Mineral Resources – NSG

Table 1. Sulitjelma Constrained Resource Evaluation Statement (April 10th, 2025)

Region	Zone	Inferred Resources By Zone					Sub-Totals
		Tonnes (kt)	Cu (%)	Zn (%)	Cu Eq (%)	APT (m)	Tonnes (kt)	Cu (%)	Zn (%)	Cu Eq (%)
Rupsi / Dypet	2	4,188	1.45	0.35	1.50	5.2
	3	1,499	0.95	0.19	0.98	5.5
	5	2,188	0.82	0.37	0.88	15.7
	6	410	1.40	0.24	1.43	3.6
	7	126	0.77	0.15	0.79	2.4
	8	484	0.89	0.11	0.91	6.8
	9	163	2.01	0.25	2.05	2.5
	10	201	1.39	0.36	1.45	2.9	9,258	1.19	0.31	1.24
Hankabakken II	2	3,031	0.88	0.07	0.89	4.2
	3	1,471	0.86	0.05	0.86	3.1
	5	453	1.00	0.02	1.00	9.1	4,955	0.88	0.06	0.89
Sagmo	2	455	1.15	0.19	1.18	3.6
	3	193	1.56	0.14	1.58	6.4
	5	2,205	0.89	0.15	0.91	4.1	2,853	0.98	0.16	1.00
Total		17,066	1.06	0.21	1.10	6.1

Notes:

1. CIM definitions were followed for MRE.
2. All resources reported are categorized Inferred; there are no Measured or Indicated resources.
3. A minimum mining thickness of 2.2 m was applied in making the MRE constraint wireframes.
4. The MRE constraint wireframes were generated using a preliminary MSO, based on a cut-off grade of 0.60% CuEq, related to potential underground mining.
5. Assumed parameters for the cut-off grade and CuEq calculations included: Prices: US$4.20/Ib Cu, US$1.25/Ib Zn
   Processing recoveries: 92% Cu, 57% Zn
   Payabilities: 96.5% Cu, 86% Zn
6. The copper equivalent (CuEq) calculation is as follows: CuEq = Cu grade + (Zn grade x 0.16)
7. For the cut-off grade calculation, the assumed total operating cost was $50/t of ore.
8. A global density value of3 t/m3 was assumed.
9. Rounding may result in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grades and metal content; not considered material.
10. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.