Ivanhoe Electric Inc.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure. On September 23, 2026, Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the “Company” or “Ivanhoe Electric”) issued a press release announcing the release of a report entitled “S-K 1300 Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary, Santa Cruz Copper Project, Arizona”, dated September 23, 2026, (the “2026 PFS”) for the Company’s Santa Cruz Copper Project located west of Casa Grande, Arizona (the “Santa Cruz Copper Project” or the “Project”). A copy of the Company’s press release dated September 23, 2026, relating to the 2026 PFS is furnished as Exhibit 99.2 to this Form 8-K. The Company intends to hold an investor call to discuss the release of the 2026 PFS on September 23, 2026, where a slideshow presentation discussing the results of the 2026 PFS will be presented. A copy of the slideshow presentation is furnished as Exhibit 99.3 to this Form 8-K. The information contained in Exhibit 99.2 and 99.3 hereto shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any other filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

Item 8.01 Other Events. Updated Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Copper Project On September 23, 2026, the Company provided an updated Preliminary Feasibility Study & Technical Report Summary for its Santa Cruz Copper Project, dated September 23, 2026, prepared in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for the Company by the following third-party qualified persons: BBA Consultants USA LP (“BBA”), Worley Group Inc. (“Worley”), Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (“Burns & McDonnell”), Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (“H&A”), INTERA Incorporated (“INTERA”), KCB Consultants Ltd. (“KCB”), Life Cycle Geo, LLC (“LCG”), Met Engineering, LLC (“Met Engineering”), Paterson & Cooke USA, Ltd. (“P&C”), Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”), and Tetra Tech, Inc. (“Tetra Tech”). None of the qualified persons is affiliated with the Company or any other entity that has an ownership, royalty, or other interest in the property. Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported using the definitions in Subpart 229.1300 - Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations in Regulation S-K 1300 (“S-K 1300”). All capital and operating cost estimates meet the requirements of S-K 1300, with an expected accuracy of -20% to +25%. A contingency of <15% has been applied to capital cost estimates. Unless otherwise indicated, all financial values are reported in United States dollars (currency abbreviation: USD; currency symbol: US$) including all operating costs, capital costs, cash flows, taxes, revenues, expenses, and overhead distributions. All pricing is considered in second quarter 2026 dollars. Unless otherwise indicated, capital and operating costs do not include tariffs or escalations. Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding. The information below is based on, or extracted from, the 2026 PFS. The 2026 PFS replaces and supersedes the prior S-K 1300 technical report summary for the Santa Cruz Copper Project, dated June 23, 2025. Property Setting The Project is a 92 km drive south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and is accessed via the West Gila Bend Highway (“Highway 84”) 11 km west of the city of Casa Grande, which has a population of approximately 57,700. The greater Phoenix area is a major population center, with approximately 4.8 million people, and features an international airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and well-developed infrastructure and services that support the mining industry. The climate in the Project area is typical of the Sonoran Desert, with temperatures ranging from -7°C to 47°C (19°F to 117°F) and an annual precipitation average ranging from 76 to 500 mm (3 to 30 inches) per year. Mining and exploration activities can be performed year-round, as there are no limiting weather or accessibility factors. Santa Cruz Copper Project Location Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2026 Mineral Tenure, Ownership, Surface Rights and Royalties The Santa Cruz Copper Project is 100% owned by Ivanhoe Electric through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mesa Cobre Holding Corporation (“Mesa Cobre”). Mineral Tenure In 2021, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 238 unpatented mining lode claims from Central Arizona Resources, Ltd. (“CAR”). In addition, Ivanhoe Electric acquired fee simple mineral title for two further land parcels: “CG100” and “Skull Valley”. In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the 0.08 km2 (20-acre) “Skull Valley” property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the Project and the 0.41 km2 (100.33-acre) “CG100” from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of the Project. In 2023, Ivanhoe Electric acquired 16 Arizona State Land Department mineral exploration permits covering 27.95 km2 (~6,900 acres) of state mineral land. In 2024, Ivanhoe Electric exercised the agreement with D.R. Horton Phoenix East Construction, Inc. (“DRH”), granting Ivanhoe Electric, through Mesa Cobre, 100% of the mineral title for 26.0 km2 (~6,425 acres) of fee simple mineral estate, 39 federal unpatented mining lode claims (bringing the total claims controlled by Ivanhoe Electric to 277), and 26.6 km2 (~642.5 acres) of Stock-Raising Homestead Act lands. The total Project area comprises fee simple land along with unpatented mining lode claims and Arizona State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits. Annual renewal fees for the unpatented mining lode claims and mineral exploration permits have been made as required. The area of proposed mine activity lies on fee simple land. Mineral control is summarized in the below table and figure. Summary of Ivanhoe Electric’s Mineral Control Land Area Designation (km2) Fee 25.98 Simple Mineral Ownership Unpatented 19.30 Mining Lode Claims (277 claims) Arizona 30.47 State Land Department Mineral Exploration Permits (16 permits) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Control Map Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2026 Surface & Water Rights In 2022, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface rights to two land parcels: the 0.08 km2 (20-acre) Skull Valley property from Skull Valley Capital, LLC in the southeastern area of the Project and a 0.41 km2 (100.33-acre) land parcel “CG100” from CG 100 Land Partners LLC in the northeastern area of Project. In August 2024, Ivanhoe Electric acquired the surface title to three 0.04 km2 (10-acre) parcels located in various areas of the Project along with the mineral rights from DRH. The majority of the surface rights for the Santa Cruz Copper Project were acquired in 2023. Surface rights are shown in the below figure. Ivanhoe Electric acquired both Grandfathered Irrigation Rights (“GFR”) and Grandfathered Type 1 Non-irrigation Water Rights as part of its 2023 private land purchase. These rights provide approximately 3,600 acre-feet (“acre-ft”) per year of water for Project use. Ivanhoe Electric Surface Control Map Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2026 Royalties Noted royalties on future mineral development of the Project are summarized in the below table and figure. Royalties Applying to the Santa Cruz Copper Project Royalty Royalty Owner Description ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Royalty 10% Owner A of 1/800th of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the solution extraction / electrowinning (“SX/EW”) process is completed Royalty 60% Owner B of 1/800th of the fair market value for refined copper, which amount is set by the value listed in the successor index to Metals Week as of the date the SX/EW process is completed Royalty 2% Owner C NSR Royalty 0.15% Owner D net smelter return Royalty ½ Owner E of 1% net smelter return or ½ of 1% of 60% net smelter return if product is disposed of other than to a commercial smelter Royalty 10% Owner F net smelter return (capped at $7 million) Royalty 5% Owner G net smelter return Royalty 1% Owner H net smelter return Royalty $0.015/lbs Owner I of copper of additional mineable reserve copper over 2 billion pounds (“Blbs”) as determined by the “Definitive Feasibility Study” or by production beyond the amount estimated in the “Definitive Feasibility Study”; the royalty owner has the option to require payment in Ivanhoe Electric common stock at a 10% discount to the five-day volume weighted average price Extent of Royalties Source: Ivanhoe Electric, 2026 History Copper mineralization, first discovered in the region in the 1960s, led to extensive drill programs across the Project area. Exploration programs by several companies and joint ventures included diamond drilling and several geophysical surveys from the 1960s through the 1990s. Ivanhoe Electric gained access to the land in August 2021 to start drill programs, completed a Mineral Resource estimate in 2022, an updated Mineral Resource estimate in early 2023, an initial assessment in September 2023, and a preliminary feasibility study in June 2025. Geology & Mineralization The Santa Cruz Copper Project is situated within the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt, which is home to numerous productive copper deposits. Notable examples in Arizona include Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, Miami-Globe, San Manuel-Kalamazoo, Ray, Morenci, Sierrita, Twin Buttes, and the historically significant Sacaton Mine. These deposits are part of the larger physiographical area known as the Basin and Range Province, which covers much of the southwestern United States. The porphyry copper deposits in the Southwestern Porphyry Copper Belt are the result of igneous activity during the Laramide Orogeny, which occurred between 50 and 80 million years ago. This geological event was driven by the subduction of the Farallon Tectonic Plate beneath the North American Tectonic Plate, resulting in the formation of a magmatic arc and the development of associated porphyry copper systems. The Project comprises four separate areas along a southwest-northeast corridor. These areas from southwest to northeast are known as the Southwest exploration area, the Santa Cruz deposit, the East Ridge deposit, and the Texaco deposit, all of which represent portions of one or more large porphyry copper systems separated by extensional Basin and Range normal faults. Each area has experienced variable periods of erosion, supergene enrichment, fault displacement, and tilting into their present positions. Mineralization in the Project area is divided into the following: Supergene copper oxide mineralization mainly consists of atacamite and chrysocolla, with smaller amounts of cuprous goethite, copper-bearing smectite clays, tenorite, cuprite, copper wad, and native copper; Secondary supergene sulfide mineralization is dominantly chalcocite, which replaces hypogene sulfide; Primary hypogene sulfide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite and molybdenite hosted within quartz-sulfide stringers, veins, and breccias. Exploration, Drilling & Sampling Ivanhoe Electric has completed geophysical surveys including two-dimensional, three-dimensional, multichannel seismic, reprocessing of proprietary Typhoon™ three-dimensional perpendicular pole dipole induced polarization data, and ambient noise tomography. The geophysical datasets from these surveys were used to assist with geological interpretation and improved drill targeting. A comprehensive surface ionic leach sampling program has also been completed across the Project to assess in detecting copper mineralization at depth. Drilling within the Santa Cruz Copper Project property totals 484 drillholes for 354,655 m of drilling. Of this total, 329 drillholes for 279,164 m were used in support of the Mineral Resource. The 155 drillholes excluded from the estimation do not intersect the deposit or did not have relevant information for estimation, such as shallow sonic holes with no assay samples taken. Detailed core logging is performed by Ivanhoe Electric geologists through digital data input into MX Deposit. Data that are logged include lithology, alteration, mineralization, veining, petrophysical data, and geotechnical parameters, such as faults, joints, fractures, hardness, and rock quality (Q-system) parameters. Additional characterization fields such as rock colors, grain sizes, textures, and supergene weathering features were also captured. Approximately 6,295 density measurements from 210 drillholes were measured for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. Quality assurance and quality control (“QA/QC”) for the Ivanhoe Electric drill programs consisted of inserting duplicates, blanks, and certified reference materials (standards) into the sample stream at set sampling intervals. BBA’s review of the data indicated no material issues. Ivanhoe Electric used 222 drillholes totaling over 70 km of geotechnical drilling to analyze geotechnical characterization of the Santa Cruz and East Ridge deposits. Historical drillholes were selected based on availability of rock quality designation data. The groundwater flow model was calibrated and used to predict the residual passive inflows for the prefeasibility study mine plan. The predicted residual passive inflows resulting from the updated model, with grouting applied, indicate that the residual passive inflows for the first 10 years of the mine are at or below 7,200 gallons per minute (“gal/min”), compared to the 12,000 gal/min estimated in the initial assessment (“IA”) model, in addition to 2 years of 3,000 gal/min of active pumping. From Years 11 through 25, the residual passive inflows in the updated model range from approximately 3,500 to 7,200 gal/min, compared to 15,000 to 18,000 gal/min predicted in the IA model. Data Verification BBA personnel in the disciplines of geology, Mineral Resource estimation, Mineral Reserve estimation, and mining visited the Project site in 2024. During the visit, BBA personnel reviewed and verified data acquisition procedures with Ivanhoe Electric personnel, visited active drill sites, and performed several other verification checks to ensure data integrity. Based on the data made available, BBA considers that a reasonable level of verification has been completed and that no material issues were identified from the programs. It is BBA’s opinion that the geological data collection and QA/QC procedures used by Ivanhoe Electric are consistent with current industry practices and that the geological database is of suitable quality to support a Mineral Resource estimate. Metallurgical Testwork Metallurgy and processing test work were directed by Met Engineering, LLC and conducted at McClelland Labs (“MLI”) in Sparks, Nevada, USA, at Blue Coast Research (“BCR”) in Parksville, British Columbia, Canada and at Kappes, Cassidy and Associates (“KCA”) in Reno, Nevada, USA. Metallurgical testwork included the following: Establishing copper recoveries, based on sequential coppers for chloride-assisted, weak-sulfuric acid, heap leaching of mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project. Determining commercial operating parameters for heap leaching mineralized material at the Santa Cruz Copper Project, including salt usage, sulfuric acid usage, ore cure/agglomeration practices, leach cell cycle times for an on/off leach pad design, annual pregnant leach solution grades, and pregnant leach solution flow rate to solvent extraction. Additional testing at KCA in 2025-2026 answered a number of questions related to the process design criteria for value engineering: Extraction (PLS)/recovery (to cathode) at 8-m lift, optimal chloride level, use ILS or not, use rest-rinse or continuous irrigation, copper level in the irrigation solution, particle size, etc. A grade-recovery equation was developed based on sequential copper assays. For the life-of-mine processing, this equation produces a weighted average of 92.3% total copper recovery to cathode for leaching an 8 m lift of ore crushed to 100% passing 9.5 mm for 220 days of irrigation utilizing an on/off leach pad. There are no deleterious elements or factors that could have a significant effect on economic extraction of the copper in the mineralized material. Mineral Resource Estimate Estimation Methodology The Santa Cruz deposit has approximately 194,000 m of drilling in 226 drillholes; East Ridge has approximately 49,000 m of drilling in 62 holes; and Texaco has approximately 36,000 m of drilling in 41 holes. Geological domains were developed for the Project based on alteration, lithological, and mineralogical characteristics, incorporating regional and local structural information. Normal faults separate the mineralization at the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits. The Santa Cruz deposit was divided into several mineral domains: exotic domain, verde domain, leach cap, oxide domain, chalcocite enriched domain, and primary mineralization domain. The East Ridge deposit consists of a mix of oxide and chalcocite enriched domains. The Texaco deposit consists of all domains except for leach cap and exotic. The domains were further divided into subdomains based on individual grade profiles, which align with controls on mineralization. The following terms are assigned to the subdomains; these represent a local definition of the grade profile: high-grade, medium-grade, and low-grade. Exploratory data analysis was conducted to determine the nature of element distribution and correlation of grades within individual lithological units, and to identify high-grade outlier samples. Capping was not applied to copper values as significant outliers were not identified. Samples were composited to 2 m intervals. Variograms were completed by subdomain for each deposit. The resource estimation methodology constrains the mineralization by using hard wireframe boundaries. Ordinary kriging (“OK”) was employed for the Santa Cruz deposit, and inverse distance squared (“ID2”) was selected for the East Ridge and Texaco deposits. Multiple search passes were used for each deposit. Search parameters were based on variography and continuity of mineralization. Validation checks were completed on the Mineral Resource estimates. These included visual comparison of estimated grade to composite grade, domain conformity, swath plots, and comparisons to alternate estimation methods. Indicated and Inferred classification was applied to the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits based on BBA’s review that included the examination of drill spacing, visual comparison, kriging variance, distance to the nearest composite, and search pass, along with the search ellipsoid ranges. Collectively, this information was used to produce an initial classification script followed by manual wireframe application to further limit the Mineral Resource classification. Mineral Resources used commodity prices based on long-term analyst and bank forecasts. In the opinion of BBA, this price is generally aligned with pricing over the last 1, 3, and 5 years; forward-looking pricing from internationally recognized banks is appropriate for use in a Mineral Resource estimate. Section 16 provides an explanation of the commodity price forecasts. The commodity price considered 3-year trailing averages. Mineral Resource Statement The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA in accordance with the definition for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300 regulations. The in-situ Mineral Resource estimates for the Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposits, inclusive and exclusive of reserves, are presented in the below tables, respectively. In-situ Mineral Resource Estimate Inclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Deposit Classification Tonnes Total Acid Cyanide Residual Gold Silver Contained Total Total Total Contained Contained Contained Copper Soluble Acid Soluble Copper (kt) (kt) Copper (%) (g/t) (g/t) Copper (kt) Cyanide Gold (koz) Silver (koz) Copper (%) Copper (%) Leach Residual Cu (kt) (Mlbs) Copper (%) Cu (kt) Santa Indicated 317,709 0.95 0.48 0.30 0.17 0.027 1.62 3,017 1,517 956 543 279 16,513 6,650 Cruz Inferred 31,998 0.73 0.21 0.17 0.34 0.021 1.78 232 68 54 110 21 1,832 512 East Indicated 8,742 1.00 0.45 0.39 0.16 0.014 0.68 88 40 34 14 4 191 193 Ridge Inferred 48,676 0.89 0.44 0.12 0.33 0.006 0.40 436 216 57 163 9 623 960 Texaco Inferred 341,345 0.78 0.06 0.27 0.45 0.028 0.81 2,664 218 920 1,537 302 8,850 5,873 All Indicated 326,450 0.95 0.48 0.30 0.17 0.027 1.59 3,104 1,557 989 558 283 16,704 6,844 Deposits All Deposits Inferred 422,020 0.79 0.12 0.24 0.43 0.025 0.83 3,332 503 1,030 1,809 333 11,304 7,346 Notes on Mineral Resources: 1. The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA Consultants USA LP, and are reported in accordance with the definition for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. 2. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 3. Mineral Resources are reported in situ, inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 4. The Mineral Resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. 5. The Mineral Resources are current at September 23, 2026. 6. Mineral Resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift-and-fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the Mineral Resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, longhole or drift-and-fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, on-site processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. 7. Mineral Resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid-soluble copper, 83% for cyanide-soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid-soluble copper, 90% for cyanide-soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. 8. Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. 9. Rounding, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content. In-situ Mineral Resource Estimate Exclusive of Reserves for Santa Cruz, East Ridge & Texaco Deposit Classification Tonnes Total Acid Cyanide Residual Gold Silver Contained Total Total Total Contained Contained Contained Copper Soluble Acid (kt) Leach Copper Copper (%) (g/t) (g/t) Copper (kt) Cyanide Residual Gold (koz) Silver (koz) Copper (%) Copper (%) Soluble Cu (%) Cu (kt) Cu (kt) (Mlbs) (kt) Santa Indicated 177,547 0.79 0.32 0.20 0.27 0.025 1.45 1,403 570 362 471 140 8,279 3,092 Cruz Inferred 31,998 0.73 0.21 0.17 0.34 0.021 1.78 232 68 54 110 21 1,832 512 East Indicated 4,412 0.94 0.43 0.31 0.20 0.015 0.71 41 19 14 9 2 101 91 Ridge Inferred 48,676 0.89 0.44 0.12 0.33 0.006 0.40 436 216 57 163 9 623 960 Texaco Inferred 341,345 0.78 0.06 0.27 0.45 0.028 0.81 2,664 218 920 1,537 302 8,850 5,873 All Indicated 182,959 0.79 0.32 0.21 0.26 0.024 1.43 1,444 589 376 480 143 8,380 3,184 Deposits All Deposits Inferred 422,020 0.79 0.12 0.24 0.43 0.025 0.83 3,332 503 1,030 1,809 333 11,304 7,346 Notes on Mineral Resources: 1. The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA Consultants USA LP, and are reported in accordance with the definition for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. 2. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 3. Mineral Resources are reported in situ, exclusive of Mineral Reserves. 4. The Mineral Resources for Santa Cruz, East Ridge, and Texaco deposit were completed using Datamine Studio RM software. 5. The Mineral Resources are current at September 23, 2026. 6. Mineral Resources constrained assuming underground mining methods for the Santa Cruz deposit are reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; Texaco deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$32.00 for heap leach and US$34.00 for concentrator; and East Ridge deposit is reported at an NSR cutoff of US$40.00 for longhole stoping and US$50.00 for drift-and-fill. The cutoff reflects the total operating costs to define reasonable prospects for economic extraction by conventional underground mining methods. Material from within mineable shape-optimized wireframes has been included in the Mineral Resource. Underground mineable shapes optimization parameters include a long-term copper price of US$4.00/lb, gold price of US$1,900/oz, and silver price of US$24.00/oz. Process costs of US$7.00 to US$9.00 per processed tonne; direct mining costs between US$22.00 to US$40.00 per processed tonne reflecting various mining method costs (leach, longhole or drift-and-fill), mining general and administration costs of US$2.63 per processed tonne, on-site processing costs between US$31.63 to US$49.63 per processed tonne, along with variable royalties between 5.01% to 6.96% NSR, and a mining recovery of 100%. 7. Mineral Resources are estimated using metallurgical recoveries for heap leach of 96% for acid-soluble copper, 83% for cyanide-soluble copper, 22% for residual copper, 0% for gold and 0% for silver. Recoveries for concentrator are 0% for acid-soluble copper, 90% for cyanide-soluble copper, 90% for residual copper, 59% for gold, and 69% for silver. 8. Density was applied using weighted averages by deposit subdomain. 9. Rounding, as required by reporting guidelines, may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and contained metal content. The current resource model iterations have not changed when compared to the iterations released in the 2025 PFS. Differences presented in Mineral Resources Exclusive of Mineral Reserves are due to the addition of stopes at the top of the mine. Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource estimates are as follows: ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changes to long-term metal price assumptions; ───────────────────────────────────────── Changes to the input values for mining, processing, and general and administrative (“G&A”) costs to constrain the estimate; ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized subdomains; ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones; ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions; ────────────────────────────────────────── Changes in assumptions of marketability of the final product; ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and mining assumptions; Changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements; ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions; ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labor, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics, and other public health crises, or geopolitical influence. Mineral Reserve Estimate Estimation Methodology Underground Mineral Reserves were estimated by BBA. Estimates were prepared for the Santa Cruz deposit, a portion of the East Ridge deposit, and the Verde domain located within the Santa Cruz deposit. The primary mining method for both deposits employs longhole stoping without pillars, utilizing a primary and secondary stoping sequence. Additionally, a few small lenses within the East Ridge deposit use a drift-and-fill mining method. Stopes will be backfilled after mining with paste backfill for the duration of the mine life. Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources were not converted to Mineral Reserves; however, if Inferred Mineral Resources fell within the Mineral Reserve designs, they were assumed to have zero grade. The underground mine approach was designed using zones that were amenable to different mining methods based on geotechnical considerations, access requirements, deposit shape, orientation and grade, and mining depths. Waste or low-grade blocks in the stope shapes were treated as internal dilution. Mine designs were modified by including the capital and operating development needed to access the stopes, and the applicable infrastructure requirements. Net smelter return (“NSR”) represents the gross revenue generated from the sale of a refined metal product (in this case, copper cathodes) after deducting all associated off-site costs. For a mine producing copper cathodes via heap leaching and SX/EW, the traditional "smelter" and "refining" charges inherent in concentrate sales are not applicable. Instead, the off-site deductions are specific to the direct sale of cathodes. The primary metal produced at the Santa Cruz Copper Project is copper. While byproducts of gold and silver are present, the current heap leach SX/EW process does not recover these precious metals. As is common with polymetallic deposits, the cutoff value for Mineral Reserves is determined and expressed in terms of net smelter return value per tonne. The NSR is calculated based on unit metal values, utilizing representative smelter contract terms, freight costs, and forecasted metal prices. The metal prices and metallurgical recovery rates used for NSR calculations are summarized in the first table below. Operating cost for cutoff value calculations are summarized in the second table below. Royalties are factored into each block of the Mineral Resource model. Mineral Reserves are assessed using commodity prices derived from long-term forecasts from analysts and banks. According to BBA, this pricing generally reflects the trends observed over the past 1, 3, and 5 years, and the forward-looking prices from internationally recognized banks are deemed appropriate for Mineral Reserve estimates. NSR Parameters Product Unit Value ──────────────────────────────────────────────── Acid % 98.8 Soluble Copper Recovery Cyanide % 85.4 Soluble Copper Recovery Residual % 35.1 Copper Recovery Recoverable % 90.9 Copper Net % 90.0 Recoverable Copper Copper $/lb 4.00 Price Operating Costs for Cutoff Value Calculations Criteria Unit Santa East East Cruz Ridge Ridge 30 Drift-and-fill 15 m Longhole m Longhole Leach Leach Leach ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Cathode % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Split On-site Costs Mining $/t 31.00 47.05 47.05 Costs – Direct processed Processing $/t 10.32 10.32 10.32 Costs processed G&A $/t 2.63 2.63 2.63 processed On-site $/t 43.95 60.00 60.00 Total processed On-site $/t 44.00 60.00 60.00 Rounded NSR Breakeven Cutoff Mineral Reserve Statement Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources were excluded from the Mineral Reserve estimate. Mineral Reserves for the Santa Cruz Copper Project are estimated for the Santa Cruz deposit and a portion of the East Ridge deposit, as well as the Verde domain within the Santa Cruz deposit. Mineral Reserves are supported by a mine plan, engineering analysis, and modifying factors. The point of reference for the Mineral Reserves is the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant. Mineral Reserves are reported on a 100% basis. The Mineral Reserve estimate for the Santa Cruz Copper Project is shown in the below table. A small increase between the 2025 mineral reserve and the 2026 mineral reserve is attributed to the initial mine ramp-up and sequencing. This adjustment, which represents an increase of approximately 2% of the contained copper, facilitated access to several stopes within the 2026 mine plan that were not available in the 2025 mine plan. Santa Cruz Copper Project Mineral Reserve Estimate Deposit Classification Tonnes Total Acid Cyanide Residual Contained Total Total Total Copper Soluble Copper (%) Leach Copper Copper Copper Acid Soluble Cyanide Residual Cu (kt) (%) (%) (%) (kt) Cu Cu (kt) (kt) (kt) Santa Probable 136,022 1.09 0.63 0.40 0.05 1,477 863 547 66 Cruz East Probable 4,107 1.03 0.46 0.44 0.13 42 19 18 5 Ridge Total Probable 140,129 1.08 0.63 0.40 0.05 1,519 882 566 71 Notes on Mineral Reserves: 1. The Mineral Reserves in this estimate are current to September 23, 2026, and were independently prepared, including estimation and classification, by BBA Consultants USA LP. They are reported in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Reserves in S-K 1300. 2. The point of reference for the estimate is the point of delivery to the p