These choices persist and are added to shared URLs.
Kamoa-Kakula
Democratic Republic of Congo · Producing · 39.6% 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 (% Cu)
Contained (Mt Cu)
As at
Measured
—
—
—
—
Indicated
1,272.00 Mt
2.65%
34.00 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2025
Inferred
336.00 Mt
1.80%
6.10 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2025
Total Resources
1,142.00 Mt
2.36%
27.00 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2025
Proved
—
—
—
—
Probable
466.00 Mt
2.82%
13.10 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2025
Total Reserves
466.00 Mt
2.82%
13.10 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2025
Sub-category rows are as disclosed (no Reserves-treatment netting); the Total rows honour the Resources treatment and Inferred-policy toggles, so components may not sum to the Total.
Dotted tonnes/grade are derived under the active Resources treatment: tonnes are netted of (or grossed by) the reserve tonnage alongside contained, and grade is re-derived as netted contained ÷ netted tonnes — not the published figures.
Cut-off grade
1.0000 % Cu · 1.5000 % Cu
Price assumption
US$6.00/t · US$4.50/t
JORC code year
—
Peer benchmark — producing Cu projects (98 with resources)Resource size P95Resource grade P98View on grade-tonnage chart →
Percentile of this project's current total Resource among covered peers (P100 = largest / highest grade). Basis and Inferred toggles apply.
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.00 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 6/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.78% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±4.14% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
Contained Copper Mt). 75 Mt x 2.1% = 1.575 Mt, not the printed 1.2 Mt, and the disagreement is irreducible: widest reading is [74.5,75.5] Mt x [2.05,2.15]% = 1.53-1.62 Mt against printed 1.2 Mt [1.15,1.25]. The CONTAINED cell is the corroborated one and the GRADE cell is the outlier — the printed "Total Kamoa-Kakula Inferred 336 1.8 6.1" reconciles only with 1.2: components 235+75+26 = 336 EXACT and 4.0+1.2+0.9 = 6.1 EXACT, and the total's own grade 6.1/336 = 1.815% matches the printed 1.8%, whereas substituting the recompute 1.575 would force 6.5 Mt and 1.93%. Every sibling row checks out ("Kamoa Inferred 235 1.7 4.0" -> 4.00 Mt; "Inferred Pillars 26 3.5 0.9" -> 0.91 Mt), and footnote 9 fixes the print step: "All inferred Mineral Resource estimates of grade for Cu % are reported to one decimal place." NO FIX — the document prints 2.1. The rest of the table implies the true Kakula Inferred grade is ~1.6% Cu.
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.00 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 6/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.11% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±8.91% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.00 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 6/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 2.50% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±3.23% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
Rows are hierarchical, not additive — do not sum a column across rows. Whole-project rows (Area “Total”) already contain the indented named-area rows beneath them, and an issuer's printed per-deposit total can itself contain other listed areas. All derived totals and rollups on this site already exclude the overlapping rows.
Dotted Total-row tonnes/grade are derived under the active Resources treatment: tonnes netted of (or grossed by) the reserve tonnage alongside contained, grade re-derived as netted contained ÷ netted tonnes — not the published figures.
Figures are on a 100% project basis unless a row carries the attrib chip; Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. holds 39.6% of this project.
t98v
— Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
— Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
— Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
· published 31 Mar 2026
Ref: 5-6
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.01% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±6.83% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
— Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
· published 31 Mar 2026
Ref: 5-6
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 5.78% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±7.37% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
Ref: 5-6
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 14.38% from the printed contained figure, but the print is exactly consistent with the recompute at the printed tonnes/grade/contained granularity (rounding-interval overlap) — treated as reconciled.
· published 31 Mar 2026
Ref: 5-6
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.36% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±6.88% rounding granularity (capped per component; the true half-step band of coarse prints is wider) and the remainder sits under the warn threshold — treated as reconciled.
— Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 1.50 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 4.5/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.