Exhibit 99.4

 

S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada Effective Date: December 31, 2024 Report Date: March 26, 2025 Prepared for: i-80 Gold Corp. 5190 Neil Road, Suite 460 Reno, Nevada 89502 Prepared By: Practical Mining LLC. TR Raponi Consulting Ltd. Montgomery & Associates

Page ii .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

This page intentionally left blank.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page iii .

 

Date and Signature Page

The undersigned prepared this Technical Report Summary (TRS) report, titled: S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada, dated the 26th day of March 2025, with an effective date of December 31, 2024, in support of i-80 Gold Corporations initial S-K 1300 disclosure of Mineral Resource estimates for the Cove Project.

Dated this March 26, 2025

/s/ Practical Mining LLC

Practical Mining LLC

495 Idaho Street, Suite 205

Elko, Nevada 89815, USA

/s/ T.R. Raponi Consulting Ltd.

T.R. Raponi Consulting Ltd.

15-223 Rebecca Street

Oakville, ON Canada L6K 3Y2

/s/ Montgomery & Associates

Montgomery & Associates

132 S. State Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page iv .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

This page intentionally left blank.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page v .

 

Table of Contents

 

Date and Signature Page			iii
Table of Contents			v
List of Tables			xi
List of Figures			xiv
List of Abbreviations			xvii
1.  Summary			18
1.1.   Introduction			18
1.2.   Property Description			19
1.3.   Geology and Mineral Resource			19
1.4.   Metallurgical Testing and Processing			21
1.5.   Mining, Infrastructure, and Project Schedule			22
1.6.   Economic Analysis			23
1.7.   Conclusions			25
1.8.   Recommendations			27
2.  Introduction			29
2.1.   Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared			29
2.2.   Terms of Reference and Purpose of this Technical Report			29
2.3.   Sources of Information			29
2.4.   Details of Inspection			29
2.5.   Report Version			30
2.6.   Units of Measure			30
2.7.   Coordinate Datum			31
2.8.   Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions			31
2.9.   Qualified Person			34
3.  Property Description and Location			35
3.1.   Property Description			35
3.2.   Status of Mineral Titles			36
3.3.   Property Holding Costs			39

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page vi .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

3.4.   Environmental Liabilities			40
3.5.   Permits/Licenses			40
4.  Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography			41
4.1.   Accessibility			41
4.2.   Climate			41
4.3.   Local Resources			41
4.4.   Infrastructure			41
4.5.   Physiography			42
5.  History			44
5.1.   Previous Owners			44
5.2.   Historic Exploration			44
5.3.   Historic Resource Estimates			45
5.4.   Historic Mining			45
6.  Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit			48
6.1.   Regional Geology			48
6.2.   Local Geology			49
6.3.   Structural Geology			55
6.4.   Mineralization Controls			56
6.5.   Post Mineral Faulting			57
6.6.   Mineralization			57
6.7.   Deposit Types			60
7.  Exploration			61
7.1.    Geologic			61
7.1.1.  Resource Conversion Drilling			65
7.1.2.  Drilling			66
7.1.3.  Historic Drilling Methodology			72
7.1.4.  Current Drilling Methodology			73
7.1.5.  Sampling Methodology			74
7.1.6.  Core Recovery			75

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page vii .

 

7.2.   Hydrogeology			75
7.2.1.  Sampling Methods and Laboratory Determinations			75
7.2.2.  Hydrogeology Investigations			78
7.2.3.  Hydrogeologic Description			79
7.2.4.  Mine Dewatering			82
7.2.5.  Dewatering Discharge			83
7.2.6.  Groundwater Flow Model			84
8.  Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security			94
8.1.   Pre-2012			94
8.1.1.  Sample Preparation Procedures			94
8.1.2.  Laboratory Analysis Procedures			95
8.1.3.  Security			96
8.2.   Premier 2012-2018			96
8.3.   i-80 2023-Present Underground Resource Conversion Drilling			97
8.4.   Quality Assurance and Quality Control			97
8.4.1.  Standards and Blanks			97
8.4.2.  Duplicate Assays			101
9.  Data Verification			104
10.  Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing			106
10.1.  Historical Metallurgical Test Work			106
10.1.1.  2008 KCA Program			106
10.1.2.  2009 KCA Program			108
10.1.3.  2017 SGS Programs			108
10.1.4.  2021 KCA Program			113
10.1.5.  2022 FLSmidth Program			116
10.2   Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Discussion			117
10.2.  QP Opinion			117
10.3.  Conclusions and Recommendations:			117
10.3.1.  Conclusions:			118

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page viii .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

10.3.2.  Recommendations			118
11.  Mineral Resource Estimates			120
11.1.  Introduction			120
11.2.  Modeling of Lithology and Mineralization			125
11.3.  Drill Data and Compositing			129
11.3.1.  Drill Data Set			129
11.3.2.  Compositing			130
11.4.  Density			131
11.5.  Statistics and Variography			131
11.6.  Grade Capping			133
11.7.  Block Model			134
11.8.  Grade Estimation and Resource Classification			136
11.9.  Mined Depletion and Sterilization			138
11.10. Model Validation			139
11.10.1.  Estimation Comparison			139
11.10.2.  Visual Comparison			143
11.10.3.  Swath Plots			146
11.10.4.  Model Smoothing Checks – Grade Tonnage Curves			151
11.11. Factors That May Affect Mineral Resources			154
11.12. Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction			154
11.12.1.  QP Opinion			154
11.13. Mineral Resources			155
12.  Mineral Reserve Estimates			156
13.  Mining Methods			157
13.1.  Mine Development			157
13.1.1.  Access Development			157
13.1.2.  Ground Support			158
13.1.1.  Ventilation and Secondary Egress			160
13.1.2.  Dewatering			161

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page ix .

 

13.2.  Mining Methods			161
13.2.1.  Drift and Fill			161
13.3.  Underground Labor			162
13.4.  Mobile Equipment Fleet			163
13.5.  Mine Plan			164
14.  Recovery Methods			169
14.1.  INTRODUCTION			169
14.2.  Gold Quarry Roaster			169
14.3.  Lone Tree Pressure Oxidation Facility			171
14.3.1.  Lone Tree Mill Historic Processing			171
14.3.2.  Lone Tree Facility Block Flow Diagram			171
14.3.3.  Key Design Criteria			172
14.3.4.  Lone Tree Facility Description			174
14.3.5.  Utilities Consumption			181
15.  Infrastructure			183
15.1.  Dewatering			183
15.1.1.  History			183
15.1.2.  Infrastructure			183
15.2.  Electrical Power			184
15.3.  Mine Facilities			186
15.4.  Backfill			187
16.  Market Studies and Contracts			189
16.1.  Precious Metal Markets			189
16.2.  Contracts			190
16.2.1.  Private Placement Offering			190
16.2.2.  Orion and Sprott Financing Package			192
16.2.3.  Equinox Investment			192
16.2.4.  Private Placement			192
16.3.  Previous Financing Agreements			192

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page x .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

16.3.1.  Offtake Agreement			192
16.3.2.  South Arturo Purchase and Sale Agreement (Silver)			192
16.4.  Roaster Toll Milling Agreement			193
16.5.  Other Contracts			193
17.  Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups			194
17.1.  Social or Community Impacts			195
17.2.  Permitting			196
17.3.  Closure and Reclamation Requirements			197
17.4.  Closure and Reclamation			199
17.5.  QP Statement			200
18.  Capital and Operating Costs			201
18.1.  Capital Costs			201
18.2.  Closure and Reclamation			203
18.3.  Operating Costs			203
18.4.  Cutoff Grade			204
19.  Economic Analysis			206
20.  Adjacent Properties			215
21.  Other Relevant Data and Information			216
22.  Interpretation and Conclusions			217
22.1.  Risks and Opportunities			219
22.2.  Work Program			219
23.  References			223
24.  Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant			226

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page xi .

 

List of Tables

 

Table 1-1 Cove Mineral Resources			20
Table 1-2 Financial Statistics			24
Table 2-1 Personal Inspections by Qualified Professionals			30
Table 2-2 Units of Measure			31
Table 2-3 QP Responsibility for Sections of This Report			33
Table 3-1 Property Holding Costs			40
Table 5-1 Historic Resource and Reserve Estimates			46
Table 5-2 Historic Cove and McCoy Mine Production 1986 through 2006			46
Table 7-1 List of Drilling by Operator			67
Table 7-2 Type of Drilling by Zone			71
Table 7-3 Summary of Hydrogeological Studies			78
Table 7-4 Calculated Model Calibration Statistics			89
Table 8-1 Pre-2012 ICP Analysis			94
Table 8-2 ICP Analysis 2012 - 2018			95
Table 8-3 Gold Blank and Standard Summary Statistics			98
Table 9-1 Data Review Summary			105
Table 10-1 Metallurgical Testing Programs			106
Table 10-3 Roasting Test Conditions			109
Table 10-4 Chlorination Program Test Results			115
Table 10-52022 FLSmidth Program Test Results			116
Table 11-1 Geology Codes			126
Table 11-2 Identification Codes for 3 g/t Grade Lenses			126
Table 11-3 Identification Codes for 0.2 g.t Grade Lenses			127
Table 11-4 Drill Hole Summary			129
Table 11-5 Composite Summary			130
Table 11-6 Density			131
Table 11-7 Gold Composite Statistics			132
Table 11-8 Silver Composite Statistics			133
Table 11-9 Composite Grade Capping			133
Table 11-10 Block Model Variables			134
Table 11-11 Estimation Parameters			137
Table 11-12 Classification Conditions			137
Table 11-13 Estimate Comparison for Gold versus a Nearest Neighbor at 0 Cutoff			139
Table 11-14 Estimate Comparison for Silver versus a Nearest Neighbor at 0 Cutoff			141
Table 11-15 Cove Mineral Resources			155
Table 13-1 Underground Workforce 2028 through 2029			162

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page xii .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

Table 13-2 Peak Underground Workforce beginning 2030			163
Table 13-3 Underground Mobile Equipment and Support Equipment for Exploration Development Phase			163
Table 13-4 Underground Mobile Equipment and Support Equipment for Peak Production Mining			163
Table 13-5 Heading Productivity			164
Table 13-6 Annual Production and Development Schedule (Including Inferred Mineral Resource)			164
Table 13-7 Annual Production and Development Schedule (Excluding Inferred Mineral Resource)			166
Table 14-1 Summary of Key Process Statistics			172
Table 14-2 Lone Tree Facility Water Consumption by Type			182
Table 14-3 Lone Tree Facility Energy Usage by Area			182
Table 15-1 Backfill Scoping Tests 28-Day Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)			188
Table 17-1 Cove Project Existing Permits			196
Table 17-2 McCoy Cove Reclamation Bonds			199
Table 17-3 Annual Closure and Reclamation Costs ($M)			199
Table 18-1 Project Capital Costs ($M)			201
Table 18-2 Mine Development Unit Costs			201
Table 18-3 Mine Development Capital ($M)			202
Table 18-4 Dewatering Capital ($M)			202
Table 18-5 Facilities and Site General ($M)			202
Table 18-6 Closure and Reclamation Costs ($M)			203
Table 18-7 Unit Operating Costs			203
Table 18-8 One Way Trucking Distance to Nevada Metallurgical Plants			203
Table 18-9 Operating and Capital Costs			204
Table 18-10 Cutoff Grades for Alkaline POX and Roaster			204
Table 19-1 Income Statement Includes Inferred) (Millions $US except Unit Cost per Ounce)			207
Table 19-2 Cash Flow Statement (Includes Inferred)			207
Table 19-3 Income Statement (Excludes Inferred) (Millions $US except Unit Cost per Ounce)			208
Table 19-4 Table 19-5 Cash Flow Statement (Excludes Inferred)			208
Table 19-6 Financial Statistics1			209
Table 22-1 Project Risks			219
Table 22-2 Opportunities			219
Table 22-3 Work Program Estimated Costs (US$M)			220
Table 24-1 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant			226

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page xiii .

 

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page xiv .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

List of Figures

 

Figure 1-1 Section View of Cove Mineralization looking NE			20
Figure 1-2 Project Timeline			23
Figure 3-1 Cove Location Map			36
Figure 3-2 Mining Claim Map			38
Figure 3-3 Summa and Chiara Royalties and Resource Location			39
Figure 4-1 McCoy-Cove Project Area Looking Southeast			43
Figure 6-1 Regional Geology			51
Figure 6-2 Triassic Stratigraphy and Mineralization			52
Figure 7-1 Exploration Targets			62
Figure 7-2 Barrick and Premier Exploration Drilling			64
Figure 7-3 Underground Exploration Potential			65
Figure 7-4 Resource Conversion Drill Program			66
Figure 7-5 Plan View of Drill Holes Used for the Current Analysis			67
Figure 7-6 Sample Section of CSD-Gap and Gap Hybrid Drilling			68
Figure 7-7 Sample Section of Helen Zone Drilling			69
Figure 7-8 Sample Section of CSD Zone Drilling			70
Figure 7-9 Sample Section of 2201 Zone Drilling			71
Figure 7-10. Vibrating Wire Piezometer and Groundwater Monitor Well Locations			77
Figure 7-11 Hydrogeologic Study Area/Model Area			81
Figure 7-12 Historical Cove Dewatering Rates			83
Figure 7-13 Historical Discharges to RIBs			84
Figure 7-14 Model Grid Extent			86
Figure 7-15 Representative Simulated and Observed Hydrographs around the Cove Pit Lake			88
Figure 7-16 Simulated and Observed Cove Pit Lake Stage			89
Figure 7-17 Projected Mine Elevation for Dewatering During Life of Mine			90
Figure 7-18 Simulated Water Levels During the Life of Mine			91
Figure 7-19 Simulated Dewatering Rates			92
Figure 7-20 Dewatering Well Field Locations Used For Predictive Modeling			93
Figure 8-1 Blank Assay Results			99
Figure 8-2 SP 37 Standard Reference Material Results			99
Figure 8-3 CDN-GS-22 Certified Reference Material Results			100
Figure 8-4 CDN-GS-5H Certified Reference Material Results			100
Figure 8-5 GS912-1 Certified Reference Material Results			101
Figure 8-6 Prep Duplicates - ALS Reno			102
Figure 8-7 Lab Check Duplicates			103
Figure 11-1 Plan View of Cove Mineralized Zones			122

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page xv .

 

Figure 11-2 Section View of Cove Mineralized Zones looking NE			123
Figure 11-3 Section View of the Helen Zone looking NW			124
Figure 11-4 Section View of the 2201 Zone looking NW			125
Figure 11-5 Low Grade Envelope			127
Figure 11-6 Section Looking AZ 315 Showing Mineralized Lenses in the GAP Zone			128
Figure 11-7 Sterilization Surfaces			139
Figure 11-8 Comparison of Composite and Estimated Block Gold Grades, Helen Zone			143
Figure 11-9 Comparison of Composite and Estimated Block Gold Grades, Gap Zone			144
Figure 11-10 Comparison of Composite and Estimated Block Gold Grades, CSD Zone			145
Figure 11-11 Comparison of Composite and Estimated Block Gold Grades, 2201 Zone			145
Figure 11-12 Gold Swath Plots of Helen Zone 3103			146
Figure 11-13 Silver Swath Plots of Helen Zone 3103			147
Figure 11-14 Gold Swath Plots of Gap Zone 2208			148
Figure 11-15 Silver Swath Plots of Gap Zone 2208			149
Figure 11-16 Gold Swath Plots of CSD Zone 1106			149
Figure 11-17 Silver Swath Plots of CSD Zone 1106			150
Figure 11-18 Gold Swath Plots of 2201 Zone 1302			150
Figure 11-19 Silver Swath Plots of 2201 Zone 1302			151
Figure 11-20 Helen Zone Grade Tonnage Plots			152
Figure 11-21 Gap Zone Grade Tonnage Plots			152
Figure 11-22 CSD Zone Grade Tonnage Plots			153
Figure 11-23 2201 Zone Grade Tonnage Plots			153
Figure 13-1 Exploration Development			157
Figure 13-2 Plan view showing portal, main haulages, and two raises to surface			158
Figure 13-3 Formation RQD			159
Figure 13-4 Ventilation Schematic			160
Figure 13-5 Depiction of Drift and Fill method			162
Figure 13-6 Production Profile (Including Inferred Mineral Resources)			166
Figure 13-7 Production Profile without Inferred Mineral Resources			168
Figure 14-1 Nevada Gold Mines Gold Quarry Roaster Simplified Flowsheet			170
Figure 14-2 Lone Tree Facility Block Flow Diagram			173
Figure 15-1 Proposed Dewatering Well Location			184
Figure 15-2 Electrical Demand			185
Figure 15-3 Electrical Site Plan			186
Figure 15-4 Mine Facilities Layout			187
Figure 16-1 Historical Monthly Average Gold and Silver Prices and 36 Month Trailing Average			189
Figure 19-1 Project Timeline			206

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page xvi .		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp.

 

Figure 19-2 Gold Production and Unit Costs (With Inferred)			211
Figure 19-3 Cash Flow Waterfall Chart Including Pre-Construction Costs (With Inferred)			211
Figure 19-4 Gold Production and Unit Costs (Without Inferred)			212
Figure 19-5 Cash Flow Waterfall Chart Including Pre-Construction Costs (Without Inferred)			212
Figure 19-6 NPV 5% Sensitivity			213
Figure 19-7 Profitability Index 5% Sensitivity			213
Figure 19-8 IRR Sensitivity			214

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		Page xvii .

 

List of Abbreviations

 

A		Ampere		kA		kiloamperes
AA		atomic absorption		kCFM		thousand cubic feet per minute
AGP		Acid Generation Potential		Kg		Kilograms
Ag		Silver		km		kilometer
ANFO		ammonium nitrate fuel oil		km2		square kilometer
ANP		Acid Neutralization Potential		kWh/t		kilowatt-hour per ton
Au		Gold		LoM		Life-of-Mine
AuEq		gold equivalent		m		meter
btu		British Thermal Unit		m2		square meter
°C		degrees Celsius		m3		cubic meter
CCD		counter-current decantation		masl		meters above sea level
CIL		carbon-in-leach		mg/L		milligrams/liter
CoG		Cut off grade		mm3		cubic millimeter
cm		centimeter		MME		Mine & Mill Engineering
cm2		square centimeter		Moz		million troy ounces
cm3		cubic centimeter		Mt		million tonnes
cfm		cubic feet per minute		MTW		measured true width
CRec		core recovery		MW		million watts
CSS		closed-side setting		m.y.		million years
CTW		calculated true width		NGO		non-governmental organization
°		degree (degrees)		NI 43-101		Canadian National Instrument 43-101
dia.		diameter		oz		Troy Ounce
EA		Environmental Assesment		opt		Troy Ounce per short ton
EIS		Environmental Impact Statement		oz/ton		Troy Ounce per short ton
EMP		Environmental Management Plan		%		percent
FA		fire assay		PLC		Programmable Logic Controller
Ft		Foot		PLS		Pregnant Leach Solution
Ft2		Square foot		PMF		probable maximum flood
Ft3		Cubic foot		POO		Plan of Operations
g		Gram		ppb		parts per billion
g/L		gram per liter		ppm		parts per million
g-mol		gram-mole		QAQC		Quality Assurance/Quality Control
g/t		grams per metric tonne		RC		reverse circulation drilling
ha		hectares		ROM		Run-of-Mine
HDPE		Height Density Polyethylene		RQD		Rock Quality Description
HTW		horizontal true width		SEC		U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
ICP		induced couple plasma		Sec		second
ID2		inverse-distance squared		SG		specific gravity
ID3		inverse-distance cubed		SPT		Standard penetration test
mm		millimeter		ton		US Short Ton
mm2		square millimeter		Tonne		Metric Tonne

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 18		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

1.

Summary

 

1.1.

Introduction

Practical Mining LLC (Practical or PM) was engaged by i-80 Gold Corp., and Premier Gold Mines USA, Inc. (together i-80, Premier or the Company) to prepare an Initial Assessment (IA) Technical Report Summary (TRS) on the McCoy Cove Project (Cove or The Project) in Lander County, Nevada. This Technical Report (TRS) has been prepared in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items and 1300 through 1305).

This TRS dated the 26th day of March 2025 with an effective date of December 31, 2024 is the initial statement of mineral resources for i-80 Gold Corporation (i-80) under S-K regulations. The Company has previously reported mineral resources under Canadian NI 43-101 regulations. This TRS presents an underground mine plan, metallurgical testing, hydrogeologic summary, and financial analysis for the proposed Cove Underground Mine.

The mineral resource estimation generated for the 2021 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) included only drillholes completed prior to January 1, 2021. Since then, i-80 has completed roughly 5,700 feet of underground drift development. A resource conversion drill program consisting of 125 drill holes totaling approximately 140,000 feet is ongoing and expected to be completed in Q3 2025. The resource estimation will be updated following the completion of the drill program. This TRS updates the mineral resource estimate with current metal pricing and cost estimates.

Cautionary Notes:

 

1.

The financial analysis contains certain information that may constitute “forward-looking information” and “forward-looking statements” (together, “forward-looking information”) under applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation. Forward-looking information includes, but is not limited to, statements regarding the Company’s achievement of the full-year projections for ounce production, production costs, AISC costs per ounce, cash cost per ounce and realized gold/silver price per ounce, the Company’s ability to meet annual operations estimates, and statements about strategic plans, including future operations, future work programs, capital expenditures, discovery and production of minerals, price of gold and currency exchange rates, timing of geological reports and corporate and technical objectives. Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Summary		Page 19

 

which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward looking information, including the risks inherent to the mining industry, adverse economic and market developments and the risks identified in i-80’s management information circular under the heading “Risk Factors”. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. All forward-looking information contained in this report is given as of the date hereof and is based upon the opinions and estimates of management and information available to management as at the date hereof. i-80 disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law; and

2.

This IA is preliminary in nature, it includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the IA will be realized.

 

1.2.

Property Description

The Cove Project covers 32,110 acres and is located 32 miles south of the Town of Battle Mountain, in the Fish Creek Mountains of Lander County, Nevada. It is centered approximately at 40°22’ N and 117°13’ W and lies within the McCoy Mining District. The project area contains 1,728 unpatented and nine patented mining claims owned 100% by i-80, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Premier Gold Mines USA, Inc. and Au-Reka Gold Corp. The unpatented claims are on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The Cove deposit consists of the Helen, Gap, CSD, and 2201 zones. They are located beneath the historically mined Cove open pit and extend approximately 2,000 feet northwest from the pit. The Cove deposit was mined by Echo Bay Mines Ltd. (Echo Bay) between 1987 and 2001. During this period the Cove deposit produced 2.6 million ounces of gold and 100 million ounces of silver. Gold and silver production from heap leach pads continued until 2006.

 

1.3.

Geology and Mineral Resource

The Cove Project contains four structurally controlled mineralized zones within the Triassic sedimentary package. The Helen and Gap zones are Carlin Style disseminated refractory gold deposits. The Cove South Deep (CSD) gold and silver mineralization is associated with disseminated sulfides and is characterized by Ag:Au ratios of 50:1 to over 100:1. The 2201 zone is comprised of sulfide mineralization within sheeted stockwork veins with high concentrations of lead and zinc (Figure 1-1).

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 20		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Figure 1-1 Section View of Cove Mineralization looking NE

Mineral Resources are constrained to high-grade wireframe models constructed at a nominal 0.09 opt (3 g/t) grade shell. The mineral resource estimate relies on data from 387 core drill holes totaling 548,038 feet and 1,010 reverse circulation (RC) drill holes totaling 579,443 feet. From these drill holes, 3,146 samples were flagged within the high-grade wireframes to be used in grade estimation.

Parent block dimensions are 100 ft x 100 ft x 100 ft with sub-block dimensions as small as 1 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft. Block grades were estimated using Inverse Distance Cubed (ID³) methods.

A block is classified as Indicated if there are at least two composites within an average distance of 100 feet or less and at least one of the samples is within fifty feet. A block is classified Inferred if there are at least two composites within 300 feet but more than 100 feet. Cove Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2024 are presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Summary of Cove Mineral Resources at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024

		Tons (000)		Tonnes   (000)		Au     (opt)		Au     g/t		Ag     (opt)		Ag     (g/t)		Au ozs   (000)		Ag ozs   (000)
		Indicated Mineral Resource
Helen		743		674		0.271		9.3		0.074		2.6		201		55
Gap		280		254		0.219		7.5		0.239		8.9		61		72
CSD		275		249		0.175		6.0		1.603		55.0		48		441

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Summary		Page 21

 

		Tons (000)		Tonnes   (000)		Au      (opt)		Au     g/t		Ag     (opt)		Ag     (g/t)		Au ozs   (000)		Ag ozs   (000)
Total Indicated		1,298		1,177		0.239		8.2		0.438		15.0		310		568
		Inferred Mineral Resource
Helen		1,743		1,582		0.245		8.4		0.083		2.9		427		146
Gap		2,229		2,022		0.244		8.4		0.262		9.0		543		585
CSD		319		290		0.173		5.9		1.685		57.8		55		538
2201		168		153		0.780		26.7		1.016		34.8		131		171
Total Inferred		4,459		4,047		0.259		8.9		0.323		11.1		1,156		1,439

Notes:

 

1.

Mineral resources have been estimated at a gold price of $2,175 per troy ounce and a silver price of 27.25 per troy ounce. Refer to Section 16.1for a discussion on metal pricing;

 

2.

Mineral resources have been estimated using gold metallurgical recoveries ranging from 73.2% to 93.3% for roasting and 78.5% to 95.1 % for pressure oxidation;

 

3.

Roaster cutoff grades range from 4.15 to 5.29 Au g/t (0.121 to 0.154 opt) and pressure oxidation cutoff grades range from 3.83 to 4.64 Au g/t (0.112 to 0.135 opt);

 

4.

The effective date of the mineral resource estimate is December 31, 2024;

 

5.

Mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant factors;

 

6.

An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity. 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; and

 

7.

The reference point for mineral resources is in situ.

 

1.4.

Metallurgical Testing and Processing

Metallurgical testing of Cove samples dates back to the 1960’s. The most recent relevant testing are programs in 2008 and 2009 at Kappes Cassiday Associates and 2017 at SGS Lakefield Research.

The testing has generally shown that Helen and Gap resources based on the composites tested appear to be generally refractory to conventional whole ore cyanidation and will need some type of oxidation process to significantly increase gold extractions over whole ore cyanidation. Most of the samples were also double refractory where gold is both bound within sulfides and active carbonaceous matter which adsorbs dissolved gold (known as “preg-robbing”) faster than activated carbon. Both the sulfides and the preg-robbing carbonaceous matter requires higher temperature oxidation which can be achieved through roasting followed by carbon-in-leach. The testing showed that Helen Zone samples are generally more amenable to roasting and carbon-in-

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 22		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

leach (CIL) processing. Gap Zone samples were more amenable to treatment using pressure oxidation and residue CIL processing.

The 2017 data set was too small to establish any clear relationships between mineralogy, head grades, and recoveries for either Helen or Gap samples. although it is clear that mineralogy factors such as arsenic content and total carbonaceous matter or total organic carbon influence recoveries. Improved recovered were achieved using either roasting and calcine leaching/CIL or pressure oxidation followed by leaching or CIL compared to direct leaching or CIL alone.

In 2020, testing was commenced on Helen and Gap samples to evaluate chlorination as a lower cost method for sulfide oxidation and passivation of active carbonaceous matter. This method was previously employed at several Nevada operations. This method was not pursued due to higher than anticipated operating cost estimates.

 

1.5.

Mining, Infrastructure, and Project Schedule

Access to the mineralized zones will be through a portal located just north of the Cove Pit. Primary development totals 23,048 feet with gradients up to +/- 15%. Ventilation and secondary egress will be gained through a ventilation intake portal in the southwest pit wall and an exhaust raise equipped with a personal hoist for evacuation.

Drift and fill mining with mining heights of fifteen feet will be the primary method for extraction of the Helen and Gap mineral resource. Where the mineralized lenses thicken, breasting the sill or back can recover additional mineralization. Waste rock from development and waste reclaimed from historic dumps will be used for Cemented Rock Fill (CRF) or unconsolidated (GOB) fill as appropriate to achieve high levels of extraction. Development and production mining will be performed by a qualified mining contractor thus reducing the capital requirements for the Project.

A trucking contractor will transport mineralization mined over local, state, and federal roads for processing at a third party roaster or at i-80’s Lone Tree pressure oxidation (POX) facility.

Dewatering will be accomplished using 15 surface wells and a pit lake barge producing up to 43,000 gallons per minute (gpm) Dewatering water will be piped to several Rapid Infiltration Basins (RIBs) constructed at the northern project boundary. The RIB locations have been selected to prevent recharge into the Cove hydrogeologic system. During the summer irrigation season water will be provided to local ranchers for irrigation of alfalfa crops.

Long term electrical power demands up to 11.5 MW will be supplied by NV Energy via an existing 120kV transmission line which connects the Project site to NV Energy’s Bannock substation. A new substation and 13.8kV distribution system will be constructed at Cove.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Summary		Page 23

 

Power for initial mine development and underground delineation drilling will be provided from an existing 24.9kV distribution line that also terminates on the property. A substation for the 24.9kV line and a distribution line to the portal site was constructed in 2019. Power will be stepped down from the 120kV substation and use the same distribution line.

Baseline environmental studies have been undertaken to facilitate the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) administered by federal land management agencies. This, along with dewatering, constitutes the critical path to production. The overall project timeline is shown in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2 Project Timeline

 

1.6.

Economic Analysis

Capital spending over the life of the project is subdivided into three categories. Pre-development spending of $17.3M encompasses definition drilling, baseline data collection, engineering, hydrogeologic investigations, metallurgical testing and permitting. Construction capital is required for Helen and Gap dewatering, infrastructure and mine development and is projected at $157.4 M over a two-year period commencing in 2028. Sustaining capital includes mine development and facilities. Sustaining capital totals $49.1M commencing in 2030.

Gold recovery will total 740,000 ounces over the eight-year mine production life. Material mined for processing averages 0.305 Au opt. Full production is reached after two years of ramp up in 2031 and averages 1,190 tpd from 2031 through 2036.

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 24		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

The Helen and Gap zones contain 70% and 89% inferred mineral resources respectively. The results without inferred are the result of a gross factorization of the production stream. There has been no adjustment to capital development, dewatering capital or mine facilities capital. Furthermore, there has not been any recalculation of productivities or operating costs due to the lower production rates.

Table 1-2 Financial Statistics

		With Inferred		Without  Inferred
Gold price (US$/oz)		$2,175
Silver price (US$/oz)		$27.25
Mine life (years)		8
Average mineralized mining rate (tons/day)		1,010		200
Average grade (oz/t Au)		0.305		0.313
Average gold recovery (roaster %)		79%		79%
Average gold recovery (autoclave %)		86%		86%
Average annual gold production (koz)		92		19
Total recovered gold (koz)		740		148
Pre-development capital ($M)		$17.2		$17.2
Mine construction capital ($M)		$157.4		$157.4
Sustaining capital (M$)		$49.1		$49.1
Construction Start Date		1/1/2028
Economic Indicators Post Construction Decision 3
Cash cost (US$/oz) 1		$1,201		$1,697
All-in sustaining cost (US$/oz)2		$1,310		$2,240
All in cost (US$/oz) 5		$1,635		$3,302
Project after-tax NPV5% (M$)		$274		($160)
Project after-tax NPV8% (M$)		$216		($159)
Project after-tax IRR		30%		NA
Payback Period		5.5 Years		NA
Profitability Index 5%4		2.4		0.2
Financial Statistics Including Pre-Construction Period (1/1/2025 – 12/31/2027) 6
All in cost (US$/oz) 5		$1,658		$3,419

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Summary		Page 25

 

		With Inferred		Without  Inferred
Project after-tax NPV5% (M$)		$256		($178)
Project after-tax NPV8% (M$)		$198		($177)
Project after-tax IRR		25%		NA
Payback Period		6.8 years		NA
Profitability Index 5%4		1.9		0.2

Notes:

1.

Net of byproduct sales;

 

2.

Excluding income taxes, pre-construction capital, construction capital, corporate G&A, corporate taxes and interest on debt;

 

3.

Discounted to 2028, Construction Start;

 

4.

Profitability index (PI), is the ratio of payoff to investment of a proposed project. It is a useful tool for ranking projects because it allows you to quantify the amount of value created per unit of investment. A profitability index of 1 indicates breakeven;

 

5.

Excluding corporate G&A, corporate taxes and interest on debt;

 

6.

Discounted to 2025;

 

7.

This IA is preliminary in nature, it includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the IA will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability;

 

8.

Inferred mineral resources constitute 70 % of the Helen zone and 89% of the Gap zone. The “Without Inferred” statistics presented are a gross factorization of the mine plan without any redesign of mine excavations or recalculation of productivities and costs. Capital costs are the same for the “With Inferred” and “Without Inferred” scenarios. The “Without Inferred” scenario is presented solely to illustrate the projects dependence on inferred mineral resources.

 

9.

The financial analysis contains certain information that may constitute “forward-looking information” under applicable Canadian and United States securities regulations. Forward-looking information includes, but is not limited to, statements regarding the Company’s achievement of the full-year projections for ounce production, production costs, AISC costs per ounce, cash cost per ounce and realized gold/silver price per ounce, the Company’s ability to meet annual operations estimates, and statements about strategic plans, including future operations, future work programs, capital expenditures, discovery and production of minerals, price of gold and currency exchange rates, timing of geological reports and corporate and technical objectives. Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward looking information, including the risks inherent to the mining industry, adverse economic and market developments and the risks identified in Premier’s annual information form under the heading “Risk Factors”. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. All forward-looking information contained in this Presentation is given as of the date hereof and is based upon the opinions and estimates of management and information available to management as at the date hereof. Premier disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law;

 

1.7.

Conclusions

Metallurgical Testing

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 26		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

1.

Head assaying for both the Helen Zone and Gap indicated that the gold in the two resources will likely be finely disseminated and not amenable to gravity gold recovery;

 

 

2.

The mineralogy of the Helen and Gap resources differ in two significant areas, the first being that the Helen appears to be lower in arsenic content than the Gap resource and that the Gap resource appears to be lower on average in TCM and TOC than the Helen resource;

 

 

3.

The Helen composite arsenic assays indicate the mineral resources in Helen are lower in arsenic content than those in the Gap;

 

 

4.

Based on the composites tested the Helen Zone appears to generally be more amenable to roasting and CIL processing;

 

 

5.

Based on the composites tested, the Gap resource appears to generally be more amenable to pressure oxidation and CIL processing; and,

 

 

6.

The data set was too small to establish any clear relations between mineralogy, metal head grade, and extractions for either resource although it is clear that mineralogy factors such as arsenic content and TCM or TOC are influencing extractions.

Toll Processing

 

1.

The feed specifications appear to be somewhat rigid and could preclude some material being sent to the toll processor or result in penalties. Blending may allow shipment of some off-specification material provided appropriate material is available for onsite blending prior to shipping to the toll processor;

 

2.

The terms appear to be consistent and typical with those encountered in the industry; and,

 

3.

The recovery terms appear to be the result of analyzing the metallurgical data provided by i-80 Gold.

Mining and Infrastructure

 

1.

Mining conditions typical for sedimentary deposits in the northeastern Nevada extensional tectonic environments are anticipated;

2.

Dewatering the Helen and Gap zones will require up to fifteen wells and a pit lake barge pumping up to 43,000 gpm.

Financials

 

1.

Capital requirements total $206.5M excluding $17.3M in pre-construction capital;

2.

The project achieves NPV 5% of $274M and NPV 8% of $216M (excluding preconstruction capital);

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Summary		Page 27

 

3.

When including the pre-construction capital, the NPV 5% reduces to $256M and the NPV 8% is $198M; and,

4.

The estimated payback period is 5.6 years with an IRR of 30%.

 

1.8.

Recommendations

Resource Delineation and Exploration

 

1.

Resource delineation drilling will be completed in 2025 along with an updated resource model and feasibility study.

2.

The existing Cove Pit prohibits drilling the Gap extension area and portions of the Gap deposit. These are the most prospective nearby areas for adding significant Mineral Resources; and,

3.

Expansion of the 2201 Zone could add high grade mineralization to the project which could be accessed through the Helen and Gap infrastructure.

Dewatering

 

1.

A detailed hydrogeologic study has been completed along with estimates of pumping rates, water table drawdown estimates and construction cost estimates. This information will be included in the upcoming feasibility study.

Mining

 

1.

A geotechnical data collection program is ongoing. Characterization of geotechnical parameters should be included in the upcoming feasibility study:

 

a.

The objectives of the program are to characterize the mining horizons using the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system;

 

b.

Collect downhole Acoustic Tele Viewer (ATV) drill logs to collect joint orientation data for mine designs and accurately estimate ground support requirements; and,

 

c.

Collect full core samples for physical rock property testing.

 

2.

Complete additional testing of potential back fill sources to optimize the Cemented Rock Fill (CRF) mix design; and,

 

3.

Complete a ventilation simulation to predict Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), carbon monoxide, and other contaminant concentrations.

Metallurgical Testing

 

1.

Additional metallurgical testing will be needed to thoroughly investigate the variability and viability of Helen and Gap resources to evaluate pressure oxidation with CIL cyanidation

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 28		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

under Lone Tree conditions. Testing should also include baseline CIL tests and roasting testing as a comparison. Sampling objectives will include:

 

●

Samples from GAP and Helen zones and their major lithological units; Favret, Panther Dolomite. The samples should also address spatial variability within each zone.

 

●

Sample intrusive formations in each zone.

 

●

Assess variability of the responses to roasting and calcine cyanidation across the resources;

 

●

Assess variability of the responses to pressure oxidation and residue cyanidation across the resources;

 

●

Testing should attempt to establish head grade and extraction relations for use in more detailed resource modelling;

 

●

Mineralogy impacts need to be established and geologic domains within each resource need to be determined, and;

 

●

Additional comminution data should be collected to assess hardness variability within the zones and any potential impacts on throughput in the Lone Tree process plant.

 

2.

The resource model should be advanced to include arsenic, TCM, TOC, mercury, lead, zinc, total copper selenium, barium, cobalt, nickel, and cadmium as these will be important for predicting grades if toll process offsite is used and potentially for estimating extractions within the resources;

 

3.

The estimated cost for the suggested next phase metallurgical program is to $850,000 based on current market pricing.

Permitting and Development Decision

 

1.

Baseline data collection in support of the Environmental Impact Statement should be done simultaneously to reduce the Project’s critical path and bring forward production; and

2.

The project should proceed directly with a feasibility study to support a development decision.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Introduction		Page 29

 

2.

Introduction

 

2.1.

Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared

This TRS was prepared for i-80 Gold Corporation and its subsidiaries Premier Gold Mines USA, Inc. and AuReka Gold Corporation (together i-80) in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 through 1305) for i-80.

 

2.2.

Terms of Reference and Purpose of this Technical Report

This Technical Report Summary is i-80’s initial statement of mineral resources for the Cove Project under regulation S-K 1300 and presents an Initial Assessment (IA) based on indicated and inferred mineral resources.

The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are based on: i) information available at the time of preparation and ii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This IA is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of all or parts of mineralization to support the disclosure of mineral resources. This IA is preliminary in nature. It includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the Initial Assessment will be realized. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

 

2.3.

Sources of Information

This report is based in part on internal Company technical reports, previous studies, maps, published government reports, Company letters and memoranda, and public information as cited throughout this report and listed in Section 0 References. Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant is listed in the Section 24 when applicable.

2.4. Details of Inspection

Table 2-1 summarizes the details of the personal inspections on the property by each qualified person or, if applicable, the reason why a personal inspection has not been completed

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 30		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Table 2-1 Personal Inspections by Qualified Professionals

Company		Discipline		Dates of Personal Inspection		Details of Inspection
Practical Mining		Mining, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves		October 16, 2024		Site specific hazard training, examined core and core logging procedures, examined underground exploration decline, observed core drilling operations
Raponi Engineering		Metallurgical Testing and Mineral Processing		None		The Cove Project does not have facilities for mineral processing.
Montgomery and Associates		Hydrogeology

 

2.5.

Report Version

This TRS presents the inaugural statement of the Cove Project mineral resources by i-80 under 17 CFR § 229.1300. The Company has most recently disclosed mineral resources for the project under Canadian Securities NI 43-101 regulations with the report Titled “Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada” dated January 25, 2021.

 

2.6.

Units of Measure

U.S. Imperial units of measure are used throughout this document unless otherwise noted. The units of measure used in this report are shown in Table 2-2. Currency is expressed as United States Dollars unless otherwise noted.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Introduction		Page 31

 

Table 2-2 Units of Measure

US Imperial to Metric conversions

Linear Measure

1 inch = 2.54 cm

1 foot = 0.3048 m

1 yard = 0.9144 m

1 mile = 1.6 km

Area Measure

1 acre = 0.4047 ha

1 square mile = 640 acres = 259 ha

Weight

1 short ton (st) = 2,000 lbs = 0.9071 metric tons

1 lb = 0.454 kg = 14.5833 troy oz

Assay Values

1 oz per short ton = 34.2857 g/t

1 troy oz = 31.1036 g

1 part per billion = 0.0000292 oz/ton

1 part per million = 0.0292 oz/ton = 1g/t

 

2.7.

Coordinate Datum

Spatial data utilized in analysis presented in this TR are projected to UTM Zone 11 North American Datum 1983 feet. All spatial measurements are in international survey feet.

 

2.8.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions

The terms “mineral resource” and “mineral reserves” as used in this Technical Report Summary have the following definitions.

Mineral Resources

17 CFR § 229.1300 defines a “mineral resource” as a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, taking into account relevant factors such as cut-off grade, likely mining dimensions, location or continuity, that, with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.

A “measured mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 32		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.

An “indicated mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.

An “inferred mineral resource” is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve.

Mineral Reserves

17 CFR § 229.1300 defines a “mineral reserve” as an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.

This Initial Assessment was compiled by Practical Mining LLC (Practical or PM), Raponi Engineering (Raponi) and Montgomery and Associates (M&A). All three firms are third-party firms comprising experts in their respective fields in accordance with 17 CFR § 229.1302(b)(1). i-80 has determined that all three firms meet the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Introduction		Page 33

 

Table 2-3 QP Responsibility for Sections of This Report

Section		Title		QP Firm
1.1.		Introduction		Practical, Raponi
1.2.		Property Description		Practical
1.3.		Geology and Mineral Resource		Practical
1.4.		Metallurgical Testing and Processing		Raponi
1.5.		Mining, Infrastructure, and Project Schedule		Practical
1.6.		Economic Analysis		Practical
1.7.		Conclusions		Practical, Raponi, M&A
1.8.		Recommendations		Practical, Raponi M&A
2		Introduction		Practical
3		Property Description and Location		Practical
4		Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography		Practical
5		History		Practical
6		Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit		Practical
7		Exploration		Practical
7.1		Geologic		Practical
7.2		Hydrogeologic		M&A
8		Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security		Practical
8.1.		Pre-2012		Practical
9		Data Verification		Practical
10		Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing		Raponi
11		Mineral Resource Estimates		Practical
12		Mineral Reserve Estimates		Practical
13		Mining Methods		Practical
14		Recovery Methods		Raponi
15		Infrastructure		Practical
16		Market Studies and Contracts		Practical
17		Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups		Practical
18.1.		Capital Costs		Practical, Raponi
18.2.		Closure and Reclamation		Practical
18.3.		Operating Costs		Practical, Raponi
18.4.		Cutoff Grade		Practical
19		Economic Analysis		Practical
20		Adjacent Properties		Practical
21		Other Relevant Data and Information		Practical
22		Interpretation and Conclusions		Practical, Raponi, M&A
23		Recommendations		Practical, Raponi, M&A

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 34		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Section		Title		QP Firm
24		References		Practical, Raponi, M&A
25		Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant		Practical, Raponi, M&A

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Property Description and Location		Page 35

 

3.

Property Description and Location

 

3.1.

Property Description

The McCoy-Cove Project covers 32,110 acres and is located 32 miles south of the Town of Battle Mountain, in the Fish Creek Mountains of Lander County, Nevada. It is centered approximately at 40°22’ N and 117°13’ W and lies within the McCoy Mining District (Figure 3-1).

The Cove Mineral Resource consists of the Helen, Gap, CSD, and 2201 deposits. They are located beneath the historically mined Cove open pit and extend approximately 2,000 feet northwest from the pit. The historic McCoy open pit is located approximately 0.6 mi to the southwest. The Cove deposit was mined by Echo Bay Mines Ltd. (Echo Bay) between 1987 and 2001 and produced 2.6 million ounces of gold and 100 million ounces of silver. McCoy was mined between 1986 and 2001 and produced approximately 0.88 million ounces of gold and 3.0 million ounces of silver. Gold and silver production from heap leach pads continued until 2006. The McCoy-Cove project area also includes several exploration targets.

The Project is located on federal land administered by the US Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and patented mining claims.

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 36		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Figure 3-1 Cove Location Map

 

3.2.

Status of Mineral Titles

The McCoy-Cove Project consists of 1,727 100%-owned unpatented claims and nine owned patented claims. The claim map provided by i-80 is shown in Figure 3-2.

On June 15, 2006, Victoria Gold Corporation (Victoria) entered into a “Minerals Lease and Agreement” to lease a portion of the Project from Newmont. Under the terms of the Minerals Lease and Agreement, Victoria was subject to escalating yearly work commitments in the aggregate amount of $8.5 million over a period of seven years (consisting of $0.3 million, $0.7 million, $1.0 million, $1.25 million, $1.5 million, $1.75 million, and $2.0 million, respectively, in each year of the first seven years of the agreement dated June 15, 2006), of which $1.0 million was a firm obligation and was to be expended by June 15, 2008 (completed). Excess expenditures were allowed to be carried forward. Newmont acknowledged that Victoria spent over $9.1 million in exploration at the Project between June 15, 2006 and March 16, 2009 and satisfied the work commitment of Section 2(a) of the Minerals and Lease Agreement.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Property Description and Location		Page 37

 

On June 14, 2012, Premier, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Au-Reka Gold Corporation (Au-Reka Gold), acquired a 100% interest in the Cove portion of the Project from Victoria pursuant to an asset purchase agreement dated June 4, 2012 (Cove Purchase Agreement). In connection with the acquisition, Premier paid an aggregate of C$8,000,000 on closing, C$4,000,000 of which was paid in cash and the balance of which was satisfied by the issuance of 892,857 common shares of Premier. In addition, Premier issued a promissory note (Cove Acquisition Promissory Note) in the amount of C$20,000,000 payable in C$10,000,000 allotments on the first and second anniversary dates of the closing date of the acquisition. The Cove Promissory Note was repaid in full in June 2014. The Company also reimbursed Victoria in the amount of $1,206,277 in respect of exploration and related activities conducted on the Cove portion of the Project between March 15, 2012 and the closing of the transaction.

Pursuant to the Cove Purchase Agreement in the event of production from the Cove portion of the Project, Premier will make additional payments to Victoria in the aggregate amount of C$20,000,000 (consisting of cash and/or the equivalent value of Premier common shares, at Premier’s option), payable in four installments of $5,000,000 each upon the cumulative production, to Premier’s account, of 250,000, 500,000, 750,000 and 1,000,000 troy ounces of gold from the Cove potion of the Project (Deferred Bullet Payment Consideration).

In September 2014, Premier entered into an agreement with Newmont to acquire a 100% interest in the property. Upon closing of the transaction, Premier paid Newmont $15 million, replaced bonding of approximately $4 million via a surety policy, and transferred to Newmont all land sections that comprised the South Carlin Property. In addition, Premier made staged payments to Newmont over 18 months equal to $6 million. Additional details of the transaction included the elimination of Newmont’s previous “back-in” rights to the Project, a 10-year good faith milling agreement for ores mined at McCoy-Cove and retention of a 1.5% NSR in the property.

Premier entered into an earn-in agreement (Barrick Earn-In Agreement) dated December 11, 2017, but effective January 8, 2018, with certain subsidiaries of Barrick Gold Corporation (Barrick).

Pursuant to the Barrick Earn-In Agreement, Barrick had the option to earn a 60% interest in the exploration portion of the Project (McCoy Joint Venture Property) by spending $22.5 million in exploration before June 30, 2022 (Barrick Earn-in). The McCoy Joint Venture Property excludes the “Cove Deposits” (being the claims within the “Carveout”) portion of the Project which was retained solely by Premier.

On December 16, 2020 Premier Gold Mines announced that it entered into an agreement with Equinox Gold whereby Equinox Gold would acquire all the outstanding shares of Premier. At Closing, Premier would spin-out i-80 Gold Corporation. i-80 was to include 100% of Premier’s interest in the McCoy/Cove Project.

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 38		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Figure 3-2 Mining Claim Map

Cove - mccoy Land Position map

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Property Description and Location		Page 39

 

On February 6, 2020 Barrick formally terminated the Earn-In Agreement and all land subject to it is once again 100% held by Premier.

On May 17, 1977 Houston Oil and Minerals granted a 2% net Smelter return royalty to the Summa Corporation. The royalty applies to the portion of the claims in existence on that date.

A 2% net smelter return royalty was collectively reserved by Robert Chiara, et. al., on the Lone Star 1 – 4 claims. These claims do not contain any of the Cove Mineral Resource. Figure 3-3 shows the area covered by the Summa and Chiara Royalties.

Figure 3-3 Summa and Chiara Royalties and Resource Location

 

3.3.

Property Holding Costs

Unpatented claims have annual maintenance fees of $200 per claim payable to the Bureau of Land Management and a notice of intent to hold (NIH) in the amount of $12 per claim payable to Lander

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 40		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

County. The BLM MLRS mining claim database shows all claim fees paid through September 2025. County NIH fee payments are current.

Patented claims are subject to property taxes, which were current at the time of this report. There was also a special assessment for Reese River Basin water rights in 2024, which was paid. Annual property holding costs are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Property Holding Costs

Description		Payee		Quantity		Amount
Unpatented Claim Maintenance Fee		BLM		1,728			$345,600.00
Notice of Intent to Hold		Lander County		1,728			$20,748.00
Patented Claim Property Taxes		Lander County		9			$281.20
2024 Reese River Basin water right special assessment		Lander County					$10,578.73
Total							$377,179.81

 

3.4.

Environmental Liabilities

The Project was under active reclamation by Newmont from 2003 to 2014. Activities include re-contouring and seeding of the dumps, leach pads, and tailings facility. All surface infrastructure outside of the maintenance shop and guard shack has been removed.

Au-Reka is responsible for all environmental liabilities related to the closure of the McCoy-Cove Project as well as final clean-up of surface drill pads and minor drill roads. All closure activities other than evaporation of the tailings facility, reclamation of water treatment and storage ponds, reclamation of exploration drill pads, and water quality testing have been temporarily put on hold pending the potential for future production out of the Cove-Helen underground.

The authors are not aware of any additional environmental liabilities on the property. The authors are not aware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform the proposed work program on the property.

 

3.5.

Permits/Licenses

Currently, Au-Reka is working under the Cove-Helen Underground Mine Project Plan of Operations (POO No. NVN-088795) approved 2018. The POO authorizes Au-Reka to complete up to 100 acres of surface exploration disturbance as well as an underground exploration decline and subsequent bulk sample of up to 120,000 tons.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography		Page 41

 

4.  Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography

 

4.1.

Accessibility

Access to the Project area is via State Highway 305, 30 miles south from the town of Battle Mountain, and then west approximately seven miles along the paved McCoy Mine Road. Battle Mountain is located on Highway 80, approximately 70 miles west of Elko, Nevada.

Topographic elevations vary across the project site from 4,600 to 7,200 feet amsl.

 

4.2.

Climate

The climate in Lander County is typical of the high-desert environment. Average July temperatures range between 65°F and 75°F in the lower valleys and cooler in the higher elevations. Summer highs in the valleys are approximately the mid-90°F, with temperatures in the range of 50°F or 60°F at night. Winter temperatures average between 20°F and 30°F in the valleys with the possibility of frost from early September through June.

Average rainfall is 10 in to 15 in, with less than 10 in. of rain in the lowest areas and up to 20 in. occurring in the mountains. The majority of precipitation falls between November and May, with the possibility of summer thunderstorms.

All of the mining operations in the area operate 365 days per year.

 

4.3.

Local Resources

The McCoy Mining District has a long history of mining activity, and mining suppliers and contractors are locally available. Both experienced and general labor is readily available from the towns of Elko in Elko County (100 miles north and east of the Project) and Winnemucca in Humboldt County (83 miles north and west of the Project). Some services are also available in Battle Mountain (30 miles north of the Project). There are a number of mining operations in the area and as such there is always competition for employees.

 

4.4.

Infrastructure

Dirt track access roads are located throughout the property for exploration access. The Project exploration facilities consist of a guard shack, mechanic shop and numerous shipping containers used as storage sheds in the laydown and core storage yards.

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 42		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Nevada Energy (formerly Sierra Pacific) power lines run to the property at the McCoy-Cove Project. Power is available at the site from a 120 kV transmission line and a 24.9 kV distribution line.

Previous mining within the Project has left a legacy of:

 

●

Cove open pit and pit lake;

 

●

Reclaimed leach pads;

 

●

Tailings dam (partially reclaimed);

 

●

Reclaimed dumps; and

 

●

Reclaimed infiltration basins.

All aforementioned facilities except for the tailings dam have been released by state and federal agencies and are considered reclaimed.

 

4.5.

Physiography

The Project lies in the Basin and Range Province, a structural and physiographic province comprised of generally north to north-northeast trending, fault bounded mountain ranges separated by alluvial filled valleys.

The property is located on the northeastern side of the Fish Creek Mountains. Elevation in the McCoy Mining District ranges from about 4,800 feet to 6,900 feet above sea level. The valley in the Helen deposit area is at approximately the 4,800 feet elevation and the area overlying the deposit has an elevation of approximately 5,500 feet.

Vegetation is typical of the high desert; greasewood characterizes the salt flats, sagebrush dominates the alluvial fans, and piñon and juniper are found on the mountain slopes. Rabbit brush, white sage, and mountain mahogany are also present (Figure 4-1).

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography		Page 43

 

Figure 4-1 McCoy-Cove Project Area Looking Southeast

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 44		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

5.  History

Gold was first discovered in the McCoy Mining District in 1914 by Joseph H. McCoy. Production through 1977 included approximately 10,000 ounces of gold plus minor amounts of silver, lead, and copper. Production in these early years came from placers and from gold-quartz veins that occurred in northeast striking faults and in intersections of northeast and northwest striking faults. Most of the non-placer production, however, came from argillized and oxidized skarn at what became the McCoy open pit mine.

 

5.1.

Previous Owners

Summa Corporation (Summa), a Howard Hughes company, acquired most of the mining claims in the McCoy Mining District in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1977, Houston Oil and Minerals Corporation (Houston) purchased the McCoy-Cove Project. Gold Fields Mining Corporation (Gold Fields) leased the property in 1981 until September 1984, whereupon the property was returned to Tenneco Minerals Company (Tenneco), which had acquired Houston. Echo Bay Mines Ltd. (Echo Bay) purchased the precious metal holdings of Tenneco in October 1986. Newmont took ownership of the Cove and McCoy properties in February 2003 following the merger between TVX Gold Inc. (TVX), Echo Bay, and Kinross Gold Corporation (Kinross).

Victoria Gold Corp (Victoria) leased the property in June 2006 as previously described in Section 3. In June 2012, Premier entered into an agreement to acquire the lease of the McCoy-Cove Project from Victoria and subsequently acquired a 100% interest in the land package from Newmont in September 2014.

 

5.2.

Historic Exploration

Modern exploration for copper and gold in the McCoy Mining District started in the 1960s by Bear Creek Mining Company and Pilot Exploration drilling in 1967. Summa conducted extensive exploration on the McCoy skarn deposit from 1969 to 1977. Summa also undertook regional geologic mapping of 55 square miles (including the McCoy-Cove Project area) and extensive rock chip surveys.

Houston explored the property in 1980, including geologic mapping, soil geochemical surveys, ground magnetic surveys, and drilling.

Gold Fields conducted an extensive induced polarization (IP) program, airborne magnetic surveys, detailed rock chip sampling, as well as limited geologic mapping and drilling between 1981 and 1984.

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

i-80 Gold Corp		History		Page 45

 

In 1985, Tenneco undertook drilling, metallurgical testing, engineering and feasibility studies and began mining the McCoy deposit in February 1986. Tenneco also began systematic district-wide exploration in 1985 with the collection of 500 stream sediment samples from an eight-square mile area around the McCoy deposit. Evidence of what would become the Cove deposit was found in early 1986, when seven samples yielded gold values of between 15 ppb and 72 ppb with associated anomalous Ag, As, Hg, Sb, and Ti. Subsequent detailed geologic mapping identified jasperoid, manganiferous limestone, and outcrops of altered felsic dikes in the area of the anomalous samples. Surface rock chip samples of these rocks all contained significant gold mineralization. Tenneco’s detailed mapping covered a large area that included both McCoy and Cove and extended to the north, west, and south. In September and October 1986, a total of 147 soil samples were collected from the B and C soil horizons over the altered area at Cove on a 100-foot by 200-foot grid.

Echo Bay continued the systematic district exploration program initiated by Tenneco that included stream sediment, soil, and rock chip sampling plus geologic mapping, exploration trenching using a bulldozer and drilling. Later soil sampling at Cove defined a gold anomaly measuring 2,800 feet long by 100 feet to 600 feet wide, with gold values ranging from 100 ppb to 2,600 ppb. Bulldozer trenching exposed ore grade rock over the entire length of this soil anomaly. Echo Bay discovered the Cove deposit with drilling in January 1987. By March 1987, Echo Bay had drilled 42 shallow exploration holes and development drilling began in late March. Echo Bay drilled 458 reverse circulation (RC) holes totaling 315,000 feet from January 1987 through June 1988 and 51 core holes totaling approximately 65,800 feet through 1989 (Briggs, 2001).

In 1999, Echo Bay drilled eight surface drill holes totaling 6,700 feet on the Cove South Deep deposit. This drilling, combined with bulk sampling from an underground exploration drift, confirmed the presence of a high-grade zone (0.25 opt Au) that could be mined by underground methods (Briggs, 2001). Detailed underground drilling of this deposit continued during 2000 as mining proceeded.

Newmont drilled 15 vertical holes on the property from 2004 to 2005. Victoria began exploring the property in 2006 resulting in the discovery of the Carlin-style Helen Zone immediately northwest of the Cove pit.

 

5.3.

Historic Mining

The earliest known significant mining was in the early 1930s at the Gold Dome mine, previously located on northeast side of the present McCoy open pit mine. This operation included a 250-foot shaft and five levels of workings at 50-foot intervals producing gold grades ranging between 0.25 opt and 2.0 opt.

 

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025

Page 46		S-K1300 Initial Assessment & Technical Report Summary for the Cove Project, Lander County, Nevada		i-80 Gold Corp

 

Table 6-2 summarizes the annual production between 1986 and 2006 at the McCoy and Cove mines. Tenneco commenced mining at the McCoy open pit mine in 1986 and Echo Bay began open pit mining of the Cove deposit in 1988, accompanied by three phases of underground mining.

Underground access at the Cove Mine was via a decline with rubber-tire machines using a room and pillar mining method. From 1988 to 1993, underground mining was used to recover high grade ore ahead of the pit. In 1999, additional underground mining at Cove South Deep (CSD) recovered approximately 300,000 tons of mineralization beyond the ultimate pit limits. The mineralization was relatively flat lying from 10 feet to 80 feet thick. Longhole stoping and drift and fill methods were used with cemented rock fill (CRF).

Conventional open pit mining methods were utilized at Cove open pit, with drilling and blasting of ore on 20-foot benches (double benched to 40 feet) and waste on 30-foot benches (double benched to 60 feet). The lower sulfide orebody was reached in late 1991.

Processing of low grade, run-of-mine heap leach ores from Cove began in 1992 and mining of high-grade ores was completed in 1995. Open pit mining ended at Cove in October 2000.

In 1996, the mill facility was expanded from 7,500 stpd to 10,000 stpd, with milling of stockpiled ores from the Cove open pit beginning in the second half of 1997. Mill recoveries declined during the remaining life of the mine as lower grade, more refractory ores were processed. By October 2000, the mill was processing 11,369 stpd. As of that date, the gold grade was 0.055 opt Au and plant gold recovery was 51.8%; silver grade was 4.00 opt Ag and plant silver recovery was 71.5%.

The mill contained gravity, flotation, and cyanide leach circuits. Through 2006, a total of 3.41 million ounces of gold and 110.2 million ounces of silver were produced from Cove and McCoy, with the vast majority of both metals reportedly coming from the Cove deposit. Approximately 2.6 million ounces of gold were produced from the Cove open pit.

Table 5-2 Historic Cove and McCoy Mine Production 1986 through 2006

Mineralized Material Processed								Oxide				Sulfide				Heap Leach
Year		Milled Oxide Tons (000)		Milled Sulfide Tons (000)		Heap Leach Tons (000)		Au (opt)		Ag (opt)		Au (opt)		Ag (opt)		Au (opt)		Ag (opt)		Au Ounces		Ag Ounces
1986		-		-		1,851		-		-		-		-						34,035		na
1987		-		-		4,292		-		-		-		-		0.04		-		90,788		56,800
1988		-		-		2,994		-		-		-		-		0.053		1.14		104,009		764,116
1989		1,358		-		5,696		0.107		3.21						0.02		0.44		214,566		2,259,653
1990		2,004		201		5,709		0.084		0.82		0.227		6.17		0.021		0.2		255,044		1,982,455
1991		2,094		364		5,174		0.077		1.7		0.194		8.42		0.02		0.69		284,327		5,619,007

 

Practical Mining LLC		March 26, 2025