SGS

Technical Report

On The

Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico

WGS84 UTM Zone 13, 323,000 m E; 3,121,500 m N
LATITUDE 28° 12' 00" N, LONGITUDE 106° 48' 00" W

Prepared for:

Silverco Mining Ltd.
750 – 1095 W Pender St
Vancouver, BC, V6E 2M6

Report Date: January 14, 2026
Effective Date: October 20, 2025

Qualified Persons
Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo.
Allan Armitage, Ph. D., P. Geo.

Company
SGS Geological Services ("SGS")
SGS Geological Services ("SGS")
SGS Project # 21059-01

SGS Canada Inc.
Geological Services
10 boul. de la Seigneurie Est, Suite 203, Blainville, Québec Canada J7C 3V5 t (450) 433-1050 f (450) 433-1048 www.geostat.com
Member of SGS Group (SGS SA)

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page i

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

This report titled "Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico" dated January 14, 2026 (the "Technical Report") for Silverco Mining Ltd. was prepared and signed by the following authors:

The effective date of the report is October 20, 2025.

The date of the report is January 14, 2026.

Signed by:

"Original Signed and Sealed"

Qualified Persons
Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo.
Allan Armitage, Ph. D., P. Geo.,

Company
SGS Geological Services ("SGS")
SGS Geological Services ("SGS")

January 14, 2026

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page ii

PAGE

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ... iv
LIST OF TABLES ... v

1 SUMMARY ... 1
1.1 Introduction ... 1
1.2 Property Description, Location, Access, Infrastructure, and Physiography ... 1
1.3 History ... 2
1.4 Geology and Mineralization ... 2
1.5 Exploration ... 4
1.6 Drilling ... 4
1.7 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ... 4
1.8 Mineral Resource Estimate ... 5
1.9 Recommendations ... 7

2 INTRODUCTION ... 9
2.1 Sources of Information ... 9
2.2 Qualified Persons ... 10
2.3 Site Visit and Scope of Personal Inspection ... 10
2.4 Effective Date ... 10
2.5 Units and Abbreviations ... 10

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ... 12
3.1 Property Agreements, Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights and Royalties ... 12

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ... 13
4.1 Location ... 13
4.2 Land Tenure and Mineral Concessions ... 14
4.2.1 Cusi Property ... 14
4.2.2 Mexican Regulations for Mineral Concessions ... 14
4.3 Underlying Agreements ... 18
4.3.1 Acquisition from Sierra Metals ... 18
4.3.2 Silverco Mining Ltd. Trading Commencement on TSX Venture Exchange ... 18
4.3.3 Underlying Royalties ... 19
4.4 Surface Rights and Access ... 19
4.5 Permits ... 19
4.6 Environmental Considerations ... 19
4.7 Other Relevant Factors ... 20

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ... 21
5.1 Accessibility ... 21
5.2 Climate ... 21
5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure ... 22
5.4 Physiography ... 24

6 HISTORY ... 25
6.1 Early Property Exploration and Development History ... 25
6.2 Dia Bras Exploration and Sierra Metals (2006-2024) ... 26
6.2.1 Historical Mine Production and Metallurgical Performance ... 27
6.3 Historical Resource Estimates ... 27

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ... 29
7.1 Regional Geology ... 29
7.2 Property Geology ... 31
7.3 Mineralization and Alteration ... 33

8 DEPOSIT TYPES ... 35
8.1 Epithermal Systems ... 35

9 EXPLORATION ... 38
9.1 Summary ... 38
9.2 Geological Mapping ... 38

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page iii

9.3 Rock Geochemistry...40
10 DRILLING...50
10.1 Summary...50
10.2 Historical Drilling: 2006-2023 Dia Bras and Sierra Metals...52
10.2.1 Collar Surveying...53
10.2.2 Downhole Surveying...53
10.2.3 Core Recovery...54
10.3 Silverco Drilling: 2024-2025...54
10.3.1 2024 Drilling...54
10.3.2 2025 Drilling (to October 20, 2025)...56
11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY...59
11.1 Overview...59
11.2 Historical Sampling: 2006-2023...62
11.2.1 Sampling Methods...62
11.2.2 Sample Security and Storage...62
11.2.3 Sample Preparation and Analyses...62
11.2.4 Density...64
11.2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control...64
11.3 Silverco Sampling: 2024-2025...76
11.3.1 Sampling Methods...76
11.3.2 Sample Security and Storage...77
11.3.3 Sample Preparation and Analyses...77
11.3.4 Density...77
11.3.5 Data Management...77
11.3.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control...78
11.4 QP's Comments...85
12 DATA VERIFICATION...86
12.1 Introduction...86
12.2 Drill and Channel Sample Database...86
12.3 Processing History and Metallurgical Test Work...86
12.4 Site Visit – Ben Eggers...86
12.5 Conclusion...87
13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING...88
13.1 Mal Paso Processing Facility...88
13.2 Historical Mine Production and Metallurgical Performance...88
13.3 Metallurgical Testing...89
13.3.1 Mal Paso Recovery Test Work 2021-2023...89
14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES...94
14.1 Introduction...94
14.2 Drillhole Database...94
14.3 Mineral Resource Modelling and Wireframing...97
14.4 Bulk Density...101
14.5 Compositing...101
14.6 Grade Capping...102
14.7 Block Model Parameters...103
14.8 Grade Interpolation...105
14.9 Mineral Resource Classification Parameters...106
14.10 Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction...108
14.11 Mineral Resource Statement...109
14.12 Model Validation and Sensitivity Analysis...117
14.12.1 Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade...120
14.13 Disclosure...120
15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE...121
16 MINING METHODS...122
17 RECOVERY METHODS...123
18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE...124

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page iv

19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ... 125
20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ... 126
21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ... 127
22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ... 128
23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ... 129
24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ... 130
25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ... 131
25.1 Introduction ... 131
25.2 Exploration ... 131
25.3 Diamond Drilling ... 131
25.4 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ... 132
25.5 Mineral Resource Estimate ... 132
25.6 Risk and Opportunities ... 135
25.6.1 Risks ... 135
25.6.2 Opportunities ... 136
26 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 137
27 REFERENCES ... 138
28 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS ... 140

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Property Location ... 13
Figure 4-2 Detailed Property Location ... 14
Figure 4-3 Cusi Project Mineral Concessions Map (West) ... 17
Figure 4-4 Cusi Project Mineral Concessions Map (East) ... 18
Figure 5-1 Property Location and Access Routes ... 21
Figure 5-2 Climate Chart for Cusi Property, Chihuahua (1,415 m) ... 22
Figure 5-3 Paved Road North of the Property - Cusihuiriachi Mountain the Tallest Peak ... 23
Figure 5-4 A Typical Track in the Central Part of the Property ... 23
Figure 5-5 Medium Voltage Power Lines Outside the Former Promontorio Mine ... 24
Figure 7-1 Chihuahua Regional Mineralization and the Sierra Madre Occidental ... 29
Figure 7-2 Simplified Geology Map of Mexico ... 30
Figure 7-3 Regional Geology Map of the Area Surrounding the Cusi Property ... 31
Figure 7-4 Geology Map of the Cusi Property ... 32
Figure 7-5 Geology Map of the Cusi Mine Area and a Simplified Stratigraphic Section ... 33
Figure 7-6 Geology and Mineralized Structures in the Area of the Promontorio and Santa Rosa de Lima Mine ... 34
Figure 8-1 Genetic Model for Epithermal Deposits ... 36
Figure 8-2 Schematic of Alteration and Mineralization in Low Sulphidation Precious Metal Deposits ... 37
Figure 9-1 Field Mapping at the Matulera Vein System Epithermal Vein System (2025) ... 39
Figure 9-2 Detailed View of the Geological Mapping at the Matulera Vein System (2025) ... 40
Figure 9-3 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Ag Grades 2025 ... 42
Figure 9-4 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Au Grades 2025 ... 43
Figure 9-5 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Pb Grades 2025 ... 44
Figure 9-6 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Zn Grades 2025 ... 45
Figure 9-7 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Ag Grades 2025 ... 46
Figure 9-8 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Au Grades 2025 ... 47
Figure 9-9 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Pb Grades 2025 ... 48
Figure 9-10 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Zn Grades 2025 ... 49
Figure 10-1 Location of Drillholes on the Cusi Project from 2006 to October 2025 ... 52
Figure 10-2 Historical Drillholes on the Cusi Project from 2006 - 2023 ... 53
Figure 10-3 Location of 2024 Silverco Drillholes on the Cusi Project ... 55
Figure 10-4 Location of 2025 Silverco Drillholes on the Cusi Project (to October 2025) ... 57
Figure 11-1 CRM Control Charts for Ag, Pb, Zn for the 2014 to 2016 Programs ... 67
Figure 11-2 CRM Control Chart for Ag for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs ... 71
Figure 11-3 CRM Control Chart for Au for the 2018-2023 Drill Programs ... 71

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 11-4 CRM Control Chart for Pb for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs ...72
Figure 11-5 CRM Control Chart for Zn for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs ...72
Figure 11-6 Blank Sample Charts for Ag, Pb, and Zn at Mal Paso for the 2014-2016 Drill Programs ...74
Figure 11-7 CRM Control Chart for Ag at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...80
Figure 11-8 CRM Control Chart for Au at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...80
Figure 11-9 CRM Control Chart for Pb at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...81
Figure 11-10 CRM Control Chart for Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...81
Figure 11-11 Blank Sample Chart for Ag at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...82
Figure 11-12 Plots of Field Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...83
Figure 11-13 Plots of Coarse Reject Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...84
Figure 11-14 Plots of Pulp Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs ...85
Figure 13-1 Results of Mal Paso Ag Recovery Testing 2021-2023 ...90
Figure 13-2 Chronological Mal Paso Ag Recovery Results 2021-2023 ...90
Figure 13-3 Results of Mal Paso Pb Recovery Testing 2021-2023 ...91
Figure 13-4 Chronological Mal Paso Pb Recovery Results 2021-2023 ...91
Figure 13-5 Results of Mal Paso Zn Recovery Testing 2021-2023 ...92
Figure 13-6 Chronological Mal Paso Zn Recovery Results 2021-2023 ...92
Figure 13-7 Results of Mal Paso Au Recovery Testing 2021-2023 ...93
Figure 13-8 Chronological Mal Paso Au Recovery Results 2021-2023 ...93
Figure 14-1 Distribution of Drillholes and Channels on the Property on Topography (Plan view) ...95
Figure 14-2 Distribution of Surface Drillholes on the Property on Topography (View to SW) ...96
Figure 14-3 Distribution of Drillholes and Channels in the Promontorio and Eduwiges Areas (View to SSE) ...97
Figure 14-4 Property Mineral Resource Models with Drillholes and Channels (Plan View) ...100
Figure 14-5 Mineral Resource Block Model and Mineralization Domains (Plan view) ...104
Figure 14-6 Mineral Resource Block Model and Mineralization Domains (View to W) ...105
Figure 14-7 Cusi Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (Plan view) ...112
Figure 14-8 Cusi Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE) ...112
Figure 14-9 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE) ...113
Figure 14-10 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE) ...113
Figure 14-11 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE) ...114
Figure 14-12 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE) ...114
Figure 14-13 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE) ...115
Figure 14-14 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE) ...115
Figure 14-15 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE) ...116
Figure 14-16 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE) ...116
Figure 14-17 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE) ...117
Figure 14-18 Cusi North Block Grade Tonnage Curves for Ag: Comparison of ID², ID³, and NN Models 119
Figure 14-19 Cusi San Miguel Grade Tonnage Curves for Ag: Comparison of ID², ID³, and NN Models 119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025 ...6
Table 1-2 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025 ...7
Table 1-3 Cost Summary for Recommended Future Work ...8
Table 2-1 Qualified Person's and Report Responsibility ...10
Table 2-2 List of Abbreviations ...11
Table 4-1 Property Mineral Concessions Held 100% by Silverco ...15
Table 6-1 Sierra Metals Underground Channel Sampling Summary from 2013 to 2023 ...26
Table 6-2 Production Figures for Cusi Mine from 2014 to 2023 ...27
Table 6-3 Historical Cusi Mineral Resource Estimate at August 31, 2020 (Oritz, 2020) ...28

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page vi

Table 9-1 Summary of Silverco Rock Geochemistry Samples 41
Table 9-2 Selected Silverco High-Grade Samples from 2025 Surface Exploration 41
Table 10-1 Summary of Drilling on the Cusi Project 2006 to October 20, 2025 51
Table 10-2 Highlights of the 2024 Silverco Drilling 55
Table 10-3 Highlights of the 2025 Silverco Drilling (to October 2025) 57
Table 11-1 Summary of Drilling and Channel Samples from the Property by Year 60
Table 11-2 Summary of Analytical Labs and Analysis Methods 2006 - 2025 61
Table 11-3 Historical QC Sample Statistics for Core Sampling 2006 - 2023 65
Table 11-4 List of Internal Standards for the 2014-2016 Programs 66
Table 11-5 Failure Statistics for Internal Standards for the 2014-2016 Programs 66
Table 11-6 CRM Sample Ag Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs 68
Table 11-7 CRM Sample Au Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs 69
Table 11-8 CRM Sample Pb Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs 69
Table 11-9 CRM Sample Zn Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs 69
Table 11-10 CRM Sample Ag Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs 70
Table 11-11 CRM Sample Au Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs 70
Table 11-12 CRM Sample Pb Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs 70
Table 11-13 CRM Sample Zn Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs 70
Table 11-14 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at Mal Paso for the 2021-2022 Drill Programs 75
Table 11-15 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2018 Drill Program 76
Table 11-16 Routine QC Sample Statistics for Silverco Core Sampling 2024 - 2025 78
Table 11-17 CRM Sample Ag Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs 79
Table 11-18 CRM Sample Au Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs 79
Table 11-19 CRM Sample Pb Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs 79
Table 11-20 CRM Sample Zn Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs 80
Table 11-21 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs 83
Table 13-1 Metallurgical Balance for Cusi Mine from 2014 to 2023 89
Table 14-1 Project Drillhole and Channel Database 95
Table 14-2 Property Domain Descriptions 99
Table 14-3 Statistical Analysis of the Assay and Composite Data from Within the Deposit Mineral Domains – by Area 101
Table 14-4 Composite Capping Summary – by Area 103
Table 14-5 Deposit Block Model Geometry 104
Table 14-6 Grade Interpolation and Classification Parameters by Area 106
Table 14-7 Parameters for Underground Cut-off Grade Calculation 109
Table 14-8 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025 110
Table 14-9 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025 111
Table 14-10 Comparison of Average Assay, Composite, and Block Model Grades 118
Table 14-11 Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity Table, October 20, 2025 120
Table 25-1 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025 133
Table 25-2 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025 135
Table 26-1 Cost Summary for Recommended Future Work 137

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 1

1 SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

SGS Geological Services Inc. ("SGS") was contracted by Silverco Mining Ltd., ("Silverco" or the "Company") to complete a Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") for the Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project ("Cusi" or "Project") in Chihuahua, Mexico, and to prepare a National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") Technical Report written in support of the MRE. The Cusi project is considered a development-stage mineral project.

Silverco Mining Ltd., formerly Quetzal Copper Corp., was incorporated on November 30, 2020 pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). The Company is a Canadian-based mining company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V: SICO) with its corporate office at located 750 – 1095 W Pender St, Vancouver, BC, V6E 2M6. The Company's principal business activity is the acquisition, exploration and development of mineral properties in Mexico.

In 2024 the Company acquired the Cusi Mining Complex, a past-producing silver mine in Mexico with zinc and lead by products. The mine was placed on care and maintenance in 2023, and the Company's primary focus is now on exploration and evaluation activities and advancing the restart of the Cusi Mining Complex. The mining concessions comprising the Cusi project are held 100% by Silverco, through a wholly owned subsidiary, Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V. ("MSB"), and were acquired in July 2024 from Sierra Metals Inc.

The current report is authored by Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo. ("Eggers") and Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P. Geo., ("Armitage") of SGS (collectively, the "Authors"). The Authors are independent Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101 and are responsible for all sections of this report. The MRE presented in this report was estimated by Eggers.

The reporting of the MRE complies with all disclosure requirements for Mineral Resources set out in the NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The classification of the MRE is consistent with the 2014 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards (2014 CIM Definitions). In completing the MRE, the Author uses general procedures and methodologies that are consistent with industry standard practices, including those documented in the 2019 CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (2019 CIM Guidelines).

The current Technical Report will be used by Silverco in fulfillment of their continuing disclosure requirements under Canadian securities laws, including National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101"). This Technical Report is written in support of an MRE completed for Silverco.

1.2 Property Description, Location, Access, Infrastructure, and Physiography

The Cusihuiriachi ("Cusi") property is located in Abasolo Mineral District in the municipality of Cusihuiriachi, Chihuahua state, Mexico. The property is 135 kilometers west from Chihuahua city and 19 km south from the city of Cuauhtémoc via paved highways. Within the Project area access is by minor unpaved roads, drivable tracks, and footpaths.

Silverco, through their wholly owned subsidiary Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V., owns a one hundred percent (100%) interest in 95 mineral concessions that comprise the Cusi property covering an area of 16,073 ha. Included in these concessions are six historical Ag-Au-Pb-Zn producers developed on several vein structures: Promontorio, Santa Eduwiges, San Miguel, La Bamba open pit, La India, and San Marina, as well as exploration concessions around the historical mine areas. In accordance with Mexican mining laws, exploration and mining on the Cusi property are subject to semi-annual payments to the Mexican Federal Government. Fees are paid to the federal government twice each year, in January and July and the amounts paid change are updated annually. All concessions are in good standing, and all property tax payments have been completed up to the effective date of the report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 2

Royalties from the Cusi property are payable to three companies when commercial extraction takes place. Seventy-five (75) mining concessions are subject to a 2% NSR payable to Dia Bras Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. Two (2) mining concessions are subject to a 2% NSR payable to Minera Homero, S.A. de C.V., and twenty-three (23) mining concessions are subject to a 1% NSR royalty payable to Minera Silverstrike, S.A. de C.V.

Electricity at the Cusi property is provided by the Mexican Electricity Federal Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad). It is transmitted in 33 kV power lines. Existing electricity was adequate for previous mining operations on the Property, and the current supply is expected to be sufficient for any future mining operations. Water was previously recovered from underground workings of the Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges mines, and any future mining operation would likely use the same sources. The recovered water is not treated, so potable water is trucked to the site. Milling of any future mineralized material would likely take place at the company-owned Mal Paso mill, located 44 km from the Cusi mine. Ore was previously transported from the mine to the plant in 20 tonne trucks.

The Cusi property terrain varies in elevation from 1,950 to 2,460 meters above sea level. This region's landscape is marked by significant topographic variation, with differences in elevation ranging from 50 to 500 meters. Notable geographic features include the Bufa and Bufita hills, as well as the Cusi fault, which runs parallel to the Cusi River. The area is predominantly covered by vegetation, with exposed rock formations frequently observed along roadsides and streams.

1.3 History

In 1687, Spanish explorer Antonio Rodríguez discovered and began exploiting gold and silver deposits in the Abasolo Mining District, including the Cusi area, specifically within the San Miguel and La Candelaria zones. Intermittent mining activities occurred on the Property through to the early 1900's however the early mining history and operational details in the Cusi area are not well documented. By 1911 development on the Property included the advancement of the Santa Marina and San Bartolo shafts to 1,000-foot below surface Mining activities in the Cusi project area continued intermittently during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). Mining activities on the Property resumed from the 1920's to 1937 with reportedly 0.5 to 1 Mt of ore mined during this period. In the 1970s, mining resumed at several sites within the Cusi project area, producing an estimated 3,000 tons of mineralized material per month with an average silver grade of 12-18 oz/t (373-560 g/t).

Activities on the Property through the 1980's and 1990's predominantly comprised surface and underground exploration with limited underground development and mining during this period.

Between May 2006 and April 2008, Canadian-based Dia Bras Exploration Inc. (Dia Bras) acquired the majority of claims that make up the current exploration area. Between 2006 and 2012 exploration and research activities performed by Dia Bras included geological mapping, mineralogical studies, limited geophysical surveying, rock geochemical sampling, and 674 surface and underground drillholes totaling 121,013 m. In 2013, Dia Bras Exploration Inc. changed its name to Sierra Metals Inc. (Sierra Metals). From 2013 to 2023 exploration and grade control sampling completed by Sierra Metals included 1,341 surface and underground drillholes totaling 227,395 m and 21,522 channels totaling 48,786 m.

In 2014, Sierra Metals established commercial production at the Cusi mine, with activity at Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges. The Mal Paso mill was originally commissioned at 600 tonnes per day (tpd) and expanded to 1,200 tpd in 2019. Available production figures for the Cusi mine from 2014 to 2023 report that 2.06 Mt of ore was processed at an average grade of 156 g/t Ag, 0.20 g/t Au, 0.49% Pb, and 0.85% Zn. The mine went into care and maintenance in Q3 of 2023.

1.4 Geology and Mineralization

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 3

a crucial role in shaping the geology of Chihuahua with the interaction of volcanism and faulting leading to mineralization in the Cusi region.

Significant mineral deposits occur in the area, particularly epithermal precious metal deposits. These deposits are often associated with Tertiary volcanic rocks and are thought to have formed in response to hydrothermal activity driven by magmatic processes. The state's most notable mineral deposits include those of silver, gold, copper, and zinc, with many deposits occurring in the SMO volcanic field.

The geology of the Cusi property is poorly documented. Regional geological mapping was performed by the Consejo de Recursos Minerales (CRM) in 1998 and industry-funded local mapping by Ciesielski (2006). Studies agree that the Cusi area is underlain Grupo Inferior sequences comprised of Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments (not exposed), which are in-turn overlain by Tertiary andesitic tuffs and flows. These rocks were subsequently intruded and fragmented by a rhyodacitic dome that formed in a caldera setting, which resulted in the formation of ignimbrites and other pyroclastic volcaniclastic sediments ("Bufa ignimbrite"). A rhyolite resurgent dome formed in the collapsed caldera. Faulting and the circulation of metal-bearing hydrothermal fluids resulted in the formation of Ag-Au-Pb-Zn veins. The veins are hosted in rhyodacites, ignimbrites, rhyolites, and andesite tuff and lava. Overlying this sequence are Tertiary (Oligocene-Miocene) andesite, tuffs, breccias, and rhyolitic flows of the Grupo Superior.

The area northeast of the Bufa ignimbrite is underlain by fragmental rocks of andesitic composition. Texturally, these rocks vary from lapilli tuff to agglomerate, with fragments ranging from a few centimetres to several tens of centimetres in size, within a dark green, fine-grained matrix. To date, no significant mineralization has been discovered within the andesite.

The Abasolo region is characterized by large block structures that are controlled by an extensive series of northeast, northwest and north-trending faults. These faults control mineralization in the region, and on the Cusi property, with displacements up to 200 m. The faults and fracture zones are coincident ridges and gullies in the area, depending on the degree of deformation and silicification. In the Cusi property four major sets of faults are recognized. These are: northwest trending faults, e.g., Cusi fault; East-northeast-trending faults, e.g., La Bamba and San Miguel Mine; Northeast-trending faults, e.g., Santa Edwiges Mine; and North-trending faults, e.g., San Rafael Fault.

The Property contains numerous epithermal veins with notable mineralization. These veins typically dip at moderate to steep angles in various directions, including southeast, southwest, and north. Their thickness varies from less than 0.5 m to 2+ m, and they can extend 100 to 200 m along strike and up to 400 m down-dip. Small open pits, commercial and historical artisanal, are often found at vein intersections.

The mineralization is linked to structural features, breccias, and fracture fillings, which can range from under 1 m to 10 m in thickness. The filling material is polymetallic, containing silver, lead, zinc sulphides, minor copper, and variable amounts of gold. Common textures include crustiform and banded patterns, with widespread silicification accompanied by sericite and disseminated pyrite.

Alteration zones are also present, with argillic alteration often occurring at the edges of silicified areas. This alteration includes minerals like kaolinite and montmorillonite. Oxidation features hematite, limonite, and manganese oxides. Intense fracturing associated with the main structures has led to zones of micro-veinlets and dissemination.

In areas close to the main faults, such as Promontorio, zones of micro-veinlets and disseminated sulphides are associated with intense fracturing. At Eduwiges, extensive quartz veins and stockwork zones with pyrite and silicification, spanning 60 to 150 m in width and 200 to 250 m in length are observed. On the hanging wall side (Promontorio East) of the Santa Rosa de Lima vein (Cusi fault), the structural control of the mineralization is complex in a zone of cross-cutting structures with numerous veinlets and veins of variable thickness and trends.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 4

1.5 Exploration

Since acquiring the Property in July 2024, Silverco has conducted geological mapping, geochemical rock sampling and diamond drilling on the Cusi project. Surface exploration to date has included geological mapping at La Matulera in the northern part of the property and reconnaissance-style rock geochemical sampling at the Las Huertas and Gatos zones, located east of the San Miguel zone, in the central and eastern areas of the Property respectively. A total of 87 rock geochemical samples have been collected and assayed by Silverco. Mapping and sampling have confirmed anomalous silver, gold, lead, and zinc in multiple veins at surface mapped over strike lengths in excess of 1 km located outside of the areas previously developed as part of the Cusi mine complex.

1.6 Drilling

Silverco initiated drilling on the Property in 2024 and continues to systematically explore the Cusi vein system. Drilling by Silverco builds on substantial exploration and resource definition drilling completed on the Project since 2006. As of October 2025, Silverco had completed 37 surface drillholes totaling 11,829 m and collected 2,047 samples. Since 2006, surface and underground drilling completed on the Project amounts to 2,052 drillholes totaling 360,237 m and comprises of 105,585 samples.

Pattern drilling on target vein structures within the Cusi vein system has been completed in almost equal parts from surface and from underground development. Drilling of the Cusi vein systems by Silverco and previous explorers has delineated mineralization in multiple stacked, moderate to steeply dipping structures (63 veins are included in the 2025 MRE). Mineralized strike lengths of the major structures have been tested for up to 300 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip in the Promontorio and Eduwiges areas, up to 1,300 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Miguel area, up to 800 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Juan area, and up to 2,000 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip on the San Nicolas and Santa Rosa de Lima structures. Mineralized portions of veins that comprise the resource models vary in true thickness and are typically in the range of 0.5 to 2 m, with localized shoots up to 5 m true thickness. The local pinch and swell morphology exhibited within the Cusi vein systems is common in narrow-vein epithermal systems. Many of the mineralized veins and resource models remain open along strike and/or down dip.

1.7 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

The Cusi project's Mal Paso processing facility consists of a conventional concentration plant including crushing, grinding, flotation, dewatering of final concentrate, and a tailings disposal facility. The Mal Paso mill was originally commissioned at 600 tonnes per day (tpd) and expanded to 1,200 tpd in 2019. Mineralized material produced from the Cusi mine is hauled to Mal Paso mill using dump trucks.

In 2014, Sierra Metals established commercial production at the Cusi mine, with activity at Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges. Available metallurgical balance figures (grades, recoveries and metal production) for the Cusi mine from 2014 to 2023 have been compiled from Sierra Metals annual reports. The mine went into care and maintenance in Q3 of 2023.

For the period of 2014 to Q3 2023, Mal Paso processed a total of 2,062,364 t of mineralized material which is an average of 206,236 tonnes per year. The Mal Paso mill principally produced a lead concentrate, and a zinc concentrate was produced beginning in 2016 through Q1 2018.

The mill head grade over this ten-year period averaged 156 g/t Ag, 0.20 g/t Au, 0.49% Pb, and 0.85% Zn. Note that Zn grades were only reported during the period of zinc concentrate circuit operation. Lead concentrate recoveries averaged 79.8% Ag, 48.7% Au, and 81.0% Pb.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 5

laboratory. Sampling and testing was executed on an as-needed basis to support the industrial scale operation. The available metallurgical data collected at the Mal Paso facility was reviewed and analysed by Silverco in 2025.

1.8 Mineral Resource Estimate

Completion of the MRE involved the assessment of a validated drillhole and channel database, which included all data for surface and underground drilling completed between 2006 and October 20, 2025 and underground channel sampling completed between 2013 and 2023. Completion of the MRE included the construction of three-dimensional (3D) mineral resource models (resource domains) and the incorporation of a 3D topographic surface model, 3D models of existing underground development, and available written reports.

The Inverse Distance Squared ("ID²") calculation method restricted to mineralized domains was used to interpolate grades for Ag (g/t), Au (g/t), Pb (%), and Zn (%) into block models for all deposit zones.

The MRE presented below takes into consideration that all deposits on the Property may be mined by underground mining methods.

The MRE for the Project is presented in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.

Highlights of the Cusi Project underground Mineral Resource Estimate are as follows:

Combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.89 Mt grading 206 g/t silver, 0.15 g/t gold, 0.73% lead, and 0.86% zinc (262 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Measured Mineral Resources of 6.1 Moz of silver, 1.8 koz of gold, 5.6 Mlbs of lead, and 6.3 Mlbs of zinc (6.7 Moz of AgEq) and Indicated Mineral Resources of 26.3 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 72.7 Mlbs of lead, and 86.5 Mlbs of zinc (34.4 Moz of AgEq).
Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.07 Mt grading 172 g/t silver, 0.17 g/t gold, 0.89% lead, and 1.20% zinc (243 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Inferred Mineral Resources of 22.5 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 79.5 Mlbs of lead, and 107.5 Mlbs of zinc (31.8 Moz of AgEq).
A total of 63 epithermal veins that comprise the Cusi vein systems from seven deposit areas were included in the Mineral Resource Estimate. The Mineral Resource Estimate is exclusive of mined out material.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 6

Table 1-1 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025

Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
		Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
	Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
M + I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

(1) The mineral resource was estimated by Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Eggers conducted a site visit to the Cusi Property on September 22-23, 2025. The mineral resource was peer reviewed by Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.

(2) The classification of the Mineral Resource Estimate into Indicated and Inferred mineral resources is consistent with current 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. The effective date of the Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) is October 20, 2025. This is the close out date for the final mineral resource drilling database.

(3) All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.

(4) All mineral resources are presented undiluted and in situ, constrained by continuous 3D wireframe models (considered mineable shapes), and are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The mineral resource is exclusive of mined out material.

(5) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

(6) The Cusi Project MRE is based on a validated database which includes data from 2,052 surface and underground drillholes totalling 360,237 m completed between 2006 and October 2025 and 21,522 channels totalling 48,786 m completed between 2013 and 2023. The resource database totals 105,585 assay intervals representing 119,756 m of drillhole data and 71,605 assay intervals representing 48,783 m of channel data.

(7) The mineral resource estimate is based on 63 three-dimensional ("3D") resource models representing epithermal veins which comprise the Cusi vein systems. 3D models of mined out areas were used to exclude mined out material from the current MRE.

(8) Grades for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn are estimated for each mineralization domain using 1.5 m capped composites assigned to that domain. To generate grade within the blocks, the inverse distance squared (ID²) interpolation method was used for all domains.

(9) An average density value of 2.75 g/cm³ was assigned to all domains based on a database of 244 samples.

(10) It is envisioned that the Cusi Project deposits may be mined using underground mining methods. Mineral resources are reported at a base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq. The mineral resource grade blocks were quantified above the base case cut-off grade, below surface, within the constraining mineralized wireframes, and exclusive of mined out material.

(11) The underground base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq considers metal prices of US$30/oz Ag, US$2400/oz Au, US$1.00/lb Pb, and US$1.35/lb Zn and metal recoveries of 90% for Ag, 50% for Au, 90% for Pb, and 60% for Zn.

(12) The underground base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq considers a mining cost of US$60.00/t rock and a processing, treatment and refining, transportation and G&A cost of US$35.00/t mineralized material.

(13) The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Table 1-2 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025

Area	Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
			Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
		Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
San Juan	Indicated	0.16	232	0.21	0.17	0.20	259	1,199	1.1	0.6	0.7	1,338
	Inferred	0.12	295	0.07	0.29	0.51	324	1,156	0.3	0.8	1.4	1,267
Promontorio West	Indicated	1.03	208	0.10	0.43	0.58	244	6,893	3.4	9.8	13.1	8,078
	Inferred	0.41	199	0.19	0.78	0.79	257	2,592	2.5	7.0	7.1	3,342
Promontorio East	Measured	0.53	285	0.08	0.30	0.36	309	4,824	1.3	3.4	4.1	5,229
	Indicated	0.24	211	0.19	0.81	0.60	264	1,609	1.5	4.2	3.1	2,006
	M+I	0.76	262	0.11	0.46	0.43	295	6,432	2.8	7.7	7.2	7,235
	Inferred	0.21	231	0.32	0.86	0.83	301	1,520	2.1	3.9	3.8	1,987
Eduwiges	Indicated	0.53	159	0.25	1.93	2.06	287	2,694	4.2	22.3	23.9	4,853
	Inferred	0.24	92	0.18	1.94	2.39	224	694	1.4	10.0	12.4	1,697
San Miguel	Indicated	1.30	193	0.15	0.83	1.11	258	8,065	6.2	23.9	31.7	10,786
	Inferred	2.03	170	0.14	1.02	1.42	249	11,117	9.3	45.5	63.5	16,237
San Nicolas	Indicated	0.76	196	0.17	0.41	0.43	233	4,798	4.2	6.9	7.2	5,684
	Inferred	0.62	175	0.14	0.28	0.45	207	3,472	2.9	3.8	6.2	4,105
Santa Rosa de Lima	Measured	0.16	251	0.09	0.60	0.62	291	1,290	0.5	2.1	2.2	1,496
	Indicated	0.19	176	0.29	1.20	1.63	276	1,072	1.8	5.0	6.8	1,688
	M+I	0.35	210	0.20	0.93	1.17	283	2,362	2.2	7.2	9.0	3,183
	Inferred	0.45	133	0.27	0.86	1.34	216	1,928	3.8	8.5	13.3	3,118
Total	Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
	Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
	M+I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
	Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

1.9 Recommendations

The Cusi project deposits contain underground Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources that are associated with well-defined mineralized trends and models. All deposits are open along strike and/or at depth.

The Project has potential for delineation of additional Mineral Resources. Given the prospective nature of the Cusi property, it is the opinion of the QP that the Property merits further exploration and that a proposed plan for further work by Silverco is justified.

It is recommended that Silverco conduct further exploration on the Project, subject to funding and any other matters which may cause the proposed exploration program to be altered in the normal course of its business activities or alterations which may affect the program as a result of exploration activities themselves.

For the next phase of work beginning in 2026, the Company plans to complete $25,000\mathrm{m}$ of surface drilling across the Property and $5,000\mathrm{m}$ of underground drilling from the Promontorio mine on known and new mineralized structures proximal to current resources to grow the resource base. Drilling and future exploration target generation will be supported by surface exploration including geological mapping, geochemical sampling, and geophysical surveys. Additional planned work to support the Cusi project includes advancing metallurgical and preliminary mining economics/engineering studies in conjunction with environmental and hydrological studies.

No production decision has been made at Cusi. Any decision to restart operations will follow completion of the requisite technical, financial and permitting milestones.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 8

The total cost of the planned exploration and development work program by Silverco is estimated at US$7.1 million (Table 1-3).

Table 1-3 Cost Summary for Recommended Future Work
| Program Component | Estimated Total Cost (US$M) |
| --- | --- |
| Surface Drilling (25,000 m @ US$200/m) | 5.00 |
| Underground Drilling (5,000 m @ US$200/m) | 1.00 |
| Surface Exploration and Geophysics | 0.10 |
| Metallurgical test work | 0.25 |
| Mining and Engineering studies | 0.50 |
| Environmental and Hydrological studies | 0.15 |
| MRE Update | 0.10 |
| Total | 7.10 |

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 9

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Sources of Information

In preparing the current MRE and the current technical report, the Authors utilized a digital database and technical reports provided to the Authors by Silverco. All background information regarding the Property has been sourced from previous technical reports and revised or updated as required.

The Property was the subject of a NI 43-101 technical report by S.M. Archibald, P.Geo. in 2025 titled "NI 43-101 Technical Report Cusi Property, Chihuahua, Mexico", Effective Date May 1, 2025, Report Date September 23, 2025, prepared for Minera San Bernabé S.A. de C.V. (Posted on SEDAR+ under Silverco's profile).
The Property was the subject of a NI 43-101 technical report by G. Oritz, P.Geo., C. Kottmeier, P.Eng. and D. H. Sepulveda, SME-RM in 2020 titled "Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Cusi Mine, Chihuahua State, Mexico", Effective Date August 31, 2020, Report Date November 13, 2020, prepared for Sierra Metals Inc. (Posted on SEDAR+ under Sierra Metals' profile).
The Property was the subject of a NI 43-101 technical report by G. Oritz, FAusIMM., F. Rodrigues, MMSAQP, D. H. Sepulveda, SME-RM and M. Willow, SME-RM in 2018 titled "Amended NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Cusi Mine, Mexico", Effective Date August 31, 2017, Report Date

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 10

February 12, 2018, prepared for Sierra Metals Inc. (Posted on SEDAR+ under Sierra Metals' profile).

Information regarding the Property accessibility, climate, local resources, infrastructure, and physiography, exploration history, regional property geology, deposit type, recent exploration and drilling, metallurgical test work, and sample preparation, analyses, and security for previous drill programs etc. (Sections 5-13) have been sourced from recent technical reports and internal reports and updated where required. The Authors believe the information used to prepare the current Technical Report is valid and appropriate considering the status of the Project and the purpose of the Technical Report.

2.2 Qualified Persons

The Qualified Person's for the report are listed in Table 2-1. By virtue of their education, experience and professional association membership, they are considered Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.

Table 2-1 Qualified Person's and Report Responsibility

Qualified Person	Professional Designation	Position	Employer	Independent of Silverco
Ben Eggers	P.Geo.	Senior Geologist	SGS Canada Inc. – Geological services	Yes
Allan Armitage	P.Geo.	Technical Manager and Senior Resource Geologist	SGS Canada Inc. – Geological services	Yes

2.3 Site Visit and Scope of Personal Inspection

The Cusi Project property was visited by Ben Eggers on September 22-23, 2025 for the purpose of:

Inspection of selected drill sites and outcrops to validate drillhole collar positions and review the drill and local geology,
Inspection of the drill core logging, processing and storage facility,
Reviewing current core sampling, QA/QC and core security procedures, and
Inspection of drill core, drill logs, and assay certificates to validate sampling, confirm the presence of mineralization in witness half-core samples, and review of the local geology.

The site visit conducted by Eggers is considered as the current site visit, per Section 6.2 of NI 43-101CP.

2.4 Effective Date

The Effective Date of the MRE and Technical Report is October 20, 2025.

2.5 Units and Abbreviations

Units used in the report are metric units unless otherwise noted. Monetary units are in United States dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 11

Table 2-2 List of Abbreviations

$	Dollar sign	Leapfrog	Leapfrog Geo version 2025.2
%	Percent sign	m	Metres
°	Degree	m²	Square metres
°C	Degree Celsius	m³	Cubic meters
°F	Degree Fahrenheit	masl	Metres above sea level
μm	micron	Mlb	Million pounds
AA	Atomic absorption	mm	millimetre
Ag	Silver	mm²	square millimetre
AgEq	Silver equivalent	mm³	cubic millimetre
Au	Gold	Moz	Million troy ounces
Azi	Azimuth	MRE	Mineral Resource Estimate
CAD$	Canadian dollar	Mt	Million tonnes
CAF	Cut and fill mining	mTW	metres true width
cm	centimetre	NI	National Instrument
cm²	square centimetre	NN	Nearest neighbor
cm³	cubic centimetre	NQ	Drill core size (4.8 cm in diameter)
Cu	Copper	NSR	Net smelter return
CV	Coefficient of variation	oz	Troy ounce (31.1035 grams)
CV_{AVR}%	Average coefficient of variation	OK	Ordinary kriging
DDH	Diamond drillhole	Pb	Lead
ft	Feet	ppb	Parts per billion
ft²	Square feet	ppm	Parts per million
ft³	Cubic feet	QA	Quality assurance
g	Grams	QC	Quality control
g/t	Grams per Tonne	QP	Qualified person
GPS	Global positioning system	r	Pearson correlation coefficient
Ha	Hectares	RC	Reverse circulation drilling
HQ	Drill core size (6.3 cm in diameter)	RQD	Rock quality designation
ICP	Induced coupled plasma	SD	Standard deviation
ID³	Inverse distance weighting to the power of two	SG	Specific gravity
ID³	Inverse distance weighting to the power of three	SLS	Sub-level stoping
kg	Kilograms	Ton	Short ton
km	Kilometres	Zn	Zinc
km²	Square kilometre	Tonnes or t	Metric tonnes
kt	Thousand tonnes	US$	US Dollar
koz	Thousand troy ounces	UTM	Universal Transverse Mercator
lb	Pound	WGS84	World Geodetic System 1984

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 12

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

3.1 Property Agreements, Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights and Royalties

Final verification of information concerning Property status and ownership, which are presented in Section 4 below, have been provided to Eggers by Nico Harvey for Silverco, by way of E-mail on January 6, 2026. The QP only reviewed the land tenure in a preliminary fashion and has not independently verified the legal status or ownership of the Property or any underlying agreements or obligations attached to ownership of the Property. However, the QP has no reason to doubt that the title situation is other than what is presented in this technical report (Section 4). The QP is not qualified to express any legal opinion with respect to Property titles or current ownership.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 Location

The Cusihuiriachi ("Cusi") property is located in Abasolo Mineral District in the municipality of Cusihuiriachi, Chihuahua state, Mexico. The property is 135 kilometers west from Chihuahua city and $19\mathrm{km}$ south from the city of Cuauhtémoc via paved highways (Figure 4-1).

The Cusi property consists of 95 mineral concessions wholly owned by Minera San Bernabé (Figure 4-2). Included in these concessions are six historical Ag-Au-Pb-Zn producers developed on several vein structures: San Miguel, La Bamba open pit, La India, Santa Eduwiges, San Marina, and Promontorio, as well as exploration concessions around the historical mine areas. The shaft of the Promontorio mine is located at 319,019 mE and 3,125,854 mN (WGS84 UTM 13N). The Project is centred at approximately $28^{\circ}$ 12' 00" north latitude and $106^{\circ}$ 48' 00" west longitude or at 323,000 m E; 3,121,500 m N (WGS84 UTM 13N).

Figure 4-1 Property Location

Source: Archibald, 2025

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 14

Figure 4-2 Detailed Property Location

Source: Archibald, 2025

4.2 Land Tenure and Mineral Concessions

4.2.1 Cusi Property

Silverco, through their wholly owned subsidiary Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V., owns a one hundred percent (100%) interest in 95 mineral concessions that comprise the Cusi Property covering an area of 16,073 ha (Table 4-1, Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4). An independent legal opinion on the validity of the concessions was provided by Joel Antonio González Labrado of ALN Mining Law Firm, Chihuahua on May 6, 2025. All concessions are in good standing, and all property tax payments have been completed up to the effective date of the report.

ALN Mining Law Firm noted that eight mining concessions (while owned by other parties) were subject to seizure and cancellation by judicial authority in 2009. The annulment of this cancelation was applied for before the Public Mining Registry, approved and lifted in 2025, and the affected claims are currently pending registration to Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V.

4.2.2 Mexican Regulations for Mineral Concessions

The Cusi mineral concessions, granted under the Mexican Mining Code, were issued for 50-year terms. Exploration concessions grant the holder the right to conduct geological or geophysical exploration activities for mineral deposits. Exploration concessions do not grant the right to mine or extract minerals and must be converted to Mining (Exploitation) concessions for the extraction and production of specific minerals. An approved amendment to the Mexican Mining Code was published in May 2023. Under the amendment mineral concessions are now issued for 30-year terms and can be extended for an additional 25 years, provided the company meets the necessary requirements. Concessions are now awarded through a public auction process, whereas they were through a first-come, first-served system. The company must conduct

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 15

a topographic survey and comply with environmental and social impact assessments. Concessions can be canceled for ecological concerns, failure to inform authorities about accidents, or non-compliance with regulations. The company must pay fees and meet work requirements, including restoration and closure plans. The Dirección General de Minas (DGM) oversees the concession process and ensures compliance with regulations. The holder of mineral concessions is required to file annual reports to DGM.

In accordance with Mexican mining laws, exploration and mining on the Cusi property are subject to semi-annual payments to the Mexican Federal Government. Fees are paid to the federal government twice each year, in January and July and the amounts paid change are updated annually.

Table 4-1 Property Mineral Concessions Held 100% by Silverco

Owner	Lot No.	Name	Concession Type	Area (ha)	File Status	Title No.	Registration Date	Expiration Date
MSB*	1	Cusihuiriachi	Mining	1002.4999	Valid	240976	16-11-2012	15-11-2062
MSB*	2	El Hueco	Mining	1.8379	Valid	172321	23-11-2003	23-11-2033
MSB/*	3	Alma	Exploration	87.2041	Valid	227650	28-7-2006	27-7-2056
MSB/*	4	Alma I	Exploration	106	Valid	226816	10/3/2006	9/3/2056
MSB/*	5	Alma II	Exploration	91	Valid	227651	28-7-2006	27-7-2056
MSB*	6	Bronco 1 A	Exploration	55.6309	Valid	240329	23-5-2012	22-5-2062
MSB*	7	Bronco 1 B	Exploration	0.8801	Valid	240330	23-5-2012	22-5-2062
MSB*	8	La Mexicana	Exploration	2	Valid	165883	13-12-1979	13-12-2082
MSB*	9	Bronco 3	Exploration	8.1186	Valid	243011	30-5-2014	29-5-2064
MSB*	10	Zapopa	Mining	8.3867	Valid	240189	13-4-2012	12/4/2062
MSB*	11	Bibiana	Exploration	71.6857	Valid	239262	8/12/2011	7/12/2061
MSB*	12	Sayra	Exploration	78.6362	Valid	239403	15-12-2011	14-12-2061
MSB*	13	San Bartolo	Mining	6	Valid	150395	30-9-2018	29-9-2068
MSB*	14	La India	Mining	16	Valid	150569	29-10-1968	28-10-2018
MSB*	15	La Perlita	Mining	10	Valid	163565	10/10/1978	9/10/2028
MSB*	16	Promontorio	Mining	8	Valid	163582	30-10-1978	29-10-2028
MSB*	17	La Consolidada	Mining	22	Valid	165102	23-8-1979	22-8-2029
MSB*	18	San Ignacio	Mining	3	Valid	165662	28-11-1979	27-11-2029
MSB*	19	Mina Vieja	Mining	8.25	Valid	165742	11/12/1979	10/12/2029
MSB*	20	La Perla	Mining	15	Valid	165968	13-12-1979	12/12/2029
MSB*	21	Margarita	Mining	14	Valid	165969	13-12-1979	12/12/2029
MSB*	22	El Milagro	Mining	26.8259	Valid	166580	27-6-1980	26-6-2030
MSB*	23	La Ilusión	Mining	6	Valid	166611	27-6-1980	26-6-2030
MSB*	24	La Rumorosa	Mining	20	Valid	166612	27-6-1980	26-6-2030
MSB*	25	Los Pelones	Mining	16.3018	Valid	166981	5/8/1980	4/8/2030
MSB*	26	Ampl. Nueva Josefina	Mining	18.2468	Valid	177597	1/4/1986	31-3-2036
MSB*	27	La Gloria	Mining	10	Valid	179400	9/12/1986	8/12/2036
MSB*	28	La Hermana de la India	Mining	13.1412	Valid	180030	23-3-1987	22-3-2037
MSB*	29	La Nueva Josefina	Mining	10	Valid	181221	11/9/1987	10/9/2037
MSB*	30	Nueva Santa Marina	Mining	16	Valid	182002	8/4/1988	7/4/2038
MSB*	31	Monterrey	Mining	5.4307	Valid	183820	22-11-1988	21-11-2038
MSB*	32	La Doble Eufemia	Mining	9	Valid	188814	29-11-1990	28-11-2040
MSB*	33	El Salvador	Mining	7.7448	Valid	190493	29-4-1991	28-4-2041
MSB*	34	Año Nuevo	Mining	12	Valid	192908	19-12-1991	18-12-2041
MSB*	35	Luis	Mining	3.1946	Valid	194225	19-12-1991	18-12-2041
MSB*	36	Nueva Recompensa	Mining	21	Valid	195371	15-9-1992	13-9-2042
MSB*	37	El Presidente	Mining	8.1608	Valid	209802	9/8/1999	8/8/2049
MSB*	38	La Indita	Exploration	9.9034	Valid	212891	13-2-2001	12/2/2049
MSB*	39	Aguila	Mining	4.2772	Valid	216262	23-4-2002	22-4-2052
MSB*	40	La Suerte	Exploration	10.5402	Valid	216711	28-5-2002	27-5-2052
MSB*	41	Cima	Exploration	9.9637	Valid	217231	2/7/2002	1/7/2052

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 16

Owner	Lot No.	Name	Concession Type	Area (ha)	File Status	Title No.	Registration Date	Expiration Date
MSB*	42	Base	Exploration	23.809	Valid	217584	6/8/2002	5/8/2052
MSB*	43	San Juan	Mining	12.3587	Valid	218657	3/12/2002	2/12/2052
MSB*	44	San Juan Fracc. A	Mining	0.1727	Valid	218658	3/12/2002	2/12/2052
MSB*	45	San Juan Fracc. B	Mining	0.1469	Valid	218659	3/12/2002	2/12/2052
MSB*	46	Norma	Exploration	12.2977	Valid	218851	22-1-2003	21-1-2053
MSB*	47	Norma 2	Mining	1.7561	Valid	219283	25-2-2003	24-2-2053
MSB*	48	Marisa	Mining	5.08	Valid	220146	17-6-2003	16-6-2053
MSB*	49	La Bufa Chiquita	Mining	3.6024	Valid	220575	28-8-2003	27-8-2053
MSB*	50	Cusihuiriachi Dos	Mining	87.6748	Valid	220576	28-8-2003	27-8-2053
MSB*	51	Flor de Mayo*	Exploration	14.4104	Valid	224700	31-5-2005	30-5-2055
MSB*	52	Manuel	Mining	100	Valid	227360	14-6-2006	13-6-2056
MSB*	53	San Miguel II	Exploration	100	Valid	227363	14-6-2006	13-6-2056
MSB*	54	San Miguel III	Exploration	100	Valid	227364	14-6-2006	13-6-2056
MSB*	55	Saira	Mining	16	Valid	227365	14-6-2006	13-6-2056
MSB*	56	San Miguel IV	Exploration	96.985	Valid	227485	27-6-2006	26-6-2056
MSB*	57	Base 1	Exploration	3.9276	Valid	227657	27-7-2006	26-7-2056
MSB*	58	Alma B	Exploration	80.4612	Valid	227982	26-9-2006	25-9-2056
MSB*	59	San Miguel V	Exploration	6.5328	Valid	227984	26-9-2006	25-9-2056
MSB*	60	San Miguel VI	Exploration	98.9471	Valid	228058	29-9-2006	28-9-2056
MSB*	61	San Miguel I	Exploration	98.6218	Valid	228484	24-11-2006	23-11-2056
MSB*	62	Sayra I	Exploration	7.2195	Valid	229064	2/3/2007	1/3/2057
MSB*	63	Santa Rita	Exploration	16.6574	Valid	229081	6/3/2007	5/3/2057
MSB*	64	Santa Rita Fracc. I	Exploration	9	Valid	229082	6/3/2007	5/3/2057
MSB*	65	Santa Rita Fracc. II	Exploration	8.8141	Valid	229083	6/3/2007	5/3/2057
MSB*	66	San Miguel VII	Exploration	52.644	Valid	229084	6/3/2007	5/3/2057
MSB*	67	San Miguel	Exploration	96.2748	Valid	229166	21-3-2007	20-3-2057
MSB*	68	CUSI-DBM	Mining	4,716.66	Valid	229299	3/4/2007	2/4/2057
MSB*	69	Manuel 1 Fracc A	Exploration	1.1858	Valid	229747	13-6-2007	12/6/2057
MSB*	70	Manuel 1 Fracc B	Exploration	1.3425	Valid	229748	13-6-2007	12/6/2057
MSB*	71	CUSI-DBM 02	TCM	4,695.17	Valid	232028	10/6/2008	9/6/2058
MSB*	72	Bronco 2	Exploration	7.5296	Valid	239311	13-12-2011	13-12-2061
MSB*	73	Bronco 4	Exploration	0.5224	Valid	239312	13-12-2011	13-12-2061
MSB*	74	Bronco 6	Exploration	9	Valid	239321	13-12-2011	12/12/2061
MSB*	75	Bronco 5	Exploration	6.7121	Valid	239335	13-12-2011	13-12-2061
MSB**	76	Vale 35	Mining	100	Being recorded	226790	7/3/2007	6/3/2056
MSB**	77	Vale	Mining	100	Being recorded	226813	10/3/2006	9/3/2056
MSB**	78	Vale 3	Mining	100	Being recorded	226814	10/3/2006	9/3/2056
MSB**	79	Vale 88	Mining	100	Being recorded	226815	10/3/2006	9/3/2056
MSB**	80	Burton	Mining	95.3432	Being recorded	226840	14-3-2006	13-3-2056
MSB**	81	Alma III	Exploration	96.6187	Being recorded	227652	28-6-2006	27-6-2056
MSB**	82	Burton I	Mining	90.6831	Being recorded	228146	6/10/2006	5/10/2056
MSB**	83	Canoas II	Mining	100	Being recorded	228617	15-12-2006	14-12-2056
MSB**	84	S Judas	Mining	95.7551	Being recorded	233048	2/12/2008	1/12/2058
MSB**	85	Lorena I	Mining	288	Being recorded	246664	16-10-2018	15-10-2068
MSB**	86	Lorena II	Mining	344	Being recorded	246665	16-10-2018	15-10-2068
MSB**	87	Lorena III	Mining	352	Being recorded	246666	16-10-2018	15-10-2068
MSB**	88	Lorena IV	Mining	318	Being recorded	246667	16-10-2018	15-10-2068
MSB**	89	Lorena V	Mining	388	Being recorded	246668	16-10-2018	15-10-2068
MSB**	90	Sayra III	Mining	242	Being recorded	246671	19-10-2018	18-10-2068
MSB**	91	Sayra IV	Mining	295	Being recorded	246672	19-10-2018	18-10-2068
MSB**	92	Sayra V	Mining	257.9542	Being recorded	246673	19-10-2018	18-10-2068

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 17

Owner	Lot No.	Name	Concession Type	Area (ha)	File Status	Title No.	Registration Date	Expiration Date
MSB**	93	Sayra II	Mining	328.5077	Being recorded	246683	19-10-2018	18-10-2068
MSB//**	94	La Bamba	Mining	16	Valid	172240	27-10-1983	26-10-2033
MSB//**	95	San Miguel	Mining	20	Valid	172015	22-9-1983	21-9-2033
Total		95		16,073.2396

Notes:
* 75 mining concessions are subject to a 2% NSR royalty payable to Dia Bras Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., derived from the assignment of rights agreement executed and ratified on July 18th, 2024, with Dia Bras Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
** 23 mining concessions are subject to a 1% NSR royalty payable to Minera Silverstrike, S.A. de C.V., derived from the assignment of rights agreement executed on July 3rd, 2024, with Minera Silverstrike, S.A. de C.V.
*** 2 mining concessions are subject to a 2% NSR royalty payable to Minera Homero, S.A. de C.V., derived from the assignment of rights agreement executed on June 25th, 2005, with Minera Homero, S.A. de C.V.
*** 2 mining concessions are subject to a 1% NSR royalty payable to Minerometalurgica San Miguel, S. de R.L. de C.V., derived from the assignment of rights agreement executed on June 28th, 2024, with Minerometalurgica San Miguel, S. de R.L. de C.V. "Being recorded"- Concession in the process of being recorded to Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V. before the Public Mining Registry.

Figure 4-3 Cusi Project Mineral Concessions Map (West)

Source: Archibald, 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 18

Figure 4-4 Cusi Project Mineral Concessions Map (East)

Source: Archibald, 2025

4.3 Underlying Agreements

4.3.1 Acquisition from Sierra Metals

On July 19, 2024, Sierra Metals Inc announced in a press release that it had completed the 100% sale of the Cusi Mine and surrounding mineral concessions (collectively, the "Cusi Property") in Chihuahua State, Mexico, to Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Silverco Mining Corp. The Cusi Property was sold for US $2.5M in cash and a 2.0% net smelter royalty in respect of the Cusi Property granted in favor of Dia Bras Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sierra Metals. Silverco has the right to purchase one-half of the Royalty at any time in exchange for a cash payment to Sierra Metals of US$5.0M.

4.3.2 Silverco Mining Ltd. Trading Commencement on TSX Venture Exchange

On October 22, 2025, Quetzal Copper Corp. doing business as Silverco Mining Ltd. (the "Company") (TSX-V: SICO), announced that its common shares would commence trading on the TSX Venture Exchange at market open on October 23, 2025 under the symbol "SICO".

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 19

On October 17, 2025, the Company announced the completion of a reverse takeover (“Reverse Takeover”) with Silverco Mining Corp., establishing the Company as a Tier 2 Mining issuer focused on developing the Cusi Property in Mexico. For additional information on the Reverse Takeover, please see the Company’s news releases dated June 26, 2025, August 15, 2025 and October 6, 2025.

On October 31, 2025, the Company announced that it had completed its name from “Quetzal Copper Corp.” to “Silverco Mining Ltd.”

4.3.3 Underlying Royalties

4.4 Surface Rights and Access

Surface rights can be held by the State, local authorities, or held by individuals. Holding mineral concessions does not automatically grant the owner surface access rights. Permission must be granted by the surface rights holder. This has not previously been an issue with the current permit holders.

4.5 Permits

Exploration and mining activities in Mexico are regulated by the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General de Equilibrio Ecologico y Proteccion al Ambiente [LGEEPA]) and the Regulations Environmental Impact Assessment [REIA]. Laws pertaining to mining and exploration activities are administered by Mexico’s environment ministry, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales [SEMARNAT]). SEMARNAT and the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente [PROFEPA]) enforces SEMARNAT laws and policy.

Activities that exceed specified limits require authorization from SEMARNAT and comprise the presentation of an environmental impact assessment (Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental [MIA]). SEMARNAT authorizes activities that fall below the specified threshold under Article 31 of the LGEEPA and require the submission report known as an Informe Preventivo.

Exploration activities that are expected to generate impacts to the physical or social environment that are assessed as potentially of low significance by the regulators are regulated under Norma Oficial Mexicana-120-SEMARNAT-1997 (NOM-120-SEMARNAT-1997), and its subsequent modifications.

The following permits issued by SEMARNAT to Minera San Bernabé, S.A. de C.V. are in force: an Informe Preventivo for the Cusi area that permits drilling activities in accordance with official notice 08/IP-0804/05/25 dated May 23, 2025.

4.6 Environmental Considerations

The Project hosts past producing silver mines first exploited in the late 1600’s. Historical mining activities continued intermittently on the property through the 1800’s and 1900’s. Most recently mines on the property operated from 2014 until 2023 and are currently under care and maintenance.

Environmental impacts within the Project site result from historical activities. Old mine dumps and tailings related to the historical production are noted on the Property. Under the Mexican environmental and

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 20

regulatory system, these impacts due to historical activities are considered pre-existing environmental liabilities deemed not significant and acknowledged by regulators.

The author and permit holders (Minera San Bernabé) are not aware of existing environmental liabilities relating to the permits that comprise the Property. However, tailings from previous mining operations are stored in two tailings piles in the vicinity of the Mal Paso Mill, located 25 km to the NW of the previous mine sites. Previous technical reports (SGS, 2022) noted that the tailings pile at the Mal Paso Mill may not be lined and may constitute a potential environmental liability.

The Project is not included within any specially protected, federally designated, ecological zones known as Áreas Naturales Protegidas (ANP).

4.7 Other Relevant Factors

The Author is unaware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right, or ability to perform exploration work recommended for the Property.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 Accessibility

The Project is located in the Abasolo Mineral District in the municipality of Cusihuiriachi, state of Chihuahua, Mexico (Figure 5-1). The former mine and office buildings on the Property are $135\mathrm{km}$ west from Chihuahua city via a two-lane divided highway, Federal Highway 16, with the remaining $22\mathrm{km}$ south from the city of Cuauhtemoc (population 168,482 [2015]) on a paved double lane road.

Within the Project area access is by minor unpaved roads, drivable tracks, and footpaths.

Figure 5-1 Property Location and Access Routes

Source: Archibald, 2025

5.2 Climate

The climate at the Cusi Property is described as hot semi-arid with average daily mean temperatures per month ranging from $10^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ to $25.7^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ , with hotter months occurring mid-year (May to August). Annual precipitation is approximately 332 mm, with monthly precipitation ranging from 7 to 74 mm. The highest rainfall during the year is recorded between July and September. Snow is recorded in December and January but tends not to lie. Climate is conducive for year-round exploration and mining operations. The climate graph below for Chihuahua (Figure 5-2) typifies weather at the property.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 22

Figure 5-2 Climate Chart for Cusi Property, Chihuahua (1,415 m)

Source: Data from climate-data.org, Archibald, 2025

5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure

There are five civil airports in the state of Chihuahua, with the nearest one (General Roberto Fierro Villalobos International Airport) only 100 km away from the property. The nine commercial airlines operate daily flights to 14 national locations, and two international flights to Dallas/Forth Worth and Denver. All other international flights are routed through Mexico City.

The main highway (Federal Highway 16) that transects the state between Chihuahua in the east and Hermosillo, Sonora and Sikasso is paved (Figure 5-3). The majority of the major and minor roads in the region are paved (Figure 5-4), and the tertiary roads are little more than tracks passable using four-wheel drive vehicles.

Chihuahua has five universities, and the city contains all modern amenities such as running water, sewerage, and hospitals. The standard of living is comparable with North American standards, with most US companies present. The main industries are manufacturing (electronics, textiles, and automotive parts), mining, agriculture (corn, beans, wheat, fruit, and cotton), livestock, tourism, and technology (software development and IT services).

Chihuahua is a significant contributor to Mexico's mining industry, with 158 mines operating in the state. These mines produce a variety of minerals, including: silver, zinc, copper, lead, and gold. Chihuahua is the second-largest producer of silver in Mexico, accounting for 21.4% of the country's total production, with 120.7 tons produced in 2022.

If the Cusi project proves to be economic there is sufficient space on the property to cover tailings storage, and waste storage, if required. As stated above, there is also adequate water and power in the local area

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 23

to facilitate extraction and processing, depending on the size of any mining operation. Due to the history of mining in Chihuahua, skilled local labour is available for all aspects of any mining operation.

Figure 5-3 Paved Road North of the Property - Cusihuiriachi Mountain the Tallest Peak

Source: Google (2021)

Figure 5-4 A Typical Track in the Central Part of the Property

Source: Archibald (2025)

Electricity at the Cusi property is provided by the Mexican Electricity Federal Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad). It is transmitted in 33 kV power lines (Figure 5-5). Existing electricity was adequate

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 24

for previous mining operations on the Property, and the current supply is expected to be sufficient for any future mining operations.

Water was previously recovered from underground workings of the Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges mines, and any future mining operation would likely use the same sources. The recovered water is not treated, so potable water is trucked to the site.

Milling of any future mineralized material would likely take place at the company-owned Mal Paso mill, located 44 km from the Cusi mine. Ore was previously transported from the mine to the plant in 20 tonne trucks.

Figure 5-5 Medium Voltage Power Lines Outside the Former Promontorio Mine

Source: Archibald (2025)

5.4 Physiography

The depth of the surface layer in this area typically spans from 1 to 3 meters, with an average depth of about 1.5 meters. This surface layer is composed of loose conglomerate, featuring volcanic rock fragments and boulders suspended in a mixture of sand and small amounts of clay. Additionally, deposits of recent volcanic ash may be incorporated into this surface layer.

Vegetation in the Cusi property consists of deciduous forest in the valleys and coniferous forest at higher altitudes. Around the Property the land use is primarily agricultural, which includes arable crops, fruit, and cattle ranching. Wildlife in and around the Property consists of insects, birds, snakes, lizards, and small mammals.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 25

6 HISTORY

6.1 Early Property Exploration and Development History

In 1687, Spanish explorer Antonio Rodríguez discovered and began exploiting gold and silver deposits in the Abasolo Mining District, including the Cusi area, specifically within the San Miguel and La Candelaria zones. Mining activities continued in the region until the outbreak of the Mexican War of Independence in 1810. However, the quantities of gold and silver extracted during the Spanish colonial period are not well documented.

The Mexican War of Independence took place from 1810 to 1821. Following this period, the mining history and operational details in the Cusi area from 1821 to 1881 are not well documented. Mining activities resumed with the Don Enrique Mining Co. from 1881 to 1890. Later, the Helena Mining Company acquired the site and conducted mining operations from 1896 to 1911. During this time, the company developed the Santa Marina and San Bartolo shafts, extending them to 1,000-foot below surface.

In 1911, Cusi Mexicana Mining Co. acquired the property from the Helena Mining Company. Mining activities in the Cusi project area continued intermittently during the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920). The total amount of ore extracted from 1821 to 1920 remains unknown due to a lack of documentation. The Cusi Mexicana Mining Co. were forced to abandon the project by Generalisimo Pancho Villa due to civil unrest, and the mines remained idle until the mid-1920s.

The Cusi project area concessions were operated by The Cusi Mining Company of American Capital from the 1920s to 1937. According to Sierra Metals, approximately one million tonnes of ore were mined during this period. RPA (2006) reports that between 1924 and 1942, a total of 504,048 tons were extracted, yielding 265,460 kg of silver, although the specific mining locations are not documented. Mining activities then reportedly ceased from 1937 to the 1970s. In the 1970s, mining resumed at several sites within the Cusi Project area, producing an estimated 3,000 tons of mineralized material per month with an average silver grade of 12-18 oz/t (373-560 g/t).

In 1975, Slocan Development Corp. (Slocan) considered acquiring the property and planned to produce ore by dewatering old workings at several mines. Slocan also conducted mineralogical studies (Bryant, 1975; Chisholm, 1975).

In the 1980s, Minera Cusi carried out surface and underground geochemical studies, minor underground development, and limited mining (Clark & Castañeda, 1989; Clark, 1988, in Dupéré and Camus, 2008).

In 1990 a single inclined diamond drill hole was drilled close to the Tescate adit (Eduwiges mine) and intersected the San Antonio/Santa Marina vein system at approximately 220 m below the San Antonio/Santa Marina open pit. This showed the system was open down dip, but no assays were recorded (RPA, 2006).

In 1995, Pacific Islands Gold optioned the property from Minera Cusi and performed a variety of exploration, which included: geological mapping, surface and underground chip sampling, and a limited reverse circulation (RC) drilling program along the San Miguel vein system (Day, 2001, in Dupéré and Camus, 2008). No results of this work are available.

In January 1996, Silver Standard Resources Inc. entered into a joint venture agreement with Pacific Islands Gold and planned to carry out exploration. No record of work is known for this period, so it is unknown if it was performed.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 26

6.2 Dia Bras Exploration and Sierra Metals (2006-2024)

Between May 2006 and April 2008, Canadian-based Dia Bras Exploration Inc. (Dia Bras) acquired the majority of claims that make up the current exploration area. Exploration and research activities performed by Dia Bras included the following activities:

Exploration summary and recommendations report (Braun, 2006)
Geological mapping at a scale of 1:20,000 (Ciesielski, 2006; and Pelletier, J., 2008)
Mineralogical studies and fluid inclusion studies on the quartz-sulphide veins, and a review of assay data for mineralized zones (Meinert, 2006, 2007a, 2007b)
Zonge International performed a ground induced polarization (IP) survey over the La Bamba-San Manuel-La India part of the property in May 2013. No report is available, but it appears the survey consisted of four lines, 3 km in length, 500 m line separation. The work was performed by Dia Bras
Surface chip sampling was performed at several location in the Cusi mine area, including at La Matulera by Dia Bras
From 2006 to 2012 Dia Bras completed 674 surface and underground drillholes (for 121,013 m) with a variety of diameters ranging from BQ to HQ core size. A summary is presented in Section 10 - Drilling.

In 2009, Dia Bras merged with EXMIN Resources Inc., another Mexican-focused exploration Company.

In 2013, Dia Bras Exploration Inc. changed its name to Sierra Metals Inc. From 2013 to 2023 exploration and grade control sampling completed by Sierra Metals included the following activities:

Surface and underground drilling totalling 1,341 drillholes (for 227,395 m). This included exploration and resource definition drilling. A summary is presented in Section 10 - Drilling.
Underground channel (chip) sampling was performed in historic workings and new workings when the mines went into commercial production. A total of 21,522 channels were sampled for a total of 48,786 m (Table 6-1). These samples were used for grade control rather than exploration.

Table 6-1 Sierra Metals Underground Channel Sampling Summary from 2013 to 2023

Year	Company	Sample Type	Channel Prefix	Channel Count	Sampled Length (m)	Sample Count
2013	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	-	1,410	2,966	43,048
2014	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	-	4,383	8,572
2015	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	-	4,535	6,823
2016	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	-	2,276	3,932
2017	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	-	1,701	3,567
2018	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M18	1,290	3,762	5,112
2019	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M19	1,398	4,988	4,882
2020	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M20	1,165	3,883	4,186
2021	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M21	1,335	3,930	5,313
2022	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M22	1,193	3,801	5,315
2023	Sierra Metals	UG Channel Sample	M23	836	2,561	3,749
Total				21,522	48,786	71,605

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 27

6.2.1 Historical Mine Production and Metallurgical Performance

In 2014, Sierra Metals established commercial production at the Cusi mine, with activity at Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges. The Mal Paso mill was originally commissioned at 600 tonnes per day (tpd) and expanded to 1,200 tpd in 2019. Available production figures for the Cusi mine from 2014 to 2023 (Table 6-2) have been compiled from Sierra Metals annual reports. The mine went into care and maintenance in Q3 of 2023.

Table 6-2 Production Figures for Cusi Mine from 2014 to 2023

	Unit	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total/Avg.
Tonnage	t	155,268	202,034	186,897	88,011	186,889	285,236	230,429	295,771	291,907	139,922	2,062,364
Head Grade
Ag	g/t	167	176	172	165	140	129	150	160	170	145	156
Au	g/t	0.42	0.22	0.26	0.26	0.16	0.15	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.14	0.20
Pb	%	0.78	0.78	1.22	1.12	0.36	0.19	0.29	0.32	0.25	0.32	0.49
Zn	%	N/A	N/A	1.16	1.14	0.40	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.85
Lead Concentrate
Ag Recovery	%	75.7	76.5	70.7	72.0	83.1	79.1	80.3	82.9	85.4	83.9	79.8
Au Recovery	%	61.7	57.3	61.9	58.2	39.5	36.2	45.5	44.9	46.9	53.4	48.7
Pb Recovery	%	78.5	78.6	81.5	80.6	79.2	74.8	92.8	80.6	78.9	87.3	81.0
Zinc Concentrate
Ag Recovery	%	N/A	N/A	2.0	2.0	0.1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.2
Zn Recovery	%	N/A	N/A	37.5	42.2	4.2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	24.9
Metal Production
Ag	oz	630,160	873,496	730,000	336,000	700,000	936,000	890,000	1,260,000	1,363,000	549,000	8,267,656
Au	oz	1,289	832	954	423	373	491	619	762	794	331	6,868
Pb	lbs	2,120,000	2,747,000	4,111,000	1,770,000	1,194,000	904,000	1,366,000	1,703,000	1,282,000	859,000	18,056,000
Zn	lbs	N/A	N/A	1,805,000	937,000	71,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2,813,000

Notes:
(1) Zinc concentrate details not reported in 2014 to 2015 as circuit was being commissioned. No zinc concentrate was produced in from Q2 2018 onwards.
(2) The mine went into care and maintenance in Q3 of 2023

6.3 Historical Resource Estimates

The most recent historical Mineral Resource Estimate was produced by SRK in 2020 (Table 6-3, Ortiz et al., 2020) in support of a Preliminary Economic Assessment. The historical estimate was based on a merged dataset of drillhole and channel sample data. Historical resources were reported at a 95 g/t AgEq cut-off grade for the historical 2020 MRE. Details of the historical estimate are provided in Sierra Metals November 18, 2020 press release and a NI 43-101 technical report filed in December, 2020.

The 2020 MRE is considered historical in nature, and Silverco is not treating the historical resources as current. The historical resources for the Cusi deposits are superseded by the 2025 Measured, Indicated and Inferred MRE for the deposits.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 28

Table 6-3 Historical Cusi Mineral Resource Estimate at August 31, 2020 (Oritz, 2020)

Source	Class	Tonnes (000's)	AgEq (g/t)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Pb (%)	Zn (%)
SRL	Measured	850	231	213	0.06	0.26	0.3
Total Measured		850	231	213	0.06	0.26	0.3
Promontorio	Indicated	1,790	199	168	0.1	0.45	0.6
Eduwiges		828	270	194	0.17	3	1.27
SRL		644	179	165	0.11	1.42	2.04
San Nicolas		657	190	167	0.14	0.28	0.32
San Juan		179	179	165	0.11	0.14	0.17
Minerva		59	198	178	0.3	0.1	0.05
Candelaria		131	176	157	0.1	0.19	0.42
Durana		168	168	160	0.05	1.1	0.08
San Ignacio		49	149	113	0.05	0.33	1.1
Total Indicated		4,506	212	176	0.13	0.54	0.63
Measured + Indicated		5,356	215	182	0.12	0.49	0.58
Promontorio	Inferred	384	174	141	0.15	0.33	0.71
Eduwiges		549	186	117	0.18	1.16	1.1
SRL		1579	222	188	0.19	0.37	0.59
San Nicolas		2020	156	124	0.18	0.28	0.66
San Juan		102	171	160	0.05	0.13	0.22
Minerva		4	169	162	0.08	0.08	0.05
Candelaria		202	191	139	0.12	0.73	1.09
Durana		1	102	99	0.05	-	0.01
San Ignacio		53	118	96	0.13	0.27	0.29
Total Inferred		4,893	183	146	0.18	0.43	0.69

Historical 2020 Cusi Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

(1) Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ("CIM") Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, whose definitions are incorporated by reference into NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral resources are not ore reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Gold, silver, lead and zinc assays were capped where appropriate.

(3) Mineral resources are reported at a single cut-off grade of 95 g/t AgEq based on metal price assumptions*, metallurgical recovery assumptions, personnel costs (US$10.56/t), mine operation, transport and maintenance costs (US$24.86/t), processing operation and maintenance (US$11.86/t), and general and administrative and other costs (US$3.20/t).

(4) Metal price assumptions considered for the calculation of the cut-off grade and equivalency are: Silver (Ag): US$/oz 20.0, Lead (US$/lb. 0.91), Zinc (US$/lb. 1.07) and Gold (US$/oz 1,541.00). CIBC, Consensus Forecast, September 30, 2020.

(5) The resources were estimated by SRK. Giovanny Ortiz, B.Sc., PGeo, FAusIMM #304612 of SRK, a Qualified Person, performed the resource estimation for the Cusi Mine.

(6) Based on the historical production information of Cusi, the metallurgical recovery assumptions are: 87% Ag, 57% Au, 86% Pb, 51% Zn.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 Regional Geology

Chihuahua is located in the Sierra Madre Occidental (SMO) physiographic province, which is part of the larger North American Cordillera. The SMO is a volcanic arc formed by subduction of the Farallon plate beneath the North American plate during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (McDowell and Clabaugh, 1979). This tectonic setting has played a crucial role in shaping the geology of Chihuahua with the interaction of volcanism and faulting leading to mineralization in the Cusi region (Figure 7-1).

Figure 7-1 Chihuahua Regional Mineralization and the Sierra Madre Occidental

The geology of Chihuahua is characterized by a complex sequence of rocks, ranging from Precambrian basement rocks to Quaternary alluvial deposits (Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3). The oldest rocks in the region

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 30

are Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks, which are overlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rocks (Valenzuela-Navarro et al., 2016). Mesozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks, including the iconic ignimbrite deposits of the SMO, dominate the geology of the region. Sedimentary rocks are also widespread in Chihuahua, with a range of formations present, including limestone, sandstone, and shale. These rocks were deposited in a variety of environments, including shallow marine, fluvial, and lacustrine settings (González-León et al., 2011).

Figure 7-2 Simplified Geology Map of Mexico

Source: Archibald (2025) Modified after Sanchez (2013)

The region is characterized by a series of northwest-trending faults and folds, which are thought to have formed in response to regional tectonic stresses (Stewart and Roldán-Quintana, 1991). These structures have played a crucial role in controlling the distribution of mineral deposits and the formation of economic deposits.

Significant mineral deposits occur in the area, particularly epithermal precious metal deposits. These deposits are often associated with Tertiary volcanic rocks and are thought to have formed in response to hydrothermal activity driven by magmatic processes (Simmons et al., 2005). The state's most notable mineral deposits include those of silver, gold, copper, and zinc, with many deposits occurring in the SMO volcanic field.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 7-3 Regional Geology Map of the Area Surrounding the Cusi Property

Source: Archibald (2025) Geology map from Servicio Geológico Mexicano (sheet H13-10)

7.2 Property Geology

The geology of the Cusi property is poorly documented. Regional geological mapping was performed by the Consejo de Recursos Minerales (CRM) in 1998 (Montiel et al., 1998) and industry-funded local mapping by Ciesielski (2006). Studies agree that the Cusi area is underlain Grupo Inferior sequences comprised of Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments (not exposed), which are in-turn overlain by Tertiary andesitic tuffs and flows. These rocks were subsequently intruded and fragmented by a rhyodacitic dome that formed in a caldera setting, which resulted in the formation of ignimbrites and other pyroclastic volcaniclastic sediments ("Bufa ignimbrite"). A rhyolite resurgent dome formed in the collapsed caldera. Faulting and the circulation of metal-bearing hydrothermal fluids resulted in the formation of Ag-Au-Pb-Zn veins. The veins are hosted in rhyodacites, ignimbrites, rhyolites, and andesite tuff and lava. Overlying this sequence are Tertiary (Oligocene-Miocene) andesite, tuffs, breccias, and rhyolitic flows of the Grupo Superior.

The geology of the whole property is presented in Figure 7-4, and a more detailed geology map of the Cusi mine area is illustrated in Figure 7-5.

The Abasolo region is characterized by large block structures that are controlled by an extensive series of northeast, northwest and north-trending faults (Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4). These faults control mineralization in the region, and on the Cusi property, with displacements up to $200\mathrm{m}$. The faults and

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 32

fracture zones are coincident ridges and gullies in the area, depending on the degree of deformation and silicification. In the Cusi property four major sets of faults are recognized. These are: northwest trending faults, e.g., Cusi fault; East-northeast-trending faults, e.g., La Bamba and San Miguel Mine; Northeast-trending faults, e.g., Santa Edwiges Mine; and North-trending faults, e.g., San Rafael Fault. The location of the faults is illustrated on Figure 7-5.

Brecciated zones without mineralization are found near the northeast side of the contact area between the Bufa ignimbrite and andesite. These zones typically trend north-northwest, aligning with the contact, and can measure up to 20 meters in width and 200 meters in length, as documented in previous research (Ciesielski, 2006).

Figure 7-4 Geology Map of the Cusi Property

Source: Archibald (2025)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 33

Figure 7-5 Geology Map of the Cusi Mine Area and a Simplified Stratigraphic Section

Source: Sierra Metals (2022) with modifications

7.3 Mineralization and Alteration

The Property contains numerous epithermal veins with notable mineralization. These veins typically dip at moderate to steep angles in various directions, including southeast, southwest, and north. Their thickness varies from less than 0.5 m to 2 m, with localized shoots up to 5 m true thickness. Mineralized strike lengths of the major structures have been tested for up to 300 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip in the Promontorio and Eduwiges areas, up to 1,300 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Miguel area, up to 800 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Juan area, and up to 2,000 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip on the San Nicolas and Santa Rosa de Lima structures. Small open pits, commercial and historical artisanal, are often found at vein intersections (Braun, 2006).

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 34

copper, and variable amounts of gold (Meinert 2006, 2007a, 2007b). Common textures include crustiform and banded patterns, with widespread silicification accompanied by sericite and disseminated pyrite.

Figure 7-6 presents the geological map of the Promontorio mine structures either side of the Santa Rosa de Lima vein (Cusi fault). On the hanging wall side (Promontorio East) of the Santa Rosa de Lima vein, the structural control of the mineralization is complex in a zone of cross-cutting structures with numerous veinlets and veins of variable thickness and trends.

Figure 7-6 Geology and Mineralized Structures in the Area of the Promontorio and Santa Rosa de Lima Mine

Source: Sierra Metals (2020)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 35

8 DEPOSIT TYPES

Mineralization at Cusi occurs in veins with mineralogical characteristics and alteration assemblages typical of low to intermediate sulfidation epithermal deposits. Ag-Au-Pb-Zn mineralization occurs along narrow fractures containing quartz, sphalerite, and galena, with wall rock alteration characterized by silicification, clay development, and iron oxides. The veins exhibit quartz with crustiform and banded textures, typical of epithermal systems. Mexico is known for its rich silver deposits, particularly in the Sierra Madre Occidental province, where the Cusi mine is located. This region has a long history of silver mining, with many notable deposits found in the state of Chihuahua. The epithermal systems in this region are often associated with volcanic rocks and are thought to have formed in response to hydrothermal activity.

8.1 Epithermal Systems

Epithermal deposits form at depths of 1.0 to 1.5 km in volcanic-hydrothermal and geothermal environments. They define a spectrum with two end members, low and high sulfidation (Hedenquist et al., 2000). Figure 8-1 shows the genetic model for epithermal deposits proposed by Hedenquist et al., (2000). Low and Intermediate sulfidation deposits form part of the epithermal spectrum. Their genesis is complex due to the participation of fluids with meteoric and magmatic origin during their formation and the fluid evolution during water-rock interactions. According to several authors, the fluids that formed the Mexican epithermal deposits represent a mixture of fluids with diverse origins varying from meteoric to magmatic (Simmons et al., 1988; Benton, 1991; Norman et al., 1997; Simmons, 1991; Albinson et al., 2001; Camprubi et al., 2006; Camprubi and Albinson, 2007). Mineral deposits at Cusi exhibit characteristics of the low-to-intermediate sulphidation types of deposits.

Epithermal deposits typically consist of fissure veins and disseminations with gold, silver, and base metals concentrations. Most low sulfidation epithermal deposits form as open-space filling of faults and fractures resulting in vein deposits. Some gold deposits occur as replacements or disseminations in permeable host rocks, particularly the high-sulfidation types. Epithermal deposits are more common in extensional settings in volcanic island and continent margin arcs. Due to its relatively shallow deposition level within the Earth's crust, most epithermal deposits are preserved in Tertiary or younger volcanic rocks. Mineral deposition in the epithermal environment occurs due to complex fluid boiling and mixing processes that involve cooling, decompression, and degassing.

Historically, epithermal gold and silver deposits are an important part of the world's precious metal budget. Approximately 6% and 16% of the world's gold and silver have been produced from epithermal deposits. These deposits are significant in Mexico. Mineable epithermal veins range from 50,000 to more than 2,000,000 tonnes in size, with typical grades ranging from 1 to 20 g/t Au and 10 to 1,000 g/t Ag. Locally exceptional, or "bonanza" grades above 20 g/t Au can be important contributors to many gold deposits. Lead and zinc are also important contributors to epithermal deposits' low- and intermediate-sulphidation classes. Veins that host mineralization are about several kilometres long; however, economic mineralization is present in plunging mineralized shoots with dimensions of tens of metres to hundreds of metres or more. Single veins commonly host multiple ore shoots. The wide range of tonnage and grade characteristics make these deposits attractive targets for small and large mining companies.

Quartz veins are typical hosts for low and intermediate sulphidation mineralization, and these veins have characteristic alteration assemblages that indicate temperatures of deposition between 100°C and 300°C. These alteration assemblages include quartz, carbonates, adularia white phyllosilicates, and barite in the veins; illite, adularia, smectite, mixed-layer clays, and chlorite proximal to the vein walls; and distal chlorite, calcite, epidote, and pyrite more peripherally. Also, unmineralized but related, steam-heated argillic alteration and silica sinters may be present above, or above and laterally from, the veins.

Vein textures are also important guides for targeting low-and intermediate-sulphidation mineralization. Quartz commonly occurs with cockade and comb textures, as breccias; as microcrystalline, chalcedonic, and colloform banded quartz; and as bladed or lattice quartz. Bladed or lattice quartz forms by replacing bladed calcite formed from a boiling fluid and is a diagnostic indication of the level of boiling in a vein.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 36

Ore minerals include pyrite, electrum, gold, silver, argentite, acanthite, silver sulphosalts, sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, and/or selenide minerals. In alkalic host rocks, tellurides, vanadium mica (roscoelite), and fluorite may be abundant, with lesser molybdenite. These mineralized systems have strong geochemical signatures in rocks, soils, and sediments and Au, Ag, Zn, Pb, Cu, As, Sb, Ba, F, Mn, Te, Hg, and Se may be used to vector to mineralization.

Figure 8-2 shows the associated alteration components of epithermal systems and mineralization.

Figure 8-1 Genetic Model for Epithermal Deposits

Source: Hedenquist et. al., 2000

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 8-2 Schematic of Alteration and Mineralization in Low Sulphidation Precious Metal Deposits

Source: Hedenquist et al., 2000

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 38

9 EXPLORATION

9.1 Summary

Since acquiring the Property in July 2024, Silverco has conducted geological mapping, geochemical rock sampling and diamond drilling on the Cusi project (see Section 10). Surface exploration to date has included geological mapping at La Matulera in the northern part of the property and reconnaissance-style rock geochemical sampling at the Las Huertas and Gatos zones, located east of the San Miguel zone, in the central and eastern areas of the Property respectively. A total of 87 rock geochemical samples have been collected and assayed by Silverco. Mapping and sampling have confirmed anomalous silver, gold, lead, and zinc in multiple veins at surface mapped over strike lengths in excess of 1 km located outside of the areas previously developed as part of the Cusi mine complex.

9.2 Geological Mapping

Dia Bras performed several geological mapping and sampling programs on the Cusi property and identified a number of mineralized structures in the La Matulera area. Fourteen of the 247 historical chip samples, collected by Sierra Minerals, contained silver concentration in excess of 100 g/t, up to a maximum of 537 g/t Ag. Gold concentrations up to 1.1 g/t were coincident with the high silver samples. These encouraging results prompted Silverco to remap the area between January, 2025 and March, 2025. The mapping was performed with a digital tablet using Qfield data acquisition software. A variety of observations were captured, which included: lithology, alteration, mineralization, presence of artisanal workings, and structural measurements (dip, strike) on lithologies, veins, and fault surfaces. The overall aim of the work is to determine the orientation of the best surface mineralization to support drill targeting at La Matulera.

The geology map of the whole La Matulera prospect is presented in Figure 9-1, and the historical Dia Bras lithogeochemical results have been overlain on the map for clarity. The highest concentration of elevated silver concentrations is located on the main north-south trending vein. A more detailed view of the central map area is presented in Figure 9-2.

Reconnaissance-style surface mapping was completed in September and October, 2025 designed to review and evaluate historical mapping and interpretations of the Cusi host lithologies, vein systems, and structural framework to support exploration targeting. A total of 14 mapping days were completed with examinations of surface exposures in the San Miguel, Matulera, San Juan, Promontorio East, Eduwiges, San Nicolas, La Gloria, San Ignacio. Mapping and geological interpretation work by Silverco of the Cusi deposits is in its early stages and is expected to continue in 2026.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 9-1 Field Mapping at the Matulera Vein System Epithermal Vein System (2025)

Source: Archibald (2025) Geochemistry data from Sierra Metals database

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 40

Figure 9-2 Detailed View of the Geological Mapping at the Matulera Vein System (2025)

Source: Archibald (2025)

9.3 Rock Geochemistry

Rock sampling is usually conducted in conjunction with geological mapping and prospecting. Geologists take outcrop samples (rock chip channels and grab) and float samples. Reconnaissance-style surface rock sampling was initiated in 2025 by Silverco and targeted historically mapped structures in the Las Huertas and Gatos zones, located east of the San Miguel zone, in the central and eastern areas of the Property respectively. Table 9-1 summarizes the rock geochemistry sampling completed by Silverco. Table 9-2 summarizes selected high-grade rock samples collected from the Property by Silverco. Rock geochemical sampling Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn results are shown for the Las Huertas Zone (Figure 9-3 to Figure 9-6) and Gatos Zone (Figure 9-7 to Figure 9-10).

To date, 87 rock samples have been collected by Silverco from surface exposures on the Property. The lithology, alteration, style, and structure of mineralization are logged to determine controls on mineralization. To the degree possible, rock chip channel samples are oriented perpendicular to mineralized structures and variations in mineralization are sampled separately. When possible, samples are collected as continuous rock chip channels, with sample lengths ranging from 0.3 m to 1.5 m.

Sampling is carried out by geologists or trained field assistants under the direct supervision of a geologist. Samples are placed in a sample bag with a uniquely labelled sample number.

Rock samples were sent to ALS Minerals for analysis with sample preparation in Chihuahua, Mexico and analysis in North Vancouver, British Columbia. Samples remained under Company custody until delivery to ALS; sealed bags were transported by Company personnel to ALS Chihuahua. The ALS Chihuahua and North Vancouver facilities are ISO/IEC 17025 certified. Samples are dried, weighed, and crushed to at least

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 41

70% passing 2mm, and a 250 g split is pulverized to at least 85% passing 75 µm (ALS Method code: PREP-31). Silver and base metals are analyzed using a four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP61). Over-limit analyses for silver (>100 ppm), lead (>10,000 ppm), and zinc (>10,000 ppm) are reassayed using an ore-grade four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-OG62). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm are analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21). Gold is assayed by 30-gram fire assay and AAS (ALS Method code: Au-AA23).

Table 9-1 Summary of Silverco Rock Geochemistry Samples

Year	Rock Geochemical Sampling
	Rock Chip Channel Samples	Grab Samples	Float & Other Samples	Total
2024	-	-	-	-
2025	64	3	20	87
Total	64	3	20	87

Table 9-2 Selected Silverco High-Grade Samples from 2025 Surface Exploration

Year	Sample ID	Sample Type	Area	Prospect	Sample Length (m)	Ag (ppm)	Au (ppm)	Pb (ppm)	Zn (ppm)
2025	218874	Rock chip	Las Huertas	Las Huertas	0.4	842	0.234	8540	2100
2025	218858	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	201	0.032	4340	1920
2025	218842	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	193	0.037	4510	405
2025	218845	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	179	0.116	737	338
2025	218855	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	150	0.204	1195	802
2025	218859	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	0.3	148	0.06	44700	1350
2025	218844	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	129	0.024	858	523
2025	218841	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	128	0.046	218	246
2025	218857	Rock chip	Santo Niño	Las Almas	1	112	0.019	4970	649

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 42

Figure 9-3 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Ag Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 43

Figure 9-4 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Au Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 44

Figure 9-5 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Pb Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 45

Figure 9-6 Las Huertas Zone Surface Rock Sampling Zn Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 46

Figure 9-7 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Ag Grades 2025

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 47

Figure 9-8 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Au Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 48

Figure 9-9 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Pb Grades 2025

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 49

Figure 9-10 Gatos Zone Surface Rock Sampling Zn Grades 2025

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 50

10 DRILLING

10.1 Summary

Silverco diamond drillholes are typically HQ diameter, with reduction to NQ diameter on deeper holes beyond 400 m or when ground conditions necessitate it. Drilling to date by Silverco has been completed using man-portable drill rigs which limits surface disturbance and provides maximum positioning versatility on the Property terrain. Drillhole collars are positioned for drilling using handheld GPS and subsequently surveyed by high precision RTK GPS on completion. Downhole orientations of drillhole azimuth and inclination are recorded by a magnetic survey instrument every 30 to 40 m downhole. Magnetic declination is used for correcting drillhole azimuths to true north values. Drillhole geology is recorded for lithology, alteration, mineralization, structure, and veins. Drillhole recovery and RQD are recorded for all drilled intervals and field density measurements are collected on selected intervals. Selective geochemical sampling and assaying is completed on prospective mineralized intervals at nominal 1 m intervals based on changes in lithology, alteration, mineralization, and structure.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 51

Table 10-1 Summary of Drilling on the Cusi Project 2006 to October 20, 2025

Year	Company	Hole Type	Drillhole Prefix	Drillhole Count	Length Drilled (m)	Sample Count
2006	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC06B	54	10,475	2,016
		DDH Underground	-	-	-	-
2007	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC07B	89	20,637	5,376
		DDH Underground	DC07M	11	1,658	693
2008	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC08B	29	8,050	1,775
		DDH Underground	DC08M	56	5,125	2,137
2009	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC09B	65	7,250	1,057
		DDH Underground	DC09M	19	956	365
2010	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC10B	67	9,678	632
		DDH Underground	DC10M	3	214	12
2011	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC11B	79	18,949	5,637
		DDH Underground	DC11M	4	571	162
2012	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC12B	153	33,576	13,507
		DDH Underground	DC12M	45	3,875	3,462
2013	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC13B	65	20,157	12,255
		DDH Underground	DC13M	38	4,344	2,618
2014	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC14B	14	3,378	434
		DDH Underground	DC14M	61	7,181	2,837
2015	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC15B	10	4,010	409
		DDH Underground	DC15M	137	23,021	6,840
2016	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC16B	13	4,670	633
		DDH Underground	DC16M	25	3,537	702
2017	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC17B	89	40,977	3,361
		DDH Underground	DC17M	78	5,073	2,247
2018	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC18B	103	25,494	3,411
		DDH Underground	DC18M	70	5,112	3,191
2019	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC19B	27	5,339	897
		DDH Underground	DC19M	85	11,569	4,334
2020	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC20B	45	6,500	1,132
		DDH Underground	DC20M	116	11,603	5,251
2021	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC21B	13	4,680	699
		DDH Underground	DC21M	205	21,625	7,364
2022	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	-	-	-	-
		DDH Underground	DC22M	113	13,384	6,110
2023	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	-	-	-	-
		DDH Underground	DC23M	34	5,740	1,982
2024	Silverco Mining	DDH Surface	CU-24	14	5,518	785
2025	Silverco Mining	DDH Surface	CU-25	23	6,311	1,262
Subtotal	DDH Surface			952	235,650	55,278
	DDH Underground			1,100	124,587	50,307
Total	DDH Surface & Underground			2,052	360,237	105,585

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 52

Figure 10-1 Location of Drillholes on the Cusi Project from 2006 to October 2025

10.2 Historical Drilling: 2006-2023 Dia Bras and Sierra Metals

Dia Bras initiated surface exploration drilling on the Property in 2006 and added underground exploration drilling in 2007. Drillholes were completed using a variety of core diameters ranging from BQ to HQ core. From 2006 to 2012 drilling completed by Dia Bras amounted to:

Surface drilling: 536 drillholes for 108,614 m and 30,000 samples
Underground drilling: 138 drillholes for 12,399 m and 6,831 samples
Combined surface and underground drilling: 674 drillholes for 121,013 m and 36,831 samples

Dia Bras changed its name to Sierra Metals in 2013 and subsequently commissioned mining operations on the Property. During the period from 2013 to 2023 both surface exploration and underground exploration and resource definition drilling was completed. Drilling completed by Sierra Metals amounted to:

Surface drilling: 379 drillholes for 115,207 m and 23,231 samples
Underground drilling: 962 drillholes for 112,188 m and 43,476 samples
Combined surface and underground drilling: 1,341 drillholes for 227,395 m and 66,707 samples

Historical drilling on the Property by Dia Bras and Sierra Metals collectively from 2006 to 2023 amounted to:

Surface drilling: 915 drillholes for 223,821 m and 53,231 samples

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 53

Underground drilling: 1,100 drillholes for 124,587 m and 50,307 samples
Combined surface and underground drilling: 2,015 drillholes for 348,408 m and 103,538 samples

Drilling in from 2006 to 2023 is summarized in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-2.

Figure 10-2 Historical Drillholes on the Cusi Project from 2006 – 2023

10.2.1 Collar Surveying

Collar locations were surveyed on surface using handheld GPS and underground using a total station system. Collar surveys were considered accurate for both types of drilling. Underground drill stations commonly contained clusters of underground drill collars.

10.2.2 Downhole Surveying

About 30% (559 of 2,015) of the historical drillholes have no downhole deviation surveys and are positioned from a collar survey only. Downhole surveying began on the Project in 2012. Surveys were completed using a Reflex deviation tool at intervals ranging between 25 m and 50 m, or as available due to drilling conditions.

Many of the historic drillholes lacking downhole surveys are relatively long and their precise location is considered uncertain due to the lack of downhole deviation surveys; this uncertainty contributes to the inaccuracy in the geological model in places. More recent drilling, completed using downhole deviation surveys, has improved the precision in areas of early drilling. To reduce the inaccuracy related to non-surveyed drillholes, the historical non-surveyed drillhole intercepts with offsets of more than 5 m from the

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 54

projection of the structures using new surveyed drill holes and/or channel samples, were not flagged and not used during the construction of the geological model and estimation.

10.2.3 Core Recovery

Core recovery was assessed prior to logging and sampling. This is based on the percentage of an interval that is recovered into the core box compared to the expected length of the interval. Recoveries are generally very good at Cusi with an average historical recovery of 95% in mineralized intervals.

10.3 Silverco Drilling: 2024-2025

10.3.1 2024 Drilling

Silverco initiated drilling on the Cusi project in 2024. The 2024 program was primarily focused on testing the down-dip plunge of historical drilling on the consolidated San Miguel inset claims and testing the extension of Eduwiges to the east of the Cusi fault. Drilling was performed from surface by a local contractor, utilizing portable drill rigs. All core was HQ in size.

The 2024 drilling in the San Miguel area targeted the interpreted, down-plunge extension of the San Miguel vein system. The objective was to test the continuity of the structure within the Company's recently acquired inset claims. A strike length of approximately 250 m was tested with the deepest intercept at 250 m below surface. This drilling was on average 175 m below the historical drilling intersections on the San Miguel vein system.

At San Miguel drilling intersected a series of mineralized, steeply-dipping, parallel veins, primarily presenting as a hydrothermal breccia. This breccia is a fractured and cemented rock, with fragments of the host rock and angular quartz clasts cemented by silica. Vein widths are variable, ranging from less than 1.0 m to exceeding 5.0 m, and are steeply dipping at 70-80°.

Drilling in the Eduwiges area was designed to test the interpreted continuation of the Eduwiges vein system on the east side of the Santa Rosa de Lima vein (also referred to as the Cusi fault). Mineralized vein systems on the east side of the Cusi fault had previously been discovered and partially mined in the Promontorio zone. Similar mineralization was also discovered east of the Cusi fault in the San Juan area.

Drilling successfully intersected the Eduwiges vein structures to the east of the Cusi fault, intersecting mineralization 200 m east of historical workings at Eduwiges. Historical drilling in the area had been unable to successfully target mineralized veins.

Drilling in 2024 totaled 14 surface drillholes for 5,518 m and 785 samples were collected for geochemical assay (Table 10-1, Figure 10-3). Highlights of the 2024 drilling are presented in Table 10-2.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 55

Figure 10-3 Location of 2024 Silverco Drillholes on the Cusi Project

Table 10-2 Highlights of the 2024 Silverco Drilling

Hole ID	Zone	From (m)	To (m)	Length (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Pb %	Zn %
CU-24-01	Eduwiges	220.3	222	1.7	202	0.13	0.83	4.46
CU-24-01	Eduwiges	415.3	415.9	0.6	116	0.14	9.47	1.76
CU-24-03	San Miguel	168	171.3	3.3	450	0.15	0.31	0.42
	incl.	170.7	171.3	0.6	1,766	0.41	0.76	0.7
CU-24-04	San Miguel	190.2	193	2.8	306	0.2	0.28	0.29
CU-24-05	Eduwiges	332.5	334.9	2.5	236	0.62	0.81	0.62
CU-24-06	San Miguel	178.9	183.3	4.4	270	0.22	0.33	0.17
	incl.	182.1	183.3	1.2	1,740	1.35	1.47	0.16
CU-24-06	San Miguel	201	205.3	4.4	114	0.06	1.08	0.36
CU-24-07	San Miguel	177.5	180	2.6	385	0.26	0.29	0.13
CU-24-07	San Miguel	184.5	189.9	5.4	184	0.14	0.08	0.08
CU-24-08	San Miguel	171.4	174.4	3	181	0.2	0.1	0.08
	incl.	171.4	171.7	0.3	1,590	2.51	20	5.06
CU-24-08	San Miguel	223.5	227.9	4.4	129	0.1	0.07	0.05
CU-24-08	San Miguel	237.1	244.7	7.5	291	0.3	2.17	2.45
	incl.	239	239.7	0.7	958	0.96	2.01	5.02
CU-24-09	San Miguel	125.8	126.5	0.7	288	0.13	0.25	0.67

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 56

Hole ID	Zone	From (m)	To (m)	Length (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Pb %	Zn %
CU-24-09	San Miguel	191.4	197.2	5.9	315	0.16	0.42	0.12
	incl.	193.4	194.3	0.9	803	0.23	0.76	0.06
CU-24-10C	Eduwiges	383.2	386.4	3.2	498	0.23	1.34	1.83
CU-24-11	Eduwiges	647.6	649.5	1.9	78	0.12	1.76	1.53
CU-24-11	San Miguel	165.1	168.7	3.7	304	0.26	1.28	0.66

10.3.2 2025 Drilling (to October 20, 2025)

The 2025 drilling program was primarily focused on following up on the San Miguel results from 2024, with the aim of extending drilling coverage of the vein along strike and at depth. In addition, some exploratory and infill drilling of vein systems on the east side of the Cusi fault was completed along with initial drill testing of the Matulera target located to the west of the San Juan area. Drilling was performed from surface by a local contractor, utilizing portable drill rigs. All core was HQ in size for holes up to 400 m in depth. Any holes beyond this depth were switched to NQ upon reaching 400 m.

Drilling at San Miguel was completed in approximately 50 m step outs from 2024 and historical drilling. Nearly all holes drilled intersected significant mineralization. The San Miguel vein system had been traced upwards of 1,300 m along strike in historical mapping, drilling and workings, but Silverco's drilling has been limited to a strike of 260 m to date. Limited historical drilling was typically shallow, intersecting the vein on average at 100 m depth. Silverco's drilling intersected the vein at depths of up to 300 m with increasing vein widths encountered.

Drilling at Eduwiges for 2025 was focused on continued testing of mineralized veins intersected east of the Cusi fault in drillhole CU-24-10c. The first two infill drillholes positioned between the historical workings and CU-24-10c successfully intersected mineralization.

Drilling in 2025, to October 20th, totaled 23 surface drillholes for 6,311 m and 1,262 samples were collected for geochemical assay (Table 10-1, Figure 10-4). Highlights of the 2025 drilling are presented in Table 10-3.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 10-4 Location of 2025 Silverco Drillholes on the Cusi Project (to October 2025)

Table 10-3 Highlights of the 2025 Silverco Drilling (to October 2025)

Hole ID	Zone	From (m)	To (m)	Length (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Pb %	Zn %
CU-25-15	San Miguel	206.9	208.6	1.8	198	0.13	0.09	0.05
CU-25-18	San Miguel	177	179.5	2.4	229	0.11	1.49	1.87
CU-25-18	San Miguel	249.9	253.3	3.5	139	0.17	2.2	3.22
CU-25-19	San Miguel	168.5	169.5	1	97	0.1	1.93	4.97
CU-25-19	San Miguel	214.5	216	1.5	101	0.08	1.56	1.93
CU-25-19	San Miguel	276	279.8	3.8	351	0.08	1.48	0.48
CU-25-21	San Miguel	155.5	156.1	0.7	231	0.25	3.93	18.6
CU-25-21	San Miguel	241.1	242.4	1.3	148	0.03	1.06	3.37
CU-25-22	San Miguel	252	254.2	2.2	109	0.49	0.76	1.38
CU-25-23	Promontorio	319.6	320.6	1.1	741	0.76	0.24	0.44
CU-25-23	San Miguel	261.4	262.5	1.1	658	0.31	2	5.09
CU-25-23	San Miguel	287.4	290.9	3.5	156	0.23	7.59	4.18
CU-25-25	San Miguel	201	203.7	2.7	245	0.57	4.43	4.73
CU-25-25	San Miguel	292.3	293.6	1.4	1,830	1.98	4.38	3.77
CU-25-25	San Miguel	296.6	301.5	4.9	145	0.28	5.86	6.56
CU-25-29	San Miguel	212.8	214.9	2.1	817	0.43	7.43	7.4
CU-25-29	San Miguel	281.9	285.2	3.3	206	0.14	0.72	1.38

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 58

Hole ID	Zone	From (m)	To (m)	Length (m)	Ag (g/t)	Au (g/t)	Pb %	Zn %
	incl.	284.7	285.2	0.4	898	0.41	0.67	4.02
CU-25-29	San Miguel	291	299.6	8.6	240	0.21	0.64	0.7
CU-25-30	Matulera	16.3	16.9	0.6	184	0.28	0.04	0.01
CU-25-31	San Miguel	115.6	115.9	0.3	177	0.14	11.8	0.28
CU-25-33	San Miguel	223.2	224.4	1.2	427	0.45	1.57	6.46
CU-25-33	San Miguel	274.5	275.1	0.6	241	0.18	0.67	1.88
CU-25-34	Eduwiges	311.9	313	1.1	67	0.21	2.44	7.57
CU-25-35	San Miguel	296	297.5	1.5	180	0.16	0.33	1.02
CU-25-35	San Miguel	320.9	324.3	3.4	334	0.32	2.68	3.07
	incl.	320.9	321.7	0.8	1,075	1.05	9.89	10.6
CU-25-36a	Eduwiges	343.1	344.6	1.5	231	3.17	11.2	10.74

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 59

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

11.1 Overview

Since initiating drilling on the Property in 2024, Silverco has implemented a comprehensive and consistent system for the sample preparation, analysis and security of all surface samples and drill core samples, including the implementation of an extensive QA/QC program. The current MRE includes drilling and channel sampling data collected by Silverco and previous explorers as summarized in Table 11-1. The following describes sample preparation, analyses and security protocols implemented by Silverco and previous explorers, with analytical labs and analysis methods summarized in Table 11-2.

From 2006 to 2023, assaying of historical samples collected from the Property was completed using a combination of ALS Minerals (ALS), with sample preparation in Chihuahua, Mexico and analysis in North Vancouver, British Columbia, and an in-house assay laboratory located at the Cusi project Mal Paso mill facility. A total of 103,538 drill core samples and 71,605 channel samples were assayed during this period. Of the drill core samples, approximately 42% were assayed by ALS and 56% were assayed at the Mal Paso laboratory. Lab origin information for the remaining 2% of samples is not available but they are assumed to have been assayed at one of these two facilities. All channel samples were assayed at the Mal Paso laboratory.

Since 2024, all Silverco rock and drill core samples were sent to ALS Minerals (ALS) for analysis with sample preparation in Chihuahua, Mexico and analysis in North Vancouver, British Columbia. Samples remained under Company custody until delivery to ALS; sealed bags were transported by Company personnel to ALS Chihuahua. The ALS Chihuahua and North Vancouver facilities are ISO/IEC 17025 certified. Samples are dried, weighed, and crushed to at least 70% passing 2mm, and a 250 g split is pulverized to at least 85% passing 75 µm (ALS Method code: PREP-31). Silver and base metals are analyzed with a four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP61). Over-limit analyses for silver (>100 ppm), lead (>10,000 ppm), and zinc (>10,000 ppm) are re-assayed with an ore-grade four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-OG62). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm are analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21). Gold is assayed by 30-gram fire assay and AAS (ALS Method code: Au-AA23). Control samples comprising certified reference samples, blank samples, and duplicates are systematically inserted into the sample stream and analyzed as part of the Company's QA/QC protocol. ALS are independent of Silverco, the QPs, and SGS Geological Services.

Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) programs are set in place to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of exploration data. They include written field procedures and independent verifications of drilling, surveying, sampling, assaying, data management, and database integrity. Appropriate documentation of quality control measures and regular analysis of quality-control data are essential for the project data and form the basis for the quality-assurance program implemented during exploration.

Analytical quality control measures typically involve internal and external laboratory control measures implemented to monitor sampling, preparation, and assaying precision and accuracy. They are also essential to prevent sample mix-up and monitor the voluntary or inadvertent contamination of samples. Sampling QA/QC protocols typically involve regular duplicate and replicate assays as well as the insertion of blanks and standards (certified reference materials). Routine monitoring of quality control samples is undertaken to ensure that the analytical process remains in control and confirms the accuracy and precision of laboratory analyses. In addition to laboratory internal quality control protocols, sample batches should be evaluated for evidence of suspected cross-sample contamination, certified reference material performance evaluated relative to established warning and failure limits to ensure the analytical process remains in control while maintaining an acceptable level of accuracy and precision, duplicate and replicate assay performance evaluated, and any concerns communicated to the laboratory in a timely fashion. Check assaying is typically performed as an additional reliability test of assaying results. These checks involve re-assaying a set number of coarse rejects and pulps at a second umpire laboratory.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 60

Table 11-1 Summary of Drilling and Channel Samples from the Property by Year

Year	Company	Type	Prefix	Count	Sampled Length (m)	Sample Count
2006	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC06B	54	10,475	2,016
		DDH Underground	-	-	-	-
2007	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC07B	89	20,637	5,376
		DDH Underground	DC07M	11	1,658	693
2008	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC08B	29	8,050	1,775
		DDH Underground	DC08M	56	5,125	2,137
2009	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC09B	65	7,250	1,057
		DDH Underground	DC09M	19	956	365
2010	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC10B	67	9,678	632
		DDH Underground	DC10M	3	214	12
2011	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC11B	79	18,949	5,637
		DDH Underground	DC11M	4	571	162
2012	Dia Bras	DDH Surface	DC12B	153	33,576	13,507
		DDH Underground	DC12M	45	3,875	3,462
2013	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC13B	65	20,157	12,255
		DDH Underground	DC13M	38	4,344	2,618
2014	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC14B	14	3,378	434
		DDH Underground	DC14M	61	7,181	2,837
2015	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC15B	10	4,010	409
		DDH Underground	DC15M	137	23,021	6,840
2016	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC16B	13	4,670	633
		DDH Underground	DC16M	25	3,537	702
2017	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC17B	89	40,977	3,361
		DDH Underground	DC17M	78	5,073	2,247
2018	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC18B	103	25,494	3,411
		DDH Underground	DC18M	70	5,112	3,191
2019	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC19B	27	5,339	897
		DDH Underground	DC19M	85	11,569	4,334
2020	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC20B	45	6,500	1,132
		DDH Underground	DC20M	116	11,603	5,251
2021	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	DC21B	13	4,680	699
		DDH Underground	DC21M	205	21,625	7,364
2022	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	-	-	-	-
		DDH Underground	DC22M	113	13,384	6,110
2023	Sierra Metals	DDH Surface	-	-	-	-
		DDH Underground	DC23M	34	5,740	1,982
2024	Silverco Mining	DDH Surface	CU-24	14	5,518	785
2025	Silverco Mining	DDH Surface	CU-25	23	6,311	1,262
Subtotal	DDH Surface & Underground			2,052	360,237	105,585
2013	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	-	1,410	2,966	43,048
2014	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	-	4,383	8,572
2015	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	-	4,535	6,823
2016	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	-	2,276	3,932
2017	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	-	1,701	3,567
2018	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	M18	1,290	3,762
2019	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	M19	1,398	4,988	4,882
2020	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	M20	1,165	3,883	4,186
2021	Sierra Metals	UG Channel	M21	1,335	3,930	5,313

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Table 11-2 Summary of Analytical Labs and Analysis Methods 2006 - 2025

Year	Company/ Sample Type	Lab & Location	Prep Code	Fire Assay Method	Fire Assay Code	Multi-element Method	Multi-element Code
2006-2016	Dia Bras/Sierra Metals DDH	ALS, Chihuahua, Mexico (prep) & North Vancouver (analysis)	PREP-31	Au 30g FA-AAS, Overlimit Ag 30g FA-Gravimetric	Au-AA23, Ag-GRA21	Aqua Regia ICP-AES / Overlimit Ore-Grade Aqua Regia AAS	ME-ICP41, (+)-AA46, (+)-OG46
2007-2016	Dia Bras/Sierra Metals DDH	Mal Paso, on site	Crush 7% <3.175mm, ? g split, pulverize 85% < 152 or 104 μ	Ag by Fire Assay (LDL 20 ppm), Au by Fire Assay (LDL 0.5 ppm)	-	Pb & Zn by Aqua Regia ICP-AES (LDL 8 ppm)	-
2013-2016	Sierra Metals Channels	Mal Paso, on site	Crush 7% <3.175mm, ? g split, pulverize 85% < 152 or 104 μ	Ag by Fire Assay (LDL 20 ppm), Au by Fire Assay (LDL 0.5 ppm)	-	Pb & Zn by Aqua Regia ICP-AES (LDL 8 ppm)	-
2017-2018	Sierra Metals DDH	ALS, Chihuahua, Mexico (prep) & North Vancouver (analysis)	PREP-31	Au 30g FA-AAS, Overlimit Ag 30g FA-Gravimetric	Au-AA23, Ag-GRA21	Intermediate-Level Aqua Regia ICP-AES / Overlimit Ore-Grade Aqua Regia AAS	ME-ICP41a, (+)-OG46
2017-2021	Sierra Metals DDH	Mal Paso, on site	Crush 70% <2mm, 400 g split, pulverize 90% < 75 μ	Ag by Fire Assay (LDL 20 ppm), Au by Fire Assay (LDL 0.5 ppm)	-	Pb & Zn by Aqua Regia ICP-AES (LDL 8 ppm)	-
2017-2023	Sierra Metals Channels	Mal Paso, on site	Crush <2mm, 200 g split, pulverize 90% < 75 μ	Ag by Fire Assay (LDL 20 ppm), Au by Fire Assay (LDL 0.5 ppm)	-	Pb & Zn by Aqua Regia ICP-AES (LDL 8 ppm)	-
2020	Sierra Metals DDH	ALS, Chihuahua, Mexico (prep) & North Vancouver (analysis)	PREP-31	Au 30g FA-AAS, Overlimit Ag 30g FA-Gravimetric	Au-AA23, Ag-GRA21	Intermediate-Level Four-Acid ICP-AES / Overlimit Ore-Grade Aqua Regia AAS	ME-ICP61a, (+)-OG46
2021	Sierra Metals DDH	ALS, Chihuahua, Mexico (prep) & North Vancouver (analysis)	PREP-31	Au 30g FA-AAS, Overlimit Ag 30g FA-Gravimetric	Au-AA23, Ag-GRA21	Aqua Regia ICP-AES / Overlimit Ore-Grade Aqua Regia AAS	ME-ICP41, (+)-OG46
2024-2025	Silverco Mining DDH	ALS, Chihuahua, Mexico (prep.) & North Vancouver, Canada (analysis)	PREP-31	Au 30g FA-AAS, Overlimit Ag 30g FA-Gravimetric	Au-AA23, Ag-GRA21	Four-Acid ICP-AES, Overlimit Ore-Grade Four-Acid ICP-AES	ME-ICP61, (+)-OG62

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 62

11.2 Historical Sampling: 2006-2023

11.2.1 Sampling Methods

11.2.1.1 Drill Core Samples

Drilling was conducted with Dia Bras / Sierra-owned drills and outside contractors. Core was transported by company personnel to the logging facility near the mine offices. All drilling utilized HQ, NQ and BQ sized rods and was logged by staff geologists. Samples intervals were determined by the geologist and the core was then split in half and bagged by staff technicians.

Core was logged by qualified company geologists for lithology, alteration, structure, and mineralization, with sampling intervals identified during logging to delineate mineralized areas. After logging, the information was entered into a database. Sample intervals were marked in the boxes along with a line down the core axis for splitting.

Samples were split either manually using a core splitter (early programs) or with an electrical core saw (circa 2015 onwards) and then separated into labeled bags. A barcode system was used for the samples sent to ALS laboratory, however the samples sent to the Mal Paso laboratory were not controlled by a barcode.

11.2.1.2 Channel Samples

Channel samples were taken from the underground workings distanced 2 m along the veins and perpendicular to the structures varying from 0.2 m to 5 m (average length of 0.68 m).

Each day, a geologist accompanied by a group of helpers, channel sampled the faces of the underground workings as part of the exploration process. The geologist logged the geology and mineralization and defined the limits of the samples based on mineralization that included intensity, style and lithology. The limits of each sample were marked with aerosol paint. The surface was cleaned, and 1.5 to 2 kg chip channel samples (nominally 1 m samples) were collected with chisel and hammer to form a channel of approximately 10 cm width. Plastic bags with the rock chips were marked and sealed. The start point of the channel was located by the geologist using tape and compass from the nearest survey control point. The survey of the underground workings is performed using a total station system.

11.2.2 Sample Security and Storage

Samples were collected by the logging technicians or geologists after being marked and labelled in core boxes. These were grouped into larger batches of 10 samples per reinforced sack, with a weight of no more than 25 kg. The intervals contained in each sack was documented with the hole ID and the order number for the laboratory. Samples were stored on-site and behind access-controlled gates until they are taken to the relevant laboratory. Historically, this was either the Mal Paso laboratory, a Dia Bras / Sierra Metals owned mill facility, or ALS Minerals, an independent and ISO-certified laboratory with sample preparation processing facilities in Chihuahua, Mexico and analytical facilities in Vancouver, Canada. Since the middle of 2016, samples were first sent to the Mal Paso Mill for analysis and any samples with positive results warranting confirmation were also sent to ALS.

11.2.3 Sample Preparation and Analyses

The analytical history of the Cusi sampling has evolved over time and includes various generations of analyses between the nearby Mal Paso laboratory and ALS. Details are summarized in Table 11-2.

Historically, all samples were analyzed at Mal Paso, with periodic checks of analyses at ALS. This practice was deemed to be insufficient due to analytical and preparation inconsistencies in the Mal Paso lab. Thus,

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 63

a series of campaigns were run with the analyses being entirely duplicated at ALS, and the findings showed significant differences between the two labs (Hastings et al, 2017).

As of circa 2020, all drill core analysis from mineralized veins was performed by ALS, although an initial analysis of the sample was done at Mal Paso to determine whether analysis at ALS was warranted. The coarse reject from the initial crushing of the sample at Mal Paso was retained for potential analysis at ALS. If the sample was selected for analysis at ALS, the coarse reject was submitted and the remainder of the sample preparation was completed at the ALS Chihuahua, Mexico facility. Final analysis was conducted at the primary ALS laboratory in North Vancouver, BC, Canada.

All channel samples were analyzed by the Mal Paso internal laboratory as this laboratory had a considerably better turnaround time on analyses than ALS, which is critical for timely production decisions, and the analytical techniques used at the Mal Paso laboratory were appropriate for the mineralization.

11.2.3.1 ALS

From 2006 to 2021 approximately 42% of the historical drill core samples (43,539 samples) were assayed by ALS Minerals with sample preparation in Chihuahua, Mexico and analysis in North Vancouver, British Columbia. The ALS Chihuahua and North Vancouver facilities were ISO/IEC 17025 certified.

Beginning in 2006, samples were dried, weighed, and crushed to at least 70% passing 2mm, and a 250 g split was pulverized to at least 85% passing 75 µm (ALS Method code: PREP-31). Silver and base metals were analyzed with an aqua regia digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP41). Over-limit analyses for silver (>100 ppm), lead (>10,000 ppm), and zinc (>10,000 ppm) were re-assayed with an ore-grade aqua regia digestion and atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) (ALS Method code: ME-AA46 till 2008, then ME-OG46 from 2009). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm were analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21). Gold was assayed by 30-gram fire assay and AAS (ALS Method code: Au-AA23) from 2006 to 2021.

In 2017 and 2018, silver and base metals were analyzed with an intermediate-level aqua regia digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP41a). Over-limit analyses for silver (>200 ppm), lead (>50,000 ppm), and zinc (>50,000 ppm) were re-assayed with an ore-grade aqua regia digestion and AAS (ALS Method code: ME-OG46). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm were analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21).

In 2020, silver and base metals were analyzed with an intermediate-level four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP61a). Over-limit analyses for silver (>200 ppm), lead (>50,000 ppm), and zinc (>50,000 ppm) were re-assayed with an ore-grade aqua regia digestion and AAS (ALS Method code: ME-OG46). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm were analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21).

In 2021, silver and base metals were analyzed with an aqua regia digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP41). Over-limit analyses for silver (>100 ppm), lead (>10,000 ppm), and zinc (>10,000 ppm) were re-assayed with an ore-grade aqua regia digestion and AAS (ALS Method code: ME-OG46). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm were analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21).

11.2.3.2 Mal Paso

From 2007 to 2023 approximately 56% of the historical drill core samples (58,013 samples) were assayed on site at the Cusi project's Mal Paso Mill laboratory. The Mal Paso laboratory was not accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 or a similar certification standard. All historical channel samples (71,605 samples) were assayed at the Mal Paso laboratory.

The sample preparation and analytical procedures used at Mal Paso differ from those at ALS. Sample preparation procedures have evolved over time. Several procedural changes were implemented beginning

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 64

in 2017 to more closely replicate the sample preparation and QA/QC protocols used by ALS and other commercial labs.

Upon receipt of samples from the Project, the Mal Paso laboratory dried, weighed, and cataloged the samples. Drying times were four hours for channel samples and eight hours for drill core.

For samples historically assayed from 2007 to 2016 at Mal Paso, samples were crushed initially to 3.175 mm grain size, then further pulverized to 85% passing rate of 100 mesh (152 µm) or 150 mesh (104 µm). The sample split size for pulverization is unknown.

Beginning in 2017, samples were crushed to at least 70% passing 2mm (10 mesh). A split was taken from this crushed material for pulp preparation (200 g for channel samples; 400 g for core samples). Samples were dried again for 30 minutes, and split samples are pulverized to 90% passing 75 µm. This protocol is very similar to the preparation method used at ALS.

The analytical methods used at the Mal Paso laboratory appear to be similar to those used at ALS, but the Mal Paso laboratory has an extremely high lower limit of detection (20 g/t Ag). Most modern laboratories (such as ALS) have significantly lower limits of detection in the 1 to 5 g/t Ag range for higher mineralized grades. While this likely does not materially affect the results of the resource estimation, it should be noted that the methods used by Mal Paso may not be the same as ALS and therefore may introduce a bias in comparisons made between labs.

For samples analyzed at the Mal Paso laboratory, pulverized material is assayed for gold and silver by fire assay and base metals by ICP-AES. Lower limits of detection for assays at Mal Paso were 20 g/t silver, 0.5 g/t gold, and 8 ppm for lead and zinc. The reporting limits for the Mal Paso lab are inconsistent with industry norms for analytical precision for all known metals. The uncertainty associated with stating material that may sit in the ranges of the lower limits of detection for the Mal Paso lab allows for the possibility of completely unmineralized material to have grades of 0.5 g/t Au and 20 g/t Ag, which would seem to have significantly more value than the actuals.

11.2.4 Density

Prior to 2017, bulk density was assigned based on results of density samples analyzed by the Servicio Geologico Mexicano (SGM) on behalf of Sierra Metals. This SGM density data is not available for review.

Since 2017 density measurements were collected at the Mal Paso laboratory by pycnometer (Ortiz et al, 2020). Samples were ground to 100% passing -100 mesh (150 µm) and analyzed via the use of a pycnometer using ethanol as a solution. Distilled water was used as a reference (0.99712 g/cm³) in the evaluations.

11.2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Sierra Metals instituted an industry standard QA/QC program in 2013 including the use of blanks, standards, and duplicates.

In April 2017, SRK conducted a thorough review of the QA/QC procedures and performance at Cusi, using data to September 2016. The review process included auditing internal QA/QC charts prepared by Sierra Metals, as well as independent analyses using data provided by the company for all QA/QC work completed since 2013 (Hastings et al, 2017).

Review of data from the 2014-2016 QA/QC monitoring at Cusi showed significant failure rates or inconsistencies across all types of QC samples. Many failures were problematic to evaluate due the fact that Sierra Metals used its own QA/QC materials for standard QC samples with standard deviations in excess of industry-standard QC material ranges (Hastings et al, 2017). The independent analysis of QC data completed in 2017 therefore included developing a set of failure criteria for each type of QC data and determining failure rates.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 65

Since the latter part of 2017, Sierra Metals implemented improvements to the QA/QC protocol such as the consistent use of reference materials, coarse and fine blanks, and coarse and fine duplicates. The blanks were certified by round-robin analysis. Sierra Metals established failure criteria for the QA/QC samples and began continuously monitoring sample performance. The changes made to QA/QC protocols at Cusi in 2017 led to improved results from the QA/QC program.

The historical insertion of QC samples from 2013 to 2023 is summarized in Table 11-3.

Table 11-3 Historical QC Sample Statistics for Core Sampling 2006 - 2023

QC Type	Insertion Rate	Prior to 2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
Standards	1:20	144	98	49	101	83	37	75	63	182	118	35
Fine blanks	1:30 or 1:50	173	72	194	82	52	28	42	42	267	187	-
Coarse blanks	1:30 or 1:50	-	-	-	-	-	26	-	22	-	-	-
Core duplicates	1:30 or 1:50	208	-	377	1,073	25	23	43	27	156	100	-
Coarse Reject duplicates	1:30 or 1:50	No data available			-	-	24	43	30	179	72	-
Pulp duplicates					-	-	24	42	30	162	91	-
External duplicates	1:30 or 1:50	No data available			-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total		525	170	620	1,256	160	162	245	214	946	568	35
Meters Drilled		145,621	10,560	27,232	8,706	45,349	30,607	16,908	18,103	26,306	13,384	5,740

11.2.5.1 Certified Reference Material

Following the implementation of a formal QA/QC program in 2013, Sierra Metals began inserting standards (either high grade, medium grade, or low grade) into the sample stream regularly at a rate of one standard per twenty samples. The standards are internal standards prepared at the Mal Paso laboratory, from material chosen for its similarity (mineralogical and in terms of appearance) to the samples from the Cusi exploration program.

In 2017, SRK (Hastings et al, 2017) conducted a review of the use of standards for the period of 2014 to September of 2016. The internal standards are listed in Table 11-4. The results from internal standards used for the 2014 to 2016 programs are shown in charts for Ag, Pb and Zn on Figure 11-1.

The standard deviations used to define the failure criteria for standards were derived from the standards dataset and are higher than industry standard (Hastings et al, 2017). Samples of each standard were sent to three independent laboratories to define certified values for Ag, Pb, and Zn (ALS, SGM, and LIMSA). In most cases, the internally derived standard deviations are $2 \times$ to $3 \times$ higher than the standard deviations reported by external labs. This is not consistent with industry best practices for acceptable intra-lab performance.

Data was examined for failures of each standard according to $\pm 3\mathrm{SD}$, defined by the Mal Paso lab, and is shown in Table 11-5. For all cases, QC samples were assessed on the basis of failures over time. From 2014 to 2016, there is no documentation provided by Sierra Metals regarding how failures of QC samples were addressed, if the failures have been submitted for re-assay, or to find out the problem such as sample misnaming or mix-ups.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Table 11-4 List of Internal Standards for the 2014-2016 Programs

CRM	No. Samples	Ag (g/t) ± 2SD	Pb (%) ± 2SD	Zn (%) ± 2SD	Period
Standard 1	21	703.39 ± 67.44	0.623 ± 0.074	0.419 ± 0.054	April-Sep 2016
Standard 2	142	185.66 ± 23.446	0.364 ± 0.018	0.614 ± 0.076	2014 & April-Sep 2016
Standard 3	14	2,080.22 ± 107.354	2.303 ± 0.15	2.588 ± 0.304	April-Sep 2016
Standard 4	68	75.852 ± 6.784	0.242 ± 0.052	0.464 ± 0.122	2015 & May-Sep 2016
Total	245

Table 11-5 Failure Statistics for Internal Standards for the 2014-2016 Programs

Failure Statistics – Ag	Failure Criterion	Number of Failures	% Failure
Standard 1	± 3SD	4	19%
Standard 2	± 3SD	1	1%
Standard 3	± 3SD	3	21%
Standard 4	± 3SD	7	10%
Failure Statistics – Pb	Failure Criterion	Number of Failures	% Failure
Standard 1	± 3SD	8	38%
Standard 2	± 3SD	77	54%
Standard 3	± 3SD	9	65%
Standard 4	± 3SD	14	21%
Failure Statistics – Zn	Failure Criterion	Number of Failures	% Failure
Standard 1	± 3SD	1	5%
Standard 2	± 3SD	51	36%
Standard 3	± 3SD	6	43%
Standard 4	± 3SD	4	6%

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 11-1 CRM Control Charts for Ag, Pb, Zn for the 2014 to 2016 Programs

INTERNAL STANDARDS 2014 to 2016
Ag (g/t)	Pb (%)	Zn (%)
Standard 1
Control Chart - STD 1 - Ag (g/t)
1000
0
5
10
15
20
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 1 - Pb (%)
1
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
5
10
15
20
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 1 - Zn (%)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
# Samples
Standard 2
Control Chart - STD 2 - Ag (g/t)
1000
0
5
10
15
20
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 2 - Pb (%)
1
0
50
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 2 - Zn (%)
1
0
50
# Samples
Standard 3
Control Chart - STD 3 - Ag (g/t)
1000
0
5
10
15
20
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 3 - Pb (%)
5
0
5
10
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 3 - Zn (%)
5
0
5
10
# Samples
Standard 4
Control Chart - STD 4 - Ag (g/t)
1000
0
20
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 4 - Pb (%)
0
0
20
40
80
# Samples	Control Chart - STD 4 - Zn (%)
0.6
0
0
20
40
80
# Samples
Ag Data Value
Ag Expected
Ag+3σ
Ag-2σ
Ag+3σ
Ag-3σ	Pb Data Value
Pb Expected
Pb+2σ
Pb+3σ
Pb+3σ
Pb-3σ	Zn Actual Value
Zn Expected
Zn+2σ
Zn-2σ
Zn+3σ
Zn-3σ

Source: Hastings et al, 2017

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 68

In 2017, five new certified reference materials (CRM) were procured and certified via round-robin analysis for the exploration programs. These CRMs were homogenized and packaged by Target Rocks Peru (S.A.) and the round-robin analysis conducted by Smee & Associates Consulting Ltd., a consultancy specializing in provision of CRM to clients in the mining industry. Each CRM underwent a rigorous process of homogenization and analysis using aqua regia digestion and AA or ICP finish, from a random selection of 10 packets of blended pulverized material. The six laboratories participating in the round-robin for the Target Rocks CRMs were ALS Minerals – Lima, Inspectorate – Lima, Acme – Santiago, Certimin – Lima, SGS – Lima, and LAS – Peru. The means, and between lab standard deviations (SD), were calculated from the received results of the round-robin analysis, and the certified means and tolerances are provided in certificates from Smee and Associates.

For the period from 2017 to 2013, data is available for a total of 449 CRMs used across both labs. Of these CRMs, 341 were analysed at the Mal Paso lab between 2017 and 2023, and 17 were analysed at ALS between 2017 and 2018. The assay lab information for the remaining 91 CRMs used between 2017 and 2018 is not available.

CRM analytical results for the Sierra Metals 2017 to 2023 programs are summarized in Table 11-6 to Table 11-9 for results from the Mal Paso lab and in Table 11-10 to Table 11-13 for results from ALS. Results are shown for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn to evaluate analytical accuracy (bias), precision (average coefficient of variation, $\mathrm{CV}_{\mathrm{AVR}}\%$), warning rates, and failure rates. Shewhart CRM control charts for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn are presented in Figure 11-7 to Figure 11-10 for all results from the 2017 to 2023 programs.

The QA/QC program from 2017 - 2023 included the insertion of a total of 341 CRM samples assayed at the Mal Paso lab. The combined CRM failure rates during this period for the Mal Paso lab were $22.9\%$ for Ag, $33.5\%$ for Pb, and $41.9\%$ for Zn. CRM analytical results for Ag, Pb and Zn detail a weak negative bias (bias greater than $-5\%$) and moderate to poor analytical precision ($\mathrm{CV}_{\mathrm{AVR}}\%$ outside of $\pm 5\%$). The very high lower detection limit for Au at the Mal Paso lab ($0.5\mathrm{g / t}$ Au) is too close to the grade ranges of the Au CRM samples used to produce meaningful performance statistics. Results for Au are displayed to show in a general sense the uncertainty surrounding Au accuracy and precision at the Mal Paso lab.

The QA/QC program from 2017 - 2018 included the insertion of a total of 17 CRM samples assayed at ALS. Based on the limited number of QC samples, the combined CRM failure rates during this period at ALS were $11.8\%$ for Ag, $20.0\%$ for Au, $5.9\%$ for Pb, and $0.0\%$ for Zn. CRM analytical results confirm generally acceptable analytical accuracy (bias less than $\pm 5\%$) and generally acceptable analytical precision ($\mathrm{CV}_{\mathrm{AVR}}\%$ within $\pm 5\%$) for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn.

Table 11-6 CRM Sample Ag Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

CRM Ag ppm	Certified Value		Mal Paso 2017-2023
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
HDRT-01	126	4	8	116.6	-7.4	7.1	3	37.5%	2	25.0%
HDRT-02	321	7.5	76	310.1	-3.4	3.1	15	19.7%	7	9.2%
MCL-01	26.4	0.95	3	26.3	-0.3	1.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MCL-02	40.8	1.7	1	40.0	-2.0	1.4	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	469	6.5	1	423.0	-9.8	7.3	0	0.0%	1	100.0%
PLSUL-03	192	2	2	188.5	-1.8	1.3	1	50.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-09	67	2	57	62.5	-6.7	8.5	25	43.9%	7	12.3%
PLSUL-11	113	4	55	107.1	-5.2	5.5	15	27.3%	6	10.9%
PLSUL-30	185	3.5	10	173.7	-6.1	10.5	2	20.0%	2	20.0%
PLSUL-42	47.6	1.95	71	43.7	-8.1	7.3	16	22.5%	17	23.9%
PLSUL-43	144	3.3	56	127.8	-11.3	13.7	3	5.4%	36	64.3%
ME-2003	106	4.5	1	105.6	-0.4	0.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	341				80	23.5%	78	22.9%

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Table 11-7 CRM Sample Au Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

CRM Au ppm	Certified Value		Mal Paso 2017-2023
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
PLSUL-09	0.056	0.002	1	0.057	1.8	1.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-30	0.438	0.011	5	0.960	119.2	52.8	0	0.0%	5	100.0%
PLSUL-43	0.71	0.021	16	0.669	-5.8	35.5	0	0.0%	16	100.0%
Total	-	-	22				0	0.0%	21	95.5%

Table 11-8 CRM Sample Pb Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

CRM Pb %	Certified Value		Mal Paso 2017-2023
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
HDRT-01	0.76	0.2	8	1.539	102.5	40.6	0	0.0%	1	12.5%
HDRT-02	0.81	0.015	68	0.781	-3.6	6.9	14	20.6%	28	41.2%
MCL-01	0.326	0.017	3	0.312	-4.3	3.2	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MCL-02	0.653405	0.025	1	0.649	-0.7	0.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	7.75	0.2	1	7.690	-0.8	0.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-03	3.09386	0.042	2	3.065	-0.9	1.4	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-09	3.81	0.09	49	3.662	-3.9	4.3	13	26.5%	12	24.5%
PLSUL-11	7.93	0.2	50	7.265	-8.4	16.8	15	30.0%	22	44.0%
PLSUL-30	4.17	0.27	10	4.170	0.0	3.7	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-42	0.723	0.016	64	0.714	-1.2	19.4	7	10.9%	23	35.9%
ME-2003	0.475	0.008	1	0.461	-2.9	2.1	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	257				49	19.1%	86	33.5%

Table 11-9 CRM Sample Zn Performance at Mal Paso for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

CRM Zn %	Certified Value		Mal Paso 2017-2023
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
MCL-01	0.988	0.035	3	0.951	-3.7	3.1	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MCL-02	2.49	0.045	1	2.440	-2.0	1.4	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	7.98	0.23	1	8.050	0.9	0.6	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-03	3.150375	0.065	2	3.235	2.7	2.5	1	50.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-09	2.24	0.06	49	2.077	-7.3	6.4	8	16.3%	21	42.9%
PLSUL-43	1.01	0.025	48	0.924	-8.5	18.9	7	14.6%	22	45.8%
ME-2003	1.05	0.025	1	1.129	7.5	5.1	0	0.0%	1	100.0%
Total	-	-	105				16	15.2%	44	41.9%

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 70

Table 11-10 CRM Sample Ag Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs

CRM Ag ppm	Certified Value		ALS 2017-2018
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
MCL-02	40.8	1.7	1	41.000	0.5	0.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	469	6.5	1	362.000	-22.8	18.2	0	0.0%	1	100.0%
OXHYO-03	92.3	3.45	5	89.400	-3.1	3.7	1	20.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-03	192	2	5	189.800	-1.1	1.3	1	20.0%	1	20.0%
PLSUL-09	67	2	5	66.800	-0.3	0.8	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	17				2	11.8%	2	11.8%

Table 11-11 CRM Sample Au Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs

CRM Au ppm	Certified Value		ALS 2017-2018
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
PLSUL-09	0.056	0.002	5	0.152	170.7	51.4	1	20.0%	1	20.0%
Total	-	-	5				1	20.0%	1	20.0%

Table 11-12 CRM Sample Pb Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs

CRM Pb %	Certified Value		ALS 2017-2018
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
MCL-02	0.653405	0.025	1	0.656	0.4	0.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	7.75	0.2	1	7.480	-3.5	2.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
OXHYO-03	0.346	0.018	5	0.538	55.4	37.7	0	0.0%	1	20.0%
PLSUL-03	3.09386	0.042	5	3.076	-0.6	1.0	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-09	3.81	0.09	5	3.734	-2.0	1.6	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	17				0	0.0%	1	5.9%

Table 11-13 CRM Sample Zn Performance at ALS for the 2017-2018 Drill Programs

CRM Zn %	Certified Value		ALS 2017-2018
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
MCL-02	2.49	0.045	1	2.470	-0.8	0.6	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
MAT-06	7.98	0.23	1	7.830	-1.9	1.3	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
OXHYO-03	0.426	0.018	5	0.431	1.1	2.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-03	3.150375	0.065	5	3.266	3.7	2.8	3	60.0%	0	0.0%
PLSUL-09	2.24	0.06	5	2.266	1.2	1.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	17				3	17.6%	0	0.0%

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 71

Figure 11-2 CRM Control Chart for Ag for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

Figure 11-3 CRM Control Chart for Au for the 2018-2023 Drill Programs

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 72

Figure 11-4 CRM Control Chart for Pb for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

Figure 11-5 CRM Control Chart for Zn for the 2017-2023 Drill Programs

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 73

11.2.5.2 Blank Material

During 2012 and 2013, 173 blank samples were inserted into the sample stream at Cusi. These data results are not available. The blank samples were prepared internally by Sierra Metals from pulverized andesite presumed to be unmineralized.

Gustavson (2014) notes that for gold, 97% of blank assays complied with acceptance criteria (values less than or equal to 5-times the ALS reporting limit); however, silver and lead performed less well (67% and 68% compliance, respectively), and for zinc, all blank assays exceeded the acceptance criteria. Gustavson concluded that unexpectedly high values for blank samples did not appear to be caused by carryover of the preceding sample and suggested that the andesite was in fact mineralized. Based on this result, it was recommended that Sierra Metals purchase commercially prepared blank samples.

Since 2013, Sierra Metals inserted blanks into the sample stream regularly, at a rate of one blank per every 30 to 50 samples. Blanks continued to be prepared internally from pulverized andesite. The results of the 2014-2016 program generally show poor performance for blank samples, particularly for Pb and Zn. Many blank samples for these elements report values above 10x the lower limit of detection. Although the failure rate for Ag is 1%, the lower limit of detection for Ag at the Mal Paso lab is 20 g/t, significantly higher than at most commercial laboratories. Results of blank samples from the 2014-2016 programs is presented in Figure 11-6.

In 2017, Sierra Metals began using new certified blank QC material consisting of barren limestone selected by the project geologists. Lower limits of detection for this blank material were certified as <1ppm Ag, <0.005% Pb, and <0.005% Zn.

The QA/QC program from 2017 – 2023 included the insertion of a total of 618 blank samples (Table 11-3). Data is available for 448 blank samples assayed at the Mal Paso lab from 2021-2022 and for 112 samples assayed at ALS from 2017-2018.

Evaluation of blank samples for the Mal Paso lab using a failure ceiling for Ag of 20 ppm (the lower detection limit) indicates that the combined blank failure rate from 2021 – 2022 was 2.0% (9 of 448 samples).

Evaluation of blank samples for ALS using a failure ceiling for Ag of 3 ppm (3x detection limit) indicates that the combined blank failure rate from 2017 – 2018 was 0.9% (1 of 112 samples).

The blank failure rate based on the data available from 2017-2023 assayed at the Mal Paso lab and ALS is considered acceptable by industry standards. Based on the low risk of cross-sample carryover contamination and the low amounts of Ag sample carryover that may have contaminated blank material, it is considered unlikely that there is a carryover contamination issue with the Project drilling data from this period.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 74

Figure 11-6 Blank Sample Charts for Ag, Pb, and Zn at Mal Paso for the 2014-2016 Drill Programs

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 75

11.2.5.3 Duplicate Material

Prior to 2013, 208 duplicates were inserted into the sample stream at Cusi. Data is not available for review.

Following the implementation of a more formal QA/QC program in 2013, three types of duplicates (field duplicates, coarse reject duplicates, and external pulp duplicates) are inserted into the sample stream every 30 to 50 samples to monitor performance of the Mal Paso lab. The external pulp duplicates were sent to ALS for comparison against the Mal Paso lab to ensure that the internal lab was performing in a manner consistent with industry standards.

Although a failure rate was not determined for duplicate samples, a review in 2017 (Hastings et al, 2017) determined that internal duplicates generally exhibit poor performance. The review suggested that the performance of the Mal Paso lab is inconsistent, both internally and in comparison, to commercial laboratories. The review also suggested that the precision of the internal lab is higher for coarse duplicates than for core duplicates.

The review noted that the 2014-2016 intra-lab check analyses showed a general agreement. This agreement is only when evaluating the assays >20 g/t Ag, which is the Mal Paso lower detection limit. In a comparison of those assays above 20 g/t Ag, ALS reports average grades that are slightly higher than Mal Paso for all metals, but which generally agree. This would indicate that the Mal Paso lab may be under-reporting grades in general, which is consistent with the weak negative bias observed in the CRM data.

Only a limited amount of the duplicate sample data is currently available for review. Duplicate sample data available for review comprises:

Mal Paso lab 2021 – 2022: a total of 256 field duplicates (¼ core), 251 coarse reject duplicates, and 253 pulp duplicate samples..
ALS 2018: a total of 23 field duplicates (¼ core), 24 coarse reject duplicates, and 24 pulp duplicate samples..

Based on the limited historical duplicate data set size for field, coarse reject, and pulp duplicates, analysis of the precision should be considered as approximate in nature only. The average relative error as quantified by the Average Coefficient of Variation (CV_AVR%) for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn is shown in Table 11-14 for samples assayed at the Mal Paso lab and in Table 11-15 for samples assayed at ALS, calculated using the root mean square coefficient of variation calculated from the individual coefficients of variation.

The preliminary estimates of precisions errors (CV_AVR%) for the historical data available suggests that the sampling precision at Mal Paso was poor by industry standards for duplicates for this style of mineralization (Abzalov, 2008). That said, the availability of data is limited, and a larger dataset is required to establish more representative estimates of the assay precision.

Table 11-14 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at Mal Paso for the 2021-2022 Drill Programs

Drillhole Series	Duplicate Type	Count	Ag CV_AVR%	Au CV_AVR%	Pb CV_AVR%	Zn CV_AVR%
2021-2022 Drilling	Field	256 duplicate pairs	35.3	42.2	40.8	38.7
2021-2022 Drilling	Coarse Reject	251 duplicate pairs	17.8	29.1	24.7	24.5
2021-2022 Drilling	Pulp	253 duplicate pairs	18.7	27.7	20.9	18.8

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 76

Table 11-15 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2018 Drill Program

Drillhole Series	Duplicate Type	Count	Ag CV_{AVR}%	Au CV_{AVR}%	Pb CV_{AVR}%	Zn CV_{AVR}%
2018 Drilling	Field	23 duplicate pairs	19.4	34.0	38.2	28.5
2018 Drilling	Coarse Reject	24 duplicate pairs	21.3	29.4	19.4	23.6
2018 Drilling	Pulp	23 duplicate pairs	22.3	28.5	22.2	8.5

11.2.5.4 Check Assaying

It is reported that check assaying of Mal Paso pulp duplicate samples was completed at ALS for historical sampling to evaluate the analytical accuracy of the Mal Paso lab. This data has not yet been located for review.

11.3 Silverco Sampling: 2024-2025

11.3.1 Sampling Methods

11.3.1.1 Rock Sampling

Surface rock samples were taken from potentially mineralized material collected as insitu composite chip or grab samples or as float samples. The lithology, alteration, and structure of outcrop is mapped to determine controls on mineralization. To the degree possible, channel samples were oriented perpendicular to mineralized structures and variations in mineralization are sampled separately. Samples are collected as continuous chip channel, with sample lengths ranging from 0.3 m to 1.5 m. Samples were placed in a bag with a unique sample ID tag and packed, together with other rock samples, into larger bags for shipment to the lab.

11.3.1.2 Drill Core

Diamond drilling completed by Silverco from 2024 to 2025 utilized man-portable drills utilizing a network of access trails to produce HQ size (63.5 mm diameter) and NQ size (47.6 mm diameter) and core.

Drill core is placed sequentially in core boxes with lids and marked with hole numbers at the drill by the drillers. A wooden block marker is inserted at the end of each core-run, recording the down-hole depth and recovered interval. Core is transported to the Cusi camp for core logging and processing.

Core depth markers and box numbers are checked and the drill core is cleaned prior to being logged and photographed. The core is logged geotechnically on a 1.5 m run by run basis including core recovery and RQD. Any void intervals, either natural or associated with historical development, are accounted for and recorded in the geology logs.

The drill core is logged for lithology, alteration, mineralization, and structure, prior to marking out sample intervals. Lithological and sample logging is done digitally using MXDeposit software and database. Sample intervals are defined to honor vein, mineralization, alteration, and lithology contacts. Suspect high-grade intervals are sampled separately. Within mineralized zones, the nominal sample length is 1.0 m with a general maximum sample length of 1.5 m and a minimum sample length of 0.2 m. The core is photographed after logging but prior to sampling.

The sampler saws core in half, with half being submitted for analysis and half remaining in the core box as a record. Only one piece of core is removed from the core box at a time, and care is taken to replace the unsampled portion of the core in the core box in the original orientation. The drillhole number and sample intervals are clearly entered into a sample book to back up the digital logging files. The geologist staples

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 77

the portion of the uniquely numbered sample ticket at the beginning of the corresponding sample interval in the core box, and the sampler places one portion of the ticket in the sample bag. The sample ticket book is archived. Certified reference materials, blanks, and duplicates are inserted into the sample stream. Cut samples and sample number sequences are checked for quality control prior to dispatch.

11.3.2 Sample Security and Storage

All exploration samples taken were collected by Silverco staff. Chain of custody of samples was carefully maintained from collection at the drill rig to delivery at the laboratories to prevent inadvertent contamination or mixing of samples and render active tampering as difficult as possible.

At the core processing facility, samples are bagged in sacks for transport. Bagged samples are secured in a dedicated locked storage area prior to dispatch to the laboratory. A control file, the laboratory sample dispatch form, includes the sack number and contained sample-bag numbers in each sack. The laboratory sample dispatch form accompanies the sample shipment and is used to control and monitor the shipment. The control files are used to keep track of the time it takes to the samples to get to the lab, and time taken to receive assay certificates, the turn around time. The sample shipment is delivered to ALS in Chihuahua by Silverco staff. ALS sends a confirmation email with detail of samples received upon delivery.

Drill core is stored in an indoor facility on the Property to preserve its condition. The plastic boxes containing the core are properly tagged with the corresponding drilling information and stored on racks in an organized way and under acceptable conditions. Sample pulps and rejects are returned to the Property for storage.

11.3.3 Sample Preparation and Analyses

Sample preparation and reduction is carried out at ALS in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico and sample pulps are further sent to ALS in North Vancouver, BC, Canada for analysis. The ALS Chihuahua and North Vancouver facilities are ISO/IEC 17025 certified. Samples are dried, weighed, and crushed to at least 70% passing 2mm, and a 250 g split is pulverized to at least 85% passing 75 µm (ALS Method Code PREP-31).

Silver and base metals are analyzed with a four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-ICP61). Over-limit analyses for silver (>100 ppm), lead (>10,000 ppm), and zinc (>10,000 ppm) are reassayed with an ore-grade four-acid digestion and ICP-AES (ALS Method code: ME-OG62). Samples with over-limit silver assays > 1500 ppm are analyzed by 30-gram fire assay with a gravimetric finish (ALS Method code: Ag-GRA21). Gold is assayed by 30-gram fire assay and AAS (ALS Method code: Au-AA23).

11.3.4 Density

Specific gravity measurements made by Silverco from 2024 to 2025 were collected using the weight in air, weight in water method under a protocol designed to maximise accuracy and precision. Selected 10 cm core samples are weighed using a high precision electronic scale, in air and suspended in a bucket of water following wax immersion. The scale is tared/zeroed before every measurement, and measurement will not proceed until the scale has stabilized at each reading. All samples are photographed and logged. A daily calibration weight (200g) and standard obsidian sample are weighed each day to ensure accurate scale calibration. Each pair of measurements produces a specific gravity (SG) using the following equation:

$$
SG = \frac{\left(\text{Sample Weight in Air}\right)}{\left(\text{Sample Weight in Air} - \text{Sample Weight in Water}\right)}
$$

11.3.5 Data Management

Data are verified and double-checked by senior geologists on site for data entry verification, error analysis, and adherence to analytical quality-control protocols. All measured and observed data is collected digitally using MXDeposit software and database.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 78

Sample and quality control assay results are reviewed upon receipt and digital import into the database. Quality control sample performance is reviewed for each sample batch prior to the release of assay results. Any suspected quality control concerns or reruns are addressed with the laboratory prior to the release of sample assay results.

11.3.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Silverco's QA/QC program comprises the systematic insertion of standards or certified reference materials (CRMs), blanks, field, coarse reject, and pulp duplicates. Quality control (QC) samples are inserted into the sample sequence and for the drilling completed to date by the Company the insertion frequency is approximately 1 sample per 15 samples for CRMs and blanks, and 1 sample per 50 samples for field, coarse reject, and pulp duplicates. The insertion position of QC samples is defined prior to sampling to ensure random and blind insertion of QC samples. A total of 18% of samples assayed have been QC samples in the drilling programs from 2024 to 2025. Combined routine QC sample statistics for this period are presented in Table 11-16. All QC samples listed were analyzed by the primary analytical lab (ALS).

Table 11-16 Routine QC Sample Statistics for Silverco Core Sampling 2024 - 2025

Original Samples	Standards	Blanks	Field Duplicates	Coarse Reject Duplicates	Pulp Duplicates	QC Sample Total	QC Sample %
2,047	161	150	42 pairs	53 pairs	44 pairs	450	18.0%

Sample batches with suspected cross-sample contamination or certified reference materials returning assay values outside of the mean ± 3SD control limits are considered analytical failures by the Company, and affected batches are re-analyzed to ensure data accuracy when deemed warranted.

ALS has its own internal QA/QC program, which is reported in the assay certificates, but no account is taken of this in the determination of batch acceptance or failure.

11.3.6.1 Certified Reference Material

A selection of four CRMs have been used to date by Silverco in the course of the Cusi project drill programs: multi-element standards from CDN Resource Laboratories in Langley, B.C. (CDN-ME-1413, CDN-ME-2002, CDN-ME-2003, and CDN-ME-2303). The means, standard deviations (SD), warning, and control limits for standards are utilized as per the QA/QC program described below.

CRM performance and analytical accuracy is evaluated using the assay concentration values relative to the certified mean concentration to define the Z-score relative to sample sequence with warning and failure limits. Warning limits are indicated by a Z-score of between ±2 SD and ±3 SD, and control limits/failures are indicated by a Z-score of greater than ±3 SD from the certified mean. Sample batches with certified reference materials returning assay values outside of the mean ± 3SD control limits, or with suspected cross sample contamination indicated by blank sample analysis, are considered as analytical failures and selected affected batches are re-analyzed to ensure data accuracy.

For geochemical exploration analysis methods, laboratory benchmark standards are to achieve a precision and accuracy of plus or minus 10% (of the concentration) ±1 Detection Limit (DL) for duplicate analyses, in-house standards and client submitted standards, when conducting routine geochemical analyses for gold and base metals. These limits apply at, or greater than, 20 times the limit of detection. For samples containing coarse gold, native silver or copper, precision limits on duplicate analyses can exceed plus or minus 10% (of the concentration).

For mineralized material grade analysis methods, laboratory benchmark standards are to achieve a precision and accuracy of plus or minus 5% (of the concentration) ±1 DL for duplicate analyses, in-house standards and client submitted standards. These limits apply at 20 times the limit of detection. As in the

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 79

case of routine geochemical analyses, samples containing coarse gold, native silver or copper are less likely to meet the expected precision levels for mineralized material grade analysis.

CRM analytical results for the Silverco drilling programs are summarized in Table 11-17 to Table 11-20 for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn to evaluate analytical accuracy (bias), precision (average coefficient of variation, $\mathrm{CV}_{\mathrm{AVR}}\%$), warning rates, and failure rates. Shewhart CRM control charts for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn for the Silverco drilling programs are presented in Figure 11-7 to Figure 11-10.

The QA/QC program from 2024 - 2025 included the insertion of a total of 161 CRM samples (Table 11-16). The combined CRM failure rates during this period were $3.1\%$ for Ag, $1.9\%$ for Au, $1.9\%$ for Pb, and $0.0\%$ for Zn. CRM analytical results confirm acceptable analytical accuracy (bias less than $\pm 5\%$) and acceptable analytical precision ($\mathrm{CV}_{\mathrm{AVR}}\%$ within $\pm 5\%$) for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn. The QP considers this CRM performance acceptable and within industry standards. Review of the Company's CRM QC program indicates that there are no significant issues with the drill core assay data.

Table 11-17 CRM Sample Ag Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

CRM Ag ppm	Certified Value		ALS 2024-2025
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
ME-1413	52.2	1.4	50	52.644	0.9	2.0	5	10.0%	1	2.0%
ME-2002	298	9	10	298.600	0.2	2.4	1	10.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2003	106	4.5	56	108.855	2.7	2.9	3	5.4%	0	0.0%
ME-2303	330	4	45	327.489	-0.8	1.3	5	11.1%	4	8.9%
Total	-	-	161	-	-	-	14	8.7%	5	3.1%

Table 11-18 CRM Sample Au Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

CRM Au ppm	Certified Value		ALS 2024-2025
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
ME-1413	1.01	0.057	50	1.001	-0.9	4.7	4	8.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2002	0.289	0.018	10	0.292	1.1	5.4	1	10.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2003	1.301	0.0675	56	1.336	2.7	5.4	7	12.5%	3	5.4%
ME-2303	3.71	0.165	45	3.728	0.5	3.6	4	8.9%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	161	-	-	-	16	9.9%	3	1.9%

Table 11-19 CRM Sample Pb Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

CRM Pb %	Certified Value		ALS 2024-2025
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
ME-1413	0.698	0.014	50	0.692	-0.8	1.6	3	6.0%	1	2.0%
ME-2002	1.57	0.035	10	1.550	-1.3	1.5	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2003	0.475	0.008	56	0.476	0.1	1.8	9	16.1%	2	3.6%
ME-2303	6.83	0.145	45	6.758	-1.1	1.2	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	161	-	-	-	12	7.5%	3	1.9%

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 80

Table 11-20 CRM Sample Zn Performance at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

CRM Zn %	Certified Value		ALS 2024-2025
	Mean	SD	Count	Mean	Bias %	CV_{AVR}%	Warning # >2SD	Warning % >2SD	Failure # >3SD	Failure % >3SD
ME-1413	0.604	0.013	50	0.606	0.3	1.6	4	8.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2002	2.91	0.055	10	2.897	-0.4	1.1	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
ME-2003	1.05	0.025	56	1.073	2.2	2.2	11	19.6%	0	0.0%
ME-2303	22.39	0.405	45	22.340	-0.2	0.9	1	2.2%	0	0.0%
Total	-	-	161	-	-	-	16	9.9%	0	0.0%

Figure 11-7 CRM Control Chart for Ag at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

Figure 11-8 CRM Control Chart for Au at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 11-9 CRM Control Chart for Pb at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

Figure 11-10 CRM Control Chart for Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

11.3.6.2 Blank Material

Blank samples comprising either volcanic rock or quartz sourced from local hardware stores were inserted into the sample stream in the field to determine the degree of sample carryover contamination after sample collection, particularly during the sample preparation process. This material does not have certified values established by a third party through round robin lab testing.

The QA/QC program from 2024 – 2025 included the insertion of a total of 150 blank samples (Table 11-16). For blank sample values, failure is more subjective. Some carryover within sample batches is to be expected in routine sample preparation. To minimize sample carryover within a batch, equipment is cleaned

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 82

thoroughly with compressed air to remove any remaining loose material. For routine protocols, with samples of similar weights, sample carryover is usually considered acceptable if it is less than 1.0%. To ensure no batch-to-batch carryover occurs, standard quality control procedures include passing barren wash material through crushing and pulverising equipment at the start of each new batch of samples.

Evaluation of blank samples using a failure ceiling for Ag of 1.5 ppm (3x detection limit) indicates that the combined blank failure rate from 2024 – 2025 was 0.0%. No blank samples returned Ag values greater than 3x the analytical method detection limit. The highest blank sample returned values of 1.4 ppm Ag (Figure 11-11).

The blank failure rate is considered acceptable by industry standards. Based on the low risk of cross-sample carryover contamination and the low amounts of Ag sample carryover that may have contaminated blank material, it is considered unlikely that there is a carryover contamination issue with the Project drilling data.

Figure 11-11 Blank Sample Chart for Ag at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

11.3.6.3 Duplicate Material

Silverco's QA/QC program from 2024 – 2025 included the insertion of field duplicate, coarse reject, and pulp duplicate samples. From 2024 – 2025 a total of 42 field duplicates (1/4 core), 53 coarse reject duplicates, and 44 pulp duplicate samples were assayed (Table 11-16). Duplicate samples were analyzed at the primary lab (ALS) to evaluate analytical precision and sampling error.

Figure 11-12 to Figure 11-14 illustrate the comparative assay results and precision of duplicate sample analyses for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn.

To obtain a relatively accurate estimate of the sampling precision or average relative error a large number of duplicate data pairs are required. Reliably determining the base metal data precision, which typically exhibits relatively small average relative errors (such as 5%), would require 500 – 1000 duplicate data pairs, while reliable determination of gold data precision, which typically exhibits relatively large average relative errors (such as 25%), would require greater than 2500 duplicate data pairs (Stanley and Lawie, 2007).

In the case of the Cusi deposits, based on the current duplicate data set size for field, coarse reject, and pulp duplicates, analysis of the precision should be considered as preliminary for all elements until a larger dataset is available. The average relative error as quantified by the Average Coefficient of Variation

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 83

(CV_AVR%) for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn is shown in Table 11-21, calculated using the root mean square coefficient of variation calculated from the individual coefficients of variation.

The preliminary estimates of precisions errors (CV_AVR%) for Cusi sampling indicates that the sampling precision is acceptable by industry standards for duplicates for this style of mineralization (Abzalov, 2008). The precision of duplicates should continue to be monitored as the drill program progresses and the size of the duplicate data set becomes more representative.

Table 11-21 Average Relative Error of Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

Drillhole Series	Duplicate Type	Count	Ag CV_AVR%	Au CV_AVR%	Pb CV_AVR%	Zn CV_AVR%
2024-2025 Drilling	Field	42 duplicate pairs	30.0	22.2	30.8	32.1
2024-2025 Drilling	Coarse Reject	53 duplicate pairs	14.8	17.4	16.1	13.9
2024-2025 Drilling	Pulp	44 duplicate pairs	16.9	17.1	11.6	4.6

Figure 11-12 Plots of Field Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 84

Figure 11-13 Plots of Coarse Reject Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 11-14 Plots of Pulp Duplicate Samples for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn at ALS for the 2024-2025 Drill Programs

11.3.6.4 Check Assaying

The use of a third-party laboratory for routine check assaying is being employed by Silverco for drilling programs completed as an additional QA/QC measure to confirm the accuracy of the primary laboratory assays.

A selection of samples from the 2024-2025 drilling programs, originally assayed by ALS, is currently being re-assayed by a third-party laboratory. Sample details and results were not yet available for review as of the effective date of this report.

11.4 QP's Comments

It is the QP's opinion, based on a review of all possible information, that the sample preparation, analyses and security used on the Project by the Company and previous explorers meet acceptable industry standards (past and current). Review of the Company's and previous explorers' QA/QC programs indicates that there are no significant issues with the assay data. The data verification programs undertaken on the data collected from the Project support the geological interpretations, and the analytical and database quality, and therefore data can support resource estimation of Measured, Indicated, and Inferred mineral resources.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 86

12 DATA VERIFICATION

12.1 Introduction

The following section summarises the data verification procedures that were carried out and completed and documented by the Authors for this technical report, including verification of all drillhole data collected by Silverco during their 2024 to 2025 drill programs and drillhole and channel data collected by previous explorers, as of the effective date of this report.

12.2 Drill and Channel Sample Database

An independent verification of the assay data in the drillhole and channel sample database used for the current MRE was conducted. Approximately 4% of the digital assay records were randomly selected and checked against the available laboratory assay certificate reports. Assay certificates were available for all diamond drilling completed by Silverco. Assay certificates and lab records were available for the majority of the historical drillhole and channel sample database. Historical assay data selected for validation spanned all years from 2006 to 2023. The assay database was reviewed for errors, including overlaps and gapping in intervals, and typographical errors in assay values. In general, the database was in good condition and no adjustments were required to be made to the assay values contained in the assay database.

Verifications were also carried out on drillhole locations, down hole surveys, lithology, density and topography information. It was noted that the database contains only top-of-hole (collar) drillhole orientation survey measurements for surface drillholes completed between 2006 and 2011, and underground drillholes completed between 2007 and 2013. The database is considered of sufficient quality to be used for the current MRE.

The sample preparation, analyses, and security (see Section 11) completed by the Company and previous explorers for the Property was reviewed. Based on a review of all possible information, the sample preparation, analyses, and security used on the Project by the Company and previous explorers, including QA/QC procedures, are consistent with standard industry practices (past and current) and the drill data can be used for geological and resource modeling, and resource estimation of Measured, Indicated, and Inferred mineral resources.

12.3 Processing History and Metallurgical Test Work

The documented performance of the Mal Paso processing facility on Cusi deposit ore and in-house metallurgical test work reports made available (see Section 13) for the Property deposits were reviewed. The results are plausible within the bounds of this type of deposit and style of mineralization. Armitage is of the opinion that the processing performance and metallurgical test work is representative of the deposit and the conclusions and recommendations made are reasonable.

12.4 Site Visit – Ben Eggers

Eggers conducted a site visit to the Project on September 22-23, 2025, accompanied by Nico Harvey – VP Project Development, Carlos Beltran – Exploration Manager, Aaron Ramirez – Administration Manager, and several members of the geology team for Silverco. The site visit consisted of a field tour of the Property and inspection of the core logging and sampling facilities and core storage areas at the Project.

The field tour of the Property area included visits to several outcrops and surface excavations to review the local geology and recent drill sites. All areas were easily accessible by road and a series of access trails. Validation checks of drillhole collar locations were completed for of a selection of eight holes spanning Silverco drilling programs completed in 2024 and 2025 on the Property. Collars were appropriately marked and labeled with concrete markers placed at drillholes denoting holeID, dip, azimuth, and hole length. Individual hole monuments were observed, and collar locations were validated with the use of a handheld

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 87

GPS. Drillhole collar positions reported in the Company database were validated as surveyed, with minor discrepancies noted being within the handheld GPS instrumental error.

During the site visit selected mineralized core intervals were examined from 12 diamond drillholes intersecting the San Miguel, San Antonio (Eduwiges), Promontorio (Promontorio West), Carolina (Promontorio East), Santa Rosa de Lima, and other veins that comprise the Cusi deposits. The drillholes inspected spanned Silverco drilling programs completed in 2024 and 2025 and historical drillholes completed in 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2019. The accompanying drill logs, long sections, and assays were examined against the drill core mineralized zones. Current core sampling, QA/QC and core security procedures were reviewed. Core boxes for drillholes reviewed are properly stored in the warehouse, easily accessible and well labelled. Sample tags are present in the boxes, and it was possible to validate sample numbers and confirm the presence of mineralization in witness half-core samples from the mineralized zones.

The site visit to the Cusi project core logging, sampling, and storage facilities included the inspection of the areas used for the geologists to log and photograph core, the area used to measure density, the areas for cutting and sampling core, the sample storage area, the core storage areas, and the office area. Drilling was in progress on drillhole CU-25-43 during the time of the site visit. The entire path of the drill core, from the drill rig to the logging and sampling facility and finally to the laboratory was reviewed and discussed. The QP is of the opinion that the current protocols in place, as have been described and documented by the Company, are adequate.

As a result of the site visit, the QP was able to become familiar with conditions on the Property, was able to observe and gain an understanding of the geology and various styles mineralization, was able to verify the work done and, on that basis, can review and recommend to the Company an appropriate exploration program.

The site visit completed in September 2025 is considered as current, per Section 6.2 of NI 43-101CP. To the Authors knowledge there is no new material scientific or technical information about the Property since that personal inspection. The technical report contains all material information about the Property.

12.5 Conclusion

All geological data has been reviewed and verified as being accurate to the extent possible, and to the extent possible, all geologic information was reviewed and confirmed. There were no significant or material errors or issues identified with the drillhole and channel database. Based on a review of all possible information, Eggers is of the opinion that the database is of sufficient quality to be used for the current Measured, Indicated, and Inferred MRE.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 88

13 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

13.1 Mal Paso Processing Facility

Mineralized material produced from the Cusi mine is hauled to Mal Paso Mill using dump trucks. Trucks are weighed upon entry into the Mal Paso facility using a platform scale, and mineralized material is discharged on multiple stockpiles located around the primary crusher feed end. Mineralized material is reclaimed from the stockpiles using a front-end loader and fed to the primary crusher.

Additional facilities on site includes a spare parts warehouse and a metallurgical and chemical laboratory.

13.2 Historical Mine Production and Metallurgical Performance

In 2014, Sierra Metals established commercial production at the Cusi mine, with activity at Promontorio and Santa Eduwiges. Available metallurgical balance figures (grades, recoveries and metal production) for the Cusi mine from 2014 to 2023 (Table 13-1 Table 6-2) have been compiled from Sierra Metals annual reports. The mine went into care and maintenance in Q3 of 2023.

For the period of 2014 to Q3 2023, the Mal Paso mill processed a total of 2,062,364 t of mineralized material which is an average of 206,236 tonnes per year. The Mal Paso mill principally produced a lead concentrate, and a zinc concentrate was produced beginning in 2016 through Q1 2018.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 89

Table 13-1 Metallurgical Balance for Cusi Mine from 2014 to 2023

	Unit	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total/Avg.
Tonnage	t	155,268	202,034	186,897	88,011	186,889	285,236	230,429	295,771	291,907	139,922	2,062,364
Head Grade
Ag	g/t	167	176	172	165	140	129	150	160	170	145	156
Au	g/t	0.42	0.22	0.26	0.26	0.16	0.15	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.14	0.20
Pb	%	0.78	0.78	1.22	1.12	0.36	0.19	0.29	0.32	0.25	0.32	0.49
Zn	%	N/A	N/A	1.16	1.14	0.40	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.85
Lead Concentrate
Ag Recovery	%	75.7	76.5	70.7	72.0	83.1	79.1	80.3	82.9	85.4	83.9	79.8
Au Recovery	%	61.7	57.3	61.9	58.2	39.5	36.2	45.5	44.9	46.9	53.4	48.7
Pb Recovery	%	78.5	78.6	81.5	80.6	79.2	74.8	92.8	80.6	78.9	87.3	81.0
Zinc Concentrate
Ag Recovery	%	N/A	N/A	2.0	2.0	0.1	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.2
Zn Recovery	%	N/A	N/A	37.5	42.2	4.2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	24.9
Metal Production
Ag	oz	630,160	873,496	730,000	336,000	700,000	936,000	890,000	1,260,000	1,363,000	549,000	8,267,656
Au	oz	1,289	832	954	423	373	491	619	762	794	331	6,868
Pb	lbs	2,120,000	2,747,000	4,111,000	1,770,000	1,194,000	904,000	1,366,000	1,703,000	1,282,000	859,000	18,056,000
Zn	lbs	N/A	N/A	1,805,000	937,000	71,000	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2,813,000

13.3 Metallurgical Testing

The Cusi project's Mal Paso facilities include an upgraded metallurgical laboratory. Sampling and testing was executed on an as-needed basis to support the industrial scale operation. The available metallurgical data collected at the Mal Paso facility was reviewed and analysed by Silverco in 2025.

13.3.1 Mal Paso Recovery Test Work 2021-2023

Silvero reviewed a total of 1,132 metallurgical tests performed by Sierra Metals at the Mal Paso metallurgical laboratory from 2021 to 2023. Some filtering of the test data were performed including; filtering out silver head grades below $100\mathrm{g / t}$ (to represent appropriate mill feed), removing metallurgical tests performed on unrelated ore bodies (ie; "El Nino"), and removing repeated tests on the same sample (to remove weighting bias, only initial "F0" tests were included). Filtering resulted in a total of 865 metallurgical tests remaining for the analysis.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 90

13.3.1.1 Silver Recovery

The average and median metallurgical recoveries of the tests for silver are 87% and 89% respectively (Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2). The majority of tests indicated a silver recovery between 87.5% and 92.5%. Silver recoveries improved slightly as an average over more recent test work – which is primarily from material near to the current working levels of the mine.

Figure 13-1 Results of Mal Paso Ag Recovery Testing 2021-2023

Figure 13-2 Chronological Mal Paso Ag Recovery Results 2021-2023

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 91

13.3.1.2 Lead Recovery

Additional filtering of the test was performed, as certain tests did not capture lead recovery, and it was left as 0%. These were removed, leaving 778 tests.

The average and median metallurgical recoveries of the tests for lead are 85% and 89% respectively (Figure 13-3 and Figure 13-4). The majority of tests indicated a lead recovery between 87.5% and 92.5%. Lead recoveries also showed improvement in more recent tests. However, unlike silver there are a higher number of lower lead recovery results. Often these poor performing tests are clustered, indicating subsequent tests with similar results, which suggests similar test material (majority of tests are from mine feed), or poor test practices.

Figure 13-3 Results of Mal Paso Pb Recovery Testing 2021-2023

Figure 13-4 Chronological Mal Paso Pb Recovery Results 2021-2023

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 92

13.3.1.3 Zinc Recovery

As with the lead recoveries, the same tests that did not capture lead recoveries did not capture zinc recoveries. These were filtered out leaving 778 tests for analysis.

Metallurgical zinc recoveries for the Project display a much more scattered result than those of silver and lead. The average and median metallurgical recoveries of the tests for zinc are 60% and 61% respectively (Figure 13-5 and Figure 13-6).

Figure 13-5 Results of Mal Paso Zn Recovery Testing 2021-2023

Figure 13-6 Chronological Mal Paso Zn Recovery Results 2021-2023

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 93

13.3.1.4 Gold Recovery

Similarly to zinc, metallurgical gold recoveries for the Project display a highly variable result. The average and median metallurgical recoveries of the tests for gold are 49% and 47% respectively (Figure 13-7 and Figure 13-8).

Figure 13-7 Results of Mal Paso Au Recovery Testing 2021-2023

Figure 13-8 Chronological Mal Paso Au Recovery Results 2021-2023

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 94

14 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

14.1 Introduction

Measured, Indicated, and Inferred mineral resources are reported in the summary tables in Section 14.11. The MRE presented below takes into consideration that all deposits on the Property may be mined by underground mining methods.

14.2 Drillhole Database

To complete the current MRE for the Property, a database comprising a series of comma delimited spreadsheets containing surface and underground diamond drillhole and underground channel information was provided by Silverco for the Cusi deposits. The database included drillhole and channel location information (Coordinate system: WGS84 UTM 13N), down-hole survey data, assay data for all metals of interest, lithology data and density data. The data in the geochemistry/assay tables included data for the elements of interest including Ag (g/t), Au ((g/t), Pb (%), and Zn (%). After review of the database, the data was then imported into Leapfrog Geo version 2025.2.1 software (Leapfrog) for modelling of mineralization domains, statistical analysis, block modeling and resource estimation. No errors were identified when importing the data. The data was validated in Leapfrog and no erroneous data, data overlaps or duplication of data was identified.

The database provided by Silverco for the MRE included data for 2,052 surface and underground diamond drillholes totalling 360,237 m and 21,522 underground channels totalling 119,756 m completed on the Property (Table 14-1) (Figure 14-1, Figure 14-2, and Figure 14-3). The database totals 105,585 assay intervals representing 119,756 m of drilling and 71,605 assay intervals representing 48,783 m of channel sampling. The average drillhole assay sample length is 1.13 m. The average channel assay sample length is 0.68 m.

The database was checked for typographical errors in drillhole locations, down-hole surveys, lithology, assay values, and supporting information on source of assay values. Overlaps and gapping in survey, lithology, and assay value intervals were checked. Unsampled intervals and sampled assay intervals without analytical values were assigned a value of 0.0001 for Ag (g/t), Au (g/t), Pb (%), and Zn (%).

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 95

Table 14-1 Project Drillhole and Channel Database

Deposit Area	Sample type	Count	Total Length (m)	No. of Assays	Tot. Assay Length (m)	Avg. Assay Length (m)	No. of Density Measurements
Cusi	Surface drillholes	952	235,650	55,278	67,576.85	1.22	244
	Underground drillholes	1,100	124,587	50,307	52,179	1.04	0
	Combined drillholes	2,052	360,237	105,585	119,756	1.13	244
	Underground channels	21,522	48,786	71,605	48,783	0.68	0
	Total	23,574	409,023	177,190	168,538	0.95	244

Figure 14-1 Distribution of Drillholes and Channels on the Property on Topography (Plan view)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 96

Figure 14-2 Distribution of Surface Drillholes on the Property on Topography (View to SW)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 97

Figure 14-3 Distribution of Drillholes and Channels in the Promontorio and Eduwiges Areas (View to SSE)

14.3 Mineral Resource Modelling and Wireframing

For the current MRE, in collaboration with Silverco, SGS constructed a total of 63 three-dimensional ("3D") resource models and two lithology models (Table 14-2) (Figure 14-4) in Leapfrog.

Lithology models were produced for the rhyolite and intrusive host rocks. The Cusi vein system is modelled in its entirety using the Leapfrog Geo Vein tool incorporating drilling and channel data, surface and underground mapping, and structural data. The Cusi vein systems comprise four dominant structural orientations; 1) steeply dipping NW-trending, 2) steeply dipping NE-trending, 3) moderate to steeply dipping ENE-trending, and 4) moderate to steeply dipping NNE-trending structures. Mineralization occurring in multiple stacked structures was subdivided into seven resource areas (San Juan, Promontorio West, Promontorio East, Eduwiges, San Miguel, San Nicolas, and Santa Rosa de Lima). A total of 63 veins were modelled for inclusion in the 2025 MRE.

Mineralized strike lengths of the major structures have been tested for up to 300 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip in the Promontorio and Eduwiges areas, up to 1,300 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Miguel area, up to 800 m along strike and up to 250 m down dip in the San Juan area, and up to 2,000 m along strike and up to 400 m down dip on the San Nicolas and Santa Rosa de Lima structures. Mineralized portions of veins that comprise the resource models vary in true thickness and are typically in the range of 0.5 to 2 m, with localized shoots up to 5 m true thickness. The local pinch and swell morphology exhibited within the Cusi vein systems is common in narrow-vein epithermal systems. Many of the mineralized veins and resource models remain open along strike and/or down dip.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 98

Individual vein mineralization models, the resource domains, were constructed using the Leapfrog Geo Vein tool from assays intervals. Historical drillhole and channel data assigned to the models was reviewed and additional very low-grade mineralization was excluded from the models using a composite cut-off grade of 25 g/t AgEq over a minimum length of 1.0 m. Vein thickness was reviewed for all vein models individually and any model thickness inconsistencies were resolved by revising model interval selections. Vein model interactions for all vein systems were reviewed and revised as needed for consistency and reasonableness with respect to the current understanding of the Cusi structural model.

New drillholes completed in 2024-2025 by Silverco were reviewed and mineralized intersections were coded to mineralization domains manually. Composed assay intervals greater than 100 g/t AgEq were assigned to the models with a minimum down hole length of 1.5 m. Drillholes with composite assay intervals less than 100 g/t AgEq were assigned to the models with a minimum length of 1.0 m in lieu of model pinch outs.

Andesite is considered a poor host for mineralization at Cusi due to its rheological properties. Mineralization within the andesite was reviewed and found to be generally limited to within 10-15 m of the rhyolite contact. The lithology model rhyolite-andesite contact was used to create an approximate 15 m buffer boundary to limit the extension of any mineralized vein models into the andesite.

A digital elevation surface model was provided for the Property area. All 3D resource models were clipped to topography. The Property claim boundaries were provided by Silverco and evaluated onto the MRE block models. Any mineralized blocks defined by the mineralization domains outside of the Property boundary were excluded from the MRE.

Existing mine development models were provided by Silverco as a combination of surveyed and modelled 3D solids and polyline boundaries of development extents on individual veins. All known development model volumes were incorporated into a depletion model and evaluated onto the MRE block models. Models were provided for two volumes (Azucarera and SRL Conos Subsidencia) of inferred underground subsidence or reduced rock geotechnical competency related to historical mining activities. These modeled volumes were incorporated into the MRE depletion model.

Resource and lithology models are summarized and below and detailed in Table 14-2.

Resource Domains (63 models)
San Juan (1 model)
Promontorio West (18 models)
Promontorio East (30 models)
Eduwiges (7 models)
San Miguel (5 models)
San Nicolas (1 model)
Santa Rosa de Lima (1 model)
Lithology Models (2 models)
Rhyolite, Andesite

The Author has reviewed the resource models on plan view and in section view and in the Author's opinion the models are well constructed and appear to be representative of the main structures identified on the Property and the distribution of the Ag-Au-Pb-Zn mineralization within these structures. Models were initially created by Sierra Metals, reviewed and updated by Silverco during the modelling process, and refined by SGS before final resource estimation. All models have been extended beyond the limits of the current drilling for the purpose of providing guidance for continued exploration. However, the extension of the

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 99

mineral resource beyond the limits of drilling is limited by the search radius during the interpolation procedure (a maximum of 100 m past drilling).

Table 14-2 Property Domain Descriptions

Area	Rock Code	Vein	Density
Eduwiges	100	El Portal	2.75
La Mexicana
Moctezuma
Monaco_Milagro
San Antonio
San Bartolo
Santa Marina
Promontorio West	200	Alto el Gallo	2.75
Bajo K
Bajo L
EG
EGB
El Gallito
Minerva
Promontorio
San Ignacio
V1
V2
VBP
Veta H
Veta J
Veta K
Veta K'
Veta L
Veta L'
Promontorio East	300	Carolina	2.75
Devora
Diana
Dique Erika
Erika
Francis
Geraldine
Isela
Lorena
Lucia
Lucia L1
Luisa
Margoth
Miriam
Monica
Natalia
Perla
Priscila
Raquel
Raquel Lazo
Roberta

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 100

Area	Rock Code	Vein	Density
		Romina
		Sandra
		Sonia
		Sonia L1
		Sonia L2
		Susana
		Veronica
		Victoria
		Yolanda
San Juan	400	San Juan	2.75
San Miguel	500	La Durana	2.75
		San Miguel
		San Miguel_FW
		San Miguel_HW
		Splay_HW
San Nicolas	600	San Nicolas
Santa Rosa de Lima	700	SRL	2.75
Rhyolite (Waste)	800	-	2.61
Andesite (Waste)	900	-	2.70
Mined development	000	-	0.00

Figure 14-4 Property Mineral Resource Models with Drillholes and Channels (Plan View)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 101

14.4 Bulk Density

A database of 244 bulk density measurements was provided for the current MRE. Of the data collected, 180 samples are from mineralized material. Based on a review of the available density data, a fixed value for mineralized material of $2.75\mathrm{g/cm^3}$ was used for all resource models. The average density used by domain for the current MRE is presented in Table 14-2.

It is recommended that Silverco continue to collect additional density data as drilling continues, collecting samples from the various structures, representing different styles of mineralization, ranges in grade of Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn and at different depths of the deposits.

14.5 Compositing

The assay sample database available for resource modelling totalled 177,190 samples representing $168,538\mathrm{m}$ of drilling and channel sampling (Table 14-1). A statistical analysis of the assay data from within the mineralized domains, by area, is presented in Table 14-3. There are a total of 41,210 assays within the resource domains.

The average length of all assay sample intervals within the resource domains is $0.75\mathrm{m}$ and ranges from 0.1 to $8.2\mathrm{m}$ . Of the 41,210 assays, approximately $5\%$ are $\geq 1.5\mathrm{m}$ in length; $10\%$ of the assays are $\geq 1.2\mathrm{m}$ ; $21\%$ of the assays are $\geq 1.00\mathrm{m}$ . To minimize the dilution and over smoothing due to compositing, a composite length of $1.50\mathrm{m}$ was chosen as an appropriate composite length for all areas for the current MRE.

Composites for the Cusi deposits were generated within each domain to a nominal length of $1.5\mathrm{m}$ . Composite residual lengths less than $1.0\mathrm{m}$ were distributed equally within the domain and a $50\%$ minimum coverage length was used. The resultant average composite length was $1.42\mathrm{m}$ , with a minimum composite length of $0.75\mathrm{m}$ and a maximum composite length of $2.25\mathrm{m}$ . Un-assayed intervals were given a value of 0.0001 for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn. The composites were constrained and grouped using mineral domain models for statistical analysis and capping studies in Leapfrog.

A total of 22,508 composite sample points occur within the resource models. A statistical analysis of the composite data from within the mineralized domains, by area, is presented in (Table 14-3).

Table 14-3 Statistical Analysis of the Assay and Composite Data from Within the Deposit Mineral Domains – by Area

Area	Dataset	Element	Count	Length (m)	Mean	S.D.	C.V.	Var.	Min.	Q1	Median	Q3	Max.
San Juan	Assays	Ag (g/t)	102	134	185	260	1.41	67,716	0.5000	55	110	197	1,845
		Au (g/t)	102	134	0.23	0.38	1.65	0.14	0.0001	0.00	0.02	0.34	1.96
		Pb (%)	102	134	0.16	0.28	1.82	0.08	0.0026	0.03	0.04	0.15	2.01
		Zn (%)	102	134	0.19	0.33	1.69	0.11	0.0039	0.04	0.08	0.22	2.77
	Composites	Ag (g/t)	111	166	148	217	1.46	47,004	0.0001	10	96	169	1,240
		Au (g/t)	111	166	0.18	0.34	1.84	0.12	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.24	1.96
		Pb (%)	111	166	0.12	0.24	1.97	0.06	0.0001	0.01	0.03	0.14	2.01
		Zn (%)	111	166	0.15	0.25	1.70	0.06	0.0001	0.01	0.06	0.17	1.39
Promontorio West	Assays	Ag (g/t)	14,123	10,578	216	611	2.83	373,235	0.0001	16	69	186	26,932
		Au (g/t)	14,123	10,578	0.09	0.38	4.17	0.14	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.00	15.30
		Pb (%)	14,123	10,578	0.40	1.10	2.73	1.20	0.0001	0.05	0.13	0.33	44.93
		Zn (%)	14,123	10,578	0.43	1.01	2.33	1.01	0.0001	0.06	0.15	0.37	23.06
	Composites	Ag (g/t)	7,109	10,112	206	398	1.93	158,383	0.0001	30	94	227	8,885
		Au (g/t)	7,109	10,112	0.09	0.26	3.09	0.07	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.06	6.38
		Pb (%)	7,109	10,112	0.39	0.83	2.15	0.70	0.0001	0.06	0.17	0.37	24.33
		Zn (%)	7,109	10,112	0.42	0.80	1.91	0.64	0.0001	0.07	0.19	0.41	13.87

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Area	Dataset	Element	Count	Length (m)	Mean	S.D.	C.V.	Var.	Min.	Q1	Median	Q3	Max.
Promontorio East	Assays	Ag (g/t)	7,850	7,763	248	845	3.41	714,463	0.0001	10	66	192	33,824
Au (g/t)	7,850	7,763	0.07	0.28	4.24	0.08	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.00	13.60
Pb (%)	7,850	7,763	0.26	0.89	3.46	0.80	0.0001	0.02	0.08	0.19	27.16
Zn (%)	7,850	7,763	0.28	0.71	2.52	0.50	0.0001	0.03	0.11	0.24	21.20
Composites	Ag (g/t)	5,317	7,621	240	637	2.66	406,147	0.0001	10	87	231	17,912
Au (g/t)	5,317	7,621	0.06	0.21	3.26	0.04	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.05	7.12
Pb (%)	5,317	7,621	0.25	0.65	2.62	0.42	0.0001	0.02	0.09	0.21	20.75
Zn (%)	5,317	7,621	0.27	0.53	1.99	0.29	0.0001	0.03	0.12	0.27	8.69
Eduwiges	Assays	Ag (g/t)	9,289	6,255	214	541	2.53	293,074	0.0001	10	63	181	13,577
Au (g/t)	9,289	6,255	0.47	3.54	7.46	12.52	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.00	130.90
Pb (%)	9,289	6,255	1.69	3.77	2.23	14.20	0.0001	0.12	0.40	1.44	46.41
Zn (%)	9,289	6,255	1.75	3.22	1.85	10.39	0.0001	0.13	0.48	1.80	56.00
Composites	Ag (g/t)	4,198	5,733	211	404	1.91	163,209	0.0001	30	91	222	6,966
Au (g/t)	4,198	5,733	0.48	2.60	5.37	6.77	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.18	65.26
Pb (%)	4,198	5,733	1.66	2.87	1.73	8.25	0.0001	0.19	0.62	1.81	28.82
Zn (%)	4,198	5,733	1.74	2.59	1.49	6.70	0.0001	0.19	0.78	2.16	34.25
San Miguel	Assays	Ag (g/t)	971	1,044	117	228	1.94	52,112	0.0001	5	49	133	4,430
Au (g/t)	971	1,044	0.07	0.22	2.96	0.05	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.06	5.40
Pb (%)	971	1,044	0.33	1.22	3.72	1.50	0.0001	0.01	0.06	0.18	20.00
Zn (%)	971	1,044	0.44	1.26	2.83	1.58	0.0001	0.03	0.11	0.27	18.60
Composites	Ag (g/t)	695	999	122	185	1.51	34,246	0.0001	10	67	150	1,519
Au (g/t)	695	999	0.08	0.18	2.32	0.03	0.0001	0.00	0.01	0.09	2.40
Pb (%)	695	999	0.34	0.99	2.90	0.99	0.0001	0.01	0.07	0.24	14.72
Zn (%)	695	999	0.46	1.05	2.27	1.10	0.0001	0.05	0.13	0.33	8.57
San Nicolas	Assays	Ag (g/t)	3,677	2,893	178	437	2.46	191,404	0.0001	17	60	170	10,933
Au (g/t)	3,677	2,893	0.21	4.15	19.37	17.20	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.01	279.16
Pb (%)	3,677	2,893	0.34	1.13	3.34	1.28	0.0001	0.05	0.13	0.29	36.80
Zn (%)	3,677	2,893	0.40	1.89	4.77	3.58	0.0001	0.06	0.13	0.32	95.00
Composites	Ag (g/t)	2,003	2,938	167	335	2.00	111,955	0.0001	19	74	184	5,573
Au (g/t)	2,003	2,938	0.20	2.65	13.45	7.03	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.07	110.18
Pb (%)	2,003	2,938	0.32	0.79	2.50	0.63	0.0001	0.05	0.14	0.29	12.62
Zn (%)	2,003	2,938	0.37	1.34	3.57	1.78	0.0001	0.06	0.14	0.35	45.67
Santa Rosa de Lima	Assays	Ag (g/t)	5,473	4,888	247	696	2.81	484,273	0.0001	10	64	200	16,696
Au (g/t)	5,473	4,888	0.08	0.31	4.00	0.09	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.00	8.00
Pb (%)	5,473	4,888	0.56	1.47	2.63	2.17	0.0001	0.06	0.17	0.42	32.62
Zn (%)	5,473	4,888	0.61	1.41	2.32	1.98	0.0001	0.08	0.19	0.50	26.64
Composites	Ag (g/t)	3,075	4,489	261	581	2.22	337,578	0.0001	31	95	255	9,863
Au (g/t)	3,075	4,489	0.08	0.20	2.64	0.04	0.0001	0.00	0.00	0.07	3.17
Pb (%)	3,075	4,489	0.59	1.16	1.98	1.34	0.0001	0.10	0.22	0.52	13.90
Zn (%)	3,075	4,489	0.63	1.13	1.79	1.27	0.0001	0.11	0.23	0.61	10.77

14.6 Grade Capping

A statistical analysis of the composite database within the resource models (the "resource" population) was conducted to investigate the presence of high-grade outliers which can have a disproportionately large influence on the average grade of a mineral deposit. High-grade outliers in the composite data were investigated using statistical data (Table 14-3), histogram plots, and cumulative probability plots of the composite data. The statistical analysis was completed using Leapfrog and grade capping was applied on a deposit area basis.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

After review, it is the opinion of the QP that capping of high-grade composites to limit their influence during the grade estimation is necessary for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn for all domains. A summary of grade capping values within the mineralized domains by area is presented in Table 14-4. In the opinion of the QP, the capping applied to the deposit composites has had the desired effect of limiting the influence of high-grade outliers on the MRE. The capped composites are used for grade interpolation into the deposit block models.

Table 14-4 Composite Capping Summary - by Area

Area	Total # of Comps.	Element	Capping Value	# Capped	Mean of Raw Comps.	Mean of Capped Comps.	C.V. of Raw Comps.	C.V. of Capped Comps.
San Juan	111	Ag (g/t)	800	3	148	144	1.46	1.26
		Au (g/t)	0.9	2	0.18	0.17	1.84	1.56
		Pb (%)	0.7	1	0.12	0.12	1.97	1.49
		Zn (%)	N/A	0	0.15	0.15	1.65	1.65
Promontorio West	7,109	Ag (g/t)	3,800	11	206	204	1.93	1.72
		Au (g/t)	1.9	25	0.09	0.08	3.09	2.65
		Pb (%)	6.0	18	0.39	0.38	2.15	1.86
		Zn (%)	6.2	21	0.42	0.41	1.91	1.79
Promontorio East	5,317	Ag (g/t)	4,500	20	240	229	2.66	2.10
		Au (g/t)	1.7	13	0.06	0.06	3.26	2.77
		Pb (%)	4.7	20	0.25	0.23	2.62	2.16
		Zn (%)	4.4	12	0.27	0.26	1.99	1.88
Eduwiges	4,198	Ag (g/t)	3,100	15	211	211	1.91	1.74
		Au (g/t)	10.0	30	0.48	0.37	5.37	3.32
		Pb (%)	14.0	42	1.66	1.61	1.73	1.59
		Zn (%)	15.0	23	1.74	1.73	1.49	1.44
San Miguel	695	Ag (g/t)	920	5	122	117	1.51	1.41
		Au (g/t)	0.9	5	0.08	0.07	2.32	1.97
		Pb (%)	5.0	8	0.34	0.31	2.90	2.42
		Zn (%)	6.0	6	0.46	0.44	2.27	2.19
San Nicolas	2,003	Ag (g/t)	2,100	10	167	163	2.00	1.69
		Au (g/t)	2.2	9	0.20	0.12	13.45	2.54
		Pb (%)	5.3	8	0.32	0.30	2.50	2.04
		Zn (%)	4.6	13	0.37	0.34	3.57	1.83
Santa Rosa de Lima	3,075	Ag (g/t)	4,000	11	261	248	2.22	1.92
		Au (g/t)	1.5	10	0.08	0.07	2.64	2.44
		Pb (%)	7.5	16	0.59	0.57	1.98	1.84
		Zn (%)	7.0	19	0.63	0.62	1.79	1.73

14.7 Block Model Parameters

The Property mineral resource domains are used to constrain composite values chosen for interpolation, and the mineral blocks reported in the estimate of the mineral resources. Two block models, within UTM coordinate space, were created for all Cusi resource domains (Table 14-5, Figure 14-5 and Figure 14-6). Block model dimensions, in the x (east m), y (north m), and z (level m) directions were placed over the resource models. A parent block size of $5 \times 5 \times 5$ m was used. Sub-blocks were generated at $1 \times 1 \times 1$ m, triggered by the resource domains and depletion models, to ensure appropriate block model volume reconciliation with resource domain and depletion models. Only sub-blocks with centroids inside the resource domains were interpolated with grades and recorded as part of the MRE.

The block size for the block model was selected based on drillhole spacing, composite length, the geometry and shape of the mineralized domains, and the selected mining methods (underground). At the scale of the

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 104

deposit models, the selected block size for each model provides a reasonable block size for discerning grade distribution, while still being large enough not to mislead when looking at higher cut-off grade distribution within the model. The models were intersected with surface topography to exclude sub-blocks, that extend above the bedrock surface. The Property mineral claim boundaries were evaluated onto the block model sub-blocks to exclude mineralization outside of the Property from the MRE.

Table 14-5 Deposit Block Model Geometry

Block Model	Cusi - North
	X (East)	Y (North)	Z (Level)
Origin (WGS 84 UTM 13N)	317,450	3,125,600	2,225
Extent (blocks)	2,500	1,600	900
Parent Block Size (m)	5	5	5
Sub-block Size (m)	1	1	1
Rotation (clockwise azimuth)	35°
Block Model	Cusi - San Miguel
---	---	---	---
	X (East)	Y (North)	Z (Level)
Origin (WGS 84 UTM 13N)	319,250	3,122,800	2,240
Extent (blocks)	815	2,250	640
Parent Block Size (m)	5	5	5
Sub-block Size (m)	1	1	1
Rotation (clockwise azimuth)	35°

Figure 14-5 Mineral Resource Block Model and Mineralization Domains (Plan view)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 105

Figure 14-6 Mineral Resource Block Model and Mineralization Domains (View to W)

14.8 Grade Interpolation

Silver, gold, lead, and zinc were estimated for each mineralization domain within the block model. Blocks within each mineralized domain were interpolated using composites assigned to that domain. To generate grade within the blocks, the inverse distance squared (ID²) interpolation method was used for all domains.

For all domains, the search ellipse used to interpolate grade into the resource blocks was interpreted based on orientation and size of the mineralized domains, and the distribution of data within each domain. The search ellipse axes and ranges (Table 14-6) used to interpolate grade were defined in Leapfrog using a variable orientation based on the vein resource models. The search ellipse axes are oriented to reflect the observed preferential long axis (geological trend) of the domain and the observed trend of the mineralization down dip/down plunge.

Three passes were used to interpolate grade into blocks within the resource domains, depending on drillhole spacing (Table 14-6). Blocks populated with grade in pass 1 of the interpolation procedure in Promontorio East and Santa Rosa de Lima north of 3,125,700mN were classified as Measured category. This area containing Measured resources corresponds to the most recently active portion of the Promontorio mine where confidence in the underground development models is improved relative to the historical upper levels of the mine. There is also improved confidence in the channel assay results obtained from the Mal Paso laboratory subsequent to QA/QC protocol changes implemented in 2017 (see Section 11 for details). Underground channel samples obtained since 2017 are primarily located in the newer levels of the Promontorio mine where Measured resources have been classified. Blocks populated with grade in pass 1 & 2, excluding Measured blocks, were classified as Indicated category. All remaining blocks populated with grade during pass 3 were classified as Inferred category.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 106

Depending on the search pass procedure (Table 14-6), grades were interpolated into blocks using a minimum of 7 and maximum of 8 composites to generate block grades during pass 1 (maximum of 3 sample composites per drillhole), a minimum of 5 and maximum of 8 composites to generate block grades during pass 2 (maximum of 3 sample composites per drillhole), and a minimum of 3 and maximum of 8 composites to generate block grades during pass 3 (maximum of 2 sample composites per drillhole).

Table 14-6 Grade Interpolation and Classification Parameters by Area

Parameter	Promontorio East and Santa Rosa de Lima
		Pass 1	Pass 2	Pass 3
		Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Calculation Method		Inverse Distance Squared (ID²)
Ellipsoid Orientation (°)	Dip	Variable Orientation based on vein models
	Dip Azimuth
	Pitch
Ellipsoid Range (m)	Max.	30	60	100
	Int.	30	60	100
	Min.	15	25	40
Min. Samples		7	5	3
Max. Samples		8	8	8
Min. Drillholes		3	2	2
Parameter	San Juan, Promontorio West, Eduwiges, San Miguel, and San Nicolas
---	---	---	---	---
		Pass 1	Pass 2	Pass 3
		Indicated		Inferred
Calculation Method		Inverse Distance Squared (ID²)
Ellipsoid Orientation (°)	Dip	Variable Orientation based on vein models
	Dip Azimuth
	Pitch
Ellipsoid Range (m)	Max.	30	60	100
	Int.	30	60	100
	Min.	15	25	40
Min. Samples		7	5	3
Max. Samples		8	8	8
Min. Drillholes		3	2	2

14.9 Mineral Resource Classification Parameters

The MRE presented in this Technical Report is disclosed in compliance with all current disclosure requirements for mineral resources set out in the NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (2016). The classification of the current MRE into Inferred is consistent with current 2014 CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, including the critical requirement that all mineral resources "have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction".

Following the 2014 CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource. There are no Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources reported.

A Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth's crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 107

Interpretation of the word ‘eventual’ in this context may vary depending on the commodity or mineral involved. For example, for some coal, iron, potash deposits and other bulk minerals or commodities, it may be reasonable to envisage ‘eventual economic extraction’ as covering time periods in excess of 50 years. For many gold or base metal deposits, application of the concept would normally be perhaps 10 to 15 years.

The location, quantity, grade or quality, continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling.

Measured Mineral Resource

A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.

A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proven Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

Mineralization or other natural material of economic interest may be classified as a Measured Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such that the tonnage and grade or quality of the mineralization can be estimated to within close limits and that variation from the estimate would not significantly affect potential economic viability of the deposit. This category requires a high level of confidence in, and understanding of, the geology and controls of the mineral deposit.

Indicated Mineral Resource

An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.

An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Preliminary Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development decisions.

Inferred Mineral Resource

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 108

An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

An Inferred Mineral Resource is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Inferred Mineral Resources must not be included in the economic analysis, production schedules, or estimated mine life in publicly disclosed Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Studies, or in the Life of Mine plans and cash flow models of developed mines. An Inferred Mineral Resource can only be permitted as part of an economic analysis if the restricted disclosure under NI 43-101 Section 2.3 (3) is satisfied.

There may be circumstances, where appropriate sampling, testing, and other measurements are sufficient to demonstrate data integrity, geological and grade/quality continuity of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource, however, quality assurance and quality control, or other information may not meet all industry norms for the disclosure of an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. Under these circumstances, it may be reasonable for the Qualified Person to report an Inferred Mineral Resource if the Qualified Person has taken steps to verify the information meets the requirements of an Inferred Mineral Resource.

14.10 Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction

The general requirement that all Mineral Resources have "reasonable prospects for economic extraction" 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 and processing recoveries. To meet this requirement, the author considers that the deposits within the project area are amenable to underground extraction.

To determine the quantities of material offering "reasonable prospects for economic extraction" by underground mining methods, reasonable mining assumptions to evaluate the proportions of the block model (Measured, Indicated, and Inferred blocks) that could be "reasonably expected" to be mined from underground are used. Based on the location, depth from surface and depth extent, size, shape, general thickness, orientation and grade of the mineralized zones within the project area, it is envisioned that the deposits may be mined using a combination of underground mining methods including longhole stoping (LHS) and/or drift-and-fill (DAF). The underground parameters used, based on these potential mining methods, are summarized in Table 14-7. Underground Mineral Resources are reported at a base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq. A base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t Ag is applied to identify blocks that will have reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction.

The reporting of the underground resources is presented undiluted and in situ, constrained by continuous 3D wireframe models, and are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The underground mineral resource grade blocks were quantified above the base case cut-off grade, below topography, within the 3D constraining mineralized wireframes (the constraining volumes), and exclusive of mined out material.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 109

Table 14-7 Parameters for Underground Cut-off Grade Calculation
| Parameter | Value | Unit |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Ag Price | 30 | US$ per oz |
| Au Price | 2,400 | US$ per oz |
| Pb Price | 1.00 | US$ per lb |
| Zn Price | 1.35 | US$ per lb |
| Underground Mining Cost | 60 | US$ per tonne mined |
| Processing Cost (inc. crushing) | 20 | US$ per tonne milled |
| General and Administrative (underground) | 5 | US$ per tonne of feed |
| Transport Cost | 10 | US$ per tonne milled |
| Total Operating Costs | 95 | US$ per tonne |
| Ag Recovery | 90 | Percent (%) |
| Au Recovery | 50 | Percent (%) |
| Pb Recovery | 90 | Percent (%) |
| Zn Recovery | 60 | Percent (%) |
| Mining Loss / Dilution (underground) | 10 / 10 | Percent (%) / Percent (%) |
| Underground Cut-off Grade | 120 | g/t AgEq |

14.11 Mineral Resource Statement

The MRE for the Project is presented in Table 14-8 and Table 14-9 (Figure 14-7 to Figure 14-17).

Highlights of the Cusi Project underground Mineral Resource Estimate are as follows:

Combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.89 Mt grading 206 g/t silver, 0.15 g/t gold, 0.73% lead, and 0.86% zinc (262 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Measured Mineral Resources of 6.1 Moz of silver, 1.8 koz of gold, 5.6 Mlbs of lead, and 6.3 Mlbs of zinc (6.7 Moz of AgEq) and Indicated Mineral Resources of 26.3 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 72.7 Mlbs of lead, and 86.5 Mlbs of zinc (34.4 Moz of AgEq).
Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.07 Mt grading 172 g/t silver, 0.17 g/t gold, 0.89% lead, and 1.20% zinc (243 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Inferred Mineral Resources of 22.5 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 79.5 Mlbs of lead, and 107.5 Mlbs of zinc (31.8 Moz of AgEq).
A total of 63 epithermal veins that comprise the Cusi vein systems from seven deposit areas were included in the Mineral Resource Estimate. The Mineral Resource Estimate is exclusive of mined out material.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 110

Table 14-8 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025

Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
		Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
	Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
M + I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

(3) All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.

(9) An average density value of 2.75 g/cm³ was assigned to all domains based on a database of 244 samples.

(13) The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 111

Table 14-9 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025

Area	Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
			Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
		Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
San Juan	Indicated	0.16	232	0.21	0.17	0.20	259	1,199	1.1	0.6	0.7	1,338
	Inferred	0.12	295	0.07	0.29	0.51	324	1,156	0.3	0.8	1.4	1,267
Promontorio West	Indicated	1.03	208	0.10	0.43	0.58	244	6,893	3.4	9.8	13.1	8,078
	Inferred	0.41	199	0.19	0.78	0.79	257	2,592	2.5	7.0	7.1	3,342
Promontorio East	Measured	0.53	285	0.08	0.30	0.36	309	4,824	1.3	3.4	4.1	5,229
	Indicated	0.24	211	0.19	0.81	0.60	264	1,609	1.5	4.2	3.1	2,006
	M + I	0.76	262	0.11	0.46	0.43	295	6,432	2.8	7.7	7.2	7,235
	Inferred	0.21	231	0.32	0.86	0.83	301	1,520	2.1	3.9	3.8	1,987
Eduwiges	Indicated	0.53	159	0.25	1.93	2.06	287	2,694	4.2	22.3	23.9	4,853
	Inferred	0.24	92	0.18	1.94	2.39	224	694	1.4	10.0	12.4	1,697
San Miguel	Indicated	1.30	193	0.15	0.83	1.11	258	8,065	6.2	23.9	31.7	10,786
	Inferred	2.03	170	0.14	1.02	1.42	249	11,117	9.3	45.5	63.5	16,237
San Nicolas	Indicated	0.76	196	0.17	0.41	0.43	233	4,798	4.2	6.9	7.2	5,684
	Inferred	0.62	175	0.14	0.28	0.45	207	3,472	2.9	3.8	6.2	4,105
Santa Rosa de Lima	Measured	0.16	251	0.09	0.60	0.62	291	1,290	0.5	2.1	2.2	1,496
	Indicated	0.19	176	0.29	1.20	1.63	276	1,072	1.8	5.0	6.8	1,688
	M + I	0.35	210	0.20	0.93	1.17	283	2,362	2.2	7.2	9.0	3,183
	Inferred	0.45	133	0.27	0.86	1.34	216	1,928	3.8	8.5	13.3	3,118
Total	Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
	Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
	M + I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
	Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 112

Figure 14-7 Cusi Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (Plan view)

Figure 14-8 Cusi Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 113

Figure 14-9 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE)

Figure 14-10 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 114

Figure 14-11 Promontorio Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE)

Figure 14-12 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 115

Figure 14-13 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE)

Figure 14-14 Eduwiges Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 116

Figure 14-15 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Area (View to NNE)

Figure 14-16 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Grade (View to NNE)

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Figure 14-17 San Miguel Mineral Resource Blocks by Class (View to NNE)

14.12 Model Validation and Sensitivity Analysis

Visual checks of block grades against the composite data and assay data on vertical section showed good correlation between block grades and drill intersections.

A comparison of the average capped composite grades, average assay grades, and average block model grades by zone is shown in Table 14-10. The block model average grades compared well with the capped composite average grades.

For comparison purposes, additional grade models were generated using a varied inverse distance weighting $(\mathrm{ID}^3)$ and nearest neighbour (NN) interpolation methods. The results of these models are compared to the chosen models $(\mathrm{ID}^2)$ at various cut-off grades in a grade/tonnage graph shown in Figure 14-18 and Figure 14-19. In general, the $\mathrm{ID}^2$ and $\mathrm{ID}^3$ models show similar results, and both are much more conservative and smoother than the NN model. For models well-constrained by wireframes and well-sampled (close spacing of data), $\mathrm{ID}^2$ should yield very similar results to other interpolation methods such as $\mathrm{ID}^3$ or Ordinary Kriging.

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 118

Table 14-10 Comparison of Average Assay, Composite, and Block Model Grades

Area	Element	Assays	Composites	Composites Capped	Blocks
San Juan	Ag (g/t)	185	148	144	191
	Au (g/t)	0.23	0.18	0.17	0.11
	Pb (%)	0.16	0.12	0.12	0.16
	Zn (%)	0.19	0.15	0.15	0.24
Promontorio West	Ag (g/t)	216	206	204	118
	Au (g/t)	0.09	0.09	0.08	0.06
	Pb (%)	0.40	0.39	0.38	0.28
	Zn (%)	0.43	0.42	0.41	0.35
Promontorio East	Ag (g/t)	248	240	229	145
	Au (g/t)	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.07
	Pb (%)	0.26	0.25	0.23	0.28
	Zn (%)	0.28	0.27	0.26	0.29
Eduwiges	Ag (g/t)	214	211	211	122
	Au (g/t)	0.47	0.48	0.37	0.16
	Pb (%)	1.69	1.66	1.61	1.08
	Zn (%)	1.75	1.74	1.73	1.17
San Miguel	Ag (g/t)	117	122	117	112
	Au (g/t)	0.07	0.08	0.07	0.09
	Pb (%)	0.33	0.34	0.31	0.57
	Zn (%)	0.44	0.46	0.44	0.80
San Nicolas	Ag (g/t)	178	167	163	92
	Au (g/t)	0.21	0.20	0.12	0.08
	Pb (%)	0.34	0.32	0.30	0.20
	Zn (%)	0.40	0.37	0.34	0.27
Santa Rosa de Lima	Ag (g/t)	247	261	248	99
	Au (g/t)	0.08	0.08	0.07	0.10
	Pb (%)	0.56	0.59	0.57	0.44
	Zn (%)	0.61	0.63	0.62	0.61

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 119

Figure 14-18 Cusi North Block Grade Tonnage Curves for Ag: Comparison of ID², ID³, and NN Models

Figure 14-19 Cusi San Miguel Grade Tonnage Curves for Ag: Comparison of ID², ID³, and NN Models

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Page 120

14.12.1 Sensitivity to Cut-off Grade

The Project Mineral Resources have been estimated at a range of cut-off grades presented in Table 14-11 to demonstrate the sensitivity of the resources to cut-off grades. The current Mineral Resources are reported at a base-case cut-off grade of $120\mathrm{g / t}$ AgEq (highlighted).

Note: Values in these tables reported above and below the base-case cut-off $120\mathrm{g / t}$ AgEq for underground Mineral Resources should not be misconstrued with a Mineral Resource Statement. The values are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model estimates to the selection of the base case cut-off grade. All values are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.

Table 14-11 Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity Table, October 20, 2025

Resource Class	Cut-off Grade (AgEq g/t)	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
			Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
		Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
Measured	80 g/t	0.90	232	0.07	0.34	0.38	257	6,668	2.0	6.7	7.5	7,388
	90 g/t	0.83	244	0.07	0.35	0.39	269	6,531	1.9	6.4	7.2	7,222
	100 g/t	0.78	254	0.07	0.35	0.40	281	6,397	1.9	6.1	6.9	7,064
	120 g/t	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
	150 g/t	0.56	312	0.09	0.40	0.45	342	5,643	1.6	4.9	5.5	6,188
	200 g/t	0.40	375	0.11	0.45	0.49	409	4,860	1.4	4.0	4.3	5,299
	250 g/t	0.29	445	0.13	0.49	0.53	483	4,132	1.2	3.2	3.4	4,484
	300 g/t	0.22	512	0.14	0.53	0.57	553	3,571	1.0	2.5	2.7	3,858
Indicated	80 g/t	5.90	161	0.13	0.63	0.76	210	30,612	25.2	81.9	99.1	39,827
	90 g/t	5.42	170	0.14	0.67	0.81	221	29,566	24.3	79.6	96.2	38,506
	100 g/t	4.99	178	0.15	0.70	0.85	232	28,512	23.6	77.3	93.0	37,175
	120 g/t	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
	150 g/t	3.33	218	0.18	0.90	1.06	286	23,388	19.7	66.1	77.6	30,664
	200 g/t	2.30	257	0.21	1.08	1.25	337	18,988	15.6	54.8	63.2	24,913
	250 g/t	1.61	296	0.24	1.22	1.39	386	15,290	12.3	43.4	49.3	19,938
	300 g/t	1.09	338	0.26	1.38	1.54	439	11,876	9.3	33.1	37.0	15,396
Inferred	80 g/t	5.73	143	0.14	0.72	1.00	201	26,266	26.0	90.9	126.1	37,065
	90 g/t	5.27	150	0.15	0.76	1.04	211	25,377	25.1	88.0	121.2	35,787
	100 g/t	4.83	157	0.16	0.80	1.10	222	24,424	24.2	85.4	116.8	34,469
	120 g/t	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753
	150 g/t	3.00	199	0.20	1.05	1.38	282	19,192	18.9	69.7	91.1	27,135
	200 g/t	1.87	246	0.24	1.36	1.67	347	14,786	14.4	56.2	69.1	20,924
	250 g/t	1.37	277	0.27	1.57	1.87	393	12,252	12.0	47.6	56.8	17,358
	300 g/t	1.00	310	0.31	1.76	2.03	437	9,965	9.8	38.8	44.8	14,061

14.13 Disclosure

All relevant data and information regarding the Project are included in other sections of this Technical Report. There is no other relevant data or information available that is necessary to make the technical report understandable and not misleading.

The Authors are not aware of any known mining, processing, metallurgical, environmental, infrastructure, economic, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, or marketing issues, or any other relevant factors not reported in this technical report, that could materially affect the MRE.

SGS

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 121

15 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATE

There are no Mineral Reserve Estimates for the Property.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 122

16 MINING METHODS

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 123

17 RECOVERY METHODS

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 124

18 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 125

19 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 126

20 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 127

21 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 128

22 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

This section does not apply to the Technical Report.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 129

23 ADJACENT PROPERTIES

There is no information on properties adjacent to the Property necessary to make the technical report understandable and not misleading.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 130

24 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

There is no other relevant data or information available that is necessary to make the technical report understandable and not misleading. To the Authors' knowledge, there are no significant risks and uncertainties that could reasonably be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the exploration information or MRE.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 131

25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

25.1 Introduction

25.2 Exploration

25.3 Diamond Drilling

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 132

m and collected 2,047 samples. Since 2006, surface and underground drilling completed on the Project amounts to 2,052 drillholes totaling 360,237 m and comprises of 105,585 samples.

25.4 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

No historical metallurgical test work completed by independent testing organizations is available for the Cusi project. Silverco initiated a metallurgical test work program on material from the Property in 2025. Results are not yet available. The Cusi project's Mal Paso facilities include an upgraded metallurgical laboratory. Sampling and testing was executed on an as-needed basis to support the industrial scale operation. The available metallurgical data collected at the Mal Paso facility was reviewed and analysed by Silverco in 2025.

25.5 Mineral Resource Estimate

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 133

The MRE presented below takes into consideration that all deposits on the Property may be mined by underground mining methods.

The MRE for the Project is presented in Table 25-1 and Table 25-2.

Highlights of the Cusi Project underground Mineral Resource Estimate are as follows:

Combined Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.89 Mt grading 206 g/t silver, 0.15 g/t gold, 0.73% lead, and 0.86% zinc (262 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Measured Mineral Resources of 6.1 Moz of silver, 1.8 koz of gold, 5.6 Mlbs of lead, and 6.3 Mlbs of zinc (6.7 Moz of AgEq) and Indicated Mineral Resources of 26.3 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 72.7 Mlbs of lead, and 86.5 Mlbs of zinc (34.4 Moz of AgEq).
Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated at 4.07 Mt grading 172 g/t silver, 0.17 g/t gold, 0.89% lead, and 1.20% zinc (243 g/t AgEq). The Mineral Resource Estimate includes Inferred Mineral Resources of 22.5 Moz of silver, 22.2 koz of gold, 79.5 Mlbs of lead, and 107.5 Mlbs of zinc (31.8 Moz of AgEq).
A total of 63 epithermal veins that comprise the Cusi vein systems from seven deposit areas were included in the Mineral Resource Estimate. The Mineral Resource Estimate is exclusive of mined out material.

Table 25-1 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate, October 20, 2025

Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
		Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
	Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
M + I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

(3) All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 134

(9) An average density value of 2.75 g/cm³ was assigned to all domains based on a database of 244 samples.

(13) The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico

Table 25-2 Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025

Area	Resource Class	Mass	Average Grade					Material Content
			Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq	Ag	Au	Pb	Zn	AgEq
		Mt	g/t	g/t	%	%	g/t	koz	koz	Mlb	Mlb	koz
San Juan	Indicated	0.16	232	0.21	0.17	0.20	259	1,199	1.1	0.6	0.7	1,338
	Inferred	0.12	295	0.07	0.29	0.51	324	1,156	0.3	0.8	1.4	1,267
Promontorio West	Indicated	1.03	208	0.10	0.43	0.58	244	6,893	3.4	9.8	13.1	8,078
	Inferred	0.41	199	0.19	0.78	0.79	257	2,592	2.5	7.0	7.1	3,342
Promontorio East	Measured	0.53	285	0.08	0.30	0.36	309	4,824	1.3	3.4	4.1	5,229
	Indicated	0.24	211	0.19	0.81	0.60	264	1,609	1.5	4.2	3.1	2,006
	M+I	0.76	262	0.11	0.46	0.43	295	6,432	2.8	7.7	7.2	7,235
	Inferred	0.21	231	0.32	0.86	0.83	301	1,520	2.1	3.9	3.8	1,987
Eduwiges	Indicated	0.53	159	0.25	1.93	2.06	287	2,694	4.2	22.3	23.9	4,853
	Inferred	0.24	92	0.18	1.94	2.39	224	694	1.4	10.0	12.4	1,697
San Miguel	Indicated	1.30	193	0.15	0.83	1.11	258	8,065	6.2	23.9	31.7	10,786
	Inferred	2.03	170	0.14	1.02	1.42	249	11,117	9.3	45.5	63.5	16,237
San Nicolas	Indicated	0.76	196	0.17	0.41	0.43	233	4,798	4.2	6.9	7.2	5,684
	Inferred	0.62	175	0.14	0.28	0.45	207	3,472	2.9	3.8	6.2	4,105
Santa Rosa de Lima	Measured	0.16	251	0.09	0.60	0.62	291	1,290	0.5	2.1	2.2	1,496
	Indicated	0.19	176	0.29	1.20	1.63	276	1,072	1.8	5.0	6.8	1,688
	M+I	0.35	210	0.20	0.93	1.17	283	2,362	2.2	7.2	9.0	3,183
	Inferred	0.45	133	0.27	0.86	1.34	216	1,928	3.8	8.5	13.3	3,118
Total	Measured	0.69	277	0.08	0.37	0.42	305	6,114	1.8	5.6	6.3	6,725
	Indicated	4.21	195	0.16	0.78	0.93	255	26,330	22.2	72.7	86.5	34,433
	M+I	4.89	206	0.15	0.73	0.86	262	32,443	24.0	78.3	92.8	41,157
	Inferred	4.07	172	0.17	0.89	1.20	243	22,479	22.2	79.5	107.5	31,753

25.6 Risk and Opportunities

The following risks and opportunities were identified that could affect the future economic outcome of the project. The following does not include external risks that apply to all exploration and development projects (e.g., changes in metal prices, exchange rates, availability of investment capital, change in government regulations, etc.).

There is no other relevant data or information available that is necessary to make the technical report understandable and not misleading. To the Authors knowledge, there are no additional risks or uncertainties that could reasonably be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the exploration information or MRE.

25.6.1 Risks

25.6.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate

The contained metal of the deposit, at the reported cut-off grades for the MRE, is in the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resource classifications. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated Minerals Resources with continued exploration.

The mineralized structures (mineralized domains) in all zones are relatively well understood. However, due to the limited drilling in some areas, some mineralization zones might be of slightly variable shapes from what have been modeled. A different interpretation from the current mineralization models may adversely

SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 136

affect the current MRE. Continued drilling may help define with more precision the shapes of the zones and confirm the geological and grade continuities of the mineralized zones.

25.6.1.2 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

Mineralized material from the Cusi project was mined and processed for a period of ten years from 2014 to 2023 and the metallurgical response of the material processed is relatively well understood. Due to the inherent variability in mineralization styles and compositions observed on the Property, continued metallurgical test work should be performed to evaluate potential impacts to any future proposed metallurgical process response resulting from variability in mineralization styles and compositions between zones. The metallurgical performance of differing mineralization compositions under subsequent designed process conditions may vary from the estimated response.

25.6.2 Opportunities

25.6.2.1 Mineral Resource Estimate

There is an opportunity in all deposit areas to extend known mineralization at depth, on strike and elsewhere on the Property and to potentially convert Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources. Silverco's intentions are to direct their exploration efforts towards resource growth in 2026 with a focus on extending the limits of known mineralization and testing other targets on the greater Cusi Property.

25.6.2.2 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

There may be opportunities to optimize the Mal Paso mill process through further metallurgical testing. Additional testing may identify leach conditions that provide faster leach kinetics, higher metal extractions and lower reagent consumptions.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 137

26 RECOMMENDATIONS

For the next phase of work beginning in 2026, the Company plans to complete 25,000 m of surface drilling across the Property and 5,000 m of underground drilling from the Promontorio mine on known and new mineralized structures proximal to current resources to grow the resource base. Drilling and future exploration target generation will be supported by surface exploration including geological mapping, geochemical sampling, and geophysical surveys. Additional planned work to support the Cusi project includes advancing metallurgical and preliminary mining economics/engineering studies in conjunction with environmental and hydrological studies. No production decision has been made at Cusi. Any decision to restart operations will follow completion of the requisite technical, financial and permitting milestones.

The total cost of the planned exploration and development work program by Silverco is estimated at US$7.1 million (Table 26-1).

Table 26-1 Cost Summary for Recommended Future Work

Program Component	Estimated Total Cost (US$M)
Surface Drilling (25,000 m @ US$200/m)	5.00
Underground Drilling (5,000 m @ US$200/m)	1.00
Surface Exploration and Geophysics	0.10
Metallurgical test work	0.25
Mining and Engineering studies	0.50
Environmental and Hydrological studies	0.15
MRE Update	0.10
Total	7.10

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 138

27 REFERENCES

Abzalov, M. (2008). Quality control of assay data: a review of procedures for measuring and monitoring precision and accuracy. Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol.17, No 3-4, p.131-144, ISSN 0964-1823

Albinson, T., Norman, D. I., Cole, D., & Chomiak, B. (2001). Controls on formation of low-sulfidation epithermal deposits in Mexico: Constraints from fluid inclusion and stable isotope data. Economic Geology (Special Publication 8, pp. 1–32).

Archibald, S.M. (2025). NI 43-101 Technical Report Cusi Property, Chihuahua, Mexico, Effective Date May 1, 2025, Report Date September 23, 2025, prepared for Minera San Bernabé S.A. de C.V., 111 pp.

Benton, L. D. (1991). Composition and source of the hydrothermal fluids of the San Mateo vein, Fresnillo, Mexico as determined from 87Sr/ 86Sr, stable isotope and gas analyses (Unpublished master's thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, pp. 55).

Braun, E.R. (2006). Cusi Epithermal Ag-Au District, Chihuahua, México. Unpublished company report, Dia Bras Inc.

Camprubi, A., & Albinson, T. (2006). Depósitos epitermales en México: actualización de su conocimiento y reclasificación empírica [Epithermal deposits in Mexico: Update of current knowledge and an empirical reclassification]. Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, Tomo LVIII (1), 27–81.

Camprubi, A., and Albinson, T. (2007). Epithermal deposits in Mexico: Update of current knowledge, and an empirical reclassification. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 422, 377–415.

Ciesielski, A.P. (2007). Geology and Geochemistry of Mineralized Zones. Unpublished company report, Sierra Metals Exploration Inc.

Dupéré M. and Camus, Y. (2008). Cusi Project, Chihuahua state, Mexico, Resource Estimate Technical Report. Prepared by Geostat Systems International Inc. for Dia Bras Exploration Inc., June 16, 2008.

Hastings, M., Sepulveda, D.H., and Willow, M. (2017a). NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources; Cusi Mine, Mexico. Prepared by SRK Consulting for Sierra Metals, April 14, 2017, 133 pp.

Hastings, M., Sepulveda, D.H., and Willow, M. (2017b). Amended NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources; Cusi Mine, Mexico. Prepared by SRK Consulting for Sierra Metals, June 29, 2018, 175 pp.

Hastings, M., Sepulveda, D.H., and Willow, M. (2018). Amended NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources; Cusi Mine, Mexico. Prepared by SRK Consulting for Sierra Metals, February 12, 2018, 175 pp.

Hedenquist, J.W., Arribas, A.R., & Gonzalez-Urien, E. (2000). Exploration for epithermal gold-silver deposits, Gold in 2000, Steffen G. Hagemann, Philip E. Brown

Hulse, D. E. and Matthews, T.C. (2014). NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Cusihuiriachic Property Chihuahua, Mexico. Prepared by Gustavson Associates for Sierra Metals Exploration Inc. dated May 9, 2014, 260 pp.

Hulse, D. E. and Newton, M.C., III (2013), NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Cusihuiriachic Property Chihuahua, Mexico. Prepared by Gustavson Associates for Sierra Metals Exploration Inc. dated August 23, 2013, 192 pp.

Geomaps (2012), Reporte de Mapeo de Superficie, Distrito Minero Cusihuiriachic.

González-León, C. M., Solé, J., and Valencia, V. (2011). Mesozoic and Cenozoic tectonics of northwestern Mexico: Insights from U-Pb detrital zircon geochronology of Jurassic to Cretaceous sandstones. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 123(11-12), 2264-2282.

McDowell, F. W., and Clabaugh, S. E. (1979). Ignimbrites of the Sierra Madre Occidental and their relation to the tectonic history of western Mexico. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 180, 113-124.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 139

Meinert, L.D. (2006). Observations on the Cusihuariachi District. Unpublished company report, Sierra Metals Exploration Inc.

Meinert, L.D. (2007a). Mineralogy, Assay, and Fluid Inclusion Characteristics of Quartz-Sulfide Veins of the Cusihuariachi District, Chihuahua, Mexico. Unpublished company report, Sierra Metals Exploration Inc.

Meinert, L.D. (2007b). Mineralogy of High Grade Ag Zones in the Cusihuariachi District. Unpublished company report, Sierra Metals Exploration Inc.

Montiel, R. M., Toledo, R. P., Perez, I. H. (1998). Carta Magnetica: "Chihuahua" H13-10, Estado de Chihuahua, escala 1:250:000. Consejo de Recursos Minerales, 33 pp.

Norman, D. I., Moore, J. N., & Musgrave J. (1997). More on the use of fluid inclusion gaseous species as tracers in geothermal systems. Twenty-second workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering (pp. 277–29). Stanford University, California.

Ortiz, G., Rodrigues, F., Sepulveda, D. H., and Willow, M. (2018). Amended NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources Cusi Mine, Mexico. SRK Consulting (Canada) independent report for Sierra Metals, 175 pp.

Ortiz, G., Kottmeier, C., and Sepulveda, D. H. (2020). Independent Technical Report for the Cusi Mine, Chihuahua State, Mexico. SRK Consulting (Canada) independent report for Sierra Metals, 143 pp.

Pelletier, J. (2008). Detailed Surface mapping of the Promontorio and Santa Edwiges area. Unpublished company report, Sierra Metals Exploration Inc.

RPA, (2006). Technical Report on the Cusi Silver Project, Mexico. Prepared by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA) for Sierra Metals Exploration Inc. dated December 20, 2006.

Simmons, S. F., Gemmell, J. B., & Sawkins, F. J. (1988). The Santo Niño silver-lead-zinc vein, Fresnillo District, Zacatecas, Mexico: Part II. Physical and chemical nature of ore-forming solutions. Economic Geology, 83, 1619–1641.

Simmons, S. F. (1991). Hydrologic implications of alteration and fluid inclusion studies in the Fresnillo District, Mexico: Evidence for a brine reservoir and a descending water table during the formation of hydrothermal Ag-Pb-Zn orebodies. Economic Geology, 91, 204–212.

Simmons, S. F., White, N. C., and John, D. A. (2005). Geological characteristics of epithermal precious and base metal deposits. Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume, 485-522.

Stewart, J. H., and Roldán-Quintana, J. (1991). Geologic map of the Chihuahua, Mexico, and adjacent areas. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1813.

Stanley, C., and Lawie, D. (2007). Average Relative Error in Geochemical Determinations: Clarification, Calculation, and a Plea for Consistency; Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol. 16, Nos. 3–4, p. 265–274

Valenzuela-Navarro, L. C., Iriondo, A., and Premo, W. R. (2016). U-Pb geochronology and Hf isotopic compositions of zircons from Precambrian basement rocks in the Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. Precambrian Research, 283, 115-135.

SGS Geological Services
SGS

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 140

28 CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS

QP CERTIFICATE – BEN EGGERS

To accompany the technical report titled “Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico” with an effective date of October 20, 2025 (the “Technical Report”) prepared for Silverco Mining Ltd. (the “Company”).

I, Benjamin K. Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo. of Tofino, British Columbia, hereby certify that:

I am a Senior Geologist with SGS Canada Inc., 10 Boulevard de la Seigneurie E., Suite 203, Blainville, QC, J7C 3V5, Canada.
I am a graduate of the University of Otago, New Zealand having obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Geology in 2004.
I have practiced my profession continuously for 20 years and have been employed as a geologist since February of 2005. Since then, I have been involved in mineral exploration and resource modeling at the greenfield to advanced exploration stages, including at producing mines, in Canada, Australia, and internationally, and in mineral resource estimation since 2022 in Canada and internationally. I have experience in orogenic gold deposits, low, intermediate, and high sulphidation epithermal gold and silver deposits, porphyry copper-gold-silver deposits, volcanic and sediment hosted base metal massive sulphide deposits, metasomatite uranium deposits, and pegmatite lithium deposits.
I am a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia and use the designation (P.Geo.) (EGBC Licence No. 40384; 2014), I am a member of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (NAPEG) and use the designation (P.Geo.) (Licence No. L5818; 2024), and I am a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and use the designation (MAIG) (AIG Licence No. 3824; 2013).
I have read the definition of "Qualified Person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects – ("NI 43-101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "Qualified Person" for the purposes of NI 43-101.
I am an author of the Technical Report and responsible for sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 14-24, 25.1, 25.3, 25.5, 25.6, and 26. I have reviewed these sections and accept professional responsibility for these sections of the Technical Report.
I conducted a site visit to the Property on September 22-23, 2025.
I have had no prior involvement with the Property.
I am independent of the Company as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 (the "Form"), and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and the Form.

Signed and dated January 14, 2026 at Tofino, British Columbia.

"Original Signed and Sealed"

Ben Eggers, MAIG, P. Geo., SGS Canada Inc.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

Technical Report - Mineral Resource Estimate - Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua, Mexico
Page 141

QP CERTIFICATE – ALLAN ARMITAGE

I, Allan E. Armitage, Ph. D., P. Geol. of 62 River Front Way, Fredericton, New Brunswick, hereby certify that:

I am a Senior Resource Geologist with SGS Canada Inc., 10 de la Seigneurie E blvd., Unit 203 Blainville, QC, Canada, J7C 3V5.
I am a graduate of Acadia University having obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science - Honours in Geology in 1989, a graduate of Laurentian University having obtained the degree of Master of Science in Geology in 1992 and a graduate of the University of Western Ontario having obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in Geology in 1998.
I have been employed as a geologist for every field season (May - October) from 1987 to 1996. I have been continuously employed as a geologist since March of 1997.
I have been involved in mineral exploration and resource modeling at the grass roots to advanced exploration stage, including producing mines, since 1991, including mineral resource estimation and mineral resource and mineral reserve auditing since 2006 in Canada and internationally. I have extensive experience in Archean and Proterozoic load gold deposits, volcanic and sediment hosted base metal massive sulphide deposits, porphyry copper-gold-silver deposits, low and intermediate sulphidation epithermal gold and silver deposits, magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE deposits, and unconformity- and sandstone-hosted uranium deposits.
I am a member of the following: the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (P.Geol.) (License No. 64456; 1999), the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (P.Geo.) (Licence No. 38144; 2012), the Professional Geoscientists Ontario (P.Geo.) (Licence No. 2829; 2017), and Northwest Territories and Nunavut Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (NAPEG) (License No. L4375: 2019).
I have read the definition of "Qualified Person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects – ("NI 43-101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43 101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "Qualified Person" for the purposes of NI 43 101.
I am an author of the Technical Report and responsible for sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12.3, 13, 25.2, and 25.4. I have reviewed these sections and accept professional responsibility for these sections of the Technical Report.
I have not conducted a site visit to the Property.
I have had no prior involvement with the Property.
I am independent of the Company as described in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 (the "Form"), and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 and the Form.

Signed and dated January 14, 2026 at Fredericton, New Brunswick.

"Original Signed and Sealed"

Allan Armitage, Ph. D., P. Geo., SGS Canada Inc.

SGS
SGS Geological Services

AI assistant

Silverco Mining — Audit Report / Information 2025

48054_rns_2026-01-14_5e402bea-e325-4de2-8ada-62c1cd41c315.pdf

Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cusi Ag-Au-Pb-Zn Project, Chihuahua State, Mexico

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

1 SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Property Description, Location, Access, Infrastructure, and Physiography

1.3 History

1.4 Geology and Mineralization

1.5 Exploration

1.6 Drilling

1.7 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

1.8 Mineral Resource Estimate

Highlights of the Cusi Project underground Mineral Resource Estimate are as follows:

Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

1.9 Recommendations

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Sources of Information

2.2 Qualified Persons

2.3 Site Visit and Scope of Personal Inspection

2.4 Effective Date

2.5 Units and Abbreviations

Table 2-2 List of Abbreviations

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

3.1 Property Agreements, Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights and Royalties

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

4.1 Location

4.2 Land Tenure and Mineral Concessions

4.2.1 Cusi Property

4.2.2 Mexican Regulations for Mineral Concessions

4.3 Underlying Agreements

4.3.1 Acquisition from Sierra Metals

4.3.2 Silverco Mining Ltd. Trading Commencement on TSX Venture Exchange

4.3.3 Underlying Royalties

4.4 Surface Rights and Access

4.5 Permits

4.6 Environmental Considerations

4.7 Other Relevant Factors

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 Accessibility

5.2 Climate

5.3 Local Resources and Infrastructure

5.4 Physiography

6 HISTORY

6.1 Early Property Exploration and Development History

6.2 Dia Bras Exploration and Sierra Metals (2006-2024)

6.2.1 Historical Mine Production and Metallurgical Performance

6.3 Historical Resource Estimates

Historical 2020 Cusi Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

7.1 Regional Geology

7.2 Property Geology

7.3 Mineralization and Alteration

8 DEPOSIT TYPES

8.1 Epithermal Systems

9 EXPLORATION

9.1 Summary

9.2 Geological Mapping

9.3 Rock Geochemistry

10 DRILLING

10.1 Summary

10.2 Historical Drilling: 2006-2023 Dia Bras and Sierra Metals

10.2.1 Collar Surveying

10.2.2 Downhole Surveying

10.2.3 Core Recovery

10.3 Silverco Drilling: 2024-2025

10.3.1 2024 Drilling

10.3.2 2025 Drilling (to October 20, 2025)

11 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

11.1 Overview

11.2 Historical Sampling: 2006-2023

11.2.1 Sampling Methods

11.2.1.1 Drill Core Samples

11.2.1.2 Channel Samples

11.2.2 Sample Security and Storage

Silverco Mining Audit Report / Information 2025