INTEGRA DELIVERS ROBUST FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DELAMAR GOLD-SILVER HEAP LEACH PROJECT HIGHLIGHTING IMPROVED ECONOMICS AND REDUCED DEVELOPMENT RISK
TSXV: ITR; NYSE American: ITRG
(All amounts in
2025 DeLamar Feasibility Study Highlights:
-
Robust and resilient project returns: After-tax net present value 5% ("NPV") of
$774 million ("M") and 46% after-tax internal rate of return ("IRR") using base case metal prices of$3,000 per ounce ("/oz") gold ("Au") and$35 /oz silver ("Ag"); After-tax NPV of$1.7 billion ("B") and 89% after-tax IRR using spot metal prices of$4,250 /oz Au and$60 /oz Ag. - Increased ounces and mine-life: Addition of stockpile material enhances mine life to 10 years and total life-of-mine ("LOM") production to 1.1 million ounces ("Moz") of gold equivalent ("AuEq").
-
Consistent and profitable production profile
1,2,3
: Average production of 119 thousand ounces ("koz") AuEq from year 1 to 5 with average LOM production of 106 koz AuEq at site level cash costs of
$1,179 /oz AuEq (co-product) and below industry average all-in sustaining costs ("AISC") of$1,480 /oz AuEq (co-product); efficient mining supports low life-of mine strip ratio of 0.54:1. -
Realistic and financeable Project: Total initial capital cost of
$389 M (includes$38 M of owners' cost) and sustaining capital of$305 M over the LOM; strong project financing pathway created by ongoing cash flow generation from the Company's operatingFlorida Canyon Mine ("Florida Canyon ") and strong cash balance of~$81 million as at the third quarter 2025. -
Competitive Project metrics 4 : Base case NPV-to-capex ratio of 2.0 and payback of 1.8 years; spot NPV-to-capex ratio and payback improve to 4.4 and 1.1 years, respectively. -
Strong free cash-flow profile in early years
2
: Excellent profitability at beginning of mine life; Year 1-5 average after-tax free cash flow of
$165 M; smooth transitioning fromFlorida Mountain to DeLamar deposits with no grade or tonnage "cliffs". -
Simplified Project layout and processing: Two oxide heap leach facilities ("HLF") (vs. single large HLF design in the 2022 Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS")), and two-stage crushing (vs. three-stage in PFS); reduced mine-site footprint and enhanced water usage strategy brings potential permitting advantages. - Meaningful benefits to local communities: Excellent local support for Project development built upon years of engagement and early inclusion of local interests in Project design; an average of 300 direct permanent jobs are expected to be created at DeLamar.
-
Strong Tribal partnerships: Relationship Agreement with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation (the "Shoshone-Paiute") establishes a transformative and long-term partnership for the development of DeLamar; engagement underway with additional Tribal Nations near the Project area. -
Significant scarcity value: DeLamar remains one of the few large-scale precious metals projects in the
U.S. at the Feasibility Study level that is actively being advanced toward National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA") federal mine permitting. -
Visibility on short and long-term growth: Large Measured and Indicated sulphide resource material excluded from mine plan with multiple-near mine expansion targets open along strike and at depth; DeLamar is one of the largest undeveloped silver resources in the
U.S. with a largely underexplored district scale land package. -
Opportune timing: With the FS now complete and federal permitting expected to commence in the near term, the Project is well positioned to advance in one of the strongest gold–silver price environments in history, supported by favorable
U.S. permitting tailwinds.
|
(1) Gold equivalent calculated using base case metal prices: $3,000/oz Au and |
|
(2) See Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Measures |
|
(3) |
|
(4) NPV-to-capex ratio calculated as after-tax Project NPV5% divided by total initial capital cost |
The updated two heap leach configuration materially improves constructability, operating flexibility, and capital efficiency, while providing meaningful leverage to higher metal prices and maintaining resilience in lower-metal price environments. Updated feasibility-level engineering, metallurgy, and costing significantly enhance Project confidence, reduce execution risk, and support future permitting through a more advanced and robust water management strategy. The delivery of the FS is a major milestone for Integra and underscores our confidence in DeLamar's ability to generate long-term value for our shareholders, Tribal Nation partners, and the communities of
Integra will host a conference call and webcast to discuss the FS on
https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/518660974
Feasibility Study Summary
The FS confirms robust economics for a low-cost, large-scale, conventional open pit oxide heap leach operation, with competitive operating costs and high rate of return. The FS outlines total production of 1.1 Moz AuEq over a 10-year operating mine life (plus two years of residual leaching), resulting in an average annual production profile of 106 koz AuEq per annum at a co-product mine-site AISC of
The Company retained
Table 1: DeLamar Feasibility Study Highlights1
|
Mining |
|
|
Total Tonnage Mined (k tonnes) |
185,178 |
|
Total Ore Mined (k tonnes) |
119,972 |
|
Strip Ratio (Waste: Ore) |
0.54 |
|
Operating |
10 |
|
Contained |
|
|
Contained Gold (koz Au) |
1,259 |
|
Contained Silver (koz Ag) |
52,310 |
|
Contained Gold Equivalent (koz AuEq) |
1,869 |
|
Production |
|
|
Heap Leach Recovery |
|
|
LOM Average Gold Recovery (%) |
72.3 % |
|
LOM Average Silver Recovery (%) |
33.2 % |
|
Payable Metals |
|
|
LOM Gold Payable (koz Au) |
910 |
|
LOM Silver Payable (koz Ag) |
17,392 |
|
LOM Gold Equivalent Payable (koz AuEq) |
1,113 |
|
Avg. Annual Gold Payable (koz Au) - Yr 1 to Yr 10 |
88 |
|
Avg. Annual Silver Payable (koz Ag) - Yr 1 to Yr 10 |
1,602 |
|
Avg. Annual Gold Equivalent Payable (koz AuEq) - Yr 1 to Yr 10 |
106 |
|
Avg. Annual Gold Payable (koz Au) - Yr 1 to Yr 5 |
102 |
|
Avg. Annual Silver Payable (koz Ag) - Yr 1 to Yr 5 |
1,450 |
|
Avg. Annual Gold Equivalent Payable (koz AuEq) - Yr 1 to Yr 5 |
119 |
|
Costs per Tonne |
|
|
Mining Costs ($/t mined) |
|
|
Mining Costs ($/t processed) |
|
|
Processing Costs ($/t processed) |
|
|
G&A Costs ($/t processed) |
|
|
Total Site Operating Cost ($/t processed) |
|
|
Cash Costs |
|
|
LOM Cash Cost, net-of-silver by-product ($/oz Au)2 |
|
|
LOM Cash Cost, co-product ($/oz AuEq)2 |
|
|
LOM AISC, net-of-silver by-product ($/oz Au)2 |
|
|
LOM AISC, co-product ($/oz AuEq)2 |
|
|
Capital Expenditure (incl. Contingency) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bonding Cash Collateral ($M) |
|
|
Owners' Cost ($M) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sustaining Capital / Equipment Financing – incl. Contingency ($M) |
|
|
Reclamation Cost ($M)4 |
|
|
Salvage Value ($M) |
( |
|
Bonding Cash Collateral Return ($M) |
( |
|
Total Capital ($M) |
|
|
Base Case Metal Price Assumptions |
|
|
Gold Price ($/oz) |
|
|
|
|
|
Base Case Project Economics |
|
|
After-Tax IRR (%) |
46.0 % |
|
After-Tax NPV5% ($M) |
|
|
Payback Period (years) |
1.8 |
|
Average Annual |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(1) Gold equivalent calculated using base case metal prices: $3,000/oz Au and |
|
(2) See Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Financial Measures |
|
(3) Assumes mobile equipment financing |
|
(4) Closure costs include |
Figure 1:
|
(1) Gold equivalent calculated using base case metal prices: $3,000/oz Au and |
|
|
(2) See Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Financial Measures |
|
Figure 2:
|
(1) Cash flow profile shown using base case metal prices: $3,000/oz Au and |
|
(2) See Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Financial Measures |
|
|
Table 2:
|
$/oz Au |
$/oz Ag |
NPV5% ($M) |
IRR (%) |
Payback (years) |
|
|
|
|
16 % |
4.5 |
|
|
|
|
27 % |
2.8 |
|
|
|
|
37 % |
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
46 % |
1.8 |
|
|
|
|
55 % |
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
63 % |
1.4 |
|
|
|
|
72 % |
1.3 |
|
|
|
|
80 % |
1.2 |
|
|
|
|
89 % |
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
97 % |
1.0 |
Property Description, Location and Access
The historic mine site and
Figure 3: DeLamar Project Location Map
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Mineral resources were re-estimated from the resource model released in 2023 which includes the
Key steps included:
- Statistical evaluation of assay data and determination of natural grade populations.
- Construction of mineral-domain wireframes using 30-meter spaced sectional control.
- Projection and slicing of domain polygons across each deposit to ensure geological continuity.
- Coding of block models with gold and silver using level-plan geometries.
- Geostatistical analysis of mineralization trends to support estimation and classification.
- Grade interpolation using inverse-distance methods into 6 × 6 × 6 m blocks at the DeLamar deposit and 6 × 8 × 8 m blocks at the
Florida Mountain deposit, with domain-specific coding to constrain estimates.
The mineral resource estimate for the FS includes updated price assumptions and metallurgical recovery inputs for the pit optimization used to constrain them. Sulphide material continues to be reported in this resource mineral update, consistent with prior studies, as it continues to show potential economic extraction. Importantly, the fundamental resource methodology has not changed from the 2023 mineral resource update.
Table 3: DeLamar Project Mineral Resources
|
|
|
Measured |
Indicated |
Measured & Indicated |
||||||
|
Mineral Resources |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
GOLD (Au) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
|
Oxide |
15,548 |
0.41 |
204 |
139,953 |
0.31 |
1,400 |
155,501 |
0.32 |
1,604 |
|
Sulphide |
21,643 |
0.51 |
357 |
68,629 |
0.45 |
984 |
90,272 |
0.46 |
1,341 |
|
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
37,189 |
0.47 |
561 |
208,582 |
0.36 |
2,384 |
245,772 |
0.37 |
2,945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured |
Indicated |
Measured & Indicated |
||||||
|
Mineral Resources |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
SILVER (Ag) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
|
Oxide |
15,548 |
20.46 |
10,230 |
139,953 |
13.72 |
61,750 |
155,501 |
14.40 |
71,979 |
|
Sulphide |
21,643 |
32.90 |
22,922 |
68,629 |
22.30 |
49,254 |
90,272 |
24.90 |
72,176 |
|
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
37,189 |
27.70 |
33,152 |
208,582 |
16.60 |
111,004 |
245,772 |
18.20 |
144,155 |
|
|
|
Inferred |
|
|
|
Inferred |
||||
|
Mineral Resources |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
Mineral Resources |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
GOLD (Au) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
SILVER (Ag) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
|
Oxide |
19,813 |
0.26 |
163 |
|
|
Oxide |
19,813 |
20.94 |
13,336 |
|
Sulphide |
19,789 |
0.37 |
235 |
|
Sulphide |
19,789 |
10.10 |
1,529 |
||
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
39,603 |
0.31 |
398 |
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
39,603 |
11.70 |
14,865 |
|
(1) |
All Mineral Resource estimates have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 standards. |
|
(2) |
Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. |
|
(3) |
|
|
(4) |
"Oxide", as listed above, is an aggregate category inclusive of all material types amenable to heap-leaching, including In-Situ Oxide, Stockpiles, and In-Situ Mixed material. |
|
(5) |
In-Situ Oxide/Mixed and Stockpile Mineral Resources are reported at a 0.17 and 0.1 g/t AuEq cut-off, respectively, in consideration of potential open-pit mining and heap leach processing. |
|
(6) |
Sulphide Mineral Resources are reported at a 0.3 g/t AuEq cut-off at DeLamar and 0.2 g/t AuEq at |
|
(7) |
AuEq was calculated using a price of |
|
(8) |
|
|
(9) |
Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent discrepancies between tonnes, grades, and contained metal content. |
|
(10) |
The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues. |
|
(11) |
Mineral Resources reported are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. |
|
(12) |
The Effective Date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is |
Updated Mineral Reserve Estimate
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for the Project utilized the updated resource model released in 2023, which was constrained by engineered pit designs based on Lerchs–Grossmann optimization shells, with appropriate cut-off grades that reflect updated metal prices, metallurgical recoveries, geotechnical criteria, and operating cost assumptions. No changes were made to the underlying reserve methodology since the PFS released in 2022. Variations in reserves from the previous PFS study are from the updated 2023 resources (which includes the addition of historical stockpile resources), revised cost assumptions, and metallurgical recoveries. Reserves have been updated for heap leach only material to streamline permitting, simplify processing and reduce capital. This removes sulphide material from the reserve. Additionally, drill-tested historic low grade ore stockpiles included in the resource have been included in the reserve.
Table 4: DeLamar Project Mineral Reserves
|
|
|
Proven |
Probable |
Proven & Probable |
||||||
|
Mineral Reserves |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
GOLD (Au) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
|
Oxide |
11,675 |
0.40 |
149 |
108,297 |
0.32 |
1,110 |
119,972 |
0.33 |
1,259 |
|
Sulphide |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
11,675 |
0.40 |
149 |
108,297 |
0.32 |
1,110 |
119,972 |
0.33 |
1,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proven |
Probable |
Proven & Probable |
||||||
|
Mineral Reserves |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
SILVER (Ag) |
|
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
(kt) |
(g/t) |
(koz) |
|
|
Oxide |
11,675 |
16.34 |
6,132 |
108,297 |
13.26 |
46,173 |
119,972 |
13.56 |
52,305 |
|
Sulphide |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
TOTAL |
Mixed |
11,675 |
16.34 |
6,132 |
108,297 |
13.26 |
46,173 |
119,972 |
13.56 |
52,305 |
|
(1) |
All estimates of Mineral Reserves have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 standards and are included within the current Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. |
|
(2) |
Sterling K, Watson, |
|
(3) |
Mineral Reserves are based on prices of |
|
(4) |
Mineral Reserves are reported using block value cutoff grades representing the cost of processing. |
|
(5) |
The Mineral Reserves are constrained by pit optimizations using a price of |
|
(6) |
Energy prices of |
|
(7) |
Pit optimizations were run on a range of prices from |
|
(8) |
The cut-off grade for Mineral Reserves is based on economics at a "Break-Even Internal" cut-off grade for the deposits. |
|
(9) |
The Mineral Reserves purposes of reference is the point where material is fed into the crusher. |
|
(10) |
All ounces reported herein represent troy ounces, "g/t Au" represents grams per tonne gold and "g/t Ag" represents grams per tonne silver. |
|
(11) |
Mineral Resources reported are inclusive of Mineral Reserves |
|
(12) |
Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent discrepancies between tonnes, grades, and contained metal content. |
|
(13) |
The estimate of Mineral Reserves may be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues. |
|
(14) |
The Effective Date of the Mineral Reserves Estimate is |
Production Profile
The contemplated operation in the FS spans 13 years, comprising one year of construction (Year -1), 10 years of active mining and gold-silver processing operations, and two years of residual leaching and nominal production. The Project is expected to produce a total of approximately 1.1 Moz AuEq.
The first six months of the construction period focuses on establishing the
This allows the stacking of fresh, higher-grade gold-silver ore from the
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Mining
Mining is designed as a conventional open-pit operation using truck-and-shovel methods, focused on delivering high grade gold-equivalent production from the
Material movement is sequenced to prioritize higher-grade
Mining assumptions are built from first principles, including drill penetration rates, powder factors, cycle times, equipment availabilities, and original equipment manufacturer ("OEM")-validated haulage models. The fleet includes up to 17 haul trucks, three production drills, and a matched loading fleet of excavators and shovels sized to maintain efficient dig-and-haul cycles. Waste placement and backfilling strategies minimize external dump requirements and align with closure objectives. Overall, the mining plan reflects an executable, low-risk approach that supports strong economics, operational flexibility, and a smooth transition into reclamation activities in the later years of the Project.
Figure 6:
Processing and Recovery
Project mineralization is amenable to conventional cyanide leaching. The Project has an updated two heap leach configuration that considers environmental, heap stability, and economic impacts. This configuration balances early capital efficiency with operational flexibility, allowing staged commissioning while managing particle fines and agglomeration risk across distinct ore domains. To reduce truck haulage requirements, one heap leach pad will be located adjacent to the
Run-of-mine ore will be transferred from the pits via haul trucks to their respective heaps leach pads for two-stage crushing before stacking. The crushing circuit consists of a primary mineral sizer and secondary low-pressure roll crusher, reducing the particle size of run of mine ore to a P80 (particle size at which 80% of the sample material passes) of approximately 19 millimeters. The selection of crushing equipment was supported by abrasion and impact testing.
The crushed ore from the
A portion of the crushed ore from the DeLamar deposit pit contains enough fines and clay and will require agglomeration through a screening and agglomeration circuit followed by curing and conveyor stacking. Screening and selective agglomeration are applied only where required, minimizing operating complexity while protecting permeability and recovery performance.
Heaps leach pads will be stacked at a rate of 35,000 tpd. Cyanide solution will be applied and processed via a small Merrill-Crowe facility located near the DeLamar deposit heap leach pad, designed for a throughput of approximately 1,360 m3 per hour. Filter cakes will be further processed at
Figure 7:
Table 5: DeLamar Project Mining & Processing Summary
|
Mining |
DeLamar |
Florida Mtn. |
Stockpiles |
Total |
|
Total Tonnage Mined (kt) |
75,905 |
76,625 |
32,648 |
185,178 |
|
Total Ore Mined (kt) |
35,072 |
52,253 |
32,648 |
119,972 |
|
Strip Ratio (Waste: Ore) |
1.16 |
0.47 |
0.00 |
0.54 |
|
Grade |
||||
|
Average Gold Grade (g/t Au) |
0.33 |
0.37 |
0.24 |
0.33 |
|
Average |
18.92 |
10.18 |
13.22 |
13.56 |
|
Contained Metals |
||||
|
Contained Gold (koz Au) |
377 |
628 |
254 |
1,259 |
|
Contained Silver (koz Ag) |
21,339 |
17,095 |
13,877 |
52,310 |
|
Contained Gold Equivalent (koz AuEq) |
626 |
827 |
416 |
1,869 |
|
Production |
||||
|
Heap Leach Recovery |
||||
|
LOM Average Gold Recovery (%) |
66.1 % |
74.1 % |
76.9 % |
72.3 % |
|
LOM Average Silver Recovery (%) |
26.9 % |
37.9 % |
37.4 % |
33.2 % |
|
Payable Metals |
||||
|
LOM Gold Payable (koz Au) |
249 |
465 |
196 |
910 |
|
LOM Silver Payable (koz Ag) |
5,734 |
6,472 |
5,185 |
17,392 |
|
LOM Gold Equivalent Payable (koz AuEq) |
316 |
540 |
256 |
1,113 |
Power and Infrastructure
The Project infrastructure strategy prioritizes refurbishment and targeted upgrades to minimize initial capital, while maintaining reliability and certainty around the construction schedule.
DeLamar historically operated as a fully serviced site until 1998 after which limited remediation and ongoing care and maintenance were completed. Several existing facilities and infrastructure elements remain in place and will be refurbished or augmented for the new Project. New infrastructure will be constructed only where required to meet capacity, safety, or operational performance requirements of the Project.
The Project will require up to 6.5 megawatts ("MW") of power which will be supplied to the site by the refurbished 69-kilovolt ("kV") transmission line and distributed throughout the site via a new substation and refurbished 4,160 power distribution network. A 2 MW backup generator is planned to be installed for back-up or emergency power.
The existing water treatment plant will be upgraded and augmented with more treatment capacity for use in the Project.
On-site facilities will be selectively upgraded to align with the planned mining fleet and operation profile. The existing five-bay mobile maintenance shop will be upgraded to six-bays, large enough to accommodate 150-tonne series haul trucks. The administration building will be repaired, and site communications infrastructure will be enhanced. Existing site roads will be refurbished and upgraded limiting the need for new roads.
A small Merrill-Crowe plant will be constructed with ditches and ponds to capture contact water for treatment and industrial use. Additional new construction includes a two-stage crushing circuit, truck wash, laboratory, and warehouse.
Operating Costs
Operating costs were estimated through first principles and supplier quotes. Where possible, first principal assumptions and costs of units were compared to those experienced at the
Mining operating cost estimates were prepared by
Process operating costs were developed by Forte from first principles to determine unit consumptions of materials, supplies, power and personnel, and the estimated cost of unit for these was estimated from supplier quotes and industry benchmarks. The cost of materials, supplies, power and labor were benchmarked against
Labor general and administrative ("G&A") costs were estimated based on personnel requirements for administrative, accounting, safety and security, and environmental departments to support mining and processing activities. Costs are also included for legal, land, permit bonding and power. G&A costs were benchmarked against
Table 6:
|
|
Per Tonne |
|
|
LOM Operating Costs (US$) |
Mined |
Processed |
|
Mining |
|
|
|
Processing |
|
|
|
G&A |
|
|
|
Total Site Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$/oz Au |
$/oz AuEq |
|
LOM Cash Costs, AISC & AIC Breakdown |
By-Product |
Co-Product |
|
Mining |
|
|
|
Processing |
|
|
|
G&A |
|
|
|
Total Site Costs |
|
|
|
Transport & Refining |
|
|
|
Royalties1 |
|
|
|
Total Cash Costs |
|
|
|
Silver By-Product Credits |
( |
- |
|
Total Cash Costs Net of Silver by-Product |
|
|
|
Sustaining Capital |
|
|
|
Closure Costs Net of Residual Value2 |
|
|
|
Site Level All-in Sustaining Costs |
|
|
|
(1) Royalty summary outlined below |
|
(2) Closure costs for AISC calculation exclude ongoing water treatment reclamation costs |
Project Royalties
The FS considers two primary royalties that apply to the Project.
Capital Cost Estimates
Capital cost estimates emphasize constructability, vendor-supported pricing, and execution sequencing aligned with the planned development schedule.
Mining initial and sustaining capital estimates were prepared by RESPEC. Estimates assume owner-operated mining equipment and are based on the equipment and facilities required to achieve the production schedule. Capital costs are based on estimation guides, quotations from equipment vendors and recent costs for new equipment at the Company's operating
The process and infrastructure capital costs were developed by Forte for initial and sustaining capital. The capital costs for each phase are comprised of direct costs and indirect costs. The direct costs were developed from labor, materials, plant equipment, sub-contracts, and construction equipment. Indirect costs were applied to the direct costs to account for items such as: construction support, engineering, procurement and construction management, vendor support during specialty construction and commissioning, spare parts, contingency, owner's costs, freight and taxes. Capital costs were estimated based on 2025 U.S. dollars and are presented with no added escalation.
Table 7:
|
Capital Cost Breakdown |
Pre-Production |
Sustaining |
Reclamation |
Combined |
|
Capital Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
Mining1,2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Processing |
|
|
|
|
|
G&A |
|
|
|
|
|
Capex Sub-Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Contingency3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
Owners' Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
Reclamation – Site4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Collateral (bonding) |
|
|
( |
|
|
Residual Value |
|
|
( |
( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL CAPITAL |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Assumes financing of mobile equipment. Pre-production = 10% cash down and 1 year of payments |
|
(2) Includes |
|
(3) Overall contingency of 12% (Mining 5%, Processing 13%, G&A 17%) |
|
(4) Includes |
Environmental and Permitting
The Project is supported by strong environmental and technical teams that have led major advancements in obtaining necessary approvals and permits since the 2022 PFS, including the Mine Plan of Operations completeness determination by the
In accordance with the BLM's mandate to prevent undue environmental degradation on public lands, the Project design optimization has continued to focus on the reduction of environmental impacts and surface disturbance of the mine operation through a leaching-focused process, consolidation of development rock storage facilities and the design of heap leach facilities in proximity to the open pits. Through various studies conducted on the Project over the years, the proposed mine footprint has been reduced by ~25%. This optimization will continue through the evaluation of agency-proposed alternatives and mitigations during the NEPA process to deliver a robust mine operation that is protective of water resources, air quality, cultural resources, wildlife and vegetation, and post-mine land use.
Stakeholder, Community, and Tribal Nation Engagement
Since Project acquisition in the third quarter of 2017, the Company has operated with dedicated budget and personnel to engage proactively with the communities, Tribal Nations, and other stakeholders with ties to DeLamar. With increasing frequency as the Project approaches state and federal permitting, the Company has worked to build lasting relationships with a wide range of stakeholders, including nearby residents and community members, Tribal Nations, nongovernmental organizations and various levels of government representatives. This approach reflects a deep Company-wide commitment to a high standard of social performance, achieved by acting transparently and building mutual respect and shared value.
Stakeholder engagement is guided by an External Stakeholder Plan ("ESP"), a Project site-specific plan that is updated annually to guide the activities, goals, and strategies for stakeholder engagement in a tailored manner that reflects the unique requirements of each region, individual stakeholder context, and cultural settings surrounding DeLamar. The ESP management approach specifically addresses the Company's stakeholder engagement, public communication, community involvement & investment, and monitoring & reporting – including social impact risks assessments, grievance procedures, materiality, and metric tracking.
Since 2020, Integra has worked to engage proactively and respectfully with potentially affected Tribal Nations, with the intent to exceed regulatory requirements by prioritizing early, inclusive, and respectful dialogue in order to build mutual understanding and recognize Tribal interests. In 2025, Integra and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Integra's approach of being present and active within the Project's stakeholder network has allowed the Company to build consensus and collaborate on issues of shared concern as the mine and operational designs have iteratively evolved. Potential social and community impacts have been and will continue to be considered and evaluated in accordance with the NEPA and other federal and state laws. There are no currently known social or community issues that would be expected to have a material impact on the Company's ability to mine at the Project.
Exploration Potential and Upside at DeLamar
Beyond the FS mine plan, DeLamar offers substantial longer-term upside and strategic optionality. The FS includes an updated mineral resource statement that includes sulphide mineral resources, which are currently excluded from the Project's mineral reserves and economic analysis, preserving future processing and development optionality as technology, costs, and market conditions evolve. In addition, DeLamar hosts one of the largest undeveloped silver mineral resources in the
With the FS complete, the Company is advancing permitting and construction readiness. Near-term priorities include advancing detailed engineering and execution planning. Opportunities remain to further optimize the production plan, mine sequence and heap leach facility design to maximize early production from the
No Production Decision: The Company has not made a production decision for the Project. A decision to proceed with construction will only be made following the completion and review of detailed engineering, financing arrangements, and receipt of all required permits and approvals.
DeLamar Feasibility Study Conference Call & Webcast
Integra will host a conference call and webcast on
Dial-In Numbers / Webcast:
Conference ID: 8306105
Toll Free: (800) 715-9871
Toll: +1 (646) 307-1952
Webcast: https://events.q4inc.com/attendee/518660974
About Integra
Integra is a growing precious metals producer in the
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President, CEO and Director
CONTACT INFORMATION
Corporate Inquiries: ir@integraresources.com
Company website: www.integraresources.com
Office phone: 1 (604) 416-0576
Qualified Persons
The scientific and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by
Forte
Barry Carlson, P.E., SME-RN,
Jay Nopola, P.E.,
Data Verification
The Qualified Persons responsible for the FS technical report have verified the data for which they are accountable, including the sampling, analytical, and test data underlying the information disclosed in this news release. Geological, mine engineering and metallurgical reviews included, among other things, reviewing drill data and core logs, review of geotechnical and hydrological studies, environmental and community factors, the development of the life of mine plan, capital and operating costs, transportation, taxation and royalties, and review of existing metallurgical test work. In the opinion of the Qualified Persons, the data, assumptions, and parameters used in the sections of the FS that they are responsible for preparing are sufficiently reliable for those purposes. The technical report in respect of the FS, when filed, will contain more detailed information concerning individual Qualified Persons responsibilities, associated quality assurance and quality control, and other data verification matters, and the key assumptions, parameters and methods used by the Company.
Sampling and QA/QC Procedure
Thorough QA/QC protocols are followed on the Project, including insertion of duplicate, blank and standard samples in the assay stream for all drill holes. The samples are submitted directly to
Additional supporting details regarding the information in this news release, will be provided in the FS technical report which will be available on SEDAR+ under the Company's profile within 45 days of this news release, including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the FS. The FS technical report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain information set forth in this news release contains "forward‐looking statements" and "forward‐looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and in applicable
Forward-looking statements are based on a number of factors and assumptions made by management and considered reasonable at the time such statement was made. Assumptions and factors include: the Company's ability to complete its planned exploration and development programs; the absence of adverse conditions at the Project and the Company's mineral properties; satisfying ongoing covenants under the Company's loan facilities; no unforeseen operational delays; no material delays in obtaining necessary permits; results of independent engineer technical reviews; the possibility of cost overruns and unanticipated costs and expenses; the price of gold remaining at levels that continue to render the Project and the Company's mineral properties economic; the Company's ability to continue raising necessary capital to finance operations; and the ability to realize on the mineral resource and reserve estimates. Forward‐looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual performance and financial results in future periods to differ materially from any projections of future performance or result expressed or implied by such forward‐looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: general business, economic and competitive uncertainties; the actual results of current and future exploration activities; conclusions of economic evaluations; meeting various expected cost estimates; benefits of certain technology usage; changes in project parameters and/or economic assessments as plans continue to be refined; future prices of metals; possible variations of mineral grade or recovery rates; the risk that actual costs may exceed estimated costs; geological, mining and exploration technical problems; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; risks related to local communities; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development (including the risks of obtaining necessary licenses, permits and approvals from government authorities); title to properties; and other factors beyond the Company's control and as well as those factors included herein and elsewhere in the Company's public disclosure. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Readers are advised to study and consider risk factors disclosed in Integra's Annual Information Form dated
Investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this news release and, accordingly, are subject to change after such date. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements or the foregoing list of assumptions or factors, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. Investors are urged to read the Company's filings with Canadian securities regulatory agencies, which can be viewed online under the Company's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Cautionary Note Regarding Non-GAAP Financial Measures
Alternative performance measures in this news release such as "cash cost", "AISC" and "free cash flow" are furnished to provide additional information. These non-GAAP performance measures are included in this news release because these statistics are used as key performance measures that management uses to monitor and assess performance of DeLamar, and to plan and assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of mining operations. These performance measures do not have a standardized meaning within International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measures should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.
Cash Costs
Cash costs include site operating costs (mining, processing, site G&A), refinery costs and royalties, but excludes head office G&A and exploration expenses. While there is no standardized meaning of the measure across the industry, the Company believes that this measure is useful to external users in assessing operating performance.
All-In Sustaining Cost
Site level AISC includes cash costs and sustaining and expansion capital, but excludes head office G&A and exploration expenses. The Company believes that this measure is useful to external users in assessing operating performance and the Company's ability to generate free cash flow from potential operations.
Free Cash Flow
Free cash flows are revenues net of operating costs, royalties, capital expenditures and cash taxes. The Company believes that this measure is useful to the external users in assessing the Company's ability to generate cash flows from the Project.
Cautionary Note for U.S. Investors Concerning Mineral Resources and Reserves
NI 43-101 is a rule of the Canadian Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects. Technical disclosure contained in this news release has been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and the
Neither the
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/integra-delivers-robust-feasibility-study-for-delamar-gold-silver-heap-leach-project-highlighting-improved-economics-and-reduced-development-risk-302645246.html
SOURCE