These choices persist and are added to shared URLs.
Chapada
Brazil · Producing · 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.
Au
Category
Tonnes (Mt)
Grade (g/t Au)
Contained (Moz Au)
As at
Measured
423.74 Mt
0.13 g/t
1.78 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Indicated
844.77 Mt
0.12 g/t
3.32 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Inferred
75.57 Mt
0.20 g/t
0.48 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Total Resources
361.40 Mt
0.14 g/t
1.57 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Proved
305.26 Mt
0.14 g/t
1.38 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Probable
263.88 Mt
0.11 g/t
0.90 Moz
31 Dec 2024
Total Reserves
569.14 Mt
0.12 g/t
2.29 Moz
31 Dec 2024
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.
Cu
Category
Tonnes (Mt)
Grade (% Cu)
Contained (Mt Cu)
As at
Measured
423.74 Mt
0.25%
1.07 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2024
Indicated
844.77 Mt
0.23%
1.93 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2024
Inferred
75.57 Mt
0.31%
0.24 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2024
Total Resources
361.40 Mt
0.26%
0.95 Mt Cu
31 Dec 2024
Proved
Cut-off grade
6.2600 g/t Au · 6.2600 % Cu
Price assumption
US$1600.00/t · US$3.85/t
JORC code year
—
Peer benchmark — producing Cu projects (98 with resources)Resource size P62Resource grade P18View on grade-tonnage chart →
Percentile of this project's current total Resource among covered peers (P100 = largest / highest grade). Basis and Inferred toggles apply.
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.
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table) – Chapada Total
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA WARN: identical figures appear under ANOTHER area label of this project in the same document — likely one printed estimate stored twice (a summary/grouping line duplicating its leaf). Keep one copy; reject the relabelled twin. QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 1026000.0000, this document reports 1072000 (4.48% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.18% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.05% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Total
Measured
423,744
Cu 0.25
Au 0.13
Cu 1,072
Au 1,781
100 %". Its twin 4efb58e4-e679-4b47-b1a2-62b2b0047e9f (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Total
Measured
407,226
Cu 0.25
Au 0.13
Cu 1,026
Au 1,702
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table) – Chapada Total
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA WARN: tonnes/contained equal the SUM of 3 sibling row(s) of the same classification/category/commodity (Open Pit, Stockpile, Sauva Open Pit) — likely a printed multi-deposit rollup/subtotal. Policy keeps leaf rows and printed whole-project Totals only; reject mid-level rollups (double-count). QA WARN: tonnes/contained equal the SUM of 3 already-APPROVED row(s) of the same project/classification/category/commodity (Saúva Open Pit, Stockpile, Open Pit) — a cross-document rollup whose component leaves were stored from another announcement (t58 CMM MGGP underground class). Approving it double-counts against the approved leaves; verify whether the print is a grouping line. QA INFO: corroborated — matches an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date from a prior document (0.94% apart). This is a RE-PRESENTATION: the approved row already carries this figure, so reject this copy unless the new document restates it with changes. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.83% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±4.32% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Total
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table) – Chapada Total
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA INFO: inclusive-of-reserves flag cleared on an inferred row — reserves derive from M&I only, so the flag is meaningless on inferred. QA WARN: tonnes/contained equal the SUM of 3 already-APPROVED row(s) of the same project/classification/category/commodity (Saúva Open Pit, Open Pit, Saúva Underground) — a cross-document rollup whose component leaves were stored from another announcement (t58 CMM MGGP underground class). Approving it double-counts against the approved leaves; verify whether the print is a grouping line. QA INFO: corroborated — matches an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date from a prior document (0.85% apart). This is a RE-PRESENTATION: the approved row already carries this figure, so reject this copy unless the new document restates it with changes. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.56% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±1.82% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Total
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA WARN: identical figures appear under ANOTHER area label of this project in the same document — likely one printed estimate stored twice (a summary/grouping line duplicating its leaf). Keep one copy; reject the relabelled twin. QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 1702000.0000, this document reports 1781000 (4.64% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA WARN: bare method label 'Open Pit' beside tenement/deposit-prefixed method labels on the same project — a multi-block table's lost prefix makes this row read as the project-level method total when it is one block's leaf (t57 MGX ML33760: bare 'Open Pit' was a 4.5x misread). Restore the printed block prefix (FIX mining_area) or verify the row really is the project-wide method line.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: corroborated — matches an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date from a prior document (0.51% apart). This is a RE-PRESENTATION: the approved row already carries this figure, so reject this copy unless the new document restates it with changes. QA WARN: bare method label 'Open Pit' beside tenement/deposit-prefixed method labels on the same project — a multi-block table's lost prefix makes this row read as the project-level method total when it is one block's leaf (t57 MGX ML33760: bare 'Open Pit' was a 4.5x misread). Restore the printed block prefix (FIX mining_area) or verify the row really is the project-wide method line. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.47% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.43% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA INFO: inclusive-of-reserves flag cleared on an inferred row — reserves derive from M&I only, so the flag is meaningless on inferred. QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 105000.0000, this document reports 107000 (1.90% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA WARN: bare method label 'Open Pit' beside tenement/deposit-prefixed method labels on the same project — a multi-block table's lost prefix makes this row read as the project-level method total when it is one block's leaf (t57 MGX ML33760: bare 'Open Pit' was a 4.5x misread). Restore the printed block prefix (FIX mining_area) or verify the row really is the project-wide method line.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Ref: Mineral Resources (100% basis, inclusive of Reserves)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.48% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained are only good to ±1.79% (rounding granularity) — treated as reconciled.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=bf8d5fc7) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Saúva Open Pit
Ref: Mineral Resources (100% basis, inclusive of Reserves)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 2.20% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained are only good to ±12.02% (rounding granularity) — treated as reconciled.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=bf8d5fc7) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Saúva Open Pit
Ref: Mineral Resources (100% basis, inclusive of Reserves)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 1.13% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained are only good to ±1.38% (rounding granularity) — treated as reconciled.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=bf8d5fc7) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Saúva Underground
Ref: Mineral Resource Estimates – December 31st, 2024 (first table)
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
inc — Stated Resources are inclusive of Reserves. Set Resources: Excl. Reserves to net them out.
QA notes:
QA BLOCK: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 220000.0000, this document reports 239000 (8.64% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA INFO: recompute differs 2.11% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.99% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Stockpile
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA WARN: identical figures appear under ANOTHER area label of this project in the same document — likely one printed estimate stored twice (a summary/grouping line duplicating its leaf). Keep one copy; reject the relabelled twin. QA WARN: rollup-shaped area label ('Combined') — likely a printed multi-deposit subtotal; policy keeps leaf rows and printed whole-project Totals only. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.66% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.06% 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. QA INFO: identical figures to area(s) 'Open Pit' — likely the same printed line under two labels (a summary and a detail table); keep one label and reject the other.
Proven' line: 305,257 kt @ 0.25% Cu = 776 kt is the full-cover operation-wide Proven total (Chapada Open Pit 305,257 + Stockpile nil), and 'Combined' is a scope label, not a mining area. No area-NULL Chapada reserve/proved twin exists in this extraction (area-NULL twi
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Combined
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.
Indicated
844,766
Cu 0.23
Au 0.12
Cu 1,932
Au 3,320
100 %". Its twin 42fda631-9e0c-45bb-a66f-e0297cf1221d (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Total
Indicated
838,922
Cu 0.23
Au 0.12
Cu 1,908
Au 3,289
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement). F3 RESOLVED — print-checked and NOT a defect: b0bdd805 DOES print the Saúva leg it was thought to omit — "Sauva Open Pit
Indicated
249,858
Cu 0.29
Au 0.16
Cu 714
Au 1,301
100 %" — so its consolidated Indicated 844,766 kt / Cu 1,932 kt / Au 3,320 koz correctly embeds Saúva (459,323 + 135,585 + 249,858 = 844,766 kt exactly; Au 1,555 + 464 + 1,301 = 3,320 koz; Cu 979 + 239 + 714 = 1,932 kt — all foot exactly). The apparent short-foot is a STORAGE/dedup artifact only: b0bdd805 and bf8d5fc7 print the Saúva Open Pit indicated leg bit-identically, so it is stored once, attributed to bf8d5fc7 (rows 44109ec6 Au / 92cef7c6 Cu), at the same as_at=2024-12-31. The split set is complete in the DB; no Saúva row is missing. Do not re-raise F3 on this row.
Inferred
75,573
Cu 0.31
Au 0.20
Cu 238
Au 476
100 %". Its twin a7e1904c-3969-4a88-9c34-67a06b04f2bf (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Total
Inferred
74,744
Cu 0.32
Au 0.20
Cu 236
Au 474
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Measured
423,744
Cu 0.25
Au 0.13
Cu 1,072
Au 1,781
100 %". Its twin e31ea97c-07a1-43f1-8993-17020cea8832 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Measured
407,226
Cu 0.25
Au 0.13
Cu 1,026
Au 1,702
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Indicated
459,323
Cu 0.21
Au 0.11
Cu 979
Au 1,555
100 %". Its twin 83d0c2c9-1345-4d03-a079-612debd194f4 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Indicated
457,264
Cu 0.21
Au 0.11
Cu 974
Au 1,544
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Inferred
48,360
Cu 0.22
Au 0.09
Cu 107
Au 140
100 %". Its twin 71df4677-2230-4f6c-9da1-ecfd8115b824 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Inferred
47,531
Cu 0.22
Au 0.09
Cu 105
Au 138
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Indicated
249,858
Cu 0.29
Au 0.16
Cu 714
Au 1,301
100 %". This is a Saúva leg — Saúva is undeveloped and therefore undepleted, which is why it is the one component that does NOT move between the two releases; that invariance corroborates the depletion reading above rather than undermining it. b0bdd805 prints the identical leg, so this single stored row correctly serves both presentations of the 2024-12-31 vintage and is the leg that b0bdd805's consolidated Indicated total embeds without storing separately.
Inferred
2,028
Cu 0.20
Au 0.06
Cu 4
Au 4
100 %". This is a Saúva leg — Saúva is undeveloped and therefore undepleted, which is why it is the one component that does NOT move between the two releases; that invariance corroborates the depletion reading above rather than undermining it. b0bdd805 prints the identical leg, so this single stored row correctly serves both presentations of the 2024-12-31 vintage and is the leg that b0bdd805's consolidated Indicated total embeds without storing separately.
Inferred
25,184
Cu 0.51
Au 0.41
Cu 127
Au 332
100 %". This is a Saúva leg — Saúva is undeveloped and therefore undepleted, which is why it is the one component that does NOT move between the two releases; that invariance corroborates the depletion reading above rather than undermining it. b0bdd805 prints the identical leg, so this single stored row correctly serves both presentations of the 2024-12-31 vintage and is the leg that b0bdd805's consolidated Indicated total embeds without storing separately. CAVEAT specific to this row: the Saúva Underground inferred Cu leg is the ONE Saúva figure that is not bit-identical — b0bdd805 prints "Sauva Underground
Inferred
25,184
Cu 0.50
Au 0.41
Cu 126
Au 332
100 %" vs bf8d5fc7 "Cu 0.51 / Cu 127". The 1 kt / 0.01% gap is a re-rounding of the same 25,184 kt tonnage (25,184 x 0.50% = 125.9 kt), immaterial and non-substantive. Row left at its own source's printed 0.51 / 127,000 t; if a single statement-of-record value is ever required, b0bdd805's Cu 0.50 / 126 kt governs.
Indicated
135,585
Cu 0.18
Au 0.11
Cu 239
Au 464
100 %". Its twin 4e3834c1-99fb-4d55-95d1-048dc4e2962b (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Stockpile
Indicated
131,800
Cu 0.17
Au 0.11
Cu 220
Au 445
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Proven
305,257
Cu 0.25
Au 0.14
Cu 776
Au 1,384
100 %". Its twin 72d4811e-d5dc-4842-9546-e4f4e8167470 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Combined
Proven
291,237
Cu 0.25
Au 0.14
Cu 740
Au 1,311
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 494000.0000, this document reports 518000 (4.86% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. AUTO AREA-FIX: mining_area 'Combined' reads as the whole-project total and the sibling areas sum to its tonnage — area cleared so rollups count it once (null-wins). Original label preserved here. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.88% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.60% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Combined
Probable
263,882
Cu 0.20
Au 0.11
Cu 518
Au 902
100 %". Its twin 08389bdd-7b4d-4c20-859a-e92053a9353b (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Combined
Probable
257,892
Cu 0.19
Au 0.11
Cu 494
Au 875
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 2186000.0000, this document reports 2286000 (4.57% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. AUTO AREA-FIX: mining_area 'Combined' reads as the whole-project total and the sibling areas sum to its tonnage — area cleared so rollups count it once (null-wins). Original label preserved here. QA INFO: recompute differs 3.95% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±4.19% 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. QA WARN: whole-project total_reserve of 569,139,000 t has missing components — only probable (263,882,000 t) is stored against it. Reserve categories are exhaustive, so the proved cell(s) of the printed total line were likely dropped by extraction (live t52/t53: Boddington whole-project proved+probable Cu and Red Chris probable Au/Cu — four printed cells never emitted, found only by audit). Check the printed line for a category split; if the issuer prints none, dismiss.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Combined
Total
569,139
Cu 0.23
Au 0.12
Cu 1,294
Au 2,286
100 %". Its twin a3b12c96-46ac-4a35-a415-830b822c6ea7 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Combined
Total
549,129
Cu 0.22
Au 0.12
Cu 1,233
Au 2,186
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 6.26 g/t Au — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 1,600/oz — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA WARN: identical figures appear under ANOTHER area label of this project in the same document — likely one printed estimate stored twice (a summary/grouping line duplicating its leaf). Keep one copy; reject the relabelled twin. QA BLOCK: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 1311000.0000, this document reports 1384000 (5.57% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA WARN: bare method label 'Open Pit' beside tenement/deposit-prefixed method labels on the same project — a multi-block table's lost prefix makes this row read as the project-level method total when it is one block's leaf (t57 MGX ML33760: bare 'Open Pit' was a 4.5x misread). Restore the printed block prefix (FIX mining_area) or verify the row really is the project-wide method line. QA INFO: identical figures to area(s) 'Combined' — likely the same printed line under two labels (a summary and a detail table); keep one label and reject the other.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Proven
305,257
Cu 0.25
Au 0.14
Cu 776
Au 1,384
100 %". Its twin 54f5f315-643f-44a9-874b-bfb1e04cdd60 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Proven
291,237
Cu 0.25
Au 0.14
Cu 740
Au 1,311
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
Cutoff 6.26 % Cu — Cut-off grade assumption from the source statement.
@ US$ 3.85/t — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA WARN: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 274000.0000, this document reports 278000 (1.46% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA WARN: bare method label 'Open Pit' beside tenement/deposit-prefixed method labels on the same project — a multi-block table's lost prefix makes this row read as the project-level method total when it is one block's leaf (t57 MGX ML33760: bare 'Open Pit' was a 4.5x misread). Restore the printed block prefix (FIX mining_area) or verify the row really is the project-wide method line. QA INFO: recompute differs 1.53% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.45% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Probable
128,297
Cu 0.22
Au 0.11
Cu 278
Au 438
100 %". Its twin 96c972a9-0cee-4de9-a30d-acf5f8182d07 (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Chapada Open Pit
Probable
126,092
Cu 0.22
Au 0.11
Cu 274
Au 430
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
@ US$ 3.85/oz — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
t81 note (a1): unflagged context row, status unchanged - recording only that it rides on the same suspect vintage: 417,329,000 t g=0.13 contained 1,741,000 from bf8d5fc7, the doc whose 24 paired reserve rows are held as a same-vintage clash with b0bdd805. If the operator re-stamps bf8d5fc7 (likely 2025-12-31), this row must move with them. It foots its own doc: Open Pit 417,329 + Stockpile 131,800 = 549,129 kt = bf8d5fc7's total_reserve.
Ref: Mineral Reserves Estimates - December 31st, 2024
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
QA notes:
QA BLOCK: conflicts with approved history — an already-approved estimate for the same project/category/as-at date reports 220000.0000, this document reports 239000 (8.64% apart). Adjudicate which figure is right. QA INFO: recompute differs 2.11% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained carry ±2.99% 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.
t83 print round (p1): AS_AT CONFIRMED 2024-12-31 — NO CHANGE; the swarm's "bf8d5fc7 is a mis-stamped 2025-12-31" hypothesis is REFUTED by the print. bf8d5fc7 (pub 2026-02-18) leads with "estimates effective as of December 31, 2025 (or as otherwise specified herein)" but its notes to the tables specify: "All estimates, with the exception of Chapada and Vicuña are effective as of December 31, 2025. The effective date of Chapada is as of December 31, 2024 and the effective date of Vicuña is October 31, 2025." Chapada is explicitly carved OUT of the 2025-12-31 headline date. The depletion signature is explained by the same release's Chapada highlight: "Chapada (Brazil): Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at Chapada were not updated but reflect the result of mine depletion during the year." i.e. the estimate was NOT re-run (effective date stays 2024-12-31) but the reported inventory is net of 2025 mining — which is exactly why mined components (Open Pit, Stockpile, Proven, Probable) shrink while undeveloped Saúva does not move. b0bdd805 (pub 2025-02-12) prints "estimates effective as of December 31, 2024" and "All estimates, with the exception of Josemaria and Filo del Sol are effective as at December 31, 2024". Both sets therefore legitimately carry as_at=2024-12-31: b0bdd805 = the 2024-12-31 estimate as first stated (statement of record), bf8d5fc7 = the SAME 2024-12-31 estimate carried forward net of 2025 depletion (restatement). This row (doc=b0bdd805) reproduces its own source exactly — printed line: "Stockpile
Probable
135,585
Cu 0.18
Au 0.11
Cu 239
Au 464
100 %". Its twin cdc94cc5-5665-4a27-8a49-e40d4447367c (doc=bf8d5fc7) is equally print-exact — printed line: "Stockpile
Probable
131,800
Cu 0.17
Au 0.11
Cu 220
Au 445
100 %". Both stand; do NOT dedup, reject or pick a winner — the pair is a disclosed same-effective-date depletion restatement, not an extraction conflict. Where a single 2024-12-31 figure is needed, authority order gives b0bdd805 (statement of record) over bf8d5fc7 (restatement).
Unknown code — Reporting code not yet captured for this row.
@ US$ 3.85/oz — Metal price assumption used to derive this estimate.
QA notes:
QA INFO: recompute differs 4.75% from the printed contained figure, but the printed tonnes/grade/contained are only good to ±4.70% (rounding granularity) — treated as reconciled.
t81 note (a1): unflagged context row, status unchanged - recording only that it rides on the same suspect vintage: 131,800,000 t g=0.11 contained 445,000 from bf8d5fc7, the doc whose 24 paired reserve rows are held as a same-vintage clash with b0bdd805. If the operator re-stamps bf8d5fc7 (likely 2025-12-31), this row must move with them. It foots its own doc: Open Pit 417,329 + Stockpile 131,800 = 549,129 kt = bf8d5fc7's total_reserve.