick.
In August 2015, Marigold mine acquired
2,844 ha of adjacent land from Newmont. This land included previously mined areas known as the Mud pit, NW pit, and the Valmy pits. Exploration
drilling in the area had been completed by a combination of companies including Hecla Mining Company (Hecla), SFP Minerals, and Newmont.
In June 2019, SSR acquired the Trenton
Canyon and Buffalo Valley properties from Newmont Goldcorp Corporation (Newmont). The Trenton Canyon target is located approximately
four kilometers south of New Millenium and the Buffalo Valley target is located approximately 10 km southwest of New Millenium. Both
properties are included in an 8,900 ha parcel that is contiguous to the south boundary of the Marigold property.
1.3.4 Geological
Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
Marigold is located in the Battle Mountain
district of north-central Nevada within the Basin and Range physiographic province bounded by Sierra Nevada to the west and the Colorado
Plateau to the east. Paleozoic basement rocks of north-central to north-eastern Nevada generally comprise four distinct tectonostratigraphic
assemblages: the eastern carbonate assemblage; the slope or transitional assemblage; the western siliceous and volcanic assemblage; and
the overlap assemblage (Roberts, 1964). These rocks record a complex history of compressional and extensional tectonics and magmatism
affecting the western margin of North America from the early Paleozoic through present. The Battle Mountain district hosts numerous mineral
occurrences, including porphyry copper–gold, porphyry copper–molybdenum, skarn, placer gold, distal disseminated silver-gold,
and Carlin-type gold systems.
1-16
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The gold deposits at Marigold are best
characterized as Carlin-type deposits and cumulatively define a north-trending alignment of gold mineralized rock more than eight kilometers
long. Gold mineralizing fluids were primarily controlled by fault structure and lithology, with tertiary influence by fold geometry.
Within the Valmy Formation, higher gold grades are observed in the hinge zones of open folds that trend west-northwest and plunge gently.
When viewed down plunge, the undulation of these folds is mimicked by gold mineralized horizons. The deposition of gold was restricted
to fault zones and quartzite dominant horizons within the Valmy Formation and high permeability units within the Antler sequence.
The Buffalo Valley gold deposit is a
distal disseminated silver-gold deposit and formed along a southeast trending zone of felsic porphyry dikes and faults. Gold occurs in
arsenian iron sulfide overgrowths on pyrite in sheeted quartz+sericite+pyrite (QSP) veinlets within the central granodiorite and dacite
porphyry dikes, subparallel to dike margins in the country rock, and within faults (e.g., the Front fault). Outboard of the intrusions,
gold mineralization is stratiform in receptive horizons of Havallah sequence metasedimentary rocks.
Gold mineralization at Trenton Canyon
is best described as a Carlin-type deposit and primarily hosted in a network of transtensional faults locally intruded by Eocene dikes
and sills. Hydrothermal and/or phreatomagmatic breccias within these structures typically contain increased concentrations of gold. Gold
mineralization is well confined to structures, although a small (several meter) halo of lower grade, more disseminated mineralization
may be present. Quartz veining, illite, iron oxides, and iron hydroxides (goethite) are the primary indicators of gold mineralization
where oxidized.
1.3.5 Exploration
Since acquiring the Property in April
2014, SSR has conducted several surface exploration programs including soil sampling, geophysics, and in-fill/delineation drilling.
Reverse Circulation (RC) and Core (Diamond
Drilling-DD) drilling on the Property is the principal method of exploration and delineation of gold mineralization after initial targeting
using soil sampling and geophysical surveys. Drilling can generally be conducted year-round on the Property.
As of the effective date of this TRS,
SSR and its predecessor companies have completed over 2.6 million meters of drilling in approximately 13,000 drillholes across the Marigold,
Buffalo Valley, and Trenton Canyon areas.
Since 2022, exploration at the Property
has focused on the following:
· Exploration
drilling to expand Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves through systematic step out drilling.
· Infill
drilling to increase the confidence of Mineral Resource estimates, specifically targeting
areas with widely spaced drilling (approximately 35m to 50 m) and around drill holes drilled
prior to 2006 with missing assays.
· Drilling
to confirm the final position of the pit highwall.
1-17
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Defining
mineralization at Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Valley.
Since the last technical report (SLR
2024), 731 holes have been drilled (663 RC holes and 68 diamond core holes), totaling 157,220 m.
1.3.6 Mineral
Resource Estimates
Mineral
Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. SLR has reviewed, audited, and accepted
the Mineral Resource estimates prepared by SSR and Red Pennant Geoscience Consulting (Red Pennant) for Marigold and Buffalo Valley, respectively.
The Mineral Resource estimates are based on block model values developed from assays on the mineralized properties. The Marigold Mine
and Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources as of May 1, 2026, are summarized in Table 1-2.
The Mineral Resource estimates were
completed using Seequent’s Leapfrog Geo (Leapfrog Geo) software for Marigold and Buffalo Valley.
Estimates were validated using standard
industry techniques, including statistical comparisons with composite samples and parallel inverse distance squared (ID2) and nearest
neighbor (NN) estimates, swath plots, and visual reviews in cross-section and plan. A visual review comparing blocks to drill holes was
completed after the block modeling work was performed to ensure general lithologic and analytical conformance and was peer reviewed prior
to finalization.
1-18
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 1-2: Summary of Marigold Mine
and Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources
Deposit
Measured
Mineral
Resources
Indicated
Mineral
Resources
Measured
+ Indicated
Mineral Resources
Inferred
Mineral Resources
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t Au)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Marigold
0.0
0.000
0.0
125.0
0.39
74.0%
125.0
0.39
74.0%
18.1
0.30
71.6%
0.069
Buffalo
Valley
0.0
0.000
0.0
5.6
0.53
59.1%
5.6
0.53
59.1%
11.2
0.31
64.4%
0.10
to 0.32
Total
0.0
0.000
0.0
130.6
0.40
73.3%
130.6
0.40
73.3%
29.3
0.31
68.8%
Notes:
1.
The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
2.
The effective date of Mineral Resources at Marigold is May 1, 2026, and the effective date of Mineral
Resources at Buffalo Valley is May 1, 2026.
3.
Marigold Mine is based on an optimized pit shell at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable gold (gold
assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds). Buffalo Valley is based on a cut-off grade of 0.10 g/t to 0.32 g/t contained
gold, depending on material type.
4.
Marigold metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade. Buffalo Valley metallurgical recoveries
vary with gold grade and lithology.
5.
For Marigold, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10,
Havallah = 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64, below 533 m. For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3)
were assigned by lithology, ranging from a low of 2.095 (Overburden) to a high of 2.725 (Basalt).
6.
The Mineral Resources estimate is reported below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Marigold,
and below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Buffalo Valley.
7.
The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
8.
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
9.
SSR has 100% ownership of the Marigold Complex.
10.
Gold grades are given in grams per metric tonne (g/t).
11.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
1-19
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.3.7 Mineral
Reserve Estimates
Mineral
Reserves in this TRS are derived from the current Mineral Resources. The Mineral Reserves are reported as contained gold and are based
on open pit mining from Marigold and Buffalo Valley Mines. The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Marigold are estimated as of
May 1, 2026, and summarized in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3: Summary
of Marigold Mineral Reserves Estimate as of May 1, 2026
Proven
Probable
Total
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Gold
(Moz)
Marigold
-
-
240.44
0.46
240.44
0.46
3.52
0.069
73.5%
Buffalo
Valley
-
-
45.33
0.46
45.33
0.46
0.67
0.069˟
65.9%
Stockpile
-
-
11.96
0.17
11.96
0.17
0.06
0.069
56.3%
Leach
Pad Inventory
-
-
61.01
0.19
61.01
0.19
0.37
-
65.2%
Total
-
-
358.74
0.40
358.74
0.40
4.63
0.069
71.5%
Notes:
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 definitions.
2.
The Marigold Mine Mineral Reserve estimate is based on a metal price assumption of $2,200/oz
gold and is reported at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable Au (Au assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
3.
˟The Buffalo Valley Mineral Reserve estimate assumes ROM heap leach processing and a gold
price of $2,200/oz. Cut-off grades range from 0.069 to 1.767 g/t payable Au, and metallurgical recoveries range from 3.1% to 79.2%,
both varying by lithology/metallurgical domain.
4.
No mining dilution is applied to the grade of the Mineral Reserves. Dilution intrinsic to the
Mineral Reserves estimate is considered sufficient to represent the mining selectivity considered.
5.
Bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10, Havallah
= 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64. For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned
by lithology ranging from a low of 2.426 (Overburden) to a high of 2.737 (Basalt) with a weighted average of 2.63.
6.
The Property is 100% owned by SSR through its subsidiary MMC.
7.
All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
8.
The point of reference for Mineral Reserves is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
9.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
SLR is not aware of any risk factors
associated with, or changes to, any aspects of the modifying factors such as mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, permitting, or other
relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate.
1.3.8 Mining
Methods
Marigold Mine is mined using conventional
surface mining methods. The Marigold Mine uses large 300 st mining trucks, and some areas of the pit require long hauls to the leach
pads. The surface operations include:
· Clearing
and grubbing
· Overburden
removal
· Drilling
and blasting
· Loading
and haulage
1-20
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The Mineral Reserve is based on the
ongoing annual average ore production from the Mackay (includes the Red Dot area), Valmy, DG80, North Mackay, and New Millenium areas,
as well as Buffalo Valley – a satellite pit with a planned commencement in 2029 -delivering an average of approximately 200 koz
recovered over the 15 years of active mining.
Mining and processing operations are
scheduled 24 hours per day, and the mine production is scheduled to directly feed the leach pads.
The current LOM plan for the Marigold
Mine and Buffalo Valley Mine provides 20 years of operational life, including 15 years of active mining followed by an additional five
years of processing the heap leach pad inventory. The average stripping ratio from the pits, excluding the stockpile ore, is 5.3 waste
units to 1 unit of ore (5.3:1 stripping ratio).
There are 33 mining pits/phases in the
four mining areas of the Marigold Mine with varying dimensions, with a maximum depth of approximately 460 m attained in the Red Dot pit
area. In addition, the Buffalo Valley area will comprise two additional phases for Buffalo Valley and Ore Hills.
Primary production for all mine pits
includes drilling 22.2 cm diameter blast holes. A production blast hole of 16.7 m depth is drilled. Burden and spacing vary depending
on the material being drilled. The holes are filled with explosives and blasted. A combination of hydraulic excavators and electric shovels
load the broken material into 300 st-payload mining trucks for transport from the pit to the overburden storage areas (OBSAs) and leach
pads.
The major pieces of pit equipment include
electric shovels, hydraulic excavators, front end loaders, haul trucks, drills, bulldozers, and graders. Extensive maintenance facilities
are available at the mine site to service mine equipment.
Marigold
headcount is 540 persons, which includes personnel in mine operations, mine maintenance, geology,
process and laboratory, and general and administration. For the 2027 to 2040 LOM period, the workforce is projected to increase to a
total of 686 personnel, comprising 578 employees and 109 contractors.
1.3.9 Processing
and Recovery Methods
Marigold
The Marigold processing facilities combine
industry standard ROM cyanide heap leaching, recovery of gold from the leach solution using carbon adsorption, desorption, electrowinning,
and refining circuits (ADR) to produce a final precious metal product.
The heap leach pad was originally constructed
in 1990 and has since expanded as required, with ongoing expansion of solution processing facilities to match production rate and leach
area. Approximately 427 hectares of heap leach pads are divided into 27 cells, along with six pregnant (gold-bearing) solution ponds
and two barren solution ponds. There are 17 cells currently active.
ROM ore is delivered from the mine at
a rate of approximately 20 Mt per year to the leach pad by mine haul trucks and stacked in 6 m to 12 m lifts.
Barren leach solution is pumped to the
leach pad by two independent barren solution distribution systems. Combined barren solution flow capacity from the two pumping systems
is 3,400 m3/h. In 2026, upgrades are underway to increase barren solution pumping capacity to 4,540 m3/h.
Drip tubing is used to distribute the barren solution from the main barren solution pipelines to each cell. Solution is applied to the
ore at a rate of 4.6 L/h/m2 to 8.6 L/h/m2 using drip emitters, impact sprinklers, wobblers, or drip
emitters are used to irrigate the side slopes of the heap.
1-21
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Pregnant solution from the leach pad
is collected in the pregnant solution ponds and pumped to the carbon-in-column (CIC) adsorption plant located on the north side of Barren
Pond No. 1 to recover the gold by adsorption. The carbon adsorption circuit consists of seven parallel carbon column trains, each with
five columns. Four new trains are being installed in 2026 to match the barren pumping upgrades currently underway.
Loaded carbon from carbon adsorption
is transported by a dedicated truck to the nearby carbon processing facility where gold is eluted (re-dissolved) from the carbon in two
2.7 t capacity carbon elution vessels. Gold is eluted from the carbon using the Pressure Zadra process where a hot caustic solution at
approximately 140°C is circulated under pressure through the elution column, from bottom to top. The resulting rich gold eluant flows
through two parallel 2.8 m3 electrowinning cells to recover the gold. The barren eluant discharging the electrowinning cells
is recirculated through heat exchangers to the bottom of the elution vessel to strip more gold. The process continues until the majority
of the gold is recovered from the carbon.
The stripped carbon is acid washed with
hydrochloric acid. The acidified carbon is then neutralized with water in the same column. The carbon is discharged from the column and
transferred to the reactivation kiln. The carbon is reactivated as required by heating in a rotary kiln at 750°C. The reactivated
carbon is quenched and screened before being returned to the carbon adsorption circuit to be reloaded with gold.
The plated material (sludge) resulting
from electrowinning is collected in a filter press and then retorted for drying and mercury removal. After retorting, the sludge is mixed
with flux and smelted in a propane fired furnace for final precious metal recovery.
Buffalo Valley
The design of the Buffalo Valley processing
facilities follows the same philosophy as is utilized at Marigold. A multi-cell heap leach pad, designed to accommodate the expected
mining rate up to 14 Mtpa, will be truck-stacked either with ROM or crushed ore in 7.5 m to 12.5 m lifts. Cyanide solution will be applied
to the surface at a nominal rate of 8 L/h/m2, which will percolate through the ore, dissolving precious metals, before being
collected in a drain network at the plastic liner.
Pregnant solution will flow by gravity
directly into a pregnant solution tank, then be pumped to three CIC carbon column trains for adsorption. It was determined that three
9,779 m3/h trains, with five 9,779 m3/h columns per train, provide the best balance of maintenance and production
flexibility.
Loaded carbon from the carbon adsorption
circuit will be transferred to a loaded carbon storage tank, which will then be pumped into a carbon transfer truck and transported to
the Marigold elution facility for acid washing, elution, and reactivation.
Barren carbon will be loaded into the
carbon transfer truck and returned to the Buffalo Valley process plant. Barren carbon will be pumped from the carbon transfer truck into
a barren carbon storage tank before being returned to the adsorption circuit.
Barren process solution will be pumped
to the irrigation system from a barren solution concrete vault using vertical turbine pumps. After percolating through the ore,
the gold-bearing pregnant leach solution will drain by gravity to a pregnant solution tank, where it will be collected and pumped to
the carbon adsorption circuit for metal recovery.
1-22
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.3.10 Infrastructure
Marigold
Marigold is accessible via Interstate
Highway 80 in northern Nevada and is approximately 5 km south-southwest of Valmy in Humboldt County. The site access road supports
two lanes of traffic and consists of hard packed clay and gravel.
The infrastructure facilities at Marigold
include ancillary buildings, offices and support buildings, access roads into the plant site, power distribution, source of fresh water
and water distribution, fuel and reagents supply, storage and distribution, waste management and communications.
The power supply for Marigold is provided
by NV Energy Inc. via a 120 kV transmission line to site. Site power draw is 5 MW. After exiting the main substation, power
is distributed through a 25 kV distribution grid.
Water for Marigold is supplied from
three existing groundwater wells located near the access road to the Property and the site’s network of pit dewatering wells. Marigold
owns groundwater rights and collectively allows up to 3.134 million m3 of water consumption annually for site operations.
Total water consumption by the site has averaged 1.52 million m3 per annum, over the past five years. The water is primarily
consumed by retention in the heap leach pad, evaporation, processing operations and dust suppression.
The following buildings and facilities
are in the main plant and offices area:
· Truck
shop and mobile maintenance warehouse
· Carbon
elution and regeneration / refinery building
· Heap
leach carbon columns
· Wash
bay
· Administration
building and light vehicle (old) shop
· Assay
laboratory
· Metallurgical
laboratory
· Health
& Safety Building
· Radio
Shop
· Motor
control center (MCC)
· Solution
ponds
Additional buildings and facilities
on site include:
· Explosives
magazine
· Leach
pads and solution ponds
· Liquid
cyanide storage tank, truck receiving, and distribution
· Overburden
storage areas
· Operations
ponds (for supplying dust control and drilling)
1-23
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Rapid
Infiltration Basins (RIBs)
· Site
access building
· Potable
water treatment building
· Process
line-out building
· Crusher
· Radio
shop
· Safety
building
· Hose
shop and storage
· Tire
pad
· Fuel
stations
· Welding
and fabrication shop
· Section
20 line-out building
· Dispatch/MineCare
office and Mine Operations building
· GPS
dispatch receiver
· Diesel
tanks and fueling station
Buffalo Valley
The initial site layout for Buffalo
Valley was developed from the Newmont Plan of Operations acquired as part of the purchase of the property. The need for a Marigold to
Buffalo Valley connector road was confirmed and fully engineered by WSP during the Feasibility Study (SSR 2026b).
SSR conducted trade-off studies to evaluate
site warehouse and haul truck maintenance shop locations. Given the short mine life of Buffalo Valley, SSR decided to use the Marigold
truck shop rather than build a new truck shop at Buffalo Valley. No other maintenance facilities are planned at Buffalo Valley.
Buffalo Valley will need to construct
approximately 14.5 km of 24.9 kV power line from the existing North Peak power line to service the Buffalo Valley site. Line power will
be stepped down to 4,160 V, 480 V, and 110 V as required with power primarily distributed at 4,160 V or 480 V to motor control centers
serving the respective process areas.
Currently, the North Peak substation
is fed from the existing Marigold mine substation, supplied by NV Energy. Three site-area transformers will be required at different
locations throughout Buffalo Valley. The anticipated transformer-connected loads are 6.53 MW, and the calculated demand loads are 4.61
MW (including the crushing circuit and pit dewatering pumps). The new overhead power line from North Peak to Buffalo Valley will be routed
along the new Marigold/Buffalo Valley connector road.
1.3.11 Market
Studies
The Marigold Mine produces gold and
silver contained in doré. Marigold is an active producer and has been for over three decades.
Gold is the principal commodity at the
Marigold Mine and is freely traded at prices that are widely known, so that prospects for sale of any production are virtually assured.
A gold price of $2,200/oz Au was used for estimation of Mineral Reserves and a long-term price of $3,948/oz Au was used for the economic
analysis.
1-24
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
1.3.12 Environmental
Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups
Specific federal, state, and local (Humboldt
County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements apply to MMC, including the Plan of Operations (PoO) permitted via the United
States (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) issued by the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection (NDEP); the temporary discharge permit allowing for the discharge of dewatering water to rapid infiltration basins (RIBs)
issued by NDEP; and the reclamation permit issued by the Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR).
MMC currently holds active, valid permits
for all current facets of the mining operation. MMC is currently in compliance with all permits. At present, there are no known environmental
issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral Resources at the Property. All activities associated with MMC require an approved reclamation
plan that includes a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. This was updated and approved by federal
and state agencies in 2026. MMC is actively engaged with the local communities and stakeholders and there are no outstanding negotiations
or social commitments for the operation of the mine.
1.3.13 Capital
and Operating Cost Estimates
SSR’s forecasted capital and operating
cost estimates related to the development of Mineral Reserves are derived from annual budgets and historical actuals over the life of
the current operation. According to the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) classifications, these estimates would be Class
1 with an accuracy range of -3% to -10% to +3% to +15%.
LOM
project capital costs, which considers all costs incurred before May 1, 2026, as sunk, are summarized in Table
1-4.
Table 1-4:
Capital Costs Summary
Capital
Costs
Total
($ million)
Growth
CAPEX
542.2
Subtotal
Growth CAPEX
542.2
Mining
Equipment Replacement
98.1
Equipment/Building
Maintenance
436.4
Administration
2.8
Processing/Lab
40.1
Permitting/Geotech
34.1
Exploration
57.2
Subtotal
Sustaining Capital
668.6
Reclamation
174.6
Total
Capital Costs
1,385.4
1-25
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
LOM (from May 1, 2026) operating costs estimate is $16.78/t of stacked ore, as shown in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5: Operating
Costs Summary
Description
Total
LOM ($ million)*
$/t
stacked*
Mining
and Maintenance
3,741
12.57
(1.99/t moved)
Processing
804
2.70
Site
Support
451
1.51
Total
4,996
16.78
*From
May 1, 2026
1-26
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
2.0 Introduction
SLR International Corporation (SLR)
was retained by SSR Mining Inc. (SSR) to prepare an independent Technical Report Summary (TRS) on the Marigold Complex (Marigold or the
Property), located in Humboldt and Lander counties, Nevada, USA. The Marigold Complex includes the Marigold Mine (including Mackay, Valmy,
and New Millenium) and the Buffalo Valley and Trenton Canyon deposits. SSR holds a 100% interest in the Property through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Marigold Mining Company (MMC).
This TRS conforms to United States Securities
and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300
of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary.
SSR has a diversified portfolio of operating,
development and exploration assets across the Americas, including four operating mines in the USA, Canada, and Argentina. SSR is listed
on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (NASDAQ:SSRM) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:SSRM).
SSR’s 100% owned Marigold Complex
is an open pit heap leach gold mine operation, which has been in production since 1989 and has produced over five million ounces of gold.
The operation consists of several open pits, overburden storage areas (OBSAs), leach pads, a carbon-in-column (CIC) adsorption facility,
and a carbon processing and gold refining facility.
2.1 Site
Visits
SLR qualified persons (QPs) visited
the site on June 10 to 12, 2026. During the site visit, the SLR QPs received a project overview by site management with specific activities
as follows:
The SLR geology QP toured operational
areas and project offices, inspected various parts of the property and infrastructure, inspected the core handling facility, reviewed
sampling procedures, and interviewed key personnel involved in the collection, interpretation, and processing of geological data and
in the preparation of the Mineral Resource estimates.
The SLR mining QP toured operational
areas and project offices, inspected various parts of the mining operations and infrastructure, and interviewed key personnel involved
in the operations and in the technical services involved in the preparation of the Mineral Reserve estimates and Life of Mine (LOM) plan.
On behalf of the SLR metallurgy QP,
a SLR Principal Metallurgist conducted a site visit of the operational areas and project offices. The site visit tour included the in-operation
heap leach pad, the inactive heap leach cells, the barren and pregnant solution ponds, the carbon-in-columns (CIC) system, and the acid
wash, elution, and regeneration plant. During the tour, the SLR Principal Metallurgist interviewed the operations superintendent, senior
metallurgist, and environmental manager. Based on these conversations, SLR understands that SSR is expanding CIC capacity by adding four
CIC trains and upgrading the barren solution booster pumping system, and that SSR is conducting some debottlenecking in the acid wash,
elution, and regeneration circuit by installing a separate scrubber in the gold room. More copper has recently been present in the doré.
The SLR Principal Metallurgist also met with the chief metallurgist to discuss future column test equipment, planned column testing,
and aspects of the heap leach recovery model.
2-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
2.2 Sources
of Information
During the preparation of this TRS,
discussions were held with personnel from SSR:
· Rex
Brommecker, SVP Exploration and Geology, SSR
· Jonathan
Holden, VP Innovation and Technical Services, SSR
· Matt
Taylor, VP Projects, SSR
· Christa
Zaharias, P.E., Study Director, SSR
· Karthik
Rathnam, Director Resource Geology, SSR
· Stacey
Leclerc, Principal Resource Geologist, SSR
· Brandon
Heser, P.E., Director, Mine Technical Services, SSR
· Ryan
Meany, Senior Mine Engineer, SSR
· David
Christianson, VP FP&A, SSR
· Daniel
Kern, Finance Director, SSR
· Nitin
Laddha, Finance, Manager, SSR
· Allen
Morris, Senior Director, Innovation and Mineral Processing, SSR
· James
Harrold, P.E., Principal Process Engineer, SSR
· Osman
Uludağ, Director Resource Development, SSR
· Jerry
Johnson, Technical Services Manager, SSR
· James
Madson, Superintendent Mine Engineering, SSR
· Jessie
Barto, Environmental Manager, SSR
· Chuck
Yarbrough, Study Manager, SSR
This report is an update of a Technical
Report Summary with a report date of February 12, 2024 (SLR 2024).
This TRS was prepared by SLR QPs. The
TRS is based on information and data supplied to the QPs by SSR and other parties where necessary. The documentation reviewed and other
sources of information are listed at the end of this TRS in Section 24.0 References.
2-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
2.3 List
of Abbreviations
Units of measurement used in this TRS
conform to the metric system or the US Common system. All currency in this TRS is US dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted.
μ
micron
kVA
kilovolt-amperes
μg
microgram
kW
kilowatt
a
annum
kWh
kilowatt-hour
A
ampere
L
liter
bbl
barrels
lb
pound
Btu
British
thermal units
L/s
liters per second
°C
degree
Celsius
L/h/m2
liters per hour per square
meter
C$
Canadian
dollars
m
meter
cal
calorie
M
mega (million); molar
cfm
cubic
feet per minute
m2
square meter
cm
centimeter
m3
cubic meter
cm2
square
centimeter
MASL
meters
above sea level
d
day
m3/h
cubic meters per hour
dia
diameter
mi
mile
dmt
dry
metric tonne
min
minute
dwt
dead-weight
ton
μm
micrometer
°F
degree
Fahrenheit
mm
millimeter
ft
foot
mph
miles per hour
ft2
square
foot
MVA
megavolt-amperes
ft3
cubic
foot
MW
Megawatt
ft/s
foot
per second
MWh
megawatt-hour
g
gram
oz
troy ounce (31.1035 g)
G
giga
(billion)
oz/st, opt
ounce per short ton
gal
US
gallon
ppb
part per billion
g/L
gram
per liter
ppm
part per million
gpm
US
gallons per minute
psia
pound per square inch absolute
g/t
gram
per tonne
psig
pound per square inch gauge
gr/ft3
grain
per cubic foot
RL
relative elevation
gr/m3
grain
per cubic meter
s
second
ha
hectare
st
short ton
hp
horsepower
stpa
short ton per year
h
hour
stpd
short ton per day
Hz
hertz
t
metric tonne
in.
inch
tpa
metric tonne per year
in2
square
inch
tpd
metric tonne per day
J
joule
US$
United States dollar
k
kilo
(thousand)
V
volt
kcal
kilocalorie
W
watt
kg
kilogram
wmt
wet metric tonne
km
kilometer
wt%
weight percent
km2
square
kilometer
yd3
cubic yard
km/h
kilometer
per hour
yr
year
kPa
kilopascal
2-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.0 Property
Description
3.1 Location
Marigold is located in southeastern
Humboldt County along the Interstate Highway 80 corridor in the northern foothills of the Battle Mountain Range, Nevada, U.S. Activities
at the Property are centered at approximately 40°45′ N Latitude and 117°8′ W Longitude.
The
Property (Figure 3-1) is situated approximately five kilometers south–southwest of the town
of Valmy, Nevada, at Exit 216 off Interstate Highway 80. Other nearby municipalities include Winnemucca and Battle Mountain, Nevada,
which lie approximately 58 km to the northwest and 24 km to the southeast of the Property, respectively.
3-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 3-1: Location
Map
3-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2 Land
Tenure
SSR holds 100% interest in the Property
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Marigold Mining Company (MMC). Surface and mineral rights at the Property comprise real property
owned by MMC; unpatented mining claims owned by MMC; and leasehold rights held by MMC with respect to unpatented mining claims and mill
site claims and surface lands.
The
properties described herein are associated with one of two main land packages, the Marigold Land Package and the Sterling Land Package
(both also referred to as project areas) totalling approximately 19,609 ha (Table 3-1, Figure 3-2).
The Marigold Land Package (10,440 ha) includes the properties within the Marigold Mine PoO. The Sterling Land Package (9,169 ha) includes
properties associated with the Trenton Canyon Mine or Buffalo Valley Mine.
Table 3-1: List
of Land Package Areas (in hectares)
Property
Name
Total
(ha)
Public
(ha)
Private
(ha)
Sterling
Land Package Total
9,169
4,711
4,458
Buffalo
Valley Mine and Exploration
2,331
1,408
923
Trenton
Canyon Mine
1,756
696
1,060
Trenton
Canyon Exploration
1,424
778
646
Sterling
Boundary
3,658
1,829
1,829
Marigold
10,440
5,101
5,339
Total
Land Package (Sterling + Marigold)
19,609
9,812
9,797
Land and mineral ownership within the
PoO are within the corridor initially governed by the Railroad Act, and, as such, these areas generally have a “checkerboard”
ownership pattern. Mineral claims in Nevada are managed federally by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
3-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 3-2: Marigold
and Sterling Land Package Map
3-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.1 Owned
Real Property
Surface
lands at Marigold owned by MMC are listed in Table 3-2.
Table
3-2: MMC
Surface Lands
Parcel
Number
Hectares
Location
Ownership
Type
Project
Area
010-400-03
259.0
Section
03, T.31N, R.42E
Minerals
Only
Sterling
07-0491-14
194.3
Section
17, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
07-0401-25
65.3
SE1/4
Section 22, T.34N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0404-10,
07-0404-11, 007-0404-12, 07-0404-13 (Lot 8, Parcel 1-4), 07-0404-05 (Lot 11), 07-0404-06 (Lot 12), 07-0404-09 (Lot 15)
65.7
Section
33, T.34N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0403-03
(Lot 3)
18.7
Section
33, T.34N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0403-04
(Lot 4)
18.72
Section
33, T.34N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0403-07,
07-0403-08, 07-0403-09, 07-0403-10
18.71
Section
33, T.34N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0461-09
259.0
Section
9, T.33N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0461-14
259.0
Section
17, T.33N, R.43E
Surface
Only
Marigold
07-0461-42
(Parcel A) and 07-0461-43 (Parcel B)
259.0
Section
21, T.33N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0461-44
(Parcel C) and 07-0461-45 (Parcel D)
259.0
Section
29, T.33N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0461-39
16.2
Section
16, T.33N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0461-41
32.4
Section
30, T.33N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0481-06
254.4
Section
1, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0481-11
259.0
Section
11, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
07-0481-13
16.2
Section
12, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0481-17
194.3
Section
15, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
07-0481-19
194.3
Section
13, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
07-0491-02
64.8
Section
6, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0491-03
277.9
Section
5, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Marigold
07-0491-07
259.0
Section
7, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
07-0491-09
259.0
Section
9, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-200-02
64.8
Section
15, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-200-04
64.8
Section
13, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-200-10
257.5
Section
25, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
3-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Parcel
Number
Hectares
Location
Ownership
Type
Project
Area
010-200-12
145.7
Section
33, T.32N, R.42E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-210-02
64.8
Section
17, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-210-06
259.0
Section
21, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-210-12
259.0
Section
29, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-230-01
8.1
Section
19, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
010-230-03
210.1
Section
19, T.32N, R.43E
Fee
Simple
Sterling
3.2.2 Owned
Unpatented Mining Claims
MMC
owns a total of 347 unpatented mining claims within the Marigold project area, as shown in Table
3-3, and 499 unpatented mining claims within the Sterling (Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Valley) project area, as shown in Table 3-4.
All claims, which are renewed annually
in September of each year, are in good standing until September 1, 2027 (at which time they will be renewed for the following year as
a matter of course). All unpatented mining claims are subject to an annual federal mining claim maintenance fee of $200 per claim plus
approximately $12 per claim for county filing fees to the BLM.
Table 3-3: MMC-Owned
Unpatented Mining Claims within the Marigold Mine Project Area
BLM
Serial Numbers
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC371561
to NMC371573
APRI
# 1 to APRI # 13
13
NMC519580
APRI
# 14
1
NMC552229
APRI
# 15
1
NMC361136
to NMC361161
VAL
#237 to VAL #262
26
NMC600391
to NMC600402
VAL
#1013 to VAL #1024
12
NMC371574
to NMC371609
TYLER
# 1 to TYLER # 36
36
NMC454876
to NMC454911
REMARY
#237 to REMARY #272
36
NMC552228
REMARY
FRACTION
1
NMC359040
to NMC359057
MARY
# 73 to MARY # 90
18
NMC400277
to NMC400288
HS
#123 to HS #134
12
NMC400289
HS
#134A
1
NMC358968
to NMC359003
MARY#
1 to MARY # 36
36
NMC371610
BONZ
# 1
1
NMC371612
BONZ
# 3
1
NMC371614
BONZ
# 5
1
NMC371616
BONZ
# 7
1
3-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
BLM
Serial Numbers
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC371618
to NMC371627
BONZ
# 9 to BONZ # 18
10
NMC371630
to NMC371639
BONZ
# 21 to BONZ # 30
10
NMC451485
to NMC451488
BONZ
# 33 to BONZ # 36
4
NMC487422
REBONZ
# 2
1
NMC487423
REBONZ
# 4
1
NMC487424
REBONZ
# 6
1
NMC487425
REBONZ
# 8
1
NMC487426
to NMC487427
REBONZ
# 19 to REBONZ # 20
2
NMC487428
REBONZ
# 31
1
NMC524363
REBONZ
# 32
1
NMC1112641
to NMC1112686
GINGER
#1 to GINGER #46
46
NMC362237
to NMC362272
LCL
#1 to LCL #36
36
NMC684371
to NMC674382
EJM
#1 to EJM #12
12
NV106305030
to NV106305053
CB
1 to CB 24
24
Total
Number of Claims
347
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
Table
3-4: MMC-Owned
Unpatented Mining Claims within the Sterling Project Area
BLM
Serial Numbers
(NMC prefix are Legacy Serial Numbers)
Claims
Total
Number of
Claims
NMC408889
to NMC408906
AP
# 1 to AP # 18
18
NMC408907
to NMC408924
AP
# 37 to AP # 54
18
NMC670367
to NMC670368
AP
#9A to AP #10A
2
NMC689220
and NMC689221
AP
1R and AP 3R
2
NMC632168
to NMC632170
AP
200 to AP 202
3
NMC632172
to NMC632173
AP
204 to AP 205
2
NMC689222
to NMC689224
AP
202R, AP 204R to AP 205R
3
NMC663238
AP
207
1
NMC454061
to NMC454096
APTC
# 1 to APTC # 36
36
NMC643209
to NMC643212
Barb
# 1 to Barb # 4
4
NMC1192488
to NMC1192495
BERNAL
1 to BERNAL 8
8
NMC933184
to NMC933201
Calf
1 to Calf 18
18
NMC952352
to NMC952369
CALF
19 to CALF 36
18
NMC639207
to NMC639265
CAPE
#1 to CAPE #59
59
3-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
BLM
Serial Numbers
(NMC prefix are Legacy Serial Numbers)
Claims
Total
Number of
Claims
MC639266
to NMC639268
CAPE
#78 to CAPE #80
3
NMC639271
to NMC639277
CAPE
#83 to CAPE #89
7
NV105732218
to NV105762251
CB
25 to CB 58
34
NMC976967
to NMC976968
FAIR
1 to FAIR 2
2
NMC728801
to NMC728812
FM
97 to FM 108
12
NMC398105
to NMC398112
FOR
# 1 to FOR # 8
8
NMC479569
to NMC479572
FOR
# 9 to FOR # 12
4
NMC663239
to NMC663245
FORTOO
1 to FORTOO 7
7
NMC663248
to NMC663253
FORTOO
10 to FORTOO 15
6
NMC672352
to NMC672353
FORTOO
NO 16 to FORTOO NO 17
2
NMC812860
to NMC812861
FORTOO
18 to FORTOO 19
2
NMC1192496
to NMC1192498
Hatcher
1 to Hatcher 3
3
NMC639282
to NMC639301
HGS
#37 to HGS #56
20
NMC639318
to NMC639320
HGS
#284 to HGS #286
3
NMC639321
to NMC639323
HGS
#288 to HGS #290
3
NMC639324
to NMC639326
HGS
#292 to HGS #294
3
NMC639327,
NMC415697, NMC415698
HGS
#296, HGS #305, HGS #306
3
NMC415702
to NMC415703
HGS
#310 to HGS #311
2
NMC479550,
NMC479551, NMC409749
Karen
# 1, Karen # 3, Karen # 4
3
NMC479552,
NMC409750, NMC479553
Karen
# 5, Karen # 6, Karen # 7
3
NMC409751,
NMC409752
Karen
# 8, Karen # 10
2
NMC1192499
to NMC1192516
KUHN
1 to KUHN 18
18
NMC639365
to NMC639382
MAG
#47 to MAG #64
18
NMC1001050
to NMC1001066
NP
1 to NP 17
17
NMC479554
to NMC409748
Peg
#1 to Peg #10
10
NMC918807
to NMC918826
PEG
1 to PEG 20
20
NMC541209
to NMC541255
PF
# 1 to PF # 47
47
NMC556959
to NMC556963
RCL
#173 to RCL #177
5
NMC1192517
to NMC1192518
TBJ
8A to TBJ 9A
2
NMC216402
to NMC216435
TCL
# 1 to TCL # 34
34
NMC639278
to NMC639281
WP
1 to WP 4
4
Total
Number of Claims
499
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.3 Leasehold
Rights
MMC holds leasehold rights in each of
the following leases:
· Mineral
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of June 20, 1986, by and between Donald J. Decker
and Suzanne R. Decker, as lessors, Nevada North Resources (USA) Inc., as lessee, and Nevada
North Resources Inc. (as amended, the “Decker Lease”).
· Lease
Agreement made and entered into as of September 15, 1985, by and between Vek Associates,
as lessor, and Rayrock Mines, doing business as Cordex, as lessee (as amended, the “Vek
& Andrus Lease”).
· Lease
Agreement made and entered into as of August 1, 1988, by and between Euro-Nevada Mining Corp.,
Inc., as lessor, and Rayrock Mines, doing business as Cordex, as lessee (as amended, the
“Euro-Nevada Lease”).
· Lease
Agreement made and entered into as of August 1, 2018, by and between the Board of Regents
of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno, as
lessor, and Marigold Mining Company, as lessee (the “University of Nevada Lease”).
· Minerals
Lease dated and effective June 17, 1988, by and between SFP Minerals Corporation, as lessor,
and Santa Fe Pacific Mining, Inc., as lessee (the “SFP Lease”).
· Minerals
Lease dated and effective as of February 19, 1986, by and between Southern Pacific Land Company,
as lessor, and SFP Minerals Corporation, as lessee (the “Southern Pacific Land Company
Lease”).
· Minerals
Sublease dated and effective April 30, 1986, by and between SFP Minerals Corporation, as
sublessor, and Santa Fe Pacific Mining, Inc., as sublessee (as amended, the “Southern
Pacific Land Company Sublease” and, together with the Decker Lease, the Vek & Andrus
Lease, the Euro-Nevada Lease, the University of Nevada Lease, the SFP Lease and the Southern
Pacific Land Company Lease, collectively, the “Leases”).
· Minerals
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of June 5, 1987, by and between Donald J. Decker
and Suzanne R. Decker, as lessors, Nevada North Resources (USA) Inc. and Welcome North Mines
(U.S.) Inc., as lessees (the “Franco-Nevada Lease”).
· Minerals
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of December 20, 1994, by and between Nevada North
Resources (USA), Inc., as lessors, and Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corporation, as lessee (the
“Nevada North Lease”).
· Minerals
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of June 1, 2006, by and between Nevada North Resources
(USA), Inc., as lessor, and Newmont USA Limited, d/b/a Newmont Mining Corporation, as lessee
(as amended, the “New Nevada 2006 Lease”)
· Minerals
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of October 16, 2012, by and between New Nevada Resources,
LLC and New Nevada Lands, LLC, as lessors, and Newmont Mining Company, as lessee (the “New
Nevada 2012 Lease”).
· Minerals
Lease Agreement made and entered into as of December 3, 2014, by and between New Nevada Resources,
LLC and New Nevada Lands, LLC, as lessors, and Newmont Mining Company, as lessee (the “New
Nevada 2014 Lease”).
· Exploration
Lease & Option to Purchase Agreement made and entered into as of July 31, 2024, by and
between John Steen, as lessor, and Marigold Mining Company, a Nevada corporation, as lessee
(the “Hardrock Exploration 2024 Lease”).
3-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.3.1 Decker
Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the Decker Lease dated June 20, 1986, MMC has leasehold rights to 170 unpatented mining claims, as shown in Table
3-5. The initial term for the Decker Lease was through May 25, 1991, and thereafter, as long as operations continue.
Table
3-5: Decker
Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2), (3)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC48409
to NMC48412
RED
# 21 to RED #24
4
NMC48415
to NMC48426
RED
# 27 to RED # 38
12
NMC56187
to NMC56198
RED
# 39 to RED # 50
12
NMC56199
to NMC56216
RED
# 52 to RED # 69
18
NMC271665
to NMC271688
RED
#201 to RED #224
24
NMC271689
to NMC271716
RED
#601 to RED #628
28
NMC365642
to NMC365677
KIT
# 1 to KIT # 36
36
NMC678030
to NMC678047
RED
1801A to RED 1818A
18
NMC678055
to NMC678063
RED
1826A to RED 1834A
9
NMC552226
to NMC552227
RED
# 23A to RED # 24A
2
NMC871541
to NMC871547
NURED
1819 to NURED 1825
7
Total
Number of Claims
170
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3.2.3.2 Vek
& Andrus Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the Vek & Andrus Lease dated September 15, 1985, MMC has leasehold rights to 205 unpatented
mining and millsite claims, as shown in Table 3-6. The initial term for the Vek & Andrus Lease was through September 15, 1995, and
may be renewed for up to eight successive ten-year periods, upon giving the lessor prior written notice. The Vek & Andrus Lease was
renewed for its fifth successive ten-year period by providing prior written notice to the lessor on June 11, 2025.
Table 3-6: Vek
& Andrus Lease Unpatented Mining and Millsite Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2), (3)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC271972
to NMC272007
COT
# 1 to COT # 36
36
NMC275733
COT
# 38
1
NMC275750
to NMC275753
COT
# 55 to COT # 58
4
NMC275755
COT
# 60
1
NMC275757
COT
# 62
1
NMC275759
to NMC275767
COT
# 64 to COT # 72
9
3-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2), (3)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC342068
to NMC342071
COT
# 73 to COT # 76
4
NMC297554
to NMC297571
VAL
# 1 to VAL # 18
18
NMC347463
to NMC347475
VAL
# 19 to VAL # 31
13
NMC297572
to NMC297607
VAL
# 37 to VAL # 72
36
NMC361164
to NMC361172
COT
FRAC # 1 to COT FRAC # 9
9
NMC371559
to NMC371560
COT
# 75A to COT # 76A
2
NMC822614
RECOT
37
1
NMC822615
to NMC822619
RECOT
39 to RECOT 43
5
NMC822620
RECOT
45
1
NMC822621
RECOT
47
1
NMC822622
to NMC822626
RECOT
50 to RECOT 54
5
NMC822627
RECOT
59
1
NMC822628
RECOT
61
1
NMC822629
RECOT
63
1
NMC822630
RECOT
63B
1
NMC822560
to NMC822613 (2)
GMMCMS
1 to GMMCMS 54
54
Total
Number of Claims
205
Notes:
1.
NMC822560 to NMC822613 are Mill Site Claims and require an annual maintenance fee / renewal
notification in September each year.
2.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
3.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3.2.3.3 Euro-Nevada
Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the Euro-Nevada Lease dated August 1, 1988, MMC has leasehold rights to 36 unpatented mining
claims, as shown in Table 3-7. The original term for the Euro-Nevada Lease was five years, and, at the lessee’s option, the Euro-Nevada
Lease may be renewed for up to 10 additional and successive five-year periods, upon giving the lessor prior written notice. The Euro-Nevada
Lease was renewed for its eighth successive five-year period by providing prior written notice to the lessor on May 24, 2023.
Table
3-7: Euro-Nevada
Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2)
Claims
Total
Number
NMC373649
to NMC373684
SAR#
37 to SAR# 72
36
Total
Number of Claims
36
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.3.4 University
of Nevada Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the University of Nevada Lease dated August 1, 2018, MMC has leasehold rights to property in
Section 19, T.33N., R.43E., Humboldt County, Nevada, identified as Humboldt County Assessor’s parcel number 007 461 19. The initial
term of the University of Nevada Lease is for twenty years, and the lessee may renew the lease for up to two successive ten-year periods
upon providing the lessor with prior written notice.
3.2.3.5 SFP
Lease Claims
Pursuant to the SFP Lease, MMC has leasehold
rights to property in Sections 5, 9, 17, and 31, T.33N., R.43E., Humboldt County, Nevada. The initial term of the SFP Lease was for 20
years or for so long, thereafter, as mining is conducted on a continuous basis.
3.2.3.6 Southern
Pacific Land Company Sublease Claims
Pursuant to the Southern Pacific Land
Company Sublease, MMC has leasehold rights to certain property in Sections 19 and 31, T.34N., R.43E.; Section 7, T.33N., R.43E.; and
Sections 1, 13, and 25, T.33N., R.42E., Humboldt County, Nevada. The initial term of the Southern Pacific Land Company Sublease was for
25 years beginning on April 30, 1986, and for so long, thereafter, as the lessee exercises any rights granted by such sublease.
3.2.3.7 Franco-Nevada
Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the Franco-Nevada Lease, MMC has leasehold rights to 82 unpatented mining claims, as set out in Table
3-8. The initial term for the Franco-Nevada Lease was from June 5, 1987, for a period of 50 years and for so long, thereafter, as the
lessee exercises any rights granted by such lease.
Table
3-8: Franco-Nevada
Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC379514
to NMC379585
N-1
to N-72
72
NMC623992
to NMC623995
N-109
to N-112
4
NMC676435
N-20A
1
NMC676436
N-22A
1
NMC676437
to NMC676440
N-28A
to N-31A
4
Total
Number of Claims
82
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.3.8 Nevada
North Lease
Pursuant
to the Nevada North Lease, MMC has leasehold rights to 48 unpatented mining claims, as set out in Table
3-9. The initial term for the Nevada North Lease was from December 20, 1994, for a period of 10 years and for so long, thereafter, as
long as the lessee exercises any rights granted by such lease.
Table
3-9: Nevada
North Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC409224
to NMC409235
BC-1
to BC-12
12
NMC409236
to NMC409271
BC-13
to BC-48 (Sterling)
36
Total
Number of Claims
48
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3.2.3.9 New
Nevada 2006 Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the New Nevada 2006 Lease, MMC has leasehold rights to 112 unpatented mining claims in Sections 33, T.33N, R.43E, Humboldt County,
Nevada, as set out in Table 3-10. The initial term for the New Nevada 2006 Lease was from June 1,
2006, for a period of 20 years and for so long, thereafter, as long as the lessee exercises any rights granted by such lease.
Table
3-10: New
Nevada 2006 Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NMC750721
to NMC750736
CHU
17 to CHU 32
16
NMC752847
to NMC752882
MB
82 to MB 117
36
NMC780924
to 780959
LOU
1 to LOU 36
36
NMC821539
to NMC821562
BISON
# 1 to BISON # 24
24
Total
Number of Claims
112
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3.2.3.10 New
Nevada 2012 Lease
Pursuant to the New Nevada 2012 Lease,
MMC has leasehold rights to property in Sections 33, T.33N, R.43E, Humboldt County, Nevada. The initial term for the New Nevada 2012
Lease was from October 16, 2012, for a period of 20 years and for so long, thereafter, as long as the lessee exercises any rights granted
by such lease.
3.2.3.11 New
Nevada 2014 Lease
Pursuant to the New Nevada 2014 Lease,
MMC has leasehold rights to property in Section 5 T.31N., R.42E.; Sections 9, 21, 27, 29, 31, and a portion of Section 23 T.32N., R42E;
Sections 11, 23, and 35 T.33N, R.42E, Humboldt County, Nevada. The initial term for the New Nevada 2014 Lease was from December 3, 2014,
for a period of 20 years and for so long, thereafter, as long as the lessee exercises any rights granted by such lease.
3-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.2.3.1 Hardrock
Exploration 2024 Lease Claims
Pursuant
to the Hardrock Exploration 2024 Lease dated July 31, 2024, MMC has leasehold rights to 20 unpatented mining claims located in Sections
5 and 6, T.33N, R.43E; Sections 31 and 32, T.34N, R.43E, Humboldt County, Nevada, as set out in Table
3-11. The initial term is for a five-year period unless MMC exercises the option to purchase the claims before the end of the term.
Table 3-11: Hardrock
Exploration 2024 Lease Unpatented Mining Claims
BLM
Serial Numbers (1), (2)
Claims
Total
Number of Claims
NV101624003
HARDROCK
# 1A
1
NV101601034
HARD
ROCK # 2
1
NV101479290
HARD
ROCK # 3
1
NV101624004
to NV101624006
HARDROCK
#4A to HARDROCK #6A
3
NV101478479
HARDROCK
# 7
1
NV101608743
HARDROCK
# 8
1
NV101780647
HARDROCK
# 9
1
NV101497377
HARDROCK
# 10
1
NV101452764
HARDROCK
# 11
1
NV101493895
HARDROCK
# 12
1
NV101455533
HARDROCK
#13
1
NV101624007
to NV101624013
HARDROCK
#14 to HARDROCK #20
7
Total
Number of Claims
20
Notes:
1.
Claims require an annual maintenance fee / renewal notification in September each year.
2.
All claims expire on August 31, 2027 at 11:59:59 A.M.
3.3 Encumbrances
and Royalties
Some
of the leases require MMC to make certain net smelter return (NSR) royalty payments to the lessors and comply with certain other obligations,
including completing certain work commitments or paying taxes levied on the underlying properties. These NSR royalty payments are based
on the specific gold-extraction areas and are payable when the corresponding gold ounces are extracted, produced, and sold. The NSR royalty
payments vary between 0% and 10.0% of the value of gold production net of off-site refining costs, which equates to an annual average
ranging from 3.3% to 10.0% and a weighted average of 6.9% over the life-of-mine (LOM). Net Smelter
Return (NSR) royalty payments for the Buffalo Valley deposit are fixed at 3.5% of the value of production net of off-site refining costs.
3-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
3.4 Required
Permits and Status
Mining activities at Marigold are authorized
by and conducted under both federal and state regulatory requirements, notably the General Mining Law of 1872, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. All requirements are administered by the BLM, along with
applicable statutes and regulations within the Nevada Revised Statutes and Nevada Administrative Code, administered by the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection.
Further
discussion regarding the Property’s mineral and surface rights, including leasehold rights under the Leases, is provided in Section
3.2. Further discussion regarding permitting requirements with respect to the Property is provided
in Section 17.0. MMC holds active, valid permits for all facets of the current mining operation as required by county, state, and federal
regulations. MMC performs duties on leased lands pursuant to all federal and state requirements, and all the Leases are maintained in
good standing. As part of the Nevada permitting process, MMC engages in concurrent reclamation practices and is bonded for all permitted
features.
3.5 Other
Significant Factors and Risks
SLR
is not aware of any environmental liabilities on the property. SSR Mining Inc. has all required
permits to conduct the proposed work on the property. SLR is not aware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access,
title, or the right or ability to perform the proposed work program on the property.
3-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
4.0 Accessibility,
Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
4.1 Accessibility
Access to the Property is via a five
kilometer public road (hard-packed clay and gravel) off the Valmy exit (Exit 216) on Interstate Highway 80. The area around the Property
is a well-developed mining area close to necessary, all-season infrastructure and resources.
4.2 Climate
The climate is typical of the Great
Basin region of the western U.S., with temperatures ranging from highs of 40°C in summer to lows of -7°C in winter. Annual precipitation
is relatively low, ranging from 15 cm to 20 cm per year, with approximately 50% of precipitation occurring as snowfall during the months
of December through March.
The climate presents no restrictions
on the operating season, and Marigold operates year-round.
4.3 Local
Resources
The nearby towns of Winnemucca and Battle
Mountain host the majority of the skilled labor workforce. Contractor support, transportation, accommodation, meals, bulk fuel, heavy
equipment rental, and general suppliers are all readily available in these communities as well as in Elko, which is located approximately
142 km east of Marigold and serves as a major hub for mining operations in northern Nevada. Employees are transported to the Property
primarily by contract buses and light-duty vehicles owned by MMC.
4.4 Infrastructure
Marigold has been in continuous operation
since 1989. There is significant existing infrastructure on-site for delivering power and water to the various mine shops, leach pad,
and process and ancillary facilities. The Property is located in a favorable area for natural resource development with significant resources
in place to support the mining industry.
Water for Marigold is supplied from
three existing groundwater production wells located near the access road to the Property and dewatering wells located around the pits.
Marigold owns groundwater rights that collectively allow up to 3.134 million m3 of water consumption annually for site operations.
Total water consumption by the site has averaged 1.52 million m3 over the past five years. The water is primarily consumed
by retention in the heap leach pad, evaporation, processing operations, and dust suppression.
A portion of the site’s dewatering
flows is used for makeup water for process operations and dust suppression. A pipeline has been constructed to connect the dewatering
circuit to the process circuit so the dewatering water can be used as make-up supply water to the process. This connection minimizes
the need to supply makeup water to the process circuit from the three production wells, which will only be used for backup as needed.
A significant amount of the flow from
the dewatering wells is not consumed and is sent to the rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) for infiltration back into the aquifer.
Marigold also owns 0.893 Mm3
annually of surface water storage rights associated with the Trout Creek Dam (J-666). In addition, in October 2019, Marigold was issued
water right permits associated with the activities described in the Plan of Operations – Mackay Optimization Project Amendment,
including permits for the dewatering during mine operations and evaporative losses from a future pit lake that will develop in closure.
4-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The power supply for Marigold is provided
by NV Energy Inc. via a 120 kV transmission line to site. Site power draw is 5 MW. After exiting the main substation, power is distributed
through a 25 kV distribution grid.
The tailings storage facility (TSF)
has been decommissioned and reclaimed. The only remaining activity concerning the TSF is ongoing monitoring.
Details regarding completed, in progress,
and future OBSAs at Marigold can be found in Section 13. The leach pad is discussed in detail in Section 14. Further discussion on the
Property’s infrastructure is provided in Section 15.
4.5 Physiography
Elevations at Marigold range from approximately
1,372 meters above mean sea level (MASL) to 1,890 MASL. Terrain varies from a relatively flat alluvial plain to sloped foothills at the
base of the Battle Mountain Range. Vegetation mainly comprises sagebrush, rabbit brush, and a variety of grasses and forbs. Fauna is
not abundant on the Property primarily due to the lack of surface water and limited forage. No threatened or endangered plant or animal
species have been noted within the Property’s operating area.
4-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
5.0 History
5.1 Ownership,
Exploration, and Development History
The
first recorded gold production from the Property near Valmy, Nevada, occurred in 1938 when the Marigold Mining Company, owned by Frank
Horton, operated an underground mine which came to be known as Marigold. Figure 5-1 shows the Marigold
mine prior to World War II.
Figure 5-1: View
to the East–Southeast over the Cyanide Leach Tanks from the Marigold Mine prior to World War II
Source: SSR 2017
The Horton family processed approximately
9,000 t of ore averaging about 6.85 g/t Au before World War II halted production. In 1943, Mr. Horton’s estate sold its interest
in the Property and claims. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to open and operate the mine before exploration activities began
again in 1968.
From 1968 through 1985, several companies
conducted exploration programs in the Marigold area and completed a total of 126 exploratory drill holes. Records document the activities
of Homestake (1968), St. Joe (1979), Decker Exploration (1979), Placer Amex (1979–1980), True North, Marigold Development Company
(MDC) (1981–1983), Welcome North (1984), and Nevada North Resources (USA) Inc. (1985–1986). Other groups that conducted work
in the area include Newmont, Kerr-McGee, SFP Minerals Corporation, Cordex/Rayrock Mines, and Vek/Andrus Associates (partnership between
Vic Kral, Ralph Roberts, Bob Reeve, and Bill Andrus composed of Vek Associates and Andrus Resources Corporation).
From 1983 through 1984, MDC excavated
a small open pit over the historical Marigold underground workings, producing 2,812 t of ore containing 271 oz of gold (McGibbon 2004).
In 1985, Vek/Andrus Associates drilled
three holes under the supervision of Ralph Roberts in the Section 8 area of the Property, just northeast of the old underground mine.
Roberts invited Andy Wallace of Cordex to view the drilling results, and Wallace was encouraged by the deep level of oxidation, presence
of favorable rock units, anomalous indicator elements, and anomalous gold values. The operating partner Cordex, an exploration syndicate
composed of Dome Exploration (U.S.) Ltd., Lacana Gold Inc. (Lacana) and Rayrock Mines, leased the Vek/Andrus Associates claim block in
September 1985 and began a drilling program in November 1985. Drill holes NM-3 and NM-4 intersected 21.3 m of 2.40 g/t Au and 25.9 m
of 7.54 g/t Au, respectively. These were the discovery holes for the 8 South (8S) orebody (Roberts 2002).
5-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The Property is within the “checkerboard”
railway lands, where the U.S. Government originally awarded the surface, water, and mineral rights for alternate sections (2.5 km2
of land) to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad as an incentive to develop the transcontinental railway project in the 1860s. Santa Fe Pacific
Railroad eventually became the parent company of SFP Minerals. Following further drilling in the 8S deposit in the spring of 1986, a
joint venture was formed between SFP Minerals and the Cordex group, which consolidated some of the land holdings over the Marigold area.
In late-1986, the Cordex group leased
other claims, including the historical Marigold mine, Mackay (Top Zone, East Hill, and Red Rock) area from various claim holders.
In March 1988, Rayrock Mines (operating
company for Cordex) made a production decision on the 8S deposit, and, by September 1988, it began stripping on the 8S pit (McGibbon
2004).
In August 1989, the first gold doré
bar was poured at the Marigold mill.
In March 1992, Rayrock Mines purchased
a two thirds ownership interest in the Property, and Homestake Mining Company (Homestake), which had taken Lacana’s interest through
previous corporate mergers, held the remaining one third ownership interest in the Property.
In 1994, mining of the 8S deposit was
completed, and the Marigold mill was no longer used to process ore. At this point, Marigold became a run-of-mine (ROM) heap leach operation.
In March 1999, Glamis Gold Ltd. (Glamis
Gold) purchased all the assets of Rayrock Mines, resulting in Glamis Gold holding a two thirds ownership interest in Marigold, and Homestake
continuing to hold a one third ownership interest. In the same year, the Basalt, Antler, and Target II deposits were discovered at the
south end of the Property in Section 31. These deposits were mined and partially backfilled with the unmined East Basalt deposit which
is currently under development as an easterly extension of the original Basalt pit.
By January 2001, a total of one million
ounces of gold had been recovered from the Property. In July 2001, Glamis Gold released a revised NI 43-101 Technical Report (Glamis
Gold 2001) to report the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for Section 31 of the Property.
In 2006, Glamis Gold merged with Goldcorp
Inc. (Goldcorp), resulting in a Goldcorp subsidiary holding a two thirds ownership interest in Marigold and being the operator. Homestake,
which had been acquired by Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick) in 2001, continued to hold the remaining one third ownership interest.
In 2007, discovery holes were drilled
in the Red Dot deposit.
By mid-2009, two million ounces of gold
had been recovered from Marigold.
On April 4, 2014, SSR (formerly Silver
Standard Resources Inc.) completed the acquisition of Marigold from subsidiaries of Goldcorp and Barrick, and prepared updated Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves estimates (Silver Standard 2014).
In August 2015, Marigold mine acquired
2,844 ha of adjacent land from Newmont. This land included previously mined areas known as the Mud pit, NW pit, and the Valmy pits. Exploration
drilling in the area had been completed by a combination of companies including Hecla Mining Company (Hecla), SFP Minerals, and Newmont.
5-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
In June 2019, SSR acquired the Trenton
Canyon and Buffalo Valley properties from Newmont Goldcorp Corporation (Newmont). The Trenton Canyon target is located approximately
four kilometers south of New Millenium, and the Buffalo Valley target is located approximately 10 km southwest of New Millenium.
Both properties are included in an 8,900 ha parcel that is contiguous to the south boundary of the Marigold property
A
summary of the historical exploration work carried out on the Property is shown in Table 5-1. Figure
5-2 presents the exploration targets and mining areas for the Property.
5-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 5-2: Location
of Marigold Exploration Targets and Mining Areas
5-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
5-1: Summary
of Historical Exploration
Year
Property
Company
Exploration
Type
Details
1968–1985
Marigold
Various
exploration and mining groups
Drilling
7,037.2 m
in 126 drill holes.
1985–1999
Marigold
Cordex
and Rayrock Mines
Drilling
335,500.7 m
in 2,358 drill holes.
Geophysics
1989
– CSAMT survey conducted by Quantec Geoscience using Zonge CSAMT System covering 33 EW and NW-SE lines, spaced 300.3 m and
499.9 m. A total of 59.2 km covered.
1997/1999
– CSAMT survey conducted by Zonge Geoscience using Zonge CSAMT System covering 33 EW and NW–SE lines, spaced 300.3 m
and 499.9 m. A total of 51.8 km covered.
1998
– Gravity survey conducted by Zonge Geoscience using Scintrex Gravity Meter, Trimble GPS System survey conducted on 150 m square
grid and data collected from a total of 1,252 stations.
1999
– Induced Polarization conducted by Zonge Geoscience using Zonge IP system, Dipole-Dipole Array, A = 182.9 m, one line N20W.
A total of 3.0 km covered.
1999–2006
Marigold
Glamis
Gold
Drilling
486,648.9
m in 2,506 drill holes.
Geophysics
2004
– Airborne Magnetic conducted by Pearson, deRidder & Johnson, Inc. using Ultra Light System / 75.0 m EW flight lines, 300.3
m NS tie lines. A total of 323.5 km covered.
5-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Year
Property
Company
Exploration
Type
Details
2006–2013
Marigold
Goldcorp
Drilling
528,225.7
m in 1,870 drill holes.
Geophysics
2009
– Magneto-telluric/Induced Polarization survey conducted by Quantec Geoscience, using Quantec Titan System. 11 lines in various
orientations. A total of 46.4 km covered.
2010
– Induced Polarization conducted by Zonge Geoscience using Zonge IP system, Dipole-Dipole Array, A= 150.0 m and 200.0 m, 27
lines EW, spaced 300.3 m –1,499.9 m. A total of 117.5 km covered.
2009–2010
– Review of all geophysical survey data and compilation of Marigold geophysical data by J L Wright Geophysics.
2006–2013
Marigold
Goldcorp
MMI
Survey
2007–2009
– Initial survey in 2007 covered Red Dot area, and, in 2008–2009, most of undisturbed land within Marigold was covered.
A total of 11,493 samples were taken. Samples collected every 15.2 m along 117 EW lines separated by 30.5 m. In 2007, samples were
analyzed for Ag, As, Au, Ba, Cd, Co, Cu, Pb, Pd, Sm, Y, Zn, and Zr. In 2008, Pd was dropped. In 2009, Co, Sm, Y, and Zr were dropped
and replaced with Mg, Sr, and Sb.
1985–2006
Valmy
property
Newmont
(including Hecla and SFP Minerals)
Drilling
109,363
m in 867 drill holes. Data was acquired from Newmont with the acquisition of the 2,844 ha Valmy property in 2015.
1980–2012
Buffalo
Valley and Trenton Canyon
Newmont
(including Fairmile, Hecla and others)
Drilling
1574
RC and Core drill holes for 183,079 m at Buffalo Valley
1,149 RC and Core drill holes for
153,701 m at Trenton Canyon.
1980–2012
Buffalo
Valley and Trenton Canyon
Newmont
(including Fairmile, Hecla and others)
Geophysics
Multiple
geophysical surveys were carried over Buffalo Valley and Trenton Canyon properties by 5 different contractors and Newmont; these
include – Airborne Electromagnetic Survey (AEM), Aero magnetic survey (AMAG), Airborne Radiometric Survey (ARAD), Controlled
Source Audio Magneto-telluric Survey (CSMAT), Gravity (GRAV).
5-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
5.2 Past
Production
5.2.1 Marigold
Gold
recovery at Marigold was initially done by a milling circuit with a carbon-in-leach (CIL) process and then a ROM heap leach process where
the ore was dumped on a lined leach pad and irrigated with a diluted cyanide solution. The tonnes, grade, and contained and recovered
ounces from the start of commercial production in August 1989 to April 1, 2014, is provided in Table
5-2; operations included both milled and leach pad processing. The tonnes, grade, and contained and recovered ounces from April 1, 2014,
when SSR acquired the Complex, to May 1, 2026, is provided in Table 5-3. Processing from April 1, 2014, to date is leach pad only.
The overall average recovery for the
milling circuit was 95%, and it was calculated at 70.6% for the ROM heap leach process for the period August 1989 to May 1, 2026.
Table 5-2: Marigold
Historical Production from August 1989 to April 1, 2014
Process
Type
Tonnes
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Gold
(koz)
Produced
Gold
(koz)
Leach
Pad
146.1
0.67
3,139
2,265
Milled
4.6
3.13
483
458
Total
150.7
0.75
3,622
2,723
Table 5-3: Marigold
Production from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2026
Year
Tonnes
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Gold
(koz)
Gold
Produced
(koz)
2014
11.20
0.60
215
130
2015
20.61
0.44
294
207
2016
23.56
0.46
345
205
2017
25.59
0.35
285
202
2018
27.53
0.37
324
205
2019
25.68
0.40
327
220
2020
23.56
0.39
297
234
2021
20.00
0.41
263
235
2022
18.06
0.56
323
195
2023
21.85
0.45
316
278
2024
27.69
0.28
249
168
2025
19.32
0.39
242
154
2026
(Q1)
4.95
0.26
41
39
Total
269.60
0.41
3,521
2,472
5-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
5.2.2 Trenton
Canyon
The Trenton Canyon property operated
as an open pit ROM heap leach operation from 1996 to 2001 producing approximately 290,000 ounces of gold from the North Peak, West, and
South pits.
5.2.3 Buffalo
Valley
Mining and heap leaching was carried
out on the Buffalo Valley property from 1989 to 1991, producing approximately 50,000 ounces of gold.
5-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.0 Geological
Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
The following sections contained in
this TRS have been derived, and in some instances extracted, from documentation (OreWin 2022) and information supplied to SLR by SSR
for review and audit.
6.1 Regional
Geology
Marigold
is located in north-central Nevada within the Basin and Range physiographic province bounded by Sierra Nevada to the west and the Colorado
Plateau to the east (Figure 6-1).
Figure 6-1: Location
of the Marigold Mine in North-Central Nevada within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province
Source: Modified after Hamilton (1987)
Paleozoic basement rocks of north-central
to north-eastern Nevada generally comprise four distinct tectonostratigraphic assemblages: the eastern carbonate assemblage; the slope
or transitional assemblage; the western siliceous and volcanic assemblage; and the overlap assemblage (Roberts 1964).
6-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
In north-central Nevada, western assemblage
rocks are tectonically emplaced over slope and eastern assemblage rocks along the Roberts Mountain thrust, although the legitimacy of
the thrust is disputed (Ketner 2013). Uplift and erosion of the Antler highland in the Pennsylvanian shed clasts of western assemblage
rocks into a foreland basin, forming basal units of the Pennsylvanian-Permian overlap assemblage.
Marine sedimentary rocks and submarine
volcanic rocks accumulated in a basin west of the Antler orogenic belt from the Mississippian to the Permian. These rocks were transported
eastward and structurally emplaced on top of western assemblage and overlap assemblage rocks along the Golconda thrust during the Permo-Triassic
Sonoma orogeny (Roberts 1964). The mechanism for compression resulting in the Sonoma orogeny is controversial, and modern work by Ketner
(2008) has called into question the relationship between the Sonoma orogeny and the Golconda thrust.
Compression during the Jurassic and
Early Cretaceous resulted in subduction of oceanic plate material beneath continental crust of western North America, generating large
volumes of intermediate to felsic melts along a magmatic arc and emplacement of plutons into the Sierra Nevada batholith. Continued compression
resulted in accretion of oceanic arc terrane onto the continental margin, forming thrust belts and ophiolite sequences. Collectively,
these Andean and Cordilleran style compression events are known as the Nevadan orogeny. The Nevadan orogeny resulted in substantial back-arc
shortening and formation of the Luning-Fencemaker fold-thrust belt in Nevada (Wyld et al. 2003). A major mode of felsic plutonism also
occurred in Nevada during the late Jurassic (~155–160 Ma) (du Bray 2007).
Late Jurassic and Cretaceous compression
formed an extensive fold and thrust belt further east in Utah and Wyoming during the Sevier orogeny. Flat-slab subduction of the Farallon
plate underneath North America from the late Cretaceous to Eocene resulted in thick-skinned deformation and uplift of the Rocky Mountains
from New Mexico to British Columbia during the Laramide orogeny. The second major mode of felsic plutonism occurred in Nevada during
this time (~90–95 Ma) (du Bray 2007), associated with porphyry-style base metal mineralization events.
As the Laramide orogeny waned into the
Eocene, there was a major transition from compressional to extensional tectonic regimes in Nevada. Extensional tectonic stresses resulted
in the development of basin and range physiography seen throughout central Nevada. The landform is characterized by a series of horsts
and grabens that created narrow north–north-east oriented ranges separated by flat bottomed valleys. Extension and resultant crustal
thinning are associated with the third major magmatic pulse in Nevada, during which time several porphyry copper–gold systems developed.
In addition, the famous Carlin-type gold deposits (CTGD) of northern Nevada are thought to have formed during this time (~36–42
Ma) (Cline et al. 2005).
Magmatism of andesitic to rhyolitic
affinity dominated from the Late Eocene to Early Miocene with the production of voluminous ash flowsheets, plutons, hypabyssal intrusives
and calderas. Volcanic arc-related andesitic igneous activity continued in western Nevada from early to late Miocene. Further east in
central and eastern Nevada, rift-related bimodal rhyolite and tholeiitic basalt were emplaced in the mid-Miocene and are related to epithermal
silver–gold deposits in the region.
6-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.2 Local
Geology
The
Property is in the Battle Mountain mining district on the northern end of the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, a conspicuous lineament of
sedimentary-hosted gold deposits (Figure 6-2). The Battle Mountain district hosts numerous mineral
occurrences, including porphyry copper–gold, porphyry copper–molybdenum (Cu-Mo), skarn, placer gold, distal disseminated
silver-gold, and Carlin-type gold systems.
6-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-2: Location
of Marigold and the Battle Mountain Mining District on the Battle Mountain-Eureka Mineral
Trend
6-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.2.1.1 Stratigraphy
The Battle Mountain mining district
is underlain by Paleozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks that are cut by Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Eocene intrusions. Post-mineralization
tuff, volcanic rock, and detritus were deposited and preserved in structural and paleotopographic lows. The oldest rocks in the Battle
Mountain mining district are para-autochthonous Cambro-Ordovician carbonate, clastic, and volcanic rocks in the footwall of the Roberts
Mountain allochthon; these are assigned to the Comus-Preble Formation (Cook 2015). The Comus-Preble Formation comprises fine-grained
siliciclastic turbidite sequences, mudstone, siltstone, limey mudstone, limestone, debris flows, and mafic volcanic flows.
Rocks of the Roberts Mountain allochthon
were thrust eastward during the Devonian-Mississippian Antler orogeny. This event resulted in intense deformation, including folding
and intra-formational thrusting of the metasedimentary units that comprise the Roberts Mountain allochthon. Rocks of the allochthonous
clastic assemblage in the Battle Mountain district were previously separated into the Cambrian Scott Canyon Formation, Cambrian Harmony
Formation, and the Ordovician Valmy Formation, complicating the understanding of Paleozoic tectonic processes affecting the district.
Recent work by Ketner (2008; 2013) proposed the abandonment of the Scott Canyon Formation and reassignment of these rocks to the Valmy
and Harmony Formations. Ketner (2008) demonstrated the Harmony Formation conformably overlies the Valmy Formation, eliminating the necessity
for the Dewitt thrust mapped by Roberts (1964) and Theodore (1991).
Unconformably overlying rocks of the
clastic assemblage is the autochthonous Antler overlap sequence: a Pennsylvanian-Permian package of conglomerate, limestone, siltstone,
and debris flow. Basal Antler sequence rocks were deposited as material eroded off the Antler highland into a foreland basin during the
Antler orogeny. The base of the Antler sequence, the Battle Formation, is a coarse conglomerate up to approximately 220 m thick
(Roberts 1964) that contains clasts derived from the Roberts Mountain allochthon and underlying para-autochthonous rocks. The Battle
Formation was deposited in a fluvial-to-shallow marine environment, with coarse, locally derived boulders at the base and interbedded
limestone and siltstone units toward the top.
Disconformably overlying the Battle
Formation is the Antler Peak Limestone Formation, a package of shallow marine carbonate rocks over 180 m thick at its type locality
(Roberts 1964). The Antler Peak Limestone Formation contains abundant brachiopod, coral, and crinoid fossils. The type of section for
the Antler Peak Limestone Formation is in the Battle Mountain Range at Antler Peak.
The Permian Edna Mountain Formation
disconformably overlies the Antler Peak Formation and consists of locally present basal debris flow and brown weathering phosphatic siltstone
(McGibbon, 2005) at least 120 m thick. Unoxidized Edna Mountain Formation is black in color and difficult to differentiate from
unoxidized siltstone of the Havallah sequence in drill cuttings and in the field.
Allochthonous rocks of the Mississippian-Permian
Havallah sequence were tectonically emplaced over rocks of the Antler sequence, Valmy Formation, and Preble-Comus Formation during the
Permo-Triassic Sonoma orogeny (Theodore 2000; McGibbon 2005). The Havallah sequence includes chert, siltstone, limestone, conglomerate,
sandstone, and submarine volcanic rocks. The total thickness of the sequence is thought to exceed 2.8 km (Roberts 1964).
6-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Igneous Rocks
The oldest igneous rocks in the district
are submarine pillow basalts within the Cambro-Ordovician Preble-Comus and Ordovician Valmy Formations.
Volcanic rocks within the Preble-Comus
are only known from drill core and consist of submarine pillow basalt and volcaniclastic units derived from a continental source. These
rocks are typically highly altered due to their age, submarine emplacement, present surface to near-surface position, and exposure to
hydrothermal systems.
Metabasalt belonging to the Valmy Formation
outcrops in the vicinity of Trout Creek south of the Oyarbide fault. On the east side of the district at Elder Creek, diorite dikes of
Devonian age are inferred based on cross-cutting relationships. Mesozoic igneous rocks include a relatively unaltered Jurassic lamprophyric
dike (Fithian 2015) and an abundance of north-west striking Cretaceous granodiorite and quartz monzonite porphyry dikes and stocks.
Late Cretaceous granodiorite and quartz
monzonite porphyry rocks are associated with molybdenum mineralizing systems at Buckingham, Trenton Canyon, and Buffalo Valley (Doebrich
and Theodore 1996).
Cenozoic igneous activity coincided
with the onset of extensional tectonism throughout the Basin and Range province and normal reactivation of north and north-west striking
faults in the Battle Mountain district (Doebrich and Theodore 1996).
Late Eocene to Early Oligocene granodiorite
to monzogranite intrusive stocks and dikes are associated with copper-gold mineralizing systems in the district, such as those at Converse
and Copper Canyon. Intrusive dikes and sills are typically low relief slope forming units with very little outcrop in part due to argillic
alteration where it has been exposed to hydrothermal fluids.
Tertiary volcanic rocks in the district
are post-mineralization. Oligocene to Miocene rhyolitic tuff and basaltic andesite flows are intercalated with Tertiary gravels and are
locally ridge-forming units. The youngest volcanic rock, Pliocene (2.8–3.3 Ma) basalt, is present south-east of Copper Canyon (Doebrich
and Theodore, 1996).
The
Project stratigraphy is illustrated in Figure 6-3.
6-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-3: Stratigraphic
Column for the Marigold Complex
6-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.2.2 Structure
Geophysical and isotopic evidence indicate
that broad structural zones within the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend may be related to large-scale tectonic processes affecting the western
margin of North America from the late Proterozoic through Mesozoic (Grauch et al. 2003). These features may be associated with deep crustal
faults that originated as rift or transform faults during Proterozoic breakup of Rodinia, or as faults accommodating late Paleozoic compressional
tectonic events (Grauch et al. 2003). Within the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, deep crustal normal faults with a north-west, north, and
north-east strike have influenced sedimentation, deformation, magmatism, extension, and mineralization (Grauch et al. 2003).
In the Battle Mountain mining district,
the most prominent surface fault expressions are thrust faults related to Paleozoic-Mesozoic compressional tectonism, and normal faults
related to Cenozoic extensional tectonic regimes. There is evidence of a more cryptic late Paleozoic transtensional fault system throughout
the district, which is potentially late to post-Antler orogeny. These structures do not display significant slip in post-Permian aged
rocks, and as a result are commonly concealed. Structures related to the transtensional fault system are responsible for preservation
of thick wedges of Antler sequence rocks.
The Permo-Triassic Golconda thrust fault
is traceable throughout the entire Battle Mountain range. Onset of the latest crustal extension began in the late Eocene and has continued
sporadically to present. The most prominent extensional faults in the district are the range-bounding normal faults that define the Battle
Mountain range, including the post-mineralization, south-west striking Oyarbide fault (Doebrich and Theodore 1996).
At least four generations of folding
are recorded in Ordovician rocks of the Roberts Mountain allochthon, including tight-to-isoclinal overturned F1 folds with north-west–south-east
fold axes, open and upright F2 folds with west–north-west fold axes, large-scale open and upright F4 folds with north–north-east
fold axes, and roll-over anticline style F5 folds that affect the entire rock package. Fold events F1 and F2 pre-date deposition of Antler
sequence rocks. The F3 fold event is restricted to the Havallah sequence. F4 folds are thought to be related to Mesozoic tectonics and
affect Comus-Preble Formation, Valmy Formation, Antler sequence, and Havallah sequence rocks, while F5 folds appear to affect the entire
rock package including Tertiary rocks.
6.3 Property
Geology
6.3.1 Marigold
6.3.1.1 Property
Stratigraphy
Sedimentary Rocks
Four
packages of Paleozoic sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks are present at Marigold. In ascending tectono-stratigraphic order, they include:
the Cambro-Ordovician Comus-Preble Formation; the Ordovician Valmy Formation of the Roberts Mountain allochthon; the Pennsylvanian-Permian
Antler overlap sequence; and the Mississippian-Permian Havallah sequence of the Golconda allochthon. The distribution of these Paleozoic
units is shown in plan view in Figure 6-4.
There are no Mesozoic sedimentary rocks
in the Marigold mine area; however, approximately two thirds of the Property is covered by Tertiary to Quaternary intercalated gravel
and volcanic material.
6-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Comus-Preble Formation
The assignment of rocks to the Comus-Preble
Formation at Marigold is the result of an extensive effort to explore the depths of the Marigold system. On the basis of lithology and
deformation style, rocks believed to be positioned below the Roberts Mountain Thrust were assigned to the Comus-Preble Formation.
The Comus-Preble Formation consists
of fine-grained siliciclastic turbidite sequences, mudstone, siltstone, limey mudstone, limestone, debris flows, and mafic volcanic flows.
Based on data compiled from downhole televiewer logs, abrupt lithologic change from overlying rocks correlates with a transition from
tight, east-vergent, overturned folds to open folds.
Valmy Formation
The Valmy Formation consists of quartzite,
argillite, and lesser chert and metabasalt, all of which are complexly folded and faulted in the Marigold mine area. The total thickness
of the Valmy Formation is approximately 450 m at Marigold, although true thickness of the section is likely less than 200 m.
Fold deformation in the Valmy Formation
is characterized by tight, east-vergent, and overturned folds. This fold deformation has resulted in shattering of quartzite beds and
ductile deformation of argillite. Where the contact is not eroded or structurally displaced, the top of the Valmy Formation is unconformably
overlain by rocks of Pennsylvanian age. Silurian and Devonian rocks are not present either due to nondeposition or erosion.
Antler Sequence
The Antler overlap sequence is composed
of Pennsylvanian to Permian-aged rocks assigned to three formations: the basal Battle Formation; the Antler Peak Limestone Formation;
and the Edna Mountain Formation. These Formations represent a transgressive sequence of fluvial-to-shallow marine rocks that include
conglomerate, sandstone, limestone, siltstone, and debris flows. There is evidence the Antler sequence was locally deposited into sub-basins
developed by normal offset on growth faults of likely Late Pennsylvanian to Early Permian age.
Antler sequence rocks are relatively
undeformed, except for offset and rotation along Basin and Range normal faults and potentially low-amplitude, long-wavelength (kilometers
to tens of kilometers) F4 folding likely related to Mesozoic deformation. The Antler sequence is in thrust contact with the overlying
and partially contemporaneous Havallah sequence.
Havallah Sequence
The uppermost package of Paleozoic rocks
exposed at Marigold is the Mississippian-Permian Havallah sequence. The Havallah sequence is an assemblage dominated by siltstone, metabasalt,
chert, sandstone, conglomerate, and carbonate rocks. These marine sedimentary rocks were deposited in a fault-bounded deep-water trough
(Ketner 2008) and subsequently obducted over the Antler sequence along the Golconda thrust (Roberts 1964). Fold deformation in the Havallah
sequence is highly variable, ranging from relatively undeformed to tight to isoclinal, overturned and recumbent F3 folds.
6-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-4: Plan
View Map Showing Distribution of Paleozoic Units at Marigold
6-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Igneous Rocks
A 2 m interval of an extremely biotite-rich
intrusive rock, interpreted to be lamprophyre, was intersected in a single drill hole approximately 1,100 m below the pre-mining
topography. Even though the rock is relatively unaltered, the lamprophyre is Jurassic in age (160.7 ± 0.1 Ma Ar-Ar of biotite)
(Fithian, 2018) and is age-equivalent to lamprophyre intrusions in northern Nevada.
A series of Late Cretaceous (~92.22
± 0.05 Ma to 97.63 ± 0.05 Ma, CA-TIMS of zircon) (Fithian, 2015) porphyritic quartz-monzonite dikes crosscut the Paleozoic
rock package at Marigold. The intrusions are up to tens of meters wide, and several can be traced along strike for hundreds of meters.
The dikes strike south-east to north–south and are typically steeply dipping. No alteration aureole related to these intrusive
rocks has been identified at Marigold (Fithian 2015). The dikes contain phenocrysts of plagioclase feldspar, biotite, hornblende, and
quartz. The mafic phenocrysts have all been altered to secondary mineral assemblages to varying degrees.
Oligocene (~31.8 ± 0.8, 31.4
± 1.0 Ma) (Theodore 2000) basaltic andesite is present on the Property, and forms a small, mesa-like landform between Trout and
Cottonwood Creeks. The basaltic andesite is crudely columnar in this location.
Late Oligocene to Early Miocene (22.9
± 0.7 Ma) (McKee 2000) post-mineralization rhyolite tuff is intercalated with gravel throughout the Property. The tuff contains
phenocrysts of biotite and is typically altered to white clay. The tuff provides a minimum age of mineralization at Marigold, as it is
unmineralized and immediately overlies the orebody at the 8S deposit (Theodore 2000; McGibbon and Wallace 2000).
6.3.1.2 Property
Structure
The
main structural corridor and apparent primary controlling feature for the localization of the deposits at Marigold is a 1.5 km wide
by >10 km long half graben rotated no more than 045° to the west and bound by east dipping early Permian growth faults and
younger (post-Triassic) east dipping faults. This half graben structure is cut by north-west to north-east striking pre-mineralization
structures with relatively minor offset and a series of south-west striking post-mineralization extensional normal faults parallel to
the Oyarbide fault (Figure 6-5).
Valmy Formation rocks are highly deformed,
with interpreted imbricate low-angle intra-plate thrust faults and at least two generations of pre-Pennsylvanian folding. The first generation
of deformation related to folding of the Valmy Formation, D1, is characterized by tight, east verging folds with approximately north-west–south-east
to north–south striking fold axes. The second deformation event, D2, is defined by open folds with approximately east–west
striking fold axes. Folds of this orientation are best defined on the southernmost part of the property, including the Basalt pit area.
Although D1 and D2 folds are described
individually because of their unique character, it is possible that these fold sets are the product of the same deformation event. The
areas of confluence of D1 and D2 folds are thought to have played a role in the localization of mineralizing fluids.
Argillite
beds within the Valmy Formation deformed plastically while brittle quartzite beds shattered, creating open fracture space amenable for
precipitation of auriferous iron sulfides. Antler sequence rocks are cut by, and rotated along, Early Permian and Cenozoic normal faults.
The timing of the proposed Early Permian growth faults is based on preservation of Battle Formation, Antler Limestone Formation, and
a thicker wedge of Edna Mountain Formation in the hanging wall of east dipping normal faults, with little-to-no appreciable offset of
the overlying Havallah sequence (Figure 6-6).
6-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-5: Top
Surface of the Valmy Formation with the Current Property Boundary
6-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-6: Cross
Section 11,200N Highlighting Inferred Permian Growth Fault and Associated Antithetic Normal
Faults with a Steep West Dip
6-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Rocks of the Antler sequence are deformed
by F4 and F5 folds, which are not easily recognized in the field. Despite the position between two inferred major allochthonous packages,
the Antler sequence does not display more-intense fold deformation akin to F1 and F2 folds.
Havallah sequence rocks were deformed
by thrusting and folding related to compression during the Permo-Triassic Sonoma orogeny. An extensive series of thrust faults and folds
are documented by Theodore (1991) in the Valmy and North Peak quadrangles west of the Marigold mine area.
Deformation of the Havallah sequence
is apparently unrelated to gold mineralization at Marigold. Development of basin and range normal faults and reactivation of Paleozoic
faults during the Cenozoic affected the entire stratigraphic section at Marigold, including displacement of post-mineralization Oligocene
tuff and Quaternary gravel.
6.3.1.3 Property
Mineralization
The
gold deposits at Marigold are considered Carlin-type and cumulatively define a north-trending alignment of gold mineralized rock more
than eight kilometers long (Figure 6-7).
Gold mineralizing fluids were primarily
controlled by fault structure and lithology, with tertiary influence by fold geometry. Within the Valmy Formation, higher gold grades
are observed in the hinge zones of open folds that trend west–north-west and plunge gently. When viewed down plunge, the undulation
of these folds is mimicked by gold mineralized horizons. The deposition of gold was restricted to fault zones and quartzite dominant
horizons within the Valmy Formation and high permeability units within the Antler sequence.
In unoxidized rocks, gold occurs in
arsenic-enriched overgrowths on pre-ore pyrite. Arsenopyrite is also present on pre-ore pyrite grains but is not auriferous. Geochemically,
the gold mineralization event is characterized by elevated arsenic, barium, antimony, and mercury, among others. Gangue minerals include
quartz, arsenopyrite, stibnite, calcite, clay, and barite. Hypogene sulfide minerals do not occur in ore as these gold-bearing phases
are not amenable to heap leaching.
In oxidized rocks, gold occurs natively
in fractures associated with iron oxide. Rocks within the Marigold mine area are oxidized to a maximum depth of approximately 450 m.
The redox boundary is not consistent throughout the property and is substantially influenced by lithology. Shale, argillite, and siltstone
units are frequently unoxidized adjacent to pervasively oxidized quartzite horizons.
A silver and base metal mineralizing
event at Marigold includes a mineral association of chalcopyrite, argentiferous tennantite, galena, and sphalerite. The absolute age
of this event is unclear, although it may be related to late Cretaceous magmatism in the district.
6-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-7: Plan
View of the Marigold Mine Area showing the Spatial Distribution of 1.0 g/t Au Grade Shells
Over an 8 km Northerly Trend
6-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.3.1.4 Property
Alteration
Alteration of rocks includes silicification
along mineralizing structures and decalcification of carbonate horizons (primarily in the Antler sequence). Argillic alteration of quartz
monzonite intrusive bodies occurs in fault zones and areas of high hydrothermal fluid flow (Fithian 2015). The intensity of alteration
decreases towards the core of the intrusions.
Studies have demonstrated a spatial
correlation between gold mineralized rock and increased white mica crystallinity index (Kester 2015). There is evidence for large volumes
of quartz precipitation within and outboard of gold mineralized zones, including jasperoid bodies, cryptic silicification, and quartz
vein breccias.
6.3.2 Buffalo
Valley
The Buffalo Valley project is located
approximately 14 km southwest of the Mackay complex at Marigold and eight kilometers southwest of Trenton Canyon on the immediate western
flank of the Battle Mountains. Early works relating to deposit genesis have variably ascribed the Buffalo Valley gold system to distal
disseminated silver-gold, porphyry copper-molybdenum, and gold skarn deposit models. Recent work tends to favor the distal disseminated
silver-gold model as most of the gold mineralization is associated with quartz+sericite+pyrite (QSP) veins and veinlets that postdate
development of the various hornfels and skarn alteration assemblages. The Buffalo Valley deposit is hosted by Eocene felsic dikes and
metasedimentary rocks and basalt of the Mississippian-Permian Havallah sequence that are pervasively altered to skarn and hornfels in
the vicinity of the deposit area.
6.3.2.1 Property
Stratigraphy
Sedimentary Rocks
In
the Buffalo Valley mine area, there are three distinct metasedimentary units of the Havallah sequence (Figure
6-3). The three units are extensively metasomatically altered and metamorphosed proximal to felsic intrusive phases throughout the project
area. The protolith equivalents of the three units are as follows:
· The
lower unit consists of limestone, ribbon chert, and calcareous siltstone. This unit occurs
below the base of the historical open pit and does not crop out in the immediate mine area;
however, it is well documented by deeper drilling.
· The
middle unit consists of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and chert and is colloquially referred
to as the “sandy” unit by the mine geology group.
· The
upper unit structurally overlies the middle unit and consists of interbedded chert, siltstone,
and limestone. In the mine area, the base of the upper unit is marked by pillow-textured
basalt that appears to be faulted out of the sequence at depth to the west of the mine. The
upper unit is thought to be tectonically thickened due to fold and thrust deformation.
Bedding
in the Buffalo Valley mine area generally dips to the southwest between 40° and 60°. Chemical,
textural, and mineralogical data support interpretation of multi-phase emplacement of felsic intrusions.
6-16
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Intrusive Rocks
Havallah sequence rocks were intruded
and altered by a swarm of northwest striking granodiorite and dacite porphyry dikes in the late Eocene to early Oligocene (Reid et al.
2010). Spatially related to the gold deposit is a porphyry dike system with two primary splays that strike southeast (approximately 140°)
and steeply dip to the southwest. The western dike is described by previous workers as fine-grained granodiorite porphyry while the eastern
dike is described as dacite porphyry. This dike system is continuous along strike for at least one kilometer, although the west dike
appears to coalesce with the east dike near the northwestern extent of the pit. Both east and west dike splays are disrupted by a dacite
porphyry plug south of the historical pit that is chemically similar to a dacite stock east of the pit. A quartz diorite stock and associated
dikes crop out west of the pit area. Small lamprophyre and pebble dikes are also documented by previous workers (Reid et al. 2010).
Volcanic Rocks
Beds
of Cenozoic airfall and ash-flow tuff are intercalated with alluvium and exposed on surface north of the historical pit. Cenozoic strata
are thickened in the immediate hanging wall of the range front fault that defines the western flank of the Battle Mountains and in the
structural block west of the deposit that is downdropped into the geographic Buffalo Valley on the Front fault. The base of the volcanic
tuff sequence is marked by a welded conglomerate that contains subrounded clasts of quartzite and chert (Figure
6-8).
6-17
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
6-8: Geologic
Map of the Buffalo Valley Mine Area
6-18
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.3.2.2 Property
Structure
The most prominent fault set in the
Buffalo Valley project area are south striking structures that define the range bounding fault system. The structural block that hosts
the Buffalo Valley deposit is bound by the Range Front fault to the east and the moderately dipping (34 to 48 degrees) Front fault to
the west (Seedorff et al. 1991). Bedrock in this block is exposed at surface and may indicate increased transfer of slip to the Front
fault or other subsidiary faults in the vicinity of the deposit. The Front fault is mineralized but also offsets Quaternary alluvium,
constraining the minimum age of initiation to the early Oligocene and latest slip to the Quaternary. Dikes and hydrothermal fluids exploited
dilational SE-striking relay structures related to N-S oriented master fault structures (Rhys 2022; internal communication). This fault
zone is well characterized by a large aeromagnetic anomaly that can be traced for more than seven kilometers (Doebrich and Theodore 1996).
6.3.2.3 Property
Mineralization
The
Buffalo Valley gold deposit formed along a southeast trending zone of felsic porphyry dikes and faults. Gold occurs in arsenian iron
sulfide overgrowths on pyrite in sheeted QSP veinlets within the central granodiorite and dacite porphyry dikes, subparallel to dike
margins in the country rock, and within faults (e.g., the Front fault). Outboard of the intrusion’s gold mineralization is stratiform
in receptive horizons of Havallah sequence metasedimentary rocks (Figure 6-9). In general, gold
concentration decreases with increasing distance from the granodiorite and dacite porphyry dike system. Although most of the gold mineralization
at Buffalo Valley occurs in QSP veinlets that overprint skarn alteration assemblages, a lesser amount of gold is documented as native
grains within garnet and amphibole crystals associated with prograde skarn development (Reid et al. 2010). Minerals associated with gold
mineralization in oxidized zones include scorodite, manganese and iron oxides, calcite, and clay.
6-19
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-9: Schematic
Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit
6-20
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.3.2.4 Property
Alteration
The alteration styles and assemblages
at Buffalo Valley are well documented by Reid et al., 2010 and is, in part, summarized here. The most intense alteration at Buffalo Valley
is focused on the SE-striking relay structures that, in part, controlled Eocene to Oligocene dike emplacement. Proximal to these structures’
limestone and other carbonate-bearing protoliths were altered to prograde exoskarn assemblages including Fe-rich pyroxene, Ca and Fe-rich
garnet, quartz, and calcite. Prograde endoskarn assemblages include Mg-rich pyroxene, actinolite, biotite, quartz, and chlorite. Sulfide
minerals associated with prograde skarn include chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite, sphalerite, galena, and pyrite. Retrograde skarns are manifested
in shallower levels of the deposit and are characterized by potassic alteration assemblages that include shreddy biotite and K-feldspar.
Sulfide minerals associated with retrograde skarn include pyrrhotite, pyrite, and chalcopyrite. A late QSP event overprints skarn and
hornfels and is associated with most of the gold mineralization. Oxidation is the last alteration event to affect the rock package, extending
from surface to depths of over 200 m proximal to the central Buffalo Valley fault system. Oxidation is a critically important process
for liberation of gold nanoparticles locked in arsenian iron sulfide phases.
6.3.3 Trenton
Canyon
The Trenton Canyon property is located
approximately 5 km south of the Marigold deposit and comprises an area of approximately 34 km2. Trenton Canyon is separated
from Marigold by the southwest-striking Oyarbide fault, a range-bounding fault on the northern flank of the Battle Mountains. Gold deposits
at Trenton Canyon are hosted by siliciclastic and carbonate rocks of Cambro-Ordovician and Pennsylvanian-Permian age proximal to potentially
genetically related Eocene felsic dikes. The gold deposits are on the margin of a calc-silicate and hornfels alteration aureole attributed
to emplacement of the Cretaceous Trenton Canyon stock, exposed on surface approximately one kilometer southwest of the historical South
pit.
6.3.3.1 Property
Stratigraphy
The
general lithotectonic stratigraphy of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks exposed at Trenton Canyon is reasonably well constrained (Figure
6-3) by decades of aggregate knowledge of the lithotectonic stratigraphy at the adjacent Marigold mine complex. The succession is underlain
by allochthonous to parautochthonous lower Paleozoic marine slope and basin lithofacies rocks provisionally assigned to the Valmy and
Comus Formations. These rocks are unconformably overlain by Pennsylvanian to Permian, non-marine to marine conglomerate of the Battle
Formation and limestone of the Antler Peak Limestone Formation, both of which belong to the Antler overlap sequence. These two lithotectonic
packages are structurally overridden by the Mississippian to Permian Havallah sequence, which includes submarine basalt, chert, argillite,
sandstone, siltstone, calcareous sandstone, gritstone, and conglomerate of the Golconda allochthon. The paucity of coherent intraformational
lithostratigraphy, due to fold and fault deformation as well as inferred localized deposition during sedimentation, inhibits intraformational
lithostratigraphic correlation on the property scale.
Early Paleozoic Rocks
Use of the term Comus Formation for
rocks at Trenton Canyon is provisional and serves as a placeholder assignment of Cambro-Ordovician rocks atypical of the Valmy Formation
in the district. The formation outcrops very poorly across the property and is best studied along road cuts and where it is present in
open pits. At Trenton Canyon, the Comus Formation is a sequence of siliciclastic and carbonate marine rocks and basalt deposited on the
slope and basal slope of the passive margin. These rocks formed distal to the Comus carbonate seamount to the north, but record influx
of carbonate detritus into the basin at least as far south as Trenton Canyon. The Comus and Valmy Formations are quasi-time equivalent
rock packages and are intercalated at the base of slope. In the district, the Comus Formation is distinguished from the Valmy Formation
by the presence of carbonate and preservation of higher energy features like debris flows, turbidites, slumps and large rip-up clasts.
6-21
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Sedimentary units of the Valmy Formation
are restricted to deep water chert, massive quartz arenite or quartzite, and argillite units that do not display sedimentary features
indicative of higher energy slope facies. The simplistic stratigraphy of the Valmy Formation is a basal massive quartzite that is devoid
of bedding and other sedimentary features. The quartzite unit is overlain by a highly contorted thin to medium bedded green to grey chert.
Above the chert unit is typically a massive pillow basalt unit. This unit is discontinuous across the property and is best observed on
Hollywood Ridge and the North Fork of Trout Creek at Trenton Canyon. The intraformational units of the Valmy Formation are certainly
more complex than described above but broadly adhere to this succession in the vicinity of Trenton Canyon.
There are no known Silurian or Devonian
rocks at Trenton Canyon.
Late Paleozoic Rocks
At the type locality approximately five
kilometers south-southeast of Trenton Canyon, the transgressive Pennsylvanian Battle Formation consists of up to 250 m of alluvial and
marine conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone, and lesser limestone (Saller and Dickinson 1982). All these lithologies are recognized at Trenton
Canyon despite the drastic northwestward thinning of the formation from the type-locality to the footwall of the Oyarbide fault at Relay
Ridge where the strata are either absent or no more than five meters thick. Based primarily on clast composition and sedimentary structures,
five informal map units (Pb1-5) and one marker bed within the Battle Formation at Trenton Canyon are recognized. Mapped relations of
Battle Formation subunits suggest deposition was synchronous with crustal extension in the Pennsylvanian.
The Havallah Sequence is a Mississippian
to Permian sedimentary succession that includes submarine basalt, chert, argillite, sandstone, siltstone, calcareous sandstone, gritstone,
and conglomerate. This succession of clastic marine rocks makes up the Golconda allochthon emplaced during the Sonoma Orogeny. The succession
is highly deformed by tight to isoclinal overturned folds hindering the understanding of intraformational lithostratigraphy.
Igneous Rocks
The
Cretaceous Trenton Canyon stock is the most prominent intrusion on surface in the Trenton Canyon project area. The medium-grained crystalline
monzonite stock has a bulbous surface exposure and weathers recessively. The stock has altered the adjacent country rock resulting in
a contact metamorphic aureole discernable in regional geophysics. Local base metal (Cu-Mo-Ag-Zn) mineralization also occurs along the
periphery of the stock (Figure 6-10).
6-22
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-10: Geologic
Map of Trenton Canyon Area
6-23
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Eocene granodiorite dikes up to several
meters in width also occur within the Trenton Canyon area. The dikes intrude a network of north to northwest striking faults and primarily
dip to the east at approximately 55 degrees but locally exploit south to southeast striking structures with similar to slightly more
inclined dips. Phreatomagmatic textures are observed on dike margins on surface, in road cuts, and in drill core. The breccias primarily
contain irregularly shaped clasts of the intrusion, suggesting a degree of plasticity at the time of brecciation, and lesser quartzite
and argillite clasts in a matrix of igneous rock flour. The dike margins and phreatomagmatic breccias are locally well mineralized. In
addition to phreatomagmatic brecciation, melting and incorporation of country rock is also evident on the margins of some dikes. The
dikes at Trenton Canyon may have played a role in the localization of gold mineralizing fluids as deposit geometry typically mimics the
spatial distribution pattern of the intrusions.
Lamprophyre dikes are also observed
in the project area. The lamprophyres are assumed to be Jurassic in age, based on geochronologic analysis of lamprophyre at Marigold
and the temporal distribution of lamprophyre in northern Nevada. The lamprophyres are medium-grained crystalline, often with a felted
texture and chilled margins. These lamprophyres do not seem to be associated with gold mineralization and are more often observed in
deeper drill holes.
6.3.3.2 Property
Structure
A generalized model of the deformation
history preserved at Trenton Canyon is described below. Sections are in chronological order and describe fault systems from oldest to
youngest. It is important to note that these fault and fold systems likely experienced a complex protracted and reactivated history making
a formal chronologic breakout challenging.
Irregularities in basement architecture
are likely responsible for the development of structural complexities, e.g., stress localization and ramp development during orogenesis.
The surficial expression of these structures is difficult to delineate, though it is interpreted that the large-scale anticlinorium and
imbricated thrust sheets present at Trenton Canyon formed in response to a basement cored irregularity where stress localized during
the emplacement of the Antler allochthon. Later, Cenozoic extension inherited the architecture of the anticlinorium forming a horst-block,
i.e., sets of west and east dipping faults along the strike length of the deposit. The anticlinorium and overprinting horst-block has
an inherent control on mineralization. Understanding the structural style and geometry of the lateral and frontal ramps is critical,
as the frontal ramp domains are likely to have undergone greater structural preparation, thereby enhancing permeability and providing
preferential pathways for mineralizing fluids. Detailed understanding of the internal stratigraphy of the Battle Formation was critical
in demonstrating syn-depositional extension accommodated along NW- and NE- to E–W-trending fault systems..
Expressions of deformation related to
the Antler orogeny include tight F1 folds and internal Valmy Formation thrust faults. In addition, thrust faults exposed on surface at
Trenton Canyon demonstrate the imbricated nature of Cambro-Ordovician rocks interpreted to have formed in quiescent and high energy depositional
environments.
Following Antler orogenesis, deposition
of the Antler overlap sequence occurred in extensional basins along the Antler Highlands. Understanding the internal stratigraphy of
the Battle Formation was instrumental in demonstrating syn-depositional extension along a NW- and NE- to east-west trending fault system.
These Pennsylvanian-age faults preserve proximal growth stratigraphy of the lower Battle Formation subunits and are onlapped by the upper
units. The NW and NE Paleozoic fault system documented at Trenton Canyon displays a complex array of NE to EW transfer zones (or relay
faults) connecting the long NW grain. This complexity in the fault system lends to increased clastic sedimentation at transfer zones.
Due to the fault-tip propagation style of growth stratigraphy displayed in the lower subunits, this fault set is interpreted to be deep-seated
and potentially linked to older basement-cored architectures. The NW long-grain and east-west short-grain are typically gold mineralized,
with grade enhancement at intersections with the Eocene NNE fault set (described below).
6-24
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Quasi-contemporaneous with deposition
of Antler sequence rocks, Havallah sequence rocks formed in the Havallah basin to the west of the Antler highlands. The Sonoma Orogeny
structurally juxtaposed the Havallah sequence east over the Antler overlap sequence and lower Paleozoic assemblages along the Golconda
thrust. Two major Sonoma aged thrust faults are recognized at Trenton Canyon, as well as multiple internal thrusts and folds. The structurally
lowest thrust is the Golconda thrust. The Golconda thrust juxtaposes siltstones and gritstones on top of the Antler Sequence (Battle
Formation and Antler Peak LS Formation). The Willow Creek thrust forms a structurally higher plate, emplacing a deeper-water succession
of green-brown chert and siltstone over the underlying siltstone-gritstone succession. The Willow Creek thrust coalesces with the Golconda
thrust to the south where the siltstone/gritstone unit is structurally removed and the chert/siltstone package is in contact with the
Antler Peak Limestone.
Cretaceous contractional deformation
is interpreted to be recorded by a set of north- trending upright and open folds. Felsic dikes (NW- trending) and stocks intrude the
Battle Mountains at approximately 98 Ma. It is uncertain whether this igneous event is due to the advancing flat subducting Farallon
slab during the Sevier-Laramide orogenies, or if the retro-arc was undergoing extension which introduced peraluminous magmas into the
middle crust.
A major N-S to NNE- SSW fault set at
Trenton Canyon is thought to be related to early Eocene extension. These faults switch polarity from west to east dipping and inherit
their architecture from deformation attributed to the Antler orogeny. The result of this extension is the formation of a horst block
throughout the project area. The most notable N-NNE- trending fault at Trenton Canyon is the Windy Ridge fault system that hosts economic
gold mineralization in the historical West Pit. This fault set is occupied locally by Eocene intrusions.
Post mineral faulting is best demonstrated
by the Oyarbide Fault and associated parallel faults. These structures trend NE–SW and clearly record a younger phase of displacement,
evidenced by the development of topographic facets and offsets to mineralization. Although the most recent fault movement post-dates
gold mineralization, the fault system likely records multiple phases of deformation and appears to be influenced by deeper basement architecture,
with both directly demonstrated and inferred structural connections to basement faults.
Blasthole patterns indicate gold mineralization
in the previously mined South and West pits was localized where principal faults branch into antithetic and synthetic splays and relays.
Enhanced permeability related to curvature of horsetail structures promoted gold mineralization (Rhys, 2022; internal communication).
Folding
The first generation (F1) of folding
observed in the Battle Mountains is a set of tight to isoclinal overturned folds with short wavelengths and high amplitudes, that trend
NW-SE to NNW-SSE. This fold set is recording allochthonous deformation of upper-plate siliciclastic rocks along the Roberts Mountains
Thrust (RMT) during the Antler orogeny. F1 folds primarily deform Valmy Formation chert, argillite, and quartzite; but is not limited
to upper-plate rocks. RMT equivalent thrust faults in the area demonstrate a complex nature of imbricated panels that deform earlier
thrust faults and lower-plate rocks.
6-25
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
second generation (F2) of folding observed is an open and upright set of folds that trend 250°
to 300° and plunge very shallowly. F2 folds are best observed in the Basalt pit but are documented across Marigold and Trenton Canyon.
Intersections of F2 hinge lines with F1 hinge lines form type-1 fold interference patterns, or domes and basins. This style of fold interference
has led to significant ground preparation of the area and controls the distribution of mineralization. F2 is not observed in the Antler
overlap sequence rocks. Therefore, it is interpreted that F2 is time equivalent with F1 and formed in response to the development of
lateral thrust ramps during the Antler orogenesis.
The third generation (F3) of folding
documented is a set of tight to isoclinal, overturned and recumbent folds that trend approximately north-south. This set is restricted
to allochthonous Havallah sequence rocks emplaced during the Sonoma Orogeny. This deformation event had very little effect on autochthonous
rocks below the Golconda Thrust.
The fourth generation (F4) of folding
is observed on a much larger scale. This folding event formed a set of open broad and upright folds that trend approximately N-NW to
S-SW. F4 folds deform the entire rock package present at Marigold and Trenton Canyon on a Mountain Range scale. This deformation event
is interpreted to be related to Mesozoic tectonics during the Sevier and Laramide orogeneses, though timing constraints are poor.
6.3.3.3 Property
Mineralization
A Cretaceous base metal mineralization
event, interpreted to be associated with emplacement of the Trenton Canyon stock, is characterized by a sulfide association of pyrrhotite,
chalcopyrite, and pyrite in unoxidized samples, and a gangue association of tremolite, calcite, muscovite, diopside, and garnet. This
event pre-dates Eocene gold mineralization at Trenton Canyon, which is characterized by a sulfide association of auriferous arsenic-bearing
iron sulfides and argentiferous tennantite, and a gangue association of quartz, carbonate, phyllosilicates, clays, carbon, and stibnite.
Gold mineralization at the South, West,
and East pit areas is primarily hosted in a network of transtensional faults locally intruded by Eocene dikes and sills. Hydrothermal
and/or phreatomagmatic breccias within these structures typically contain increased concentrations of gold. Gold mineralization is strongly
structurally controlled, although a narrow, several-meter-wide halo of lower-grade disseminated mineralization may be present adjacent
to the mineralized structures. Quartz veins, illite, iron oxides, and iron hydroxides (goethite) are the primary indicators of gold mineralization
where oxidized.
At
Cottonwood Ridge there is a complex interplay of stratigraphic control, intrusive influence, and structure that localizes mineralization.
Relay Ridge mineralization is primarily strata bound but hosted close to the intersection with the regional scale Oyarbide and Havallah
West faults, which likely played a role in enhancing permeability. Oxidation boundaries at Trenton Canyon are complex and influenced
by structure-induced permeability. The inherently low permeability of the Valmy formation results in a relatively shallow supergene phreatic
oxidation/reduction boundary; however, secondary permeability created by faulting enables oxidation at depth. Figure
6-11 is a cross section through Trenton Canyon showing the interplay of faulting, intrusives, mineralization, and oxidation.
6-26
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 6-11: Schematic
Cross Section through Trenton Canyon
6-27
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
6.3.3.4 Property
Alteration
The dominant forms of alteration observed
at Trenton Canyon represent both metasomatic (calc-silicate) and isochemical (hornfels) processes associated with the contact aureole
of the Cretaceous Trenton Canyon stock. Alteration related to the Eocene hydrothermal system locally overprinted the calc-silicate and
hornfels assemblages.
Alteration associated with gold mineralization
is well constrained to fault zones, intrusions, and intrusion margins. Silicification in the form of drusy quartz, quartz stockwork veins
and veinlets is present within and around fault zones. Iron oxides and hydroxides, including goethite, hematite, and limonite, as well
as clays (illite, kaolinite) are associated with these veins. Eocene dikes are quartz, sericite, pyrite (QSP) altered in the deposit
area and often have Liesegang banding where oxidized.
6.4 Deposit
Type
Doebrich and Theodore (1996), Theodore
(1998), and Theodore (2000) described the deposits at Marigold as distal disseminated silver–gold deposits. These deposits are
disseminated equivalents of polymetallic vein deposits, characterized by a geochemical signature that includes silver, gold, lead, manganese,
zinc, copper, antimony, arsenic, mercury, and tellurium (Cox and Singer 1990). Typically, they contain substantially more silver relative
to gold than other types of disseminated gold deposits and may feature supergene enrichment of silver if significantly oxidized.
In Nevada, distal disseminated silver–gold
deposits are proximal to Jurassic, Cretaceous, and mid-Tertiary granitoid intrusions (Hofstra and Cline 2000). A fundamental requirement
of the distal disseminated silver–gold model necessitates a genetic link between silver–gold mineralization and causative
intrusions (Hofstra and Cline 2000); however, no such relationship has been conclusively demonstrated at Marigold (Fithian 2015).
A Carlin-type gold deposit (CTGD) is
a unique type of disseminated, sedimentary rock-hosted gold deposit. The genesis of CTGDs is currently not well understood. In Nevada,
CTGDs occur along several main mineralization trends, including the Carlin trend and Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, and are primarily
hosted by silty carbonate rocks.
Gold in a CTGD occurs in arsenian pyrite
rims on pyrite grains and is associated with arsenic, sulfur, antimony, mercury, and thallium (Cline et al. 2005). There is considerable
debate regarding the source of gold in CTGDs. Leading theories include a magmatic-hydrothermal origin (e.g., Sillitoe and Bonham 1990;
Johnston and Ressel 2004; Ressel and Henry 2006; Muntean et al. 2011) and gold sourced from the sedimentary host package (e.g., Ilchik
and Barton 1997; Emsbo et al. 2003; Large et al. 2011). Even though the genesis of CTGDs remains enigmatic, there is consensus that all
CTGDs in Nevada formed during the Eocene period (42 to 36 Ma) (Cline et al. 2005).
Distal disseminated silver–gold
deposits may share similarities with CTGDs, including orebody morphology, structural setting, and alteration styles, but drastically
differ with respect to alteration zonation, geochemical signature, hypogene mineralogy, and endowment. Distal disseminated silver–gold
deposits show a more definitive magmatic signature than CTGDs that includes zoning of alteration relative to felsic hypabyssal intrusions,
base metal enrichment, significantly higher Ag/Au ratios, and distinctive hypogene ore mineralogy (e.g., base metal sulfides, native
gold and silver, electrum, silver sulfides, and silver sulfosalts; Cox and Singer 1990, Cox 1992, Hofstra and Cline 2000), and are typically
much smaller in terms of gold endowment.
6-28
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
There is increasing support for a model
that proposes a continuum between CTGDs, distal disseminated silver–gold deposits, and epithermal deposits. This model implies
a magmatic source for heat and metal. Marigold and Trenton Canyon show characteristics closer to the CTGD endmember, and Buffalo Valley
shows characteristics closer to the distal disseminated silver-gold endmember.
Figure 6-12 is a diagrammatic representation
of the deposit model.
Figure 6-12: Model
Illustrating Inferred Processes Related to Formation of Carlin-Type Gold Deposits (CTGD)
and Distal Disseminated Silver–Gold Deposits
Source: Muntean and Cline 2018
6-29
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
7.0 Exploration
Since
acquiring the Property in April 2014, SSR has conducted several surface exploration programs, including soil sampling and geophysics,
as summarized in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Summary
of Exploration Completed by SSR
Year
Property
Company
Exploration
Type
Details
2014
Marigold
SSR
Geophysics
Magee
Geophysical Services LLC conducted field data collection. The gravity measurements were collected from 1,358 stations using two LaCoste
and Romberg Model-G gravity meters at a grid spacing of 150 m x 150 m. (Magee, 2014). J. L. Wright Geophysics processed and
interpreted the data.
2016
Marigold
SSR
Geophysics
Gravity
survey conducted by Magee Geophysical Services LLC. A total of 1,806 stations were acquired on a 150 m square grid and a 150 m x
300 m staggered grid. Relative gravity measurements were made with LaCoste and Romberg Model-G gravity meters. Topographic surveys
were performed with Trimble Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) and Fast-Static GPS. (Magee, 2016). J. L. Wright Geophysics processed and interpreted
the data.
2020
Marigold
and Trenton Canyon
SSR
Geophysics
Two
reflection seismic lines covering 16.9 km. The lines were surveyed by Riolada Surveying LLC, and Xtreme Drilling completed the shot
holes. Bird Seismic acquired the data, and processing was completed by SubTerraSeis and Wright Geophysics.
2021
Trenton
Canyon
SSR
Geophysics
/ Soil Samples
In
2021, a proprietary airborne hyperspectral dataset was acquired with district-scale coverage. This dataset includes mineral maps
generated from short and long-wave infrared sources. A soil sampling program was completed by North American Exploration on behalf
of SSR Mining, consisting of 3,284 soil samples covering 14.5 km2 of mountainous terrain predominantly east of the
previously mined pits at Trenton Canyon.
2023
Buffalo
Valley, Trenton Canyon, and Marigold
SSR
Geophysics
EarthEx
completed a UAV-borne magnetic survey of the Buffalo Valley, North Peak, and New Millenium areas. The project encompassed 3,324.7
line-km at 25 m line spacing and 250 m tie line spacing with mean terrain clearance of 20 m
7-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Year
Property
Company
Exploration
Type
Details
2024
Buffalo
Valley and Marigold
SSR
Geophysics
Magee
Geophysical Services LLC conducted the field data collection for an infill ground gravity survey. Four LaCoste & Romberg Model-G
gravity meters with a resolution of 0.01 mGal were used to complete the survey. In total, 3,429 stations were added to the dataset.
Data was combined with historic survey data and processed by Terra Resources to produce merged gravity and magnetic surveys across
the property.
2024
Buffalo
Valley and Marigold
SSR
Geophysics
CSAMT
measurements were acquired by Zonge International on 17 lines, for a total of 56.8 line kilometers of data coverage. Four transmitter
dipoles were deployed to cover the survey area, using a scalar array of four electric-field dipoles and a magnetic-field antenna
located at the center. The dipole length (spacing) was 50 m, and data were acquired from 1 to 8,192 Hz for each receiver spread.
Terra Resources processed and interpreted the data.
2025
Marigold
SSR
Soil
Samples
387
soil samples in the northern part of the Marigold property on a 100 m x 100 m offset grid.
7.1 Geophysical
and Geochemical Surveys
7.1.1 Gravity
7.1.1.1 2016
After finalizing the purchase of Valmy
in 2015 (additional Newmont-owned land to the east and west of the previous land boundary), SSR in 2016 expanded the geophysical gravity
survey to include this new ground, resulting in a total of 1,806 additional gravity stations collected on variable station spacing on
a 150 m square grid and a 150 m x 300 m staggered grid. The purpose of the survey was to assist in delineation of structures in the area
in conjunction with geologic mapping and exploration drilling.
7.1.1.2 2019
The acquisition of Buffalo Valley and
Trenton Canyon from Newmont in 2019 resulted in the addition of 952 gravity stations to the Marigold database.
7.1.1.3 2020
In 2020, 766 gravity stations were acquired
by Magee Geophysical Services on a 122 m x 244 m grid at Trenton Canyon. Relative gravity measurements were made with LaCoste
& Romberg Model-G gravity meters. Topographic surveying was performed with Trimble (RTK) and Fast-Static GPS. The gravity survey
is tied to the US Department of Defense gravity base Battle Mountain (DoD reference number 2344-2) via an intermediate base established
on the property.
7-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The Marigold gravity database now contains
a total of 6,665 stations.
7.1.1.4 2024
The
2024 gravity survey was designed to infill gaps between prior surveys and collect data in areas not previously covered to compile a merged
gravity data set across the entire Marigold property. The survey was completed on a 200 m x 200 m offset grid. In
total 3,429 new gravity stations were acquired across the property. The merged data set was completed by MaGee Geophysical Services LLC
and compiled the 2024 data with historical data sets collected between 1994 and 2020. Post processing was completed by Terra Resources
to provide color maps of gravity features.
Gravity measurements were collected
with LaCoste and Romberg Model-G gravity meters with topographic surveying completed with Trimble Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) and Fast-Static
(FS) GPS units. Gravity data were post processed to complete Bouguer gravity (CBG).
7.1.2 CSAMT
(Controlled-Source Audio-frequency Magnetotellurics)
7.1.2.1 2024
In
2024, CSAMT surveys were designed to infill gaps in the historic data to compile a merged data set
across the Marigold property for 3D modeling. In total 56.8 line kilometers of data were collected on 50 m dipole spacing. Four transmitter
dipoles were deployed to cover the survey area, using a scalar array of four electric-field dipoles and one magnetic field antenna located
at the center. Data were acquired from 1-8192 Hz for each receiver spread.
7.1.3 Seismic
In August 2020, two reflection seismic
lines were completed to assess the utility of reflection seismic for imaging structural and lithological domains in a challenging geological
setting. The test program included two lines totaling approximately 16.9 line kilometers (line-km). The survey was conducted by Bird
Seismic of Globe, Arizona, and processed by SubTerraSeis of Reno, Nevada. Results were finalized and interpreted by Wright Geophysics
of Elko, Nevada.
7.1.4 Soil
Sampling
In 2020, North American Exploration
of Layton, Utah, was contracted to collect 3,284 soil samples covering approximately 14.5 km2 at Trenton Canyon.
In 2025, Rangefront Mining Services
collected 387 soil samples in the northern part of the Property on a 100 m x 100 m offset grid.
7.1.5 Drone-based
Magnetic
In 2022 and 2023, EarthEx Geophysical
Solutions of Selkirk, Manitoba, was contracted to complete a drone-based magnetic survey over portions of Buffalo Valley, Trenton Canyon,
and Marigold. Approximately 3,325 line-km were flown at a spacing of 25 m with a mean terrain clearance of 20 m. The purpose of the survey
was to help delineate the structure and intrusions in the area.
7-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
7.2 Drilling
Reverse Circulation (RC) and Core (Diamond
Drilling-DD) drilling on the Property is the principal method of exploration and delineation of gold mineralization after initial targeting
using soil sampling and geophysical surveys. Drilling can generally be conducted year-round on the Property.
As
of the effective date of this TRS, SSR and its predecessor companies have completed over 2.6 million meters of drilling in 13,371 drill
holes across the Marigold, Buffalo Valley, and Trenton Canyon areas, as summarized in Table 7-2,
Table 7-3, and Table 7-4.
Exploration at the Property has focused
on the following:
· Exploration
drilling to expand Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves through systematic step-out drilling.
· Infill
drilling to increase the confidence of Mineral Resource estimates, specifically targeting
areas with widely spaced drilling (approximately 35 m to 50 m) and around drill holes drilled
prior to 2006 with missing assays.
· Drilling
to confirm the final position of the pit highwall.
· Defining
mineralization at Trenton Canyon and Buffalo Valley.
Since the last technical report (SLR
2024), 731 holes have been drilled (663 RC holes and 68 diamond core holes), totaling 157,220 m.
Figure 7-1 illustrates all drilling
completed by year on the Property as of the effective date of this TRS.
7-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
7-2: Summary
of Drilling at Marigold
Drilling
Program
Company
No.
of RC
Holes
RC
Drilling
(m)
No.
of
Diamond
Holes
Diamond
Drilling
(m)
Total
Holes
Total
Drilling
(m)
1968–1985
Various
exploration and mining groups
126
7,037
126
7,037
1985–1999
Cordex
and Rayrock Mines
2,350
333,325
8
2,176
2,358
335,501
1999–2006
Glamis
Gold
2,498
484,619
8
2,030
2,506
486,649
2006–2013
Goldcorp
1,856
520,163
14
8,063
1,870
528,226
1968–2006
Various1
852
108,326
15
1,037
867
109,363
2014
SSR
116
21,653
1
1,235
117
22,888
2015
SSR
171
39,070
4
4,270
175
43,340
2016
SSR
231
55,147
1
955
232
56,102
2017
SSR
188
54,814
1
1,128
189
55,942
2018
SSR
259
93,276
0
0
259
93,276
2019
SSR
183
63,629
25
10,265
208
73,893
2020
SSR
109
37,955
0
0
109
37,955
2021
SSR
150
52,579
6
1,636
156
52,214
2022
SSR
200
55,628
0
0
200
55,628
2023
SSR
185
40,038
14
3,302
199
43,340
2024
SSR
133
31,236
1
387
134
31,623
2025
SSR
138
34,154
24
5,285
162
39,439
Q1
2026
SSR
51
13,162
4
1,108
55
14,270
Total
Drilling
9,796
2,045,811
126
42,877
9,922
2,086,686
Notes:
1.
Newmont and other mining groups (Valmy property)
Table 7-3: Summary
of Drilling at Buffalo Valley
Drilling
Program
Company
No.
of RC
Holes
RC
Drilling
(m)
No.
of
Diamond
Holes
Diamond
Drilling
(m)
Total
Holes
Total
Drilling
(m)
1980–2011
Newmont
and other mining groups
1,550
178,892
24
4,187
1,574
183,079
2019
SSR
0
0
0
0
0
0
2020
SSR
0
0
0
0
0
0
2021
SSR
0
0
3
837
3
837
2022
SSR
36
14,426
7
3,315
43
17,741
7-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Drilling
Program
Company
No.
of RC
Holes
RC
Drilling
(m)
No.
of
Diamond
Holes
Diamond
Drilling
(m)
Total
Holes
Total
Drilling
(m)
2023
SSR
80
20,822
16
4,745
96
25,567
2024
SSR
104
16,887
13
2,884
117
19,771
2025
SSR
43
7,996
9
1,911
52
9,584
2026
H1
SSR
28
2,462
3
594
31
3,056
Total
Drilling
1,841
241,485
75
18,473
1,916
259,635
Table 7-4: Summary
of Drilling at Trenton Canyon
Drilling
Program
Company
No.
of RC
Holes
RC
Drilling
(m)
No.
of
Diamond
Holes
Diamond
Drilling
(m)
Total
Holes
Total
Drilling
(m)
1991–2011
Newmont
and
other mining groups
1,143
152,792
6
909
1,149
153,701
2019
SSR
64
19,112
0
0
64
19,112
2020
SSR
97
28,840
7
5,902
104
34,742
2021
SSR
86
24,844
3
1,518
89
26,362
2022
SSR
64
18,983
10
3,984
74
22,967
2023
SSR
37
8,232
6
1442
43
9,674
2024
SSR
10
2,931
0
0
10
2,931
Total
Drilling
1,501
255,734
32
13,755
1,533
269,489
7-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 7-1: Plan
View of All Drilling to End of May 2026
7-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
7.2.1 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP is of the opinion that the
drilling and sampling procedures adopted at Marigold are consistent with generally recognized industry best practices. The resultant
drilling pattern is sufficiently dense to interpret the geometry and the boundaries of gold mineralization with confidence. The reverse
circulation (RC) samples were collected by trained personnel using procedures meeting generally accepted industry best practices. The
process was conducted or supervised by suitably qualified geologists.
The SLR QP is of the opinion that the
samples are representative of the source materials, and there is no evidence that the sampling process introduced a bias. Accordingly,
there are no known sampling or recovery factors that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of drilling results.
7-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.0 Sample
Preparation, Analyses, and Security
Exploration activities conducted by
three companies between 1985 and 2013 have contributed to most assays in the Marigold database. Sampling and analytical procedures for
this period are known and documented, and it can be assumed that analytical information acquired prior to 1985 will not affect the current
Mineral Resources, since these sampled volumes collected prior to 1985 have been mined out.
Most of the samples that inform the
resource database were generated from RC drill cuttings. In general, the process for collecting RC samples has changed very little since
1985; however, over time, numerous improvements have been made in sample preparation, security, and analysis. As an operating mine, Marigold
generally follows and continues to follow industry best practice standards.
At the Property, there is an extensive
sample storage facility that preserves raw sample material supporting the resource database. Most of the laboratory pulp reject (since
1987), coarse reject (since 2006), and split diamond drill core are cataloged and stored securely in shipping containers on the Property.
A detailed account of the pre-2014 sampling
and analytical protocols is described in Silver Standard (2014). The following sections in this TRS have been derived, updated, and,
in some instances, extracted from documentation from OreWin (2022) and standard operating procedures (SOPs) supplied to SLR by SSR for
review and audit.
8.1 Sample
Preparation and Analysis
A
summary of historical analytical methods and assay results that comprise the Marigold database is presented in Table
8-1. Except for the Marigold, Pinson, and Dee Mine site laboratories, all laboratories listed in Table 8-1 are commercial laboratories
that were independent from SSR.
Until the end of 1999, fire assay (FA)
with gravimetric finish was the preferred analytical method for determining gold in samples. Since then, all samples have been subjected
to first-pass gold cyanide solution (CN) assay; if results were greater than 0.17 g/t Au, samples were also subjected to either FA determination
with gravimetric finish at the on-site Marigold mine laboratory or FA with atomic absorption (AA) finish and FA with gravimetric finish
for over-limits at commercial laboratories.
All the Newmont-provided samples used
to populate the Valmy area resource database were assayed at various commercial laboratories. The preferred assay method was FA with
AA spectroscopy finish, followed by gold cyanide solution assay on select samples within the mineralized zone.
8-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Since 2014, all exploration samples
from Marigold have been analyzed at American Assay Laboratories (AAL), an ISO 17025 certified facility in Sparks, Nevada. AAL is independent
from SSR. All samples are subjected to first pass FA determination with an AA finish and FA with a gravimetric finish for over-limits.
This is followed by a gold cyanide solution assay with an AA finish for samples with FA values greater than or equal to 0.03 g/t Au.
In 2019 and 2020, Marigold Mine submitted drill samples to Paragon Geochemical Laboratories, a privately held corporation located in
Sparks, Nevada. The analytical procedures utilized are ISO/IEC 17025:2017-accredited and ISO 9001:2015-certified. Samples were prepared
under strictly controlled processes, and 30g aliquots were fire assayed with lead collection. The analytical determinations were with
aqua regia digestion and inductively coupled plasma (ICP) – optical emission spectroscopy (OES) analysis (Au-OES30). Results greater
than 8 g/t were fire-assayed with a gravimetric finish (Au-GR30). Quality control utilizes layers of embedded indicators that are monitored
during operations and used for final certification. Paragon is independent of SSR.
8-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 8-1: Analytical
Methods for Gold for the Marigold Assay Resource Database
Period
Laboratory
Preparation
Analytical
Method
Reported
DL (Au g/t)
1985–1989
Pinson
or Dee Mine site labs
Undocumented
30
g FA, gravimetric finish
0.17
1990–1999
Pinson
or Dee Mine site labs or Inspectorate Labs
Undocumented
30
g FA, gravimetric finish
0.17
1980-2010
(Buffalo Valley Historic)
Multiple
Laboratories
Undocumented
30
g FA, AA finish, and/or 15 g CN assay on select samples
Unknown
1987–1998
(Valmy + Trenton Canyon)
Barringer
Laboratories
Undocumented
30
g FA, AA finish 15 g cyanide gold (CN) assay on select samples
FA:
0.17
CN
assay: 0.17
X-Ray
Assay Laboratories
Undocumented
30
g FA, gravimetric finish 15 g CN assay on select samples
FA:
0.03
CN
assay: 0.03
Rocky
Mountain Geochemical Nevada
Undocumented
30
g FA, gravimetric finish 15 g CN assay on select samples
FA
(AA): 0.03–0.003
CN
assay: 0.03
Chemex
Labs Ltd.
Undocumented
15
g FA, AA finish 30 g FA, gravimetric finish 15 g CN assay on select samples
FA
(AA): 0.06–0.003
CN
assay: 0.03
2000–2004
(Valmy + Trenton Canyon)
Chemex
Labs Ltd.
Dry,
crush, and riffle split for pulverizing; pulverize to 100 µ
All
samples 30 g FA, AA finish 15 g CN assay on select samples
FA
(AA): 0.01
CN
assay: 0.03
2000–2006
Marigold
Mine laboratory
Dry
6–12 hr at 310°F; crush >95% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 250 g – 400 g for pulverizing; pulverize
to >90% –75 µ
All
samples 10 g CN assay, AA finish if CN assay >0.17 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 30 g FA, gravimetric finish
0.03
American
Assay or Inspectorate Labs
Dry
6–12 hr at 310°F; crush (using jaw and roll) >90% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 500–1,000 g for pulverizing;
pulverize to >90% –100 µ
All
samples 15 g CN assay, AA finish If CN assay >0.17 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 30 g FA, AA finish over-limits by 30 g FA, gravimetric
finish
0.03
2006–2013
Marigold
Mine laboratory
Dry
6–12 hr at 310°F; crush >95% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 250 g – 400 g for pulverizing; pulverize
to >90% –75µ
All
samples 10 g CN assay, AA finish. If the CN assay >0.17 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 30 g FA, gravimetric finish
0.03
American
Assay or Inspectorate Labs
Dry
6–12 hr at 310°F; crush (using jaw and roll) >90% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 500 g –1,000 g for
pulverizing; pulverize to >90% –100µ
All
samples 15 g CN assay, AA finish. If CN assay >0.17 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 30 g FA, AA finish over-limits by 30 g FA, gravimetric
finish
0.03
8-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Period
Laboratory
Preparation
Analytical
Method
Reported
DL (Au g/t)
2014–2023
American
Assay Laboratories
Dry
6–12 hr at 310°F; crush (using jaw and roll) >90% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 500 g – 1,000 g for
pulverizing; pulverize to >90% –100µ
All
samples 30 g FA, AA finish over-limits by 30 g FA, gravimetric finish. If FA >0.03 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 15 g CN
assay, AA finish
FA:
0.003
CN
assay: 0.03
2019-2020
Paragon
Laboratories
Dry
– 6 to 12 hr at 310°F; crush (using jaw and roll) >90% minus 2 mm; riffle split to collect 500 g to 1,000 g for pulverizing;
pulverize to >85% minus 75µ
All
samples 30 g FA, AA finish Over-limits by 30 g FA, gravimetric finish. If FA >0.03 g/t, the 2nd pulp split at 15 g CN assay, AA
finish
FA,
0.003
CN
assay, 0.03
2023-2026
American
Assay Laboratories
Dry
6–24 hr at 185°F; crush (using jaw and roll) >70% –2 mm; riffle split to collect 250 g–300 g for pulverizing;
pulverize to >85% –75µ
IO-FAAu30
– 30 g sample Au by fire assay and ICP-OES
FA:
0.003-10
IO-CNAu215/AuCN15
– 15g sample to 30 mL of solution Au by cyanide leach with ICP-OES finish 15 g sample digested for 2 hours using 0.3% NaCN
and 0.3% NaOH solution
CN
assay: 0.01-100
ALS
– Only Pulp re-assays
Au-ICP21
– 30g sample Au by fire assay and ICP-AES
FA:
0.001-10;
Au-AA13
– 30g sample Au by cyanide leach with AAS finish 30g sample is added to a closed vessel and agitated for 1 hour 0.25% NaCN/0.05%
NaOH
CN
assay: 0.03-50
Notes:
DL = Detection Limit
8-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.2 Quality
Assurance and Quality Control
Quality assurance (QA) consists of evidence
to demonstrate that the assay data have precision and accuracy within generally accepted limits for the sampling and analytical method(s)
used in order to have confidence in a resource estimate. Quality control (QC) consists of procedures used to ensure an adequate level
of quality throughout the collection, preparation, and assay of exploration drilling samples. In general, QA/QC programs are designed
to prevent or detect contamination and allow assaying (analytical), precision (repeatability), and accuracy to be quantified. In addition,
a QA/QC program can disclose the overall sampling-assaying variability of the sampling method itself.
8.2.1 QA/QC
Procedures Pre-2014
8.2.1.1 Historical
Marigold Assay – Analysis of Low Detection Limit
The oldest hole in the Marigold exploration
database dates back to 1968. Over time, QA procedures for the drill hole database have been inconsistent with current industry standards
and best practices.
The lower detection limit for cyanide-soluble
gold assays has changed over time as the ROM cut-off grade has been reduced. Prior to 2009, assay values below detection were entered
into the database as 0.0 oz/t. This data artifact underrepresented the mineralized volume of the Mineral Resources estimate in the low-grade
range of the analytical distribution and contributed to the positive reconciliation experienced at Marigold.
Because the historical QA/QC procedures
at Marigold did not meet current-day best practices, the issue of below-detection-limit analyses in the database was addressed through
a systematic assay program implemented by SSR in 2015 and 2016 (the Assay Program). SSR selected a spatial and temporal representation
of samples from the well-preserved drill hole sample pulps (from the years 1987 to 2013) stored at Marigold. A total of 1,974 samples
collected between 1987 and 2003 were re-assayed for FA with AA finish and gravimetric finish analysis at the ISO 17025-certified AAL
facility in Sparks, Nevada. Drill hole sample pulp material was not available for the period 1968 to 1987.
Of
these 1,974 assay pairs, 1,029 samples were below the as-mined topography and within the mineralized envelopes. This represents 12% of
samples within the mineralized envelope and below the previously estimated mined-out topography, which was set at 0.0 troy ounce per
short ton (opt) or deemed waste. The assay results for both finishes were compared, and the results are presented in Figure
8-1 and Figure 8-2. The scatter in the data is acceptable (R2 = 0.9982), and the reduced major axis (RMA) regression indicates a bias
of 3.7% for all assay pairs below the mined-out topography.
8-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 8-1: Scatter
Plot Between FA Gold Values with AA Finish and Gravimetric Finish
Source: SSR 2023
Figure 8-2: Q-Q
Plot between FA Gold Values with AA Finish and Gravimetric Finish
Source: SSR 2023
8-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Between 2015 and 2016, an Assay Program
was carried out in which a total of 153,023 pulp samples from pre-2009 drill holes reporting a 0.0 opt gold cyanide soluble result and
located within the reserve pits were recovered from storage and analyzed for gold at AAL. Certified standards and blanks were inserted
into the pulp sample list at a rate of one standard in 20 samples and one blank in 50 samples. The samples were analyzed using a one
assay ton (30 g) FA with an AA finish, followed by a gold cyanide solution assay with an AA finish for those samples that returned FA
results of 0.03 g/t or greater.
8.2.1.2 Valmy
Property
As at Marigold, the QA/QC procedures
followed at the Valmy property between 1987 and 1998 did not meet current industry standards and best practices. Newmont began inserting
certified standards in the sample stream in 2000. A total of three QC samples were used, but SSR was unable to evaluate the assay accuracy
without the expected gold values for these samples.
Because
the historical QA/QC procedures for the Valmy property did not meet current industry standards, SSR drilled 8 drill holes within a 200
m by 150 m resource block. A total of 11 historical drill holes were within the same block. The cross-section comparing the SSR drilling
to the historical drilling is presented in Figure 8-3.
The
cumulative normal distribution comparing the SSR drill composites to the composite from the historical drill holes is provided in Figure
8-4.
8-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
8-3: Cross-Section
with SSR Drill Holes and Historical Drill Holes Along Section 8000N
8-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
8-4: Cumulative
Normal Distribution Comparing Composites from SSR Drilling and Historical Drilling
Source: SSR 2018
The
nearest-neighbor (NN) gold-grade model estimates were also compared with assay results from historical drilling and new drilling. To
compare historical Newmont data with SSR data, two NN models were developed: one that estimated only assay results from the historical
database, and the other that used only assay results from the SSR drill holes within the same mineralized envelope. The percentage difference
between historical and SSR results was approximately less than 4% (Table 8-2).
Table
8-2: Comparison
of Valmy Deposit NN Mean Gold Grades
Estimate
Mean
Gold Grade
(g/t)
Nearest
Neighbor with Historical Composites
0.624
Nearest
Neighbor with SSR Composites
0.600
SSR concluded that there was no systematic
error or bias in the accuracy and precision of analytical assays under the historical sampling and assaying methodology compared to current
practices, and that the assays are suitable for use in Mineral Resource estimation.
8.2.1.3 Buffalo
Valley Historical Data
In 2011, before SSR’s acquisition
of the Buffalo Valley property, AMEC Americas Ltd. (AMEC) conducted an audit of Newmont’s Buffalo Valley drill hole database and
found good agreement between the database and the original data sources. The database was comprised of data from numerous drilling campaigns
between 1980 and 2011, with drill holes from multiple campaigns selected for the audit. The drill hole data from Newmont was directly
imported into SSR’s new Seequent MX Deposit (MX Deposit) database.
8-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.2.2 QA/QC
Procedures 2014-2026
SSR’s QA/QC protocol involves
the insertion of a certified reference material standard (CRM) every 20th sample, the insertion of a blank sample every 50th
sample, the collection of field duplicates every 50th sample for RC holes, and the re-analysis of returned pulverized material
at the original laboratory, as well as at an umpire laboratory. SSR’s protocol targets the total number of QA/QC samples, comprised
of the above-mentioned sample types, to exceed 15% of the total number of original samples. To simplify plotting, results from 2014-2022
have been excluded from the following sections.
8.2.2.1 Certified
Standards
Results from regular CRM submissions
are used to identify issues with specific sample batches and laboratory biases.
Certified reference materials (CRMs)
were used to evaluate the analytical accuracy and precision of AAL. CRMs were inserted every 20th sample, which represents
5% of the total samples submitted. Three different CRMs were used in any one submission. The CRMs were selected based on the cut-off
grade and gold distribution at the Marigold mine:
· cut-off
grade (0.1 g/t)
· mean
grade (0.45 g/t)
· 90th
percentile (2.3 g/t)
Between
2023 and June 2026, eleven different CRMs, purchased from ROCKLABS, Geo Chem Laboratories, and OREAS were used. CRMs purchased from Ore
Research & Exploration Pty Ltd. were used only for a short period in 2014. The CRMs were assigned sample numbers in sequence with
their accompanying drill samples and inserted into the drill-sample stream. The list of CRMs used between 2023 and June 2026 is shown
in Table 8-3.
Exploration personnel monitor assay
results in real time and import the data into the Geology database. Internal validation checks in the database highlight any certified
standard assay failures. For normally distributed data, 95% of the standard assay results are expected to lie within 2 standard deviations
of the certified value. All samples outside the three-standard-deviation limits were considered failures. Failures trigger a re-run of
five samples above and five samples below the failed standards, including the failed standard.
8-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
8-3: List
of CRM Standards used between 2023 and June 2026
CRM
Standard
Years
in Use
Expected
Gold
Value (g/t)
Standard
Deviation (g/t)
No.
of Samples
Assayed
OxB146
2023
0.132
0.006
204
OxB186
2023–2026
0.121
0.003
925
OxE166
2022–2026
0.652
0.016
792
Oxi164
2023–2025
1.79
0.036
895
Oxi177
2023–2026
1.811
0.037
247
OREAS
235b
2024
1.63
0.053
14
OREAS
238b
2024
3.08
0.085
11
OREAS
264
2024
0.307
0.011
13
Total
Samples
2,891
CRM
Z-score assay values received from the lab are routinely plotted temporally to monitor potential analytical drift over time at the main
laboratory (Figure 8-5).
Figure
8-5: Z-Scores
of all CRM Results (2023 – June 2026)
Source: SLR 2026
8-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.2.2.2 Field
Duplicates
Duplicate samples are used to monitor
preparation, assay precision, and grade variability as a function of sample homogeneity and laboratory error.
Field
duplicate samples were collected every 50th sample, and two sample bags marked “A” or “B” were provided
to collect an original and a duplicate sample. The secondary sample was obtained from the secondary opening in the rotary sampler. Between
2023 and June 2026, 526 duplicate samples were collected and assayed. Absolute relative difference (ARD) was used to estimate precision;
results are presented in Figure 8-6.
Figure
8-6: Field Duplicate HARD Plot for Fire
Assay (AuFA)
Source: SLR 2026
8.2.2.3 Blanks
Blank material is used to assess contamination
or cross-contamination during sample preparation and to identify sample-numbering errors.
The blanks were similar in size to the
RC samples and processed through the same crushing and pulverizing stages as the drill samples. The blank samples were placed in every
50 samples. Blank results exceeding 5 times the lower detection limit (LDL) were typically considered failures requiring further investigation
and possible re-assaying of associated drill samples. The lower detection limit of AAL analyses is 0.0034 g/t, therefore blank samples
assaying in excess of 0.017 g/t were considered to be failures.
Between
2023 and 2026, 1,904 blanks were inserted into the sample stream, with less than 1% resulting in failures. The protocol followed for
failures was to re-prepare and assay five samples above and below the failures. The new assays were entered into the database for the
samples. The assay results for the blank samples between January 2023 and May 2026, are shown in Figure 8-7.
8-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
8-7: Blank
Results (January 2023 – June 2026)
Source: SSR 2023.
8.2.2.4 Re-Assay
and Umpire Samples
After completing original assays/analysis,
the primary laboratory returns coarse rejects and pulverized material to Marigold for storage. From the pulverized material, analytical
duplicates are selected for a re-assay (original lab), an umpire assay (second lab), or both. Samples are selected based on their original
grade, such that the secondary assay results form a distribution representative of the grades seen at Marigold. Re-assays are sent back
to the same laboratory that conducted the original assay and are used to monitor precision attributable to the analytical process. Since
2022, re-assays have been completed by American Assay Laboratories, whereas ALS has been used for umpire analysis.
Figure 8-8 shows a HARD plot of the
re-assay samples for the period from 2023 through May 2026, comparing AAL and ALS.
8-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
8-8: Umpire Analytical Duplicate HARD Plot
for Fire Assay (AuFA) of Original vs. Umpire Results
Source: SLR 2026.
8.3 Sample
Security
8.3.1 Sample
Security until 2013
The bulk of the data in the Marigold
resource assay database was for samples analyzed at the secure on-site Marigold mine laboratory. Samples shipped off-site were either
delivered to the commercial lab by an MMC Exploration Department geologist or technician, or samples were collected from the mine by
a laboratory employee. All samples were sent with a manifest listing the number of samples included in the shipment. Exploration personnel
were unaware of any instances of tampering with samples either on-site or in transit to a laboratory.
8.3.2 Sample
Security Newmont Projects
Newmont provided scanned copies of drillers’
logs, sample manifest sheets, and signed assay sheets from commercial laboratories and geologist logging sheets for all the drill holes
that inform the resource database for the Valmy and Buffalo Valley properties. Based on the documented evidence, the likelihood of tampering
with the samples either on-site or in transit was negligible.
8.3.3 Security
2014–2026
All exploration samples were collected
from the mine site by employees of the external laboratories (either AAL, Paragon, or ALS). All sample dispatches included a manifest
listing the sample identifiers and the number of samples included in the shipment. AAL/Paragon electronically acknowledged receipt of
the samples within 24 hours of physically reconciling them with the manifest. SSR exploration personnel are unaware of any instances
of tampering with samples either on-site or in transit to a laboratory.
8-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
8.4 QP
Opinion
After review, the SLR QP’s opinion
is that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures meet industry standards, and that the QA/QC program, as designed
and implemented at Marigold, is in line with industry best practices. Based on data validation and the results of the standard, blank,
and duplicate analyses, SLR believes that the assay and bulk density databases are of high quality and suitable for mineral resource
estimation. SLR is not aware of any drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability
of the results. Neither the SSR in-house quality control nor SSR predecessor’s quality control yielded any indication of quality
concerns.
8-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
9.0 Data
Verification
Data verification is the process of
confirming that data has been generated in accordance with proper procedures, transcribed accurately from its original source into the
project database, and is suitable for use as described in this TRS.
SLR was not directly involved in the
exploration drilling, logging, and sampling programs that formed the basis for collecting the data used to support the geological model
and MRE for the Property.
9.1 Marigold
Database Migration
Since publishing the 2022 TRS (OreWin
2022), all drill hole data have been migrated to an MX Deposit database and audited by the SLR QP for completeness and validity. Migrated
data were extensively validated by SSR for errors or missing values, comparing old tables to the new. The new database was configured
to streamline the collection, validation, and use of all data, maximizing efficiency and minimizing errors by limiting data handling
and manual entry.
All new drill hole data collected after
the migration, with the exception of lithology logging, were imported directly into the geological database without any keyboard input.
Data validation was conducted after import, but before the locking and subsequent use of the data in any model, analysis, interpretation,
etc. Geologic logging is done directly in the database, with data validation performed weekly.
The verification for the exploration
data collected before SSR acquired Marigold includes the results of AMEC Americas Ltd.’s external review and data verification
to identify any material issues with the database used to generate the Mineral Resource estimate.
SSR subsequently acquired the adjacent
Valmy and Buffalo Valley properties, and the associated data was appended to the Marigold drill hole database.
The appended data for Valmy comprises
collar, downhole survey, lithology, and assay information (provided in comma-delimited digital files) for 867 drill holes drilled by
Newmont, Hecla, and Santa Fe Pacific Corp. Newmont provided this information in hardcopy or scanned versions of the originals, which
were used to verify the database.
MMC’s exploration personnel manually
checked the entire drill hole database against the original documents for data entry errors. Less than 1% of the drill holes had any
issues, and these were subsequently corrected.
As an additional check, SSR acquired
the chip trays for 687 drill holes, pulps from 57 drill holes, and sample rejects from 66 drill holes, of which 5% were reviewed for
lithology and alteration. The original logging was deemed accurate and was used to construct the lithological models.
The collar positions of 43 Valmy drill
holes were verified using differential GPS. Subsequent to AMEC’s 2011 audit of the Buffalo Valley drilling database, SSR verified
the collar location of eight holes drilled by Newmont and one hole drilled by Fairmile that included a drill hole identification marker
in the field. The results showed a maximum variance of 4 m in the X/Y planes (easting and northing) and <1 m in the Z dimension (elevation).
This error shift is less than half the size of a resource model cell and is not material to any resulting estimate. The Valmy and Buffalo
Valley data, as appended, were deemed accurate and precise, and appropriate for resource estimation purposes.
9-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
For data collected after April 2014,
the following verification steps were completed to support the estimation of Mineral Resources:
· The
location of planned drill holes was compared to the location of as-built drill holes in real
time. Regular field checks were completed on the drill and sampling systems.
· Downhole
survey intervals that encountered major deviations were reviewed and validated (AMEC, 2014).
· Precision
and accuracy of laboratory assay results were verified using a QA/QC program that followed
an industry standard protocol using the blind insertion of blanks and certified standards.
· The
elevation of all surveyed drill hole collar coordinates was checked against the original/current/depleted
topographic surface to identify any variations of more than one meter. No discrepancies were
found.
· Profiles
of all mined-out pits, backfilled pits, and OBSA were cross-checked, updated annually, and
incorporated into the current topography.
Assay results for all drill holes are
individually plotted and examined for cyclicity and decay, which are forms of downhole contamination. Any hole with confirmed contamination
will have the contaminated samples removed from resource estimation.
9.1.1 Data
Verification Procedures
SLR was provided with a digital drill
hole database for the Property in a series of Microsoft Excel comma-delimited files (“CSV” format) and Seequent Leapfrog
GEO digital files. The SLR QP used the information provided to validate the Mineral Resource interpolation, tonnage, grade, and classification.
As
part of the data verification procedure, drill data was spot checked and audited by the SLR QP for completeness and validity using standard
database validation tests. In addition, the SLR QP reviewed the QA/QC methods and results, verified assay certificates against the database
assay table, and conducted one site visit, including a review of drill core. No limitations were placed on SLR’s data verification
process. The review of the QA/QC program and results is presented in Section 8.0, Sample Preparation,
Analyses, and Security.
The SLR QP performed the following digital
queries. No significant issues were identified.
· Header
table: searched for incorrect or duplicate collar coordinates and duplicate hole IDs.
· Survey
table: searched for duplicate entries, survey points past the specified maximum depth in
the collar table, and abnormal dips and azimuths.
· Core
recovery table: searched for core recoveries greater than 100% or less than 80%, overlapping
intervals, missing collar data, negative lengths, and data points past the specified maximum
depth in the collar table.
· Lithology:
searched for duplicate entries, intervals past the specified maximum depth in the collar
table, overlapping intervals, negative lengths, missing collar data, missing intervals, and
incorrect logging codes.
9.2 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP was provided unlimited access
for data verification purposes by SSR during this Mineral Resource estimate audit. The SLR QP is of the opinion that database verification
procedures for Marigold comply with industry standards and are adequate for the purposes of Mineral Resource estimation.
9-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
10.0 Mineral
Processing and Metallurgical Testing
10.1 Marigold
When production began at Marigold in
1989, ore was processed primarily with a rod-and-ball-mill grinding circuit with gold recovery by carbon-in-leach (CIL). In March 1990,
heap leaching commenced at Marigold. Since April 1999, all Marigold ore has been processed via truck dump, ROM heap leaching.
Cumulative gold production from the
Marigold leach pad through April 2026 is equivalent to 72.7% recovery.
Gold production data from the leach
pad operation provides the best information for predicting future processing recoveries because the ore type has been consistent since
1999. Gold recovery for future Marigold ore, including stockpile and leach pad inventory, is estimated to be 72.4% based on a review
of historical assay and recovery data as well as metallurgical test work on future ore.
10.1.1 Metallurgical
Test Work
The objectives of metallurgical testing
activities at Marigold are to determine methods to improve gold recovery, to generate information to guide short and long-range production
planning, to optimize reagent additions, and to minimize processing costs. The studies comprise both small column leach (25.4 cm
diameter by 1.2 m high, with minus 51 mm ore) and standard bottle roll leach tests with P100 2 mm samples. Testing
has been performed on a variety of Marigold ores, including representative pit samples taken by ore-control geologists, leach pad grab
samples from mine production, and various pit blasthole drill cuttings. Bottle roll test work (at P100 2mm) has also been
conducted on exploration reverse-circulation (RC) drill samples to determine the expected gold recovery from deposits that will be mined
in the future.
Historical
gold recovery versus gold grade results for all laboratory column tests are shown in Figure 10-1.
In addition to column leach tests, bottle roll tests were completed on the same samples, crushed to P100 2 mm, to develop
a correlation between column and bottle roll results. The relationship is shown in Figure 10-2. The use of bottle roll tests in place
of column leach tests enables more metallurgical tests to be undertaken in a shorter time frame (i.e., days for bottle rolls versus months
for columns).
10-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 10-1: Column Test Results – Marigold
Source: SSR 2023
Figure 10-2: Bottle Roll vs. Column Recovery
– Marigold
Source: SSR 2023
10-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
10.1.1.1 Marigold
Process Optimization Metallurgical Test Work
Additional test work, such as permeability
testing, reagent dosage, solution application rate, and carbon activity, is conducted to optimize the processing variables that are controllable
on a large heap leach pad and plant.
Permeability testing has been performed
on ore samples with varying fines content. The testing simulated compaction under multiple lifts of ore stacked up to 200 m. Overall,
the blends tested demonstrated relatively consistent permeability on increasing loads. Flow rates for the blends ranged from 178.8 L/h/m2
to 284.2 L/h/m2 under no load. Under 122 m effective height loading, flow rates ranged from 34.4 L/h/m2 up to 188
L/h/m2. All tests resulted in low, but acceptable permeabilities.
10.1.1.2 Marigold
Gold Recovery Modeling
Marigold uses two assay methods: fire
assay that measures the total contained gold in a sample (AuFA) and a second method known as ‘cyanide-soluble gold’ (AuCN).
The latter technique generates a value that represents the grade of the ore in terms of the amount of gold in a finely ground sample
that can be dissolved by a strong sodium cyanide solution, or the maximum cyanide soluble gold content.
All Marigold blasthole samples are assayed
for cyanide soluble gold. Samples ending in the numbers 0, 3, and 7 inside ore control shapes are selected for additional fire assay
analysis. Therefore, some samples have two assay values: an AuCN (cyanide soluble) value and an AuFA (fire assay) value. The ratio of
AuCN to AuFA provides the theoretical maximum gold recovery that can be achieved. For example, if the AuFA ore grade is 0.10 g/t,
and the AuCN ore grade is 0.08 g/t, the ratio is 0.08/0.01 = 0.80. This indicates that the maximum gold recovery using cyanide leaching
from this ore sample is 80%.
Test work has demonstrated that, generally,
all ore at Marigold behaves similarly. The ratio of AuCN/AuFA is an important characteristic determined for each ore block in the geologic
model.
The
most recent assessment of the predicted recovery for Marigold ore was conducted in 2017. The 2017 exploration database contains approximately
155,000 pairs of fire assays (field AUFA in the database) and cyanide soluble assays (field AUAA in the database). These assay pairs
represent all the mine ore types. On an individual ore block basis, the ratio AuCN/AuFA includes all the local geological variables for
that ore block (rock type, degree of oxidation, head grade, etc.). The result is the best estimate of maximum recovery. Figure
10-3 shows AuFA plotted against AuCN for all data pairs through 2017.
A best-fit linear regression shows the
AuCN/AuFA ratio is 0.80. The LOM historical leach pad recovery, based on ounces poured, was 74.0% at the time of this analysis.
An adjustment factor can be calculated
using the chemical maximum AuCN/AuFA recovery and the actual pad recovery:
Actual: 74% / Chemical:
80% = 0.92
Therefore, the estimated recovery from
the ROM heap leach can be expressed as:
Heap Leach Recovery
= AuCN / AuFA x 0.92
10-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
10-3: Exploration Database (2017) AuCN vs AuFA – All Data
Source: SSR 2018
10.1.1.3 Marigold
Preg-Rob Test Program
Preg-robbing is the loss of leached
gold cyanide complex from solution by adsorption onto natural carbon contained in the ore. Current control measures to mitigate preg-rob
material issues on the heap leach pad include blasthole analysis and logging, training of shovel operators to identify black rock (preg-rob
material), and ore control routing for segregation of material on the pad. A study is being conducted to assist with further understanding
preg-rob material in the Marigold ore bodies with respect to evaluating current test procedures and the correlation to both leach cycle
time and particle size. This study includes the standardized preg-rob procedure conducted in the Marigold Analytical Lab, coarse bottle
rolls, and a column test with samples containing preg-robbing material.
One of the objectives of this study
is to assess whether the placement of preg-robbing material on the Marigold heap leach facility is being adequately accounted for in
the current AuCN/AuFA ratio and ore control practices. If it is found that preg-robbing material is not being accounted for, then it
will be necessary to assess what additional factors may need to be applied to the metallurgical recovery equation.
The study work program includes the
following test work:
· Standard
preg-rob test with extended leaching times and increased gold spike concentrations.
· Standard
bottle roll procedure using a coarser particle size sample with the addition of goldspike
to mirror the laboratory SOP for preg-rob.
· Standard
column procedure with addition of gold spike in barren solution.
10-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
10.2 Buffalo
Valley
10.2.1 Metallurgical
Test Work
10.2.1.1 Historical
Test Work
The Buffalo Valley deposit has mainly
been analyzed as an oxide heap leach with bottle roll and column leach tests being the most common, though there are some tests conducted
for alternative processing. Mineralogy and geochemical data have also been reliably procured during testing. The results of testing have
shown strong lithological control, with recovery being predicted by different factors in each unit; some are predicted by the cyanide
to fire assay (CN/FA) ratio with no crush size dependency while others rely very strongly on crush size to obtain reasonable recovery.
All units perform similarly when pulverized to 75 µm. Overall, 12 test programs have been conducted since 1982, including 122 x
2 mm bottle roll tests and 96 column tests (52 at 19 mm, 42 at 38 mm, and 2 at 300 mm).
Historical mining (1987 to 1990) primarily
took place in the main dike intrusives above the Greenstone basalt layer. The 1982 KCA test program indicated excellent recovery, 80
to 90% in the near-surface intrusive unit.
Testing commissioned by Fairmile and
Newmont was focused primarily on the continuation of the core of the orebody below the historical mining, in the Sandy sedimentary unit
and Main Dike intrusive unit. While this is the main component of the ore, the spatial coverage away from this region was lacking. Composites
also typically skew to the higher grades which would have been economic at that time, with limited tests performed near the currently
anticipated cutoff grade of 0.1 g/t (0.003 opt).
SSR designed programs in 2023, 2024,
and 2025 to address these issues, spreading the test work away from historical test areas with a focus on targeting specific lithologies
with no blending. The 2024 and 2025 programs also targeted lower grade composites. Finally, the 2025 program expanded the lithological
targets to previously untested units at depth, base limestone and a new sulfidic lithology, VDFX.
10.2.1.2 Gold
Recovery by Size Results
Most of the ore at Buffalo Valley shows
a very strong crush size dependency. This size dependence is likely due to gold particles being encapsulated by skarns and other silicate
minerals. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) evidence shows that moderately size gold particles can be fully covered by garnet and pyroxene
that can only be fully liberated with grinding. This is most evident in samples from the calc-silicate hornfels (CSHF) units in the upper
sediments. There is also a portion of the gold deportment that is refractory to cyanide. From SEM analysis, it is seen that arsenopyrite
can be a significant host of sub-atomic gold, even in samples with well-oxidized pyrite. In P80 74 micron bottle roll tests,
almost all tests show more than 80% recovery of the contained gold, with only a few sulfidic-refractory samples.
The
laboratory test recoveries need to be scaled to the anticipated production size, either 38 mm crushed or 304 mm ROM. The individual
test recoveries are plotted against the log of the P80 particle size in Figure 10-4 to
generate crush size vs recovery curves for each lithology. These are then discounted to 96% to account for heap leach inefficiency and
other scale-up effects. Table 10-1 presents the recovery of contained gold (AuFA) at a crush size of 38 mm or ROM size of 304 mm. Both
of these sizes are conservative and are open for optimization in design and mine planning; Marigold ROM P80 is 144 mm, so
there is an opportunity to increase recovery with drill and blast practices.
10-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Preg-rob testing has been conducted
at most project stages, with minimal preg-rob behavior noted in the assay or bottle roll testing. Organic carbon assays are also very
low for all samples.
Table
10-1: Gold Recovery by Lithology
Metallurgical
Unit
Lithology
AuFA
Recovery (%)
Recovery
Equation by
Size
Crush
(38 mm)
ROM
(304 mm)
Intrusive
Granodiorite
85.73
84.20
88.40
– 1.692 * Log10(x)
Sandy
Sandstone
73.09
68.61
80.94
– 4.966 * Log10(x)
Greenstone
Basalt
34.00
15.09
67.08
– 20.94 * Log10(x)
CSHF
Limestone
Chert
28.60
8.46
63.83
– 22.30 * Log10(x)
SHF
Chert
58.76
48.04
77.51
– 11.87 * Log10(x)
Front
Fault
n/a
76.81
71.79
85.60
– 5.561 * Log10(x)
Limestone
Limestone
39.82
26.82
62.57
– 14.40 * Log10(x)
Figure 10-4: Buffalo Valley Au Recovery by
Size for each Lithology
Source: SSR 2023
10.3 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP opines that the metallurgical
test programs conducted by SSR, along with the historical test reports and extensive operating data and experience with the Marigold
mineralization, are adequate to support the TRS. The Buffalo Valley deposit is more complex than Marigold, and the recoveries of the
seven ore types are dependent on crush size. Recovery curves have been developed for each of the material types, allowing extrapolation
of recoveries from 38 mm to ROM material (304 mm). The method used is standard and acceptable, though there are recovery risks associated
with ROM extrapolation and the definition of ROM size. The deleterious elements in these deposits are mercury and arsenic, which are
mitigated in the carbon regeneration and refining processes.
10-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.0 Mineral
Resource Estimates
11.1 Summary
Mineral
Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. SLR has reviewed, audited, and accepted
the Mineral Resource estimates prepared by SSR for Marigold and Buffalo Valley (Table 11-1). The
Mineral Resource estimates are based on block model values developed from assays on the mineralized properties.
The Mineral Resource estimates were
completed using a conventional block modeling approach in Seequent’s Leapfrog EDGE (Leapfrog Geo) software.
Estimates were validated using standard
industry techniques, including statistical comparisons with composite samples and parallel inverse distance squared (ID2) and nearest
neighbor (NN) estimates, swath plots, and visual reviews in cross-section and plan. A visual review comparing blocks to drill holes was
completed after the block modeling work was performed to ensure general lithologic and analytical conformance and was peer reviewed prior
to finalization.
In the opinion of the SLR QP, the resource
evaluation reported herein is an appropriate representation of the gold Mineral Resources found at the Marigold Complex at the current
level of sampling. The SLR QP is of the opinion that, with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Sections 1 and 23 of this
TRS, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be
resolved with further work.
11-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
11-1: Summary of Marigold Mine and Buffalo
Valley Mineral Resources
Deposit
Measured
Mineral
Resources
Indicated
Mineral
Resources
Measured
+ Indicated
Mineral Resources
Inferred
Mineral
Resources
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t Au)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Amount
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Rec.
(%)
Marigold
0.0
0.000
0.0
125.0
0.39
74.0%
125.0
0.39
74.0%
18.1
0.30
71.6%
0.069
Buffalo
Valley
0.0
0.000
0.0
5.6
0.53
59.1%
5.6
0.53
59.1%
11.2
0.31
64.4%
0.10
to 0.32
Total
0.0
0.000
0.0
130.6
0.40
73.3%
130.6
0.40
73.3%
29.3
0.31
68.8%
Notes:
1. The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
2.
The effective date of Mineral Resources at Marigold is May 1, 2026, and the effective date of Mineral
Resources at Buffalo Valley is May 1, 2026.
3.
Marigold Mine is based on an optimized pit shell at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable gold (gold
assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds). Buffalo Valley is based on a cut-off grade of 0.10 to 0.32 g/t contained gold,
depending on material type. Gold price of US $2,500 per ounce was used to generate the optimized pit shell.
4.
Marigold metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade. Buffalo Valley metallurgical recoveries
vary by gold grade and lithology. Marigold Mine and Buffalo Valley average recovery is 73.7% and 62.6%, respectively.
5.
For Marigold, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10,
Havallah = 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64, below 533m. For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3)
were assigned by lithology, ranging from a low of 2.095 (Overburden) to a high of 2.725 (Basalt).
6.
The Mineral Resources estimate is reported below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Marigold,
and below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Buffalo Valley.
7.
The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
8.
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
9.
SSR has 100% ownership of the Marigold Complex.
10.
All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
11.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
11-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2 Marigold
SSR prepared the Mineral Resource estimate
with an effective date of May 1, 2026. The Mineral Resource estimate is based on all available data for Marigold as of March 17, 2026.
The SLR QP has reviewed and accepted this information for use in this TRS.
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive
of Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Due to the uncertainty
associated with Inferred Mineral Resources, it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will be upgraded
to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource as a result of continued exploration.
11.2.1 Resource
Database
SSR uses MX Deposit, a commercially
available geology database management system.
The digital drill hole database used
for this estimate contains 9,796 drill holes totaling 2,045,811 m. A total of 19 drill holes, totaling 3,786 m, do not contain assays.
The
project resource database, dated March 17, 2026, comprises collar coordinates, downhole survey data, lithological, and assay results.
The database incorporates all available gold assay and reassay results from Assay Programs conducted in 2015, 2016, and 2025–2026,
as well as the complete dataset for the Valmy property acquired from Newmont. All relevant validation and integrity checks were performed
during data compilation and import. Following data import, the database was further reviewed and validated using the built-in validation
tools within Seequent Leapfrog to identify and resolve any remaining errors or inconsistencies.
11.2.2 Geological
Interpretation
11.2.2.1 Geological
Interpretation
Gold
mineralization at Marigold is closely associated with the intersection of high-angle fault structures
and favorable stratigraphic horizons. Favorable host rocks within the Antler Sequence include the debris-flow
horizon of the Edna Mountain Formation; interbedded limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate units of the Antler Peak Formation;
and conglomerate of the Battle Formation. Favorable host rocks within the Valmy Formation include quartzite and interbedded quartzite-argillite.
The geological model was created using
lithological logging data along with mapping. The following formational units were modeled: Havallah, Edna Mountain, Antler Peak Limestone,
Battle Conglomerate, and Valmy. Apart from the major formation units, a few dykes and basalt units were also modeled. Structural trends
were interpreted from logging data, pit mapping, and blasthole information.
The base of the oxidized and transition
zones was interpreted based on geological logging and analytical data.
11.2.2.2 Domain
Models
Geological
interpretation of mineralized envelopes was completed using the Indicator Radial Basis Function (RBF) tool within Leapfrog. Mineralized
envelope was developed using composited (25’) data at a cut-off grade of 0.0025 opt
Au (0.09 g/t) and an iso-value (ISO) probability of 0.435. A gold trend surface was developed using lithology, structures were mapped,
and blasthole information was used to guide the generation of mineralized envelopes.
The
mineralized envelopes exhibit good continuity and can be validated through pit mapping and production data. In areas where the implicit
modeling process either omitted mineralized zones or included waste intervals, manual adjustments were made. Figure
11-1 shows a representative cross-section of the mineralized envelope modeled.
11-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
11-1: Mineralized Envelopes and Dynamic Anisotropy Trend, 10400N, Red Dot area
11-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.3 Treatment
of High-Grade Assays
The SLR QP is of the opinion that the
influence of high-grade assays must be reduced or controlled, and that a number of industry best-practice methods can be used to achieve
this goal.
11.2.3.1 Capping
Levels and Outlier Restriction
When assay distributions are positively
skewed or log-normal, erratic high-grade assay values can disproportionately affect the average grade of a deposit. One method for reducing
these outliers' influence on the average grade is to cap them at a specific grade level.
Grade capping is a technique used to
mitigate the potential effect of a small population of high-grade sample outliers on grade estimation.
The spatial distribution of the high-grade
populations suggests that these elevated grades are clustered and are likely associated with high-angle structures and favorable rock
types. These high-grade structures are narrow and difficult to model due to the short-range variability unless close-spaced drilling
is available, and hence these high-grade populations within the mineralized envelopes were capped to 13.71 g/t (0.44 opt) to avoid smearing
of these higher grades.
In addition to capping thresholds, a
secondary approach to reducing the influence of high-grade composites is to restrict the search ellipse dimension (i.e., high yield restriction)
during estimation.
A
few samples with gold grades greater than 0.09 g/t (0.002 opt) that were not included within the mineralized envelopes were estimated
as part of the waste domain using lower cap and outlier restrictions. The capping values and outlier restrictions used are presented
in Table 11-2.
Table
11-2: Capping and Outlier Restriction
Values and Distance for Various Domains
Domain
Clamp
Distance
(% search, 1st pass, 2nd pass)
Cap
Value (g/t)
Within
Mineralized envelopes
N/A
13.71
AUFE
Waste
0.34
g/t – 10% of search
13.71
0.34
g/t – 20% of search
13.71
Mineralized
Dumps
0.34
g/t – 10% of search
13.71
11.2.4 Compositing
The
samples were composited downhole to a length of 7.6 m. Residual lengths less than 3.8m were set to
be distributed equally. The composite length was set to the minimum mining bench height. Composites with Au>=0.09g/t were used to
define the mineralized envelope rather than raw drill hole intercepts, as selective mining is not considered feasible. The summary statistics
comparing the raw and composites inside the mineralized envelope are presented in Table 11-3.
11-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
11-3: Statistics Raw vs. Composites
inside Mineralized Envelope
Statistic
Assays
(g/t)
Composites
(g/t)
Count
274,327
55,058
Mean
0.44
0.44
SD
1.18
0.86
CV
2.67
1.94
Variance
0.04
0.02
Minimum
0.00
0.00
Q1
0.05
0.12
Q2
0.16
0.21
Q3
0.41
0.45
Maximum
190
83
11.2.5 Trend
Analysis
11.2.5.1 Variography
A
back-transformed variogram was used in the estimation of Mineral Resources to describe the spatial
continuity of gold grades, specifically the strength of spatial similarity as a function of separation distance and direction. A variogram
quantifies the variance between data values as a function of their separation distance and orientation.
A variogram was generated from the full
dataset in Seequent Leapfrog EDGE. Structural information derived from geological mapping, together with interpreted structural orientations
based on gold grade distributions, was used to guide the selection of along-strike, across-strike, and down-dip directions for variogram
modeling.
A
single variogram was developed for the whole Marigold deposit, and the parameters are shown in Table
11-4.
11-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
11-4: Variogram Parameters
Type
Plunge
(°)
Trend
(°)
Nugget
Structure
1
Structure
2
Dip
(°)
Azimuth
(°)
Pitch
(°)
Sill
Major
(m)
Semi-
major
(m)
Minor
(m)
Sill
Major
(m)
Semi-major
(m)
Minor
(m)
Spherical
10
335
0.7289
0.2166
21.9
17.7
16.8
0.1221
43.9
38.1
30.5
20
274
149
11-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.6 Search
Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters
A
regularized whole-block approach was used, assigning each block to the domain containing its centroid.
The Mineral Resource block model was initially constructed in Leapfrog Edge using US Customary units within the local mine coordinate
system and was subsequently converted to metric units for reporting purposes. A summary of the block model extents is provided in Table
11-5. The model attributes are shown in Table 11-6.
Table 11-5: Block Model Parameters
Orientation
Min
(m)
Max
(m)
Extent
(m)
Cell
Size (m)
Number
of Cells
Easting
2,316
8,992
6,675
6.1
1,095
Northing
-2,377
9,906
12,283
7.62
1,612
Elevation
914
2,621
1,707
7.62
224
Table
11-6: Block Model Attributes
Field
Description
AUALL
Gold
grade in situ
AUKR
Gold
grade below current topographic surface
AUPAY
Payable
Au grade below current topographic surface
AUREC
Recoverable
Au grade below current topographic surface
AUPL3
NN
Au gold
CNNN
CN
NN for ore blocks
CAT
Classification,
2 - Ind, 3 - Inf, 4 - not classified
ELEV
Block
bottom Elevation (Bench)
DEPTH
Centroid
depth from original topo
DWT
Ground
water table as of EOY 2025, 1 - above, 2 below
ORE
Current
ore = 1, waste = 10
ORE%
Current
% ore within a block
RCODE
Rock
Code, 1 - Cover, 2 - Havallah, 3 - Antler Peak LS, 4 - Valmy, 6- waste/backfill/mineralized stockpile, 7 - Battle Mountain, 8 - Edna,
9 - Clay Seams, 10 - RD Dyke
REC
Recovery,
decimal (0-1)
REDOX
Redox
surface, 1 - oxidized, 2- transitional, 3 - reduced
ROYL%
Royalty,
%
TCF
Tonnage
factor, ft3 / short ton
TOORG
Original
Topo
TOPO
Topo
as of EOM February 2026, %
TOPOD
Depleted
Topo as of EOM February 2026, %
11-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.6.1 Estimation
Domaining
A
histogram of composite grades within the modeled mineralized envelope was generated. The resulting distributions are positively skewed,
with approximately 11% of the bench composites across all domains reporting gold grades below 0.0686 g/t (0.002 opt). These low-grade
composites are interpreted to represent internal dilution within the mineralized envelopes.
Before the blocks were estimated, the
cell model was tagged for the following:
· The
depleted pre-mining topography as of February 28, 2026, was used to tag the percentage of
in situ material, followed by the February 28, 2026, end-of-month surface. The space between
these surfaces was considered an overburden storage area (OBSA), a backfill area, or a mineralized
stockpile.
· The
formation solids were used to tag the RCODE variable in the cell model.
· The
surface developed for the top of the sulfide/transitional zone and oxidized material was
used to tag the REDOX variable in the model.
The cells were then estimated for gold
using ordinary kriging.
The mineralized waste areas, M9 and
8Sx, were identified in 2014 and 2015 and are located below OBSA.
Material
contained within the OBSA was mined during the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when cut-off
grades were higher than those currently applied. During drilling of the M9 and 8Sx areas, samples collected from the OBSAs were also
assayed for gold, with the majority returning grades above the current cut-off
grade. To verify these results, an additional 37 sonic drill holes were completed in 2016, which confirmed the presence and grade of
gold mineralization within the historical OBSA.
A total of 372 drill holes completed
between 2010 and 2017 within the OBSAs were incorporated into the Mineral Resource estimation. The mineralized material within the historical
OBSAs (referred to as the mineralized stockpile) was constrained using the original and current topographic surfaces. Samples located
within these constraints were selected and composited to 7.62 m bench intervals. Gold grades were subsequently estimated into the block
model using inverse distance squared (ID2) interpolation, applied in two separate estimation passes.
11.2.6.2 Search
Neighborhood Design
The
search parameters used to estimate the cells within the mineralized stockpile are shown in Table
11-7 and Table 11-8.
11-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 11-7: Search Parameters for In Situ
Estimation
Search
Min
No. of
Composites
Max
No. of
Composites
Outlier
Range
(%)
Outlier
Au
(g/t)
Search
Ellipsoid Distance
Search
Orientations
Max
Samples
per Hole
X
Search
(m)
Y
Search
(m)
Z
Search
(m)
Pass
1 within the mineralized envelope
3
6
76.2
45.7
30.5
Dynamic
Anisotropy
2
Pass
2 within the mineralized envelope
1
8
229
137
91.4
Pass
1 outside mineralized envelope
3
6
10
0.343
38.1
22.9
15.2
1
Pass
2 outside mineralized envelope
1
8
20
0.343
228.6
137.2
91.4
Notes: Orientation is based on Au trend
surfaces.
Table 11-8: Search Parameters for Mineralized
Stockpile
Search
Min
No. of
Composites
Max
No. of
Composites
Outlier
Range
(%)
Outlier
Au
(g/t)
Search
Ellipsoid Distance and Orientation
X
Search (m)
Y
Search (m)
Z
Search (m)
Max
Search (m)
X
Axis
Y
Axis
Z
Axis
Pass
1
3
8
10
0.343
91
91
15
91
0
0
0
Pass
2
1
8
20
0.343
150
150
15
150
0
0
0
11-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.7 Bulk
Density
Bulk density or specific gravity (SG)
is used globally to convert volume to tonnage and, in some cases, to estimate block grade.
A total of 713 core samples were collected
from diamond core drillholes for dry bulk density determinations at the Marigold onsite laboratory. Out of the total of 713 samples,
98 samples represented Antler sequence, 604 samples represented Valmy Formation, and 11 samples were from late Cretaceous intrusives.
The following methodology was used to
measure the bulk density of the half-core samples:
· A
thoroughly dry core sample is weighed in air.
· The
sample is saturated with water, and
· After
saturation, the sample is weighed while suspended in water, and then the saturated sample
is weighed in air.
The three weights (dry in air, saturated
in water, and saturated in air) are then used to calculate the sample's dry bulk density (Silver Standard, 2014).
The
density used in the cell model at depth (from the original topographic surface) for different materials is summarized in Table
11-9.
Table 11-9: Summary of Density for Different
Material
Material
Depth
(m)
Density
(t/m3)
Alluvium/Backfill
>0.00
2.10
Havallah
>0.00
2.48
Valmy/Antler
0.0
to 533
y=2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH)
Valmy
>533
2.64
11.2.8 Classification
A Mineral Resource is defined as a concentration
or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there
are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A Mineral Resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, considering relevant
factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location, or continuity, that with the assumed and justifiable technical and
economic conditions, are likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization
drilled or sampled.
Based on this definition of Mineral
Resources, the Mineral Resources estimated in this TRS have been classified according to the definitions below based on geology, grade
continuity, and drill hole spacing.
Measured
Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality
are estimated based on conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral
resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support
detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher
level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured
mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.
11-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Indicated
Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are
estimated based on adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral
resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation
of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence
of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.
Inferred
Mineral Resource is that part of mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are
estimated based on limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral
resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner
useful for evaluating economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all Mineral
Resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred
mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral
reserve.
The factors that can affect the uncertainty
associated with each classification of Mineral Resources include, but are not limited to:
· reliability
of sampling data
· confidence
in interpretation
· modeling
of geological and estimation domains
· confidence
in block grade estimates.
The
average distance to the three nearest drill holes was used as a criterion for Mineral Resource classification. Based on the drill spacing
and the interpreted continuity and characteristics of mineralization, the available data does not support the classification of any Mineral
Resources in the Measured category (Table 11-10 and Figure 11-2).
Table
11-10: Resource Classification Parameters
Average
distance to 3 nearest holes
Indicated
(m)
Inferred
(m)
Not
classified (m)
Inside
Envelope
<=
45.7
<
= 67.1
>
67.1
Outside
envelope
<=
22.9
<=
33.5
>
33.5
11-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-2: Valmy Classification Cross Section
(1100N)
11-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.8.1 QP
Comments on Classification
In the SLR QP’s opinion, the classification
of Mineral Resources is reasonable and appropriate for Mineral Resource disclosure, and there is a reasonable expectation that the majority
of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
11.2.9 Estimation
Validation
The Marigold block model estimates were
validated using industry standard techniques, including:
· Local
validation using visual inspections on sections and plans, viewing composites versus block
estimates
· Global
validation by comparison of composite statistics versus block estimates
· Local
validation by comparison of average assay grades with average block estimates along different
directions (swath plots)
SLR reviewed and audited the validation
steps performed by SSR resource geologists and found grade continuity to be reasonable and confirmed that the block grades were reasonably
consistent with local drill hole composite grades.
11.2.9.1 Visual
Inspection
Visual
validation included comparing the composites and the estimated model grades in both plan and section. Plans and sections were also checked
for smearing of grades across stacked ore/mineralized zones, and no smearing was identified. This validates the kriging parameters used
to estimate the cells. A typical cross-section and a plan view with estimated grades are shown in Figure
11-3 and Figure 11-4, respectively.
11-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
11-3: Visual Validation, >= 0.002
opt, Not Depleted, Section -3850N
11-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-4: Visual Validation, AUKR >=
0.002 (opt), not depleted, Level 4400
11-16
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.9.2 Estimation
Statistics
Checks
for global bias were conducted on a domain basis, and the relative percent differences of the kriged mean gold grades were checked against
the Nearest Neighbor (NN) estimates; the difference was less than ±0.021% (Table 11-11).
Table
11-11: Estimation Variance Statistics, not depleted
Classification
Kriging
Au
(g/t)
NN
Au
(g/t)
Variance
(%)
Indicated
and Inferred
0.45
0.45
0.021
11.2.9.3 Swath
Plots
Swath
plots were generated to compare the current model estimate with the previous model, including kriged Au values from the current model,
kriged Au values from the previous model, nearest-neighbor (NN) Au values from the previous model, and 25-ft
Au composites.
These
plots, presented as Figure 11-5, Figure 11-6, and Figure 11-7, demonstrate good correlation.
11-17
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-5: Swath Plot Along East, comparing
Assay, Kriged Value and NN
Source: SSR 2026
Note: Grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-18
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
11-6: Swath Plot Along North, comparing
Assay, Kriged Value and NN
Source: SSR 2026
Note: Grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-19
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
11-7: Swath Plot Along Elevation, comparing
Assay, Kriged Value and NN
Source: SSR 2026
Note: Grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-20
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.2.10 Prospects
of Economic Extraction for Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources must demonstrate reasonable
prospects for economic extraction (RPEE), which generally implies that the quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds
and that the Mineral Resources are reported at an appropriate cut-off grade, taking into account extraction scenarios.
Metal prices used for reserves are based
on consensus, long-term forecasts from banks, financial institutions, and other sources. For resources, metal prices used are slightly
higher than those for reserves.
A reporting cut-off grade for the Marigold
Mine based on assumed costs for open pit extraction and heap leach processing, and commodity prices that provide a reasonable basis for
establishing the prospects of economic extraction for Mineral Resources was established and reviewed by the SLR QP.
11.2.10.1 Cut-off Grade Estimation and Whittle
Parameters
Mineral
Resources for Marigold were calculated based on a Whittle optimized pit at a payable gold grade of 0.069 g/t (Au assay factored for recovery,
royalty, and net proceeds per cell) using an assumed gold price of $2,500/oz. Input parameters for the Whittle pit optimization are provided
in Table 11-12.
Table 11-12: Marigold Resource Pit Parameters
and Cut-off Grade
Marigold
Unit
Value
Gold
Price
US$/oz
2,500
Gold
Sales, Insurance, Legal, and Social
US$/oz
incl
in Payable Au
Royalties
US$/oz
incl
in Payable Au
Processing
Au Recovery
%
incl
in Payable Au
Payable
Au
%
100.00%
Mining
Dilution
%
1.00
Processing
Cost*
US$/t
2.35
Rehandling
Cost
US$/t
0
Total
US$/t
2.35
Cut-off
Grade – Marginal
g/t
0.05
Internal
Cut-off Used
g/t
0.069
Mining
Cost*
US$/t
1.35*
Cut-off
Grade- Full
g/t
0.078
*
G&A included in both mining and processing costs
11-21
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The gold price of $2,500/oz was selected
after consideration of the pricing information described in Section 16, including the time frame used for the selection and the reasons
for selecting that time frame. The metal price reflects the range of publicly reported price estimates for Mineral Resource cut-offs.
The Marigold Mineral Resource is assumed to be mined by open pit.
By definition, the estimation of Mineral
Resources has considered environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, socio-economic, marketing,
and political factors and other constraints, as discussed in various sections of the TRS.
11.2.11 Mineral
Resource Reporting
SLR
is unaware of any current environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio- economic, marketing, political, or other relevant
factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resources estimate for Marigold (exclusive of Mineral Reserves) as of May 1, 2026, presented
in Table 11-13 .
Table
11-13: Details of Marigold Mineral Resources
Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves as of May 1, 2026
Category
Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Metal
(Au Moz)
Cut-off
Grade
(Au g/t)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Measured
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.069
0.0
Indicated
125.0
0.39
1.57
0.069
74.0%
Total
Measured + Indicated
125.0
0.39
1.57
0.069
74.0%
Inferred
18.1
0.30
0.18
0.069
71.6%
Notes:
1.
The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
2.
The effective date of Mineral Resources at Marigold is May 1, 2026,
3.
Marigold Mine is based on an optimized pit shell at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable gold (gold
assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
4.
Marigold metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade. Marigold Mine’s average recovery is
73.7%.
5.
For Marigold, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10,
Havallah = 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64 below 533m .
6.
The Mineral Resources estimate is reported below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Marigold.
7.
The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
8.
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
9.
SSR has 100% ownership of the Marigold Complex
10.
All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
11.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
11.2.12 Comparison
with Previous Estimates
The 2026 Mineral Resource, exclusive
of Mineral Reserves, has been compared with the previous December 31, 2025 Mineral Resource estimate as reported in SSR’s 2025
Form 10-K filing (SSR 2025) for Marigold Mine.
11-22
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
There has been a decrease in Indicated
contained gold ounces of 167 koz and a reduction in Inferred gold ounces of 233 koz. The change can be attributed to the following:
· Conversion
of Resources to Reserves due to increased reserve prices and infill drilling
· Re-interpretation
of the mineralized envelopes using the most updated drill hole and geological mapping information
11.2.13 Mineral
Resource Uncertainty
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves
and do not have demonstrated economic viability, nor is there certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource estimated here will
be converted to Mineral Reserves through further study.
Sources of uncertainty that may affect
the reporting of Mineral Resources include sampling or drilling methods, data processing and handling, geologic modeling, and estimation.
There are sources of uncertainty in the MRE at the Marigold Mine that depend on the assigned classification. The SLR QP has not identified
any relevant technical and/or economic factors that require resolution with regard to the Mineral Resource estimate.
The SLR QP is of the opinion that with
consideration of the recommendations summarized in Sections 1 and 23 of this TRS, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic
factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.
11.2.14 QP
Opinion
In the SLR QP’s opinion, the resource
estimation reported herein is an appropriate representation of the gold Mineral Resources at the current level of drilling and sampling.
The Mineral Resource model is suitable for Mineral Reserve estimation.
The SLR QP reviewed the assumptions,
parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Resources Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Resources are estimated
and prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
11-23
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3 Buffalo
Valley
The Buffalo Valley resource estimation
was conducted by SSR with an effective date of May 1, 2026. The Mineral Resource estimate is based on all available data as of March
17, 2026. The SLR QP has reviewed and accepted this information for use in this TRS.
11.3.1 Resource
Database
The digital drill hole database used
for this estimate contains a total of 1,841 drill holes; 797 additional holes are located in the surrounding Buffalo Valley model but
not used to build the geological model and estimation. SSR uses MX Deposit, a commercially available database management system. The
drill campaigns represented in the data were completed over more than 42 years, from 1980 through to March 17, 2026.
11.3.2 Geological
Interpretation
The Buffalo Valley project area is approximately
2.5 miles long north-south, and 1.7 miles wide east-west.
11.3.2.1 Domains
and Grade Shells
Most of the gold mineralization at Buffalo
Valley is hosted along a system of northwest-trending dikes and faults. Mineralization occurs both adjacent to dikes as well as bedding-parallel
in receptive sedimentary units.
A
total of four mineralized domains were defined for gold estimations and one for the Quaternary alluvium. Figure
11-8 and Figure 11-9 show a plan map and cross-section through the Buffalo Valley pit showing the locations of these domains. Probability
envelopes (at least 40% probability of AUBEST exceeding 0.004 opt) were developed to best constrain the mineralization for estimation:
· FFOZ
– Front Fault ore zone
· Min
BV DH - Mineralized envelope in Buffalo Valley and Dore Hills
· Min
WH – Mineralized in Warthog
· LG
– Material outside Mineralized envelope
· Ovb
– Quaternary alluvium
11-25
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-8: Buffalo
Valley Estimation Domains (Plan View Elevation 5100)
11-26
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-9:
Buffalo Valley Geology (Mine Grid Section -32,400 N)
11-27
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
drill hole data included fire assay (AUFA) and cyanide soluble (AUCN) intervals (Table 11-14). Most
data consisted of matched pairs (59,263), but 15,995 AUCN values have no corresponding AUFA values.
AUBEST was used for estimation due to
unequal sampling preferences for fire-assay and cyanide-soluble assays. AUBEST prioritizes fire assay values where they exist, and merges
in cyanide soluble assay values where fire assay does not exist. By combining the assays into a single variable, the estimation is informed
by the most robust and slightly conservative information.
The
length-weighted gold assay (g/t) and interval length statistics for sample intervals are summarized in Table
11-14.
Table 11-14:
Length Weighted Gold Assays (g/t) Statistics of Raw Samples by Estimation Domain
Name
Element
Count
Mean
(g/t)
SD
CV
Variance
Min
(g/t)
Median
(g/t)
Max
(g/t)
FFOZ
AUCN
2,497
0.43
0.0393
3.1327
0.0015
0.02
0.14
43.03
AUFA
1,809
0.51
0.0465
3.1381
0.0022
0
0.17
44.5
AUBEST
3,090
0.48
0.0412
2.9671
0.0017
0
0.17
44.5
AUCE
3,090
0.41
0.0377
3.1543
0.0014
0
0.14
43.03
Interval
Length
3,194
4.8561
1.5723
0.3238
2.4722
0.1
5
58.5
Min_BV_DH
AUCN
21,222
0.53
0.0587
3.8255
0.0034
0
0.14
119.25
AUFA
21,064
0.65
0.0641
3.3705
0.0041
0
0.17
125.11
AUBEST
27,102
0.62
0.0624
3.4558
0.0039
0
0.17
125.11
AUCE
27,102
0.5
0.0546
3.7717
0.003
0
0.14
119.25
Interval
Length
27,491
4.7002
1.2744
0.2711
1.624
0.1
5
80
Min_WH
AUCN
2,110
0.38
0.0272
2.4748
0.0007
0.02
0.17
29.35
AUFA
4,023
0.46
0.0428
3.1783
0.0018
0
0.22
83.8
AUBEST
4,040
0.46
0.0427
3.1629
0.0018
0
0.22
83.8
AUCE
4,040
0.33
0.0228
2.3593
0.0005
0.01
0.17
29.35
Interval
Length
4,055
4.8917
2.1777
0.4452
4.7426
1
5
135
LG
AUCN
49,429
0.08
0.0085
3.5106
0.0001
0
0.03
15.09
AUFA
81,127
0.07
0.0105
5.1572
0.0001
0
0.03
60
AUBEST
89,786
0.07
0.0102
4.7683
0.0001
0
0.03
60
AUCE
89,786
0.06
0.007
3.8985
0
0
0.03
15.09
Interval
Length
93,186
4.8493
1.7135
0.3533
2.9359
0.1
5
200
11-28
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.3 Treatment
of High-Grade Assays
11.3.3.1 Capping
Levels
When the assay distribution is positively
skewed or log-normal, erratic high-grade assay values can disproportionately affect the average grade of a deposit. One method for reducing
these outliers' influence on the average grade is to cap them at a specific grade level.
Grade capping is a technique used to
mitigate the potential effect of a small population of high-grade sample outliers on grade estimation. These high-grade samples are not
considered representative of the general population and are therefore capped to a level more representative of the general data population.
Although subjective, grade capping is a common industry practice when estimating grades for deposits with significant grade variability.
In the absence of production data to calibrate the capping level, inspection of the assay distribution can be used to estimate a “first
pass” cutting level.
Grade capping values were assigned by
reviewing log histograms for the metal values for each domain. Capping values were determined to limit the upper range of estimation
data to a level where the histogram maintains a reasonable structure.
For
example, the capping values for AUBEST are summarized by estimation domain in Table 11-15.
Table 11-15:
Capping Values AUBEST (g/t)
Domain
AUBEST
(g/t)
FFOZ
2.74
Min_BV_DH
10.29
Min_WH
2.06
LG
0.51
11.3.4 Compositing
The composite for all estimations is
set to 7.62 m to represent a bench height composite for the anticipated mining.
Compositing was applied on the basis
that if residual end intervals for a domain intercept are shorter than 50% of the standard composite length, then the residual lengths
are distributed over the entire intercept, reducing the bias risk for last composites in holes.
11.3.5 Trend
Analysis
11.3.5.1 Variography
Gold
variograms were developed for each lithology domain using normal scores (NS) in Leapfrog EDGE. The NS variograms were back-transformed
to real space for estimation purposes. Orientations were rotated into local ‘variable orientation’ to conform to the local
environment. Variogram models for AUBEST are summarized in Table 11-16. All variogram models are
spherical.
11-29
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 11-16:
Variogram Models (AUBEST)
Variogram Name
Rotation
Nugget
Structure 1
Structure 2
Dip
Dip Azi.
Pitch
Sill
Major (m)
Semi-major (m)
Minor (m)
Sill
Major (m)
Semi-major (m)
Minor (m)
AuBEST in BV_DH 2026_1: Transformed Variogram Model
85
235
67
0.001066
0.000343
7.62
7.62
4.57
0.00006
30.48
30.48
12.19
AuBEST in FFOZ 2026_1: Transformed Variogram Model
45
270
173
0.000344
0.000116
13.50
7.62
4.57
0.000123
51.30
30.48
8.48
AuBEST in LG 2026_1: Transformed Variogram Model
86
61
110
0.000013
0.000005
12.19
6.10
4.57
0.000004
27.43
18.29
16.76
AuBEST in WH 2026_1: Transformed Variogram Model
89
85
108
0.000348
0.000092
6.10
6.10
4.57
0.000034
30.48
30.48
12.19
11-30
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.6 Exploratory
Data Analysis
Length-weighted
gold statistics are summarized in Table 11-17
Table 11-17:
Length Weighted Gold Assays (g/t) Statistics of Composite Samples by Domain
Domain
Element
Count
Mean
(g/t)
SD
CV
Min
(g/t)
Median
(g/t)
Max
(g/t)
FFOZ
AUCN
516
0.431
0.0252
2.0011
0.017
0.192
12.706
AUFA
372
0.513
0.0280
1.8696
0.003
0.233
13.356
AUBEST
639
0.476
0.0256
1.8487
0.003
0.211
13.356
AUCE
639
0.410
0.0237
1.9814
0.010
0.178
12.706
AUBEST_CAP
639
0.429
0.0159
1.2746
0.003
0.211
2.743
Interval
Length
639
4.8561
4.8140
0.2083
0.1
5
58.5
Min_BV_DH
AUCN
4,223
0.528
0.0349
2.2650
0.017
0.229
29.651
AUFA
4,015
0.656
0.0381
1.9923
0.003
0.288
31.625
AUBEST
5,270
0.623
0.0375
2.0658
0.003
0.268
31.625
AUCE
5,270
0.500
0.0326
2.2376
0.003
0.219
29.651
AUBEST_CAP
5,270
0.603
0.0297
1.6899
0.003
0.268
10.286
Interval
Length
5,270
4.7002
4.2824
0.1815
0.1
5
80
Min_WH
AUCN
435
0.369
0.0184
1.7085
0.027
0.204
9.943
AUFA
803
0.457
0.0240
1.8047
0.019
0.267
19.354
AUBEST
807
0.458
0.0240
1.7959
0.019
0.268
19.354
AUCE
807
0.329
0.0150
1.5580
0.021
0.192
9.943
AUBEST_CAP
807
0.409
0.0240
1.7959
0.019
0.268
2.057
Interval
Length
807
4.8917
3.4327
0.1419
1
5
135
LG
AUCN
9,791
0.081
0.0048
2.0210
0.003
0.047
6.231
AUFA
15,941
0.069
0.0058
2.8967
0.002
0.034
14.229
AUBEST
17,820
0.072
0.0057
2.7060
0.002
0.040
14.229
AUCE
17,820
0.060
0.0040
2.2893
0.003
0.034
6.231
AUBEST_CAP
17,820
0.064
0.0023
1.2127
0.002
0.040
0.514
Interval
Length
17,820
4.8493
3.0339
0.1248
0.1
5
200
Figure 11-10 and Figure 11-11 show the
boxplots for fire assay and cyanide soluble gold on four domains representing one lithological population in the Front Fault Ore Zone
(FFOZ), the material within a probability shell of greater than 0.4 of AUBEST grade of at least 0.1028 g/t (0.003 opt) within the Buffalo
Valley/Dore Hills area (Min_BV_DH), similarly constrained material within the Warthog area (Min_WH), and the remaining low grade (LG)
material outside of the mineralized shells.
11-31
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-10:
Boxplot of AUFA by Domain (grade in opt)
Source: SSR 2026
11-32
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-11:
Boxplot of AUCN by Domain (grade in opt)
Source: SSR 2026
11-33
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
naïve histograms for AUBEST inside probability greater than 0.47 of AUBEST grade at least 0.1244 g/t (0.004 opt) for the four domains
are shown in Figure 11-12. The log probability plots for AUBEST are shown in Figure 11-13.
Figure 11-12:
Histograms of AUBEST By Domains (grade in opt)
Source: SSR 2026
11-34
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-13:
Log Probability Plots of AUBEST By Domains (grade in opt)
Source: SSR 2026
11-35
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
AUCE variable is built from AUCN assays where they exist and regressed AUFA assays as available. The regressions were applied by lithology
and are summarized in Table 11-18.
Table 11-18:
AUCE Regression Summary Applied to AUFA Values
Lithology
Variable
Slope
Intercept
Base
limestone
AUFA
0.80812
-0.002337
Crosscut
west
AUFA
0.75895
-0.000129
East
stock
AUFA
0.8714
0.000014
East
stock dike 1
AUFA
0.97863
-0.000518
East
stock dike 3
AUFA
0.90019
-0.000025
Hav
Basalt
AUFA
0.92026
-0.000572
Main
dike east
AUFA
0.82324
-0.000204
Main
dike west
AUFA
0.69406
-0.000432
Overburden
AUFA
0.7142
0.000082
Sandy
unit
AUFA
0.83864
-0.000204
SH
AUFA
0.91817
-0.00049
Upper
sed unit
AUFA
0.8341
-0.000672
Other
AUFA
0.70766
0.000235
11.3.7 Search
Strategy and Grade Interpolation Parameters
Resource
estimation was completed within an area encompassing the deposit with block model geometry and extents as presented in Table
11-19 using Leapfrog EDGE software with US Customary units. A parent block size of 6.10 m in the X (across strike) by 7.62 m in the Y
(along strike) directions by 7.62 m in the Z (vertical) direction was chosen for the model.
Table 11-19:
Block Model Parameters (Mine Grid X, Y, Z in meters)
BV_20x25x25
2026_1 Parameter
X
(m)
Y
(m)
Z
(m)
Extents
Block
6.10
7.62
7.62
Base
Point
-5,028.95
-11,002.74
1,920.15
Boundary
5,028.95
4,084.12
1,280.10
Rotation
Azimuth
Dip
Pitch
0
0
0
The
estimated variables in the cell model are listed in Table 11-20.
11-36
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 11-20:
Estimated Variables
Element
Variable
Name
Description
Domains
Remarks
Au
AuBEST
Au
Fire Assay Merged with Au Cyanide Leachable
Lithology/Au-grade
shell-based
Estimated
from composite values of AUFA with missing values replaced with cyanide leachable assays where
they exist.
AUCE
Au
Cyanide Leachable Equivalent
Lithology/Au-grade
shell-based
Calculated
from AUCN with missing values replaced with cyanide leachable assay equivalent values calculated using cyanide leachable –
fire assay regressions.
AUFA
Au
Fire Assay
Lithology/Au-grade
shell-based
Estimated
directly from Au fire assay composite data
AUCN
Au
Cyanide Leachable
Lithology/Au-grade
shell-based
Estimated
directly from Au cyanide leachable composite data
Cu
CU
Cu
grades
Lithology/Cu-grade
shell-based
Estimated
from ICP composites
S
STOT
S
grades
Lithology/S-grade
shell-based
Estimated
from LECO composites
TCF
TCF
Bulk
density (ft3 / st)
Lithology-based
Assigned
from averages of relevant domain
11.3.7.1 Estimation
Domaining
Six
3D volumetric models were constructed to serve as estimation domains, as listed in Table 11-21.
Table 11-21:
Volumetric Models Generated for Estimation Domaining and Grade Estimation
Model
Name
Target
Number
of
Components
Construction
Elements
Buffalo
Valley Live Model
AUFA/AUBEST/AUCN/AUCE
14
lithologies
Buffalo
Valley Live Model NOTOPO
AUFA/AUBEST/AUCN/AUCE
14
lithologies
Mineralization
Model 2026_1
AUBEST/AUCE
5
lithologies/Au
grade shell domains
Cu_2026_1
Cu
ppm
4
lithologies/Cu
grade shell domains
Topo
Model
topography
2
topography
Mineralization
Model
STOT
ppm (LECO)
3
grade
isoshells
11-37
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.7.2 Contact
Analysis
Contact analysis for exploration composites
was used to investigate the extension of the hard or soft domain boundaries.
The
boundary analysis graph for the Mineralized Au domain representing Buffalo Valley – Dore Hills is interpreted as suitable for hard
boundary estimation and is shown in Figure 11-14.
Figure 11-14:
Buffalo Valley-Dore Hills Mineralized Shell Boundary Conditions
Source: SSR 2026
Note: Distance is given in feet; grade
is given in ounce per short ton.
The
boundary analysis graph for the Front Fault Ore Zone into the surrounding mineralized domain is interpreted as suitable for soft 1.52
m boundary estimation and is shown in Figure 11-15.
11-38
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-15:
FFOZ Boundary Conditions
Source: SSR 2026
Note: Distance is given in feet; grade
is given in ounce per short ton.
Boundary conditions are often ambiguous
due to the large size of the mineralized domains due to the very low cutoff grade defining them. Consequently, domain boundaries with
ambiguous character were assigned hard boundaries.
The
types of boundaries used by domain are outlined in Table 11-22.
Table 11-22:
Estimation Domain Boundary Types
Domain
Boundary
Type
Range
(m)
FFOZ
Soft
1.52
Min_BV_DH
Hard
0
Min_WH
Hard
0
LG
Hard
0
OVB
Hard
0
11-39
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.7.3 Search
Neighborhood Design
An initial estimate for AUBEST was carried
out using the relevant variogram range as the upper limit. This was found to be too restrictive, and subsequently, estimates were made
to a range limit of twice the variogram range.
Most domains were estimated with variable
search and variogram orientations based on the local lithological and grade trends. Some domains with limited or ambiguous data were
estimated using fixed orientations.
A minimum of three and a maximum of
12 composites, drawn from a maximum of two composites per drill hole, were used for estimation. This ensured that at least two holes
were used for estimating each block.
Grade
interpolation parameters for the kriging estimators for AUBEST are summarized in Table 11-23.
Table 11-23:
Grade Interpolation Parameters for AUBEST/AUCE
Domain
Ellipse
Ranges
Ellipsoid
Directions
Variable
Orientation
Sample
Limits
Max
(m)
Int
(m)
Min
(m)
Dip
Dip
Azi.
Pitch
Min
Max
Max
Samples
per Hole
BV_DH
200
200
80
Variable
Orientation BV_DH
3
12
2
FFOZ
330
200
50
Variable
Orientation FFOZ
3
12
2
LG
180
120
100
Variable
Orientation BV_DH_Warthog Blend
3
12
2
Ovb
920
760
100
6
270
155
None
3
12
2
WH
200
200
80
Variable
Orientation Warthog
3
12
2
11.3.8 Bulk
Density
Table 11-24 shows the density assigned
by geological formation. The average density for each formation has been assigned to blocks. Lithologies with no data have been assigned
to be 2.564 t/m3 and in the absence of updates, the density for the dump material was assigned to be 1.908 t/m3.
Table 11-24:
Density Assignments
Name
Density
(t/m3)
Base
limestone
2.610
Crosscut
west
2.688
Hav
Basalt
2.725
11-40
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Name
Density
(t/m3)
Overburden
2.095
Sandy
unit
2.564
Cs
2.679
Sh
2.608
Default
2.564
Dump
1.908
11.3.9 Classification
Mineral
Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions presented in Section 11.2.8. Classification
of the Mineral Resources reported in this TRS is based on the QP's assessment of geological confidence, grade continuity, data quality,
and drill hole spacing. Based on these factors, Mineral Resources have been categorized as Measured, Indicated, or Inferred
Mineral
Resource material was classified using criteria based on the average distance to the closest three informing composites as summarized
in Table 11-25.
Table 11-25:
Classification Rules
Material
Measure
Threshold
Outcome
Mineralized
Stockpile
Not
in Resources
In
Situ
Average
distance to 3 closest composites
<=
27.43m
Indicated
Average
distance to 3 closest composites
27.43<x<=39.62
Inferred
All
other mineralized material
>39.62
Not
in Resources
11-41
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-16:
Classification – Buffalo Valley Deposit (Looking N at 31550N With a 25’ Window)
11-42
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.9.1 QP
Comments on Classification
In the SLR QP’s opinion, the classification
of Mineral Resources is reasonable and appropriate for Mineral Resource disclosure, and there is a reasonable expectation that the majority
of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
11.3.10 Estimation
Validation
The Buffalo Valley block model estimates
were validated using industry standard techniques, including:
· Local
validation using visual inspections on sections and plans, viewing composites versus block
estimates.
· Global
validation by comparison of composite statistics versus block estimates.
· Local
validation by comparison of average assay grades with average block estimates along different
directions (swath plots).
The SLR QP found grade continuity to
be reasonable and confirmed that the block grades were reasonably consistent with local drill hole composite grades.
11.3.10.1 Visual
Inspection
The
block model estimates were reviewed by W-E and N-S sections and reasonably conform to the composite data. Examples for AUBEST, in the
W-E sections, are shown in Figure 11-17.
11.3.10.2 Estimation
Statistics
The
statistical summary of gold grade estimates is summarized in Table 11-26.
11-43
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-17:
Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit (-31550N, $2500 Resource Shell, 25ft Section Window, MII Only)
11-44
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-18:
Cross Section Buffalo Valley Deposit (-32400N, $2500 Resource Shell, 25ft Section Window, MII Only)
11-45
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 11-26:
Statistical Summary of Gold Grade Estimates (g/t)
Domain
AUBEST
Composites
NN
Estimates
ID2
Estimates
OK
Estimates
Count
Mean
Variance
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Min
Max
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
(g/t)
FFOZ
1,613
0.470
0
0.003
13.356
0.269
0
0.003
2.743
0.200
0
0.013
2.658
0.216
0
0.017
2.203
Min_BV_DH
888
0.621
0
0.003
31.625
0.534
0
0.006
10.286
0.429
0
0.017
8.538
0.438
0
0.017
5.201
Min_WH
58
0.459
0
0.019
19.354
0.354
0
0.017
2.057
0.155
0
0.017
2.049
0.172
0
0.017
5.904
LG
225
0.072
0
0.002
14.229
0.018
0
0.002
0.514
0.017
0
0.002
0.506
0.017
0
0.003
0.359
11-46
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.10.3 Swath
Plots
Swath plots were generated for strategic
domains and for the global estimates and grade patterns they are reasonable in comparison with the composite data and alternative estimation
methods (inverse distance squared and nearest neighbor).
Swath
plots for AUBEST estimates in the Buffalo Valley – Dore Hills Mineralized shell domain is shown in Figure
11-19 to Figure 11-21, inclusive. The black line represents composite data, purple = Kriged estimates, green = inverse distance to the
second power and red represents nearest neighbor. The grey histogram represents the number of blocks per swath.
11-47
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-19:
Swath Plot X for AUBEST
Source: SSR 2026
Note: grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-48
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-20:
Swath Plot Y for AUBEST
Source: SSR 2026
Note: grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-49
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 11-21:
Swath Plot Elevation for AUBEST
Source: SSR 2026
Note: grade in opt and distance in feet.
11-50
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.11 Prospects
of Economic Extraction for Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources must demonstrate reasonable
prospects for economic extraction (RPEE), which generally implies that the quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic thresholds
and that the Mineral Resources are reported at an appropriate cut-off grade, taking into account extraction scenarios.
Metal prices used for reserves are based
on consensus, long-term forecasts from banks, financial institutions, and other sources. For resources, metal prices used are slightly
higher than those for reserves.
A reporting cut-off grade for the Buffalo
Valley deposit based on assumed costs for open-pit extraction and heap leach processing and commodity prices that provide a reasonable
basis for establishing the prospects of economic extraction for Mineral Resources was established and reviewed by the SLR QP.
11.3.11.1 Cut-Off Grade Estimation with Whittle Optimization
Parameters
Mineral
Resources for Buffalo Valley were calculated based on an optimized pit using a regularized block model set to the parent block size of
7.62 m in the X (across strike) by 7.62 m in the Y (along strike) by 7.62 m in the Z (vertical) at cut-off grades based on lithology
type using an assumed gold price of $2,500/oz. Input parameters for optimization are provided in Table
11-27.
Table 11-27:
Buffalo Valley Resource Pit Parameters and Cut-off Grades
Parameters
(*)
Unit
Value
Gold
Price
US$/oz
2,500
Refining
US$/oz
1.43
Royalties
3.5%
Processing
Au Recovery
%
3.1%
– 81.0%
Payable
Au
%
100.00%
Mining
Dilution
%
1
Processing
Cost*
US$/t
ore
2.66
Mining
Cost*
US$/t
ore
1.76
Cut-off
Grade - Full
g/t
0.1g/t
– 0.32g/t
*
Mineral Resources for Buffalo Valley were calculated using a Hexagon MinePlan-optimized pit and a regularized block model at cut-off
grades based on lithology type, factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds, with an assumed gold price of $2,500/oz.
The gold price of $2,500/oz was selected
after consideration of the pricing information described in Section 16, including the time frame used for the selection and the reasons
for selecting that time frame. The metal price reflects the range of publicly reported price estimates for Mineral Resource cut-offs.
The Marigold Mineral Resource is assumed to be mined by open pit.
11-51
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
By definition, the estimation of Mineral
Resources has considered environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, mining, metallurgical, infrastructure, socio-economic, marketing,
and political factors and other constraints, as discussed in various sections of the TRS.
11.3.12 Mineral
Resource Reporting
Mineral
Resources are reported from Minesight software using a regularized block model. SLR is unaware of any current environmental, permitting,
legal, title, taxation, socio- economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resources
estimate for Marigold (exclusive of Mineral Reserves) as of May 1, 2026, presented in Table 11-28.
Table 11-28:
Details of Buffalo Valley Mineral Resources Estimate Exclusive of Mineral Reserves as of May 1, 2026
Category
Tonnes
(Mt)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Metal
(Moz Au)
Cut-off
Grade
(g/t Au)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Measured
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.10
to 0.32
0.0%
Indicated
5.6
0.53
0.09
0.10
to 0.32
59.1%
Total
Measured + Indicated
5.6
0.53
0.09
0.10
to 0.32
59.1%
Inferred
11.2
0.31
0.11
0.10
to 0.32
64.4%
Notes:
1.
The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
2.
The effective date of Mineral Resources at Buffalo Valley is May 1, 2026.
3.
Buffalo Valley is based on a cut-off grade of 0.10 to 0.32 g/t contained gold, depending on material
type.
4.
Buffalo Valley metallurgical recoveries vary by gold grade and lithology. Buffalo Valley's average
recovery is 62.6%.
5.
For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithology, ranging from
a low of 2.095 (Overburden) to a high of 2.725 (Basalt).
6.
The Mineral Resources estimate is reported below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Buffalo
Valley.
7.
The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
8.
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
9.
SSR has 100% ownership of the Marigold Complex.
10.
All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
11.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
11.3.13 Comparison
with Previous Estimate
The 2026 Mineral Resource exclusive
of Mineral Reserves has been compared with the previous December 31, 2025 Mineral Resource estimate as reported in SSR’s 2025 Form
10-K filing (SSR 2025) for Buffalo Valley.
There has been an increase in Indicated
contained gold ounces of 24 koz and an increase in Inferred gold ounces of 64 koz. The change can be attributed to the following:
· Conversion
of Resources to Reserves due to increased reserve prices and infill drilling
· Re-interpretation
of the mineralized envelopes using the most updated drill hole and geological mapping information
11-52
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
11.3.14 Mineral
Resource Uncertainty
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves
and do not have demonstrated economic viability, nor is there certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource estimated here will
be converted to Mineral Reserves through further study.
Sources of uncertainty that may affect
the reporting of Mineral Resources include sampling or drilling methods, data processing and handling, geologic modeling, and estimation.
There are sources of uncertainty in the MRE for the Buffalo Valley deposit that depend on the assigned classification. The SLR QP has
not identified any relevant technical and/or economic factors that require resolution with regard to the Mineral Resource estimate.
11.3.15 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP reviewed the assumptions,
parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Resources Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Resources are estimated
and prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
The SLR QP is of the opinion that, with
consideration of the recommendations summarized in Sections 1 and 23 of this TRS, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic
factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.
11-53
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
12.0 Mineral
Reserve Estimates
12.1 Summary
The
Mineral Reserve estimate (MRE) for Marigold and Buffalo Valley, as of May 1, 2026, was completed by the site technical department, and
is presented in Table 12-1.
The SLR QP reviewed the assumptions,
parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Resources Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Resources are estimated
and prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300 rules for Property Disclosures
for Mining Registrants (S-K 1300).
The SLR QP considers that the knowledge
of the deposit setting, lithologies, structural controls on mineralization, and the mineralization style and setting is sufficient to
support the MRE to the level of classification assigned.
The SLR QP considers that the integration
of the reserve cut-off grade, operational cost parameters, metallurgical recoveries, and practical mine plan shapes including engineered
pit designs and pushbacks, effectively established the economic viability of the Mineral Reserve. These parameters accurately delineate
the portions of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources that can be mined and processed economically, which aligns with the bulk-mineable,
disseminated nature of the gold mineralization at the Property.
The level of uncertainty has been adequately
reflected in the classification of Mineral Resources for the Property. The MRE presented may be materially impacted by any future changes
in the break-even cut-off grade, which may result from changes in mining method selection, mining costs, processing recoveries and costs,
metal price fluctuations, or significant changes in geological knowledge.
12-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 12-1:
Summary of Marigold Mineral Reserves Estimate as of May 1, 2026
Proven
Probable
Total
Cut-
off
Grade
(g/t)
Metallurgical
Recovery
(%)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Gold
(Moz)
Marigold
-
-
240.44
0.46
240.44
0.46
3.52
0.069
73.5%
Buffalo
Valley
-
-
45.33
0.46
45.33
0.46
0.67
0.069˟
65.9%
Stockpile
-
-
11.96
0.17
11.96
0.17
0.06
0.069
56.3%
Leach
Pad Inventory
-
-
61.01
0.19
61.01
0.19
0.37
-
65.2%
Total
-
-
358.74
0.40
358.74
0.40
4.63
0.069
71.5%
Notes:
1.
The Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 definitions.
2.
The Marigold Mine Mineral Reserve estimate is based on a metal price assumption of $2,200/oz gold
and is reported at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable Au (Au assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
3.
°The Buffalo Valley Mineral Reserve estimate assumes ROM heap leach processing and a gold price
of $2,200/oz. Cut-off grades range from 0.069 to 1.767 g/t payable Au, and metallurgical recoveries range from 3.1% to 79.2%, both varying
by lithology/metallurgical domain.
4.
No mining dilution is applied to the grade of the Mineral Reserves. Dilution intrinsic to the Mineral
Reserves estimate is considered sufficient to represent the mining selectivity considered.
5.
Bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10, Havallah = 2.48,
Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64. For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithology
ranging from a low of 2.426 (Overburden) to a high of 2.737 (Basalt) with a weighted average of 2.63.
6.
The Property is 100% owned by SSR through its subsidiary MMC.
7.
All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
8.
The point of reference for Mineral Reserves is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing
facility.
9.
Totals may vary due to rounding.
The SLR QP is unaware of any current
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors that could materially
affect the Mineral Reserves estimate as of May 1, 2026.
This section describes the methodology
and parameters used to estimate the Mineral Reserves for Marigold and Buffalo Valley. The Mineral Reserves estimate as of May 1, 2026,
considers all information used in the Mineral Resources estimate as of May 1, 2026, as presented in Section 11.
12.2 Marigold
12.2.1 Conversion
to Mineral Reserves
Mineral
Reserves have been classified in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300
rules for Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (S-K 1300). The Mineral Reserves estimate is summarized in Table
12-1.
Pit optimizations were run on the Mineral
Resources cell model using Pseudoflow algorithm to generate optimal pit limits based on block value at a range of gold prices.
The ultimate pits and subsequent phase
designs were developed from the $2,200/oz optimization runs. The gold price assumption was based on an internal assessment of recent
market prices, long-term forward curve prices, and consensus among analysts regarding price estimates.
12-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
At Marigold, inter-ramp angles (IRAs)
for the final pit design are between 35° and 38° in mined fill and range between 45° and 49° in rock.
Mining costs are based on historical
values and budgeted costs that include an incremental haulage component using estimated haul cycle times and pit depths. Processing and
general and administrative (G&A) costs were estimated based on historical values and budgeted costs. Estimated sustaining capital
costs, royalties, severance taxes, and reclamation costs were also included in the optimization costs.
The Mineral Reserves for Marigold were
estimated using the as-mined surface at May 1, 2026, with the following assumptions and parameters:
· There
are no Measured Resources in the Mineral Resources model. Indicated Mineral Resources within
the final pit design are converted to Probable Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources
are not considered in the Mineral Reserves estimation.
· The
mining recovery is 100% within the pit design.
· The
Mineral Resources were not diluted. Internal dilution included in the Mineral Resource estimate
is considered adequate.
· The
Mineral Reserves estimate assumes that mining operations will continue to use the current
Marigold mining methods, as described in Section 13.
· The
estimated cut-off grade was 0.069 g/t (0.002 opt) payable Au (Au assay factored
for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
· The
leach pad inventory of 0.374 Moz Au is included in the Mineral Reserves, in addition to the
material that is placed on top of the leach pads.
12.2.1.1 Stockpiles
On the surface of the mining phase areas
8S Extension (8Sx) and M7 are historical OBSA from material mined during the late 1990s and early 2000s when cut-off grades were higher
than the current cut-off grades. While drilling the HideOut and 8Sx targets, samples from these OBSA were also assayed for gold, with
a majority of these samples returning gold values higher than the current cut-off grade. To confirm the grades, 37 sonic drill holes
were drilled in 2016. These drill holes confirmed the gold grades in the historical OBSA, hereinafter referred to as “mineralized
stockpiles” or “stockpiles”.
12.2.2 Cut-off
Grade
The
estimated cut-off grade for Mineral Reserves was based on a $2,200/oz gold price. The gold price of $2,200/oz was selected following
current industry guidelines and corporate strategy. The metal price is representative of the range of price estimates publicly reported
for Mineral Reserve cut-offs. Factors used to estimate the cut-off grade are outlined in Table 12-2,
and include refining charges, royalties, and net proceeds tax. Operating costs were based on historical costs and budgeted estimates.
An
average recovery rate of 72.6% was used to estimate the cut-off grade based on the average of model recoveries from an audit completed
by SLR in January 2026, noting that individual block recoveries are determined using the model formula presented in Table
12-2.
12-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 12-2:
Key Economic Parameters for Mineral Reserves Estimate - Marigold
Parameters
Unit
Marigold
Value
Gold
Price
US$/oz
2,200
Gold
Sales, Insurance, Legal and Social
US$/oz
N/A1
Royalties
US$/oz
0–10%
(0–220)1
Total
Selling Cost
US$/oz
0–10%
(0–220)1
Processing
Au Recovery
%
AuCN/AuFA
* 0.921
Payable
Au
%
100.0%
Mining
Dilution
%
1.00
Processing
Cost
US$/t
2.16
Sustaining
CAPEX
US$/t
0.18
Operational
Support (G&A)
US$/t
0.17
Total
US$/t
2.53
Marginal
Cut-off Grade
g/t
0.061
Rounded
Cut-Off Grade2
g/t
0.069
Notes:
1.
The cut-off grade is calculated based on the AUPAY variable from the Mineral Resource Block Model.
The processing recovery is included in the AUPAY variable as AUCN/AUFA * 0.92 (both are Nearest Neighbor estimates), Refining Charges,
Royalties and Net Proceeds Tax.
2.
The laboratory assay methods have three decimal precision, rounding the last number where relevant.
This results in the cut-off being rounded down to 0.002 opt (0.069 g/t).
3.
The total cost structure itemizes processing, sustaining capital, and operational support costs
separately as shown in the table above.
4.
The Mining Costs are based on historical values, coded into a script using a Python library
to calculate costs.
12.2.3 Royalties,
Net Proceeds and Excise Tax
NSR royalty payments vary between 0%
and 10% of the value of production net of off-site refining costs, which is equal to an annual average range of 3.3% to 10% and a weighted
average of 6.9% over the LOM.
The State of Nevada imposes a yearly
tax on the net proceeds of all mining operations conducted within the state, plus a yearly property tax on all fixed and mobile equipment
used by the mining operation. The net proceeds tax is based on the income from the sale of all products from the mine minus: the royalties;
mine, plant, and administration expenses sourced in the State of Nevada; development expenses paid during the year; prescribed depreciation
of tangible assets according to set, pre-defined classifications contained in state regulations; and reclamation expenditures incurred
during the year of the tax. A net proceeds tax of 5% was applied to the Mineral Reserves estimation.
In 2021, the State of Nevada enacted
Assembly Bill 495, effective July 1, 2021, which is an annual excise tax on gold and silver revenue. Under the bill, the tax rates vary
based on the taxpayer’s Nevada gross revenue. A 0.75% rate is imposed on Nevada gross revenue of more than $20 million; however,
not more than $150 million in a taxable year (defined as the calendar year). A rate of 1.10% applies to Nevada gross revenue exceeding
$150 million in any tax year. The LOM average rate for Marigold is approximately 1.0%.
12-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
12.2.4 Dilution
No mining dilution was applied to the
grade of the blocks. Dilution intrinsic to the Mineral Resources model is considered sufficient to represent the stated mining selectivity.
12.2.5 Mining
Recovery
Mining recovery was assumed to be 100%
of the Indicated Mineral Resources. Inferred Mineral Resources were assigned as waste.
12.2.6 Comparison
with Previous Estimates
The Mineral Reserve estimate has been
compared to the previous December 31, 2025 Mineral Reserve estimate as reported in SSR’s 2025 Form 10-K filing (SSR 2026), which
was based on the EOY 2025 pit surface. Comparison of the current Mineral Reserve with the 2025 Mineral Reserve shows a net increase in
contained gold of 1,668 koz (+73%) in the Proven and Probable categories. Changes have occurred from mine depletion, minor resource model
updates, minor cost assumption changes, and most significantly, an increase in the gold price assumption from $1,700/oz to $2,200/oz
combined with infill and resource conversion drilling, with new areas added to Reserves including DG 80, New Millennium, and Red Dot
phase extensions.
12.2.7 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP reviewed the assumptions,
parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Reserves Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Reserves are estimated
and prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300 rules for Property Disclosures
for Mining Registrants (S-K 1300).
The total Probable Mineral Reserves
at the Marigold Mine including stockpiles are estimated to be 252.4 Mt grading 0.44 g/t Au, containing 3.58 Moz Au. Buffalo Valley is
an additional 45.3 Mt grading 0.46 g/t Au, containing 0.67 Moz Au. The total Mineral Reserve is 358.7 Mt grading 0.40 g/ Au containing
4.63 Moz Au including 61.0 Mt grading 0.19 g/t Au containing 0.37 Moz Au of the Leach Pad inventory. The Marigold Mine Mineral Reserves
support a LOM over 20 years of operational life, including fifteen years of active mining followed by an additional five years of processing
the heap leach pad inventory, which currently contains 374 koz of gold. The 15 year period of active mining includes Buffalo Valley in
the scheduling, for which mining starts in 2029 and lasts 5.3 years.
12.3 Buffalo
Valley
12.3.1 Conversion
to Mineral Reserves
Mineral
Reserves have been classified in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300
rules for Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (S-K 1300). The Mineral Reserves estimate is summarized in Table
12-1.
Pit optimizations were run on the Mineral
Resources cell model using Pseudoflow algorithm to generate optimal pit limits based on block value at a range of gold prices.
The ultimate pits and subsequent phase
designs were developed from the $2,200/oz optimization runs. The gold price assumption was based on an internal assessment of recent
market prices, long-term forward curve prices, and consensus among analysts regarding price estimates.
12-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
At Buffalo Valley, inter-ramp angles
(IRAs) for the final pit design are 34° in mined fill and range between 32° and 48° in rock at Buffalo Valley.
Mining costs are based on historical
values of Marigold mine and budgeted costs that include an incremental haulage component using estimated haul cycle times and pit depths.
Processing and general and administrative (G&A) costs were estimated based on historical values and budgeted costs. Estimated sustaining
capital costs, royalties, severance taxes, and reclamation costs were also included in the optimization costs.
The Mineral Reserves for Buffalo Valley
were estimated using the topographical surface at May 1, 2026 (incorporating historical as-mined surfaces), with the following assumptions
and parameters:
· There
are no Measured Resources in the Mineral Resources model. Indicated Mineral Resources within
the final pit design are converted to Probable Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources
are not considered in the Mineral Reserves estimation.
· The
mining recovery is 100% within the pit design.
· The
Mineral Resources were not diluted. Internal dilution included in the Mineral Resource estimate
is considered adequate.
· The
Mineral Reserves estimate assumes that mining operations will continue to use the current
Marigold mining methods, as described in Section 13.
· The
estimated cut-off grade was 0.069 g/t (0.002 opt) payable Au (Au assay factored
for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
12.3.2 Cut-off
Grade
The
estimated cut-off grade for Mineral Reserves was based on a $2,200/oz gold price. The gold price of $2,200/oz was selected following
current industry guidelines and corporate strategy. The metal price is representative of the range of price estimates publicly reported
for Mineral Reserve cut-offs. Factors used to estimate the cut-off grade are outlined in Table 12-3,
and include refining charges, royalties, and net proceeds tax. Operating costs were based on historical costs and budgeted estimates.
An average recovery rate of 66.5% was
used to estimate the cut-off grade based on the average of model recoveries for ROM heap leach processing.
Table 12-3:
Key Economic Parameters for Mineral Reserves Estimate – Buffalo Valley
Parameters
Unit
Buffalo
Valley Value
Gold
Price
US$/oz
2,200
Gold
Sales, Insurance, Legal and Social
US$/oz
N/a
Royalties
US$/oz
3.5%
(77)
Total
Selling Cost
US$/oz
3.5%
(77)
Processing
Au Recovery
%
3.1%–79.2%
Payable
Au
%
100.0%
Mining
Dilution
%
1.00
Processing
Cost
US$/t
2.16
12-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Parameters
Unit
Buffalo
Valley Value
Sustaining
CAPEX
US$/t
1.08
Operational
Support (G&A)
US$/t
0.17
Total
US$/t
3.74
Marginal
Cut-off Grade
g/t
0.069
Rounded
Cut-Off Grade2
g/t
0.069
Notes:
1.
The cut-off grade is calculated based on the AUKR variable from the Mineral Resource Block Model.
This represents the majority cut-off; refer to the Mineral Reserve table 12-1 notes for domain specific ranges.
2.
The processing cost includes sustaining capital and full site reclamation costs.
3.
The mining costs are based on historical values of the current Marigold Mine, coded into a script
using a Python library to calculate costs.
12.3.3 Royalties,
Net Proceeds and Excise Tax
Net Smelter Return (NSR) royalty payments
for the Buffalo Valley deposit are fixed at 3.5% of the value of production net of off-site refining costs.
State-level taxation, including the
Nevada Net Proceeds Tax (applied at 5% for the Mineral Reserves estimation) and the Nevada Assembly Bill 495 annual excise tax, is governed
under the same statutory framework described for the Marigold mine. A 0.75% rate is imposed on Nevada gross revenue of more than $20
million, however, not more than $150 million in a taxable year (defined as the calendar year). A rate of 1.10% applies to Nevada gross
revenue exceeding $150 million in any tax year. The LOM average rate for Marigold is approximately 1.0%.
12.3.4 Dilution
The methodology and assumptions regarding
mining dilution for the Buffalo Valley deposit are identical to those applied at the Marigold mine.
12.3.5 Mining
Recovery
The mining recovery assumptions and
application for the Buffalo Valley deposit are identical to those described for the Marigold mine.
12.3.6 Comparison
with Previous Estimates
The Mineral Reserve estimate has been
compared to the previous December 31, 2025 Mineral Reserve estimate as reported in SSR’s 2025 Form 10-K filing (SSR 2026). Comparison
with the December 31, 2025 Mineral Reserves shows a net increase in contained gold of 107 koz (+19%) in the Proven and Probable Categories.
The key change is attributable to the increase in the metal price assumption from $1,700/oz in December 2025 to $2,200/oz for the current
TRS declaration.
The total Probable Mineral Reserves
at the Buffalo Valley mine are estimated to be 45.3 million tonnes grading 0.46 g/t Au containing 0.67 Moz Au. Buffalo Valley is not
yet permitted and is planned to contribute for 5.3 years of the total 15 years of active mining of the Marigold Complex, starting in
2029.
12-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
12.3.7 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP reviewed the assumptions,
parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Reserves Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Reserves are estimated
and prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC) Regulation S-K subpart 1300 rules for Property Disclosures
for Mining Registrants (S-K 1300).
12-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.0 Mining
Methods
Marigold uses standard open pit mining
methods. Loading operations are currently performed using one electric shovel and three hydraulic shovels. Waste and ore haulage is performed
with a fleet of 300 st payload primary haul trucks.
The previous LOM plan averaged a sustained
mining rate of approximately 238,000 tonnes per day (tpd) with a max of 296,000 tpd and an active mine life of approximately 9 years.
The LOM plan presented in this updated TRS has increased the mining rate to an average of 380,000 tpd with a peak of 505,000 tpd. The
LOM has also increased to 15 years of active mining, without considering leach pad drawdown. The increase in daily rates is attributed
to additional fleet purchases starting with 300 st payload haul trucks in 2027 and culminating in an additional P&H 4100-sized shovel
purchase in Q1 2028. There will also be a Liebherr 9600-class front shovel added in 2027, and various support equipment. These additions
eliminate the need for a separate fleet, which was originally thought necessary at Buffalo Valley.
Loading operations are currently performed
using one electric shovel and three hydraulic shovels. Waste and ore haulage is performed with a fleet of 300 st payload primary haul
trucks.
The mine conducts conventional drilling
and blasting activities with a free face trim row blast to ensure stable wall rock conditions. Electronic detonators are used to control
the timing of the blasthole detonation.
Drilling and blasting occur on benches
with a height of 15.2 m. One grade control sample is taken from each blasthole with the sub-drilling excluded. Mining occurs on the full
bench height (15.2 m) when pre-stripping waste or mining ore areas with the electric shovel. When using the smaller hydraulic shovels,
mining is done on a bench height of 7.6 m to minimize the dilution that would otherwise occur from dozing a 15.2 m high face to these
smaller shovels. Blasting is done with an ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) blend and a sensitized ANFO emulsion. The ore control
mark-out procedure includes blast movement analysis for 90% of ore production blasts.
The Marigold geotechnical management
plan (GMP) includes highwall monitoring using three radar systems, which provide full coverage for the Mackay pit, the largest pit, or
which can be deployed in the smaller pits, if required. Routine monitoring of OBSA, leach pads, and inactive pits using INSAR (interferometric
synthetic-aperture radar) data is performed by a third party on a monthly basis.
Equipment maintenance is performed on
site for all equipment. There are no contract mining operations on site, other than for blasting as detailed in Section 13.7.
13.1 Geotechnical,
Hydrological, Pit, and Other Design Parameters
Geotechnical design criteria for the
Marigold operation are based on historical slope performance, ongoing geotechnical monitoring, geotechnical drilling programs, laboratory
testing, structural characterization, hydrogeologic investigations, and site-specific slope stability analyses. Open pit slope designs
are developed according to lithology, structural orientation, groundwater conditions, and rock mass quality, with inter-ramp slope angles
(45° to 49°) varying by geotechnical domain and wall orientation. The primary host rock across much of the operation remains
the Valmy Formation, which generally supports steeper slope configurations where structural conditions are favorable. More recent investigations
have demonstrated that locally flatter slopes may be required in areas affected by adverse structural conditions, weak clay horizons,
altered tuff units, or elevated groundwater conditions.
13-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Since the previous TRS (SLR 2024), additional
geotechnical investigations have been completed for the 5N1, 5N2, H1, Red Dot Phase 3, M7, and New Millenium mining areas. These programs
included geotechnical core drilling, laboratory testing, televiewer surveys, structural mapping, groundwater monitoring, pore pressure
assessments, and limit equilibrium slope stability analyses. The results have been incorporated into pit design, mine planning, geotechnical
risk management, and groundwater control strategies. Collectively, the studies indicate that planned pit slopes satisfy applicable design
acceptance criteria when appropriate operational controls and groundwater management practices are maintained.
The Marigold GMP remains the primary
framework for managing geotechnical risks and is continuously updated as mining progresses. Slope performance is monitored using radar
systems that provide continuous coverage of active mining areas and allow geotechnical personnel to identify and respond to developing
instabilities. Monitoring is supplemented by routine field inspections, geological mapping, geotechnical reconciliation, and groundwater
monitoring. Threshold movement criteria are established for monitored slopes and are integrated with operational response procedures.
Groundwater
management remains an important component of slope design and mine planning. Mining below the regional groundwater table continues to
be supported through active dewatering and depressurization programs. Recent pore pressure sensitivity analyses completed for Red Dot
Phase 3 demonstrated that current groundwater conditions satisfy applicable slope stability criteria, although the analyses confirmed
that slope stability remains sensitive to increases in pore pressure, particularly within upper slope areas. Continued groundwater monitoring
and depressurization programs are therefore maintained to support long-term slope performance. The Plan of Operations (PoO) Amendment
approved in 2019 permitted dewatering to allow mining below the water table. The mine dewatering plan is discussed in Section 13.14.
Haul roads, overburden storage areas,
and leach pad facilities continue to be designed in accordance with established site criteria.
Haul road and ramp widths are designed
for two-way traffic that accommodates 300 st class haul trucks. The total road width, including berms and ditches, is 36.4 m.
The roads follow topography external to the pit and do not exceed a 10% grade. Ramps inside the pits are also designed at a 10% maximum
grade.
Waste rock is placed in lifts of 15.2
m to 45.5 m high, with benches left on the outside edges to accommodate the final OBSA 3:1 slope design. There have been no OBSA
stability issues on the Property. Sufficient storage capacity for waste rock material has been identified to support the mining production
and LOM.
The leach pad is built with lifts of
6.1 m to 12.2 m high, with benches left on the outside edges for a final 3:1 slope pushdown. The leach pad is generally permitted
to a 152.4 m height above the plastic liner at the base. As each new leach pad cell is designed and permitted, a geotechnical analysis
is completed. There have been no leach pad stability issues on the Property.
No significant geotechnical stability
issues have been identified in OBSAs or leach pad facilities during the reporting period.
13-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.1.1 Open
Pit Geotechnical Reports Review
Since completion of the previous Technical
Report Summary, several geotechnical investigations have been completed to support slope design, groundwater management, and mine planning
activities. Significant studies completed during this period include the following:
· CNI
Analysis of Soil Slopes – H1, 5N1, and 5N2 (CNI 2021)
· CNI
Red Dot Phase 3 Pore Pressure Sensitivity Analysis (CNI 2024)
· CNI
Preliminary M7 Analysis Results (CNI 2025)
· WSP
Preliminary Pit Slope Design Recommendations for the New Millenium Expansion (WSP 2026a)
· Marigold
Waste Rock Dump Slope Stability Assessment (SSR 2026).
These studies incorporated geotechnical
drilling, laboratory testing, structural characterization, groundwater assessments, geotechnical logging, televiewer surveys, and limit
equilibrium analyses. The study results have been integrated into pit and waste dump design criteria, groundwater management strategies,
and mine planning activities.
13.1.1.1 Overview
of Geotechnical Report Review
Recent investigations confirmed that
geotechnical performance across the Marigold operation is governed by a combination of rock mass characteristics, structural controls,
groundwater conditions, and the occurrence of localized weak materials. The principal geotechnical risks vary by mining area and include
weak clay horizons within alluvial materials, altered tuff units, adverse bedding orientations, fault zones, and groundwater pressures.
Investigations completed in the northern
pit areas (5N1, 5N2, and H1) identified significant clay horizons and localized tuff units within the alluvial sequence. Stability analyses
demonstrated that these materials represent the primary controls on soil slope performance and may require reduced inter-ramp slope angles
relative to historical Marigold designs. The studies concluded that slope stability in these areas is highly dependent on the geometry,
continuity, and orientation of clay and tuff units.
A pore pressure sensitivity assessment
completed for Red Dot Phase 3 confirmed that all evaluated slope sections currently satisfy the applicable design factor of safety (FoS)
criteria. The analyses demonstrated that groundwater conditions remain an important control on long-term slope performance and support
continuation of site dewatering and groundwater monitoring programs.
The M7 geotechnical program included
drilling, structural characterization, geotechnical logging, and slope stability analyses. Results indicate that the current slope design
satisfies required design acceptance criteria. The primary geotechnical concern identified for M7 is adverse pitward-dipping bedding
along portions of the eastern wall, which may contribute to localized bench-scale instability. Groundwater conditions were found to be
below planned mining elevations and are not expected to adversely affect slope stability under current assumptions.
The New Millenium geotechnical investigation
included eleven geotechnical drill holes, laboratory testing, structural characterization, kinematic assessments, and slope stability
analyses. The investigation concluded that acceptable slope performance can be achieved using sector-specific slope criteria. Structural
controls, faulting, altered tuff horizons, and locally weak rock mass conditions were identified as the principal geotechnical design
considerations. Preliminary recommendations support inter-ramp slope angles of approximately 46° to 49° within bedrock sectors
and approximately 30° within alluvial and tuff materials.
13-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Overall, the recent geotechnical investigations
support the current mine planning assumptions and indicate that pit slope performance can be effectively managed through site-specific
slope design criteria, groundwater management, ongoing monitoring, and periodic updates to geologic and geotechnical models.
The
current operations at Marigold Mine mostly focus on the interim pit phases. There has been minimal mining to the final highwall in the
Mackay Pit area over the last few years, with the notable exception of the east wall, which has a lower IRA due to expected west-dipping
bedding conditions. The vast majority of the west interim walls are designed shallower than the 45°
to 49° overall slope angle (OSA). Blasting typically uses a production presplit pattern; however, trim shots are used to protect
the integrity of the ramp when mining the first few benches of each phase.
The batter compliance data is skewed
by delays in the compliance measurements, which occur after mining has advanced through the area. However, in practice, much of the rill
is mined out by shovel mining with dozer support as required. For final highwalls, trim blasting is used rather than production presplit
patterns.
13.1.1.2 Buffalo
Valley Geotechnical Design Criteria
Buffalo Valley is located approximately
8 mi south of the Marigold operation and forms part of the greater Marigold Complex. A geotechnical feasibility study was completed by
Call & Nicholas, Inc. (CNI) in 2025 and 2026 to support mine planning and slope design for the Buffalo Valley deposit. The investigation
included geotechnical drilling, televiewer surveys, geotechnical logging, laboratory testing, hydrogeologic assessment, structural interpretation,
and two-dimensional and three-dimensional slope stability analyses.
Geologic conditions at Buffalo Valley
are broadly similar to those encountered elsewhere within the Marigold district and are dominated by Havallah sequence sedimentary rocks,
limestone, metabasalt, intrusive rocks, and overburden deposits. Geotechnical investigations identified bedding orientation as the principal
control on slope stability. Three geotechnical domains were established based on structural orientation, and pit slope designs were developed
using sector-specific criteria that account for bedding orientation, groundwater conditions, and local geologic characteristics.
Groundwater conditions were incorporated
into slope stability analyses using site hydrogeologic models and monitoring data. Investigations also identified localized high-plasticity
clay horizons within portions of the overburden sequence that may influence slope performance where exposed in future pit walls. Continued
groundwater monitoring, geotechnical drilling, and refinement of geologic and structural models were recommended as project development
advances.
Overall slope stability analyses demonstrated
that the recommended pit designs satisfy the adopted design acceptance criteria following localized slope optimization where required.
Recommended inter-ramp slope angles generally range from approximately 32° to 48° depending on geotechnical domain and wall orientation,
while overburden slopes are limited to a maximum continuous slope height of approximately 122 m (400 ft). The study concluded that acceptable
slope performance can be achieved through implementation of the recommended slope design criteria and ongoing geotechnical monitoring
programs.
13-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.1.2 Overburden
Storage Facility Stability
A comprehensive overburden storage facility
slope stability assessment was completed in 2026 for seven OBSAs, including CNNWTC, M8, North Dump-5N, NWTC, RD1, Resort Dump, and SWTC
(SSR 2026). The assessment utilized two-dimensional limit equilibrium analyses of both existing as-built OBSA configurations and the
planned M8 ultimate configuration.
Under expected-average waste rock strength
assumptions, all evaluated waste dumps demonstrated overall factors of safety at or above, or marginally below, the adopted acceptance
criterion of 1.3. The M8 OBSA represented the controlling as-built condition and was the only evaluated facility to exhibit a factor
of safety marginally below the adopted criterion (FoS = 1.254); accordingly, ongoing monitoring, waste placement controls, and periodic
geotechnical reassessment were recommended, while no specific design modifications were identified in this assessment. The North Dump-5N,
NWTC, and SWTC facilities exhibited the highest stability margins under the evaluated loading conditions.
The planned M8 ultimate design was assessed
separately and demonstrated improved stability relative to the existing configuration. The analyses concluded that the planned geometry
satisfies the adopted slope stability acceptance criteria under expected material strength assumptions, although stability remains sensitive
to waste rock quality, seismic loading assumptions, and groundwater conditions.
The assessment concluded that the existing
waste rock storage facilities generally exhibit acceptable overall stability under current operating conditions and provide a suitable
basis for long-term mine planning. Recommendations include continued monitoring of active OBSA, ongoing waste rock characterization,
maintenance of groundwater monitoring programs, periodic reassessment of dump stability, and implementation of material placement practices
that preferentially place weaker and finer-grained material within interior dump areas while reserving more competent material for exterior
slope construction. Particular attention should continue to be directed toward the M8 facility because of its comparatively lower stability
margin and ongoing development.
The QP has reviewed the 2026 slope stability
assessment prepared by WSP personnel (WSP 2026a), considers the methodologies and assumptions to be appropriate, and concurs with the
conclusions and recommendations presented herein.
13.1.3 Pit
Optimizations and Designs
Pit optimizations and subsequent pit
designs were completed by personnel from MMC and corporate SSR in April 2026 using the updated Mineral Reserve gold price (US$2,200/oz)
and updated block model. Pit optimization analyses incorporated current geotechnical design criteria developed from historical operating
experience and updated geotechnical investigations completed across the operation. Sector-specific slope configurations reflecting bedrock
conditions, structural controls, groundwater considerations, and localized weak materials were incorporated where applicable. Optimized
pit shells and final designs were developed using slope design criteria considered appropriate for the geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical
conditions anticipated within each mining area
Optimizations
used the Pseudoflow algorithm. Marigold personnel developed operating mining costs for the existing mining fleet during the pit optimization
process. Ore and waste haulage costs were incorporated into the block model. The mining cost for the pit shells was based on the total
mining cost net of haulage mining costs, which are presented in Table 12-2 and Table 12-3.
13-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
For the Marigold mine, the ROM leach
recovery model, as developed by SSR, was also incorporated into the Mineral Resources cell model. To facilitate the calculations and
the Mineral Resources tabulations, variables were incorporated into the model for recovered gold [gold x recovery] and payable
gold [gold x recovery x (1–royalty)]. Payable gold cut-off grades were established at 0.069 g/t Au and 0.104 g/t Au,
respectively, for incremental cut-off and breakeven cut-off. Incremental cut-off is based on pit rim routing, so the only mining cost
change is the increment between the ore and waste mining costs. Breakeven cut-off includes the ore mining cost.
For the Buffalo Valley deposit, ROM
heap leach recoveries, which were derived from metallurgical test work, and a fixed royalty of 3.5% were incorporated to calculate cut-off
grades across various lithological and metallurgical domains. Resulting cut-off grades range from 0.069 g/t Au to 1.767 g/t Au for
incremental cut-off, and 0.102 g/t Au to 2.6065 g/t Au for breakeven cut-off, reflecting the variability in domain-specific recovery
and cost parameters.
The mining costs for the evaluation
include sustaining capital costs as well as costs associated with the Marigold analytical laboratory as most of the on-site laboratory
work involves assaying production blastholes for ore control. The processing costs also include sustaining capital and the full site
reclamation costs.
Overall
slope angles used in the optimization are presented in Table 13-1 and Table 13-2.
Table
13-1: Overall
Slope Angles by Azimuth – Marigold Mine
Pit
Slope Angle
(Degrees)
Area 1: Red Dot / Mackay / Terry Zone (TZ) / 8Sx
Area 1 – All Pits in Reserves
45–49
East Wall Mackay
45
Fill Material
35
Area 2: Valmy N / Valmy S / Mud
Area 2 – All Pits in Reserves
45–48
West Wall
45
Fill Material
35
Area 3: East Basalt / Battle Cry
Area 3 – All Pits in Reserves
45–49
East Wall
45
Fill Material
35–38
Notes:
1. Area 1:
Created a 90° envelope at 45° IRA to account for the shear zone.
2. Area 2:
Created a 30° envelope North and South at 45° IRA for the shear zone running through Valmy North and Valmy South.
3. Area
3: Exploration encountered Tuff in the region, leading to a flatter 38° slope in certain areas.
13-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
13-2: Overall
Slope Angles by Azimuth – Buffalo Valley Mine
BV
Pit
Slope
Angle
(Degrees)
Area
1: Domain 1
Area
1 – All Pits in Reserves
40–48
Fill
Material
34
Area
2: Domain 2
Area
2 – All Pits in Reserves
36–48
Fill
Material
34
Area
3: Domain 3
Area
3 – All Pits in Reserves
32–48
Fill
Material
34
Notes:
1.
Area 1: Created a 90° envelope at 45° IRA to account for the shear zone.
2.
Area 2: Created a 30° envelope North and South at 45° IRA for the shear zone running
through Valmy North and Valmy South.
3.
Domain 1 mean dip 51°; pitward-dipping bedding present.
4.
Domain 2 mean dip 44°; pitward-dipping bedding present.
5.
Domain 3 mean dip 37°; bedding dipping into wall.
6.
Eight critical cross-sections were analyzed on the new recommended rosettes; Recommendations
were based on adverse bedding dipping pitward along the east and southeast walls.
Table 13-3 and Table 13-4 also shows
the design parameters for each area with the exact bench width, slope angle, face angle, and rosette bearing for Marigold Mine and Buffalo
Valley Mine, respectively.
Table
13-3: Design
Parameters by Each Area – Marigold Mine
By
Zone
Bearing
Bench
Width
Slope
Angle
(IRA)
Face
Angle
Red
Dot M7&9 (Mackay); 5N; East Basalt; Battle Cry and Antler (New Millenium)}
10°–40°
32.3
47
74
40°–130°
31.8
45
70
130°–160°
32.3
47
74
160°–210°
30.7
48
74
210°–270°
32.3
47
74
270°–360°
29.1
49
74
Valmy
North, Valmy South and Mud
15°–165°
30.7
48
74
165°–195°
31.8
45
70
195°–345°
30.7
48
74
345°–360°
35.7
45
74
Fill/Alluvium
n/a
- Slope Code 3
45.3
34
60
13-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
13-4: Design
Parameters by Each Area – Buffalo Valley Mine
By
Zone
Bearing
Bench
Width
Slope
Angle
(IRA)
Face
Angle
Buffalo
Valley – Domain 1/SLOPE 1
- CNI Update FEB 2026
0°–20°
24.8
48
68
20°–50°
27.4
44
64
50°–100°
28.3
40
58
100°–360°
24.8
48
68
Buffalo
Valley – Domain 2/SLOPE 2
– CNI Update FEB 2026
0°–100°
24.8
48
68
100°–160°
33.8
36
55
160°–360°
28.3
40
58
Buffalo
Valley – Domain 3/SLOPE 3
- CNI Update FEB 2026
0°–20°
24.8
48
68
20°–50°
28.3
40
58
50°–110°
30.0
32
45
110°–360°
24.8
48
68
Several pit optimizations were run at
different gold prices. The $2,200/oz gold price pit shell was selected as a guide to develop the ultimate pit and subsequent pit phase
designs.
Berm/catch bench widths range from 7.2
m to 8.2 m in rock and from 7.2 m to 15.4 m in fill and are designed for every 15.2 m bench height.
13.2 Pit
Phases and Timing
The Marigold Mine pit optimization for
the LOM plan used a Pseudoflow algorithm with an internal recoverable gold value of 0.069 g/t. The optimized pit was used to guide
the ultimate pit design, which includes access and takes into account geotechnical considerations for designed highwall angles.
The overall Marigold Mine design has
four distinct areas: the main Mackay pit (includes the Red Dot and DG80 areas), the North Mackay pits, the Valmy pits, and New Millenium
area pits.
The Mackay ultimate pit is an expansion,
consolidation, and deepening below the water table of four existing pits into a single pit of approximately 4.9 km long, 1.7 km
wide, and 460 m deep. It contains more than 60% of the Marigold Mine Mineral Reserve tonnage. For sequencing purposes, the ultimate
pits are designed into 15 logical development stages.
Similarly, the Buffalo Valley Mine pit
optimization used a Pseudoflow algorithm with a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t, the outcome of which guided the ultimate pit design, which
incorporates access and geotechnical considerations. The Buffalo Valley Mine has two distinct areas: the main Buffalo Valley pit and
the Dore Hills pit area to the north.
Tonnages
for each mining phase are shown in Table 13-5. Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2 show the end of mine
life reserve pits for the Marigold Mine and Buffalo Valley Mine, respectively.
13-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
13-5: Mining
Phase Design Summary
Phase
Name
Waste
Tonnes
(kt)
Ore
Tonnes
(kt)
Total
Tonnes
(kt)
Strip
Ratio
Marigold
5N3
41,588
3,755
45,343
11.1
8Sext
67,047
8,730
75,777
7.7
Antler
Ph1
93,499
10,488
103,987
8.9
Antler
Ph2
63,615
15,910
79,525
4.0
DG80
Ph1
15,331
59
15,390
259.1
DG80
Ph2
135,253
5,422
140,675
24.9
DG80
Ph3
1,918
218
2,136
8.8
DG80
Ph4
118,058
43,118
161,176
2.7
EB1
46,633
1,369
48,002
34.1
EB2
17,090
2,585
19,675
6.6
EB3
21,067
8,708
29,775
2.4
M7
112,315
21,568
133,883
5.2
M7
Old
213
63
275
3.4
Mud1
4,232
614
4,846
6.9
Mud2
753
412
1,165
1.8
RD2
7,183
7,912
15,095
0.9
RD3a
918
918
RD3b
9,422
9,422
RD3c
13,438
29
13,467
471.2
RD3d
10,735
10,735
RD3e
25,679
780
26,459
32.9
RD3f
7,062
688
7,750
10.3
RD3g
6,732
5,234
11,966
1.3
RD3h
6,173
5,797
11,971
1.1
RD3i
2,657
5,068
7,725
0.5
RD3j
4,525
8,422
12,947
0.5
RD4a
103,489
771
104,260
134.3
RD4b
101,998
46,072
148,070
2.2
RD5
126,619
9,480
136,099
13.4
TZ
101,666
16,019
117,684
6.3
VN
13,502
5,354
18,856
2.5
13-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Phase Name
Waste
Tonnes
(kt)
Ore
Tonnes
(kt)
Total
Tonnes
(kt)
Strip
Ratio
VS
54,742
10,663
65,405
5.1
VSext
72,146
7,090
79,236
10.2
Marigold
Total
1,407,297
252,398
1,659,695
5.6
Buffalo
Valley
Buffalo
Valley
169,643
43,841
213,484
3.9
Dore
Hills
6,258
1,491
7,750
4.2
Buffalo
Valley Total
175,902
45,332
221,234
3.9
Notes:
1.
Totals may not match due to rounding.
13-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-1: End
of Mine Life Reserve Pits- Marigold Mine
13-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-2: End
of Mine Life Reserve Pits- Buffalo Valley Mine
13-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.3 Production
Rates, Mine Life, Dimensions, and Dilution Factors
Mining is scheduled 24 hours per day,
363 days per year on a rotation of two 12-hour shifts. The current mine plan provides approximately 20 years of operational life, including
fifteen years of active mining followed by an additional five years of processing the heap leach pad.
The haul fleet will expand from thirty
300 st class units at the end of 2026 to a peak of 45 trucks. This updated LOM includes 19 additional trucks starting in 2027, retiring
the remaining older Hitachi Trucks by mid year 2027 and an additional LeTourneau 1850 front end loader in 2026, a Liebherr 9600 class
front shovel in 2027, and a second P&H 4100 sized shovel in Q1 2028. Buffalo Valley is planned to start in 2029, which is based on
the anticipated permitting timeline. Initially a separate fleet was considered for mining Buffalo Valley; however, procuring additional
trucks and loading units in 2027 allows for accelerated waste stripping in Marigold and provides enough equipment to maintain Marigold
and mine Buffalo Valley with the same fleet. Equipment planned for Buffalo Valley mining is estimated to be two hydraulic shovels and
8 to 10 trucks over the span of the 5.3 year mine life. When mining at Buffalo Valley is complete, the fleet will then return to Marigold.
The average sustained total material
mining rate is 165.0 Mtpa over the first seven years (starting 2027), with the full production years of mining averaging 138.3 Mtpa (excluding
part of 2026 and the final year 2040) as the tonnage drops off in later years. Average payable gold production over the 15 years of mining
is approximately 200,000 ounces per year.
The Marigold Mine mineralized zones
are structurally controlled and strike in a generally northern direction. They vary in width throughout the Property from one meter or
less up to 40 m long and 49 m wide.
The Buffalo Valley mineralized zones
are structurally controlled by northwest-trending dikes and faults. Mineralization occurs both adjacent to dikes and within favorable
sedimentary units and varies in thickness and continuity throughout the deposit.
In the LOM model, there is no dilution
or mining loss added to the Mineral Reserves for planning and scheduling. Based on the chosen mining method and size of equipment used,
dilution intrinsic to the Mineral Resource model is considered sufficient, and a mining recovery of 100% is considered achievable in
this kind of deposit. This assumption is supported by historical reconciliation data and is consistent with previous Technical Report
Summaries (TRS) and Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (MRMR) declarations.
13.4 Stripping
Requirements
Increasing the reserve gold price from
$1,700/oz to $2,200/oz to reflect current market conditions increased the Mineral Reserve at the Marigold Complex as well as the associated
waste required for extraction. The increase in material volume was not proportional between ore and waste, resulting in an increase in
the life-of-mine strip ratio from 4.0:1 to 5.3:1 (waste to ore), including Buffalo Valley. The additional waste tonnes, together with
longer haul distances required to accommodate expanded overburden storage areas, increased the mining fleet requirements.
Stripping
requirements over the life of the North Mackay pit area averaged 7.4:1; the stripping ratio for New Millenium is 6.2:1; and the stripping
requirements for the other two areas, Mackay and Valmy, are planned to be slightly higher, bringing the average up. The Buffalo Valley
strip ratio is 3.9:1, which lowers the overall average. Table 13-6 and Figure 13-3 show the annual
production schedule for the LOM, including ore tonnes mined, waste tonnes mined, and strip ratio.
13-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The pit areas mentioned above comprise
the following pits:
· Mackay
Area: Red Dot phases (RD5/RD4/RD3/RD2/), DG80, M7, and M7 old
· Valmy
Area: Valmy North (VN), Valmy South (VS), Valmy South Extension (VSExt), Mud1 and Mud 2
· Mackay
North Area: 8S Extension (8S Ext) and Terry Zone (TZ) and 5N
· New
Millenium Area: East Basalt (EB1 & EB2 & EB3) and Antler (Ant Ph1 & Ant Ph2)
Buffalo Valley is a satellite pit from
the rest of the Marigold Complex
Table
13-6: Annual
Production Schedule Tonnes Mined
Year
Ore
(kt)
Au
Grade
(g/t)
Waste
(kt)
Total
(kt)
Strip
Ratio
2024
TRS Total
(kt)
2026(1)
11,891
0.406
51,102
62,993
4.3
63,635
2027
20,903
0.512
107,186
128,089
5.1
100,083
2028
20,812
0.486
162,640
183,452
7.8
111,117
2029
22,849
0.646
139,565
162,414
6.1
93,524
2030
14,178
0.593
162,766
176,944
11.5
93,089
2031
20,240
0.397
143,355
163,595
7.1
76,606
2032
27,442
0.320
137,893
165,335
5.0
50,639
2033
24,325
0.442
150,610
174,935
6.2
-
2034
24,047
0.446
118,262
142,308
4.9
-
2035
23,541
0.380
87,126
110,667
3.7
-
2036
25,589
0.394
74,364
99,952
2.9
-
2037
20,301
0.330
73,901
94,203
3.6
-
2038
16,367
0.422
83,655
100,022
5.1
-
2039
18,182
0.381
77,554
95,736
4.3
-
2040
7,064
0.804
13,218
20,283
1.9
-
Total(2)
297,730
0.445
1,583,198
1,880,929
5.3
588,693
Notes:
1.
2026 Totals are for the period between May and December 2026.
2.
Totals may not match due to rounding.
13-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-3: Mine
Annual Production Schedule
Source: SSR 2026
Notes:
1. 2026
totals are for the period between May and December 2026.
13.5 Required
Mining Fleet and Machinery
The
equipment list for the mining fleet is presented in Table 13-7, and includes both the existing fleet
and the additional equipment required to support the LOM plan. Sustaining capital is not planned within the last five years of the LOM
plan because it is assumed that equipment life can be stretched out and replacements are difficult to justify near the end of the Property
life, as demonstrated by the operation’s long history. The sustaining capital replacement costs are included in the reserve optimization
calculation costs. Capital costs are discussed in Section 18.1. As of the date of this TRS, MMC does not employ contract mining services,
except with respect to blasting, as discussed in Section 0.
Table
13-7: Marigold
Mining Complex - Fleet Equipment List
Number
of Items
Equipment
Name and Class
Existing
Fleet
1
P&H
4100 XPC electric shovel
2
Komatsu
PC7000 hydraulic shovels
1
Hitachi
EX5500 hydraulic shovel
1
Caterpillar
992-wheel loader
5
Hitachi
EH5000 300 st haul trucks
26
Komatsu
930E 300 st haul trucks
1
Caterpillar
789B haul truck
13-15
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Number of Items
Equipment
Name and Class
3
Caterpillar
789B water trucks
3
Ingersoll
Rand DML drills
3
Atlas
Copco PV271 drills
4
Caterpillar
834- and 854-wheel dozers
3
Lube / fuel
trucks
1
Caterpillar
637 scraper
1
Caterpillar
789 Lowboy heavy hauler
1
Caterpillar
D8 Track Dozers
5
Caterpillar
D10 Track Dozers
2
Caterpillar
D11 Track Dozer
3
Caterpillar
16H and 16M Motor Graders
1
Caterpillar
18M Motor Graders
Growth
/ Fleet Additions
1
Electric
shovel (P&H 4100 XPC or equivalent)
1
Hydraulic
Shovel (Liebherr 9600 or equivalent)
1
Letourneau
L1850 Front Loader
4
Track
Dozer (Kom 375A-8 or CAT D10T2)
3
Rubber
Tire Dozer (CAT WD854 or equivalent)
3
Surface
Drill (Atlas Copco PV 271 or equivalent)
2
Water
Truck (HD1500 or equivalent)
3
Grader
(Komatsu 955 or CAT 18M or equivalent)
19
300
st Trucks (930E or equivalent)
13.6 Ore
Control Drilling and Method
Blasthole sampling is used to define
ore zones. A grade control sample is taken every 15.2 m of drilling. The sample is manually collected from a cross-section of the cone
of drill cuttings. The procedure includes removal of the sub-drill material. Ore Control personnel periodically audit the performance
of the blast hole samplers and provide feedback on compliance to standard.
Benches are mined at a height of 15.2 m
with an electric or hydraulic shovel in stripping and bulk ore mining areas. If ore is encountered in the stripping areas on the 15.2 m
benches, it is mined at that bench height to maintain pit productivity.
Each blasthole sample is analyzed for
gold at the on-site laboratory facility. A cyanide digestion is performed on each sample to determine the quantity of cyanide soluble
gold contained in the sample. The cyanide digestion only provides a measure of cyanide soluble gold within a sample, not total gold.
At Marigold, about one in every five blasthole samples containing 0.10 g/t (0.003 opt) cyanide soluble gold is assayed for
total gold content using fire assay (FA) with an AA finish. Samples from each ore polygon delineated by ore control are selected for
fire assay based on the grade distribution for the polygon tonnage and targeting one sample per every 2,000 st of ore. The FA results
(Au g/t) from the blastholes in the pit area, and cyanide soluble assay results (Au g/t) are used to determine a fire-assay-to-cyanide-soluble
regression for the pit area. This regression is applied to all remaining cyanide soluble assays in the blast to calculate a total gold
value contained in each blasthole.
13-16
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Fire assay grades associated with each
blasthole are entered into the grade control (blasthole) model. The blast pattern is then converted to a blasthole cell model with cell
sizes of 3.05 m x 3.05 m x 7.6 m. The blasthole data is kriged using ordinary kriging (OK) in two
dimensions on the bench. If there is sufficient volume above the cut-off grade to make a mineable shape of ore, this shape is blocked
out and surveyed in the pit (indicated by ore flags for mining) to be sent to the leach pad for processing.
The ore control practices described
herein represent the current operating methodology at the Marigold Mine. For Buffalo Valley, ore control drilling, sampling, grade control
modeling, and ore delineation procedures will be developed prior to the planned start of mining in 2029 and are expected to be generally
consistent with Marigold's established practices, subject to modification based on the specific geological and operational requirements
of the Buffalo Valley deposit.
13.7 Drilling
and Blasting
Blasthole drilling is performed with
three Atlas Copco PV271 rigs that drill with both rotary and hammer drill bits as well as three Ingersoll Rand DML rigs that drill with
hammer bits. Three additional Atlas Copco PV271 or equivalent drills will be added to the fleet in 2027. The rigs drill 22.2 cm
diameter blastholes. The PV271 rigs can drill to 16.8 m in a single pass. The DML rigs can drill to 10.4 m in a single
pass.
The normal explosive is a heavy ANFO
(blend of ANFO and emulsion), which is placed by a combination of both contractor and Marigold employees. An emulsion product is also
used for wet holes to manage groundwater in the winter and fall and help break up the rock in areas of the pit that are more difficult
to dig.
The blast patterns are adjusted for
rock conditions. Typically, the patterns are 6.7 m x 7.8 m for the 15.2 m benches. To help break the toe of
the bench, 1.5 m of sub drilling is added to each hole. The ore host rock generally breaks easily with blasting, and this provides
a good ROM leach feed to the pad. Electronic detonators are used to control the timing of the blasthole detonation. The typical fragmentation
is P80 20.3 cm.
A trim blast is performed around the
limits of the mining on final highwall configurations. This configuration is a four-row pattern that is shot to a free face to minimize
blast damage and vibration into the highwalls. A new crest and catch bench, ranging in width from 6.7 m to 9.1 m depending on the highwall
angle, are formed every 15.2 vertical meters of mining.
13.8 Loading
Operations
Loading operations are performed with
one electric P&H 4100 XPC rope shovel with a 52.8 m3 dipper, two diesel hydraulic Komatsu PC7000 hydraulic shovels,
and one diesel hydraulic Hitachi EX5500 shovel. Double-sided loading is typically used where there is adequate working room. Digging
faces are defined by ore control and are marked in the field with flags and on maps that are provided to the operators. All loading units
are equipped with a high-precision digging screen that is a component of the Modular Dispatch system. The screen, located in the operator’s
cab, updates in real time to show the location and grade of the ore material being mined. Dig boundaries are typically adjusted to allow
for movement associated with blasting.
13-17
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
To accommodate the increase in reserves,
additional equipment was added to the fleet to address the increase in strip ratio and higher targeted production rates. A LeTourneau
1850 front loader, a Liebherr 9600 class front shovel, and a second P&H 4100 will provide the required additional loading capacity.
In 2029, the two Komatsu PC 7000 shovels will relocate to Buffalo Valley for approximately 5 years.
13.9 Hauling
Operations
Excavated
rock is loaded into haul trucks and sent to either an OBSA or a leach heap, based on the average gold grade of the material. Waste rock
is hauled to the multiple OBSA locations or to previously mined-out areas for backfilling pits. Pit backfilling, where not mandated by
permit to eliminate pit lakes in certain satellite pits, has positive impacts at Marigold: it reduces costs associated with haulage distance
and helps address the lack of areas for waste rock storage space due to permitting restrictions and current land position. Backfilling
plans are reviewed and adjusted to minimize the potential for sterilizing future mineralization. Minimizing the waste haulage distance
to the nearest facility improves mining productivity and minimizes haulage costs. Ore is hauled to the leach pad facility and stacked
in lifts for processing. Select year-end positions for mining and OBSA are presented in Figure 13-4
through Figure 13-11 for the Marigold Mine, and Figure 13-12 through Figure 13-16 for the Buffalo Valley Mine.
MMC has a mixed fleet of Hitachi and
Komatsu 300 st class haulage trucks for ore and waste haulage, which will be shared with Buffalo Valley when mining begins there in 2029.
The Hitachi trucks will gradually be phased out once all added trucks are in production, with retirement planned no later than 2029.
A Modular Dispatch system is used to
optimize fleet management at the Marigold Mine, and a dedicated or expanded dispatch solution may be required for the standalone Buffalo
Valley operation when mining commences there.
Annually, from December to February,
there is snow, fog, and freezing temperatures at the Property. However, there is a minimal amount of haulage downtime due to the weather
in most years.
13-18
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-4: End
of Production Year 2026 – Marigold Mine
13-19
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-5: End
of Production Year 2027 – Marigold Mine
13-20
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-6: End
of Production Year 2028 – Marigold Mine
13-21
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-7: End
of Production Year 2029 – Marigold Mine
13-22
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-8: End
of Production Year 2030 – Marigold Mine
13-23
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-9: End
of Production Year 2031 – Marigold Mine
13-24
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-10: End
of Production Year 2032 – Marigold Mine
Note: Grid in Local Mine Coordinates.
13-25
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-11: End
of Production Year 2040 (LOM) – Marigold Mine
13-26
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-12: End
of Production Year 2029 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-27
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-13: End
of Production Year 2030 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-28
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-14: End
of Production Year 2031 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-29
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-15: End
of Production Year 2032 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-30
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-16: End
of Production Year 2034 – Buffalo Valley Mine
13-31
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.10 Mine
Support
Mine support functions are performed
using different quantities and types of equipment. These include water trucks, dozers, and graders as well as other non-operated ancillary
equipment such as the radar highwall monitoring units. Mine support functions include ripping leach pads after a panel is completed,
monitoring slope stability, maintaining roads and access points, and developing exploration drill pads. This work is completed with a
fleet of Caterpillar D8, D10, and D11 class track dozers and Caterpillar 18, 16H, and 18M motor graders.
Current
mine support fleet numbers are included in Table 13-7
13.11 Mine
Maintenance
Mine maintenance is an integral function
of the mining operations and relates to the day-to-day upkeep of the mining equipment. Activities such as preventive maintenance, equipment
rebuilds and fixing equipment on breakdowns are all included in the mine maintenance function. The objective is to provide efficient
maintenance of the mining fleet, thereby increasing reliability and availability of the equipment through effective strategies, planning,
and continuous improvement. High levels of equipment availability and reliability facilitate operational and delivery performance, resulting
in asset intensity reduction, and reduced direct operational and maintenance costs.
Equipment
maintenance is performed onsite for all mining equipment. The Marigold Complex has all the infrastructure required for maintaining the
fleet described in Table 13-7 and has an adequate maintenance workforce to ensure the equipment
are able to meet the requirements of the operations.
Table 13-8 shows the LOM average key
performance indicators (KPI) of the fleet used at Marigold Mine.
Table
13-8: LOM
Average Maintenance KPI of the MMC Equipment Fleet
Mine
Equipment
Availability
(%)
Use
of Availability
(%)
Drills
81.84%
69.63%
Loading
Equipment
Hitachi
5500
85.4%
88.0%
Komatsu
PC7000
75.4%
87.8%
Electric
Shovel
86.1%
87.3%
LeTourneau
1850
82.8%
87.2%
Liebherr
9600 class
88.2%
87.8%
Electric
Shovel #2
86.4%
87.8%
Hauling
Equipment
EH5000
ACII (5 Trucks)
55.1%
83.9%
930E-4
(14 Trucks)
82.5%
83.8%
930E-5
(12 Trucks)
82.5%
83.8%
930E-5
New (19 Trucks)
86.8%
83.8%
13-32
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Mine Equipment
Availability
(%)
Use
of Availability
(%)
CAT
789
69.1%
25.03%
Support
Equipment
Dozers
83.8%
81.4%
Graders
74.0%
65.5%
RTD
82.4%
74.5%
Water
Truck
86.1%
66.8%
Loader
(992)
79.5%
66.8%
Scraper
73.3%
3.3%
The current fleet is to be maintained
with replacement units (930E Haul Trucks and Drills being the major equipment to be replaced) as the current equipment reaches its maximum
operating hours. In general, the major mining equipment requirement scales down with production, towards the end of the LOM plan.
13.12 Mine
General and Administration
Mine G&A refers to all day-to-day
supervision and engineering support of mining operation activity. Expenses included in the mine G&A are mine salary labor charges
and fringe benefits, mine office supplies, safety supplies, equipment rentals and leases, light-vehicle tires, miscellaneous contract
services, travel expenses, training, and tax and freight charges.
13.13 Mine
Safety
MMC has one mine rescue and emergency
response team, which is trained to competently assess accident conditions and fight fires. There is one ambulance and one small fire
truck available onsite and a rescue trailer that is used in emergencies. The Property is set up with hydrants and appropriate connectors,
hoses, and wrenches at strategic locations. For mobile equipment fires, the Property is set up with large water trucks equipped with
water cannons.
MMC also has access to and can call
either the Valmy Fire Department (5 km away) or Battle Mountain Fire Department (24 km away), when required. There is a monthly
training session for the MMC rescue team to ensure effective participation in any recovery operations in the event of a mine incident.
13.14 Mine
Dewatering
13.14.1 Marigold
The Marigold Mine Plan of Operations
(PoO) – Mackay Optimization Project Amendment Record of Decision (RoD) in October 2019 allowed mining to be carried out below the
water table in the expanded Mackay pit. The approved dewatering system incorporated a pit dewatering design by Piteau Associates, consisting
of a series of dewatering wells located around the periphery of the ultimate pit to extract water for mine operations and infiltration.
Infiltration is by means of a series of rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) located in an area of deep alluvium cover approximately five
kilometers north of the operations area. The dewatering system and RIBs are authorized under Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) NEV2022118.
A total of 14 RIBs have been authorized, and eight have been constructed. The eight RIBs have been operating reliably with no reported
issues and require only minimal operational maintenance. Additional RIBs may be constructed based on dewatering needs.
13-33
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The dewatering was developed in stages
with the initial design incorporating 14 dewatering wells and currently planned to only run 10 wells, each with a nominal sustainable
pumping rate of 113.5 m3/h. The Marigold dewatering system is currently operating with 10 optimized wells around the
Red Dot and Terry Zone, producing a combined rate of 1,000 m³/h, or an average of 100 m³/h per pump. The 2025 groundwater
model calibration aligns closely with observed water levels and indicates that the existing system will remain effective. With WW-11
and WW-19 completed in 2025, additional well development has been deferred until 2027, when two additional dewatering wells are proposed,
but not yet permitted. There is potential for three further dewatering wells to be added in later years to support the LOM as planned
pit expansions will interfere with the existing well network and the pit floor elevations go deeper than originally planned when designing
the dewatering network. These three additional dewatering wells have also not yet been permitted.
Figure 13-17 shows existing well sites
at Marigold Mine. New wells are developed in advance of the mining elevations required to support the LOM plan.
Some dewatering water is diverted for
mine use with the majority delivered by pipeline to the RIB field north of the mine for infiltration. The RIBs are located in areas of
thick alluvium which facilitates rapid infiltration back into the aquifer and also provides the benefit of attenuation of naturally occurring
arsenic in the groundwater before it reaches the existing water table. An attenuation study was conducted and approved showing that water
treatment will not be necessary prior to infiltration (Piteau 2020a, 2020b).
Rapid
Infiltration Basins (RIBs) were initially permitted and constructed in 2022 to verify infiltration performance and support final design
of the dewatering discharge system. Subsequent operating experience has confirmed RIB performance and informed design refinements for
additional basin construction. As of 2025, eight operable RIB cells are available for managing excess mine dewatering water, with operating
records demonstrating sustained infiltration performance, adequate freeboard, and effective capacity to manage site dewatering discharges.
Updated design criteria are summarized in Table 13-9, and the current RIB layout is shown on Figure
13-18.
13-34
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
13-17: Marigold
Dewatering Well Locations
Source: SSR 2026.
13-35
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
13-9: RIB
Design Criteria – Marigold Mine
RIB
Cell Design Attribute
Unit
Dimensions
Basin
floor length
m
210
Basin
floor width
m
59
Basin
crest length
m
247
Basin
crest width
m
106
Minimum
basin depth
m
6.1
Excavation/dump
slope
H:V
3:1
Minimum
spacing between cells
m
122
Access
road width
m
7.3
Infiltration
capacity
m/day
0.43
Infiltration
capacity per cell
m3/min
3.8
Cell
availability
%
50
Figure
13-18: Marigold
RIB Locations and Monitoring System
Source: SSR 2026.
13-36
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
13.14.2 Buffalo
Valley
WSP’s ‘Preliminary Dewatering
Plan Technical Memorandum’ (WSP 2026b) outlines a pit dewatering strategy for the Buffalo Valley Mine Project based on hydrogeologic
assessment, groundwater modeling, and a risk-based management approach. The plan recommends five deep dewatering wells located outside
the pit crest to maintain groundwater control and dry mining conditions throughout the approximately seven-year mine life, with pumping
commencing at a combined rate of 1,250 gpm and decreasing over time as drawdown is achieved. Performance will be evaluated through a
monitoring network of nine piezometers, with quarterly reporting and adaptive management measures, including supplemental wells and accelerated
dewatering if required. Surplus water not required for operations will be directed to three RIB cells, each capable of receiving the
full dewatering discharge of up to 1,250 gpm. Expected discharge to the RIBs may reach approximately 700 gpm and average about 200 gpm,
while modeling based on an 800 gpm infiltration rate predicted a groundwater mound of approximately 0.6m (2 ft) beneath the facility.
The RIBs provide a mechanism for returning excess water to the aquifer, supporting groundwater sustainability and reducing the need for
additional groundwater extraction. Together with the 110-million-gallon Operations Pond, which provides more than 100 days of water supply
at peak operational demand, these facilities form a flexible and resilient water management system capable of supporting both dewatering
and operational water requirements throughout the Buffalo Valley LOM.
13.15 Mine
Workforce
The current mining workforce totals
540, and is summarized as follows:
· Mine
Operations – 279
· Mine
Maintenance – 119
· Process
& Laboratory – 61
· Technical
Services – 30
· General
& Administration – 51
To support the Buffalo Valley expansion,
total workforce requirements are projected to peak at 686 persons, representing an increase of 146 personnel as detailed further in Section
18.
13.16 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP has reviewed the mining methods,
fleet selection, equipment performance parameters, infrastructure requirements, mine workforce, and dewatering strategies presented in
this section for both the Marigold Mine and the Buffalo Valley deposit.
It is the QP’s opinion that:
· The
mining methods, pit designs, and operational plans are appropriate for the deposit characteristics
and align with current industry standards and successful operating practices at the Marigold
Complex.
· The
equipment fleet sizing, productivity estimates, and maintenance key performance indicators
(KPIs) are reasonable, well-supported by historical operating data, and capable of meeting
the production schedules defined in the LOM plan.
· The
dewatering strategies and water management infrastructure—including well networks,
rapid infiltration basins (RIBs), and storage facilities—are adequately engineered
to maintain dry operating conditions, though future permits will need to be secured as scheduled
to support advanced LOM pit expansions.
13-37
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Overall,
the data, parameters, and methodologies utilized to develop the mining methods chapter including
the integration of the Buffalo Valley deposit, provide a sound operational and technical
basis for supporting the Mineral Reserves estimate in accordance with S-K 1300 guidelines.
13-38
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
14.0 Processing
and Recovery Methods
14.1 Marigold
The Marigold processing facilities combine
industry-standard ROM cyanide heap leaching and recovery of gold from the leach solution using carbon adsorption, desorption, electrowinning,
and refining to produce a final precious metal (doré) product.
A
simplified process flow diagram of the Marigold heap leaching facilities is provided in Figure 14-1.
Figure
14-1: Simplified
Marigold Processing Flowsheet
Source: SSR 2023.Heap Leach Pad Description
14-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The heap leach pad was originally constructed
in 1990 and has since expanded as required, with ongoing expansion of solution processing facilities to match production rate and leach
area. The leach pad area is divided into cells of specific sizes for inventory and irrigation control. Approximately 427 ha of heap leach
pad (divided into 27 cells), six pregnant solution holding ponds, one storm water event pond, and two barren solution ponds have been
constructed at Marigold. There are 17 cells currently active. Permitted stacking heights for heap leach Cells 1 to 10 are 106 m, and
for Cells 11 to 27 are 122 m high.
The existing and authorized heap leach
cells and ancillary facilities include Cells 1 through 27.
Associated process ponds, stormwater
ponds, conveyance ditches, carbon column trains, storage tanks, and plant facilities.
14.1.1 Process
Descriptions
14.1.1.1 Ore
Stacking on Leach Pad
ROM ore is delivered from the mine at
a rate of approximately 20 Mtpa to the leach pad by mine haul trucks and stacked in lifts of approximately 6 m to 12 m. Dry
quicklime (CaO) at approximately 1.2 kg/t ore is added for pH control to the ore in loaded haul trucks from lime storage silos and delivery
chutes located on the side of the haul road prior to dumping on the heap leach. Mixing is accomplished by end dumping and spreading of
the material with a dozer. The fresh ore is ripped and cross-ripped to a depth of at least 1.3 m using a dozer with a long shank to break
up compacted pad surface material to enhance percolation prior to placement of leach solution distribution piping.
14.1.1.2 Leaching
The available leach pad area is divided
into cells with separate drainages for inventory and irrigation control. The heap leach operating parameters include quantity and lift
height of ore placed, barren solution (a very low gold grade cyanide leach solution) irrigation rate per unit area, duration of irrigation
(leach cycle), and time between lifts to manage future ore placement. Barren solution is applied selectively to each cell. At any given
time, approximately 65 ha of pad area is being leached, with other areas draining or being made ready to accept ore for the next lift.
Barren leach solution is pumped to the
leach pad by two independent barren solution distribution systems. Combined barren solution flow capacity from the two pumping systems
is 3,400 m3/h; upgrades are underway to increase the pumping capacity to 4,540 m3/h. A series of header and sub-header
pipelines supplying irrigation drip tubing are used to distribute the barren solution from the main barren solution pipelines to each
cell. Solution is applied to the ore at a rate of 4.6 L/h/m2 to 8.6 L/h/m2 using drip emitters. Impact sprinklers,
wobblers, or drip emitters are used to irrigate the side slopes of the heap.
The barren solution percolates through
the ore, collecting precious metals, and exits the heap material at one of several collection areas as pregnant solution. Upon exiting
the heap, the pregnant solution is routed to the pregnant solution ponds.
Leaching is conducted concurrently with
ore stacking to allow progressive lifts to be constructed and operated in a similar manner. The ratio of ore stacked to ore being leached
is maintained to provide the amount of solution applied and retention time required for the leach cycle. The pH and cyanide concentrations
are adjusted to 10.5 and 300 g (NaCN)/t solution, respectively. in either the barren solution pond or by injection into the barren solution
line at the toe of the heap.
14-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
14.1.1.3 Description
of Ponds
Solution management consists of six
authorized pregnant solution ponds (Pregnant Ponds No. 1 to 6) and one storm water event pond, which are interconnected with synthetic-lined
channels. Pregnant Pond No. 1 is only used during significant events. There are also two barren solution ponds (Barren Pond No. 1 and
2), which are interconnected with a synthetic-lined channel. The process solution ponds have been designed to hold the working volume
of solution while maintaining a two-foot freeboard after a 100-year storm event and 24-hour power outage. Construction is currently underway
to expand pond 6 into a new pond 7 to allow for additional storage of process water at the higher barren pumping rates.
Ancillary facilities include solution
pumps and piping, two separate sodium cyanide addition facilities, two sodium hydroxide addition systems (barren solution pH adjustment),
and four locations for antiscalant addition.
14.1.1.4 Carbon
Adsorption
Pregnant
solution from the leach pad is collected in the pregnant solution ponds and pumped to the CIC adsorption plant
located on the north side of Barren Pond No. 1 to recover the gold. The CIC adsorption plant consists of seven parallel trains of carbon
columns, each with five columns. In 2026, four new trains are being added to process the higher pregnant solution return rates expected
by the barren pumping upgrades. Each train is designed to process 450 m3/h of pregnant solution. Column discharge solution
reports to the barren ponds, where fresh and reclaim water is added to maintain the appropriate water balance, before the solution is
recycled back to the leach pad. The plant also contains carbon storage tanks, a liquid cyanide storage tank, and a liquid caustic soda
storage tank.
14.1.1.5 Carbon
Elution and Electrowinning
Loaded carbon from carbon adsorption
is transported by a dedicated truck to the carbon processing facility where gold is eluted (re-dissolved) from the carbon in two 2.7
t capacity carbon elution vessels. Gold is eluted from the carbon using the Pressure Zadra process, where a hot caustic solution at approximately
140°C and with a pH of 13 or greater is circulated through the elution column, from bottom to top, under pressure. The resulting
gold-rich eluate flows from the top of the column to a rich electrolyte tank, from which it is pumped through two parallel 2.8 m3
electrowinning cells to recover the gold. The barren eluant discharging the electrowinning cells is recirculated through heat exchangers
to the bottom of the elution vessel to strip more gold. The process continues until most of the gold is recovered from the carbon.
14.1.1.6 Carbon
Regeneration
The
eluted carbon is acid washed in an acid wash column with hydrochloric acid to remove carbonate scale and inorganics. The acidified carbon
is then neutralized with water in the same column. The carbon is discharged from the column and transferred to the reactivation kiln.
The carbon is reactivated, as required, by heating in a rotary kiln at 750°C. The reactivated
carbon is quenched and screened before being returned to the carbon adsorption circuit to be reloaded with gold.
14.1.1.7 Refining
The
plated material (sludge) resulting from electrowinning is collected in a filter press and then retorted for drying and mercury removal.
After retorting, the sludge is mixed with flux and smelted in a propane fired furnace for final precious metal doré
recovery.
14-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
14.1.1.8 Ventilation
Ventilation from the strip circuit pregnant
and barren solution tanks, electrowinning cells, retort, and smelting furnace is directed to a deep bed scrubber (sulfur-impregnated
activated carbon) where any vaporized mercury is recovered prior to exhaust.
The kiln discharge is vented to a wet
scrubber that uses water mist to condense mercury and recover it as elemental mercury. After demisting, the air is also passed through
sulfur-impregnated carbon to recover any remaining vaporized mercury prior to exhaust.
14.1.2 Planned
Upgrade Projects
Several ongoing improvement projects
are listed:
· With
the increasing height of the heap leach pads and distance from the primary pump locations,
barren booster pumps are planned to be installed to maintain solution flow rates at 3,180
m3/hr. Upgrades are currently underway to increase near-term pumping capacity
to 4,540 m3/hr while maintaining the ability to route appropriate volumes of barren
solution to higher areas of the pad in the future.
· Installation
of mobile telemetry and instrumentation, as well as telemetry on primary pregnant and barren
flowmeters, is planned to be able to remotely monitor individual area barren application
rates.
· Modification
of CIC bubble plates to assist with equalizing solution distribution across the column and
increasing flow rate of solution through the CICs while maintaining the carbon inventory
in the columns and adsorption efficiencies.
14.1.3 Reagents
Reagent
consumption rates are within industry norms for the types of ores processed. Average annual unit consumption rates of the reagents for
the period 2010 to April 2026 are shown in Figure 14-2. The increase in lime and antiscalant consumption
during 2025 and 2026 represents increasing ore production and higher sulfide content in the ore.
14-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
14-2: Average
Annual Reagent Consumption
Source: SSR 2026
14.1.4 Gold
Recovery
From
March 1990 through April 2026, gold recovery from the heap leach pad is 72.7%. This recovery was achieved with 90- to 120-day primary
leach cycles and an overall mass-of-solution to mass-of-ore ratio of 1.29:1. The Marigold project-to-date heap leach gold recovery trend
from March 1990 through April 2026 from the Marigold heap leach is shown in Figure 14-3.
Figure
14-3: Marigold
Heap Leach Pad Gold Recovery (March 1990 through April 2026)
Source: SSR 2026
14-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
14.2 Buffalo
Valley
The
design of the Buffalo Valley processing facilities follows the same philosophy as is utilized at Marigold.
A multi-cell heap leach pad, designed to accommodate the expected mining rate up to 14 Mtpa, will be truck-stacked either with ROM or
crushed ore in 7.5 m to 12.5 m lifts. Cyanide solution will be applied to the surface at a nominal rate of 8 L/h/m2,
and approximately 300 g NaCN/t of solution will percolate through the ore, dissolving precious metals, before being collected in a drain
network at the plastic liner.
Pregnant
solution will flow by gravity directly into a pregnant solution tank, then be pumped to three CIC carbon column trains for adsorption.
It was determined that 3 x 9,997 m3/h trains, with 5 x 9,997 m3/h columns per train, provide the best balance of maintenance and production
flexibility. Construction of the third train can be delayed until year 3 to support production in year 4 of the LOM, or it can be omitted
if production at the end of the LOM is slowed. A process flow diagram and a layout of the CIC circuit are shown in Figure
14-4 and Figure 14-5, respectively.
Loaded carbon from the carbon adsorption
circuit will be transferred to a loaded carbon storage tank, which will then be pumped into a carbon transfer truck and transported to
the Marigold elution facility for acid washing, elution, and reactivation.
Barren carbon will be loaded into the
carbon transfer truck and returned to the Buffalo Valley process plant. Barren carbon will be pumped from the carbon transfer truck
into a barren carbon storage tank before being returned to the adsorption circuit.
Barren process solution will be pumped
to the irrigation system from a barren solution concrete vault using vertical turbine pumps. After percolating through the ore, the gold-bearing
pregnant leach solution will drain by gravity to a pregnant solution tank, where it will be collected and pumped to the carbon adsorption
circuit for metal recovery.
Process solution ponds, including a
Process and Stormwater Pond, have been designed to allow for variable solution flow and to collect contact solution from storm events
or upset conditions. Solution collected will be used as make up solution to the process. Solution from the ponds can either be pumped
back to the Barren vault or directly back to the heap leach.
14-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 14-4: Buffalo Valley Process Flowsheet
14-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 14-5: Plan View of the Buffalo Valley
Process Facility
14-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
14.3 QP
Opinion
The Marigold Mine is a conventional
ROM heap leach operation that has been operating since 1990. The ore has been very consistent during this period. SSR operators track
solution grades, metal recoveries, and reagent consumption daily, and future recoveries are projected from operating data, cyanide-soluble
gold analyses, and supplemental column leach testing. Upgrades to the barren solution pumping system and carbon columns are being installed
to support a planned increase in mine production and ore placement. The QP has reviewed the LOM mining schedule and solution application
rates, and both are within the designed ranges.
The adjacent Buffalo Valley heap-leach
project was also reviewed by the QP. The Buffalo Valley process facilities will be designed and operated similarly to Marigold, leveraging
Marigold personnel and experience. SSR has developed a feasibility study for the Buffalo Valley Project (SSR 2026b). Key design considerations
are included in the TRS.
14-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.0 Infrastructure
15.1 Marigold
Infrastructure
15.1.1 Site
Access, Power, and Water
15.1.1.1 Site
Access
Marigold is accessible via Interstate
Highway 80 in northern Nevada and is approximately five kilometers south–southwest of Valmy in Humboldt County. The site access
road supports two lanes of traffic and consists of hard-packed clay and gravel.
15.1.1.2 Power
The
power supply for Marigold is provided by NV Energy Inc. via a 120 kV transmission line to site. Site power draw is 5 MW. After
exiting the main substation, power is distributed through a 25 kV distribution grid. The location of the main electrical substation
is shown in Figure 15-1.
15.1.1.3 Operations
Water Supply
Water
for Marigold is supplied by three groundwater production wells located near the site access road and ten dewatering wells located around
the perimeter of the mining operations. Flows from the dewatering wells are used to supplement the production wells when needed, and
the remainder of the flows are routed to the RIBs. Well locations are shown in Figure 15-2 for the
production wells and in Figure 13-17 for the dewatering wells.
Additional
details on the existing and planned mine dewatering infrastructure is provided in Section 13.14.
Water is used across the operation for
process makeup, dust suppression, and other operational needs such as drilling and equipment washing. MMC holds groundwater rights authorizing
annual consumptive use of up to 3.14 million m³ under the Marigold Plan of Operations. These water rights are limited
to points of use located within the Clovers Hydrographic Basin. Historical total water use by the site (2021 to 2025) has averaged 1.52 million m³
per year, corresponding to an average water intensity of 0.07 m³ per tonne stacked on the heap leach facility. Under the TRS
mine plan, the peak annual water consumption is projected to reach approximately 2.55 million m³ in 2030.
Discussion
of the extraction and infiltration of pit water is included in Section 13.14.
15-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.1.2 Buildings
and Facilities
15.1.2.1 Buildings
and Facilities in Main Plant and Offices Area
The
buildings and facilities described below are located in the main plant and offices area, as shown in Figure
15-1:
· Truck
shop and mobile maintenance warehouse: The Marigold truck shop complex is located near the
mine entrance. It is a four-bay shop sized for 300 st class haul trucks. The shop contains
a tool crib, oil and lubricant bulk storage, ten offices, locker rooms, training room, and
warehouse. A covered warehouse storage yard is located adjacent to the admin building complex.
· Mill
building: The mill building consists of facilities supporting the metal recovery operations,
including the refinery and metallurgical laboratory. Adjacent to the mill building is the
thickener water storage tank and remaining CIL tanks from the 1989 flowsheet. Liquid cyanide
is delivered by truck to a storage tank adjacent to the ADR plant.
· Crushing
plant: The crushing plant is used to produce stemming for blastholes, road material, and
over liner for heap leach pad. The crusher is a remnant from the 1989 flowsheet.
· Heap
leach carbon columns: The heap leach carbon columns are an integral part of the gold recovery
process, which is detailed in Section 14.
· Wash
bay: The wash bay is located next to the truck shop and consists of one covered bay. The
wash bay building also contains a settling pond for water recycling.
· Administration
building and light vehicle (old) shop: The main administration building encompasses most
site-support departments and includes a small warehouse facility, core shed, the shovel and
drill shop (former truck shop), light-vehicle maintenance bay and the assay laboratory. The
assay laboratory supports ongoing mine operations, including grade control and gold solution
analysis. Adjacent to this building are trailers that provide additional office space.
· Motor
control center (MCC): The MCC houses controls for the pumps and boosters for the barren and
pregnant solution ponds.
· Lime
storage silos: Located on the side of the haul road prior to dumping on the heap leach.
15.1.2.2 Additional
Buildings and Facilities on Site
Additional buildings and facilities
on site include:
· Site
access building
· Potable
water treatment building
· Process
line-out building
· Radio
shop
· Safety
building
· Hose
shop and storage
· Tire
pad
· Fuel
stations
15-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.1.2.3 Additional
Facilities on Section 20
Additional
facilities are located on Section 20, which is identified in Figure 15-3 as the Mine Ops area. These
facilities include:
· Welding
and fabrication shop
· Dispatch/MineCare
office and mine operations line-out building
· GPS
dispatch receiver
· Diesel
tanks and fueling station
15.1.3 Explosives
Magazine
The explosives magazine is located a
safe distance from the plant and the office area.
15.1.4 Tailings
Storage Facility and Water Diversion
The Tailings Storage Facility (TSF)
was decommissioned and reclaimed. The only remaining activity concerning the TSF is ongoing monitoring.
The Trout Creek water diversion structure
and flood control dam is located west of the former Basalt Pit. It is designed for a 100-year storm event.
15.1.5 Leach
Pads and Solution Ponds
The
leach pad is discussed in detail in Sections 14, and its location is shown in Figure 15-3.
Details
on the barren and pregnant solution ponds can be found in Section 14.0.
15.1.6 Overburden
Storage Areas
Details
on completed, in progress, and future overburden storage area (OBSA) are included in Section 13.0.
The general location of planned and current OBSA is shown in Figure 15-3.
15-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 15-1: Infrastructure Site Map
15-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 15-2: Freshwater Well Sites
15-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
15-3: LOM Site Schematic Showing Final
Pit Limits, OBSA, and Leach Pad
15-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.2 Buffalo
Valley Infrastructure
15.2.1 Site
Layout
The
initial site layout for Buffalo Valley was developed from the Newmont Plan of Operations, acquired as part of the property purchase,
and was refined throughout the study phases of the Project. The Plan of Operations site layout is shown in Figure
15-4. SSR determined that it is more economical to perform truck maintenance and parts warehousing at Marigold, with haul trucks returning
to Marigold for periodic maintenance. The Mine Ops ponds are sized to meet the facility's process make-up water requirements. Haul roads
and light vehicle access roads throughout the site have been included in the design.
15-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 15-4: Buffalo Valley Site Layout
15-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.2.2 Plan
Boundary
The
proposed Buffalo Valley property boundary was finalized during the Feasibility Study (SSR 2026b) and is shown in Figure
15-5.
15-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
15-5: Buffalo Valley Plan Boundary
15-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.2.3 Marigold
to Buffalo Valley Connector Road
The
Marigold to Buffalo Valley connector road was fully engineered by WSP during the Feasibility Study (SSR 2026b). The road route and design
are shown in Figure 15-6.
15-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure
15-6: Routing of Marigold to Buffalo Valley Connector Road
15-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.2.4 Maintenance
Facilities
SSR conducted trade-off studies to evaluate
site warehouse and haul truck maintenance shop locations and the cost difference between using the current shop at Marigold and constructing
a new shop at BV. Given Buffalo Valley's short mine life, SSR decided to use the Marigold truck shop rather than build a new one at Buffalo
Valley. No other maintenance facilities are planned at Buffalo Valley.
15.2.5 Fuel
A fuel depot will be installed on the
access road south of the operations mobile offices, first-aid and medical offices, and the vehicle staging and laydown area, as shown
on the Buffalo Valley Site Layout.
15.2.6 Water
Supply
Water
is supplied to Buffalo Valley from pit dewatering infrastructure, including five deep wells and three RIBs. Dewatering well locations
are shown in Figure 15-4.
15.2.7 Power
Buffalo Valley will need to construct
approximately 14.5 km of 24.9 kV power line from the existing North Peak substation to service the Buffalo Valley site. Line power will
be stepped down to 4,160 V, 480 V, and 110 V as required with power primarily distributed at 4,160 V or 480 V to motor control centers
serving the respective process areas.
Power usage for the process and process-related
infrastructure was determined from the mechanical equipment load list. Equipment power demands under normal operation were estimated
using operating availability and load estimates to determine average energy usage and cost.
15.2.7.1 North
Peak Substation Connection
Currently, the North Peak substation
is fed from the existing Marigold Mine substation, supplied by NV Energy. The feeder to the North Peak substation is connected to an
existing 15/20/25 MVA power substation transformer. The current 24.9 kV power line can be extended from the transition point at
North Peak to supply power to Buffalo Valley. Buffalo Valley is approximately 9.6 km (6 mi) southwest of North Peak.
The power line feeding the North Peak
substation from the Marigold substation may need to be upgraded in the future, depending on the need for additional crushing and whether
the pit dewatering pumps are included in the design. The cost of this upgrade was included in the project economics for all scenarios
that included the crusher and/or pit dewatering.
Three site-area transformers will be
required at different locations throughout Buffalo Valley. The anticipated transformer-connected loads are 6.53 MW, and the calculated
demand loads are 4.61 MW (including the crushing circuit and pit dewatering pumps). The new overhead power line from North Peak to Buffalo
Valley will be routed along the new Marigold-Buffalo Valley connector road.
15.2.8 Explosives
Magazine
The explosives magazine is located a
safe distance to the east of the plant and the office area and to the north of the open pit.
15-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
15.3 QP
Opinion
The infrastructure supporting the Marigold
Mine is well established, well maintained, and has been operating for many years. Infrastructure for the new Buffalo Valley Mine has
been developed by leveraging the existing Marigold infrastructure, including the power supply, which is connected to Marigold through
the North Peak substation, and maintenance facilities, reducing the number of facilities required at Buffalo Valley. The SLR QP agrees
that this is a practical approach, especially during the early stages of mine operation and the relatively short mine life. Infrastructure
elements, such as specific maintenance facilities, can be added as required as the mine develops.
15-14
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
16.0 Market
Studies
The Marigold Complex produces gold and
silver contained in doré. Marigold is an active producer and has been for over three decades.
16.1 Marketing
and Metal Prices
Gold
is the principal commodity at the Marigold Complex and is freely traded at prices that are widely known, so that prospects for sale of
any production are virtually assured. Metal prices for the economic analysis were based on the latest available consensus industry metal
price forecast and compared to those used in other published studies. The metal prices selected are shown below in Table
16-1.
Table
16-1: Economic Analysis Metal Price
Assumptions
Metal
Price
Units
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Long-Term
Gold
$/oz
4,637
4,794
4,616
4,355
3,991
3,710
Doré poured on-site is stored
in a vault until it is securely transported by road freight to a refinery where it is refined into gold bullion. The bullion is sold
by SSR to banks that specialize in the purchase and sale of gold bullion.
No external consultants or market studies
were directly relied on to assist with the sales terms and commodity price projections used in this TRS.
16.2 Contracts
There are a number of acceptable refineries
with the capacity to refine doré. Currently, SSR has entered into a non-exclusive refining agreement with Asahi Refining USA,
Inc., and the terms and conditions of this contract, which include transportation and refining costs, are within industry norms.
16-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
17.0 Environmental
Studies, Permitting, and Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups
17.1 Summary
Specific federal, state, and local (Humboldt
County and Lander County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements apply to MMC. MMC currently holds active, valid permits for
all facets of the mining operation at Marigold and is in the process of obtaining permits for mining operations at Buffalo Valley. There
is currently an exploration permit for Buffalo Valley. MMC is currently in compliance with all permits at both sites. At present, there
are no known environmental or social issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral Resources at the Property.
All activities associated with MMC require
an approved reclamation plan that includes a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. The RCE for
Marigold was updated and approved by federal and state agencies in 2026. Permitted activities at Buffalo Valley are limited to exploration,
and the RCE was updated and approved in 2025. The permitting process for Buffalo Valley, based on of the recent Feasibility Study and
growth plan, has begun with the development of a Plan of Operations (PoO), accompanied by environmental baseline studies and an RCE being
submitted to BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection–Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR) in May
2026.
MMC maintains ongoing engagement with
local communities, stakeholders, and regulatory agencies. Based on information available at the Effective Report Date, there are no outstanding
negotiations or social commitments expected to materially affect current operations or future development of the Project.
17.2 Marigold
17.2.1 Environmental
Studies
Significant portions of Marigold Mine
exist on public lands administered by the BLM. As a result, the majority of environmental studies related to mining activities were conducted
under the BLM authority as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, which require various degrees of environmental
impact analyses dictated by the scope of the proposed action. The Marigold Mine has undergone several significant NEPA actions in the
normal course of operational planning; the most recent was the PoO – Valmy Development Project (the PoO Amendment), approved in
2023, to permit the future mining in the Valmy and New Millenium pits.
The
environmental baseline studies to support the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the PoO Amendment were initiated in 2021. A list
of the baseline studies and reports is shown in Table 17-1. Previous baseline studies to support
the permitting of Marigold Mine in 2015 included, but was not limited to, socioeconomics, air quality, cultural and archaeological resources,
hydrogeology, hydrology, geochemistry, and wildlife.
17-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 17-1: Marigold Mine Baseline Studies
Supporting the EA
Study
Media
Documents/Reports
Included Baseline Studies and Data Compiled for Marigold Mine Valmy Development EA
Hydrology/Water
Quality/Geochemistry
Hydrogeologic
Assessment, Geochemical Testing Workplan
Air
Quality
Air
Quality Assessment
Flora/Fauna
Golden
Eagles Surveys, Sage Grouse Surveys
Socio-Economic
Social
Baseline Assessment
Cultural
Resources
Cultural
Resource Survey
Following the approval of the PoO, MMC
obtained approval for modifications to State permits to incorporate the Valmy Development Project in 2024. The Environmental Assessment
conducted by BLM resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2024 as well.
17.2.2 Project
Permitting
Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements apply to Marigold Mine. The primary permits
for Marigold Mine operations include the PoO permitted via the BLM; the Water Pollution Control Permits (WPCP) issued by NDEP-BMRR; and
the reclamation permit issued by the NDEP-BMRR. MMC currently holds active, valid permits for all facets of the mining operation, including,
but not limited to, those permits listed in Table 17-2.
Table 17-2: Marigold Mine Environmental Permits
for Operation
Agency
Permit
Name
Permit
Number
Status
Bureau
of Land Management (BLM)
Plan
of Operations
NVN065034
Active
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection –Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
(NDEP-BMRR)
Water
Pollution Control Permit (including Petroleum Contaminated Soils Permit)
NEV0088040
NEV2022118
Active
NDEP-BMRR
Reclamation
Permit
#0108
Active
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection –Bureau of Water Pollution Control (NDEP-BWPC)
Stormwater
General Discharge Permit
NVR300000
Active
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection –Bureau of Air Pollution Control
(NDEP-BAPC)
Title
V Air Quality Operating Permit
AP1041-2967.01
Active
NDEP-BAPC
Class
II Air Quality Operating Permit
AP1041-3666
Active
NDEP-BAPC
Mercury
Operating Permit to Construct: Phase II air)
AP1041-2254
Active
17-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Agency
Permit
Name
Permit
Number
Status
Nevada
Department of Wildlife (NDOW)
Industrial
Artificial Pond Permit
41564
Active
United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA/RCRA
ID
NVD986766954
Active
United
States Army Corps of Engineers
Not
Required
No
jurisdictional waters delineated (June 2025)
NA
United
States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Explosives
Permit
9-NV-013-20-9F-00359
Active
United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Long-term
Eagle Incidental Take Permit
MBPER10876492
Active
Federal
Communications Commission Permit
Radio
Communications Equipment Authorization
WNPA726
Active
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection –Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management
(NDEP-BSMM)
Class
III Landfill Waiver
SW1764
Active
SW1824
Active
SW1912
Active
Nevada
State Fire Marshal
Hazardous
Materials Permit (State of Nevada)
125911
Active
Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection –Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
(NDEP-BSDW)
Potable
Water Permit
HU-1103-NTNC
Active
NDEP-BWPC
Septic
Permit
GNEVOSDS09-0016
Active
GNEVOSDS09-0252
Active
United
States Department of Transportation
Hazardous
Materials Storage and Transportation Registration
061521550469DF
Active
Nevada
Board of Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas
Liquefied
Petroleum Gas – Class 5 License
5-3482-01
Active
Nevada
Division of Water Resources (NDWR)
Trout
Creek Dam Permit
J-666
Active
NDWR
Water
Rights
83256
(Certificate 583)
Active
2324
(Certificate 584)
Active
86582
Active
86583
Active
86584
Active
86585
Active
87235-87242
Active
76425S01
Active
76425S02
Active
76425S03
Active
88986
Active
90787
Active
91141
– Central Permit
Active
90788
Active
Humbolt
County Board of Commissioners
County
Conditional Use Permit
UH-15-07
Active
17-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
17.2.3 Environmental
Impacts
MMC
is currently in compliance with all permits presented in Table 17-2. At present, there are no known
environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral Resources at the Property. Specifically, no threatened or endangered
species are known to exist at the site; there are no year-round watercourses on the Property; groundwater impacts due to mining have
are being managed and all environmental regulations and permit conditions are continuously being met. Cultural resource surveys have
been conducted across the Property, and an approved program of avoidance, distance buffer and mitigation measures are in place as part
of the existing PoO.
Overburden is managed in several designated
surface storage areas within the Property boundary, which are concurrently reclaimed to 3:1 slopes, when the sequence of mining operations
allows, and then covered with growth medium and re-vegetated with native seed mixes. When possible, pits are backfilled with overburden.
The majority of overburden encountered at the Marigold Mine is oxide in nature and exhibits sufficient net neutralizing capacity to be
classified as non-acid generating, as confirmed through ongoing quarterly geochemical characterization and monitoring. There are no overburden
areas with observed erosional or stability concerns.
The Marigold Tailings Storage Facility
operated from 1989 to 1999 and has since been fully reclaimed and revegetated. The facility is no longer regulated as a dam by the Nevada
State Engineer, and reclamation bonding has been substantially released following successful closure activities. A final vegetation bond
release request has been submitted (MMC, 2025), with full bond release anticipated upon regulatory approval. In 2026, Marigold was awarded
the Nevada Division of Minerals’ Excellence in Mine Reclamation Award for the successful reclamation of the Tailings Storage Facility.
17.2.4 Environmental
Monitoring and Reporting
Environmental
monitoring and reporting programs are conducted in accordance with applicable permits and regulatory requirements, as summarized in Table
17-5. These programs include monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality, surface water, stormwater quality, air quality, including
fugitive dust, geochemistry, vegetation, and wildlife. Monitoring results are reported to state and federal regulatory agencies, as required,
to document compliance with applicable permit conditions and regulatory obligations. Regulatory compliance inspections are conducted
periodically by agencies such as BLM and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)
may also conduct inspections or site visits, as needed, related to wildlife and habitat management matters.
17-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
17.2.4.1 Cyanide
Management
Sodium Cyanide is an essential reagent
in the MMC gold recovery process and is managed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and industry best practices. The
operation is certified under the International Cyanide Management Code (ICMC), which establishes standards for the safe manufacture,
transport, storage, handling, use, and disposal of cyanide. Cyanide management is supported through specialized management systems, employee
and contractor training, routine inspections and monitoring, and periodic independent audits to verify compliance and continuous improvement.
17.2.5 Community
Relations and Social Responsibilities
There are currently no outstanding negotiations
or social requirements regarding operations at Marigold Mine. Federal and state permitting processes, including those conducted under
NEPA, provide opportunities for public participation through comment periods and public meetings. Recent permitting activities have generated
limited community concern, and local government agencies have generally been supportive of continued mining operations at MMC.
MMC maintains ongoing engagement with
local communities and stakeholders, including the communities of Battle Mountain, Winnemucca and Elko, local government representatives,
land users, and other interested parties. Permitting processes also provide opportunities for participation by Tribal Nations and other
interested stakeholders where applicable. Mine management routinely engages with stakeholders to provide operational updates and discuss
community interests, including requests for donations, sponsorships, educational initiatives, and other forms of community support.
Community engagement and outreach programs
are well established and include educational activities, community investment initiatives, and regular communication regarding mine operations
and future development plans. Based on information available at the Effective Date, there are no stakeholder issues, tribal concerns,
negotiations, or social commitments that are expected to materially affect current operations, Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves, or
future development of the Project.
17.2.6 Mine
Closure Requirements
All activities associated with Marigold
Mine require an approved reclamation plan that includes an RCE for all permitted facilities and activities. MMC engages in concurrent
reclamation practices during operations in an effort to reduce disturbance footprints and reclamation bonding liability. Closure planning
is integrated into the life-of-mine planning process and is periodically reviewed and updated to reflect operational changes, regulatory
requirements, and closure objectives.
State regulatory requirements mandate
a formal closure plan be filed two years before the facility initiates closure. Both BLM and the State require a closure plan and tentative
plan for permanent closure as part of normal NEPA and operating permit requirements respectively. MMC has filed and maintained these
closure plans, which, in conjunction with standard reclamation and re-vegetation of all disturbed areas, include discussions on removal
of most infrastructure, monitoring, and notably long-term heap leach drain down solution management. The currently approved closure plan
describes a series of evaporation cells to manage long-term solution drain down following an approximate two-year period of active solution
volume reduction through evaporation for the MMC.
17-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The
RCE for Marigold Mine was updated in 2026, and reclamation bonding estimates/liabilities are based on published third-party cost estimates
to reclaim all permitted features at the Property. BLM, NDEP, and BMRR review and approve the bond estimate, and BLM holds the financial
instruments providing the bond backing. The reclamation bond was updated in 2026 and approved by all parties, resulting in a total bond
amount of US$102,236,696. Current bonds are presented in Table 17-3.
Table
17-3: Marigold Mine Reclamation Cost
Estimate/Bond
Agency
Bond
Reference
Financial
Assurance Mechanism
Amount
(US$)
BLM
NVB106296569001804
Surety
Bond
$61,800,000
BLM
NVB106296570
Surety
Bond
$21,700,000
BLM
NVB106726444
Surety
Bond
$20,000,000
Total
$103,500,000
17.2.7 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP’s opinion is that it
is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social
analyses have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation for a number of years, and
SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory,
and environmental requirements for the Property.
17.3 Buffalo
Valley
17.3.1 Environmental
Studies
Buffalo Valley exists on public lands
administered by the BLM and private land controlled by MMC. As a result, the majority of environmental studies related to mining activities
were and are conducted under the BLM authority as part of NEPA regulations, which require various degrees of environmental impact analyses
dictated by the scope of the proposed action.
The
environmental baseline studies to support the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the PoO and the State permitting process
were initiated in 2024. These baseline studies included, but were not limited to, socioeconomics, air quality, cultural and archaeological
resources, hydrogeology, hydrology, geochemistry, wildlife, and vegetation. A list of the baseline studies and reports is shown in Table
17-4.
17-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 17-4: Baseline Studies Supporting the
EIS
Study
Media
Documents/Reports
Included Baseline Studies and Data Compiled for Buffalo Balley EIS
Geology/Geochemistry
Hydrology
Buffalo
Valley Baseline Hydrologic Characterization Report, Seep and Spring Survey
Jurisdictional
Delineation
Aquatic
Resources Delineation Report (No jurisdictional waters delineated)
Hydrogeology
Buffalo
Valley Baseline Hydrogeologic Characterization Report
Vegetation
2024
Biological Baseline Survey Report
Wildlife
2024
Biological Baseline Survey Report, 2025 Supplemental Biological Baseline Survey Report
Air
Quality
Buffalo
Valley Mine Project NEPA Air Quality Impact Analysis Report
Cultural
Resources
Class
III Cultural Survey
Paleontology
Paleontological
Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Buffalo Valley Mine Project
Socioeconomics
2025
Social and Economic Value Assessment, Buffalo Valley Project
Visual
Resources
Visual
Resources Baseline Report
Land
Use
Visual
Resources Baseline Report
Grazing
and Hunting
2025
Social and Economic Value Assessment, Buffalo Valley Project
17.3.1.1 Geology/Geochemistry
Buffalo Valley is bound by the Havallah
Hills to the north, the Buffalo Mountains to the northwest, the Tobin Range to the west, and the Battle Mountain Range to the east. Surface
geology in the vicinity of the Project includes quaternary alluvial materials in the valley to the west and exposures of a Paleozoic
bedrock assemblage consisting primarily of the Permian Havallah Formation on the foothills of the Battle Mountain Range to the east.
The mineral deposit is localized within
the upper portion of the Havallah sequence, which has been intruded by granodiorite dikes associated with skarn alteration processes.
Mineralization is characterized by both skarn-type and distal-disseminated gold, consistent with regional metallogenic models observed
throughout north-central Nevada. The deposit occurs within a fault-bounded structural block that is separated from the main Battle Mountain
block to the east by a prominent west-dipping, north–south-trending normal range-front fault. A subsidiary range-front fault bounds
the block on the west side, further defining the structural setting of the deposit (Buffalo Valley Mine Plan of Operations and Nevada
Reclamation Permit Application, SSR, 2026).
17.3.1.2 Hydrology
Buffalo Valley is considered a closed
drainage. Surface water runoff ultimately flows toward a dry playa lake, south of the Buffalo Valley project area. The valley is dominated
by ephemeral streams. A jurisdictional determination was prepared for the Buffalo Valley project area. An Aquatic Resources Delineation
Report was prepared on June 26, 2024, in which approximately 1,980 m2 (1,638 linear meters) of intermittent stream were identified
to be present within the Buffalo Valley project area. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District (USACE) concurred
with the delineation report identifying the intermitted steam as not being a Water of the United States (WOTUS) regulated under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act or under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. No WOTUS are present within the Buffalo Valley project
area.
17-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Seep and Spring surveys were conducted
within a 6.4 km radius of the Buffalo Valley project area in July 2024 and within an 8.0 km radius of the Buffalo Valley project area
in May and October 2025. A total of 54 sites were surveyed in the fall of 2025.
17.3.1.3 Hydrogeology
Precipitation, in the form of rainfall
and snowmelt, is the primary source of aquifer recharge to the groundwater system at the Buffalo Valley project area. Recharge of groundwater-bearing
units is understood to take place in mountain block bedrock and eventually into the Buffalo Valley alluvium via vertical infiltration
in permeable soils and fractures. Groundwater elevations in the area range from approximately 1402 to 1630 MASL6.4 km buffer around a
collective boundary consisting of the Buffalo Valley project area, the Marigold Mine project area, and the Trenton Canyon Exploration
Area. Ten known leks were surveyed and in total, the amount of observed male GRSG in the Buffalo Valley project area between 2024 and
2025 increased by 15, from 52 males in 2024 to 67 males in 2025. Female counts in the same period decreased, with six found in 2024 and
two in 2025 (Greater Sage Grouse Lek Monitoring Report, ERM, 2025). MMC will work with the State of Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Program
administered by NDOW to develop the necessary mitigation measures and obtain the necessary credits for work within this habitat type.
The Pinyon Jay is a BLM special status
species. Surveys were conducted in 2024 resulting in three flocks being observed in the survey area. Pinyon Jay surveys were conducted
in 2025 resulting in no pinyon jays being observed visually or aurally during these surveys (2025 Supplemental Biological Baseline Survey
Report, Nexus, 2025). An additional round of surveys was conducted in 2025. During the surveys, approximately four to five pinyon jays
were observed. No breeding behavior was exhibited by the observed pinyon jays during all studies.
Aquatic Species
Fisheries and benthic macroinvertebrate
surveys were conducted in 2024 at five sites: Willow Creek, Trenton Creek, Trout Creek, North Fork of Trout Creek, and Cottonwood Creek.
No fish or suitable habitat was identified within the Buffalo Valley project area (2024 Biological Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025).
Springsnail are BLM special status species.
Surveys were conducted within four miles of the Buffalo Valley project area in 2024. Of the 44 surface water features located within
the project area, 34 were surveyed for springsnails (10 of the sites were dry or had an insufficient amount of water). None of the sites
where springsnails were documented are within the Buffalo Valley project area (2024 Biological Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025).
Mammals
Four bat surveys were conducted throughout
2024. The presence of 13 bat species was observed (2024 Biological Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025), all of which are special status
species.
Pygmy rabbit is a BLM special status
species. Surveys were conducted within the Buffalo Valley project area in 2024 and 2025. No pygmy rabbits or their tracks, burrows, or
pellets were observed during the 2024 or 2025 surveys (2024 Biological Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025 and 2025 Supplemental Biological
Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025).
Reptiles
Special status reptile surveys were
completed in 2024. A total of four different species were incidentally observed, including desert horned lizard, Great Basin gopher snake,
sagebrush lizard, and western fence lizard. Sagebrush lizard and western fence lizard within the Buffalo Valley project area. No special
status reptiles were observed within the Buffalo Valley project area (2024 Biological Baseline Survey Report, Nexus, 2025).)
17-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
17.3.1.4 Air
Quality
The facility-wide potential process
source emissions are less than the 226.8 tonne (250 ton) per year threshold (40 CFR § 52.21). Therefore, the Project is considered
a minor source for New Source Review. In addition, the facility-wide potential process source emissions are also below the 90.7 tonne
(100 ton) per year threshold for the Title V program. The Project will be considered a minor source, which is not subject to Title V
permitting. The predicted maximum total ambient concentrations resulting from Project emissions (including background concentration)
for all the pollutants and averaging periods are below the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Buffalo Valley Mine Project
NEPA Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, Air Sciences, 2026).
17.3.1.5 Cultural
Resources
A Class III cultural survey has been
completed for the Project, and a Historic Properties Treatment Plan has been submitted to BLM and the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) for their review and approval. Mitigation of cultural sites will be completed, as necessary, and in coordination with BLM and
SHPO.
17.3.1.6 Paleontology
A paleontological resources assessment
to determine the Project’s potential adverse effects on paleontological resources either at the surface or in the subsurface was
completed in 2024. This paleontological resource investigation consisted of a desktop review of the most recent geologic mapping, relevant
scientific literature, BLM Potential Fossil Yield Classification mapping, museum records of the Nevada State Museum, and online collections
data from the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Based on the results of the study, geology in the Buffalo Valley project
area is not likely to preserve paleontological resources. Therefore, no negative impact is anticipated on significant fossil-bearing
areas.
17.3.1.7 Socioeconomics
A social and economic assessment was
conducted in 2025. Development of Buffalo Valley is anticipated to sustain current socioeconomic conditions and the construction phase
is anticipated to have a primarily positive impact as presented in (2025 Social and Economic Value Assessment ERM, 2025).
17.3.1.8 Visual
Resources
Visual resources survey and analysis
were conducted in 2024 to be utilized throughout the NEPA process.
17.3.2 Project
Permitting
Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt & Lander County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements apply to Buffalo Valley. Buffalo
Valley currently has an exploration permit issued by BLM and has begun the federal and State permitting processes. The primary permits
for Buffalo Valley operations will include the PoO permitted by BLM via a Record of Decision (ROD); WPCPs issued by NDEP-BMRR; and the
reclamation permit issued by NDEP-BMRR. The federal and State permitting process were initiated with the submittal of the PoO in May
2026. The anticipated permits and authorizations required for Buffalo Valley operations are listed in Table
17-5.
17-9
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 17-5: Buffalo Valley Environmental Permits
for Operation
Agency
Permit
Name
Permit
Number
Status
BLM
Exploration
Permit
NVNV106035326
Active
BLM
Plan
of Operations
NVNV106161773
(legacy serial number NVN-067047)
Required
NDEP-BMRR
Water
Pollution Control Permit (including Petroleum Contaminated Soils Permit)
Required
NDEP-BMRR
Water
Pollution Control Permit Dewatering Rapid Infiltration Basin
Required
NDEP-BMRR
Reclamation
Permit
Required
NDEP-BWPC
Stormwater
General Discharge Permit
Required
NDEP-BAPC
Minor
Source Class II Air Quality Operating Permit
Required
NDOW
Industrial
Artificial Pond Permit
Required
United
States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Explosives
Permit
Required
United
States Army Corps of Engineers
Not
Required
No
jurisdictional waters delineated (June 2025)
NA
USFWS
Incidental
Take Permit
Required
NDEP-BWPC
Septic
Permit
Required
Federal
Communications Commission Permit
Radio
Communications Equipment Authorization
NDEP-BSDW
Potable
Water Permit
Required
NDEP-BSMM
Class
III Landfill Waiver
Required
Nevada
State Fire Marshal
Hazardous
Materials Permit (State of Nevada)
Required
NDWR
Water
Rights
93717
Active
Lander
County Board of Commissioners
County
Conditional Use Permit
Required
Building
Permits
Required
County
Road Use and Maintenance Permit/Agreement
Required
Humbolt
County Board of Commissioners
Special
Use Permit (for specific facilities)
Required
17-10
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
17.3.3 Environmental
Impacts
MMC is currently in compliance with
the exploration permit at Buffalo Valley. At present, there are no known environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral
Resources at the Property.
17.3.4 Environmental
Monitoring and Reporting
Environmental monitoring and reporting
at Buffalo Valley supporting the permitting process have been completed and submitted with the PoO. MMC conducts environmental monitoring
and reporting in accordance with its approved operating, reclamation & closure, and environmental permits, including monitoring required
under the exploration PoO, and reclamation permit. Baseline environmental studies supporting the mine operations permitting effort are
completed. However, monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and some biological studies are voluntarily ongoing to support baseline
data collection for future permitting actions or project modifications. MMC also maintains community and environmental stewardship programs
as part of its ongoing environmental management system; these programs are separate from regulatory baseline study requirements and do
not represent outstanding commitments that are expected to materially affect the operation.
17.3.5 Community
Relations and Social Responsibilities
There are currently no outstanding negotiations
or social requirements regarding operations at MMC. Federal and state permitting processes, including those conducted under NEPA, provide
opportunities for public participation through comment periods and public meetings. Recent permitting activities have generated limited
community concern, and local government agencies have generally been supportive of MMC’s planned operations at Buffalo Valley.
There are four federally recognized
tribes in Humboldt and Lander Counties: The Battle Mountain Band Colony, part of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, the Winnemucca
Indian Colony, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, and the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe. Invitations for formal consultation will be
conducted as a government-to-government (tribes to BLM) basis during the NEPA process.
17.3.6 Mine
Closure Requirements
All activities associated with Buffalo
Valley require an approved reclamation plan that includes an RCE for all permitted facilities and activities. The reclamation plan is
presented in the PoO and was developed to meet federal and State standards. Where possible, reclamation will occur concurrently with
operations. The post-closure land use proposed aligns with current land uses including mineral exploration and development, other natural
resource development, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, hunting, and dispersed recreation.
17-11
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Open Pit
The pit slopes prohibit the reclamation
practice of growth media placement and revegetation due to access logistics and safety concerns. As such, there are no plans to attempt
soil placement or revegetation within the open pit. MMC is requesting a reclamation exemption under NAC 519A.250 for the open pit. Access
to the open pit will be precluded by the construction of post-mining safety barriers. These barriers will be located at access points
and on ramps present at the time of closure to prevent entrance. Pit berms will be constructed along the perimeter of the pit, where
necessary, to limit public access and deter livestock and signage will be placed at intervals along the berms. Pit benches will erode
and fail over time which should effectively break up linear features and create naturally appearing scree and talus slopes.
Upon cessation of mining and dewatering
activities, and precluding the placement of pit backfill, a lake will form in the Buffalo Valley Pit. MMC’s water rights are of
sufficient quantity to cover the post-closure consumptive use associated with evaporation from the pit lake in the case that the pit
is not backfilled.
Heap Leach Facility
The Heap Leach Facility will be constructed
in 7.62 m nominal lifts to a maximum permitted height of 152.5 m. The lifts will be dumped at angle of repose and later re-sloped to
meet the final closure design slope angle of 1 m horizontal to 0.3 m vertical (1H:0.3V) configuration resulting in minimal recontouring
requirements to final stable landform. Following operation, the facility will be capped with a store and release cover and revegetated.
The process solution management pond will be converted to an evaporation cell once the appropriate draindown flow rate has been achieved.
Prior to that, loaded carbon will be removed from Buffalo Valley and transferred to the Marigold Mine for processing.
Overburden Storage Areas
At closure, the Overburden and Storage
Areas will be regraded to a 3H:1V slope or flatter and capped with six inches of growth media and revegetated. If a petroleum contaminated
storage pad is developed in the Overburden Storage Area, the area will be capped with a two foot cover and six inches of growth media
and revegetated.
Roads, Yards and Infill Areas
All haul and operational roads, yards,
and infill areas including the Buffalo Valley to Marigold Connector Road, will be reclaimed after operations, and when no longer needed
for monitoring and maintenance. Roads, culverts, and road crossings areas will be ripped to reduce compaction and regraded to prevent
collection of stormwater and promote runoff and generally re-establish pre-mine flow paths. Soil materials will be removed from the berms
and redistributed on the deep ripped and regraded roads prior to revegetation.
Rapid Infiltration Basins
Prior to reclamation, any dewatering
water present in the Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBs) will be allowed to infiltrate and backfilled with material previously excavated
and stockpiled in nearby berms. The surface will be regraded to blend in with the surrounding topography. Six inches of growth media
will be placed over the backfilled area and revegetated.
Buildings and Structures
Buildings and support facilities will
be reclaimed during the closure period. Buildings and support structures necessary for the reclamation will remain until these facilities
are closed and reclaimed. The main procedures for facility and buildings consist of decommissioning, site demolition, equipment salvaging
and disposal off-site in an appropriate facility.
17-12
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Reclamation Cost Estimate
The RCE for the Buffalo Valley exploration
permit, NVNV106035326, was updated in May 2025 and is $934,758, resulting in a surety bond in that amount.
The RCE for Buffalo Valley operations
was developed in 2025 and reclamation bonding estimates/liabilities were developed utilizing the Standardized Reclamation Cost Estimator
(SRCE) version 1.4.1 and 2025 unit rated provided by NDEP. The RCE is $46,068,611 including direct, indirect and post-closure monitoring
cost estimates.
17.3.7 QP
Opinion
The SLR QP’s opinion is that it
is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social
analyses have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation for a number of years, and
SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory,
and environmental requirements for the Property.
17-13
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
18.0 Capital
and Operating Costs
SSR’s forecasted capital and operating
costs estimates related to the development of Mineral Reserves are derived from annual budgets and historical actuals over the long life
of the current operation. According to the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) classifications, these estimates would be Class
1 with an accuracy range of -3% to -10% to +3% to +15%.
18.1 Capital
Costs
Growth,
sustaining, and reclamation capital costs are summarized in Table 18-1. Growth CAPEX includes capital
associated with growth-related activities, including the development of Buffalo Valley and other growth initiatives. Sustaining CAPEX
includes capital expenditures associated with activities from mining through ore placement on the heap leach pad, based on an average
LOM total material movement rate of approximately 380,000 tpd over the 15-year mining phase, as well as final reclamation costs.
All capital costs incurred prior to
May 1, 2026, are considered sunk costs.
Table
18-1: Capital Costs Summary
Capital
Costs
Total
($ million)
Growth
CAPEX
542.2
Subtotal
Growth CAPEX
542.2
Mining
Equipment Replacement
98.1
Equipment/Building
Maintenance
436.4
Administration
2.8
Processing/Lab
40.1
Permitting/Geotech
34.1
Exploration
57.2
Subtotal
Sustaining Capital
668.6
Reclamation
174.6
Total
Capital Costs
1,385.4
18.1.1 Growth
Capital
Under the World Gold Council (WGC) guidance
on non-GAAP metrics, capital expenditures associated with a major project at an existing operation can be classified as growth capital
where the project is expected to provide a material benefit to the operation. The WGC defines a material benefit as an expected increase
of at least 10% in one or more of the following measures:
· Annual
or LOM production relative to current levels;
· Net
present value (NPV) relative to the remaining LOM NPV prior to inclusion of the project;
or
· Mineral
reserves relative to the reported reserves prior to inclusion of the project.
18-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The LOM growth capital of $542.2 million
includes capital expenditures associated with the major leach pad expansion and related infrastructure at Marigold, development of Buffalo
Valley, and the major expansion of the Marigold mining fleet. In total, about $35 million in contingency is included in the growth capital.
These investments support the development and mining of Buffalo Valley and enable execution of the larger Marigold pit shell associated
with the $2,200 per ounce gold reserve price.
18.1.2 Sustaining
Capital
Sustaining capital costs include the
following:
· Replacement
of mining equipment as it reaches its economic life during the remaining nine years of mining.
The majority of the mining equipment replacement costs relates to replacing haul trucks and
excavators, but it also covers drills and mine support equipment.
· Major
equipment rebuilds and component replacement. In order to maintain equipment availability
for the extended equipment lives, major equipment is programmed for rebuilds at set points
during its economic life.
· Administration
costs such as light vehicle purchases and various site infrastructure improvements.
· Ongoing
cost associated with process infrastructure.
· Permitting
costs mainly associated with dewatering infrastructure (wells, pipelines, rapid infiltration
basins) that are required to lower the water table in advance of planned mine development.
· Exploration/Mine
Development costs are mainly capitalized drilling to better refine the grade estimates in
the orebody that will be mined during the LOM.
18.1.3 Reclamation
and Closure
The costs associated with reclamation
and closure activities at Marigold were estimated to be $174.6 million (real May 1, 2026 dollars), with the majority of the costs incurred
from 2038 to 2050.
18.2 Operating
Costs
As the Property has been in operation
for a number of years, the level of project definition for the operating cost estimates is very high. Given the available project performance
data and the high project definition, no contingency was included in the cost estimate. The QP considers the operating cost estimate
to be in the accuracy range of +/-15%.
The
LOM operating costs estimate, inclusive of Buffalo Valley and Marigold, is $16.78/t of stacked ore, as shown in Table
18-2.
Table 18-2: Operating Costs Summary
Description
Total
LOM ($ million)*
$/t
stacked*
Mining
and Maintenance
3,741
12.57
(1.99/t moved)
Processing
804
2.70
Site
Support
451
1.51
Total
4,996
16.78
*From
May 1, 2026
18-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
18.2.1 Mining
& Maintenance
The
LOM mine operating cost estimate is shown in Table 18-3 and covers activities from mining to placing
ore on the heap pad at an average LOM mining rate of approximately 380,000 tpd moved over the 15-year mining phase.
Table 18-3: Mine Operating Cost Summary
Description
$/t
moved
Labor
0.68
Fuel
0.44
GET(1)
0.06
Tires
0.14
Explosives
0.13
All
Others
0.55
Total
1.99
Notes:
1Ground engaging tools
Diesel is the largest non-labor input
for operating costs at Marigold. Diesel prices for the economic analysis were based on the latest available consensus forward-looking
price forecasts and compared to those used in other published studies. Near-term diesel prices average approximately $4.00/gallon before
normalizing to $3.00/gallon over the long-term.
18.2.2 Processing
Processing
costs over the LOM include all costs required to recover the gold from the rock after it is mined and placed on the leach pad. This includes
the cost of chemicals to process the ore, pumping costs to get the barren solution to the leach pad, pumping costs to get the pregnant
solution to the carbon columns for gold recovery after it returns from the leach pad, and the costs associated with the extraction of
the gold from the carbon to produce the final doré product shipped from Marigold. The processing cost estimate is shown in Table
18-4 for an average stacking rate of approximately 58 ktpd and includes costs for the LOM, including the 15-year mine life and the final
5-year rinsing phase of the heap leach pad, which starts in 2041 after mining operations has ceased.
Table
18-4: Process Operating Cost Summary
Description
$/t
ore stacked
Labor
0.70
Operating
Supplies & Maintenance
1.67
Total
Services & Misc.
0.34
Total
2.70
18.2.3 G&A
G&A
costs for the LOM include accounting and site administration, warehousing, safety, human resources, and environmental. These costs, presented
in Table 18-5, are related to supporting the operations groups in the mine, maintenance, and processing
departments.
18-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table
18-5: G&A Operating Cost Summary
Description
$/t
stacked
Labor
0.54
Supplies/Services
0.97
Total
1.51
18.2.4 Workforce
Summary
The
current Marigold workforce totals 540 persons, consisting of 100 salaried and 440 hourly employees (who are not unionized) as of the
effective date of this TRS. The breakdown by department is shown in Table 18-6.
Table 18-6: Current Workforce
Hourly
FTE
Salary
FTE
Total
Mine
267
12
279
Plant
49
12
61
Maintenance
102
17
119
G&A
15
36
51
Tech
Services
7
23
30
Total
440
100
540
The LOM workforce at the Marigold Complex
is expected to increase in the near term as mining activities commence at Buffalo Valley (BV) in 2029 and remain elevated through the
completion of BV mining in 2034.
Following the completion of mining at
BV, the workforce is expected to decline and remain relatively stable throughout the remaining Marigold mining operations from 2035 through
2040. Upon completion of mining at Marigold, the workforce is expected to decrease significantly during the subsequent five-year heap
leach pad drain-down period.
The
Marigold full time equivalent (FTE) workforce for the years 2023 to 2026 (actuals) and the LOM plan (projected) is summarized in Table
18-7.
Table
18-7: LOM Workforce Levels
Hourly
FTE
Salary
FTE
Total
2023
Actual
395
83
478
2024
Actual
388
88
476
2025
Actual
400
89
489
2026
Actual
440
100
540
2027
to 2040 Projected
578
109
686
18-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
19.0 Economic
Analysis
An
after-tax Cash Flow Projection has been generated from the Life of Mine production schedule and capital and operating cost estimates
and is summarized in Table 19-1. A summary of the key criteria is provided below. The complete cash
flow is presented in Section 27.0 Appendix.
19.1 Economic
Criteria
19.1.1 Revenue
· Approximately
58,000 tonnes ore per day stacked (approximately 21 Mt per year) at an average stacked grade
of 0.44 g/t Au, for 4.26 Moz contained stacked.
· LOM
stacked ore recovery averages 72.0%, resulting in 3.06 Moz recoverable stacked during mining
(May 1, 2026 through 2040)
· LOM
total of 3.34 Moz Au produced at an average of 196 koz per year during stacking. A total
of 392 koz Au are produced during the final five-year rinsing period after mining ceases.
Approximately 272 koz Au are recovered from work-in-progress inventory over the LOM.
· Metal
price: US$3,948 per ounce gold (LOM realized), US$3,710 per ounce gold long term price (2031+).
· Gold
at refinery 99.97% payable.
· Net
Smelter Return includes doré refining, transport, and insurance costs.
· Revenue
is recognized at the time of gold production.
19.1.2 Costs
· Mine
life: 20 years, including 2026 (fifteen years of mining and five years of heap leach pad
rinsing).
· Life
of Mine production plan is summarized in Table 13-6.
· LOM
growth capital totals $542.2 million
· LOM
sustaining capital totals $668.6 million
· Final
reclamation costs total $174.6 million.
· Average
operating cost, including royalties and offsite costs, over the mine life is $20.27 per tonne
stacked.
19.1.3 Taxation
and Royalties
Marigold is subject to Nevada Net Proceeds
of Minerals Tax, Nevada property and sales taxes, and U.S. federal income tax. The economic analysis calculates these taxes in accordance
with legislation enacted as of January 1, 2022. Property and sales taxes are accounted for in the operating costs of the mine.
19.1.3.1 Nevada
Gross Proceeds Tax
In 2021, the State of Nevada enacted
Assembly Bill 495, effective July 1, 2021, which is an annual excise tax on gold and silver revenue. Under the bill, the tax rates vary
based on the taxpayer’s Nevada gross revenue. A 0.75% rate is imposed on Nevada gross revenue of more than $20 million but not
more than $150 million in a taxable year (defined as the calendar year). A rate of 1.10% applies to Nevada gross revenue exceeding $150
million in any tax year. The LOM average rate for Marigold during stacking is approximately 1.0% and averages $7.9 million per year over
the fifteen years of mine operation.
19-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
19.1.3.2 Nevada
Net Proceeds Tax
The State of Nevada imposes a 5% net
proceeds tax on the value of all minerals extracted in the State. This tax is calculated and paid based on a prescribed net income formula
applied only to income and expenses from mining, disallowing deductions for exploration and related-party financing costs. This tax is
a deductible expense for U.S. federal income tax calculations and averages $17.8 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation.
19.1.3.3 US
Federal Income Tax
Federal income tax is determined under
regulations that came into effect on January 1, 2022. Under these regulations, which removed alternative minimum tax, the mine is subject
to a federal income tax rate of 21%. SLR utilized Unit of Production depreciation, depletion allowances, and Net Operating Losses (NOL)
as deductions. Total U.S. federal tax payable averages $23.1 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation.
19.1.3.4 Royalties
Marigold is subject to a variety of
NSR royalty payments, payable to various parties under the terms of the leases, as described in Section 3. The annual average NSR royalty
payments is about 6.9% of gross revenue and averages $52.3 million per year over the fifteen years of mine operation. Net Smelter Return
(NSR) royalty payments for the Buffalo Valley deposit are fixed at 3.5% of the value of production net of off-site refining costs.
19.2 Cash
Flow Analysis
Considering
the Complex on a stand-alone basis, the undiscounted pre-tax cash flow totals $5,747 million over the mine life. The after-tax Net Present
Value (NPV) at a 5% discount rate (midpoint with May 1, 2026, as time zero) is $3,334 million, as shown in Table
19-1.
19-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 19-1: After-Tax Cash Flow Summary
Description
LOM
Realized
Market Prices
Au
($/oz) – Average
$3,948
Payable
Metal
Au
(koz)
3,335
Cash
Flow Summary
US$
million
Total
Gross Revenue
13,166
Mining
and Maintenance Cost
(3,741)
Process
Cost
(804)
G
& A Cost
(451)
Refining/Freight
(5)
Mining
Royalties
(903)
NGPT1
(131)
Total
Operating Costs
(6,034)
Operating
Margin (EBITDA)
7,132
Cash
Taxes Payable
(834)
Working
Capital2
0
Operating
Cash Flow
6,298
Development
(Growth) Capital
(542)
Sustaining
Capital
(669)
Total
Closure/Reclamation Capital
(175)
Pre-tax
Free Cash Flow
5,747
Pre-tax
NPV @ 5%
3,878
After-tax
Free Cash Flow
4,913
After-tax
NPV @ 5%
3,334
Notes:
1.
Nevada Gross Proceeds Tax
2.
All working capital adjustments net to zero at end of mine life.
19-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
The World Gold Council Adjusted Operating
Cost (AOC) is $1,809/oz Au. The mine life capital unit cost, including sustaining and closure/reclamation, is $253/oz, for an All in
Sustaining Cost (AISC) of $2,062/oz Au. The average annual gold production during operation, excluding rinsing phase, is 196 koz per
year over the fifteen year mine life and 78 koz per year during the five year rinsing phase.
19.3 Sensitivity
Analysis
Project risks can be identified in both
economic and non-economic terms. Key economic risks were examined by running cash flow sensitivities:
· Head
grade
· Metallurgical
recovery
· Gold
price
· Operating
costs
· Capital
costs
After-tax
IRR sensitivity over the base case has been calculated for -20% to +20% variations for head grade, recovery, and gold price and operating
and capital costs. The sensitivities are shown in Figure 19-1 and Table 19-2. The Project is most
sensitive to changes in head grade, metallurgical recovery, and metal price (usually with same magnitude of impact) followed by operating
cost and finally capital costs.
Economics for the operating Marigold
gold mine complex are robust with respect to price, head grade, recovery, capital, and operating costs. The operations benefit from a
long history of experience with mining heap leach gold recovery operations, and higher gold prices than originally planned.
Figure
19-1: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis
19-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Table 19-2: After-Tax
Sensitivity Analyses
Variance
Head
Grade
(g/t Au)
NPV
at 5%
($ millions)
-20%
0.36
1,609
-10%
0.40
2,471
0%
0.44
3,334
+10%
0.49
4,196
+20%
0.53
5,058
Variance
Gold
Recovery
(%)
NPV
at 5%
($ millions)
-20%
57.6
1,609
-10%
64.8
2,471
0%
72.0
3,334
+10%
79.2
4,196
+20%
86.4
5,058
Variance
LOM
Avg. Metal Prices
($/oz Au)
NPV
at 5%
($ millions)
-20%
3,158
1,609
-10%
3,553
2,471
0%
3,948
3,334
+10%
4,342
4,196
+20%
4,737
5,058
Variance
Operating
Costs
($/t)
NPV
at 5%
($ millions)
-20%
13.42
4,060
-10%
15.10
3,697
0%
16.78
3,334
+10%
18.46
2,970
+20%
20.13
2,607
Variance
Capital
Costs
($ millions)
NPV
at 5%
($ millions)
-20%
1,252
3,440
-10%
1,319
3,387
0%
1,385
3,334
+10%
1,452
3,280
+20%
1,519
3,227
19-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
20.0 Adjacent
Properties
The
SLR QP has not independently verified this information and this information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization at the
Marigold Complex.
Marigold
is located near the northern limits of a regional belt of ore deposits commonly referred to as the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend. This
north–northwest striking alignment of mines and prospects. It is the second most prolific gold belt in Nevada after the Carlin
trend, and it includes variants of Carlin-Type Gold Deposits (CTGD), distal type sediment hosted deposits as well as skarn and copper–gold
porphyry systems.
Three
major gold deposits lie adjacent to the SSR property. Nevada Gold Mines’ Phoenix mine is approximately 22 km south of the Buffalo
Valley deposit, i-80 Gold Corp’s Lone Tree mine is approximately 7 km northwest of Marigold, and Roxmore Resources Inc.’s
Converse project is approximately 6 km west of Marigold. There are also several inactive mines and exploration and/or development projects
that can be found within a 19 km radius of the property.
Reported
production and Mineral Resources for these adjacent properties are presented in Table 20-1.
Table 20-1: Past
Production and Mineral Resources for Adjacent Properties
Property
Owner
Years
of
Production
Gold
Produced
(Moz)
Stated
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
Mineral
Reserves
Measured
and
Indicated
Mineral
Resources
Inferred
Mineral
Resources
Phoenix1
Nevada
Gold Mines
2006–Present
unknown
3.25
Moz gold
(0.58 g/t)
0.37
Mt copper (0.18%)
7.15
Moz gold
0.37
Moz gold
Lone
Tree Complex2
i-80
Gold Corp.
1991–2012
unknown
n/a
428
koz at 1.73g/t
2.77
Moz at 1.64 g/t
Converse3
Roxmore
Resources Inc.
–
–
n/a
2.162 Moz
3.035
Moz
Notes:
1.
Barrick Gold Corporation. 2026.
2.
i-80 Gold Corp. 2024.
3.
SLR. 2026.
Phoenix
mine is currently operated by Nevada Gold Mines and is a polymetallic Au-Cu-Ag porphyry system that has been in production since 2006.
The mine includes various deposit types, all structurally controlled by northwest trending faults.
Lone
Tree is considered a distal-disseminated deposit that may be genetically related to a porphyry-type system; mineralization was structurally
controlled by north–northwest trending faults.
At
Converse, gold mineralization is hosted within a skarn that developed within the Havallah Formation. No production has occurred at Converse
to date.
A
plan map of mine properties adjacent to Marigold is presented in Figure 20-1.
20-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Figure 20-1: Adjacent
Properties
20-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
21.0 Other
Relevant Data and Information
No
additional information or explanation is necessary to make this TRS understandable and not misleading.
21-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
22.0 Interpretation
and Conclusions
SLR
offers the following conclusions by area.
22.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
· The
Mineral Resource estimates for Marigold and Buffalo Valley have been prepared using accepted
industry practices and conform to the requirements of SEC Regulation S-K 1300.
· The
estimates are supported by extensive drilling, validated geological and assay databases,
appropriate metallurgical assumptions, robust estimation methodologies, and reasonable economic
parameters.
· The
assigned Mineral Resource classifications appropriately reflect the level of geological confidence
and estimation uncertainty inherent in each deposit.
· Additional
drilling and ongoing geological studies have the potential to expand the known mineralized
footprint, improve classification confidence, and support future conversion of Mineral Resources
to Mineral Reserves.
· The
Marigold Complex contains two distinct mineral deposit styles. Marigold and Trenton Canyon
are classified as Carlin-type gold deposits, while Buffalo Valley is classified as a distal
disseminated silver-gold deposit associated with felsic porphyry dikes, structural corridors,
and favorable host rocks.
· Geological
understanding of the Marigold Complex is supported by more than three decades of mining operations,
extensive exploration programs, geologic mapping, geophysical surveys, metallurgical testing,
production history, and ongoing resource definition drilling.
· The
current geological interpretations adequately define lithologic, structural, oxidation, alteration,
and mineralization controls and provide a suitable basis for Mineral Resource estimation
and classification.
· Exploration,
delineation, and resource development programs completed by SSR and predecessor operators
have resulted in more than 13,000 drill holes and over 2.6 million meters of drilling across
Marigold, Buffalo Valley, and Trenton Canyon. Recent drilling programs continue to support
resource growth, conversion, and refinement of geological models.
· The
drilling density and spatial distribution of drill holes are sufficient to support the current
geological interpretations and Mineral Resource classifications at both Marigold and Buffalo
Valley.
· The
SLR Qualified Person considers the drilling methods, sampling practices, sample preparation
procedures, analytical methods, quality assurance and quality control programs, and database
management systems to be consistent with accepted industry standards and suitable for Mineral
Resource estimation.
· Independent
verification procedures completed by SLR indicate that the geological, assay, density, and
survey databases are sufficiently accurate, complete, and reliable for use in Mineral Resource
estimation.
· There
are no Measured Resources at the Property.
22-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· The
level of uncertainty has been adequately reflected in the classification of Mineral Resources
for the Property. The MRE presented may be materially impacted by any future changes in the
break-even cut-off grade, which may result from changes in mining method selection, mining
costs, processing recoveries and costs, metal price fluctuations, or significant changes
in geological knowledge.
· The
SLR QP is of the opinion that, with consideration of the recommendations summarized in Sections
1 and 23 of this TRS, any issues relating to all relevant technical and economic factors
likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with further work.
22.1.1 Marigold
· Mineral
Resources were constrained within an optimized open pit shell that reflects reasonable prospects
for eventual economic extraction using a gold price assumption of US$2,500/oz and a reporting
cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t Au.
· Effective
May 1, 2026, the Marigold Mineral Resource estimate exclusive of Mineral Reserves comprises
approximately 125.0 Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources at an average grade of 0.39 g/t Au
and 18.1 Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources at an average grade of 0.30 g/t Au. No Measured
Mineral Resources are reported.
· Validation
and reconciliation reviews demonstrate that the Marigold resource model provides reasonable
predictions of grade and tonnage and is appropriate for mine planning and Mineral Reserve
conversion activities.
· The
SLR QP considers the geological interpretation, estimation methodology, classification criteria,
and validation results to appropriately support the reported Marigold Mineral Resources.
22.1.2 Buffalo
Valley
· Mineral
Resources were constrained within optimized pit shells using lithology-specific cut-off grades
ranging from 0.10 g/t Au to 0.32 g/t Au and a gold price assumption of US$2,500/oz.
· Effective
May 1, 2026, the Buffalo Valley Mineral Resource estimate exclusive of Mineral Reserves comprises
approximately 5.6 Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources grading 0.53 g/t Au and 11.2 Mt of Inferred
Mineral Resources grading 0.31 g/t Au. No Measured Mineral Resources are reported.
· Metallurgical
testing confirms that gold recoveries vary by lithology and particle size and supports the
recovery assumptions used in the Mineral Resource estimate.
· The
SLR QP considers the Buffalo Valley geological model, estimation methodology, resource classification
criteria, and metallurgical assumptions to be appropriate for the style of mineralization
and sufficient to support the reported Mineral Resources.
22.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
22.2.1 Marigold
· Marigold
anchors the Complex with 240.44 Mt of Probable Reserves grading 0.46 g/t Au, containing 3.52
Moz. Including stockpiles and leach pad inventory, the total Mineral Reserve estimate is
3.96 Moz. The updated $2,200/oz gold price assumption triggered a 73% increase in contained
gold compared to previous estimates.
22-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Mining
at Marigold is executed across 15.2 m benches (or 7.6 m for smaller shovels to control dilution)
using automated blasthole sampling, rigorous fire assay-to-cyanide-soluble regression, and
continuous radar slope monitoring. Individual pit stripping varies, averaging 7.4:1 in North
Mackay and 6.2:1 in New Millenium, supported by established geotechnical design criteria
and active dewatering in deeper cutbacks like Mackay and Red Dot Phase 3.
22.2.2 Buffalo
Valley
· Buffalo
Valley contributes 45.33 Mt of Probable Reserves grading 0.46 g/t Au, containing 0.67 Moz
of gold. Its lower strip ratio of 3.9:1 helps temper the broader Complex's overall stripping
requirements.
· Located
approximately 15 miles from the main Marigold operation, Buffalo Valley operates as a standalone
satellite facility complete with its own dedicated heap leach facility and separate Overburden
Storage Area (OBSA).
· Mining
at Buffalo Valley is planned using the same bench heights as at the Marigold Mine (15.2 m)
to maintain operational consistency and equipment synergies, enabling the planned transfer
of hydraulic shovels and haul trucks between the two operations.
· Mining
operations at Buffalo Valley are currently unpermitted, with the schedule assuming permitting
activities will be successfully completed to support active production which begins in 2029
for a 5.3-year operational window that slots directly into the middle years of the active
mining timeline.
· Structured
across three distinct geotechnical domains with inter-ramp angles ranging from 32° to
48° governed by structural bedding orientations, Buffalo Valley's operational success
is tightly bound to securing environmental permits ahead of 2029 and adapting proven grade
control and blasting methodologies to its unique sedimentary and dike-controlled lithology.
22.2.3 Integrated
Operations
· Backed
by SSR’s extensive operational experience at the site, the Complex benefits from well-established
geotechnical parameters, active site-wide dewatering programs, and sufficient storage capacity
within the expanded OBSA to accommodate the higher LOM waste volumes.
· The
LOM plan targets an expanded average mining rate of 380,000 tpd (peaking at 505,000 tpd),
supporting 15 years of active mining followed by 5 years of processing the heap leach pad
inventory for a total 20-year LOM. During full production years, annual mine production averages
138.3 Mtpa (reaching 165.0 Mtpa over the first seven years), yielding a complex-wide LOM
strip ratio of 5.3:1 (waste-to-ore) over the 15-year active schedule (which includes the
partial start in 2026 and final wind-down in 2040).
· Sustaining
higher material movement and increased stripping requires a major capital fleet expansion,
including a LeTourneau L-1850 loader in 2026 as replacement, a Liebherr 9600-class shovel
in 2027, a second P&H 4100-sized shovel in Q1 2028, and scaling the 300 st haul truck
fleet with 19 additional units to reach a peak of 45 trucks. Rather than requiring an isolated
capital fleet, Buffalo Valley shares equipment synergy with Marigold, allowing two Komatsu
PC7000 hydraulic shovels and 8 to 10 haul trucks to transfer to Buffalo Valley in 2029 for
its duration before returning to Marigold.
22-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· The
Complex operates with a total established workforce of 540 personnel, distributed across
Mine Operations (279), Mine Maintenance (119), Process & Laboratory (61), General &
Administration (51), and Technical Services (30). Success over the 20-year LOM relies on
maintaining disciplined short-term sequencing, executing the 2027–2028 equipment ramp-up
smoothly, successfully securing the Buffalo Valley permit ahead of 2029, and managing workforce
retention and skills training to support elevated material movement without compromising
mechanical availability or slope stability.
· The
LOM production schedule is reasonable and will be supported by robust short-term planning,
sequencing, and operational discipline to be successful.
· An
appropriate mining equipment fleet, maintenance facilities, and workforce are in place, with
various options for additions and replacements estimated to meet the LOM production schedule
requirements.
· The
SLR QP reviewed the assumptions, parameters, and methods used to prepare the Mineral Reserves
Statement and is of the opinion that the Mineral Reserves are estimated and prepared in accordance
with S-K 1300 standards.
22.3 Mineral
Processing
22.3.1 Marigold
· The
Marigold processing facilities comprise conventional run-of-mine (ROM) cyanide heap leaching,
CIC adsorption, electrowinning, and refining circuits (ADR) to produce a final precious metal
product. The heap leach pad was originally constructed in 1990 and with ongoing expansions
has operated very consistently throughout the years providing an excellent library of operating
data.
· The
mineralogy of the ore and deportment of the gold along fracture surfaces of the rock rather
than in the rock matrix, provides rapid access of leach solutions to the gold particles and
relatively fast gold extraction independent of rock size. The SLR QP agrees that the ore
is uniquely favorable to ROM heap leaching, which has been employed for the life of the mine.
· Gold
recovery is determined from both historical operating performance and from laboratory column
and bottle roll leach testing. Gold recovery is consistent and is predicted using a relationship
between fire assay and cyanide soluble gold analyses. It is the SLR QP’s opinion that
the Marigold operating practices are consistent with industry standards, and the ROM method
of operation and the methods of determining gold recovery and reagent consumptions are appropriate
for this deposit.
· Average
LOM Au recovery at Marigold is 74% based on production records. The ratio of cyanide soluble
gold to total gold (AuCN/AuFA) using the 2017 database of assay pairs (i.e., samples that
have been assayed using both fire assay and cyanide-soluble gold assay methods) was approximately
0.8 (80%). Using the ratio to determine the actual LOM recovery of 74% results in a factor
of 0.92.
· The
current model to predict Marigold heap leach recovery is Heap Leach Recovery = (AuCN/AuFA)
x 0.92.
22-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Cumulative
gold production from the Marigold leach pad (through April 2026) is equivalent to 72.7% recovery.
· Gold
recovery from future ore from Marigold, including stockpile and leach pad inventory, is estimated
to be 72.4%, based on a review of historical assay and recovery data, as well as metallurgical
test work on future ore.
· Test
work has been conducted on a variety of Marigold ore samples, including representative pit
samples taken by ore-control geologists, leach pad grab samples from mine production, and
various pit blasthole drill cuttings. Bottle roll test work has also been conducted on exploration
reverse circulation (RC) drill samples to determine expected gold recovery from deposits
that will be mined in the future.
· A
large number of column leach tests and bottle roll tests have been performed on the same
samples to determine the relationship between their results. Column leach test work continues;
however, bottle roll tests can be performed to generate metallurgical data in days rather
than the months that are required for column leach tests.
· Permeability
testing has been performed on ore samples with varying fines content. The testing simulated
compaction under multiple lifts of ore stacked up to 200 m; the current maximum height of
the heap leach pads above the liner elevation is 122 m. Overall, the tested blends demonstrated
relatively consistent permeability on increasing loads over 50 m and acceptable permeabilities
with material blended to a 40% fines to 60% durable ratio. Flow rates for the blends ranged
from 178 L/h/m2 to 284 L/h/m2 under no load. Under 122
m effective height loading, flow rates ranged from 34 L/h/m2 up to 188
L/h/m2. All tests resulted in low, but acceptable permeabilities.
22.3.2 Buffalo
Valley
· SSR
designed Buffalo Valley metallurgical testing programs in 2023, 2024, and 2025 to build on
historical information, including new test areas and testing specific lithologies without
blending. The 2024 and 2025 programs also targeted lower-grade composites. Finally, the 2025
program expanded lithologic targets to previously untested units at depth, including base
limestone and a new sulfidic lithology, VDFX.
· Buffalo
Valley mineralization shows a strong crush-size dependence. This dependence is likely due
to gold particles being encapsulated by skarns and other silicate minerals, which can only
be liberated by grinding. A portion of the gold deportment is also refractory to cyanide.
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis shows that arsenopyrite can be a significant
host of submicron gold, even in samples with well-oxidized pyrite. In 200-mesh bottle roll
tests, almost all tests show more than 80% recovery of the contained gold, with only a few
sulfidic-refractory samples.
· The
laboratory test recoveries are scaled to the anticipated production size, either 38 mm
crushed or 304 mm ROM. Individual test recoveries are plotted to generate crush size versus
recovery curves for each lithology. The recoveries are then discounted by 4% to account for
heap leach inefficiency and other scale-up effects. The results are used to determine the
gold recovery for each material type for resource calculations.
22-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
22.4 Infrastructure
22.4.1 Marigold
· Marigold
is readily accessible via Interstate Highway 80 in northern Nevada and is approximately 5 km
south–south-west of Valmy in Humboldt County. The site access road supports two lanes
of traffic and consists of hard packed clay and gravel.
· The
infrastructure facilities at Marigold include ancillary buildings, offices and support buildings,
access roads into the plant site, power distribution, source of fresh water and water distribution,
fuel supply, storage and distribution, waste management and communications. The infrastructure
facilities are sufficient for supporting the current Marigold operations.
· The
power supply for Marigold is provided by NV Energy Inc. via a 120 kV transmission line
to site. Site power draw is 5 MW. After exiting the main substation, power is distributed
through a 25 kV distribution grid. Power supply is consistent and dependable and is
not a limiting factor for current operations.
· Marigold
has sufficient groundwater rights and water well capacity to support the ongoing process
operations. The water is primarily consumed by retention in the heap leach pad, evaporation,
processing operations and dust suppression.
· Marigold
has sufficient disposal capacity and non-consumptive water rights to manage dewatering flows
that are not consumed for operational needs. The water that is not consumed is returned to
the groundwater system through the rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) and considered non-consumptive
use.
· It
is the SLR QP’s opinion that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by
SSR as outlined above for use in the TRS because the Property has been in operation for a
number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility in
these areas that have a good understanding of the operating requirements for the Property.
22.4.2 Buffalo
Valley
· The
initial site layout for Buffalo Valley was developed from the Newmont Plan of Operations
acquired as part of the purchase of the property.
· The
need for a connector road from Marigold to Buffalo Valley was confirmed and fully engineered
by WSP during the feasibility study completed by SSR Mining in 2026 (SSR 2026b, the Feasibility
Study).
· Given
the short initial mine life of Buffalo Valley, SSR decided to use the Marigold truck shop
rather than build a new truck shop at Buffalo Valley. No other maintenance facilities are
planned at Buffalo Valley.
· Currently,
the North Peak substation is fed from the existing Marigold Mine substation, which is supplied
by NV Energy. Buffalo Valley will need to construct approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) of
24.9 kV power line from the existing North Peak power line to service the Project site. Line
power will be stepped down to 4,160 V, 480 V, and 110 V as required with power primarily
distributed at 4,160 V or 480 V to motor control centers serving the respective process areas.
22-6
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
· Three
site-area transformers will be required at different locations throughout Buffalo Valley.
The anticipated transformer-connected loads are 6.53 MW, and the calculated demand loads
are 4.61 MW (including the crushing circuit and pit dewatering pumps).
· The
new overhead power line from North Peak to Buffalo Valley will be routed along the new Marigold/Buffalo
Valley connector road.
22.5 Environment
22.5.1 Marigold
· Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting requirements
apply to Marigold, including the following:
o The
Plan of Operations (PoO) permitted via the United States (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
o The
Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) issued by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
(NDEP)
o The
temporary discharge permit allowing for the discharge of dewatering water to rapid infiltration
basins (RIBs) issued by NDEP
o The
reclamation permit issued by the Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR)
· MMC
currently holds and is in compliance with active, valid permits for all current facets of
the Marigold mining operation.
· At
present, there are no known environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral
Resources at the Property.
· All
activities associated with Marigold require an approved reclamation plan that includes a
Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. This was updated
and approved by federal and state agencies in 2026.
· MMC
is actively engaged with the local communities and stakeholders and there are no outstanding
negotiations or social commitments for the operation of the Marigold mine.
· The
SLR QP’s opinion is that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR
as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social analyses
have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation
for a number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility
in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory, and environmental
requirements for the Property.
22.5.2 Buffalo
Valley
· Specific
federal, state, and local (Humboldt County and Lander County, Nevada) regulatory and permitting
requirements apply to Buffalo Valley, including the following:
o The
exploration PoO permitted via the U.S. BLM (active)
o PoO
for the Buffalo Valley mining operation permitted via the BLM (required)
o The
WPCP issued by the NDEP (required)
22-7
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
o The
temporary discharge permit allowing for the discharge of dewatering water to RIBs issued
by NDEP (required)
o The
reclamation permit issued by the BMRR (required)
· MMC
currently holds and is in compliance with active, valid permits for all current facets of
the exploration operation.
· At
present, there are no known environmental issues that impact the ability to extract Mineral
Resources at the Property.
· Exploration
activities associated with Buffalo Valley require an approved reclamation plan, including
a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for all permitted facilities and activities. This was updated
and approved by federal and state agencies in 2026.
· The
Buffalo Valley mining operation will require an RCE prior to commencing mining.
· MMC
is actively engaged with the local communities and stakeholders and there are no outstanding
negotiations or social commitments for the operation of the mine.
· The
SLR QP’s opinion is that it is reasonable to rely on the information provided by SSR
as outlined above for use in the TRS because significant environmental and social analyses
have been conducted for the Property over an extended period, the Property has been in operation
for a number of years, and SSR employs professionals and other personnel with responsibility
in these areas that have a good understanding of the permitting, regulatory, and environmental
requirements for the Property.
22.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
· SSR’s
forecasted capital and operating costs estimates related to the development of Mineral Reserves
are derived from annual budgets and historical actuals over the long life of the current
operation. These estimates were classified by SSR according to the American Association of
Cost Engineers (AACE) classifications as Class 1 with an accuracy range of -3% to -10% to
+3% to +15%.
· Future
growth capital costs are forecast to be $542 million, sustaining capital is forecast to be
$669 million, and reclamation costs are forecast to be $175 million for the life of mine,
for a total life of mine capital costs of $1,385 million.
· Construction
is ongoing for the growth capital projects, including the expansion of the mine fleet and
leach pads, and the development of Buffalo Valley. Costs prior to May 1, 2026, are considered
sunk.
22-8
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
23.0 Recommendations
SLR
offers the following recommendations by area.
23.1 Geology
and Mineral Resources
The
SLR QP offers the following recommendations regarding advancement of the Property and improvement of the Resource model.
1 SSR
has proposed a two-year exploration drilling (2027 and 2028) program with a total budget
of US$10,000,000 to advance development of exploration target areas in Marigold Mine and
Buffalo Valley. The objective of the exploration program will be to target potential gold-bearing
structures to expand the mineralization footprint and convert the current Resource to Reserve.
The SLR QP agrees with the objectives and overall scope of this exploration program.
2 Conduct
an additional infill drilling of 10,000 m drilling at MMC every year, where there are opportunities
to increase orebody knowledge and confidence of Mineral Resource estimates.
3 Continue
pit mapping and use the data to refine structural and redox models.
4 Continue
to carry out preg-rob/LECO assays along the oxide-sulfide boundaries.
23.2 Mining
and Mineral Reserves
1 Continuously
optimize haulage profiles and pit sequencing across the Complex, prioritizing lower-strip-ratio
phases and targeted interior pit options, to smooth annual ore production profiles, reduce
operational volatility, and mitigate reliance on excessive fleet expansion while providing
an operational buffer against potential permitting delays at Buffalo Valley.
2 Advance
dewatering, depressurization programs, and pore pressure monitoring ahead of active mining
fronts in deeper Marigold pits like Mackay and Red Dot Phase 3 to maintain required slope
stability factors of safety.
3 Advance
geotechnical studies, ongoing groundwater monitoring, and structural modeling at Buffalo
Valley, specifically addressing pitward-dipping bedding in domains 1 through 3 and high-plasticity
clay horizons in the overburden, to ensure stable slope performance.
4 Maintain
rigorous grade control procedures, blasthole sampling, and fire-assay-to-cyanide-soluble
regressions across active Marigold areas, while establishing equivalent protocols for Buffalo
Valley prior to production.
5 Execute
the planned 2026–2028 fleet expansion and capital additions on schedule (including
the LeTourneau L-1850 loader, Liebherr 9600 shovel, second P&H 4100 shovel, and additional
300 short ton (st) haul trucks) to support the increased LOM mining rate and inter-pit equipment
transfers.
6 Prioritize
equipment maintenance, asset reliability, and proactive workforce retention to manage heavy
utilization rates, aging baseline assets, and the dynamic rotation of the shovel and truck
fleet between Marigold and Buffalo Valley.
23-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
23.3 Mineral
Processing
1 Conduct
regular assessments of the AuCN/AuFA ratio using updated exploration and blast hole data.
2 Continue
to conduct column and bottle roll metallurgical testing on heap leach feed composites to
determine maximum possible gold recovery.
3 Conduct
metallurgical test work on any future ore sources to develop a geometallurgical model including
material properties and metallurgical parameters.
4 Complete
further studies and assessment of heap leach recoverable gold inventory.
5 Complete
targeted technical and metallurgical studies on durable ore materials to better understand
their physical characteristics and leach kinetics, ensuring stacking performance, solution
percolation, and gold recovery reconcile closely with production forecasts.
23.4 Infrastructure
1 Continue
to maintain the infrastructure facilities in good working order to ensure that critical services
such as power and water management, pumping and storage facilities are fully available for
potential upset conditions.
2 Ensure
the storage volume available in the process ponds is regularly evaluated and increased when
required to maintain regulatory compliance and manage risks associated with increasing water
inventory due to growth of the heap and barren solution pumping capacity.
3 Ensure
that consumptive water rights holdings are periodically re-evaluated relative to the potential
growth in site water demands.
4 Confirm
HLF configuration and remaining capacity, including reconciliation of the current HLF footprint,
stack geometry, ore inventory, approved development limits, and remaining stacking capacity
with the LOM plan, and documentation of the relationship between available HLF capacity and
the Mineral Reserve production schedule.
5 Review
SSR's governance policies related to the HLF, including maintaining appropriate Engineer
of Record (EOR) oversight, defining site ownership and technical responsibilities, implementing
management of change (MOC) procedures, conducting periodic independent reviews, and incorporating
risk assessments into facility management and decision-making.
6 Expand
the current Operation, Maintenance, and Surveillance (OMS) framework to include additional
HLF-specific requirements, including continuous survey slope stability monitoring, record
keeping, escalation procedures, and development of risk-based Trigger Action Response Plans
(TARPs) for key performance indicators such as slope performance, seepage, drainage, pond
freeboard, and extreme weather events.
7 Develop
a Design Basis Report (DBR) document for the HLF, including consolidation of key design criteria,
design assumptions, liner configurations, stack geometry limitations, pond containment requirements,
and evaluation of the impacts of the current and planned HLF configuration on facility performance
(e.g., stability, drainage, seepage, solution management, and water balance).
8 Perform
design verification and performance confirmation, including verification that current operating
conditions and ore characteristics remain consistent with the assumptions used in the original
design, and evaluating the implications of any material changes on HLF performance.
23-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
9 Evaluate
water balance and capacity management, including maintaining a current site-wide HLF water
balance model that incorporates active and planned leach areas, solution inventories, pond
capacities, design storm events, evaporation, draindown, operational freeboard, and closure
assumptions. The model should support operating decisions, capacity evaluations, emergency
planning, and future expansion studies.
23.5 Environment
1 Progress
the environmental permitting process for Buffalo Valley to ensure approvals are secured ahead
of its scheduled 2029 operational entry, utilizing flexible Marigold internal sequencing
as a direct operational buffer against potential permitting delays.
23.6 Capital
and Operating Costs
SLR
has no recommendations related to capital and operating costs.
23-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
24.0 References
AACE
International. 2012. Cost Estimate Classification System – As applied in the Mining and Mineral Processing Industries, AACE International
Recommended Practice No. 47R-11, 17 p.
AMEC
Americas Ltd. 2014. Marigold Drill Hole Deviation Study. Memorandum, Prepared for Silver Standard Resources Inc., Dated 21 May 2014.
Barrick
Gold Corporation. 2026. Annual Report 2025. February 2026.
Call
& Nicholas Inc (CNI). 2019a. Slope Stability Study of the Red Dot Design, Marigold Mine, July 2019.
CNI.
2021. Analysis of Soil Slopes – H1, 5N1, and 5N2. Technical Memorandum. 04 October 2021.
CNI.
2024. Red Dot Phase 3 Pore Pressure Sensitivity Analysis. Presentation. December 16, 2024.
CNI.
2025. Marigold Preliminary M7 Analysis Results, Version 3. June 25, 2025.
Carver,
J.N., Rathnam, K., Rice, T., and Yeomans, T.J. 2018. NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Marigold Mine, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA,
31 July 2018.
Cline,
J.S., Hofstra, A.H., Muntean, J.L., Tosdal, R.M., and Hickey, K.A. 2005. Carlin-type gold deposits in Nevada: Critical geologic characteristics
and viable models, Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume, p. 451–484.
CNI.
2021a. Marigold Mine Site Visit Recommendations 6–7 July 2021. August 5, 2019.
CNI.
2021b. Analysis of Soil Slopes – H1, 5N1 and 5N2, October 2021.
Cook,
H. E. and Taylor, M. E. 1977. Comparison of continental slope and shelf environments in the Upper Cambrian and lowest Ordovician of Nevada,
in The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 25 pp. 51 – 81.
Cook,
H.E. and Corboy, J.J. 2004. Great Basin Paleozoic carbonate platform; facies, facies transitions, depositional models, platform architecture,
sequence stratigraphy, and predictive mineral host models; field trip guidebook; metallogeny of the Great Basin Project, 17–22 August
2003, 135 p.
Cook,
H.E. 2015. The Evolution and Relationship of the Western North American Paleozoic Carbonate Platform and Basin Depositional Environments
to Carlin-type Gold Deposits in the Context of Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy, in Pennel, W.M., and Garside, L.J., eds., New Concepts
and Discoveries, Geological Society of Nevada Symposium Proceedings, Reno/Sparks, Nevada, May 2015, v. 1, p. 1-80.
Cox,
D.P. and Singer, D.A. 1990. Descriptive and grade-tonnage models for distal-disseminated Ag-Au deposits: A supplement to U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1693, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-282, 7 p.
Cox,
D.P. 1992. Descriptive model of distal-disseminated Ag-Au, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2004, 19 p.
Davis,
B.M. 1997, Some Methods of Producing Interval Estimates for Global and Local Resources: SME Preprint 97-5, 4p.
24-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Doebrich,
J.L. and Theodore, T.G. 1996. Geologic History of the Battle Mountain Mining District, Nevada, and Regional Controls on the Distribution
of Mineral Systems in Coyner, A.R., and Faney, P.L., eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the American Cordillera, Geological Society of
Nevada, Symposium Proceedings, Reno/Sparks, Nevada, April 1995, pp. 453-483.
du
Bray, E.A. 2007. Time, space, and composition relations among northern Nevada intrusive rocks and their metallogenic implications, Geosphere,
v.3, p. 381–405.
Emsbo,
P., Hofstra, A.H., Lauha, E.A., Griffin, G.L., and Hutchinson, R.W. 2003. Origin of high-grade gold ore, source of ore fluid components,
and genesis of the Meikle and neighboring Carlin-type deposits, northern Carlin trend, Nevada, Economic Geology, v. 98, p. 1069–
1100.
Fithian.
2015. Geology, Geochemistry, and Geochronology of the Marigold Mine, Battle Mountain-Eureka Trend, Nevada, M.Sc. Thesis, Golden, Colorado,
Colorado School of Mines, 120 p.
Fithian,
M.T., Holley, E.A., and Kelly, N.M., 2018, Geology of gold deposits at the Marigold mine, Battle Mountain district, Nevada: Reviews in
Economic Geology, v. 20, p. 121–155.
Glamis
Gold Ltd. 2001. Glamis Marigold Mine Millenium Project Section 31 Technical Report and Reserve Summary for the Glamis Marigold Mine July
2001. (Revised).
Grauch
V.J.S., Rodriguez B. D., and Wooden J.L. 2003. Geophysical and Isotopic Constraints on Crustal Structure Related to Mineral Trends in
North-Central Nevada and Implications for Tectonic History Economic Geology, April 2003, v. 98, pp. 269-286.
Hamilton,
W. 1987. Crustal extension in the Basin and Range Province, southwestern United States, in Coward, M.P., Dewey, J.F., and Handcock, P.L.,
eds., Continental Extensional Tectonics, Geological Society Special Publication No. 28, pp. 155-176.
Harrold,
J. 2023, Trenton Canyon Historic Met Recovery, Memorandum, July 14, 2023.
Hofstra,
A.H. and Cline, J.S., 2000. Characteristics and models for Carlin-type gold deposits, Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 13, p. 163–220.
Ilchik,
R.P. and Barton, M.D. 1997. An amagmatic origin of Carlin-type gold deposits, Economic Geology, v. 92, p. 269-288.
Johnston,
M.K. and Ressel, M.W. 2004. Carlin-type and distal disseminated Au-Ag deposits: Related distal expressions of Eocene intrusive centers
in north-central Nevada in Controversies on the origin of World-class gold deposits, Part 1: Carlin-type gold deposits in Nevada, by
J.L. Muntean, J. Cline, M.K. Johnston, M.W. Ressel, E. Seedorff, and M.D. Barton: Society of Economic Geologists Newsletter, v. 59, p.
12-14.
Kester,
M. 2015. On infrared absorption band position variation as a result of gold mineralization in a distal disseminated gold deposit at the
Marigold Mine, Humboldt Co., Nevada, Senior Thesis, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 29 p.
Ketner,
K.B. 2008. The Inskip Formation, the Harmony Formation, and the Havallah Sequence of Northwestern Nevada—An Interrelated Paleozoic
Assemblage in the Home of the Sonoma Orogeny. US Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1757.
24-2
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Ketner,
K.B. 2013. Stratigraphy of Lower to Middle Paleozoic Rocks of Northern Nevada and the Antler Orogeny US Department of the Interior U.S.
Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1799.
Knight
Piésold Ltd. (KPL). 2014. Marigold Mine – Review of Rock Mechanic Considerations, dated 24 July 2014. REF. NO. NB101-201/24.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Large,
R.R., Bull, S.W., and Maslennikov, V.V. 2011. A carbonaceous sedimentary source-rock model for Carlin-type and orogenic gold deposits,
Economic Geology, v. 106, p. 331–358.
Magee
Geophysical Services LLC. 2014. Gravity Survey over the Marigold Mine Property, Humboldt County, Nevada. August 2014.
Magee
Geophysical Services LLC. 2016. Gravity Survey over the Marigold Mine Property, Humboldt County, Nevada. September 2016.
McClelland
Laboratories, Inc. 2023. Preliminary Report on Buffalo Valley Drill Core Composites – Metallurgical Testing, MLI Job No. 4906,
for SSR Mining, July 19, 2023.)
McGibbon,
D H. 2005. Geology of the Antler and Basalt Gold Deposits, Glamis-Marigold mine, Humboldt County, Nevada, in Rhoden, H.N., Steininger,
R.C., and Vikre, P.G., eds., Geological Society of Nevada Symposium 2005: Window to the World, Reno, Nevada, May 2005, pp. 399–409.
McGibbon,
D.H. 2004. Marigold Summary and Tour Guide (Internal report), pp. 1-3.
McGibbon,
D.H. and Wallace, A.B. 2000. Geology of the Marigold Mine area: in Theodore, T.G., 2000, Geology of pluton-related gold mineralization
at Battle Mountain, Nevada; Monographs in Mineral Resource Science No. 2: Center for Mineral Resources, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 222–240.
McKee,
E.H. 2000. Potassium-argon chronology of Cretaceous and Cenozoic igneous activity, hydrothermal alteration, and mineralization, in Theodore,
T.G., Geology of pluton-related gold Mineralization at Battle Mountain, Nevada, Monographs in Mineral Resource Science, no. 2, p. 121–143.
Muntean,
J.L. and Cline, J.S. 2018, Diversity of Carlin-Style Gold Deposits: Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 20, p. 1-5
Muntean,
J.L., Cline, J.S., Simon, A.C., and Longo, A.A. 2011. Magmatic-hydrothermal origin of Nevada’s Carlin-type gold deposits, Nature
Geoscience, v. 4, p. 122–127. (
OreWin.
2022. Marigold 2021 Technical Report Summary, September 2022. Filed on EDGAR/available at https://www.sec.gov/edgar.
Pells
Sullivan Meynink (PSM) 2021. Geotechnical Review: Marigold Gold Project. Internal memo by PSM Consult Pty Limited.
Piteau
Associates Engineering Ltd. (Piteau). 2020a. Marigold Rapid Infiltration Basis Arsenic Attenuation Study. August 2020.
Piteau.
2020b. Marigold RIB Area Alluvial Characterization. October 2020.
Piteau.
2021. Marigold Mine Mackay Pit Dewatering System Design 4180-R03, January 2021.
Reid,
R.F., Nicholes, J., Kofoed, R., McComb, J. and Sechrist, K.J., Buffalo Valley Gold Mine: Porphyry copper, gold skarn or distal disseminated
precious-metal deposit, in Steininger, Roger, and Pennell, Bill, eds., Great Basin evolution and
metallogeny: Geological Society of Nevada Symposium, May 14-22, 2010 [Proceedings], p. 637-656.
24-3
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Ressel,
M.W., and Henry, C.D., 2006. Igneous Geology of the Carlin Trend, Nevada: Development of the Eocene Plutonic Complex and Significance
for Carlin-Type Gold Deposits, Economic Geology, v. 101, p. 347-383.
Roberts,
R.J. 2002. A Passion for Gold, an Autobiography. University of Nevada press 1st Edition. Reid, R.F.
Roberts,
R.J. 1964. Stratigraphy and Structure of the Antler Peak Quadrangle, Humboldt and Lander Counties, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 459-A, 93 pp.
Saller,
A. and Dickinson, W. 1982. Alluvial to marine facies transition in the Antler overlap sequence, Pennsylvanian and Permian of North-central
Nevada: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 52, p. 925-940.
Samal,
A.R., Arthur, B., Gates, P. 2025. Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimates for the Lone Tree Deposit, Nevada, Prepared for
i-80 Gold Corp. Effective Date December 31, 2024. March 28, 2025.
Sillitoe,
R.H. and Bonham, H.F. 1990. Sediment-hosted gold deposits: Distal products of magmatic-hydrothermal systems, Geology, v. 18, p. 157–161.
Silver
Standard. 2014. NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Marigold Mine, Humboldt County, Nevada, Marigold Mining Company, November 19, 2014,
p. 233
SLR.
2024. Technical Report Summary on the Marigold Complex, Nevada, USA, SLR Project No.: 138.21581.00002, Prepared for SSR Mining Inc.,
February 12, 2024, p.268
SLR.
2026. NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Preliminary Economic Assessment, Effective Date May 2, 2026. Prepared for Roxmore Resources Inc.
May 29, 2026.
SSR
Mining Inc. 2023. Form 10-K. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2022. Filed on EDGAR on February 22, 2023.
SSR.
2026. Slope Stability Assessment of Waste Rock Dumps, Marigold Mine. April 3, 2026.
SSR.
2026b. Marigold Mining Company Buffalo Valley Feasibility Study Report (Draft). Revision B. August 7, 2026
Theodore,
T. G. 1991a. Preliminary geologic map of the North Peak Quadrangle, Humboldt and Lander counties, Nevada. USGS Open-File Report. 91-429.
Theodore,
T. G. 1991b. Preliminary geologic map of the Valmy Quadrangle, Humboldt and Lander counties, Nevada. USGS Open-File Report. 91-430.
Theodore,
T.G. 2000. Geology of Pluton-related Gold Mineralization at Battle Mountain, Nevada. Tucson, Arizona: centre for Mineral Resources, the
University of Arizona.
US
Securities and Exchange Commission. 2018. Regulation S-K, Subpart 229.1300, Item 1300 Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations
and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary.
Wallace,
A.R., Ludington, S., Mihalasky, M.J., Peters, S.G., Theodore, T.G., Ponce, D.A., John, D.A., and Berger, B.R. 2004. Assessment of
metallic mineral resources in the Humboldt River Basin, northern Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2218, 309 p. (Wallace, 2004)
Waterton
Global Resource Management website. 2018. www.watertonglobal.com
24-4
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
Wright,
James L. 2016. Marigold Property Gravity Survey.
Wright,
James L. 2020. Marigold Property Gravity Survey – 2020 GIS Database, prepared for Silver Standard, April 18, 2020, p. 18
WSP.
2026a. Preliminary Pit Slope Design Recommendations for the New Millenium Expansion, Marigold Mine, Nevada. Technical Memorandum. March
16, 2026.
WSP.
2026b. Preliminary Dewatering Plan Technical Memorandum. Prepared for SSR. March 20, 2026.
Wyld,
S.J., Rogers, J.W., and Copeland, P. 2003. Metamorphic Evolution of the Luning-Fencemaker Fold-Thrust Belt, Nevada: Illite Crystallinity,
Metamorphic Petrology, and 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, The Journal of Geology, v. 111, p. 17-38.
Zoback,
M.L., McKee, E.H., Blakely, R.J., and Thompson, G.A. 1994. The Northern Nevada rift: Regional tectonomagmatic relations and middle Miocene
stress direction, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 106, p. 371-38.
24-5
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
25.0 Reliance
on Information Provided by the Registrant
This
TRS has been prepared by SLR for SSR. The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:
· Information
available to SLR at the time of preparation of this TRS.
· Assumptions,
conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this TRS.
· Data,
reports, and other information supplied by SSR and other third party sources.
For
the purpose of this TRS, SLR has relied on ownership information provided by SSR Mining, Inc.'s Land Manager and Permit Compliance Advisor,
as reflected in various land tenure and mining claim title reports, in the Executive Summary and Section 3. SLR has not researched property
title or mineral rights for the Property as we consider it reasonable to rely on SSR’s legal counsel, who is responsible for maintaining
this information.
SLR
has relied on SSR for guidance on applicable taxes, royalties, and other government levies or interests, applicable to revenue or income
from the Property in the Executive Summary and Section 19. As the Property has been in operation for over ten years, SSR has considerable
experience in this area.
The
Qualified Persons have taken all appropriate steps, in their professional opinion, to ensure that the above information from SSR is sound.
Except
as provided by applicable laws, any use of this TRS by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.
25-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
26.0 Date
and Signature Page
This
report titled “S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” with an effective date of May 1, 2026 was prepared and signed by:
(Signed)
SLR International Corporation
Dated
at Lakewood, CO
October
9, 2026
SLR
International Corporation
26-1
SSR Mining Inc. | Marigold Complex October 9, 2026
S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary SLR Project No.: 138.020810.00001
27.0 Appendix
1
27-1
EX-99.2 — EXHIBIT 99.2
EX-99.2
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2.htm · Sequence: 4
Exhibit 99.2
SSR MINING | PAGE 1
News Release
October 13, 2026
SSR MINING ANNOUNCES 20-YEAR LIFE OF MINE PLAN FOR MARIGOLD
BASED ON EXPANDED 4.6 MILLION OUNCE MINERAL RESERVE
• NPV5% OF $3.3 BILLION AND $3.8 BILLION AT CONSENSUS AND SPOT PRICES, RESPECTIVELY
• MARIGOLD AVERAGES ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF 231,000 OUNCES OF GOLD FROM 2027 TO 2031
• LIFE OF MINE GOLD PRODUCTION TOTALS 3.3 MILLION OUNCES AT AN AVERAGE ALL-IN SUSTAINING COST (“AISC”) OF $2,062 PER
OUNCE SOLD (1, 2)
• SSR MINING’S U.S. PORTFOLIO NOW ANCHORED BY TWO MULTI-DECADE ASSETS IN MARIGOLD AND CC&V HOSTING TOTAL
COMBINED GOLD MINERAL RESERVES OF 7.3 MILLION OUNCES, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 6.5 MILLION OUNCES OF M&I RESOURCES
AND 2.3 MILLION OUNCES INFERRED
DENVER – SSR Mining Inc. (Nasdaq/TSX: SSRM) (“SSR Mining”, the “Company”, “we”, “us”, or “our”) announces the
results of a Technical Report Summary (“TRS”) for the Marigold Gold Complex (“Marigold”) in Nevada, USA (the “2026
Marigold TRS”).
Highlights of the 2026 Marigold TRS: (1,2)
• After-tax NPV5% of $3.3 billion at consensus gold prices averaging $3,948 per ounce over the 20-year life of mine
• Average annual gold production of 231,000 ounces over the five-year period from 2027 to 2031, 201,000 ounces
through 2040, and 169,000 ounces over the 20-year life of mine
o Over the period of active mining, annual after-tax operating cash flow and after-tax free cash flow averages $354
million and $273 million, respectively, based on consensus gold prices
• Gold Mineral Reserves at Marigold total 4.6 million ounces, an increase of 43% from the 3.2 million ounces at year-end
2025, with a significant Mineral Resource base demonstrating additional potential for longer-term upside
o Measured & Indicated Mineral Resources, exclusive of Mineral Reserves, total 1.7 million ounces of gold as
compared to the 1.8 million ounces of M&I Resources as of year-end 2025
o Inferred Mineral Resources are an additional 0.3 million ounces of gold as compared to the 0.5 million ounces as
of year-end 2025
• Inclusive of mined depletion, gold Mineral Reserves in the 2026 Marigold TRS increased significantly as
compared to the 2024 TRS, while Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources remained materially unchanged
over the same time period
o The gold prices used in the calculation of Marigold Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources are $2,200/oz and
$2,500/oz, respectively
• 2026 Marigold TRS incorporates the maiden life of mine plan for the Buffalo Valley project (“Buffalo Valley”) with 0.7
million ounces of gold Mineral Reserves and first production expected in 2029
o Growth capital investment over the life of mine totals $542 million, including the development of Buffalo Valley and
its stand-alone heap leach facility, as well as fleet additions to support a 33% increase in overall mining rates at
Marigold to an average of 138 million tonnes per annum
o Investment in fleet modernization and expansion will improve productivity and operational flexibility to support the
multi-decade mine life at Marigold
(1) The Company reports non-GAAP financial measures including after-tax free cash flow to manage and evaluate its operating performance at its mines. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” at the end of this press release for an explanation of these financial measures and a reconciliation of these financial measures to
operating cash flow, which is the most comparable GAAP financial measure.
(2) The calculations of average annual gold production use 2027 as Year 1, since 2026 represents a partial year of operation in the TRS. From 2027 onwards, life of
mine gold production at Marigold is 3.2 million ounces at an AISC of $2,005 per ounce sold.
SSR MINING | PAGE 2
Rod Antal, Executive Chairman of SSR Mining, said, “Today’s updated life of mine plan reinforces Marigold’s position as a
premier, multi-decade asset in the United States. Over the next three years, we plan to invest in Marigold to modernize the
operation for future success through fleet and heap leach pad expansions that aim to improve its operational flexibility and
reliability.
Importantly, over the next five years we expect Marigold will average more than 230,000 ounces of gold production annually,
aligned with the prior TRS expectations and supporting average annual gold production of approximately 360,000 ounces
from our U.S. assets over that period. Longer-term, the mine is expected to average 200,000 ounces of gold production
annually through 2040, delivering a more than 50% increase in life of mine production over the prior mine plan.
Investing in organic growth is one of the key pillars of our capital allocation strategy, and this TRS provides a clear pathway
for us to execute on that strategy and create value for shareholders. This new mine plan increases Mineral Reserves by
43% as compared to year-end 2025 while Indicated and Inferred Resources remain essentially unchanged, demonstrating
our track record of exploration and resource development success while highlighting further potential for additional mine life
extension in the future.”
The TRS, with an effective date of May 1, 2026, has been prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and will be available on
October 13, 2026 on the Company’s website and on a Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
SSR MINING | PAGE 3
Figure 1: 2026 Marigold TRS – Production Summary (in koz)
Table 1: 2026 Marigold TRS – Key Metrics
(3)
Five-Year Profile Active Mining Total Mine Life
Unit 2027 – 2031 2027 – 2040 2027 – 2050
Total Gold Production Au koz 1,153 2,816 3,208
Average Annual Gold Production Au koz 231 201 169
Total Operating Cash Flow (GAAP) $M $2,353 $4,955 $5,978
Total Capital Costs (GAAP) (4) $M $817 $1,133 $1,231
Total Free Cash Flow (non-GAAP) (5) $M $1,536 $3,822 $4,747
Average Annual Free Cash Flow $M $307 $273 $253
Cost of Sales (GAAP) $/oz sold $1,990 $1,959 $1,793
Cash Costs (non-GAAP) (5) $/oz sold $1,991 $1,960 $1,795
All-In Sustaining Costs (non-GAAP) (5) $/oz sold $2,279 $2,183 $2,005
(3) Five-Year Profile metrics are from 2027 to 2031, Active Mining metrics are from 2027 to 2040 and Total Mine Life metrics are summed over the period of 2027 to
2050. Average Total Mine Life metrics are calculated over the period 2027 to 2045, as residual heap leaching concludes in 2045.
(4) Total capital costs include sustaining capital, development capital, and reclamation.
(5) The Company reports non-GAAP financial measures including after-tax free cash flow and All-In Sustaining Cost (“AISC”) per ounce sold to manage and evaluate
its operating performance at its mines. All cash flow figures are presented after tax. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” at the end of this press release for an
explanation of these financial measures and a reconciliation of these financial measures to operating cash flow and cost of sales, which are the most comparable
GAAP financial measures. Cost of sales excludes depreciation, depletion, and amortization.
Table 2: 2026 Marigold TRS – After-Tax NPV Sensitivity
LOM Average
Gold Price $/oz $3,158 $3,553 Base Case (6) $4,342 $4,737
Sensitivity % -20% -10% — +10% +20%
NPV5% $M $1,609 $2,471 $3,334 $4,196 $5,058
(6) Base Case gold price assumption averages $3,948/oz over the life of mine, including the long-term gold price of $3,710/oz starting in 2031. See “assumptions” at
the end of this press release for a summary of gold prices used in the 2026 Marigold TRS.
SSR MINING | PAGE 4
Marigold Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources (“MRMR”) (7)
Marigold is located in southeastern Humboldt County, Nevada, United States on the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend,
approximately 5 kilometers south-southwest of the town of Valmy, Nevada. The Marigold Complex includes the Marigold
Mine and the Buffalo Valley and Trenton Canyon deposits. Buffalo Valley is located approximately 24 kilometers southwest
of the main infrastructure at Marigold. Since commencing operations in 1989, Marigold has produced over 5 million ounces
of gold.
Table 3: 2026 Marigold TRS – MRMR as of May 1, 2026
(100% attributable) Tonnes (Mt) Grade (g/t) Gold (Moz)
Total P+P Reserves 359 0.40 4.63
M&I Mineral Resources 131 0.40 1.66
Inferred Mineral Resources 29 0.31 0.29
Combining Marigold with the Company’s CC&V gold mine in Colorado established SSR Mining as the third largest gold
producer in the USA. Both operations now feature multi-decade mine lives and host significant Mineral Resource bases to
support potential for future growth and extension.
Figure 2: SSR Mining – MRMR by U.S. Asset
Marigold CC&V USA Consolidated
(7) Please see “Supplemental Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Information” at the end of this press release for additional details. Mineral Resources are
exclusive of Mineral Reserves. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Figure 3: SSR Mining – Combined U.S. Production Profile
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2027E 2028E 2029E 2030E 2031E 2032E 2033E 2034E 2035E 2036E 2037E 2038E 2039E 2040E 2041E 2042E
Gold Production (koz)
Marigold Gold Production (2026 TRS) CC&V Gold Production (2025 TRS)
SSR MINING | PAGE 5
2026 Marigold TRS Overview
Geological understanding of the Marigold Complex is supported by more than three decades of mining operations, extensive
exploration programs, geologic mapping, geophysical surveys, metallurgical testing, production history, and ongoing
resource definition drilling.
Mining & Processing
The 2026 Marigold life of mine plan features 15 years of active mining and 20 years of total production, inclusive of heap
leach pad rinsing and drawdown. The Marigold Complex mine plan outlined in the 2026 Marigold TRS has five distinct areas
of mining: the main Mackay pit (including the Red Dot and DG80 areas), the North Mackay pits, the Valmy pits, the New
Millennium area, and Buffalo Valley. A separate mining fleet of 8 to 10 trucks and two hydraulic shovels was initially
considered for Buffalo Valley, however, procuring additional trucks and loading units in 2027 allows for accelerated waste
stripping at Marigold ahead of initial development at Buffalo Valley. Peak fleet size in the 2026 Marigold TRS is 45 haul
trucks, six shovels and two loaders. This expanded fleet is then adequate to operate both Marigold and Buffalo Valley
simultaneously over the life of mine and enables increased flexibility in mine planning going forward.
On average, the operating period from 2026 to 2040 includes average mining rates of approximately 380,000 tonnes per
day (138.3 million tonnes per annum) with a life of mine strip ratio of 5.3:1. Stacking rates are expected to average
approximately 20 million tonnes per annum at Marigold over the life of mine, while the Buffalo Valley heap leach facility is
designed to accommodate stacking rates of up to 14 million tonnes per annum. The life of mine gold recovery across
Marigold and Buffalo Valley is 72% over an average of 90 to 120 day leach cycle, with an average stacked grade of 0.44
grams per tonne. Life of mine gold production totals 3.34 million ounces, including approximately 0.3 million ounces of
current work-in-progress inventory recovered over the life of mine.
The Buffalo Valley heap leach facility will be constructed and operated in a manner very similar to the main Marigold facility.
Run of mine ore will be truck stacked in 7.5 meter to 12.5 meter lifts. Following heap leaching, pregnant solution will be
pumped into three Carbon-in Column (CIC) trains for adsorption. Loaded carbon from the adsorption circuit will be
transported to the Marigold elution facility for final recovery, with barren carbon then transported back to the Buffalo Valley
facility. Buffalo Valley will require upgrades to the road connecting to main Marigold facilities, and will require the construction
of approximately 14.5 kilometers of power line from the existing North Peak power line to service the project site.
Table 4: 2026 Marigold TRS – Operating Metrics Summary
Unit Life of Mine
Total Material Mined Mt 1,881
Average Daily Mining Rate ktpd 380
Total Ore Mined Mt 298
Total Waste Mined Mt 1,583
Strip Ratio W:O 5.3:1
Total Ore Processed Mt 298
Average Daily Processing Rate ktpd 58
Ore Grade Stacked g/t 0.44
Contained Gold Stacked koz 4,255
Gold Recovery % 72%
SSR MINING | PAGE 6
Infrastructure
The Marigold Complex is accessed via a five kilometer public road connected to the U.S. Interstate Highway 80. Marigold
is grid connected, while water for operations is supplied by three existing groundwater production wells. Mine dewatering
wells are used to supplement production wells when needed. Where possible, operations at Buffalo Valley will leverage
existing infrastructure at Marigold, including the maintenance facilities and administrative offices. A tailings storage facility
(TSF) is present at Marigold but has been decommissioned since operations transitioned solely to heap leaching.
Operating Costs
Forecasted operating cost estimates related to the development of the 2026 Marigold TRS are derived from annual budgets
and historical actuals over the long life of the current operation. The life of mine operating cost estimate for the Marigold
Complex is $16.78 per tonne of stacked ore. Life of mine operating costs in the 2026 Marigold TRS do not account for non-cash inventory movements and other minor non-cash items that impact the Company’s calculation of cash costs and AISC.
Table 5: 2026 Marigold TRS – Mine Operating Cost Summary
Operating Costs Life of Mine ($M) Stacked ($/Tonne)
Mining & Maintenance $3,741 $12.57 ($1.99/t moved)
Processing $804 $2.70
G&A $451 $1.51
Total Costs $4,996 $16.78
Labor and diesel are the two largest components of operating costs at Marigold. Diesel prices for the economic analysis
were based on the latest available consensus forward-looking price forecasts and compared to those used in other
published studies. Near-term diesel price assumptions in the 2026 Marigold TRS average approximately $4.00/gallon before
normalizing to $3.00/gallon over the long-term. The effective NSR royalty on the Marigold property in the 2026 Marigold
TRS is approximately 6.9%, while the effective NSR royalty for the Buffalo Valley deposit is fixed at 3.5% over the life of
mine.
Figure 4: 2026 Marigold TRS – Cost Breakdown
SSR MINING | PAGE 7
Capital Costs
Total life of mine capital outlined in the 2026 Marigold TRS is $1,385 million, including $669 million in sustaining capital.
Sustaining capital costs include:
• Replacement of mining equipment as it reaches its economic life during the active mining period. The majority of
the mining equipment replacement costs relate to replacing haul trucks and excavators, as well as drills and mine
support equipment
• Major equipment rebuilds and component replacement to sustain equipment availability over the life of mine
• Administration costs and various site infrastructure improvements
• Ongoing cost associated with process infrastructure
• Permitting costs mainly associated with dewatering infrastructure (wells, pipelines, rapid infiltration basins) that are
required to manage the water table in advance of planned mine development
Table 6: 2026 Marigold TRS – Total Capital Breakdown (2026+)
Capital Costs Life of Mine ($M)
Development Capital $542
Sustaining Capital $669
Reclamation $175
Total Capital $1,385
The life of mine growth capital at Marigold totals $542 million, including all capital associated with major leach pad expansion
at Marigold, development of Buffalo Valley, and the expansion of the Marigold mining fleet. These investments support the
development and mining of Buffalo Valley, as well as enable the execution of the extended Marigold life of mine plan.
Table 7: 2026 Marigold TRS – Growth Capital Breakdown (2026+)
Description Life of Mine ($M) Amount (%)
Mining Equipment – Expansion $265 49%
Heap Leach Facilities – Expansion $57 11%
Buffalo Valley Development $220 40%
Growth Capital Costs as of May 1, 2026 $542 100%
The costs associated with reclamation and closure activities at Marigold are estimated to be $175 million, with the majority
of these costs incurred from 2038 to the end of the current life of mine plan.
Additional Potential for Upside at Marigold
The 2026 Marigold TRS outlines 1.7 million ounces of gold Indicated Mineral Resources, exclusive of Mineral Reserves,
and an additional 0.3 million ounces of gold Inferred Mineral Resources across the Marigold Complex. These Mineral
Resources represent potential opportunities for future conversion to Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources in the 2026
Marigold TRS were calculated using a gold price assumption of $2,500/oz.
SSR Mining continues to invest in resource development and exploration drilling across the Marigold Complex to evaluate
future growth potential, particularly through the continued expansion of currently defined Mineral Reserve pits. In 2026, SSR
Mining planned for more than 10 kilometers of drilling on brownfield targets across the property, including in the
underexplored southern end of the property where new discoveries could support further heap leach expansions to further
optimize ore and waste movements.
Additionally, potential increases to the gold price assumptions used in the calculation of Mineral Reserves and Resources
could add to current MRMR totals at Marigold in the future.
SSR MINING | PAGE 8
Figure 5: SSR Mining’s Proven M&A Track Record (8)
Marigold Seabee CC&V
(8) Acquisition Value includes initially announced acquisition price, subsequent property acquisitions and the present value of contingent payments; Current values
are rounded; “Realized Cash” means revenue less cost of sales, exploration, evaluation, and reclamation expenditures, cash care and maintenance, capital
expenditures and taxes; See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” at the end of this press release for additional details. Analyst NAV based on broker consensus
research as of October 5, 2026.
Assumptions
All figures are in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted. The gold price used in the calculation of Mineral Reserves was $2,200
per ounce and the gold price used in the calculation of Mineral Resources was $2,500 per ounce. The TRS is based on
gold prices of: 2026 - $4,637/oz; 2027 - $4,794/oz; 2028 - $4,616/oz; 2029 - $4,355/oz; 2030 - $3,991/oz; and long-term -
$3,710/oz. Diesel price assumptions used in the TRS were: $4.00/gal for 2027 and 2028, $3.50/gal in 2029 and $3.00/gal
long-term. All references to tonnage in this press release are in metric tonnes unless otherwise noted. Key assumptions
used in the preparation of the TRS are subject to risks and uncertainties described under “Cautionary Note Regarding
Forward-Looking Information and Statements”.
Marigold Technical Report Summary
The Marigold TRS is expected to be included as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K that is filed with the SEC by
October 13, 2026 and will be available for review on EDGAR at sec.gov at that time. This press release does not purport to
be a complete summary of the Marigold TRS and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Marigold TRS that we will file
with the SEC. You should read this press release in conjunction with the Marigold TRS, including the qualifications and
limitations described therein, as there may be information in the Marigold TRS that may be important.
About SSR Mining
SSR Mining Inc. is a free-cash-flow-focused gold and silver mining company and the third-largest gold producer in the
United States. SSR Mining has a diversified portfolio of operating, development and exploration assets across the Americas,
including four operating mines in the USA, Canada, and Argentina. In 2026, SSR Mining is expected to produce between
450,000 and 535,000 Gold Equivalent Ounces. The Company is headquartered in Denver, Colorado and is listed under the
ticker symbol SSRM on the Nasdaq Stock Market and the Toronto Stock Exchange.
For more information, please visit: www.ssrmining.com.
E-Mail: invest@ssrmining.com
Phone: +1 (888) 338-0046
SSR MINING | PAGE 9
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information and Statements:
Except for statements of historical fact relating to us, certain statements contained in this news release constitute forward-looking
statements, forward-looking information, future oriented financial information, or financial outlooks (collectively “forward-looking
information”) within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information may be contained in this document and our
other public filings. Forward-looking information relates to statements concerning our outlook and anticipated events or results and in
some cases, can be identified by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “could”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “intend”,
“estimate”, “projects”, “predict”, “potential”, “continue” or other similar expressions, as well as statements written in the future tense or that
are not historical facts.
Forward-looking information in this news release includes any statements concerning, among other things: all information related to the
Company’s Marigold operations, including forecasts and outlook; preliminary cost reporting in this document; timing, production,
operating, cost, and capital expenditure guidance; our operational and development targets and catalysts and the impact of any
suspensions on operations; growth initiatives, the results of any gold reconciliations; the ability to discover additional oxide gold ore; the
generation of free cash flow and returning cash to shareholders, including via share repurchases or dividends; matters relating to proposed
exploration; communications with local stakeholders; maintaining community and government relations; negotiation and completion of
transactions; commodity prices; Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves, conversion of Mineral Resources, realization of Mineral Reserves,
and the existence or realization of Mineral Resource estimates; the development approach; the timing and amount of future production;
the timing of studies, announcements, and analysis; the timing of construction and development of proposed mines and process facilities;
capital and operating expenditures; economic conditions; availability of sufficient financing; exploration plans; receipt of regulatory
approvals; timing and impact surrounding suspension or interruption of operations as a result of regulatory requirements or actions by
governmental authority; and any and all other timing, exploration, development, operational, financial, budgetary, economic, legal, social,
environmental, regulatory, and political matters that may influence or be influenced by future events or conditions. The estimation of
mineral resources is inherently uncertain and involves subjective judgments about many relevant factors. The accuracy of any such
estimates is a function of the quantity and quality of available data, and of the assumptions made and judgments used in engineering and
geological interpretation (including estimated future production from Marigold, the anticipated tonnages and grades that will be mined and
the estimated level of recovery that will be realized), which may prove to be unreliable and depend, to a certain extent, upon the analysis
of drilling results and statistical inferences that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate.
Such forward-looking information is subject to various risks and uncertainties and based on a number of material factors and assumptions,
which could cause actual results and experience to differ materially from anticipated results or expectations expressed in this news
release, including, but not limited in any manner to, those disclosed from time to time in our reports filed with the SEC on EDGAR,
including the “Risk Factors” section of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q,
as applicable, and the Canadian securities regulatory authorities on SEDAR+, and include: the assumptions made in respect of the
Company’s Marigold operations; the inherent speculative nature of exploration results; the ability to explore; local and global political and
economic conditions; governmental and regulatory requirements and actions by governmental authorities, including changes in
government policy, government ownership requirements, changes in environmental, tax and other laws or regulations and the
interpretation thereof; communications with local stakeholders; maintaining community and governmental relations; status of negotiations
of joint ventures; weather conditions at our operations; commodity prices; the ultimate determination of and realization of Mineral
Reserves; existence or realization of Mineral Resources; the development approach; availability and receipt of required approvals, titles,
licenses and permits; sufficient working capital to develop and operate the mines and implement development plans; access to adequate
services and supplies; foreign currency exchange rates; interest rates; access to capital markets and associated cost of funds; availability
of a qualified work force; ability to negotiate, finalize, and execute relevant agreements; the Company’s ability to efficiently integrate
acquired mines and businesses and to manage the costs related to any such integration, or to retain key technical, professional or
management personnel; lack of social opposition to our mines or facilities; lack of legal challenges with respect to our properties; the
timing and amount of future production; the ability to meet production, cost, and capital expenditure targets; timing and ability to produce
studies and analyses; capital and operating expenditures; economic conditions; availability of sufficient financing; the ultimate ability to
mine, process, and sell mineral products on economically favorable terms; and any and all other timing, exploration, development,
operational, financial, budgetary, economic, legal, social, geopolitical, regulatory and political factors that may influence future events or
conditions. While we consider these factors and assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to us, they may
prove to be incorrect.
The above list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect any of the Company’s forward-looking information. You should not place
undue reliance on forward-looking information. Forward-looking information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions
made by us. Although we believe that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking information are based are
reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking information because we can give no assurance that they will
prove to be correct. Other than as required by law, we do not intend, and undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking information
to reflect, among other things, new information or future events. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, our
website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this document.
SSR MINING | PAGE 10
Qualified Persons
The scientific and technical information concerning our mineral projects in this news release have been reviewed and verified by SLR
International Corporation, a “qualified person” under subpart 1 of Regulation S-K 1300 (“S-K 1300”) and National Instrument 43-101 –
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). For a description of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to
estimate Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources included in this news release, as well as data verification procedures and a general
discussion of the extent to which the estimates may be affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical,
marketing or other relevant factors, please review the Technical Report Summaries for the properties discussed in this news release,
which are available under the Company’s corporate profile on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.
Supplemental Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Information
Marigold’s Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. Mineral Resources are presented on a project basis and have an effective date of May 1, 2026. Mineral Reserves and Mineral
Resources have been reported on a 100% basis as SSR Mining wholly owns the property.
The TRS contains detailed descriptions of data verification, sampling and assay procedures, quality assurance and quality control
measures, key assumptions, parameters, risks and other factors supporting the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and the
economic analysis.
Mineral Resources, which are not Mineral Reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources
may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, market or other relevant issues. The deposit has been classified as
Indicated and Inferred based on drill spacing appropriate to the deposit and mineralization style. The quantity and grade of reported
Inferred resources are uncertain in nature, and there has not been sufficient work to define these Inferred Mineral Resources as Indicated
or Measured resources. There is no certainty that any part of a mineral resource will ever be converted into mineral reserves.
The following tables provide a summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources for Marigold with an effective date of May 1, 2026
as included within the 2026 Marigold TRS:
Proven Probable Proven + Probable Metallurgical
Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Recovery
(Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (%)
Marigold — — — 240.4 0.46 3.52 240.4 0.46 3.52 73.5%
Buffalo Valley — — — 45.3 0.46 0.67 45.3 0.46 0.67 65.9%
Stockpile — — — 12.0 0.17 0.06 12.0 0.17 0.06 56.3%
Leach Pad Inventory — — — 61.0 0.19 0.37 61.0 0.19 0.37 65.2%
Total — — — 358.7 0.40 4.63 358.7 0.40 4.63 71.5%
(1) The Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 definitions.
(2) The Marigold Mine Mineral Reserve estimate is based on a metal price assumption of $2,200/oz gold and is reported at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable Au
(Au assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds).
(3) The Buffalo Valley Mineral Reserve estimate assumes ROM heap leach processing and a gold price of $2,200/oz. Cut-off grades range from 0.069 to 1.767 g/t
payable Au, and metallurgical recoveries range from 3.1% to 79.2%, both varying by lithology/metallurgical domain.
(4) No mining dilution is applied to the grade of the Mineral Reserves. Dilution intrinsic to the Mineral Reserves estimate is considered sufficient to represent the
mining selectivity considered.
(5) Bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10, Havallah = 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64. For Buffalo
Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithology ranging from a low of 2.426 (Overburden) to a high of 2.737 (Basalt) with a weighted average of 2.63.
(6) The Property is 100% owned by SSR through its subsidiary MMC.
(7) All ounces reported represent troy ounces, and g/t represents grams per metric tonne.
(8) The point of reference for Mineral Reserves is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing facility.
(9) Totals may vary due to rounding.
Measured Indicated Measured + Indicated Inferred
Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold
(Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (Mt) (g/t) (Moz) (Mt) (g/t) (Moz)
Marigold — — — 125.0 0.39 1.57 125.0 0.39 1.57 18.1 0.30 0.18
Buffalo Valley — — — 5.6 0.53 0.09 5.6 0.53 0.09 11.2 0.31 0.11
Total — — — 130.6 0.40 1.66 130.6 0.40 1.66 29.3 0.31 0.29
(10)The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
(11)The effective date of Mineral Resources at Marigold is May 1, 2026, and the effective date of Mineral Resources at Buffalo Valley is May 1, 2026.
(12)Marigold Mine is based on an optimized pit shell at a cut-off grade of 0.069 g/t payable gold (gold assay factored for recovery, royalty, and net proceeds). Buffalo
Valley is based on a cut-off grade of 0.10 to 0.32 g/t contained gold, depending on material type.
(13)Marigold metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade. Buffalo Valley metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade and lithology.
(14)For Marigold, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithologies: alluvium = 2.10, Havallah = 2.48, Valmy/Antler = 2.4076+(0.0001*DEPTH), and Valmy = 2.64,
below 533m. For Buffalo Valley, bulk densities (in t/m3) were assigned by lithology, ranging from a low of 2.095 (Overburden) to a high of 2.725 (Basalt).
(15)The Mineral Resources estimate is reported below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for Marigold, and below the as-mined surface as of May 1, 2026, for
Buffalo Valley.
(16)The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing facility.
(17)Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
SSR MINING | PAGE 11
(18)SSR Mining has 100% ownership of the Marigold Complex.
(19)Gold grades are given in grams per metric tonne (g/t).
(20)Totals may vary due to rounding.
For Information regarding CC&V’s Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources, refer to Item 2. Properties in the Company’s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 filed on February 17, 2026 and the Technical Report Summary included as an
exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K.
The following tables provide a summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources for CC&V for the year ended December 31, 2025
as included within the Company’s Annual Report:
Proven Probable Proven + Probable Metallurgical
Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Recovery
(kt) (g/t) (koz) (kt) (g/t) (koz) (kt) (g/t) (koz) (%)
CC&V (OP) 105,440 0.44 1,480 46,566 0.41 607 152,006 0.43 2,087 52%
CC&V (Stockpile) — — — 68,205 0.26 564 68,205 0.26 564 47%
Total 105,440 0.44 1,480 114,771 0.32 1,171 220,211 0.37 2,651 50%
(1) The Mineral Reserve estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 definitions
(2) CC&V Mineral Reserves are reported at a cut-off grade for crush leach is 0.10g/t Au extractable cyanide soluble (factored for recovery) and run of mine leach is
0.069 g/t Au extractable cyanide soluble (factored for recovery).
(3) Metallurgical recoveries vary by lithology and oxidation state and ranges between 24.8-94.9% .
(4) No mining dilution is applied to the grade of the Mineral Reserves. Dilution intrinsic to the Mineral Reserves estimate is considered sufficient to represent the
mining selectivity considered.
(5) The point of reference for Mineral Reserves is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing facility.
(6) Leach Pad Inventory of 360 koz represents work-in-process gold and is 100% recoverable over the LOM.
(7) Totals may vary due to rounding.
Measured Indicated Measured + Indicated Inferred
Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold Tonnage Au Grade Gold
(kt) (g/t) (koz) (kt) (g/t) (koz) (kt) (g/t) (koz) (kt) (g/t) (koz)
CC&V (OP) 157,034 0.49 2,456 149,020 0.43 2,078 306,054 0.46 4,534 149,352 0.41 1,963
CC&V (Stockpile) — — — 32,028 0.26 272 32,028 0.26 272 — — —
Total 157,034 0.49 2,456 181,048 0.40 2,350 338,082 0.44 4,805 149,352 0.41 1,963
(8) The Mineral Resource estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
(9) CC&V Mineral Resources are reported based on $2,000/oz gold price. Mineral Resources estimate was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300.
(10)Mineral Resource estimate is based on an optimized pit shell. CC&V Mineral Resources are reported at a gold cut-off grade for crush leach of 0.10 g/t gold
extractable cyanide soluble (factored for metallurgical recovery) and run for mine leach of 0.069 g/t gold extractable cyanide soluble (factored for metallurgical
recovery).
(11)Metallurgical recoveries vary with gold grade, range between 24.8-94.9%.
(12)Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
(13)The point of reference for Mineral Resources is the entry to the carbon columns in the processing facility.
(14)Totals may vary due to rounding.
SSR MINING | PAGE 12
Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Measures
We have included certain non-GAAP performance measures throughout this document to assist in understanding our financial results.
These performance measures are employed by us to measure our operating and economic performance internally and to assist in
decision-making, as well as to provide key performance information to senior management. We believe that, in addition to measures
prepared in accordance with GAAP, certain investors and other stakeholders will find this information useful to evaluate our operating and
financial performance; however, these non-GAAP performance measures do not have any standardized meaning. These performance
measures are intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of
performance prepared in accordance with GAAP. Our definitions of our non-GAAP financial measures may not be comparable to similarly
titled measures reported by other companies. These non-GAAP measures should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated
interim financial statements.
Cash costs, AISC per ounce sold, and free cash flow are Non-GAAP Measures with no standardized definition under U.S. GAAP.
Non-GAAP Measure - Cash Costs and AISC
Cash Costs and All-In Sustaining Costs (“AISC”) per payable ounce of gold and respective unit cost measures are non-U.S. GAAP metrics
developed by the World Gold Council to provide transparency into the costs associated with producing gold and provide a standard for
comparison across the industry. The World Gold Council is a market development organization for the gold industry.
The Company uses cash costs per ounce of precious metals sold and AISC per ounce of precious metals to monitor its operating
performance internally. The most directly comparable measure prepared in accordance with GAAP is cost of sales. The Company believes
this measure provides investors and analysts with useful information about its underlying cash costs of operations and the impact of by-product credits on its cost structure. The Company also believes these are relevant metrics used to understand its operating profitability.
When deriving the cost of sales associated with an ounce of precious metal, the Company includes by-product credits, which allows
management and other stakeholders to assess the net costs of gold and silver production.
AISC includes total cost of sales incurred at the Company's mining operations, which forms the basis of cash costs. Additionally, the
Company includes sustaining capital expenditures, sustaining mine-site exploration and evaluation costs, reclamation cost accretion and
amortization, and general and administrative expenses. This measure seeks to reflect the ongoing cost of gold and silver production from
current operations; therefore, growth capital is excluded. The Company determines sustaining capital to be capital expenditures that are
necessary to maintain current production and execute the current mine plan. The Company determines growth capital to be those
payments used to develop new operations or related to projects at existing operations where those projects will materially benefit the
operation.
The Company believes that AISC provides additional information to management and stakeholders that provides visibility to better define
the total costs associated with production and better understanding of the economics of the Company's operations and performance
compared to other producers. In deriving the number of ounces of precious metal sold, the Company considers the physical ounces
available for sale after the treatment and refining process, commonly referred to as payable metal, as this is what is sold to third parties.
The following tables provide a reconciliation of Cost of sales to cash costs and AISC used in the 2026 Marigold TRS:
(in thousands, unless otherwise noted) 2027 – 2031 2027 – 2040 2027 – 2045
Cost of sales (GAAP) (1) $ 2,293,943 $ 5,513,569 $ 5,752,463
Treatment and refining charges $ 1,253 $ 3,351 $ 4,315
Cash costs (non-GAAP) $ 2,295,195 $ 5,516,920 $ 5,756,778
Sustaining capital $ 332,622 $ 569,533 $ 572,033
Reclamation cost accretion and amortization $ - $ 58,124 $ 101,536
Total AISC (non-GAAP) $ 2,627,817 $ 6,144,577 $ 6,430,348
Gold sold (oz) 1,152,882 2,815,000 3,207,423
Cost of sales per gold ounces sold $ 1,990 $ 1,959 $ 1,793
Cash cost per gold ounce sold $ 1,991 $ 1,960 $ 1,795
AISC per gold ounce sold $ 2,279 $ 2,183 $ 2,005
(1) Excludes depreciation, depletion, and amortization.
SSR MINING | PAGE 13
Non-GAAP Measure - Free Cash Flow and Mine Site Free Cash Flow
The Company uses free cash flow and mine site free cash flow to supplement information in its condensed consolidated financial
statements. The most directly comparable financial measure prepared in accordance with GAAP to free cash flow is cash provided by
operating activities and the most directly comparable financial measure prepared in accordance with GAAP to mine site free cash flow is
mine segment revenue. The Company believes that in addition to measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, certain investors and
analysts use this information to evaluate the ability of the Company to generate cash flow after capital investments and build the
Company's cash resources and, with respect to one of its mine segments, to evaluate the cash generated from a mine. The Company
calculates free cash flow by deducting cash capital spending from cash generated by operating activities. The Company does not deduct
payments made for business acquisitions. The Company calculates mine site free cash flow by deducting cost of sales, exploration,
evaluation, and reclamation expenditures, cash care and maintenance, capital expenditures and taxes from revenue from a particular
segment.
The following table provides a reconciliation of cash provided by operating activities to free cash flow as shown in Table 1:
(in millions of U.S. dollars) Consensus Gold Prices
Five-Year Profile Active Mining Total Mine Life (2) Total Mine Life (2)
2027 – 2031 2027 – 2040 2027 – 2045 2027 – 2050
Operating cash flow after taxes (GAAP) $ 2,353 $ 4,955 $ 5,983 $ 5,978
Total capital costs $ (817) $ (1,133) $ (1,179) $ (1,231)
Total free cash flow after taxes (non-GAAP) $ 1,536 $ 3,822 $ 4,804 $ 4,747
Number of years 5 14 19 24
Average operating cash flow after taxes (GAAP) $ 471 $ 354 $ 315 $ 249
Average total capital costs (including closure/reclamation costs) $ (163) $ (81) $ (62) $ (51)
Average free cash flow after taxes (non-GAAP) $ 307 $ 273 $ 253 $ 198
(2) Total Mine Life metrics are summed over the period of 2027 to 2050. As residual heap leaching concludes in 2045, average operating cash flow, capital costs
and free cash flow over the “Total Mine Life” period calculated between 2027 – 2045.
The Company uses mine site free cash flow to supplement information in its condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company
calculates mine site free cash flow as revenue less cost of sales, exploration, evaluation, and reclamation expenditures, cash care and
maintenance, capital expenditures and taxes. We believe presenting asset level revenue minus large cash expenditures will be useful for
investors because it represents a view of how much cash is actually generated and spent that is directly attributable to a specific site.
The following table provides a calculation of mine Site Free Cash Flow for Marigold, Seabee and CC&V since acquisition through June
30, 2026:
(in millions of U.S. dollars) Since Acquisition
Marigold Seabee CC&V
Revenue (GAAP) $ 4,455 $ 1,655 $ 765
Cost of sales $ (2,395) $ (660) $ (255)
Exploration & reclamation $ (115) $ (110) $ (20)
Care & maintenance $ — $ (25) $ —
Capital expenditure $ (730) $ (320) $ (70)
Mine site free cash flow before taxes (non-GAAP) $ 1,215 $ 540 $ 420
Taxes (3) $ (160) $ (140) $ (75)
Mine site after tax free cash flow (non-GAAP) $ 1,055 $ 400 $ 345
(3) Represents federal and state taxes paid since acquisition
SSR MINING | PAGE 14
2026 Marigold TRS – Life of Mine Cash Flow Model (4,5)
Operating Summary Total / Avg May 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
Total Ore Mined (kt) 297,731 11,891 20,903 20,812 22,849 14,178 20,240 27,442 24,325 24,047 23,541 25,589 20,301 16,367 18,182 7,064 — — — — — — — — — —
Total Waste Mined (kt) 1,583,200 51,102 107,186 162,640 139,565 162,766 143,356 137,893 150,610 118,262 87,127 74,364 73,902 83,655 77,554 13,218 — — — — — — — — — —
Total Material Mined (kt) 1,880,931 62,993 128,089 183,452 162,414 176,944 163,596 165,336 174,936 142,308 110,668 99,953 94,203 100,022 95,736 20,283 — — — — — — — — — —
Stripping Ratio (W:O) 5.3 4.3 5.1 7.8 6.1 11.5 7.1 5.0 6.2 4.9 3.7 2.9 3.6 5.1 4.3 1.9 — — — — — — — — — —
Total Ore Processed (kt) 297,731 11,891 20,903 20,812 22,849 14,178 20,240 27,442 24,325 24,047 23,541 25,589 20,301 16,367 18,182 7,064 — — — — — — — — — —
Gold Grade, Stacked (g/t) 0.44 0.41 0.51 0.49 0.65 0.59 0.40 0.32 0.44 0.45 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.42 0.38 0.80 — — — — — — — — — —
Average Recovery, Gold (%) 72% 75% 74% 72% 73% 71% 69% 68% 68% 72% 71% 73% 70% 76% 75% 76% — — — — — — — — — —
Payable Gold, Total (koz) 3,335 128 170 281 243 280 179 205 221 231 207 198 150 157 158 135 148 100 68 46 31 — — — — —
Financial Summary — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Gold Gross Revenue ($M) $13,166 $592 $817 $1,295 $1,059 $1,116 $665 $762 $821 $855 $768 $734 $556 $582 $587 $500 $550 $371 $251 $169 $114 — — — — —
Operating Costs ($M) ($6,029) ($277) ($400) ($528) ($492) ($464) ($411) ($416) ($429) ($445) ($405) ($385) ($337) ($351) ($313) ($139) ($82) ($57) ($42) ($33) ($25) — — — — —
Refining and Freight Cost ($M) ($5) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($0) — — — — —
EBITDA ($M) $7,132 $315 $417 $767 $567 $651 $254 $346 $393 $410 $363 $348 $219 $230 $274 $361 $468 $314 $208 $136 $89 — — — — —
Depreciation & Depletion ($M) ($3,171) ($105) ($186) ($307) ($283) ($286) ($187) ($235) ($242) ($225) ($180) ($157) ($124) ($124) ($122) ($105) ($168) ($56) ($38) ($25) ($17) — — — — —
Earnings Before Taxes ($M) $3,961 $210 $231 $460 $284 $366 $67 $112 $150 $185 $183 $192 $95 $107 $152 $255 $300 $258 $171 $111 $72 — — — — —
Federal & State Tax ($M) ($834) ($2) ($31) ($53) ($69) ($79) ($60) ($27) ($39) ($46) ($43) ($40) ($31) ($22) ($28) ($44) ($67) ($63) ($41) ($27) ($17) ($5) — — — —
Net Income ($M) $3,127 $208 $200 $407 $215 $287 $7 $84 $112 $139 $140 $152 $64 $85 $124 $212 $233 $195 $129 $84 $55 ($5) — — — —
AT Operating Cash Flow ($M) $6,298 $320 $384 $708 $498 $568 $194 $317 $352 $363 $318 $307 $187 $209 $244 $304 $395 $283 $168 $110 $73 ($5) $1 ($1) ($0) $0
Total Capital ($M) ($1,385) ($133) ($343) ($270) ($74) ($67) ($62) ($40) ($51) ($45) ($20) ($24) ($19) ($48) ($33) ($36) ($9) ($17) ($11) ($6) ($3) ($11) ($25) ($13) ($2) ($2)
AT Free Cash Flow ($M) $4,913 $187 $41 $438 $424 $501 $132 $277 $301 $318 $298 $283 $169 $161 $211 $268 $386 $266 $157 $104 $70 ($16) ($24) ($13) ($2) ($2)
Non-GAAP Reconciliation
Cost of Sales ($M, GAAP) $6,029 $277 $400 $528 $492 $464 $411 $416 $429 $445 $405 $385 $337 $351 $313 $139 $82 $57 $42 $33 $25 — — — — —
Treatment & Refining ($M) $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 — — — — —
Cash Costs ($M, non-GAAP) $6,034 $277 $400 $528 $492 $464 $411 $416 $429 $445 $405 $386 $338 $351 $313 $139 $82 $57 $42 $33 $25 — — — — —
Sustaining Capital ($M) $669 $97 $80 $91 $43 $57 $62 $36 $34 $44 $19 $21 $17 $33 $18 $17 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 — — — — —
Reclamation ($M) $175 — — — — — — $1 $1 $1 $1 $3 $2 $15 $15 $20 $8 $17 $10 $6 $3 $11 $25 $13 $2 $2
AISC ($M, non-GAAP) $6,877 $374 $480 $619 $535 $521 $473 $452 $464 $490 $425 $409 $356 $399 $346 $176 $91 $74 $53 $39 $28 $11 $25 $13 $2 $2
(4) All cash flow figures are presented after tax (“AT”). Free cash flow is calculated as operating cash flow less capital costs. The summary above does not include non-cash inventory adjustments and other minor non-cash items that impact the Company’s calculation of cash costs and AISC.
(5) Figures represented in this table may not recalculate due to rounding.
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex23-1img001.jpg · Sequence: 8
Binary file (3879 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex23-1img001.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img001.jpg · Sequence: 9
Binary file (32500 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img001.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img002.jpg · Sequence: 10
Binary file (7565 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img002.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img01.jpg · Sequence: 11
Binary file (1423 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img01.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img100.jpg · Sequence: 12
Binary file (144352 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img100.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img101.jpg · Sequence: 13
Binary file (120788 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img101.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img102.jpg · Sequence: 14
Binary file (121061 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img102.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img103.jpg · Sequence: 15
Binary file (251521 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img103.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img104.jpg · Sequence: 16
Binary file (242592 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img104.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img105.jpg · Sequence: 17
Binary file (244617 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img105.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img106.jpg · Sequence: 18
Binary file (132062 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img106.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img107.jpg · Sequence: 19
Binary file (127950 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img107.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img108.jpg · Sequence: 20
Binary file (106863 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img108.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img11.jpg · Sequence: 21
Binary file (68200 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img11.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img71.jpg · Sequence: 22
Binary file (54419 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img71.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img72.jpg · Sequence: 23
Binary file (73125 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img72.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img73.jpg · Sequence: 24
Binary file (120616 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img73.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img74.jpg · Sequence: 25
Binary file (110942 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img74.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img75.jpg · Sequence: 26
Binary file (113628 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img75.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img76.jpg · Sequence: 27
Binary file (73494 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img76.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img77.jpg · Sequence: 28
Binary file (76918 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img77.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img78.jpg · Sequence: 29
Binary file (55453 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img78.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img79.jpg · Sequence: 30
Binary file (31540 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img79.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img80.jpg · Sequence: 31
Binary file (78428 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img80.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img81.jpg · Sequence: 32
Binary file (354819 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img81.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img95.jpg · Sequence: 33
Binary file (216264 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img95.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img96.jpg · Sequence: 34
Binary file (257370 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img96.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img97.jpg · Sequence: 35
Binary file (81737 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img97.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img98.jpg · Sequence: 36
Binary file (73249 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img98.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1img99.jpg · Sequence: 37
Binary file (110829 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1img99.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img01.jpg · Sequence: 38
Binary file (69326 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img01.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img02.jpg · Sequence: 39
Binary file (97309 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img02.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img03.jpg · Sequence: 40
Binary file (35575 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img03.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img04.jpg · Sequence: 41
Binary file (86147 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img04.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img05.jpg · Sequence: 42
Binary file (57570 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img05.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img06.jpg · Sequence: 43
Binary file (94638 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp2img06.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img001.jpg · Sequence: 44
Binary file (287550 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img001.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img002.jpg · Sequence: 45
Binary file (281894 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img002.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img003.jpg · Sequence: 46
Binary file (294963 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img003.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img004.jpg · Sequence: 47
Binary file (226395 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img004.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img005.jpg · Sequence: 48
Binary file (220653 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img005.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img006.jpg · Sequence: 49
Binary file (260542 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img006.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img007.jpg · Sequence: 50
Binary file (259538 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img007.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img008.jpg · Sequence: 51
Binary file (268539 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img008.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img009.jpg · Sequence: 52
Binary file (139821 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img009.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img010.jpg · Sequence: 53
Binary file (427325 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img010.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img011.jpg · Sequence: 54
Binary file (65201 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img011.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img012.jpg · Sequence: 55
Binary file (64501 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img012.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img013.jpg · Sequence: 56
Binary file (198069 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp3img013.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img01.jpg · Sequence: 57
Binary file (26377 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img01.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img02.jpg · Sequence: 58
Binary file (31541 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img02.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img03.jpg · Sequence: 59
Binary file (20777 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img03.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img04.jpg · Sequence: 60
Binary file (21243 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img04.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img05.jpg · Sequence: 61
Binary file (18210 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img05.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img06.jpg · Sequence: 62
Binary file (26558 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img06.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img07.jpg · Sequence: 63
Binary file (21648 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img07.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img08.jpg · Sequence: 64
Binary file (21154 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img08.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img09.jpg · Sequence: 65
Binary file (23919 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img09.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img11.jpg · Sequence: 66
Binary file (288921 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img11.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img12.jpg · Sequence: 67
Binary file (274538 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img12.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img13.jpg · Sequence: 68
Binary file (82907 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img13.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img14.jpg · Sequence: 69
Binary file (113345 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img14.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img15.jpg · Sequence: 70
Binary file (47319 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img15.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img16.jpg · Sequence: 71
Binary file (44477 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img16.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img17.jpg · Sequence: 72
Binary file (52922 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp4img17.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img001.jpg · Sequence: 73
Binary file (377495 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img001.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img002.jpg · Sequence: 74
Binary file (335501 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img002.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img003.jpg · Sequence: 75
Binary file (27422 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img003.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img004.jpg · Sequence: 76
Binary file (465540 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img004.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img005.jpg · Sequence: 77
Binary file (450962 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img005.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img006.jpg · Sequence: 78
Binary file (463280 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img006.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img007.jpg · Sequence: 79
Binary file (452449 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img007.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img008.jpg · Sequence: 80
Binary file (440916 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img008.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img009.jpg · Sequence: 81
Binary file (453679 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img009.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img010.jpg · Sequence: 82
Binary file (443861 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img010.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img011.jpg · Sequence: 83
Binary file (445751 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img011.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img012.jpg · Sequence: 84
Binary file (347399 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img012.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img013.jpg · Sequence: 85
Binary file (354835 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img013.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img014.jpg · Sequence: 86
Binary file (294076 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img014.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img015.jpg · Sequence: 87
Binary file (359438 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img015.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img016.jpg · Sequence: 88
Binary file (292678 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img016.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img017.jpg · Sequence: 89
Binary file (354346 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img017.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img018.jpg · Sequence: 90
Binary file (221243 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img018.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img019.jpg · Sequence: 91
Binary file (160476 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img019.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img020.jpg · Sequence: 92
Binary file (87469 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img020.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img021.jpg · Sequence: 93
Binary file (41261 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-1sp6img021.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img001.jpg · Sequence: 94
Binary file (250418 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img001.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img002.jpg · Sequence: 95
Binary file (123614 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img002.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img003.jpg · Sequence: 96
Binary file (182113 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img003.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img004.jpg · Sequence: 97
Binary file (159127 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img004.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img005.jpg · Sequence: 98
Binary file (225202 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img005.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img006.jpg · Sequence: 99
Binary file (201119 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img006.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img007.jpg · Sequence: 100
Binary file (223970 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img007.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img008.jpg · Sequence: 101
Binary file (212004 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img008.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img009.jpg · Sequence: 102
Binary file (389494 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img009.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img010.jpg · Sequence: 103
Binary file (317623 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img010.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img011.jpg · Sequence: 104
Binary file (170468 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img011.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img012.jpg · Sequence: 105
Binary file (274067 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img012.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img013.jpg · Sequence: 106
Binary file (212508 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img013.jpg
GRAPHIC
GRAPHIC
Filename: tm2627394d1_ex99-2img014.jpg · Sequence: 107
Binary file (187615 bytes)
Download tm2627394d1_ex99-2img014.jpg
XML — IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
XML
Filename: R1.htm · Sequence: 109
v3.26.3
Cover
Oct. 13, 2026
Cover [Abstract]
Document Type
8-K
Amendment Flag
false
Document Period End Date
Oct. 13, 2026
Entity File Number
001-35455
Entity Registrant Name
SSR
Mining Inc.
Entity Central Index Key
0000921638
Entity Tax Identification Number
98-0211014
Entity Incorporation, State or Country Code
A1
Entity Address, Address Line One
6900
E. Layton Ave.
Entity Address, Address Line Two
Suite
1300
Entity Address, City or Town
Denver
Entity Address, State or Province
CO
Entity Address, Postal Zip Code
80237
City Area Code
303
Local Phone Number
292-1299
Written Communications
false
Soliciting Material
false
Pre-commencement Tender Offer
false
Pre-commencement Issuer Tender Offer
false
Title of 12(b) Security
Common
Shares without par value
Trading Symbol
SSRM
Security Exchange Name
NASDAQ
Entity Emerging Growth Company
false
X
- Definition
Boolean flag that is true when the XBRL content amends previously-filed or accepted submission.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_AmendmentFlag
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Area code of city
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_CityAreaCode
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Cover page.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_CoverAbstract
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
For the EDGAR submission types of Form 8-K: the date of the report, the date of the earliest event reported; for the EDGAR submission types of Form N-1A: the filing date; for all other submission types: the end of the reporting or transition period. The format of the date is YYYY-MM-DD.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_DocumentPeriodEndDate
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:dateItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
The type of document being provided (such as 10-K, 10-Q, 485BPOS, etc). The document type is limited to the same value as the supporting SEC submission type, or the word 'Other'.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_DocumentType
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:submissionTypeItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Address Line 1 such as Attn, Building Name, Street Name
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityAddressAddressLine1
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Address Line 2 such as Street or Suite number
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityAddressAddressLine2
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Name of the City or Town
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityAddressCityOrTown
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Code for the postal or zip code
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityAddressPostalZipCode
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Name of the state or province.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityAddressStateOrProvince
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:stateOrProvinceItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
A unique 10-digit SEC-issued value to identify entities that have filed disclosures with the SEC. It is commonly abbreviated as CIK.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection b-2
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityCentralIndexKey
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:centralIndexKeyItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Indicate if registrant meets the emerging growth company criteria.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection b-2
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityEmergingGrowthCompany
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Commission file number. The field allows up to 17 characters. The prefix may contain 1-3 digits, the sequence number may contain 1-8 digits, the optional suffix may contain 1-4 characters, and the fields are separated with a hyphen.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityFileNumber
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:fileNumberItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Two-character EDGAR code representing the state or country of incorporation.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityIncorporationStateCountryCode
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:edgarStateCountryItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
The exact name of the entity filing the report as specified in its charter, which is required by forms filed with the SEC.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection b-2
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityRegistrantName
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
The Tax Identification Number (TIN), also known as an Employer Identification Number (EIN), is a unique 9-digit value assigned by the IRS.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection b-2
+ Details
Name:
dei_EntityTaxIdentificationNumber
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:employerIdItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Local phone number for entity.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_LocalPhoneNumber
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:normalizedStringItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Boolean flag that is true when the Form 8-K filing is intended to satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant as pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 13e
-Subsection 4c
+ Details
Name:
dei_PreCommencementIssuerTenderOffer
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Boolean flag that is true when the Form 8-K filing is intended to satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant as pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 14d
-Subsection 2b
+ Details
Name:
dei_PreCommencementTenderOffer
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Title of a 12(b) registered security.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection b
+ Details
Name:
dei_Security12bTitle
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:securityTitleItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Name of the Exchange on which a security is registered.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 12
-Subsection d1-1
+ Details
Name:
dei_SecurityExchangeName
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:edgarExchangeCodeItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Boolean flag that is true when the Form 8-K filing is intended to satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant as soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Exchange Act
-Number 240
-Section 14a
-Subsection 12
+ Details
Name:
dei_SolicitingMaterial
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Trading symbol of an instrument as listed on an exchange.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details
Name:
dei_TradingSymbol
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
dei:tradingSymbolItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration
X
- Definition
Boolean flag that is true when the Form 8-K filing is intended to satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant as written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher SEC
-Name Securities Act
-Number 230
-Section 425
+ Details
Name:
dei_WrittenCommunications
Namespace Prefix:
dei_
Data Type:
xbrli:booleanItemType
Balance Type:
na
Period Type:
duration