View settings100% · M+I+I · Resources excl. reserves · Native commodities

Reporting assumptions

These choices persist and are added to shared URLs.

Ownership basis

Show the full project inventory before ownership adjustment.

Display scale

Display contained quantities in millions of ounces or tonnes.

Resource treatment

Normalise Resources to exclude Reserves: where a project is flagged inclusive, net Reserves out of Resources so the figure is additional Resources beyond Reserves. Unknown-convention rows are shown as stated.

Resource total

Total Resource includes Inferred (JORC convention). Totals are re-derived from category rows wherever the document discloses them.

Recovery basis

Show the issuer's headline recoverable figure as reported. Lithium-brine reserves already have the brine-processing recovery factor applied; everything else is shown as stated.

Commodity view

Primary view: each commodity in its own contained unit (oz / t).

Hasaga

Ontario, Canada · Exploring · 100.0% ownedUnverified

Current R&R by category

Whole-project rollup at the latest vintage per category: printed project-level rows are preferred, and mining areas are summed (tonnes-weighted grade) only where the issuer prints no project-level row. Per-area and per-source detail in the Current R&R table below.

Category	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (g/t Au)	Contained (Moz Au)	As at
Measured	—	—	—	—
Indicated	1.47 Mt	8.64 g/t	0.41 Moz	30 June 2024
Inferred	2.06 Mt	7.31 g/t	0.48 Moz	30 June 2024
Total Resources	3.53 Mt	7.86 g/t	0.89 Moz	30 June 2024
Proved	—	—	—	—
Probable	—	—	—	—
Total Reserves	—	—	—	—

Cut-off grade

4.0000 g/t Au

Price assumption

—

JORC code year

—

Peer benchmark — exploring Au projects (297 with resources)Resource size P67Resource grade P95View on grade-tonnage chart →

Percentile of this project's current total Resource among covered peers (P100 = largest / highest grade). Basis and Inferred toggles apply.

Data quality

Latest source: Equinox Gold Updates Mineral Resource Estimate for Hasaga Property in Red Lake, Ontario · 30 June 2024
Reporting code: unknown
Convention: unknown
Currency assumption: US$
Disagreement flags: 2 rows

Current R&R

Resources

Area	Category	Tonnes (Mt)	Au		As at	Source	Provenance
Area	Category	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (g/t Au)	Contained (Moz Au)	As at	Source	Provenance
Total	Indicated	1.47 Mt	8.64 g/t	0.41 Moz	30 June 2024	Table 1: Hasaga Mineral Resource Estimate as of June 30, 2024Unverified Evidence record Hasaga Indicated · Au · as at 2024-06-30 Reported figure Area Whole project Basis 100% Ore tonnes (t) 1470000.0000 Grade 8.6400 Contained (oz) 408000.0000 Classification Resource Source trail Equinox Gold Updates Mineral Resource Estimate for Hasaga Property in Red Lake, Ontario Table 1: Hasaga Mineral Resource Estimate as of June 30, 2024 Published 2024-09-11 Verification Approved; not independently verified · Model extracted QA WARN: 2 rows share this exact identity in this document with CONFLICTING figures (sibling copies: t=2059000 g=7.31 conf=0.97). EITHER at most one matches the print (reject the fabricated copies), OR two DISTINCT printed lines collapsed onto one identity because an area label went missing (t63 White Rock: the deposit line and its group Total, both print-exact, on one empty-area key) — then restore the printed label of one copy (FIX mining_area) instead of rejecting — OR the copies come from differently YEAR-HEADED tables of a comparative filing (t67 NEM: every table prints at two year-ends and both copies are print-exact) — then FIX as_at_date to each copy's own table year instead of rejecting. QA BLOCK: conflicting duplicate — this (project, mining area, commodity, classification, category, as-at date) appears 2 times in the document WITH DIFFERENT figures. At most one copy matches the print; verify each against the document and reject the rest (a copy whose figures appear nowhere in the text is fabricated). \| QA fix: 1,470 kt @ 8.64 g/t Au = 408 koz is Table 1's Indicated 'Total' row (Epp C 893 + Hasaga 346 + Buffalo 158 + Central 73 = 1,470), and the Highlights repeat it as 'Indicated Mineral Resource estimated at 1.470 Mt ... 8.64 g/t ... 408,000 oz'. It is the project-wide Indicated line, not a total_resource; storing it as total_resource is what collided it Copies a pre-filled issue record so you can send it through your normal channel.

Total

Inferred

2.06 Mt

7.31 g/t

0.48 Moz

30 June 2024

Table 1: Hasaga Mineral Resource Estimate as of June 30, 2024Unverified

notes (4)

Source: Equinox Gold Updates Mineral Resource Estimate for Hasaga Property in Red Lake, Ontario · published 11 Sept 2024

Ref: Table 1: Hasaga Mineral Resource Estimate as of June 30, 2024

Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 4.00 g/t Au — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.

QA notes:

QA WARN: 2 rows share this exact identity in this document with CONFLICTING figures (sibling copies: t=1470000 g=8.64 conf=0.98). EITHER at most one matches the print (reject the fabricated copies), OR two DISTINCT printed lines collapsed onto one identity because an area label went missing (t63 White Rock: the deposit line and its group Total, both print-exact, on one empty-area key) — then restore the printed label of one copy (FIX mining_area) instead of rejecting — OR the copies come from differently YEAR-HEADED tables of a comparative filing (t67 NEM: every table prints at two year-ends and both copies are print-exact) — then FIX as_at_date to each copy's own table year instead of rejecting. QA BLOCK: conflicting duplicate — this (project, mining area, commodity, classification, category, as-at date) appears 2 times in the document WITH DIFFERENT figures. At most one copy matches the print; verify each against the document and reject the rest (a copy whose figures appear nowhere in the text is fabricated).
QA fix: 2,059 kt @ 7.31 g/t Au = 484 koz is Table 1's Inferred 'Total' row (Epp C 728 + Hasaga 507 + Epp D 322 + Buffalo 259 + Central 243 = 2,059), repeated in the Highlights as 'Inferred Mineral Resource estimated at 2.059 Mt ... 7.31 g/t ... 484,000 oz'. Both duplicate copies are print-exact; the collision is on CATEGORY, not area or as-at, so re-cuttin