{"url_path":"/sec/scco/10-k/2026/item-2","section_key":"item-2","section_title":"Item 2 PROPERTIES**","topic":"sec","document":{"doc_type":"10-K","doc_date":"2026-02-27","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001838/0001104659-26-021492-index.html","accession_number":"0001104659-26-021492","cik":"0001001838","ticker":"SCCO","issuer_name":"SOUTHERN COPPER CORP/","edgar_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001838/0001104659-26-021492-index.html","primary_entity_key":"0001001838","primary_entity_name":"SOUTHERN COPPER CORP/"},"word_count":39607,"has_tables":true,"body_markdown":"**ITEM 2. PROPERTIES**\n\n​\n\nSUMMARY DISCLOSURE\n\n​\n\nThe following maps show the locations of our principal mines, smelting facilities, refineries and projects. We operate open-pit copper mines in the southern part of Peru—at Toquepala and Cuajone—and in Mexico, at La Caridad and Buenavista. We also own five underground mines, three out of which currently produce zinc, copper, silver and gold.\n\n​\n\n*The below description of the Company’s mining operations is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Technical Report Summaries included as exhibits to this report and incorporated by reference into this Item 2.*\n\n​\n\n​\n\nEXTRACTION, SMELTING AND REFINING PROCESSES\n\n​\n\nOur operations include open-pit and underground mining, concentrating, copper smelting, copper refining, copper rod production, solvent extraction/electrowinning (“SX-EW”), zinc refining, sulfuric acid production, molybdenum concentrate production and silver and gold refining. The extraction and production process are summarized below.\n\n​\n\nOPEN-PIT MINING\n\n​\n\nIn an open-pit mine, the production process begins at the mine pit, where waste rock, leaching ore and copper ore are drilled and blasted and then loaded onto diesel-electric trucks by electric shovels. Waste is hauled to dump areas and leaching ore is hauled to leaching dumps. The ore to be milled is transported to the primary crushers.\n\n​\n\nUNDERGROUND MINING\n\n​\n\nIn an underground mine, the production process begins at the stopes, where copper, zinc and lead veins are drilled and blasted and the ore is hauled to the underground crusher station. The crushed ore is then hoisted to the surface for processing.\n\n​\n\nCONCENTRATING\n\n​\n\nThe copper ore above an established cut-off from the primary crusher or the copper, zinc and lead-bearing ore from the underground mines is transported to a concentrator plant where gyratory crushers break the ore into sizes no larger than three-quarters of an inch. The ore is then sent to a mill section where it is ground to the consistency of fine powder. The finely ground ore is mixed with water and chemical reagents and pumped as a slurry to the flotation separator, where it is mixed with certain chemicals. In the flotation separator, reagent solutions and air pumped into the flotation cells cause the minerals to separate from the waste rock and bubble to the surface where they are collected and dried.\n\n​\n\n32\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nIf the bulk concentrated copper contains molybdenum, it is first processed in a molybdenum plant as described below under “Molybdenum Production.” In addition, some of the concentrates contain economic amounts of gold and silver that are recovered in the smelters and refineries.\n\n​\n\nCOPPER SMELTING\n\n​\n\nCopper concentrates are transported to a smelter, where they are smelted using a furnace, converter and anode furnace to produce either blister copper (which is in the form of cakes with air pockets) or copper anodes (which are cleaned of air pockets). At the smelter, the concentrates are mixed with flux (a chemical substance intentionally included for high temperature processing) and then sent to reverberatory furnaces producing copper matte and slag (a mixture of iron and other impurities). Copper matte contains approximately 65% copper. Copper matte is then sent to the converters, where the material is oxidized in two steps: (i) the iron sulfides in the matte are oxidized with silica, producing slag that is returned to the reverberatory furnaces, and (ii) the copper contained in the matte sulfides is then oxidized to produce copper that, after casting, is called blister copper, containing approximately 98% to 99% copper, or anodes, containing approximately 99.7% copper. Most of the blister and anode production is sent to the refinery and the remainder is sold to customers.\n\n​\n\nCOPPER REFINING\n\n​\n\nAnodes are suspended in tanks with a solution containing water, sulfuric acid and copper sulfate. A weak electrical current is passed through the anodes and chemical solution and the dissolved copper is deposited on very thin starting sheets to produce copper cathodes containing approximately 99.99% copper. During this process, silver, gold and other metals (for example, palladium, platinum and selenium), along with other impurities, settle on the bottom of the tank (anodic muds). This anodic mud is processed at a precious metal plant where selenium, silver and gold are recovered.\n\n​\n\nCOPPER ROD PLANT\n\n​\n\nTo produce copper rod, copper cathodes are first smelted in a furnace and then dosed in a casting machine. The dosed copper is then extruded and passed through a cooling system that begins solidification of copper into a 60×50 millimeter copper bar. The resulting copper bar is gradually stretched in a rolling mill to achieve the desired diameter. The rolled bar is then cooled and sprayed with wax as a preservation agent and collected into a rod coil that is compacted and sent to market.\n\n​\n\nSOLVENT EXTRACTION/ELECTROWINNING (“SX-EW”)\n\n​\n\nA complementary processing method is the leaching and SX-EW process. During the SX-EW process, low-grade sulfides ore and copper oxides are leached with sulfuric acid to allow copper content recovery. The acid and copper solution is then agitated with a solvent that contains chemical additives that attract copper ions. As the solvent is lighter than water, it floats to the surface carrying with it the copper content. The solvent is then separated using an acid solution, freeing the copper. The acid solution containing the copper is then moved to electrolytic extraction tanks to produce copper cathodes.\n\n​\n\nMOLYBDENUM PRODUCTION\n\n​\n\nMolybdenum is recovered from copper-molybdenum concentrates produced at the concentrator. The copper-molybdenum concentrate is first treated with a thickener until it becomes slurry. The slurry is then agitated in a chemical and water solution and pumped to the flotation separator. The separator creates a froth that carries molybdenum to the surface but not the copper mineral (which is later filtered to produce copper concentrates). The molybdenum froth is skimmed off, filtered and dried to produce molybdenum concentrates.\n\n​\n\nZINC REFINING\n\n​\n\nMetallic zinc is produced through electrolysis using zinc concentrates and zinc oxides. Sulfur is eliminated from the concentrates by roasting and the zinc oxide is dissolved in sulfuric acid solution to eliminate solid impurities. The\n\n33\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\npurified zinc sulfide solution is treated by electrolysis to produce refined zinc and to separate silver and gold, which are recovered as concentrates.\n\n​\n\nSULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION\n\n​\n\nSulfur dioxide gases are produced in the copper smelting and zinc roasting processes. As a part of our environmental preservation program, we treat the sulfur dioxide emissions at two of our Mexican plants and at our Peruvian processing facilities to produce sulfuric acid, some of which is, in turn, used for the copper leaching process; the balance is sold to mining and fertilizer companies located mainly in Mexico, Peru, United States and Chile.\n\n​\n\nSILVER AND GOLD REFINING\n\n​\n\nSilver and gold are recovered from copper, zinc and lead concentrates in the smelters and refineries and from slimes through electrolytic refining.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n34\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nPRODUCTION OVERVIEW\n\n​\n\nThe table below provides an overview of Southern Copper’s aggregate annual production for all of its properties during each of the three most recently completed fiscal years:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Year Ended December 31, **\n\n** **\n\n**2025 -2024**\n\n \n\n**2024 -2023**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nCOPPER**(thousand pounds)**:\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n2,108,212\n\n \n\n2,146,971\n\n \n\n2,008,438\n\n \n\n(38,759)\n\n \n\n(1.8)\n\n%  \n\n138,533\n\n \n\n6.9\n\n%\n\nSmelted\n\n \n\n1,272,345\n\n \n\n1,347,597\n\n \n\n1,383,597\n\n \n\n(75,252)\n\n​\n\n(5.6)\n\n%  \n\n(36,000)\n\n \n\n(2.6)\n\n%\n\nRefined\n\n \n\n1,348,157\n\n \n\n1,403,040\n\n \n\n1,419,817\n\n \n\n(54,883)\n\n​\n\n(3.9)\n\n%  \n\n(16,777)\n\n \n\n(1.2)\n\n%\n\nRod\n\n** **\n\n346,280\n\n \n\n336,785\n\n \n\n340,182\n\n \n\n9,495\n\n​\n\n2.8\n\n%  \n\n(3,397)\n\n \n\n(1.0)\n\n%\n\nSILVER**(thousand ounces)**\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n24,188\n\n \n\n20,984\n\n \n\n18,408\n\n \n\n3,204\n\n​\n\n15.3\n\n%  \n\n2,576\n\n \n\n14.0\n\n%\n\nRefined\n\n \n\n12,628\n\n \n\n11,999\n\n \n\n10,927\n\n \n\n629\n\n​\n\n5.2\n\n%  \n\n1,072\n\n \n\n9.8\n\n%\n\nMOLYBDENUM**(thousand pounds)**\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n68,682\n\n \n\n63,929\n\n \n\n59,164\n\n \n\n4,753\n\n \n\n7.4\n\n%  \n\n4,765\n\n \n\n8.1\n\n%\n\nZINC **(thousand pounds)**\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n390,171\n\n \n\n286,625\n\n \n\n144,422\n\n \n\n103,546\n\n \n\n36.1\n\n%  \n\n142,203\n\n \n\n98.5\n\n%\n\nRefined\n\n \n\n191,902\n\n \n\n217,734\n\n \n\n222,695\n\n \n\n(25,832)\n\n \n\n(11.9)\n\n%  \n\n(4,961)\n\n \n\n(2.2)\n\n%\n\nGOLD**(ounces)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n​\n\n71,604\n\n​\n\n70,056\n\n​\n\n65,373\n\n​\n\n1,548\n\n \n\n2.2\n\n%  \n\n4,683\n\n \n\n7.2\n\n%\n\nRefined\n\n​\n\n36,651\n\n​\n\n35,386\n\n​\n\n37,666\n\n​\n\n1,265\n\n \n\n3.6\n\n%  \n\n(2,280)\n\n \n\n(6.1)\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nKEY PRODUCTION CAPACITY DATA\n\n​\n\nWe own and operate all production facilities. The table below provides details on the locations of production facilities as of December 31, 2025 by reportable segment, the processes used, and the key production and capacity data for each location:\n\n35\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2025 Capacity**\n\n** **\n\n**Facility Name**\n\n​\n\n**Location**\n\n​\n\n**Stage**\n\n​\n\n**Process**\n\n​\n\n**Nominal Capacity(1)**\n\n​\n\n**Production**\n\n​\n\n**Use(4)**\n\n** **\n\n**PERUVIAN OPEN****‑****PIT SEGMENT**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Mining Operations**\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\nCuajone open‑pit mine\n\n \n\nCuajone (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper ore milling and recovery, copper and molybdenum concentrate production\n\n \n\n90.0 ktpd—ore milled\n\n \n\n85.6\n\n​\n\n95.1\n\n%\n\nToquepala open‑pit mine (Concentrator I+II)\n\n \n\nToquepala (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper ore milling and recovery, copper and molybdenum concentrate production\n\n \n\n120.0 ktpd—ore milled\n\n \n\n126.6\n\n​\n\n105.5\n\n%\n\nToquepala SX‑EW plant\n\n \n\nToquepala (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLeaching, solvent extraction and cathode electrowinning\n\n \n\n56.3 ktpy—refined\n\n \n\n23.5\n\n​\n\n41.7\n\n%\n\n**Processing Operations**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIlo copper smelter\n\n \n\nIlo (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper smelting, blister, anodes production\n\n \n\n1,376.1 ktpy—concentrate feed\n\n \n\n1,040.7\n\n​\n\n75.6\n\n%\n\nIlo copper refinery\n\n \n\nIlo (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper refining\n\n \n\n294.8 ktpy—refined cathodes\n\n \n\n244.2\n\n​\n\n82.8\n\n%\n\nIlo acid plants\n\n \n\nIlo (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nSulfuric acid\n\n \n\n1,354.93 ktpy—sulfuric acid\n\n \n\n976.5\n\n​\n\n72.1\n\n%\n\nIlo precious metals refinery\n\n \n\nIlo (Peru)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nSlime recovery & processing, gold & silver refining\n\n \n\n460 tpy\n\n \n\n353.6\n\n​\n\n76.9\n\n%\n\n**MEXICAN OPEN****‑****PIT SEGMENT**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Mining Operations**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista open‑pit mine; Concentrator I\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper ore milling & recovery, copper and zinc concentrate production\n\n \n\n86.0 ktpd—milling\n\n \n\n86.0\n\n​\n\n100.0\n\n%\n\nConcentrator II\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n120.0 ktpd—milling\n\n​\n\n115.0\n\n​\n\n95.9\n\n%\n\nZinc concentrator\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n20.0 ktpd—milling\n\n​\n\n16.4\n\n​\n\n82.2\n\n%\n\nBuenavista: SX‑EW plant I\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLeaching, solvent extraction & refined cathode electrowinning\n\n \n\n11.0 ktpy—refined\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW plant II\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLeaching, solvent extraction & refined cathode electrowinning\n\n​\n\n43.8 ktpy—refined\n\n​\n\n25.6\n\n​\n\n58.5\n\n%  \n\nSX‑EW plant III\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLeaching, solvent extraction & refined cathode electrowinning\n\n​\n\n120.0 ktpy—refined\n\n​\n\n66.2\n\n​\n\n55.2\n\n%  \n\nLa Caridad open‑pit mine\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper ore milling & recovery, copper & molybdenum concentrate production\n\n \n\n94.5 ktpd—milling\n\n \n\n96.0\n\n​\n\n101.6\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad SX‑EW plant\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLeaching, solvent extraction & cathode electrowinning\n\n \n\n21.9 ktpy—refined\n\n \n\n24.2\n\n​\n\n110.6\n\n%\n\n**Processing Operations**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad copper smelter\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nConcentrate smelting, anode production\n\n \n\n1,000 ktpy—concentrate feed\n\n \n\n1,021.2\n\n​\n\n102.1\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad copper refinery\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper refining\n\n \n\n300 ktpy copper cathode\n\n \n\n227.8\n\n​\n\n75.9\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad copper rod plant\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper rod production\n\n \n\n150 ktpy copper rod\n\n \n\n157.1\n\n​\n\n104.7\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad precious metals refinery\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nSlime recovery & processing, gold & silver refining\n\n \n\n1.8 ktpy—slime\n\n \n\n1.0\n\n​\n\n55.7\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad sulfuric acid plant\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nSulfuric acid\n\n \n\n1,565.5 ktpy—sulfuric acid\n\n \n\n1,053.8\n\n​\n\n67.3\n\n%\n\n**IMMSA SEGMENT**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Underground mines**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCharcas\n\n \n\nSan Luis Potosi (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nCopper, zinc, lead milling, recovery & concentrate production\n\n \n\n1,460 ktpy—ore milled\n\n \n\n1,274.6\n\n​\n\n87.3\n\n%\n\nSan Martin\n\n \n\nZacatecas (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLead, zinc, copper & silver mining, milling recovery & concentrate production\n\n \n\n1,606 ktpy—ore milled\n\n \n\n1,457.3\n\n​\n\n90.7\n\n%\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n \n\nChihuahua (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nLead, copper and zinc mining & concentrates production\n\n \n\n2,190 ktpy—ore milled\n\n \n\n1,800.0\n\n​\n\n82.2\n\n%\n\nSanta Eulalia (2)\n\n \n\nChihuahua (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nSuspended\n\n \n\nLead & zinc mining and milling recovery & concentrate production\n\n \n\n547.5 ktpy—ore milled\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n36\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nTaxco(3)\n\n \n\nGuerrero (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nSuspended\n\n \n\nLead, zinc silver & gold mining recovery & concentrate production\n\n \n\n730 ktpy—ore milled\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n**Processing Operations**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nSan Luis Potosi zinc refinery\n\n \n\nSan Luis Potosi (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nZinc concentrates refining\n\n \n\n105.0 ktpy zinc cathode\n\n \n\n87.0\n\n​\n\n82.9\n\n%\n\nSan Luis Potosi sulfuric acid plant\n\n \n\nSan Luis Potosi (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nProduction\n\n \n\nSulfuric acid\n\n \n\n180.0 ktpy sulfuric acid\n\n \n\n168.6\n\n​\n\n93.7\n\n%\n\nktpd = thousands of tonnes per day\n\nktpy = thousands of tonnes per year\n\nTpy = tonnes per year\n\n​\n\n(1)Our estimates of actual capacity under normal operating conditions contemplating an allowance for normal downtime for repairs and maintenance and are based on the average metal content for the relevant period.\n\n(2)The Santa Eulalia mine suspended its operations in the first quarter of 2020 due to flooding.\n\n(3)The Taxco mine has been on strike since July 2007.\n\n(4)In some cases, real production exceeds nominal capacity due to higher grades and recovery rates.\n\n​\n\n​\n\nOTHER PROPERTIES\n\n​\n\nThe table below provides details on the locations and other information as of December 31, 2025 for our properties under development or exploration. These properties are also owned and operated by SCC.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Property Name**\n\n​\n\n**Location**\n\n​\n\n**Stage**\n\n​\n\n**Mineralization**\n\n​\n\n**Mineral rights and acreage**\n\n**Other properties in Peru**\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\nTia Maria\n\n \n\nArequipa (Peru)\n\n​\n\nDevelopment\n\n \n\nPorphyry copper deposit; economic mineralization is oxide copper.\n\n​\n\nConsists of 55 concessions covering approximately 34,790 hectares.\n\nLos Chancas\n\n \n\nApurimac (Peru)\n\n​\n\nExploration\n\n \n\nPorphyry copper–molybdenum deposit; copper sulfides are dominant.\n\n​\n\nConsists of 31 concessions, covering approximately 22,700 hectares.\n\nMichiquillay\n\n \n\nCajamarca (Peru)\n\n​\n\nExploration\n\n \n\nPorphyry copper–molybdenum–gold deposit; copper sulfides are dominant.\n\n​\n\nConsists of 18 concessions covering approximately 4,051 hectares.\n\n**Other properties in Mexico**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nEl Pilar\n\n \n\nSonora (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nDevelopment\n\n \n\nPredominantly consists of the copper oxide mineral chrysocolla.\n\n​\n\nConsists of 19 concessions covering approximately 9,571 hectares.\n\nEl Arco\n\n \n\nBaja California (Mexico)\n\n​\n\nDevelopment\n\n \n\nPorphyry copper deposit; mineralization occurs in three sub-horizontal zones.\n\n​\n\nConsists of 11 concessions covering approximately 72,133 hectares.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n37\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nPROPERTY BOOK VALUE\n\n​\n\nAs of December 31, 2025, net book values of property and mine development were as follows (in millions):\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Peruvian operations:**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\nCuajone\n\n​\n\n$\n\n779.0\n\nToquepala\n\n​\n\n \n\n1,852.8\n\nTia Maria project\n\n​\n\n \n\n371.4\n\nIlo and other support facilities\n\n​\n\n \n\n557.0\n\nConstruction in progress\n\n​\n\n \n\n674.7\n\nTotal Peru\n\n​\n\n$\n\n4,235.0\n\n**Mexican open****‑****pit operations:**\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\nBuenavista mine and concentrator plants\n\n​\n\n$\n\n2,540.4\n\nBuenavista SX‑EW and Quebalix\n\n​\n\n \n\n655.3\n\nLa Caridad mine and concentrator plant\n\n​\n\n \n\n808.0\n\nLa Caridad support facilities\n\n​\n\n \n\n250.6\n\nConstruction in progress\n\n​\n\n \n\n628.4\n\nTotal Mexico Open Pit\n\n​\n\n$\n\n4,882.8\n\n**Mexican IMMSA unit:**\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\nSan Luis Potosi\n\n​\n\n$\n\n84.6\n\nZinc electrolytic refinery\n\n​\n\n \n\n75.3\n\nCharcas\n\n​\n\n \n\n123.6\n\nSan Martin\n\n​\n\n \n\n122.6\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\n \n\n214.3\n\nSanta Eulalia\n\n​\n\n \n\n18.2\n\nOther facilities\n\n​\n\n​\n\n4.5\n\nConstruction in progress:\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n- Zinc electrolytic refinery\n\n​\n\n​\n\n10.0\n\n- Charcas\n\n​\n\n​\n\n51.1\n\n- San Martin\n\n​\n\n​\n\n27.8\n\n- Santa Barbara\n\n​\n\n​\n\n67.0\n\n- Santa Eulalia\n\n​\n\n​\n\n1.8\n\n- Other Facilities\n\n​\n\n​\n\n3.0\n\nTotal IMMSA Unit\n\n​\n\n$\n\n803.6\n\n**Other property:**\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\nEl Pilar\n\n​\n\n$\n\n122.3\n\nMexicana del Arco\n\n​\n\n \n\n108.3\n\nTotal\n\n​\n\n$\n\n230.6\n\nMexican administrative offices\n\n​\n\n$\n\n120.3\n\nTotal Mexico\n\n​\n\n$\n\n6,037.3\n\nTotal Southern Copper Corporation\n\n​\n\n$\n\n10,272.2\n\n​\n\n38\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSUMMARY OPERATING DATA\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains certain operating data underlying our financial and operating information for each of the periods indicated.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Year Ended December 31, **\n\n** **\n\n**2025 -2024**\n\n \n\n**2024 -2023**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nCOPPER**(thousand pounds)**:\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n**Peru open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nToquepala\n\n \n\n495,751\n\n \n\n496,428\n\n \n\n440,165\n\n \n\n(677)\n\n \n\n(0.1)\n\n%  \n\n56,263\n\n \n\n12.8\n\n%\n\nCuajone\n\n \n\n358,828\n\n \n\n363,454\n\n \n\n328,990\n\n \n\n(4,626)\n\n \n\n(1.3)\n\n%  \n\n34,464\n\n \n\n10.5\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW Toquepala\n\n \n\n51,845\n\n \n\n53,165\n\n \n\n55,672\n\n \n\n(1,320)\n\n \n\n(2.5)\n\n%  \n\n(2,507)\n\n \n\n(4.5)\n\n%\n\n**Mexico open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad\n\n \n\n212,010\n\n \n\n206,628\n\n \n\n193,596\n\n \n\n5,382\n\n \n\n2.6\n\n%  \n\n13,032\n\n \n\n6.7\n\n%\n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\n711,461\n\n \n\n769,323\n\n \n\n725,216\n\n \n\n(57,862)\n\n \n\n(7.5)\n\n%  \n\n44,107\n\n \n\n6.1\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW La Caridad\n\n \n\n53,399\n\n \n\n51,257\n\n \n\n50,691\n\n \n\n2,142\n\n \n\n4.2\n\n%  \n\n566\n\n \n\n1.1\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW Buenavista\n\n \n\n202,388\n\n \n\n185,210\n\n \n\n193,024\n\n \n\n17,178\n\n \n\n9.3\n\n%  \n\n(7,814)\n\n \n\n(4.0)\n\n%\n\n**IMMSA unit**\n\n \n\n22,529\n\n \n\n21,506\n\n \n\n21,084\n\n \n\n1,023\n\n \n\n4.8\n\n%  \n\n422\n\n \n\n2.0\n\n%\n\n**Total Mined**\n\n** **\n\n**2,108,212**\n\n** **\n\n**2,146,971**\n\n** **\n\n**2,008,438**\n\n** **\n\n**(38,759)**\n\n** **\n\n**(1.8)**\n\n**%  **\n\n**138,533**\n\n** **\n\n**6.9**\n\n**%**\n\nSmelted\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n**Peru open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nBlister Ilo\n\n \n\n2,985\n\n \n\n3,323\n\n \n\n4,088\n\n \n\n(338)\n\n \n\n(10.2)\n\n%  \n\n(765)\n\n \n\n(18.7)\n\n%\n\nAnodes Ilo\n\n \n\n671,269\n\n \n\n790,612\n\n \n\n798,342\n\n \n\n(119,343)\n\n \n\n(15.1)\n\n%  \n\n(7,730)\n\n \n\n(1.0)\n\n%\n\n**Mexico open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nAnodes La Caridad\n\n \n\n598,092\n\n \n\n553,662\n\n \n\n581,167\n\n \n\n44,430\n\n \n\n8.0\n\n%  \n\n(27,505)\n\n \n\n(4.7)\n\n%\n\n**Total Smelted**\n\n** **\n\n**1,272,345**\n\n** **\n\n**1,347,597**\n\n** **\n\n**1,383,597**\n\n** **\n\n**(75,252)**\n\n** **\n\n**(5.6)**\n\n**%  **\n\n**(36,000)**\n\n** **\n\n**(2.6)**\n\n**%**\n\nRefined\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n**Peru Open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nCathodes Ilo\n\n \n\n538,321\n\n \n\n634,707\n\n \n\n638,589\n\n \n\n(96,386)\n\n \n\n(15.2)\n\n%  \n\n(3,882)\n\n \n\n(0.6)\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW Toquepala\n\n \n\n51,845\n\n \n\n53,165\n\n \n\n55,672\n\n \n\n(1,320)\n\n \n\n(2.5)\n\n%  \n\n(2,507)\n\n \n\n(4.5)\n\n%\n\n**Mexico Open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nCathodes La Caridad\n\n \n\n502,204\n\n \n\n478,701\n\n \n\n481,841\n\n \n\n23,503\n\n \n\n4.9\n\n%  \n\n(3,140)\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW La Caridad\n\n \n\n53,399\n\n \n\n51,257\n\n \n\n50,691\n\n \n\n2,142\n\n \n\n4.2\n\n%  \n\n566\n\n \n\n1.1\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW Buenavista\n\n \n\n202,388\n\n \n\n185,210\n\n \n\n193,024\n\n \n\n17,178\n\n \n\n9.3\n\n%  \n\n(7,814)\n\n \n\n(4.0)\n\n%\n\n**Total Refined**\n\n** **\n\n**1,348,157**\n\n** **\n\n**1,403,040**\n\n** **\n\n**1,419,817**\n\n** **\n\n**(54,883)**\n\n** **\n\n**(3.9)**\n\n**%  **\n\n**(16,777)**\n\n** **\n\n**(1.2)**\n\n**%**\n\n**Rod Mexico Open****‑****pit—La Caridad**\n\n** **\n\n**346,280**\n\n** **\n\n**336,785**\n\n** **\n\n**340,182**\n\n** **\n\n**9,495**\n\n** **\n\n**2.8**\n\n**%  **\n\n**(3,397)**\n\n** **\n\n**(1.0)**\n\n**%**\n\nSILVER**(thousand ounces)**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n**Peru Open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nToquepala\n\n \n\n2,968\n\n \n\n3,062\n\n \n\n2,615\n\n \n\n(94)\n\n \n\n(3.1)\n\n%  \n\n447\n\n \n\n17.1\n\n%\n\nCuajone\n\n \n\n2,746\n\n \n\n2,635\n\n \n\n2,395\n\n \n\n111\n\n \n\n4.2\n\n%  \n\n240\n\n \n\n10.0\n\n%\n\n**Mexico Open****‑****pit**\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad\n\n \n\n2,691\n\n \n\n2,208\n\n \n\n2,065\n\n \n\n483\n\n \n\n21.9\n\n%  \n\n143\n\n \n\n6.9\n\n%\n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\n8,239\n\n \n\n6,304\n\n \n\n4,669\n\n \n\n1,935\n\n \n\n30.7\n\n%  \n\n1,635\n\n \n\n35.0\n\n%\n\n**IMMSA unit**\n\n \n\n7,544\n\n \n\n6,775\n\n \n\n6,664\n\n \n\n769\n\n \n\n11.4\n\n%  \n\n111\n\n \n\n1.7\n\n%\n\n**Total Mined**\n\n** **\n\n**24,188**\n\n** **\n\n**20,984**\n\n** **\n\n**18,408**\n\n** **\n\n**3,204**\n\n** **\n\n**15.3**\n\n**%  **\n\n**2,576**\n\n** **\n\n**14.0**\n\n**%**\n\nRefined\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nPeru—Ilo\n\n \n\n4,196\n\n \n\n4,070\n\n \n\n3,526\n\n \n\n126\n\n \n\n3.1\n\n%  \n\n544\n\n \n\n15.4\n\n%\n\nMexico—La Caridad\n\n \n\n8,432\n\n \n\n7,929\n\n \n\n7,398\n\n \n\n503\n\n \n\n6.3\n\n%  \n\n531\n\n \n\n7.2\n\n%\n\nIMMSA unit\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n3\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%  \n\n(3)\n\n \n\n(100.0)\n\n%\n\n**Total Refined**\n\n** **\n\n**12,628**\n\n** **\n\n**11,999**\n\n** **\n\n**10,927**\n\n** **\n\n**629**\n\n** **\n\n**5.2**\n\n**%  **\n\n**1,072**\n\n** **\n\n**9.8**\n\n**%**\n\nMOLYBDENUM**(thousand pounds)**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nToquepala\n\n \n\n23,369\n\n \n\n19,771\n\n \n\n13,916\n\n \n\n3,598\n\n \n\n18.2\n\n%  \n\n5,855\n\n \n\n42.1\n\n%\n\nCuajone\n\n \n\n9,676\n\n \n\n9,740\n\n \n\n8,252\n\n \n\n(64)\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n%  \n\n1,488\n\n \n\n18.0\n\n%\n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\n12,631\n\n \n\n12,991\n\n \n\n11,937\n\n \n\n(360)\n\n \n\n(2.8)\n\n%  \n\n1,054\n\n \n\n8.8\n\n%\n\nLa Caridad\n\n \n\n23,006\n\n \n\n21,427\n\n \n\n25,059\n\n \n\n1,579\n\n \n\n7.4\n\n%  \n\n(3,632)\n\n \n\n(14.5)\n\n%\n\n**Total Mined**\n\n** **\n\n**68,682**\n\n** **\n\n**63,929**\n\n** **\n\n**59,164**\n\n** **\n\n**4,753**\n\n** **\n\n**7.4**\n\n**%  **\n\n**4,765**\n\n** **\n\n**8.1**\n\n**%**\n\nZINC **(thousand pounds)**\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMined\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIMMSA\n\n \n\n132,740\n\n \n\n144,875\n\n \n\n144,422\n\n \n\n(12,135)\n\n \n\n(8.4)\n\n%  \n\n453\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n%\n\nBuenavista\n\n​\n\n257,432\n\n​\n\n141,750\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n115,682\n\n​\n\n81.6\n\n**%  **\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n**Total Mined**\n\n** **\n\n**390,171**\n\n** **\n\n**286,625**\n\n** **\n\n**144,422**\n\n** **\n\n**103,546**\n\n** **\n\n**36.1**\n\n**%  **\n\n**453**\n\n** **\n\n**98.5**\n\n**%**\n\nRefined IMMSA\n\n \n\n191,902\n\n \n\n217,734\n\n \n\n222,695\n\n \n\n(25,832)\n\n \n\n(11.9)\n\n%  \n\n(4,961)\n\n \n\n(2.2)\n\n%\n\n39\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n(1)Copper production reported under “*smelted*” and “*refined*” is a subset of the mined copper and it is not additive to the mined copper.\n\n​\n\nSUMMARY DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of our mineral resources exclusive of mineral reserves as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 per pound of copper, $11.50 per pound of molybdenum ($10.35 per pound of molybdenum in the case of our El Arco mine), $23.00 per ounce of silver, $1.32 per pound of zinc, $1.09 per pound of lead and $1,725 per ounce of gold.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Measured mineral resources**\n\n​\n\n**Indicated mineral resources**\n\n​\n\n**Measured + Indicated mineral resources**\n\n​\n\n**Inferred mineral resources**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\nCopper:\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Peru:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCuajone Sulfides\n\n \n\n61.0\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n468.7\n\n​\n\n436.3\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n3,201.1\n\n​\n\n497.3\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n3,669.8\n\n​\n\n864.6\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n5,417.6\n\nCuajone Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.64\n\n%\n\n0.2\n\nToquepala Sulfides\n\n \n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n1,241.2\n\n​\n\n178.8\n\n​\n\n0.39\n\n%\n\n1,524.4\n\n​\n\n278.2\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n2,765.7\n\n​\n\n159.2\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n1,006.6\n\nToquepala Leach\n\n​\n\n11.3\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n37.4\n\n​\n\n44.2\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n147.5\n\n​\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n185.0\n\n​\n\n51.5\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n173.6\n\nLa Tapada deposit\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n90.4\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n420.3\n\n​\n\n90.4\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n420.3\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n6.4\n\nTia Maria deposit\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n35.5\n\n​\n\n0.17\n\n%\n\n135.2\n\n​\n\n35.5\n\n​\n\n0.17\n\n%\n\n135.2\n\n​\n\n21.8\n\n​\n\n0.22\n\n%\n\n107.8\n\nLos Chancas Oxide\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n98.0\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n972.0\n\n​\n\n98.0\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n972.0\n\n​\n\n33.0\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n276.0\n\nLos Chancas Sulfide\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n52.0\n\n​\n\n0.59\n\n%\n\n676.0\n\n​\n\n52.0\n\n​\n\n0.59\n\n%\n\n676.0\n\n​\n\n1,400.0\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n13,889.0\n\nMichiquillay\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n2,287.9\n\n​\n\n0.43\n\n%\n\n21,554.8\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n5,241.7\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n5,241.7\n\n​\n\n7,846.6\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n58,474.0\n\nBuenavista Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n52.4\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n376.5\n\n​\n\n52.4\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n376.5\n\n​\n\n373.4\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n1,457.3\n\nBuenavista zinc plant\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n1,985.5\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n1,985.5\n\n​\n\n704.6\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n5,809.4\n\nLa Caridad Mill\n\n \n\n89.0\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n295.4\n\n​\n\n2,136.0\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n6,675.6\n\n​\n\n2,224.0\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n6,971.0\n\n​\n\n5,315.0\n\n​\n\n0.13\n\n%\n\n14,764.0\n\nLa Caridad Leach\n\n​\n\n5.0\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n7.2\n\n​\n\n112.6\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n160.6\n\n​\n\n116.6\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n167.8\n\n​\n\n342.0\n\n​\n\n0.08\n\n%\n\n612.9\n\nCharcas\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n133.7\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n133.7\n\n​\n\n15.6\n\n​\n\n0.32\n\n%\n\n108.6\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n178.7\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n178.7\n\n​\n\n45.9\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n452.6\n\nSan Martin\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n182.4\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n182.4\n\n​\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n567.3\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n7,544.9\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n7,544.9\n\n​\n\n2,344.9\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n19,352.3\n\nEl Arco Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n51.3\n\n​\n\n0.30\n\n%\n\n335.3\n\n​\n\n51.3\n\n​\n\n0.30\n\n%\n\n335.3\n\n​\n\n63.8\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n350.9\n\nEl Pilar\n\n \n\n2.2\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n%\n\n9.0\n\n​\n\n81.3\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n317.0\n\n​\n\n83.4\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n326.0\n\n​\n\n88.6\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n%\n\n234.4\n\nPilares Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n3.4\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n34.4\n\nPilares Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n0.01\n\n​\n\n0.09\n\n%\n\n0.02\n\nTotal\n\n** **\n\n**267.8**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2,059.0**\n\n​\n\n**5,104.4**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**30,573.0**\n\n​\n\n**5,370.1**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**32,632.0**\n\n​\n\n**22,018.8**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**144,650.1**\n\nMolybdenum:\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Peru:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCuajone\n\n \n\n61.0\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n18.6\n\n​\n\n436.3\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n115.2\n\n​\n\n497.3\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n133.7\n\n​\n\n864.6\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n160.2\n\nToquepala\n\n \n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.038\n\n%\n\n83.0\n\n​\n\n178.8\n\n​\n\n0.021\n\n%\n\n81.7\n\n​\n\n278.2\n\n​\n\n0.027\n\n%\n\n164.8\n\n​\n\n159.2\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n28.5\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n110.7\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n110.7\n\n​\n\n7,846.6\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n1,384.1\n\nBuenavista zinc plant\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n17.9\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n17.9\n\n​\n\n704.6\n\n​\n\n0.009\n\n%\n\n139.8\n\nLa Caridad Mill\n\n \n\n89.0\n\n​\n\n0.025\n\n%\n\n50.7\n\n​\n\n2,136.0\n\n​\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n1,026.5\n\n​\n\n2,224.0\n\n​\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n1,076.5\n\n​\n\n5,315.0\n\n​\n\n0.024\n\n%\n\n2,806.5\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n146.5\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n146.5\n\n​\n\n2,344.9\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n298.2\n\nPilares Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n3.4\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n1.1\n\nTotal\n\n** **\n\n**249.3**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**152.3**\n\n​\n\n**4,437.9**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**1,507.7**\n\n​\n\n**4,686.2**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**1,659.3**\n\n​\n\n**17,238.2**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**4,818.3**\n\nSilver: (2)\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCharcas\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n57.1\n\n​\n\n32,221.3\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n57.1\n\n​\n\n32,221.3\n\n​\n\n15.6\n\n​\n\n62.7\n\n​\n\n31,475.6\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n93.9\n\n​\n\n53,767.2\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n93.9\n\n​\n\n53,767.2\n\n​\n\n45.9\n\n​\n\n81.1\n\n​\n\n119,680.1\n\nSan Martin\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n76.3\n\n​\n\n32,734.6\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n76.3\n\n​\n\n32,734.6\n\n​\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n71.1\n\n​\n\n126,835.5\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n41,875.3\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n41,875.3\n\n​\n\n2,344.9\n\n​\n\n1.5\n\n​\n\n110,887.3\n\nTotal\n\n** **\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n**875.3**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**160,598.4**\n\n​\n\n**875.3**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**160,598.4**\n\n​\n\n**2,461.9**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**388,878.5**\n\nZinc:\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista zinc plant\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,645.6\n\n​\n\n202.8\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,645.6\n\n​\n\n704.6\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n2,858.2\n\nBuenavista Cu plant\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n553.2\n\n​\n\n627.2\n\n​\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n553.2\n\n​\n\n7,846.6\n\n​\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n6,746.6\n\nCharcas\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n1,446.0\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n1,446.0\n\n​\n\n15.6\n\n​\n\n3.31\n\n%\n\n1,139.3\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n3.29\n\n%\n\n1,292.0\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n3.29\n\n%\n\n1,292.0\n\n​\n\n45.9\n\n​\n\n3.32\n\n%\n\n3,361.6\n\n40\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSan Martin\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n1.88\n\n%\n\n553.6\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n1.88\n\n%\n\n553.6\n\n​\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n2.55\n\n%\n\n3,120.9\n\nTotal\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n**878.8**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**5,490.4**\n\n​\n\n**878.8**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**5,490.4**\n\n​\n\n**8,668.2**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**17,226.6**\n\nLead:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCharcas\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n94.7\n\n​\n\n17.6\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n94.7\n\n​\n\n15.6\n\n​\n\n0.36\n\n%\n\n122.4\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n1.66\n\n%\n\n650.1\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n1.66\n\n%\n\n650.1\n\n​\n\n45.9\n\n​\n\n1.86\n\n%\n\n1,882.4\n\nSan Martin\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n100.0\n\n​\n\n13.4\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n100.0\n\n​\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n0.31\n\n%\n\n381.6\n\nTotal\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n**48.7**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**844.8**\n\n​\n\n**48.7**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**844.8**\n\n​\n\n**117.0**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2,386.4**\n\nGold: (2)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n​\n\n88.5\n\n​\n\n17.8\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n​\n\n88.5\n\n​\n\n45.9\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n175.8\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n3,226.1\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n3,226.1\n\n​\n\n2,344.9\n\n​\n\n0.11\n\n​\n\n8,053.5\n\nTotal\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n**844.4**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**3,315**\n\n​\n\n**844.4**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**3,315**\n\n​\n\n**2,390.8**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**8,229.3**\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. Figures have been rounded.\n\n(2)Gold and silver grades are denominated in grams per tonne. Gold and silver contents are expressed in thousand ounces.\n\n(3)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the mineral resource estimates, for the following operations: Cuajone, Toquepala, Buenavista and La Caridad-Pilares; please refer to their individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and the technical report summaries prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibits 96.1, 96.2, 96.6 and 96.7, respectively, of the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n(4)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the mineral resource estimates, for the Charcas and Santa Barbara operations; please refer to their individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and the technical report summaries prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibits 96.10 and 96.11 respectively in the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates for the San Martin operations, please refer to their individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and Chapter 11 of the project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.13 of the 2023 Form 10-K filed on February 29, 2024.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates for the following operations: El Arco, Tia Maria, Los Chancas, Michiquillay and El Pilar, please refer to their individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and Chapter 11 of the project technical report summaries prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.10, 96.3, 96.4, 96.5 and 96.9, respectively of 2021 Form 10-K/A filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n41\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSUMMARY DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESERVES\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of our mineral reserves as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 per pound of copper, $10.00 per pound of molybdenum ($9.00 per pound of molybdenum in the case of our El Arco mine), $20.00 per ounce of silver, $1,500 per ounce of gold and $1.15 per pound of zinc.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Proven mineral reserves**\n\n​\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n​\n\n**Total mineral reserves**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n**Amount**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Metal**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\n​\n\n**(million tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Grades**\n\n​\n\n**Content (million lb)**\n\nCopper:\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n*Peru:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\nCuajone Mill\n\n \n\n580.6\n\n​\n\n0.51\n\n%\n\n6,533.3\n\n​\n\n882.7\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n8,762.0\n\n​\n\n1,463.3\n\n​\n\n0.47\n\n%\n\n15,295.3\n\nCuajone Leach\n\n​\n\n17.9\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n197.6\n\n​\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.72\n\n%\n\n5.5\n\n​\n\n18.3\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n203.1\n\nToquepala Mill\n\n \n\n1,174.9\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n14,811.0\n\n​\n\n565.4\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n5,685.9\n\n​\n\n1,740.3\n\n​\n\n0.53\n\n%\n\n20,496.9\n\nToquepala Leach\n\n​\n\n2,140.5\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n7,332.5\n\n​\n\n492.2\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n%\n\n2,199.5\n\n​\n\n2,632.6\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n9,532.0\n\nLa Tapada deposit\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n487.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n4,449.2\n\n​\n\n487.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n4,449.2\n\nTia Maria deposit\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n223.8\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n1,412.5\n\n​\n\n223.8\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n1,412.5\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista Sulfides\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n2,246.0\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n21,715.4\n\n​\n\n2,246.0\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n21,715.4\n\nBuenavista Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n2,003.9\n\n​\n\n0.26\n\n%\n\n11,694.7\n\n​\n\n2,003.9\n\n​\n\n0.26\n\n%\n\n11,694.7\n\nLa Caridad Mill\n\n \n\n261.5\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n1,644.7\n\n​\n\n1,637.8\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n7,452.8\n\n​\n\n1,899.3\n\n​\n\n0.22\n\n%\n\n9,097.5\n\nLa Caridad Leach\n\n​\n\n56.7\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n295.3\n\n​\n\n268.6\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n940.9\n\n​\n\n325.3\n\n​\n\n0.17\n\n%\n\n1,236.2\n\nPilares Mill\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n22.3\n\n​\n\n0.80\n\n%\n\n395.2\n\n​\n\n22.3\n\n​\n\n0.80\n\n%\n\n395.2\n\nPilares Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1.9\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n15.1\n\n​\n\n1.9\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n15.1\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.40\n\n%\n\n10,822.1\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.40\n\n%\n\n10,822.1\n\nEl Arco Leach\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n140.5\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n846.3\n\n​\n\n140.5\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n846.3\n\nEl Pilar\n\n \n\n63.0\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n370.4\n\n​\n\n254.0\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n1,373.5\n\n​\n\n317.0\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n1,743.9\n\nTotal\n\n** **\n\n**4,295.1**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**31,184.9**\n\n​\n\n**10,456.6**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**77,770.6**\n\n​\n\n**14,751.7**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**108,955.5**\n\nMolybdenum:\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Peru:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCuajone\n\n \n\n580.6\n\n​\n\n0.019\n\n%\n\n245.7\n\n​\n\n882.7\n\n​\n\n0.015\n\n%\n\n296.0\n\n​\n\n1,463.3\n\n​\n\n0.017\n\n%\n\n541.7\n\nToquepala\n\n \n\n1,174.9\n\n​\n\n0.039\n\n%\n\n1,020.1\n\n​\n\n565.4\n\n​\n\n0.020\n\n%\n\n255.5\n\n​\n\n1,740.3\n\n​\n\n0.033\n\n%\n\n1,275.5\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1,971.4\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n364.9\n\n​\n\n1,971.4\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n364.9\n\nLa Caridad\n\n \n\n261.5\n\n​\n\n0.042\n\n%\n\n243.2\n\n​\n\n1,637.8\n\n​\n\n0.036\n\n%\n\n1,311.9\n\n​\n\n1,899.3\n\n​\n\n0.037\n\n%\n\n1,555.1\n\nEl Arco Mill\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n166.7\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n166.7\n\nPilares\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n22.3\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n3.1\n\n​\n\n22.3\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n3.1\n\nTotal\n\n** **\n\n**2,017.0**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**1,509.0**\n\n​\n\n**6,309.2**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2,398.0**\n\n​\n\n**8,326.1**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**3,907.0**\n\nSilver: (2)\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nEl Arco\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n1.8\n\n​\n\n70,464.9\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n1.8\n\n​\n\n70,464.9\n\n*Total*\n\n \n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**—**\n\n​\n\n**1,229.5**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**70,464.9**\n\n​\n\n**1,229.5**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**70,464.9**\n\nZinc:\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nBuenavista zinc plant (3)\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n274.7\n\n​\n\n0.53\n\n%\n\n3,224.4\n\n​\n\n274.7\n\n​\n\n0.53\n\n%\n\n3,224.4\n\nGold: (2)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mexico:*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nEl Arco\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n​\n\n5,584.8\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n​\n\n5,584.8\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025. The reference point for the estimate is delivery to the process plant. Figures have been rounded.\n\n(2)Gold and silver grades are denominated in grams per tonne. Gold and silver contents are expressed in thousand ounces.\n\n(3)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the mineral reserve estimates, for the following mineral properties: Cuajone, Toquepala, Buenavista and La Caridad-Pilares, please refer to the individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and to the technical report summaries prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibits 96.1, 96.2, 96.6 and 96.7 respectively of the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n(4)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates for the following mineral properties: El Arco, Tia Maria and El Pilar, please refer to the individual property disclosure in this Form 10-K and to the project technical report summaries prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.10, 96.3 and 96.9 respectively of Form 10-K/A, filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n42\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nTailings Dams\n\n​\n\nTailings are comprised of solid particles originating at the concentrator plants during the grinding process that, combined with water, are sent to specially built structures where they are impounded. The water is recovered to be reused in the process.\n\n​\n\nTailings dams are basically built in two manners: by using the coarse fraction from the same tailings or by using external material, often known as “borrowed material” such as rock, clay etc. We believe SCC’s tailings dams are built according to international standards and national accepted engineering practices. We comply with the country’s current regulations and adhere to the recommendations of the International Commission on Large Dams (“ICOLD”). In addition, we have a committee, comprised of both internal and external specialists, which periodically reviews the safety and operation of each dam. In 2020, we implemented the project *“Automation and Real Time Monitoring of geotechnical instrumentation in the Pit and Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam”* and conditioned a location to install three radars to conduct geotechnical monitoring of the Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam. We do not expect that these activities will generate any adverse material effects in our operations.\n\n​\n\nWe have six tailings dams in operation in Mexico and one in Peru as follows:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Country**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Operation**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Name**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Current Height**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Material**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Method**\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\nTailings dam # 3\n\n \n\n102 meters\n\n \n\nBorrowed\n\n \n\nDownstream\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nBuenavista\n\n \n\nNew tailings dam\n\n \n\n118 meters\n\n \n\nBorrowed\n\n \n\nDownstream\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nLa Caridad\n\n \n\nTailings dam # 7\n\n \n\n186 meters\n\n \n\nBorrowed\n\n \n\nDownstream\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nCharcas\n\n \n\nTailings dam\n\n \n\n57 meters\n\n \n\nCoarse tailings\n\n \n\nUpstream\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nSanta Barbara\n\n \n\nNoriega dam\n\n \n\n56 meters\n\n \n\nCoarse tailings\n\n \n\nUpstream\n\nMexico\n\n \n\nSan Martin\n\n \n\nTailings dam 5 & 7\n\n \n\n74 meters\n\n \n\nCoarse tailings\n\n \n\nUpstream\n\nPeru\n\n \n\nCuajone and Toquepala\n\n \n\nQuebrada Honda\n\n \n\n148 meters\n\n \n\nCoarse tailings\n\n \n\nDownstream\n\n​\n\n​\n\nINDIVIDUAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE\n\n​\n\nIn 2021, we adopted the disclosure requirements of S-K 1300. The definitions and allowed assumptions for mineral reserves under previous guidance (Industry Guide 7) are significantly different from the defined terms and allowed assumptions for mineral reserves under S-K 1300. Additionally, Industry Guide 7 did not permit mineral resource reporting.\n\n​\n\n​\n\nPERUVIAN OPERATIONS\n\n​\n\nOperations in our Peruvian segment include the Cuajone and Toquepala mine complexes and the smelting and refining plants, the industrial railroad that links Ilo, Toquepala and Cuajone and the port facilities. Other properties include our Tia Maria, Los Chancas and Michiquillay projects. We conduct ongoing maintenance and improvement programs to ensure the satisfactory performance of our equipment. We believe all of the equipment at our Peruvian plants is in good physical condition and is suitable for our operations.\n\n​\n\n43\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe map below indicates the approximate location of, and access to, our Cuajone and Toquepala mine complexes and our Ilo processing facilities:\n\n​\n\n​\n\nCuajone\n\n​\n\nThe Cuajone operations consist of an open-pit copper mine and a concentrator and are located in the Torata District, Mariscal Nieto Region, of Moquegua, approximately 878 km from the city of Lima and 27 km from the city of Moquegua. The Project centroid is at about 17° 3.130’S latitude and 70° 44.499’W longitude, while the open pit is centered at approximately 17° 2.601’S latitude and 70° 42.481’W longitude.\n\n​\n\nThe Cuajone mine is accessible by paved road from Lima or Tacna by the Pan-American Highway. The Quebrada Honda tailings storage facility (“TSF”) is about 120 km via local roads, south of the Cuajone operations. Access within the project area is via developed roads that are routinely maintained. Tacna, Moquegua, and Ilo have regularly scheduled air services from Lima. Additionally, a spur railway runs from the Toquepala operations to the Cuajone operations.\n\n​\n\nThe Cuajone operations are owned and operated by SPCC Peru Branch and contain a single mining concession, “Acumulacion Cuajone”, which covers an area of 14,875.66 hectares. Power is transmitted for process needs from the Peruvian grid using two Southern Copper-owned transmission lines of 138 kV and 220 kV. Additionally, the Cuajone operations use surface and underground water from a variety of sources as fresh make up water.\n\n​\n\nThe property is currently in the production stage. Southern Copper has had an interest in the Cuajone area since 1954. Predecessor companies included Cerro de Pasco Corporation, Newmont and Asarco. Overburden removal commenced in 1970 and ore production commenced in 1976. Our Cuajone operations utilize a conventional open-pit mining method to drill/blast/haul copper ore for further processing at the concentrator, which has a milling capacity of 90,000 tonnes per day. Book value of the property and its associated plant and equipment is available under “Property Book Value” on page 38 of this report.\n\n​\n\n44\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe table below shows production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our Cuajone operations:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance 2025 -**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Amount**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nMine annual operating days\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n366\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n*Mine*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal ore mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n30,718\n\n \n\n30,872\n\n \n\n27,469\n\n \n\n(154)\n\n \n\n(0.5)\n\n%\n\nCopper grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.619\n\n \n\n0.625\n\n \n\n0.640\n\n \n\n(0.006)\n\n \n\n(1.0)\n\n%\n\nLeach material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n1,089\n\n \n\n1,129\n\n \n\n913\n\n \n\n(40)\n\n \n\n(3.5)\n\n%\n\nLeach material grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.556\n\n \n\n0.605\n\n \n\n0.590\n\n \n\n(0.049)\n\n \n\n(8.1)\n\n%\n\nStripping ratio\n\n \n\n(x)\n\n \n\n3.82\n\n \n\n3.58\n\n \n\n4.15\n\n \n\n0.24\n\n \n\n6.7\n\n%\n\nTotal material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n153,201\n\n \n\n146,690\n\n \n\n146,261\n\n \n\n6,511\n\n \n\n4.4\n\n%\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal material milled\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n30,793\n\n \n\n30,850\n\n \n\n27,398\n\n \n\n(57)\n\n \n\n(0.2)\n\n%\n\nCopper recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n85.40\n\n \n\n85.50\n\n \n\n85.30\n\n \n\n(0.10)\n\n \n\n(0.1)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n645.3\n\n \n\n657.3\n\n \n\n601.4\n\n \n\n(12.0)\n\n \n\n(1.8)\n\n%\n\nCopper in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n162.8\n\n \n\n164.9\n\n \n\n149.2\n\n \n\n(2.1)\n\n \n\n(1.3)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrates average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n25.22\n\n \n\n25.08\n\n \n\n24.81\n\n \n\n0.14\n\n \n\n0.6\n\n%\n\n*Molybdenum*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMolybdenum grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.021\n\n \n\n0.022\n\n \n\n0.020\n\n \n\n(0.001)\n\n \n\n(4.5)\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n68.44\n\n \n\n64.60\n\n \n\n63.30\n\n \n\n3.84\n\n \n\n5.9\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n8.2\n\n \n\n8.4\n\n \n\n7.0\n\n \n\n(0.2)\n\n \n\n(2.6)\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n53.62\n\n \n\n52.60\n\n \n\n53.43\n\n \n\n1.02\n\n \n\n1.9\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n4.4\n\n \n\n4.4\n\n \n\n3.7\n\n \n\n(0.0)\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\nx = Stripping ratio obtained dividing waste by leachable material plus ore mined.\n\nCopper and molybdenum grades are referred to as total copper grade and total molybdenum grade, respectively.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Cuajone deposit is considered to be an example of a porphyry copper–molybdenum deposit. The basal regional geology consists of Precambrian metamorphic rocks that are cut by Paleozoic granite, unconformably overlain by Upper Triassic to Jurassic marine volcanic and sedimentary lithologies. Overlying these rocks are late Cretaceous to early Tertiary rhyolite, andesite and agglomerate of the Toquepala Group. These lithologies are intruded by the composite, polyphase Cretaceous to Paleogene Coastal (Andean) Batholith.\n\n​\n\nMineralization and alteration at the Cuajone deposit is directly related to a multi-stage latite porphyry that intrudes basaltic andesites and the overlying 370 m of rhyolite porphyries of the Toquepala Group. The Cuajone porphyry deposit exhibits a zoned alteration pattern that includes potassic, propylitic, sericitic and intermediate argillic hydrothermal alteration styles. The Cuajone mineralogy is typically simple and consists of pyrite, chalcopyrite, and bornite, with sparse sphalerite, galena, and enargite.\n\n​\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n​\n\nOur Cuajone operations use state-of-the-art computer monitoring systems at the concentrator, the crushing plant and the flotation circuit to coordinate inflows and optimize operations. The process designs were based on existing technologies and proven equipment, and the plants constructed using those designs have been operating for 48 years. Material with a copper grade approximately equivalent to 0.170%–0.173% is loaded to the in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) system and sent to the milling circuit, where giant rotating crushers reduce the size of the rocks to approximately one-half of an inch. The ore is then sent to the ball mills, which grind it to the consistency of fine powder. The finely ground powder is agitated in a water and reagents solution and is then transported to flotation cells. Air is pumped into the cells to produce foam for floating the copper and molybdenum minerals while waste materials called tailings are separated. This copper-molybdenum bulk concentrate is then treated by inverse flotation, where molybdenum is floated and copper is\n\n45\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\ndepressed. The copper concentrate is shipped by rail to the smelter at Ilo and the molybdenum concentrate is packaged for shipment to customers.\n\n​\n\nTailings are sent to thickeners to recover water. The remaining tailings are sent to the Quebrada Honda dam, our principal tailings storage facility.\n\n​\n\nA major mill expansion was completed in 1999 and the eleventh primary mill began operations in January 2008. In December 2013, the high-pressure grinding roll was put in operation. At the end of 2016, the Larox filter press for molybdenum concentrate began operations. The overland primary crusher began operations in May 2018. The new tailings thickener began operations in September 2019.\n\n​\n\nIn November 2023, the \"HPGR optimization as a quaternary crushing circuit\" project began operational testing and ramping-up. In February 2024, the quaternary crushing circuit began working at full capacity with favorable results.\n\n​\n\n*Slope stability*\n\n​\n\nThe Cuajone pit is approximately 900 meters deep. Under the present mine plan configuration, the Cuajone pit will reach a depth of 1,320 meters. The increases in the depth of the pit present us with a number of geotechnical challenges. Perhaps the foremost concern is the possibility of slope failure, which all open pit mines face. To meet the geotechnical challenges relating to slope stability of the open pit mines, we have taken the following steps:\n\n​\n\nAt the Cuajone mine, the Company maintains many monitoring systems with radars in order to prevent the risk of slope instability. The equipment acquired through these years have helped to control the walls of the pit and anticipate possible damages. In addition, in 2015 a geotechnical study was conducted to increase the inter ramp angle by an average of three degrees and include 40 meters wide geotechnical berms for inter ramp heights above 150 meters.\n\n​\n\nIn 2020, equipment to extract rock samples was implemented in the rock mechanics laboratory. This equipment allows us to obtain cylindrical rock specimens and perform rock mechanics tests under current technical standards and norms. A drone was also incorporated in the slope reconciliation activities to obtain detailed topographic information on the slopes and identify good practices or opportunities to build stable walls. In 2021, as part of the equipment update and the requirement to improve the slope monitoring coverage due to the growth of the pit, two slope monitoring radars were acquired. Three pieces of monitoring equipment have also been added to monitor slopes in the leaching pads. Likewise, the first study of the physical stability of waste rock deposits was carried out by a consulting firm.\n\n​\n\nIn 2022, seismic refraction equipment was used to record information on fracturing frequency, determine the dynamic parameters of the rock mass, and modify designs in the buffer and pre-split blasting rows, as a complement in minimizing the impact on the final slopes of the pit. A digital inclinometer has been replaced to monitor slopes in the pit and identify potential deformation zones.\n\n​\n\nIn 2023, an evaluation of the physical stability of the waste rock deposits and leach heaps was carried out, in compliance with article 400 of the Supreme Decree 024-2016 and its amendments contained in the Supreme Decree 023-2017 E.M. Eight digital extensometers were also acquired to monitor and control waste rock deposits.\n\n​\n\nIn 2024, we drilled 3,000.2 meters for geotechnical and conventional exploration purposes; implemented structural mapping with 3D laser scanning technology; and installed geotechnical instruments, such as the Casagrande piezometer, and vertical inclinometers. In accordance with Supreme Decree 034-2023-EM, we performed inspections to meet compliance and safety requirements; control management for the “Slope Slide / Rockfall” standard was also implemented.\n\nIn 2025, geotechnical management of the operation was strengthened by implementing triaxial sensors in the waste dumps, in compliance with Supreme Decree 034-2023-EM; replacing Global Positioning System (“GPS”) equipment for structural field surveys; and implementing digital extensometers for real-time monitoring of critical pit areas. These initiatives improved the quality and timeliness of geotechnical information; strengthened control of the slope and waste dump stability; and increased safety levels in the mine’s main operating areas.\n\n​\n\n46\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral resources for Cuajone as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 and $11.50 per pound respectively; these prices were fixed over the remaining years of mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n61.0\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n468.7\n\n​\n\n62.0\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n471.9\n\n​\n\n(0.7)%\n\n- Leach (oxides)\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n436.3\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n3,201.1\n\n​\n\n444.2\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n3,225.6\n\n​\n\n(0.8)%\n\n- Leach (oxides)\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n36.8\n\n%\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n36.8\n\n%\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n497.3\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n3,670.1\n\n​\n\n506.2\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n3,697.7\n\n​\n\n(0.7)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n864.6\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n5,417.6\n\n​\n\n865.3\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n84.0\n\n%\n\n5,420.8\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\n- Leach (oxides)\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.64\n\n%\n\n36.8\n\n%\n\n0.2\n\n​\n\n0.0\n\n​\n\n0.64\n\n%\n\n36.8\n\n%\n\n0.2\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nTotal inferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n864.6\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n5,417.8\n\n​\n\n865.3\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n5,421.0\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n61.0\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n18.6\n\n​\n\n62.0\n\n​\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n18.7\n\n​\n\n(0.7)%\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n436.3\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n115.2\n\n​\n\n444.2\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n116.1\n\n​\n\n(0.8)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n497.3\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n133.7\n\n​\n\n506.2\n\n​\n\n0.012\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n134.8\n\n​\n\n(0.8)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n864.6\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n160.2\n\n​\n\n865.3\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n61.1\n\n%\n\n160.2\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(1)The Variation column refers to metal content variation.\n\n(2)The point of reference for mineral resources is in place and are current as of December 31, 2025; based on 2024 year-end mineral resource tonnages, grades and contents adjusted only considering the 2025 mine depletion. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. Wood is responsible for the estimate.\n\n(3)Mineral resources are constrained within an optimized pit shell based on copper and molybdenum revenues only. The following parameters were used in estimation: assumed open-pit mining methods; assumed concentration and heap leaching processes; copper price of $3.80/lb, molybdenum price of $11.50/lb; marginal NSR cut-off values of $8.21/t-processed for concentration material (approximately equivalent to 0.127% Cu ), and $9.95/t-processed for leach material (approximately equivalent to 0.326% Cu); variable metallurgical recoveries (average recoveries of 84.0% for copper by concentration, 61.1% for molybdenum by concentration, and 36.8% for copper by leaching); average copper recoveries of 97.1% for smelting and 99.9% for refining; average mining cost of $2.09/t-mined; average process costs of $8.21/t-processed for concentration material, and $9.95/t for leach material; average smelting and refining cost of $0.17/lb Cu; selling costs of $0.001/lb Cu for concentration process, $1.83/lb Mo for concentration process, and $-0.005/lb Cu for leaching process; and 1% NSR royalty applied to Cu and Mo. These parameters are based on the 2024 year-end figures.\n\n(4)No estimates for molybdenum are reported for leachable material, as this element cannot currently be recovered using the leach process envisaged.\n\n(5)Numbers in the table have been rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding.\n\n(6)For further information on the assumptions used to prepare the estimates and a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Cuajone operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.1 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n47\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral reserves for Cuajone as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 and $10.00 per pound respectively; these prices were fixed over the remaining years of mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nProven mineral reserves (mill)\n\n​\n\n580.6\n\n​\n\n0.51\n\n%\n\n85.0\n\n%\n\n6,533.3\n\n​\n\n588.5\n\n​\n\n0.52\n\n%\n\n85.0\n\n%\n\n6,764.8\n\n​\n\n(3.4)%\n\nProven mineral reserves (leach)\n\n​\n\n17.9\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n54.8\n\n%\n\n197.6\n\n​\n\n19.1\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n54.8\n\n%\n\n211.6\n\n​\n\n(6.6)%\n\nProbable mineral reserves (mill)\n\n \n\n882.7\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n85.0\n\n%\n\n8,762.0\n\n​\n\n910.4\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n85.0\n\n%\n\n9,012.3\n\n​\n\n(2.8)%\n\nProbable mineral reserves (leach)\n\n​\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.72\n\n%\n\n43.5\n\n%\n\n5.5\n\n​\n\n0.3\n\n​\n\n0.72\n\n%\n\n43.5\n\n%\n\n5.5\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n1,481.6\n\n​\n\n0.47\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n15,498.4\n\n​\n\n1,518.2\n\n​\n\n0.48\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n15,994.2\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nProven mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n580.6\n\n​\n\n0.019\n\n%\n\n62.7\n\n%\n\n245.7\n\n​\n\n588.5\n\n​\n\n0.019\n\n%\n\n62.7\n\n%\n\n252.3\n\n​\n\n(2.6)%\n\nProbable mineral reserves\n\n \n\n882.7\n\n​\n\n0.015\n\n%\n\n62.7\n\n%\n\n296.0\n\n​\n\n910.4\n\n​\n\n0.015\n\n%\n\n62.7\n\n%\n\n303.6\n\n​\n\n(2.5)%\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n1,463.3\n\n​\n\n0.017\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n541.7\n\n​\n\n1,498.8\n\n​\n\n0.017\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n555.9\n\n​\n\n(2.5)%\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025; based on 2024 year-end tonnages, grades and metal contents adjusted for 2025 mine depletion only. Wood is responsible for the estimates.\n\n(2)The point of reference is the point at which the mineral reserves are delivered to the processing facility. Mineral reserves are constrained within an engineered pit based on copper and molybdenum revenues only. The following parameters were used in estimation: assumed open-pit mining methods; assumed concentration and heap leaching processes; copper price of US$3.30/lb, molybdenum price of US$10.00/lb; marginal NSR cut-off values of US$9.61–US$9.77/t-processed for concentration material (approximately equivalent to 0.170%–0.173% Cu), and US$14.27–US$14.40/t-processed for leach material (approximately equivalent to 0.539%–0.544% Cu); mining recovery and dilution are accounted for and generally offset each other; additional ore loss was considered on isolated blocks; variable metallurgical recoveries (average LOM recoveries of 85.0% for copper by concentration, 62.7% for molybdenum by concentration, and 43.5% for copper oxide by heap leaching, including concentration ore existing in stockpile); average copper recoveries of 97.1% for smelting and 99.9% for refining; variable mining costs of US$2.58–US$3.78/t-mined; average process costs of US$9.72/t-processed for concentration material, and US$14.32/t for leaching material; average smelting and refining cost of US$0.21/lb Cu; selling costs of US$0.001/lb Cu for concentration process, US$1.83/lb Mo for concentration process, and US$-0.005/lb Cu for leaching process; and 1% NSR royalty applied to Cu and Mo. These parameters are based on and are unchanged from the 2024 year-end figures.\n\n(3)The point of reference for the leach from stockpile mineral reserves is in place on the stockpile with marginal NSR cut-off values of US$14.27–US$14.40/t-processed (approximately equivalent to 0.40% Cu) and an average LOM recovery of 54.8%. These parameters are based on and are unchanged from the 2024 year-end figures.\n\n(4)No estimates for molybdenum are reported for leach material as this element cannot currently be recovered using the leach process envisaged.\n\n(5)Numbers in the table have been rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates and a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the Cuajone operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.1 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nToquepala\n\n​\n\nThe Toquepala operations are situated in southern Peru, approximately 150 km by road from the city of Tacna and 30 kilometers from Cuajone. The Project centroid is at about 17° 3.130’S latitude and 70° 44.499’W longitude while the open pit is centered at approximately 17° 2.601’S latitude and 70° 42.481’W longitude. Road access from Tacna is via the Pan-American highway and other local roads. Alternative access is from Lima, using the Pan-American highway to\n\n48\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nAlto Camiara, and then driving for 70 km on a paved road to the Toquepala camp. The Quebrada Honda tailings storage facility (TSF) is 40 km south of the mine and is located at approximately 17° 27.724’S latitude: 70° 47.810’W longitude. The Quebrada Honda tailings can be accessed via the MO-107 route that connects Alto Camiara with Toquepala. Within the operations area, access is by unpaved mine and exploration roads. The city of Tacna has a regional airstrip, with regular service within Peru. Additionally, railways extend from Ilo to Toquepala, and a spur railway runs from the Toquepala operations to the Cuajone operations.\n\n​\n\nThe Toquepala operations are owned and operated by SPCC Peru Branch and consist of 15 mining concessions which cover an area of 24,168.76 hectares. Power is transmitted for process needs from the Peruvian grid using two Southern Copper-owned transmission lines of 138 kV and 220 kV. Additionally, the Toquepala operations use surface and underground water from a variety of sources as fresh make up water.\n\n​\n\nThe property is currently under the production stage. Our Toquepala operations consist of an open-pit copper mine and two concentrators; each with a milling capacity of 60,000 tonnes per day. We also refine copper at the SX-EW facility through a leaching process. The SX-EW facility has a production capacity of 56,336 tonnes per year of LME grade A copper cathodes. Southern Copper has had an interest in the Project area since 1945. Prior to Southern Copper’s Project interests, the area had been subject to artisanal mining activities. Overburden removal commenced in 1957 and ore production commenced in 1960. Our Toquepala operations utilize a conventional open-pit mining method to collect copper ore for further processing in our concentrators. The second concentrator began operations in the fourth quarter of 2018. Book value of the property and its associated plant and equipment is available under “Property Book Value” on page 38 of this report.\n\n​\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our Toquepala operations:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance 2025 -**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n \n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Amount**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nMine annual operating days\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n366\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n*Mine*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal ore mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n42,583\n\n \n\n40,419\n\n \n\n41,657\n\n \n\n2,164\n\n \n\n5.4\n\n%\n\nCopper grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.577\n\n \n\n0.607\n\n \n\n0.529\n\n \n\n(0.030)\n\n \n\n(4.9)\n\n%\n\nLeach material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n32,770\n\n \n\n17,256\n\n \n\n51,870\n\n \n\n15,514\n\n \n\n89.9\n\n%\n\nLeach material grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.107\n\n \n\n0.093\n\n \n\n0.096\n\n \n\n0.014\n\n \n\n15.1\n\n%\n\nStripping ratio\n\n \n\n(x)\n\n \n\n1.52\n\n \n\n2.54\n\n \n\n1.49\n\n \n\n(1.02)\n\n \n\n(40.2)\n\n%\n\nTotal material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n189,731\n\n \n\n203,995\n\n \n\n232,795\n\n \n\n(14,264)\n\n \n\n(7.0)\n\n%\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal material milled\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n42,623\n\n \n\n40,417\n\n \n\n41,547\n\n \n\n2,206\n\n \n\n5.5\n\n%\n\nCopper recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n91.43\n\n \n\n91.78\n\n \n\n90.80\n\n \n\n(0.35)\n\n \n\n(0.4)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n8477.0\n\n \n\n840.0\n\n \n\n787.0\n\n \n\n7,637.0\n\n \n\n909.2\n\n%\n\nCopper in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n224.9\n\n \n\n225.2\n\n \n\n199.7\n\n \n\n(0.3)\n\n \n\n(0.1)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n26.53\n\n \n\n26.81\n\n \n\n25.37\n\n \n\n(0.28)\n\n \n\n(1.0)\n\n%\n\n*SX**‑**EW plant*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nEstimated leach recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n24.57\n\n \n\n24.29\n\n \n\n23.87\n\n \n\n0.28\n\n \n\n1.2\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW cathode production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n23.5\n\n \n\n24.1\n\n \n\n25.3\n\n \n\n(0.6)\n\n \n\n(2.6)\n\n%\n\n*Molybdenum*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMolybdenum grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.037\n\n \n\n0.029\n\n \n\n0.020\n\n \n\n0.008\n\n \n\n27.6\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n67.22\n\n \n\n76.51\n\n \n\n72.35\n\n \n\n(9.29)\n\n \n\n(12.1)\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n18.7\n\n \n\n15.9\n\n \n\n11.2\n\n \n\n2.8\n\n \n\n17.9\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n56.57\n\n \n\n56.43\n\n \n\n56.57\n\n \n\n0.14\n\n \n\n0.2\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n10.6\n\n \n\n9.0\n\n \n\n6.3\n\n \n\n1.6\n\n \n\n18.2\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\nx = Stripping ratio obtained by dividing waste tonnes by leachable material plus ore mined.\n\nCopper and molybdenum grades are referred to as total copper grade and total molybdenum grade, respectively.\n\n​\n\n49\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Toquepala deposit is an example of a copper–molybdenum porphyry deposit. The basal regional geology consists of Precambrian metamorphic rocks that are cut by Paleozoic granite, unconformably overlain by Upper Triassic to Jurassic marine volcanic and sedimentary lithologies. Overlying these rocks are late Cretaceous to early Tertiary rhyolite, andesite and agglomerate of the Toquepala Group. These lithologies are intruded by the composite, polyphase Cretaceous to Paleogene Coastal (Andean) Batholith.\n\n​\n\nMineralization consists of leached capping, oxide, enriched, transitional and primary mineralization. Leached capping, oxide, enriched and transition mineralization is mostly mined out. Primary mineralization occurs as hypogene sulfides mainly restricted to the dacite porphyry and breccias. Chalcopyrite is the dominant economic mineral with lesser bornite, molybdenite, and enargite as disseminations, fracture fillings, and breccia matrix. Economic molybdenite mineralization is associated with quartz veinlets and locally, with disseminated chalcopyrite.\n\n​\n\n*Concentrators*\n\n​\n\nOur Toquepala concentrators use state-of-the-art computer monitoring systems to coordinate inflows and optimize operations. Material with a copper grade approximately equivalent to 0.184%–0.188% is loaded onto an overland conveyor belt and sent to the crushing circuit, where rotating crushers reduce the size of the rocks by approximately 85% to less than one-half of an inch. The ore is then sent to the rod and ball mills, which grind it in a mix with water to the consistency of fine powder. The finely ground powder mixed with water is then transported to flotation cells. Air is pumped into the cells producing a froth, which carries the copper mineral to the surface but not the waste rock, or tailings. The bulk concentrate with sufficient molybdenum content is processed to recover molybdenum by inverse flotation. This final copper concentrate with a content of approximately 26.5% of copper is filtered to reduce moisture to 8.5% or less. Concentrates are then shipped by rail to the Ilo smelter.\n\n​\n\nTailings are sent to thickeners where water is recovered. The remaining tailings are sent to the Quebrada Honda dam, our principal tailings storage facility.\n\n​\n\n*SX-EW Plant*\n\n​\n\nThe SX-EW facility at Toquepala produces grade A LME electrowon copper cathodes of 99.999% purity from solutions obtained by leaching low-grade ore stored at the Toquepala mine and copper oxides ore at the Cuajone mine. The leach plant commenced operations in 1995 with a design capacity of 35,629 tonnes per year of copper cathodes. In 1999, the capacity was expanded to 56,336 tonnes per year.\n\n​\n\nThis facility processes copper oxides from Cuajone and copper sulfides from Toquepala. Copper oxides from Cuajone with a copper grade approximately equivalent to 0.539%–0.544% and acid solubility index higher than 20% are leached. At Toquepala, the copper sulfides cutoff grade is approximately equivalent to 0.168%–0.191% Cu. Copper in solution produced at Cuajone is sent to Toquepala through an eight-inch pipe laid alongside the Cuajone-Toquepala railroad track.\n\n​\n\nPlant and equipment are supported by a maintenance plan and a quality management system to assure good physical condition and high availability. The SX-EW plant management quality system (including leaching operations) has been audited periodically since 2002 by an external audit company and found to be in compliance with the requirements of ISO 9001-2015, ISO 14001-2015 and ISO 45000-2018 standard.\n\n​\n\n*Slope stability*\n\n​\n\n**Overview of Toquepala Pit Depth:** The Toquepala pit is approximately 1,005 meters deep, with plans to reach 1,665 meters. This depth increase presents geotechnical challenges, primarily the risk of slope failure.\n\n​\n\n50\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n**Geotechnical Measures from 2007 to 2018:**Preventive actions were taken during 2007-2018 to enhance Toquepala pit slope stability, including installing berms, updating monitoring software, and initiating the \"Slope Stability Analysis in Deposits of Waste and Leachable Material\" study in 2013.\n\n​\n\n**Developments in 2019:**External consultants performed an update on slope stability analysis, incorporating the IBIS ArcSAR radar for enhanced monitoring and implementing sub-horizontal drains for pit slope depressurization.\n\n​\n\n**Studies and Implementations in 2020 and 2021:**In 2020, external consultants conducted stability studies for the Toquepala Pit and various waste deposits, incorporating an IBIS ArcSAR radar with a five-kilometer range into the pit slope monitoring system. Simultaneously, initiatives included establishing a geotechnical drillhole database and implementing the project \"*Automation and Real-Time Monitoring of geotechnical instrumentation in the Pit and Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam*.\" The installation of three radars for geotechnical monitoring of the Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam was also planned. In 2021, the focus shifted to the \"*Stability Study of the Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam – Toquepala Mine*,\" accompanied by the installation of the Quebrada Honda Radar System, comprising two IBIS M units and one IBIS FM unit for geotechnical monitoring.\n\n​\n\n**Tierra Group International's Contribution:** In 2022, Tierra Group International supported various studies related to seismic hazard, including the \"*Update of Seismic Hazard Study of Toquepala Mine*\", \"*Update of the Material Resistance Parameters of Waste and Leachable Deposits,*\" (geotechnical field investigation), \"*Update of the Hydrogeological Model of the Leachable Deposits,*\" \"*Study of Physical Stability of Waste and Leachable Deposits in Current Condition*,\" \"*Update of the Numerical Hydrogeological Model of Toquepala Mine*,\" and \"*Study of Anisotropic Physical Stability of Toquepala Mine.\"*\n\n​\n\nThe Inersia company began conducting satellite monitoring and developing moisture maps for the pit, waste and leachable deposits as well as tailings deposits at Quebrada Honda.\n\n​\n\nIn 2023, Geotechnical – Structural logging, geological logging, in situ tests and hydrogeological laboratory and instrumentation for the Geotechnical Drilling and Update of the Peak Particle Velocity Study of Toquepala mine were rolled out. Software 3D modeling was used to implement the Preliminary Blasting Project and Inersia company began conducting satellite monitoring humidity at Suches, Santallana and kilometer 16. In the Quebrada Honda Tailings Dam, geotechnical drilling, including SPT tests and installation of geotechnical instrumentation, CPTu and pit testing, and updates on resistance were conducted.\n\n​\n\nIn December 2023, a study was conducted to update geotechnical parameters, along with the execution of a preliminary field campaign. In 2024, we received an updated stability study of the Quebrada Honda reservoir. Additionally, an external consulting firm carried out fieldwork to revise the resistance parameters of the waste and leach deposits, which will support physical stability studies of these deposits. Additionally, geotechnical inspections of the slope in the pit, waste and leachable deposits were conducted to comply with the new requirements of the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines.\n\n​\n\nStudies to comply with Supreme Decree 034-2023-EM were completed in 2025. This includes a stability analysis, geotechnical risk management, and an update on seismic hazards. In addition, a third-party provider satellite monitoring and work to develop moisture maps for the Toquepala pit; waste and leach deposits; Pampa de Vaca dam; Suches lagoon; and the Quebrada Honda tailings deposit.\n\n51\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral resources for Toquepala as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 and $11.50 per pound respectively; these prices were fixed over the remaining years of mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n** **\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,241.2\n\n​\n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,241.2\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n- Leach (low grade sulfides)\n\n​\n\n11.3\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n37.4\n\n​\n\n11.3\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n37.4\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n178.8\n\n​\n\n0.39\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,524.4\n\n​\n\n179.0\n\n​\n\n0.39\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,525.3\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\n- Leach (low grade sulfides)\n\n​\n\n44.2\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n147.5\n\n​\n\n46.0\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n153.4\n\n​\n\n(3.8)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n333.7\n\n​\n\n0.40\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n2,950.6\n\n​\n\n335.6\n\n​\n\n0.40\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n2,957.4\n\n​\n\n(0.2)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n- Sulfides\n\n​\n\n159.2\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,006.6\n\n​\n\n161.4\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n87.5\n\n%\n\n1,017.4\n\n​\n\n(1.1)%\n\n- Leach (low grade sulfides)\n\n​\n\n51.5\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n173.6\n\n​\n\n52.4\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n17.0\n\n%\n\n177.0\n\n​\n\n(1.9)%\n\nTotal inferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n210.6\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n1,180.2\n\n​\n\n213.8\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n1,194.5\n\n​\n\n(1.2)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n** **\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.038\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n83.0\n\n​\n\n99.3\n\n​\n\n0.038\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n83.0\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n178.8\n\n​\n\n0.021\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n81.7\n\n​\n\n179.0\n\n​\n\n0.021\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n81.7\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n278.2\n\n​\n\n0.027\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n164.8\n\n​\n\n278.3\n\n​\n\n0.027\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n164.8\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n159.2\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n28.5\n\n​\n\n161.4\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n68.3\n\n%\n\n28.6\n\n​\n\n(0.3)%\n\n​\n\n(1)The Variation column refers to metal content variation.\n\n(2)The point of reference for the mineral resources are in place and are current as of December 31, 2025; based on 2024 year-end tonnages, grades and contents adjusted only considering the 2025 depletion. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. Wood is responsible for the estimate.\n\n(3)Mineral resources are constrained within an optimized pit shell based on copper and molybdenum revenues only. The following parameters were used in estimation: assumed open-pit mining methods; assumed concentration and dump leaching processes; copper price of $3.80/lb, molybdenum price of $11.50/lb; marginal NSR cut-off values of $9.80/t-processed for concentration material (approximately equivalent to 0.146% Cu), and $1.91/t-processed for leach material (approximately equivalent to 0.135% Cu); variable metallurgical recoveries (average recoveries of 87.5% for copper by concentration, 68.3% for molybdenum by concentration, and 17.0% for copper by leaching); average copper recoveries of 97.1% for smelting and 99.9% for refining; average mining cost of $2.11/t-mined; average process costs of $9.80/t-processed for concentration material, and $1.91/t for leach material; average smelting and refining cost of $0.16/lb Cu; selling costs of $0.001/lb Cu for concentration process, $1.83/lb Mo for concentration process, and $-0.005/lb Cu for leaching process; and 1% NSR royalty applied to Cu and Mo. These parameters are based on the 2024 year-end figures.\n\n(4)No estimates for molybdenum are reported for leachable material as this element cannot currently be recovered using the leach process envisaged.\n\n(5)Numbers in the table have been rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates and a detailed description of the cut-off grade determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Toquepala operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.2 to the 2024 Form 10-K, filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n52\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral reserves for Toquepala as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 and $10.00 per pound, respectively. The metal prices were fixed over the remaining years of mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n** **\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nProven mineral reserves (mill)\n\n​\n\n1,174.9\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n88.5\n\n%\n\n14,811.0\n\n​\n\n1,184.8\n\n​\n\n0.57\n\n%\n\n88.5\n\n%\n\n14,987.0\n\n​\n\n(1.2)%\n\nProven mineral reserves (leach)\n\n​\n\n2,140.5\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n5.7\n\n%\n\n7,332.5\n\n​\n\n2,107.1\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n5.7\n\n%\n\n7,297.8\n\n​\n\n0.5%\n\nProbable mineral reserves (mill)\n\n \n\n565.4\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n88.5\n\n%\n\n5,685.9\n\n​\n\n583.9\n\n​\n\n0.47\n\n%\n\n88.5\n\n%\n\n5,992.0\n\n​\n\n(5.1)%\n\nProbable mineral reserves (leach)\n\n​\n\n492.2\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n%\n\n13.3\n\n%\n\n2,199.5\n\n​\n\n502.8\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n%\n\n13.3\n\n%\n\n2,242.5\n\n​\n\n(1.9)%\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n4,372.9\n\n​\n\n0.31\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n30,028.9\n\n​\n\n4,378.7\n\n​\n\n0.32\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n30,519.3\n\n​\n\n(1.6)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n** **\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nProven mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n1,174.9\n\n​\n\n0.039\n\n%\n\n70.4\n\n%\n\n1,020.1\n\n​\n\n1,184.8\n\n​\n\n0.040\n\n%\n\n70.4\n\n%\n\n1,032.5\n\n​\n\n(1.2)%\n\nProbable mineral reserves\n\n \n\n565.4\n\n​\n\n0.020\n\n%\n\n70.4\n\n%\n\n255.5\n\n​\n\n583.9\n\n​\n\n0.021\n\n%\n\n70.4\n\n%\n\n275.5\n\n​\n\n(7.3)%\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n1,740.3\n\n​\n\n0.033\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n1,275.5\n\n​\n\n1,768.8\n\n​\n\n0.034\n\n%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n1,307.9\n\n​\n\n(2.5)%\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025; based on 2024 year-end tonnages, grades and contents adjusted for 2025 mine depletion only. Wood is responsible for the estimates.\n\n(2)The point of reference is the point at which the mineral reserves are delivered to the processing facility. Mineral reserves are constrained within an engineered pit based on copper and molybdenum revenues only. The following parameters were used in estimation: assumed open-pit mining methods; assumed concentration and dump leaching processes; copper price of $3.30/lb, molybdenum price of $10.00/lb; marginal NSR cut-off values of $11.10–$11.37/t-processed for concentration material (approximately equivalent to 0.184%–0.188% Cu), and $1.95–$2.22/t-processed for leach material (approximately equivalent to 0.168%–0.191% Cu); mining recovery and dilution are accounted for and generally offset each other; additional ore loss was considered on isolated blocks; variable metallurgical recoveries (average LOM recoveries of 88.5% for copper by concentration, 70.4% for molybdenum by concentration, and 13.3% for copper by leaching); average copper recoveries of 97.1% for smelting and 99.9% for refining; variable mining costs of $2.65–$4.11/t-mined; average process costs of $11.26/t-processed for concentration material, and $2.11/t for leach material; average smelting and refining cost of $0.21/lb Cu; selling costs of $0.001/lb Cu for concentration process, $1.83/lb Mo for concentration process, and $-0.005/lb Cu for leaching process; and 1% NSR royalty applied to Cu and Mo. These parameters are based on and unchanged from the 2024 year-end figures.\n\n(3)The point of reference for the leach in process mineral reserves is in place on the leach dumps therefore no cut-off applies. The 4.3% copper recovery of leach in process material includes an allowance of 60% of leachable material that will be exposed to irrigation on the leach dumps and will be processed by SX/EW. These parameters are based on and unchanged from the 2024 year-end figures. Proven mineral reserves (leach) include both leach material from the pit and leach in process material.\n\n(4)The copper grade in the leach in process represents the estimated remaining grade of material that has been loaded on the leach dumps and material that has been under leach for a period of time.\n\n(5)No estimates for molybdenum are reported for leach material as this element cannot currently be recovered using the leach process envisaged.\n\n(6)Numbers in the table have been rounded. Totals may not sum due to rounding.\n\n(7)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates and a detailed description of the cut-off grade determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the Toquepala operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.2 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n53\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nProcessing Facilities—Ilo\n\n​\n\nOur Ilo smelter and refinery complex is located in the southern part of Peru, 17 kilometers north of the city of Ilo, 121 kilometers from Toquepala, 147 kilometers from Cuajone and 871 kilometers from the city of Lima. The smelter and refinery are located at about 17° 29.924’S latitude; 71° 21.608’W longitude and 17° 34.728’S latitude; 71° 21.188’W longitude respectively. Access is by plane from Lima to Tacna (1:40 hours) and then by highway to the city of Ilo (2:00 hours). Additionally, we operate a port facility in Ilo, from where we ship our products and receive supplies. Products shipped and supplies received are moved between Toquepala, Cuajone and Ilo on our industrial railroad.\n\n​\n\n*Smelter*\n\n​\n\nOur Ilo smelter produces copper anodes for the refinery we operate as part of the same facility. When the copper produced by the smelter exceeds the refinery’s capacity, the excess is sold to other refineries around the world. In 2007, we completed a major modernization of the smelter. The nominal installed capacity of the smelter is 1,376,050 tonnes of copper concentrate per year. Copper concentrates from Toquepala and Cuajone are transported by railroad to the smelter, where they are smelted using an ISASMELT furnace, converters and anode furnaces to produce copper anodes with 99.7% copper.\n\n​\n\nAt the smelter, the concentrates are mixed with flux and other material and sent to the ISASMELT furnace producing a mixture of copper matte and slag, which is tapped through a taphole to either of two rotary holding furnaces, where these smelted phases will be separated.\n\n​\n\nCopper matte contains approximately 63% copper. Copper matte is then sent to the four Pierce Smith converters, where the material is oxidized in two steps: (1) the iron sulfides in the matte are oxidized with oxygen enriched air and silica is added producing slag that is sent to the slag cleaning furnaces, and (2) the copper contained in the matte sulfides is then oxidized to produce blister copper, containing approximately 99.3% copper.\n\n​\n\nThe blister copper is refined in two anode furnaces by oxidation and sulfur is removed with compressed air injected into the bath. Finally, the oxygen content of the molten copper is adjusted by reduction by injecting liquefied petroleum gas with steam into the bath. Anodes, containing approximately 99.7% copper, are cast in two casting wheels. The smelter also can produce blister copper bars, especially when an anode furnace is undergoing general repairs.\n\n​\n\nThe off gases from the smelter are treated to recover over 92% of the incoming sulfur received in the concentrates to produce 98.5% sulfuric acid. The gas stream from the smelter with 11.34% SO2 is split between two plants: The No. 1 acid plant (double absorption/double contact) and the No. 2 plant (double absorption/double contact). Approximately, 16% of the acid produced is used at our facilities with the balance sold to third parties.\n\n​\n\nIn 2010, the Ilo smelter marine trestle started operations. This facility allows us to offload directly to offshore ships the sulfuric acid produced, avoiding hauling cargo through the city of Ilo. The 500-meter-long marine trestle is the last part of the Ilo smelter modernization project. Currently all overseas shipments of sulfuric acid are being made using the marine trestle.\n\n​\n\nThe smelter also has two oxygen plants. Plant No. 1, which has a production capacity of 272 tonnes per day, and Plant No.2, with a capacity of 1,045 tonnes per day. This facility also has auxiliary plants (sea water intake and two desalinization plants).\n\n​\n\n54\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our Ilo smelter plant:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance 2025 -**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n**Smelter**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n \n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2024**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2023**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Volume**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nConcentrate smelted\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n1,040.7\n\n \n\n1,230.9\n\n \n\n1,292.9\n\n \n\n(190.2)\n\n \n\n(15.5)\n\n%\n\nAverage copper recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n97.4\n\n \n\n97.1\n\n \n\n97.1\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n%\n\nAnode production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n305.2\n\n \n\n359.4\n\n \n\n362.9\n\n \n\n(54.2)\n\n \n\n(15.1)\n\n%\n\nAverage anode grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n99.78\n\n \n\n99.78\n\n \n\n99.78\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%\n\nBlister production\n\n \n\nkt\n\n \n\n1.4\n\n \n\n1.5\n\n \n\n1.9\n\n \n\n(0.2)\n\n \n\n(10.2)\n\n%\n\nAverage blister grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n99.26\n\n \n\n99.24\n\n \n\n99.28\n\n \n\n0.02\n\n \n\n0.02\n\n%\n\nSulfuric acid produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n976.5\n\n \n\n1,185.0\n\n \n\n1,286.8\n\n \n\n(208.6)\n\n \n\n(17.6)\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\n​\n\n*Refinery*\n\n​\n\nThe Ilo refinery consists of a copper electrolytic plant, a precious metal plant and ancillary facilities. The refinery produces grade A copper cathode of 99.998% purity. The plant was acquired in 1994 and modernized the operation to produce 246,000 t/a of copper cathodes. It was subsequently expanded to the current nominal capacity of 294,763 tonnes per year.\n\n​\n\nIn the electrolytic plant, impure copper anodes are suspended in tanks containing a solution of sulfuric acid and copper sulfate. A low voltage but high amperage electrical current is passed through the anodes, chemical solution and cathodes to dissolve copper which is initially deposited on very thin starting copper sheets until thickness is increased to produce high grade copper cathodes. During this process, silver, gold and other metals, including palladium, platinum and selenium, along with other impurities, settle to the bottom of the tank in the form of anodic slime. This anodic slime is processed in the precious metal plant to produce refined silver, refined gold and commercial grade selenium.\n\n​\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our Ilo refinery and precious metals plants:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**Variance 2025 -**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n**Refinery**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n \n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n​\n\nCathodes produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n244.2\n\n \n\n287.9\n\n \n\n289.7\n\n \n\n(43.7)\n\n \n\n(15.2)\n\n%\n\nAverage copper grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n99.999\n\n \n\n99.998\n\n \n\n99.999\n\n \n\n0.001\n\n \n\n0.0\n\n%\n\nRefined silver produced\n\n \n\n(000 Kg)\n\n \n\n130.5\n\n \n\n126.6\n\n \n\n109.7\n\n \n\n3.9\n\n \n\n3.1\n\n%\n\nRefined gold produced\n\n \n\n(kg)\n\n \n\n225.9\n\n \n\n210.3\n\n \n\n223.1\n\n \n\n15.6\n\n \n\n7.4\n\n%\n\nCommercial grade selenium produced\n\n \n\n(tons)\n\n \n\n53.3\n\n \n\n52.8\n\n \n\n50.0\n\n \n\n0.5\n\n \n\n0.9\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\n​\n\nIn addition to the processing facilities, the refinery has a production control section, a laboratory that provides sample analysis throughout the Company, a maintenance department, a desalinization plant and other support facilities.\n\n​\n\nThe industrial railroad’s main equipment includes locomotives of different types and rolling stock with different types of cars and capacities. The track runs in a single 214-kilometer standard gauge line and supports a 30-ton axle load. The total length of the track system is around 257 kilometers including main yards and sidings. The infrastructure includes 27 kilometers of track under tunnels and one concrete bridge. The industrial railroad includes a car repair shop which is responsible for maintaining and repairing the car fleet. Annual transported tonnage is approximately 5.3 million tonnes.\n\n​\n\n55\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nPERUVIAN PROJECTS\n\n​\n\nTia Maria Project\n\n​\n\nThe Tia Maria Project is in the Districts of Cocachacra, Mejia and Deán Valdivia, Province of Islay, and Arequipa Region. The Project is located 118 km from Moquegua, 125 km from Arequipa, 120 km from the District of Ilo, and 980 km from Lima. The Project centroid is at approximately 17º 00’ 21.06” S and 71º 49’ 44.94” W. The mine gate will be situated at Pampa Cachendo. Mine access will be from the Pan-American Highway, diverting off the highway to the Project access road at km 1027–1028, between Arequipa and Moquegua, approximately 17 km before the town of El Fiscal.\n\n​\n\nThe Project covers an area of 34,789.63 hectares in 55 concessions. We have easement agreements in place that cover the proposed powerline route and the planned water pipeline that will run from the envisaged desalination plant to the mine. Additionally, the project currently holds no water rights and the mine plan assumes that water for process operations will be sourced from a desalination plant. The project envisions a 120,000-ton annual SX-EW plant and the mine plans assume conventional open pit mining methods from the La Tapada and Tia Maria deposits.\n\n​\n\nThe property is currently under the development stage. From 1994 through 1999, prior to involvement by Southern Copper, the Tia Maria Project area was evaluated by Teck Corporation, Phelps Dodge and Rio Tinto. We acquired the project in 2003, and we were granted the construction permit on July 2019. Additionally, on October 2019, the Mining Council of the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines ratified the construction permit for the Tia Maria project. As of December 31, 2025, progress at Tia Maria stood at 24%; large-scale earthmoving works have mobilized 1.7 million tonnes of material from the La Tapada deposit as of this date. Access roads and platforms, as well as the temporary contractor camp have been completed. Regarding energy supply, all earthworks for the electrical main substation have been completed; foundation works are currently underway, and the transmission line is being built. Our next efforts will focus on developing the main and secondary components of the project’s dry and wet areas and setting up a temporary camp.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe La Tapada and Tía Maria deposits are within the northwest–southeast-trending Tambo–El Toro structural corridor that appears to be a large dextral shear zone. There are a number of vein-hosted copper–gold–hematite deposits also associated with the corridor, outside our mineral tenure package. Alteration within the project area is associated with the two porphyry systems currently outlined. The only known mineralization is derived from oxidation of low-grade porphyry copper systems.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral resources for the La Tapada and Tia Maria deposits as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 per pound, fixed over the 20 year mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**La Tapada**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n90.4\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n69\n\n%\n\n420.3\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n90.4\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n69\n\n%\n\n420.3\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n69\n\n%\n\n6.4\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Tia Maria**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n35.5\n\n​\n\n0.17\n\n%\n\n65\n\n%\n\n135.2\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n35.5\n\n​\n\n0.17\n\n%\n\n65\n\n%\n\n135.2\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n21.8\n\n​\n\n0.22\n\n%\n\n65\n\n%\n\n107.8\n\n56\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025. Figures have been rounded.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)The cut-off grade used for mineral resource estimation was 0.08% Cu. Mineral resources are constrained within a wireframe constructed at a 0.1% total copper cut-off grade.\n\n(4)Mineral resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell that uses the following input parameters: metal prices of $3.80/lb Cu; metallurgical recovery assumptions of 69% for La Tapada and 65% for Tia Maria; base mining costs of $1.40/t mined and incremental haul costs of $0.017/t mined; process operating costs of $3.78/t processed for La Tapada and $3.61/t processed for Tia María; general and administrative costs of $0.37/t processed; transport and freight costs of $0.04/lb Cu; an assumed copper cathode premium of $0.03/lb Cu, and a royalty payable of 1%. Average pit slope angles were used for the north and south geotechnical zones in each deposit, and ranged from 35º–39º.\n\n(5)No estimates for gold, silver, or molybdenum are reported for leachable material as these elements cannot currently be recovered using the leach process envisaged.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determinations, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Tia Maria project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.3 of Form 10-K/A filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(7)Wood is a third-party firm; its mining experts were responsible for the estimate.\n\n(8)There were no changes with regard to the figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral reserves for the La Tapada and Tia Maria deposits as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 per pound, fixed over the estimated 20-year mine life:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**La Tapada**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nProven mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nProbable mineral reserves\n\n \n\n487.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n69\n\n%\n\n4,449.2\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n487.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n69\n\n%\n\n4,449.2\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Tia Maria**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nProven mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nProbable mineral reserves\n\n \n\n223.8\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n65\n\n%\n\n1,412.5\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n223.8\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n65\n\n%\n\n1,412.5\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is delivery to the process facility.\n\n(3)Four oxide stockpiles for material grading less than the run-of-mine cut-off but >0.08% Cu are planned, with two stockpile locations at each open pit.\n\n(4)Mineral reserves are constrained within an optimized pit shell that uses the following parameters: assumption of open pit\n\nmining methods; assumption of heap leach processing; copper price of $3.30/lb; copper cut-off grade of 0.10% Cu; mining\n\nrecovery of 100%; metallurgical recovery of 69% at La Tapada and 65% at Tía María; total mining costs (base, incremental\n\nand sustaining) of $1.466/t mined; process costs of $3.779/t processed at La Tapada and $3.614/t processed at Tía\n\nMaría; process sustaining capital costs of $0.155/t processed, general and administrative costs of $0.373/t processed;\n\ntransport costs (rail, port, freight) of $0.034/lb Cu; a copper cathode premium payable of $0.026/lb Cu; and assumption of a 1% royalty payment.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description on the cut-off determinations, please refer to Chapter 12 of the Tia Maria project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.3 of Form 10-K/A report filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(6)Wood is a third-party firm; its mining experts were responsible for the estimate.\n\n(7)There were no changes with regard to the mineral reserves figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n57\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nLos Chancas Project\n\n​\n\nThe Los Chancas project is located in the Andes Range in southern Peru. The site is approximately 65 km southwest of the city of Abancay in the Department of Apurimac, Peru at coordinates 14° 9.904’S, 73° 6.608’W or UTM 8432878 S, 702526 E – WGS84. The project site can be accessed using Highway 1, a paved road, from Lima to Nazca (460 km), from Nazca to Santa Rosa (250 km), using road 30A, and a gravel road from Santa Rosa to the Project site (32 km). Alternatively, access is available from Cuzco, via paved road, to Santa Rosa (170 km), and uses the same gravel road from Santa Rosa to the Project site (32 km). Access within the project area is via gravel roads.\n\n​\n\nThe closest airport is at Cuzco, which is served by daily flights from Lima (approximately one hour flying time). There are a number of port options that may be available to the project for concentrate shipment. These include San Juan de Marcona (approximately 500 km by road), General San Martin at Pisco (about 640–800 km depending on the road route) and Matarani (about 600–750 km depending on the road route).\n\n​\n\nThe project covers approximately 22,700 hectares in 31 concessions. In 2025, we acquired 3,125 hectares of surface rights from the Tiaparo rural community. We are currently in negotiations to acquire additional surface rights that are necessary to develop the project. The area where surface rights are required is within the Tiaparo and Tapairíhua rural community boundaries.\n\n​\n\nThe property is currently under the exploration stage. We commenced exploration in the Los Chancas area in 1997. The initial Environmental Assessment of the Los Chancas Project was conducted in 2001 and updated in 2008. A semi-detailed environmental impact assessment was completed in 2010. Additionally, we completed baseline studies from 2012 through 2020 and have community initiatives in place in the project area of influence. In 2023 and 2024, we continued to roll out social and environmental improvement efforts in local communities. In 2026, we expect to restart the environmental impact assessment; carry out a 40,000-meter diamond drilling campaign; and conduct hydrogeological and geotechnical studies to gather additional information on the characteristics of the Los Chancas deposit. The Los Chancas project envisions an open-pit mine with a combined operation of concentrator and SX-EW processes.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Los Chancas deposit is considered to be an example of a porphyry copper–molybdenum deposit. The deposit is about 1,200 m in diameter, extends for at least 1,000 m at depth, and most drill holes bottom in mineralization. The deposit remains open to the southeast and at depth. Sedimentary rocks of the Jurassic–Cretaceous Ferrobamba, Mara, Soraya, and Chuquibambilla Formations form a north-facing anticline that is eroded along the axial plane. The sediments were intruded by three generations of monzonite intrusion.\n\n​\n\nMineralization is hosted by quartz monzonite and surrounding quartzite and siltstone country rocks. Sulfide mineralization consists of hypogene chalcopyrite, bornite, molybdenite, and pyrite. Sulfides are hosted in quartz veins, occur as small sulfide streaks/veins, or form disseminations in the intrusive and sedimentary rocks. This primary mineralization was oxidized and leached, and a zone of supergene enrichment developed. The major area of leaching is to the east, and vertically above, the primary mineralized zone. The oxide zone is sub-parallel to topography. Brochantite and chrysocolla are the dominant copper oxide minerals, with subordinate azurite and malachite. Sulfide minerals within the supergene enrichment zone include chalcocite, covellite, digenite, cuprite, and native copper. Copper oxides are also present as a minor constituent.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n58\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral resources for Los Chancas as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 per pound, fixed over the long-term period of time that mineral resources are expected to be produced:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nOxide\n\n​\n\n98\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n972\n\nSulfide\n\n​\n\n52\n\n​\n\n0.59\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n676\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n150\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n82-84\n\n%\n\n1,648\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n150\n\n​\n\n0.50\n\n%\n\n82-84\n\n%\n\n1,648\n\nOxide\n\n​\n\n33\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n276\n\nSulfide\n\n​\n\n1,400\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n13,889\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1,433\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n82-84\n\n%\n\n14,165\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell that uses the following input parameters: metal prices of $3.80/lb Cu; metallurgical recoveries from copper leaching of 81.8% and from copper milling of 84.3%; base mining costs of $1.70/t; sustaining capital costs of $0.25/t processed; heap leach and electrowinning process operating costs of $4.29/t, mill process operating costs of $5.82/t, general and administrative costs of $1.06/t processed; and closure costs of $0.51/t processed. The marginal net smelter return cut-off values were $6.11/t for material amenable to heap leach methods and $7.64/t for material amenable to milling and flotation concentration.\n\n(3)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Los Chancas project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.4 of Form 10-K/A filed by the Company on March 7, 2022.\n\n(4)Wood is a third-party firm; its mining experts were responsible for the estimate.\n\n(5)There were no changes with regard to the mineral resource figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\nMichiquillay Project\n\n​\n\nThe Michiquillay project is located in the Western Cordillera of the Andes in northwest Peru, approximately 45 km from Cajamarca and 900 km northeast of Lima. Project centroid coordinates are approximately 7º 02’ 23.65” S and 78º 19’ 23.59” W. The Michiquillay deposit is located at 7º 02’ 17.53” S and 78º 19’ 29.30” W; or at 795 559 S and 9 221 182 W. The datum used is UTM WGS84. The main access route to the Project is via road from Cajamarca. Initially, the paved Route 8B is used from Cajamarca to the town of La Encañada, a distance of approximately 33 km. A gravel road is then used from La Encañada to the project site, approximately 14 km. The communities of Michiquillay and Encañada are 2 km and 14 km from the project, respectively. Access within the project is via various gravel and two-track roads that link areas where drilling is planned. The closest airport is at Cajamarca, which is serviced by regular flights from Lima.\n\n​\n\nThe Michiquillay Project consists of 18 mining concessions with a total area of 4,051.4 hectares. The Michiquillay deposit is located on lands of the Michiquillay Rural Community and the Encañada Rural Community. We have signed surface land use agreements with both communities which allow us to conduct exploration activities. Permits for the use of water for exploration purposes requested to the National Water Authority and the Marañon Local Authority are currently valid. Exploration activities are carried out with all the permits and authorizations required by Peruvian regulations.\n\n​\n\nThe property is currently under the exploration stage. Previous work in the project was conducted by Northern Peru Mining Company, American Smelting and Refining Company, later Asarco LLC, Minero Peru S.A., and various Anglo American subsidiaries. In June 2018, Southern Copper purchased the project from Activos Mineros S.A.C. for a total purchase price of $400 million and made an initial payment of $12.5 million. In June 2021, we paid an additional $12.5 million to acquire the project. The remaining balance of $375 million will be paid if we decide to develop the project. In 2021, we signed Social Agreements with the Michiquillay and La Encañada communities. Additionally, on October 1, 2021 the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines approved the semi-detailed Environmental Impact Study for the\n\n59\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nproject. In the fourth quarter of 2022, the Company informed MINEM that it had begun exploration activities and initiated an assessment of existing mineral resources at depth. In 2022, we drilled 1,585 meters. The geo-metallurgical study has been concluded. In 2026, the Company expects to continue with the hydrological, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies and initiate mineral reserve estimation and mine plan study.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Michiquillay deposit is considered to be an example of a porphyry copper–molybdenum–gold deposit. The project is located within a northwest–southeast-oriented metallogenetic corridor of the Andes, that hosts several porphyry copper deposits in the Cajamarca region. Those deposits are characterized by the presence of calc-alkaline magmatic rocks that intrude folded and faulted sedimentary rock formations. Mineralization is zoned vertically, with oxidation zones, supergene mineralization and zones with primary copper mineralization.\n\n​\n\nThe copper porphyry mineralization is related to the intrusion of a feldspathic porphyry, whose emplacement is controlled by a regional-scale faulting, which due to the strike change originated a series of structural weakness zones, evidenced by the presence of pre-mineral west–northwest to northwest striking brittle–ductile fault zones. The porphyry intrusions appear to be controlled by intense, concentrated extension on releasing bends, splays, overlaps in dextral fault segments and on the margins of brittle fault zones with development of multiple extensional phases in stockworks, synthetic/antithetic extensional faults and extensional duplexes.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral resources for Michiquillay as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 per pound, fixed over long-term period that would be expected to be required to produce the mineral resources:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metallurgical recovery**\n\n​\n\n**Metal content (million pounds)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2,287.9\n\n​\n\n0.43\n\n%\n\n85\n\n%\n\n21,554.8\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell that uses the following input parameters: metal prices of $3.80/lb Cu; copper metallurgical recovery assumptions of 85.4%; base mining costs of $1.70/t; mill process operating costs of $5.82/t, general and administrative costs of $1.12/t; variable pit slope angles that vary from 34–38º; 3% NSR royalty payable to Activos Mineros Mineral resources are reported above a cut-off grade of 0.1% Cu.\n\n(3)Wood chose a cut-off grade of 0.1% Cu to report mineral resource estimates as based on the above assumptions it provides reasonable prospects of economic extraction.\n\n(4)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Michiquillay project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.5 of Form 10-K/A filed by the Company on March 7, 2022.\n\n(5)Wood is a third-party firm; its mining experts were responsible for the estimate.\n\n(6)There were no changes with regard to the mineral resource figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\n60\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nMEXICAN OPERATIONS\n\n​\n\nThe map below indicates the approximate locations of our Mexican mines and processing facilities:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMEXICAN OPEN-PIT SEGMENT\n\n​\n\nOur Mexican open-pit segment operations combine two units of Minera Mexico, La Caridad and Buenavista, which include La Caridad and Buenavista mine complexes and smelting and refining plants and support facilities, which service both complexes.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n61\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe map below indicates the approximate location of, and access to, our Mexican open-pit mine complexes and our processing facilities:\n\n​\n\n​\n\nWe have ongoing maintenance and improvement programs to ensure the satisfactory performance of our equipment. We believe all our Mexican open-pit segment equipment is in good physical condition and suitable for our operations.\n\n62\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\nBuenavista\n\n​\n\nThe Buenavista mining unit operates an open-pit porphyry copper mine, three concentrators and three SX-EW plants. It is located within the Cananea mining district in the north-central part of the State of Sonora, Mexico. The property is located about 222 kilometers northeast of the city of Hermosillo, Sonora and 150 kilometers southeast of the city of Tucson, Arizona. The geographical location of the Cananea mining district is between latitudes 30° 42’ and 31° 16’ north, and longitude meridians 109° 51’ and 110° 33’ west. The Cananea mining district is located at an altitude between 1,600 and 2,485 meters (m) above mean sea level. The property covers an area of 89,220.5 hectares of mining concessions for exploitation activities. The elevation of the mine is of the order of 1,604 meters above mean sea level. Buenavista also has 4,485.5 hectares of exploration concessions in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, thus totaling 93,706 hectares in concessions from the Mexican government.\n\n​\n\nThe Buenavista del Cobre deposit contains two areas, one related to copper mineralization (“BVC”) and other to zinc mineralization (“BVZ”). The BVZ pit area lies within the larger BVC pit. Buenavista is connected by paved highways to the border city of Agua Prieta to the northeast, to the town of Nacozari in the southeast and to the town of Imuris to the west. Buenavista is also connected by railway to Agua Prieta and Nogales. A municipal airport is located approximately 20 kilometers to the northeast of Buenavista. All required fixed and permanent infrastructure of power, pipelines and primary roadways, and Project access are established. Drainage, water controls and mine access roads are established for current operations and will be expanded and continued as the pit progresses through its planned life of operations.\n\n​\n\nIn 2016 we concluded our $3.5 billion investment program in Mexico. The program included a third SX-EW plant, which was completed in June 2014 with a rated annual capacity of 120,000 tonnes of copper and a new concentrator, completed in 2015, with an annual copper production capacity of 188,000 tonnes. The program also included two molybdenum plants with a combined annual capacity of 4,600 tonnes. The first plant was completed in 2013 and the second in 2016. Additionally, the program included the Crushing, Conveying and Spreading System for Leachable Ore (Quebalix IV), which was completed on time and under budget and is currently operating steadily. This project will reduce mining costs and increase SX-EW copper recovery, allowing the Buenavista unit to reach its copper production capacity of 500,000 tonnes.\n\n​\n\nThe original concentrator currently has a nominal milling capacity of 86,000 tonnes per day. The second concentrator began operations in 2016 and currently has a nominal milling capacity of 120,000 tonnes per day. The SX-EW facilities have a cathode production capacity of 174,470 tonnes per year. The Buenavista ore body is considered one of the world’s largest porphyry copper deposits. Buenavista is the oldest continuously operated copper mine in North America, with operations dating back to 1899. High grade ore deposits in the district were mined exclusively using underground methods. The Anaconda Company acquired the property in 1917. In the early 1940s, Anaconda started developing the first open-pit in Buenavista. In 1990, through a public auction procedure, Minera Mexico acquired 100% of the Buenavista mining assets for $475 million. Buenavista is currently applying conventional open-pit mining methods to extract copper ore for further processing in the concentrator. Additionally, we have built a new zinc concentrator plant, which increased milling capacity and allows us to recover zinc, along with copper contents. Ramping up of the plant began in the first quarter of 2024 after technical adjustments to the concentrator.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n63\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe following table contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for Buenavista:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025 - 2024**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Variance**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2024**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2023**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Volume**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**%**\n\n** **\n\nMine annual operating days\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n366\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n*Mine*:\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal ore mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n72,852\n\n \n\n77,379\n\n \n\n72,896\n\n \n\n(4,527)\n\n \n\n(5.9)\n\n%\n\nCopper grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.511\n\n \n\n0.520\n\n \n\n0.525\n\n \n\n(0.009)\n\n \n\n(1.7)\n\n%\n\nLeach material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n119,575\n\n \n\n126,675\n\n \n\n121,124\n\n \n\n(7,100)\n\n \n\n(5.6)\n\n%\n\nLeach material grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.218\n\n \n\n0.248\n\n \n\n0.223\n\n \n\n(0.030)\n\n \n\n(12.1)\n\n%\n\nStripping ratio\n\n \n\n(x)\n\n \n\n0.71\n\n \n\n0.64\n\n \n\n0.66\n\n \n\n0.07\n\n \n\n10.9\n\n%\n\nTotal material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n339,805\n\n \n\n335,904\n\n \n\n322,142\n\n \n\n3,901\n\n \n\n1.2\n\n%\n\n*Concentrator*:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal material milled\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n73,169\n\n \n\n77,493\n\n \n\n72,609\n\n \n\n(4,324)\n\n \n\n(5.6)\n\n%\n\nCopper recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n86.24\n\n \n\n86.63\n\n \n\n86.36\n\n \n\n(0.39)\n\n \n\n(0.5)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n1,482.0\n\n \n\n1,554.3\n\n \n\n1,455.6\n\n \n\n(72.3)\n\n \n\n(4.7)\n\n%\n\nCopper in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n323.0\n\n \n\n349.0\n\n \n\n329.0\n\n \n\n(26.0)\n\n \n\n(7.4)\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n21.79\n\n \n\n22.45\n\n \n\n22.60\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n \n\n(2.9)\n\n%\n\n*SX**‑**EW plant*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nEstimated leach recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n70.00\n\n \n\n70.00\n\n \n\n70.00\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW cathode production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n91.8\n\n \n\n84.0\n\n \n\n87.6\n\n \n\n7.8\n\n \n\n9.3\n\n%\n\n*Zinc*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nZinc grade\n\n​\n\n(%)\n\n​\n\n2.35\n\n​\n\n2.15\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n​\n\n9.2\n\n%\n\nZinc recovery\n\n​\n\n(%)\n\n​\n\n83.77\n\n​\n\n81.05\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n2.72\n\n​\n\n3.4\n\n%\n\nZinc concentrate\n\n​\n\n(kt)\n\n​\n\n248.5\n\n​\n\n132.7\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n115.8\n\n​\n\n87.3\n\n%\n\nZinc concentrate average grade\n\n​\n\n(%)\n\n​\n\n47.08\n\n​\n\n48.24\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(1.16)\n\n​\n\n(2.4)\n\n%\n\nZinc in concentrate\n\n​\n\n(kt)\n\n​\n\n117.0\n\n​\n\n64.0\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n53.0\n\n​\n\n82.8\n\n%\n\n*Molybdenum*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMolybdenum grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.011\n\n \n\n0.011\n\n \n\n0.011\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n71.09\n\n \n\n71.57\n\n \n\n70.84\n\n \n\n(0.48)\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n10.94\n\n \n\n11.42\n\n \n\n10.49\n\n \n\n(0.48)\n\n \n\n(4.2)\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n52.38\n\n \n\n51.58\n\n \n\n51.57\n\n \n\n0.80\n\n \n\n1.6\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n5.73\n\n \n\n5.89\n\n \n\n5.41\n\n \n\n(0.16)\n\n \n\n(2.7)\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\nx = Stripping ratio obtained dividing waste by leachable material plus ore mined.\n\nThe copper, zinc and molybdenum grade are total grade.\n\n​\n\n64\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Cananea mining district lies within the eastern section of the Sonora Basin and Range Province of northern Mexico. Sustained magmatic activity along the North American Cordillera during the late Mesozoic through Paleogene resulted in the development of numerous porphyry copper deposits. The Precambrian Cananea basement rocks are overlain by several Paleozoic sedimentary units ranging from the Cambrian Capote Quartzite through thick limestone sequence of Upper Paleozoic age. Overlying the Paleozoic sediments and Precambrian granite of Cananea are the Henrietta and Elenita formations which are Triassic to late Jurassic in age and are comprised of volcanic rocks of latite to andesite composition. The youngest volcanic units in the district are andesitic tuffs and rhyolites of the Mesa formation.\n\n​\n\nThe intrusions of diorite, granodiorite and quartz monzonite formed after the emplacement of the Mesa Formation. In the final stage of intrusive activity, diabase dikes intruded faults and fractures with a NW-SE trend. Pipe-like breccias formed as late-stage products of the quartz-monzonite porphyries. During the Cenozoic, alluvial and fluvial sediments were deposited as erosion of the Cananea Mountains occurred. Exhumation of the upper part of the Cananea mining district porphyry system resulted in the formation of a supergene enrichment and an oxidation overburden overlying the porphyry system.\n\n​\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n​\n\nBuenavista uses state-of-the-art computer monitoring systems at the concentrators, the crushing plant and the flotation circuit in order to coordinate inflows and optimize operations. In the original concentrator, material with a copper grade above a cut-off grade of approximately 0.30% is currently loaded onto trucks and sent to the milling circuit, where giant rotating crushers reduce the size of the ore to approximately one-half of an inch. The ore is then sent to the ball mills, which grind it to the consistency of fine powder. The finely ground powder is agitated in a water and reagents solution and is then transported to flotation cells. Air is pumped into the cells producing a froth, which carries the copper mineral to the surface but not the waste rock, or tailings. Recovered copper, with the consistency of froth, is filtered and dried to produce copper concentrates with an average copper content of approximately 24%. Concentrates are then shipped by rail to the smelter at La Caridad.\n\n​\n\nIn the second concentrator, material with a copper grade above a cut-off grade of approximately 0.30% is sent to a three-phase milling circuit, where the ore size is reduced to approximately one-half inch. The ore is then sent to a circuit of six ball mills, which grind it to the consistency of fine powder. The finely ground powder is agitated in a water and reagents solution and is then transported to flotation cells. Air is pumped into the cells producing a froth, which carries the copper mineral to the surface but not the waste rock, or tailings. Recovered copper, with the consistency of froth, is filtered and dried to produce copper concentrates with an average copper content of approximately 24%. Concentrates are then sent by trucks or by railroad to the La Caridad smelter or to the Guaymas port, in the state of Sonora, for export.\n\n​\n\nAs part of the expansion program for this unit, in 2013 we completed the construction of the first molybdenum plant with an annual production capacity of 2,000 tonnes of molybdenum contained in concentrate. The plant was designed to process 1,500 tonnes of copper-molybdenum concentrates per day with a content recovery of approximately 80% copper and 50% molybdenum. The molybdenum plant consists of thickeners, homogenizer tanks, flotation cells, column cells and a holo-flite dryer. The second molybdenum plant was designed to process 3,040 tonnes of copper-molybdenum concentrates per day for a content recovery between 80% and 87% for copper and 60% for molybdenum. The plant generated its first production lot in July 2016 and fully initiated operations in November 2016.\n\n​\n\n*SX-EW Plant*\n\n​\n\nThe Buenavista unit operates a leaching facility and three SX-EW plants. All copper ore with a grade lower than the mill cut-off grade of 0.30%, but higher than 0.15%, is delivered to the leach dumps. A cycle of leaching and resting occurs for approximately five years in the run-of-mine dumps and three years for the crushed leach material. A review of the cut-off grades based on economics is recommended to be reassessed as described above.\n\n​\n\nThere are three irrigation systems for the dumps and eleven dams for the pregnant leach solution (PLS). Plant I has four solvent extraction tanks with a nominal capacity of 18,000 liters per minute of PLS and 54 electrowinning cells and has a\n\n65\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\ndaily production capacity of 30 tonnes of copper cathodes with 99.999% purity. Plant II has five trains of solvent extraction with a nominal capacity of 62,000 liters per minute of PLS and 220 cells distributed in two bays and has a daily production capacity of 120 tonnes of copper cathodes with 99.9% purity. Plant III has three trains of solvent extraction with a nominal capacity of 167,100 liters per minute of PLS and 270 cells distributed in two bays and has a daily production capacity of 328 tonnes of copper cathodes with 99.9% purity. The plant produces copper cathodes of LME grade A.\n\n​\n\n*Slope stability*\n\n​\n\nAt the Buenavista mine, we are following the recommendations produced by a geotechnical evaluation of the design slope for the 15-year pit plan. This evaluation was prepared by an independent mine consulting firm. The assessment included the determination of optimum pit slope design angles and bench design parameters for the proposed mine plan. The objective of the study was: (1) to determine optimum inter-ramp slope angles and bench design parameters for the 15-year plan and (2) to identify and analyze any potential major instability that could adversely impact mine operation. In 2012, we installed a radar system to monitor the walls of the mine.\n\n​\n\nThe following recommendations were made for the Buenavista mine: inter-ramp slope design angles for the 15-year pit plan for all of the 21 design sectors defined on a rock-fabric-based catch bench analysis, using double bench, can range from 48° and 55°, and the inter-ramp slope angles are based on geometries obtained from the back-break analysis using 80% reliability of achieving the required 7.6 meter catch bench width for a single bench configuration and 10.6 meter catch bench width for a double bench configuration. Preliminary observations suggest the 15-year pit walls may be relatively free-draining; the back-break analysis assumed depressurized conditions of mine benches, and the inter-ramp stability analysis were performed for both saturated and depressurized conditions.\n\n​\n\nA pit dewatering/depressurization plan for the Buenavista mine was also recommended to address the issues of open-pit drainage, dewatering plan and future slope depressurization. Phase I of the geohydrological study was completed by an independent consultant. The analysis included a preliminary assessment and work plan implementation.\n\n​\n\nBetween 2011 and 2014, we conducted well drilling and dewatering programs to ensure the ability to continue with the mining plan. We also executed a geophysical study to determine the best locations for water extraction wells and continued collecting new geotechnical information from two exploration drilling projects. Following the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation, we continued monitoring the walls using the radar system.\n\n​\n\nVarious studies are now being conducted by outside specialized consultants to establish long-range mine water management objectives and implement recommendations for the efficient use of this resource. We are also conducting a geotechnical study and a diamond drilling program with an independent consulting firm in order to obtain additional geotechnical information, which will allow us to verify the slope stability for the long-term mine plan.\n\n​\n\nIn July 2020, the OMNI 505 radar began operating. In 2021, we acquired two pieces of equipment for additional monitoring and began developing a geotechnical study for the mine with the support of a specialized consulting firm. The results of the study concluded in 2022 and included recommendations for updates to the bench design which have been incorporated in the current estimation of Mineral Reserves. These recommendations should be reviewed for potential updates to the ultimate pit design.\n\n​\n\nA third IBIS ArcSAR radar is currently operating, which has increased monitoring coverage in the development of the new slopes of Increments 12, 16 and BVZ. At the end of 2023, with the appropriate infrastructure and trained personnel, 24/7 slope monitoring began. Our main objective is to process information from radars and total stations to facilitate early detection of any unstable area that may pose safety risks to personnel. In 2024, the SSR 160 radar ceased operations due to a lack of spare parts and support for new software versions. In 2025, 24/7 monitoring continued to ensure early detection of areas of slope instability. In 2026, we expect to acquire a new radar to cover all operating areas and conduct critical monitoring of waste-leachable landfills.\n\n​\n\n66\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIn 2023, we continued to roll out diamond exploration and reverse circulation programs for the quantification and certification of resources and reserves, considering the limits of the updated final slope design. Over the year, a total of 12,661 linear meters were developed distributed in a total of 16 diamond exploration holes. 6,144 tested samples for 18 chemical elements were generated and a total of 852 samples related to QA/QC analysis (control samples) were included. In the short-term exploration segment, we drilled 5,689 meters of exploration with reverse circulation distributed in 46 holes.\n\n​\n\nIn 2024, a total of 26,599 linear meters were drilled through 35 diamond exploration holes. 8,578 samples were analyzed for 18 chemical elements in a certified laboratory, while 1,635 samples were analyzed for QA/QC control (control samples). In the short-term exploration segment, 6,246 meters were drilled with reverse circulation, distributed in 44 holes. A total of 2,252 samples were subsequently analyzed in our internal laboratories and included 173 samples for QA/QC control.\n\n​\n\nFrom 2020 to the end of 2024, a total of 132,412 meters were drilled, distributed in 299 holes, at depths varying from 220 to 1,279 meters. The number of samples analyzed in certified chemical laboratories with QA/QC controls totaled 45,666 (standards, fine-coarse blanks, fine-coarse duplicates and twins). Additionally, information was obtained for 1,660 orientation data points and 28,785 densities.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper, molybdenum and zinc mineral resources exclusive of mineral reserves for Buenavista as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80, $11.50 and $1.32 per pound, respectively:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Copper plant**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Zinc**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n627\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n5,242\n\n​\n\n111\n\n​\n\n553\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n627\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n5,242\n\n​\n\n111\n\n​\n\n553\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(0.1)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n7,847\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n58,474\n\n​\n\n1,384\n\n​\n\n6,747\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Zinc plant**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n203\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,985\n\n​\n\n18\n\n​\n\n1,646\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(0.3)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n203\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,985\n\n​\n\n18\n\n​\n\n1,646\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(0.3)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n705\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.009\n\n%\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n5,809\n\n​\n\n140\n\n​\n\n2,858\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n67\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n**Leach plant**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n52\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n376\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(0.2)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n52\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n376\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(0.2)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n373\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n1,457\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Copper plant**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n627\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n5,243\n\n​\n\n111\n\n​\n\n553\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n627\n\n​\n\n0.38\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n5,243\n\n​\n\n111\n\n​\n\n553\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n7,848\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.04\n\n%\n\n58,478\n\n​\n\n1,384\n\n​\n\n6,747\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Zinc plant**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n203\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,985\n\n​\n\n18\n\n​\n\n1,646\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n203\n\n​\n\n0.44\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.004\n\n%\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n1,985\n\n​\n\n18\n\n​\n\n1,646\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n705\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.009\n\n%\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n5,809\n\n​\n\n140\n\n​\n\n2,858\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Leach plant**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n53\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n377\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n53\n\n​\n\n0.33\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n377\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n373\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n1,457\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Mineral recovery was based on a formula determined from historical averages. The average recovery for mineral resources was 81% for Cu, 70% for Mo and 74% for Zn\n\n(4)Cut-off grade: mineral resources are reported on break-even plant and leach profit basis. The estimate was constrained to the Resource pit based on a Cu price of $3.795/lb, Mo price of $11.50/lb and Zn price of $1.323/lb.\n\n(5)Material with a solubility index greater than 0.3 could be sent to the leach pad. If more than one process was profitable, then the process with the highest value was chosen.\n\n68\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Buenavista del Cobre technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.6 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nThe variations registered for mineral resources from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper, molybdenum and zinc mineral reserves for Buenavista as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30, $10.00 and $1.15 per pound, respectively:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Zinc**\n\nSulfide ROM Ore - Copper plant\n\n​\n\n1,971\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n17,922\n\n​\n\n365\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(7.3)%\n\n​\n\n(8.6)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nSulfide ROM Ore - Zinc plant\n\n \n\n275\n\n​\n\n0.63\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.53\n\n%\n\n​\n\n3,793\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n3,224\n\n​\n\n(4.3)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n(14.2)%\n\n**Sulfide ROM Ore Total**\n\n​\n\n**2,246**\n\n​\n\n**0.44**\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n**21,715**\n\n​\n\n**365**\n\n​\n\n**3,224**\n\n​\n\n(6.8)%\n\n​\n\n(8.6)%\n\n​\n\n(14.2)%\n\nLeachable Ore\n\n​\n\n2,004\n\n​\n\n0.26\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n11,695\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(5.6)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Zinc grades**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained zinc (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nSulfide ROM Ore - Copper plant\n\n​\n\n2,117\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.009\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n19,343\n\n​\n\n399\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nSulfide ROM Ore - Zinc plant\n\n​\n\n296\n\n​\n\n0.61\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.58\n\n%\n\n​\n\n3,964\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n3,758\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Sulfide ROM Ore Total**\n\n​\n\n**2,413**\n\n​\n\n**0.44**\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n**23,307**\n\n​\n\n**399**\n\n​\n\n**3,758**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nLeachable Ore\n\n​\n\n2,118\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n12,389\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is delivery to the process plant and leach pads.\n\n(3)Mineral reserves are reported on an elevated cut-off grade for the first three years of the mine schedule and then on a break-even plant and leach profit basis for the remaining LOM schedule. The estimate was based on the long- range schedule, inclusive of processing costs and transport streams and based on a Cu price of $3.30/lb, Mo price of $10.00/lb and Zn price of $1.15/lb.\n\n(4)Ore with a solubility index greater than 0.3 could be sent to the leach pad. If more than one process was profitable, then the process with the highest value was chosen.\n\n(5)Mineral reserves are reported using a cut-off grade optimization strategy with elevated copper feed grade targets of 0.48% (2026), 0.43% (2027) and 0.40% (2028+) based on a long-range schedule. The estimate was constrained to an ultimate pit design. The design was based on a Cu price of $3.30/lb and a Mo price of $10.00/lb.\n\n(6)The recoveries over the life of mine schedule were: mill: 81% for Cu, 70% for Mo and 74% for Zn, 45% for Cu in crushed leach and 52% for Cu in ROM Leach.\n\n(7)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the Buenavista operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.6 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\n69\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe variations registered for mineral reserves from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad Complex\n\n​\n\nThe La Caridad complex includes two open-pit mines, a concentrator, a smelter, a copper refinery, a precious metals refinery, a rod plant, a SX-EW plant, a lime plant and two sulfuric acid plants.\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad mine and mill are located about 23 kilometers southeast of the town of Nacozari in northeastern Sonora at an average altitude of 1,500 meters above mean sea level. Nacozari is about 266 kilometers northeast of the Sonora state capital of Hermosillo and 125 kilometers south of the U.S.—Mexico border. The municipality of Nacozari de Garcia is located between 30°17’ and 30°20’ of north latitude and 109°32’ and 109°35’ of west longitude with regard to the Greenwich meridian. Limits of the mining unit using UTM coordinates are listed in the following table:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**UTM Zone 12 WGS 84**\n\n**VERTEX**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Easting**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Northing**\n\n1\n\n​\n\n629,600.00\n\n​\n\n3,361,303.35\n\n2\n\n \n\n655,325.58\n\n​\n\n3,361,303.35\n\n3\n\n​\n\n655,325.58\n\n​\n\n3,350,065.74\n\n4\n\n​\n\n629,600.00\n\n​\n\n3,350,065.74\n\n​\n\n​\n\nNacozari is connected by paved highway with Hermosillo and Agua Prieta and by rail with the international port of Guaymas, and the Mexican and United States rail systems. An airstrip with a reported runway length of 2,500 meters is located 36 kilometers north of Nacozari, less than one kilometer away from the La Caridad copper smelter and refinery. The smelter and the sulfuric acid plants, as well as the refineries and rod plant, are located approximately 24 kilometers from the mine. Access is by paved highway and by railroad.\n\n​\n\nThe mining claims held by La Caridad unit cover an area of about 103,821 hectares for exploration and exploitation activities. Surface rights are held by a combination of private ownership and agreements with local ejidos. Ejidos are agrarian land grants held by a group of people. The agreements allow for exploration and mining activities. The La Caridad complex imports natural gas from the United States through its pipeline (between Douglas, Arizona and Nacozari, Sonora). The electrical power is supplied to site from the utility grid via 230 kV overhead transmission lines. The bulk of demand is supplied by MGE, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico. The primary fresh water source is the La Angostura Dam located approximately 29 km to the northeast of the La Caridad mine.\n\n​\n\nThe ore at La Caridad is recovered using open-pit conventional truck and shovel mining methods due to the proximity of the ore to the surface and the physical characteristics of the deposit. The concentrator began operations in 1979; the molybdenum plant was added in 1982 and the smelter in 1986; the first sulfuric acid plant was added in 1988 and the SX-EW plant in 1995; the second sulfuric acid plant was added in 1997 and the copper refinery in 1997; the rod plant was added in 1998 and the precious metals refinery in 1999; and the dust and effluents plant was incorporated in 2012.\n\n​\n\nIn 2020, the final ore reserve estimation report for the Bella Union prospect was integrated into the La Caridad Block Model and in 2021 it was considered in the new life of mine that was delivered in January 2022. The Bella Union prospect is a mineralized copper and molybdenum breccia deposit; the site is located at less than one kilometer from the border of La Caridad pit.\n\n​\n\n70\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for the La Caridad complex:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Variance**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025 - 2024**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2024**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2023**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Volume**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**%**\n\n** **\n\nMine annual operating days\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n366\n\n \n\n365\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\n*Mine*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal ore mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n34,934\n\n \n\n34,634\n\n \n\n34,886\n\n \n\n300\n\n \n\n0.9\n\n%\n\nCopper grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.322\n\n \n\n0.322\n\n \n\n0.296\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%\n\nLeach material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n19,099\n\n \n\n19,333\n\n \n\n15,099\n\n \n\n(234)\n\n \n\n(1.2)\n\n%\n\nLeach material grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.225\n\n \n\n0.211\n\n \n\n0.250\n\n \n\n0.014\n\n \n\n6.6\n\n%\n\nStripping ratio\n\n \n\n(x)\n\n \n\n1.66\n\n \n\n1.68\n\n \n\n1.48\n\n \n\n(0.02)\n\n \n\n(1.2)\n\n%\n\nTotal material mined\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n143,638\n\n \n\n144,615\n\n \n\n124,090\n\n \n\n(977)\n\n \n\n(0.7)\n\n%\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal material milled\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n35,035\n\n \n\n34,515\n\n \n\n35,128\n\n \n\n520\n\n \n\n1.5\n\n%\n\nCopper recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n85.2\n\n \n\n84.35\n\n \n\n84.45\n\n \n\n0.85\n\n \n\n1.0\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n435.4\n\n \n\n425.5\n\n \n\n387.2\n\n \n\n9.9\n\n \n\n2.3\n\n%\n\nCopper in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n96.2\n\n \n\n93.7\n\n \n\n87.8\n\n \n\n2.5\n\n \n\n2.7\n\n%\n\nCopper concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n22.09\n\n \n\n22.03\n\n \n\n22.68\n\n \n\n0.06\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n%\n\n*SX**‑**EW plant*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nEstimated leach recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n36.35\n\n \n\n35.70\n\n \n\n34.97\n\n \n\n0.65\n\n \n\n1.8\n\n%\n\nSX‑EW cathode production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n24.22\n\n \n\n23.25\n\n \n\n22.99\n\n \n\n0.97\n\n \n\n4.2\n\n%\n\n*Molybdenum*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nMolybdenum grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.036\n\n \n\n0.035\n\n \n\n0.039\n\n \n\n0.001\n\n \n\n2.9\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n82.2\n\n \n\n81.11\n\n \n\n82.71\n\n \n\n1.09\n\n \n\n1.3\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n19.5\n\n \n\n18.2\n\n \n\n21\n\n \n\n1.3\n\n \n\n7.1\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum concentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n53.53\n\n \n\n53.38\n\n \n\n54.15\n\n \n\n0.15\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n%\n\nMolybdenum in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n10.4\n\n \n\n9.7\n\n \n\n11.4\n\n \n\n0.7\n\n \n\n7.2\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\nx = Stripping ratio obtained dividing waste by leachable material plus ore mined\n\nThe copper and molybdenum grade are total grade.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad is a porphyry copper deposit, that is currently the largest copper producer in Mexico and the youngest dated porphyry copper system in the American Southwest region. The La Caridad district lies within the eastern section of the Sonora Basin and Range Province of northern Mexico. Sustained magmatic activity along the North American Cordillera during the late Mesozoic through Paleogene resulted in the development of numerous porphyry copper deposits. The basement rocks of area consist of strongly deformed greenschist-grade volcanic and sedimentary rocks that are intruded by granites emplaced at 1.4 and 1.1 billion years ago. Above the sequence Late Proterozoic and Paelozoic rocks are overlain by volcanic and plutonic rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age. Middle Jurassic rocks characterized by volcanic and volcano-sedimentary sequences, with occasional granite intrusions, outcrop in the northern and northeastern portion of Sonora. In the La Caridad district, these rocks outcrop in the Sierra Cobriza area, west of the town of Nacozari.\n\n​\n\nThe main mineralization at La Caridad occurs in the quartz-monzonite porphyry and hydrothermal breccias. The host rock at La Caridad are andesites, with the oldest rocks corresponding to the Laramide volcanic rocks, which are regionally correlated with the Tarahumara Formation. Locally, this andesitic volcanic sequence was intruded by a granodiorite which is well exposed to the east-southeast of the La Caridad mine, which are in turn intruded by diorite dikes that range from fine to coarse grain. Discordantly overlying this igneous complex is a sequence of rhyolitic flows.\n\n​\n\n71\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Concentrator*\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad uses state-of-the-art computer monitoring systems at the concentrator, the crushing plant and the flotation circuit to coordinate inflows and optimize operations. The concentrator has a current capacity of 94,500 tonnes of ore per day.\n\n​\n\nOre extracted from the mine with a copper grade over 0.30% is currently sent to the concentrator and processed into copper concentrates and molybdenum concentrates. The copper concentrates are sent to the smelter and the molybdenum concentrate is sold to a Mexican customer. The molybdenum recovery plant has a capacity of 2,000 tonnes per day of copper-molybdenum concentrates. The lime plant has a capacity of 340 tonnes of finished product per day.\n\n​\n\nThe mineral reserves estimated for La Caridad were estimated utilizing an economic cut-off to assign material to either the concentrator or leach pad. Each block in the mineral resource model is assigned an economic value based on the total potential revenue whether the block is processed in the concentrator or on a leach pad and takes into account the various recoveries, selling costs, and payability. The resulting cut-off grade for the concentrator is approximately 0.08% copper and the leachable cutoff grade is approximately 0.01% copper.\n\n​\n\n*SX-EW Plant*\n\n​\n\nApproximately 1,037.4 million tonnes of leaching ore with an average grade of approximately 0.238% copper had been extracted from the La Caridad open-pit mine and deposited in leaching dumps as of December 31, 2025. All copper ore with a grade lower than the current mill cut-off grade 0.30%, but higher than 0.15% copper, is at present delivered to the leaching dumps. In 1995, we completed the construction of a SX-EW facility at La Caridad that has allowed us to process this ore and certain leach mineral reserves that were not mined; this has led to a subsequent reduction in our copper production costs. The SX-EW facility has an annual design capacity of 21,900 tonnes of copper cathodes. These cut-off grades need to be re-assessed as the mineral reserves stated were estimated utilizing an economic cut-off value.\n\n​\n\nThe plant has three trains of solvent extraction with a nominal capacity of 2,400 cubic meters per hour and has 94 electrowinning cells, which are distributed in a single electrolytic bay. The plant has a daily production capacity of 65 tonnes of copper cathodes with 99.999% purity.\n\n​\n\n*Slope stability*\n\n​\n\nIn 2004, our 15-year mine plan study for the La Caridad mine was awarded to an independent consulting firm to conduct a geotechnical evaluation. The purpose of the plan was to develop a program of optimum bench design and inter-ramp slope angles for the open-pit. The results of the evaluation presented by the consultants included a recommendation of a maximum average bench face angle of 72 degrees. Additionally, single benching was recommended for the upper sections of the west, south and east walls of the main pit. Double benching was recommended for the lower levels of the main pit and single benching for the upper slope segments that consist of either alluvial material, mine waste dumps or mineralized stockpile material. Alternatively, slopes in these types of materials may be designed with an overall 37-degree slope. The geostructural and geotechnical parameters recommended were applied in the pit design for the new life of mine plan for La Caridad mine, which was prepared in 2015. This mine plan replaced the 15-year mine plan prepared in 2010. However, since final pit limits have yet to be established at La Caridad, all current pit walls are effectively working slopes. Geostructural and geotechnical data collected at the open-pit mine from cell-mapping and oriented-core drilling databases provided the basis for the geotechnical evaluation and recommendations. Additional geotechnical drilling is required in the expanded areas of the Mineral Reserve ultimate pit shell which are beyond the design sector limits.\n\n​\n\nIn 2019, we assigned an independent consulting firm to conduct a geotechnical study of La Caridad, which included the Bella Union area, based on a 15-year mining plan. The results of this study included recommendations on geostructural and geotechnical parameters. These were applied to the pit design for the new mine plan for La Caridad, which replaced the 15-year mine plan prepared in 2015. A hydrogeological study was also recommended to determine the distribution of pore pressure. In September 2021, the SSR-OMNI and the SSR-FX radar systems began operating. These two working radar systems will allow us to cover up to 80% of the slopes in the operating areas of the mine.\n\n72\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\nStarting 2022, a Geotechnical Engineer in charge of the Geotechnical Department, took care of the two radar systems to gather information and to make daily monitoring reports as well as make recommendations to the Operation Department to have a safer mining process. Geostructural data from cell-mapping is also being collected. The topography is monitored weekly to evaluate if inter-ramp slope angles are within the recommended parameters.\n\n​\n\nStarting 2023, a second Geotechnical Engineer was hired for the Geotechnical Department. We also began to use a Maptek XR3 scanner to improve structural mapping and make recommendations to the Blasting Department. Weekly and monthly reports are generated based on the piezometers, which show the evolution of the water table levels and enable monitoring if slope drainage is required.\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad pit and its surroundings are continuously monitored by four radar systems and a specialized team, who is on 24/7 to notify operations if an alert is triggered. A drone equipped with a LiDAR sensor is used to conduct surveys to measure slope angles, inter-ramp areas, waste rock facilities, and leach pads.\n\n​\n\nThe quality of the rock mass and nearby geological structures are reported daily for scheduled blasts. Furthermore, a slope and bench cleaning program has been implemented to minimize the risk of rockfall as much as possible.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral resources exclusive of mineral reserves for La Caridad as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 and $11.50 per pound, respectively:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Leach process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n5\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n7\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n113\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n161\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(0.8)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n117\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n168\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(0.8)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n342\n\n​\n\n0.08\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n613\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.4%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Mill process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n89\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n0.025\n\n%\n\n295\n\n​\n\n51\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n2,136\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n6,676\n\n​\n\n1,027\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2,224\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n6,971\n\n​\n\n1,076\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n5,315\n\n​\n\n0.13\n\n%\n\n0.024\n\n%\n\n14,764\n\n​\n\n2,806\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Leach process**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n5\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n7\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n113\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n162\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n117\n\n​\n\n0.07\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n169\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n342\n\n​\n\n0.08\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n611\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n73\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Mill process**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n89\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n%\n\n0.025\n\n%\n\n295\n\n​\n\n51\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2,136\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n6,676\n\n​\n\n1,027\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2,224\n\n​\n\n0.14\n\n%\n\n0.022\n\n%\n\n6,971\n\n​\n\n1,077\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n5,315\n\n​\n\n0.13\n\n%\n\n0.024\n\n%\n\n14,764\n\n​\n\n2,807\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Mineral resources are reported on break-even plant and leach profit basis. The estimate was constrained to the Resource pit based on a Cu price of $3.795/lb, Mo price of $11.50/lb.\n\n(4)Ore material with solubility index greater than 0.3 was considered routable to leach.\n\n(5)Recovery assumed based on 3-year averages of La Caridad 81% Cu and 87% Mo for mill and 44% Cu for heap leach.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the La Caridad and Pilares operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.7 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nThe variations registered for mineral resources from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n​\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral reserves for La Caridad as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 and $10.00 per pound, respectively.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Proven mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n57\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n295\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(13.6)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMill process\n\n \n\n261\n\n​\n\n0.29\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.042\n\n%\n\n​\n\n1,645\n\n​\n\n243\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\n​\n\n(3.2)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n269\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n941\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(14.6)%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMill process\n\n \n\n1,638\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.036\n\n%\n\n​\n\n7,453\n\n​\n\n1,312\n\n​\n\n(2.3)%\n\n​\n\n(1.7)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Proven mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n66\n\n​\n\n0.23\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n342\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMill process\n\n \n\n272\n\n​\n\n0.28\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.042\n\n%\n\n​\n\n1,697\n\n​\n\n251\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n74\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n​\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n315\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n1,102\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMill process\n\n​\n\n1,671\n\n​\n\n0.21\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.036\n\n%\n\n​\n\n7,628\n\n​\n\n1,335\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is the leach pad or concentrator.\n\n(3)Mineral reserves are reported using a cut-off grade optimization strategy. The estimate was constrained to an ultimate pit design limited to an approximate 60-year life to stay within current tailings capacity estimate. The design was based on a Cu price of $3.30/lb and a Mo price of $10.00/lb.\n\n(4)Ore material with solubility index greater than 0.3 was considered routable to leach.\n\n(5)Copper recovery for the mill process is 83% for Cu and 88% for Mo and recovery for the leach process is 46%.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the La Caridad and Pilares operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.7 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nThe variations registered for mineral reserves from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n​\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\nPilares\n\n​\n\nPilares is considered part of the La Caridad unit and ore from Pilares is routed to the leach pads and processing facilities at the La Caridad operations. The Pilares mineral development project is located in northeastern Sonora, Mexico, about 266 kilometers northeast of the city of Hermosillo and 125 kilometers south of the city of Agua Prieta Sonora, Mexico, which is on the international U.S. – Mexico border. The Pilares project is located between 30°19’ and 30°20’ N, and between 109°38’ and 109°37’47’’ W, at elevations ranging between 1,400 to 1,460 meters above mean sea level. It is about 6 kilometers from the La Caridad mining unit and 22 kilometers from the town of Nacozari.\n\n​\n\nThe mining claims held by Pilares cover an area of about 143.3 hectares for exploration and exploitation activities. Surface rights are held by a combination of private ownership and agreements with the local ejido “Pilares”, which consists of about 40 members. Ejidos are agrarian land grants held by a group of people. The agreements allow for exploration and mining activities, plus conservation of the historical town of Pilares. Additionally, Pilares was included in the regional environmental permit obtained for the entire La Caridad complex dated September 2018 and valid for 60 years.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe La Caridad mining district, where the Pilares porphyry copper deposit is located, lies within the eastern section of the Sonora Basin and Range Province in Northern Mexico. Sustained magmatic activity along the North American Cordillera during the late Mesozoic through Paleogene resulted in the development of numerous porphyry copper deposits.\n\n​\n\nThe local geology of the Pilares area consists of two main lithological packages, a volcanic sequence and a set of hypabyssal bodies that intrude the volcanic sequence. The volcanic sequence is comprised from the base to the top by the following units: andesitic flows from interbedding of Crystal Tuff, Tobaceous Sandstone, tuff-breccia (ignimbrite), basalt-andesite flows and Lapilli Tuffs. The Lapilli Tuff is composed of lapilli-sized volcanic fragments outcropping in the topographic highs and distributed in the central, southeastern and northeastern portion of the Pilares area. The Lapilli Tuff hosts the mineralized structure of the Pilares Breccia.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n75\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Slope stability*\n\n​\n\nIn 2024, a SSR827-XT radar system was installed for slope monitoring. Pre-cutting equipment was acquired, and pre-cut drilling was performed on final slopes.\n\n​\n\nFinal slope configurations have been preserved, supported by controlled pre-split blasting and a bench cleaning program to reduce rockfall risk. Additionally, a second slope monitoring radar system was acquired, allowing for full-coverage, real-time monitoring of the pit, 24/7.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral resources for Pilares as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 and $11.50 per pound, respectively:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Leach process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n—\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n0.01\n\n​\n\n0.09\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.02\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Mill process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.4\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n34.4\n\n​\n\n1.1\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Leach process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n0.03\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.1\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n0.01\n\n​\n\n0.09\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n0.02\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Mill process**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n30.1\n\n​\n\n0.55\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n364.2\n\n​\n\n9.3\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.4\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n0.014\n\n%\n\n34.4\n\n​\n\n1.1\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n76\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and effective as of December 31, 2025. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(2)Recovery assumed based on 3-year averages of La Caridad 81% Cu and 87% Mo for mill and 44% Cu for heap leach.\n\n(3)Mineral resources are reported on break-even plant and leach profit basis. The estimate was constrained to the Resource pit based on a Cu price of $3.795/lb, Mo price of $11.50/lb.\n\n(4)Ore material with solubility index greater than 0.3 was considered routable to leach.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the La Caridad and Pilares project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons under Exhibit 96.7 of the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nThe variations registered for mineral resources from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n​\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper and molybdenum mineral reserves for Pilares as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 and $10.00 per pound, respectively.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Copper**\n\n​\n\n**Variation Molybdenum**\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n1.9\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n15\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(9.8)%\n\n​\n\n0.0%\n\nMill process\n\n \n\n22.3\n\n​\n\n0.80\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n​\n\n395\n\n​\n\n3\n\n​\n\n(0.9)%\n\n​\n\n(3.6)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nLeach process\n\n​\n\n2.2\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n​\n\n17\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMill process\n\n \n\n22.6\n\n​\n\n0.80\n\n%\n\n​\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n​\n\n399\n\n​\n\n3\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is the leach pad or concentrator.\n\n(3)Mineral reserves are reported using a cut-off grade optimization strategy. The estimate was constrained to an ultimate pit design limited to an approximate 60-year life. The design was based on a Cu price of $3.30/lb and a Mo price of $10.00/lb.\n\n(4)Ore material with solubility index greater than 0.3 was considered routable to leach.\n\n(5)Copper recovery for the mill process is 83% for Cu and 88% for Mo and recovery for the leach process is 46%.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the La Caridad and Pilares operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.7 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n​\n\nThe variations registered for mineral reserves from 2024 to 2025 were attributable to:\n\n​\n\n-Production depletion for 2025.\n\n-Updated end-of-year topography surfaces for 2024 and 2025 and rounding.\n\n​\n\nProcessing Facilities—La Caridad\n\n​\n\nOur La Caridad complex includes a smelter, an electrolytic copper refinery, a precious metal refinery, a copper rod plant and an effluent and dust treatment plant. The distance between this complex and the La Caridad mine is approximately 24 kilometers.\n\n77\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n*Smelter*\n\n​\n\nCopper concentrates from Buenavista, Santa Barbara, Charcas and La Caridad are transported by rail and truck to the La Caridad smelter where they are processed and cast into copper anodes of 99.2% purity. Sulfur dioxide off-gases collected from the flash furnace, the El Teniente converter and conventional converters are processed into sulfuric acid at two sulfuric acid plants. Approximately 2% to 3% of this acid is used by our SX-EW plants and the balance is sold to third parties.\n\n​\n\nAll of the anodes produced in the smelter are sent to the La Caridad copper refinery. The actual installed capacity of the smelter is 1,000,000 tonnes per year, a capacity that is sufficient to treat all the concentrates of La Caridad and almost 40.5% of total production of the OMIMSA I and OMIMSA II concentrators from Buenavista. In 2010, the smelter also began processing concentrates from the IMMSA mines, as we closed the San Luis Potosi smelter. Other facilities in the smelter include two sulfuric acid plants with capacities of 2,625 and 2,135 tonnes per day, three oxygen plants each with a production capacity of 275 tonnes per day; and one power turbine which generates 11.5 MWh.\n\n​\n\n*Refinery*\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad includes an electrolytic copper refinery that uses permanent cathode technology. The installed capacity of the refinery is 300,000 tonnes per year. The refinery consists of an anode plant with a preparation area, an electrolytic plant with an electrolytic cell house with 1,115 cells and 32 liberator cells, two cathode stripping machines, an anode washing machine, a slime treatment plant and a number of ancillary facilities. The refinery is producing grade A (LME) and grade 1 (COMEX) copper cathode of 99.99% purity. Anodic slimes are recovered from the refining process and sent to the slime treatment plant, where additional copper is extracted. The slimes are then filtered, dried, packed and shipped to the La Caridad precious metals refinery to produce silver and gold.\n\n​\n\n*Precious Metals Plant*\n\n​\n\nThe operations at the precious metal refinery begin with the reception of anodic slimes, which are dried in a steam dryer. After this, the dried slime is smelted and a gold and silver alloy is obtained, which is known as Dore. The precious metal refinery plant has a hydrometallurgical stage and a pyrometallurgical stage, in addition to a steam dryer, Dore casting system, Kaldo furnace, 20 electrolytic cells in the silver refinery, one induction furnace for fine silver, one silver ingot casting system and two reactors for obtaining fine gold. The process ends with the refining of the gold and silver alloy. We also recover commercial selenium from the gas produced by the Kaldo furnace process.\n\n​\n\n*Copper Rod Plant*\n\n​\n\nA rod plant at the La Caridad complex began operations in 1998 and reached its full annual operating capacity of 150,000 tonnes in 1999. The plant is producing eight-millimeter copper rods with a purity of 99.99%.\n\n​\n\n*Effluent and Dust Treatment Plant*\n\n​\n\nIn 2012, we started operating a dust and effluent plant with a treatment capacity of 5,000 tonnes of smelter dusts per year, which will produce 1,500 tonnes of copper by-products and 2,500 tonnes of lead sulfates per year. This plant is designed to reduce dust emissions from La Caridad metallurgical complex.\n\n​\n\n78\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for the La Caridad processing facilities:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Variance**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025 - 2024**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2024**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2023**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Volume**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**%**\n\n** **\n\n*Smelter*\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nTotal copper concentrate smelted\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n1021.2\n\n \n\n991.5\n\n \n\n966.6\n\n \n\n29.7\n\n \n\n3.0\n\n%\n\nAnode copper production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n272.7\n\n \n\n252.5\n\n \n\n265.3\n\n \n\n20.2\n\n \n\n8.0\n\n%\n\nAverage copper content in anode\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n99.48\n\n \n\n99.46\n\n \n\n99.38\n\n \n\n0.02\n\n \n\n0.0\n\n%\n\nAverage smelter recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n96.31\n\n \n\n95.20\n\n \n\n96.70\n\n \n\n1.11\n\n \n\n1.2\n\n%\n\nSulfuric acid production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n1053.8\n\n \n\n996.0\n\n \n\n948.5\n\n \n\n57.8\n\n \n\n5.8\n\n%\n\n*Refinery*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nRefined cathode production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n227.8\n\n \n\n217.1\n\n \n\n218.6\n\n \n\n10.7\n\n \n\n4.9\n\n%\n\nRefined silver production\n\n \n\n(000 kg)\n\n \n\n262.3\n\n \n\n246.6\n\n \n\n230.1\n\n \n\n15.7\n\n \n\n6.4\n\n%\n\nRefined gold production\n\n \n\n(Kg)\n\n \n\n914.1\n\n \n\n890.4\n\n \n\n948.1\n\n \n\n23.7\n\n \n\n2.7\n\n%\n\n*Rod Plant*\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nCopper rod production\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n157.1\n\n \n\n152.8\n\n \n\n154.3\n\n \n\n4.3\n\n \n\n2.8\n\n%\n\nKey: kt = thousand tonnes\n\nKg = kilograms\n\n​\n\nMEXICAN PROJECTS\n\n​\n\nEl Pilar Project\n\n​\n\nThe El Pilar property is located in north central Sonora, Mexico, about 15 kilometers south of the international border with United States. The property is situated within lands of Ejido Miguel Hidalgo (also referred to as San Lazaro), in the Santa Cruz Municipality. The property is situated between UTM coordinates 3,446,000N to 3,455,000N and 526,800 E to 534,700 E. The El Pilar property comprises 9,571.4 hectares in 19 concessions. These concessions are wholly owned by Recursos Stingray de Cobre S.A de C.V., our wholly owned Mexican subsidiary. Additionally, a total of 1,926 hectares of surface rights have been successfully negotiated with the Ejido Miguel Hidalgo, which allows for all required land ownership rights needed for project development.\n\n​\n\nThe El Pilar deposit is located at the southwest margin of the Patagonia Mountains near the base of a mountain range. The topography near the deposit permits sufficient surface space for a mining operation, leach pads, waste disposal areas, and other facilities. The property can be reached by road from Hermosillo, Sonora in Mexico and from Tucson, Arizona in the United States. The route from Hermosillo to Miguel Hidalgo takes about 3.5 hours of driving time. The route from Tucson to Miguel Hidalgo is currently a two-hour drive. The site is a green-field mining site with no existing infrastructure. Experienced mining personnel and related contractors are available within driving distance.\n\n​\n\nThe project area climate allows year-round mining and processing operations. A power line is located 3 km to the south, in the village of Miguel Hidalgo where SCC has an office and warehouse facilities, but the project will require the construction of a high voltage power line from the site to connect with the high voltage power lines accessible in Nogales, which is 28 km northwest of the property. A railroad is located 3 km south of the deposit. Construction of a new railway spur approximately 4 km in length is planned for the delivery of molten sulfur or sulfuric acid.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe deposit is located within the Sonora-Arizona Porphyry Copper Province, along the southwest flank of the Patagonia Mountains. The geology of the El Pilar property consists of Precambrian intrusive rocks overlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. These units are overlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Intrusives of granitic to monzonitic composition with some pegmatitic and aplitic facies intrude all the older units. Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial fan and alluvial wash sediments cover the flanks of the ranges and the intervening valleys.\n\n​\n\nThe El Pilar copper deposit occurs within unconsolidated, poorly sorted, poorly bedded, proximal facies alluvial wash\n\n79\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\ndeposits that are overlain by dissected younger alluvial fan deposits. The copper bearing sediments at El Pilar are comprised solely of alluvial wash gravels deposited into a paleo topographic range-front depression. At the northern boundary of the deposit, these basin-fill sediments are juxtaposed against unmineralized Precambrian granitic rocks by an east-west to northwest-trending, south dipping zone of faulting and hydrothermal brecciation. Mineralization predominantly consists of the copper oxide mineral chrysocolla, which occurs as coatings on clasts of highly silicified breccia and as grains in the sedimentary gravel matrix.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral resources exclusive of mineral reserves for El Pilar as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 per pound:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n** **\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Total copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Soluble copper**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2.2\n\n​\n\n0.20\n\n%\n\n0.10\n\n%\n\n9\n\n​\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n81.3\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n0.08\n\n%\n\n317\n\n​\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n83.4\n\n​\n\n0.18\n\n%\n\n0.08\n\n%\n\n326\n\n​\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n88.6\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n%\n\n0.06\n\n%\n\n234\n\n​\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and effective as of December 31, 2021 as reported in the Technical Report Summary dated February 28, 2022. Southern Copper has reported that minor activity by contractors at the site has not materially impacted the total Mineral Resource estimates that were reported as of December 31, 2021. Therefore, the estimates as of December 31, 2021 are deemed current as of December 31, 2025. The qualified person (“QP”) has not visited the site since August 2021 and cannot independently determine whether contractor activities have impacted Mineral Resources.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Metallurgical Recovery: Cu Recovery = 0.3349 x LN (Soluble Cu/Total Cu) + 0.7949\n\n(4)Cut-Off Grade: Calculated on break-even profit basis and constrained within the pit shell outlined using a Cu price of $3.795/lb.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the El Pilar project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.9 of Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(6)There were no changes in resources with regard to 2021’s figures. Technical Studies are underway.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral reserves for El Pilar as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 per pound:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**Copper**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**ROM Ore (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grade**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Contained copper (thousand tonnes)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\nProven mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n63\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n168\n\n​\n\n370\n\nProbable mineral reserves\n\n \n\n254\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n623\n\n​\n\n1,374\n\nTotal mineral reserves\n\n​\n\n317\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n790\n\n​\n\n1,744\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are effective as of December 31, 2021 as reported in the Technical Report Summary dated February 28, 2022. Southern Copper has reported minor activity by contractors at the site since that time has not materially impacted the original Mineral Reserves estimates. Therefore, the estimates as of December 31, 2021 are deemed current as of December 31, 2025. The QP has not visited the site since August 2021 and cannot independently determine whether the contractor activities have impacted Mineral Reserves.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is delivery to the leach pad.\n\n(3)The recovered copper estimate utilizes the following recovery formula: (Cu Rec % = 0.3349 x LN(Cu_Ratio) + 0.7949)\n\n(4)Cut-Off Grade: Measured and Indicated Blocks within the ultimate pit design with a value greater than or equal to zero were considered ore. The following “Value Equation” was used to calculate that value using a Cu price of $3.30/lb. Value / tonne = ($0.73 * Cu Recovery * Cu Grade) – ($0.15 * Cu Recovery * Cu Grade) - $0.57\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the El Pilar project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.9 of the Company´s Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(6)There were no changes in reserves with regard to 2021’s figures. Technical Studies are underway.\n\n80\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\nEl Arco Project\n\n​\n\nThe El Arco deposit is located near the village of El Arco in Baja California, Mexico, which lies near the center of the Baja California Peninsula in the municipalities of San Quintin, Baja California and Mulegé, Baja California Sur, Mexico. The Project centroid is at approximately 28°03’ 24.08” N; 113° 27’ 35.23” W. The center of the El Arco deposit is located at approximately 28° 02’ 02.97” N; 113° 23’ 46.75” W. Route 1 is the only paved highway connecting the northern and southern parts of the Baja Peninsula. El Arco located between the towns of Santa Rosalía and Guerrero Negro at kilometer 189. The El Arco site is accessed by taking Highway 1 approximately 30 kilometers south of the town of Guerrero Negro to the intersection with the highway MX 18, and following MX 18 for 42 kilometers east to the project site. Highway 1 is paved and in good condition and Highway 18 was originally paved but currently all pavement is gone, leaving a gravel roadbed.\n\n​\n\nThe nearest port is Santa Rosalía on the Sea of Cortez, 240 km by road southeast of El Arco. We plan to construct a port at El Barril, located 70 km northeast of the proposed mine site. The site is currently a greenfields site with limited infrastructure that is only suitable to support exploration-level activities. Planned on-site infrastructure includes an open pit mine, two waste rock storage facilities, mill complex and oxide fine crushing facilities, temporary ore stockpile, heap leach facility, tailings storage facility, administration building, truck shop and warehouse, main 230 kV electrical substation and a water storage dam and reservoir.\n\n​\n\nWe hold 11 mining concessions, covering 72,133 hectares. Surfaces rights in the deposit area are held by a combination of agrarian cooperatives (ejidos) and private owners. Project water is planned to be sourced from a desalination plant, to be constructed at El Barril. Additionally, we expect to obtain power from a private provider.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe El Arco deposit is considered to be an example of a porphyry copper deposit. The Alisitos arc is an approximately 300 × 30 kilometer oceanic arc terrane that accreted to the western edge of the Peninsular Ranges batholith within the North American Cordillera. A chain of granitic batholithic intrusions intrude the Alisitos Formation, and El Arco, the oldest known porphyry deposit in this chain, is located at the extreme southern end of the chain.\n\n​\n\nThe El Arco area basement consists of serpentinite, with blocks of peridotite, pyroxenite and amphibolite that are tectonically overlain by diorites, gabbros, and rocks interpreted to be pillow lavas. These units are overlain by metavolcanic agglomerates, metagraywackes, meta-andesite flows and breccias, and thinly-bedded marble. Andesite flows in the upper part of this sequence host granodiorite porphyry intrusions that generated the El Arco deposit. Barren diabase dikes cut the andesite and granodiorite porphyry. All lithologies have been subject to greenschist facies metamorphism, characterized by development of chlorite–epidote–calcite–quartz. Mineralization at El Arco occurs in three sub-horizontal zones.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n81\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of mineral resources for El Arco as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.80 and $10.35 per pound for copper and molybdenum, respectively, and fixed over the 35-year expected mine life.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**Mill plant**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Gold grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Silver grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained gold (million ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained silver (million ounces)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n7,544.9\n\n​\n\n146.5\n\n​\n\n3.23\n\n​\n\n41.88\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n826.6\n\n​\n\n0.41\n\n%\n\n0.008\n\n%\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n1.6\n\n​\n\n7,544.9\n\n​\n\n146.5\n\n​\n\n3.23\n\n​\n\n41.88\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n2,344.9\n\n​\n\n0.37\n\n%\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n0.11\n\n​\n\n1.5\n\n​\n\n19,352.3\n\n​\n\n298.2\n\n​\n\n8.05\n\n​\n\n110.89\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Leach plant**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n​\n\n**Gold grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Silver grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained gold (million ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained silver (million ounces)**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n \n\n51.3\n\n​\n\n0.30\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n335.3\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n51.3\n\n​\n\n0.30\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n335.3\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n63.8\n\n​\n\n0.25\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n350.9\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have no demonstrated economic viability.\n\n(3)Mineral resources are reported within a conceptual pit shell that is based on copper and molybdenum values only. The pit shell uses the following input parameters: metal prices of $3.80/lb Cu and $10.35/lb Mo; variable net smelter return cut-offs; mining recovery of 100%; metallurgical recoveries of 86% Cu, and 55% Mo for material sent to the mill facility, and recovery of 80% Cu (Total copper) for material sent to the heap leach pad; total mining costs (base, incremental and sustaining) of $1.206/t mined; total mill process costs (base, sustaining, tailings, G&A and molybdenum plant) of $7.80/t milled; total leaching costs (operating and SX-EW) of $1.60/t leached; miscellaneous costs (closure, payments) of $0.10/t processed; copper refining cost of $0.09/lb, copper smelting cost of $90/t concentrate; copper transport costs of $107.69/t concentrate; molybdenum transport costs of $73.67/t concentrate; and molybdenum refining/treatment cost of 12.50% (of molybdenum price). Mineral resources are constrained within a wireframe constructed at a 0.1% total copper cut-off grade.\n\n(4)Gold and silver are not used in the pit optimization. The gold and silver metallurgical recoveries for material that will be sent to the mill facility are forecast at 55.7% Au, and 50.2% Ag, respectively. Molybdenum, gold and silver are not expected to be recovered from the leach process.\n\n(5)Mineral resources are constrained within a wireframe constructed at a 0.1% total copper cut-off grade.\n\n(6)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, please refer to Chapter 11 of the El Arco project technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.10 of the Company´s Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(7)There were no changes in mineral resources with regard to the figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n82\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n*Mineral reserves*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of copper mineral reserves for El Arco as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term price assumptions of $3.30 and $9.00 per pound for copper and molybdenum, respectively, and were fixed over the 35 year expected mine life.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**Probable mineral reserves**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (million tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Copper grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Molybdenum grades**\n\n** **\n\n**Gold grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Silver grade (g/t)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained copper (million pounds)**\n\n** **\n\n**Contained molybdenum (million pounds)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained gold (million ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Contained silver (million ounces)**\n\nSulfide mill\n\n​\n\n1,229.5\n\n​\n\n0.40\n\n%\n\n0.006\n\n%\n\n0.14\n\n​\n\n1.8\n\n​\n\n10,822\n\n​\n\n166.7\n\n​\n\n5.6\n\n​\n\n70.5\n\nOxide leach\n\n \n\n140.5\n\n​\n\n0.27\n\n%\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n846\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral reserves are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)The reference point for the estimate is the point of delivery to the processing facility.\n\n(3)Mineral reserves are constrained within an optimized pit shell based on copper and molybdenum only.\n\n(4)The following parameters were used in estimation: assumption of open pit mining methods; assumption of heap leach and concentrate processing; copper price of $3.30/lb, molybdenum price of $9.00/lb; variable net smelter return cut-offs; mining recovery of 100%; metallurgical recoveries of 86% Cu, and 55% Mo for material sent to the mill facility, and recovery of 80% Cu (Total copper) for material sent to the heap leach pad; total mining costs (base, incremental and sustaining) of $1.206/t mined; total mill process costs (base, sustaining, tailings, G&A and molybdenum plant) of $7.80/t milled; total leaching costs (operating and SX-EW) of $1.60/t leached; miscellaneous costs (closure, payments) of $0.10/t processed; copper refining cost of $0.09/lb; copper smelting cost of $90/t concentrate; copper transport costs of $107.69/t concentrate; molybdenum transport costs of $73.67/t concentrate; and molybdenum refining/treatment cost of 12.50% (of molybdenum price).\n\n(5)Gold and silver are not used in the pit optimization. The gold and silver metallurgical recoveries for material that will be sent to the mill facility are forecast at 55.7% Au, and 50.2% Ag, respectively. Molybdenum, gold and silver are not expected to be recovered from the leach process.\n\n(6)For the leaching process, the internal copper cut-off was 0.049% while the breakeven copper cut-off was 0.057%.\n\n(7)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 12 of the El Arco operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.10 of the Company´s Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed on March 7, 2022.\n\n(8)There were no changes in mineral reserves with regard to the figures reported in 2021.\n\n​\n\n​\n\nMEXICAN IMMSA UNIT\n\n​\n\nOur IMMSA unit (underground mining poly-metallic division) owns five underground mining complexes situated in central and northern Mexico, three of which are currently operating. It produces zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold. These complexes include industrial processing facilities for zinc, lead, copper and silver. All of IMMSA’s mining facilities employ exploitation systems and conventional equipment. We believe that all the plants and equipment are in satisfactory operating condition. IMMSA’s principal mining facilities are Charcas, Santa Barbara, San Martin, Santa Eulalia and Taxco.\n\n​\n\n83\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our Mexican IMMSA unit:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Variance**\n\n \n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025 - 2024**\n\n \n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n​\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2025**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2024**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**2023**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**Volume**\n\n  ​ ​ ​\n\n**%**\n\n \n\nAverage annual operating days(*)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n309\n\n \n\n300\n\n \n\n301\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\nTotal material mined and milled\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n4,532\n\n \n\n4,433\n\n \n\n4,346\n\n \n\n99\n\n \n\n2.2\n\n%\n\nZinc:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nAverage ore grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n1.65\n\n \n\n1.85\n\n \n\n1.88\n\n \n\n(0.20)\n\n \n\n(10.8)\n\n%\n\nAverage recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n80.49\n\n \n\n80.28\n\n \n\n80.22\n\n \n\n0.21\n\n \n\n0.3\n\n%\n\nConcentrate produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n124.1\n\n \n\n130.7\n\n \n\n132.0\n\n \n\n(6.6)\n\n \n\n(5.0)\n\n%\n\nConcentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n48.5\n\n \n\n50.29\n\n \n\n49.64\n\n \n\n(1.79)\n\n \n\n(3.6)\n\n%\n\nZinc in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n60.2\n\n \n\n65.7\n\n \n\n65.5\n\n \n\n(5.5)\n\n \n\n(8.4)\n\n%\n\nLead:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nAverage ore grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.74\n\n \n\n0.69\n\n \n\n0.63\n\n \n\n0.05\n\n \n\n7.2\n\n%\n\nAverage recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n74.27\n\n \n\n68.92\n\n \n\n68.78\n\n \n\n5.35\n\n \n\n7.8\n\n%\n\nConcentrate produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n44.8\n\n \n\n37.2\n\n \n\n33.6\n\n \n\n7.6\n\n \n\n20.4\n\n%\n\nConcentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n55.65\n\n \n\n56.63\n\n \n\n55.71\n\n \n\n(0.98)\n\n \n\n(1.7)\n\n%\n\nLead in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n24.9\n\n \n\n21.1\n\n \n\n18.7\n\n \n\n3.8\n\n \n\n18.0\n\n%\n\nCopper:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nAverage ore grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n0.38\n\n \n\n0.38\n\n \n\n0.38\n\n \n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n%\n\nAverage recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n58.6\n\n \n\n58.49\n\n \n\n57.52\n\n \n\n0.11\n\n \n\n0.2\n\n%\n\nConcentrate produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n44.6\n\n \n\n44.4\n\n \n\n43.9\n\n \n\n0.2\n\n \n\n0.5\n\n%\n\nConcentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n22.90\n\n \n\n21.97\n\n \n\n21.80\n\n \n\n0.93\n\n \n\n4.2\n\n%\n\nCopper in concentrate\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n10.2\n\n \n\n9.8\n\n \n\n9.6\n\n \n\n0.4\n\n \n\n4.1\n\n%\n\nSilver:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n \n\n  ​\n\n​\n\nAverage ore grade\n\n \n\n(ounces)\n\n \n\n2.05\n\n \n\n1.93\n\n \n\n1.97\n\n \n\n0.12\n\n \n\n6.2\n\n%\n\nAverage recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n81.06\n\n \n\n78.99\n\n \n\n77.88\n\n \n\n2.07\n\n \n\n2.6\n\n%\n\nConcentrate average grade\n\n \n\n(ounces/tonne)\n\n \n\n35.3\n\n​\n\n31.9\n\n \n\n31.8\n\n \n\n3.4\n\n \n\n10.7\n\n%\n\nSilver in concentrates\n\n \n\n((000) ounces)\n\n \n\n7,544.40\n\n \n\n6,774.86\n\n \n\n6,664.00\n\n \n\n769.5\n\n \n\n11.4\n\n%\n\nkt = thousand tonnes\n\n(*)\n\nWeighted average annual operating days based on total material mined and milled in the three active mines: Charcas, Santa Barbara and San Martin.\n\n​\n\nCharcas\n\n​\n\nThe Charcas mining complex is located approximately 110 kilometers north of the city of San Luis Potosi in the State of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The mine uses the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) World Geodetic System (WGS84) Zone 14Q coordinate system and is located at 2 560 223 N and 280 042 E at an altitude of 2,150 meters above sea level. Charcas is connected to the state capital by a paved highway of 130 kilometers. It was discovered in 1573 and operations in the 20th century began in 1911. The complex includes three underground mines (San Bartolo, Rey-Reina and La Aurora) and one flotation plant that produces zinc, lead and copper concentrates with significant amounts of silver. The Charcas mine is characterized by low operating costs and good quality ores and is situated near the zinc refinery. Charcas is exploited underground by room and pillar with hydraulic cut and fill. The crushed ore is transported to the surface for processing in the flotation plant.\n\n​\n\nWe currently hold 13 mining concessions over the Charcas property, which covers a total area of 88,643.26 hectares. Additionally, we own surface lands covering an area of 1,744.4 hectares with rights to conduct any work or exploration required to advance or continue of activities within the Charcas project. Water is obtained from three main sources: recovery of process water from the tailings dam, recovery of the working water from the mine and fresh water from concession wells. Additionally, the unit receives a power supply of 115,000 volts in two 7.5-Mega Volt-Amp (MVA) transformers, distributed to electrical substations located in the different areas of mining operation. Fuel comes from a local distribution point in the city of San Luis Potosi and is stored in a series of tanks located on the surface.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n84\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe Charcas mining district is in the east-central part of the central mesa of Mexico, which is part of the larger metallogenic province of Sierra Madre. The mineral deposits found within the Charcas mining district are tertiary polymetallic skarn (silver, lead, zinc and copper) deposits hosted in carbonate rocks of the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods and in shales and sandstones of the Late Triassic. In the carbonate rocks, veins and mantos form the predominant mineralization, while less mineralized fractures tend to occur within the shales and sandstones. The varied style of mineralization largely corresponds to the lithological variety of units that serve as host rocks.\n\n​\n\nThe Charcas intrusive complex (“CIC”) was emplaced in Triassic to upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. Some dikes from the CIC have developed metamorphic halos with related polymetallic mineralization. There are two recognized stages of mineralization. In the first stage, the mineralization is enriched in silver, lead, and zinc and characterized with calcite and small quantities of quartz and chalcopyrite (CuFeS) present. In the second stage, the mineralization is copper and silver rich with lesser amounts of chalcopyrite. The mineralization also includes lead ore with associated silver, plus pyrite and only minor amounts of sphalerite (ZnS). The mineralization occurs as replacement sulfides in carbonate rocks and as filling fracture veins. The typical sulfides found at the Charcas include chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena (PbS), and silver minerals.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of mineral resources for Charcas as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term metal price assumptions:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Silver**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n57\n\n​\n\n32,221\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n57\n\n​\n\n33,198\n\n​\n\n(2.9)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n57\n\n​\n\n32,221\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n57\n\n​\n\n33,198\n\n​\n\n(2.9)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n15,603\n\n​\n\n63\n\n​\n\n31,476\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n15,752\n\n​\n\n63\n\n​\n\n31,776\n\n​\n\n(0.9)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Zinc**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n655.9\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n677.1\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n655.9\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n3.74\n\n%\n\n677.1\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n15,603\n\n​\n\n3.31\n\n%\n\n516.8\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n15,752\n\n​\n\n3.32\n\n%\n\n522.8\n\n​\n\n(1.2)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n85\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n**Lead**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n43.0\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n44.0\n\n​\n\n(2.3)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n43.0\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n0.24\n\n%\n\n44.0\n\n​\n\n(2.3)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n15,603\n\n​\n\n0.36\n\n%\n\n55.5\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n15,752\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n55.8\n\n​\n\n(0.6)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Copper**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n%\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n60.7\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n63.0\n\n​\n\n(3.6)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n17,559\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n60.7\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n18,085\n\n​\n\n0.35\n\n%\n\n63.0\n\n​\n\n(3.6)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n15,603\n\n​\n\n0.32\n\n%\n\n49.2\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n15,752\n\n​\n\n0.32\n\n%\n\n49.8\n\n​\n\n(1.1)%\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Metallurgical recovery assumptions (in payable concentrates) are: 76% for silver, 39% for lead, 63% for copper and 87% for zinc.\n\n(4)Mineral resources are reported at metal-equivalent Cut-Off Grades (COG) based on metal price assumptions, variable metallurgical recovery assumptions, mining costs, processing costs, G&A costs, and variable Net Smelter Recovery (NSR) factors. Mining, processing, and G&A costs total $69.84/t with metal prices of $1,725/tr oz for Au, $23/tr oz for Ag, $1.09/lb for Pb, $1.32 /lb for Zn and $3.80/lb for Cu.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Charcas operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.10 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n(6)Variations in mineral resources in 2025 were attributable to production depletion and updated depletion and sterilization around historical mined areas.\n\n​\n\nSanta Barbara\n\n​\n\nThe Santa Barbara mining complex is located approximately 26 kilometers southwest of the city of Hidalgo del Parral in southern Chihuahua, Mexico. The mine uses the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) World Geodetic System (WGS84) Zone 13R coordinate system and is located at 2 965 880 N and 418 948 E at an altitude of 2,000 m above sea level. The area can be reached via a paved road of from Hidalgo del Parral, a city on a federal highway. The area is also connected to the state capital of Chihuahua 250 km along Highway 24. It was discovered in 1536 and mining activities in the 20th century began in 1913. Santa Barbara includes three main underground mines (San Diego, Segovedad and Tecolotes) as well as a flotation plant and produces lead, copper and zinc concentrates, with significant amounts of silver.\n\n​\n\nIMMSA currently holds 33 mining concessions over the Santa Barbara property, covering a total area of 27,772.51 hectares (ha), with the titles held 100% by the Company. There are also surface lands that cover an area of 20.92 hectares and are owned by IMMSA, which provide us within sufficient rights to any work or exploration that we require to carry out for the advancement and continuity of activities in the Santa Barbara property. There are an additional 371.07 hectares covered by a contract with the community of Santa Barbara that allows for any further work or exploration required.\n\n​\n\nDue to the variable characteristics of the ore bodies, four types of mining methods are used: shrinkage stoping, long-hole drilled open stoping, cut-and-fill stoping and horizontal bench stoping. The ore, once crushed, is processed in the flotation plant to produce concentrates. All the water used in industrial operations at Santa Barbara comes from the mine\n\n86\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nand the concentrator plant, where a large part of this water is recovered from the tailings dam, creating a closed circuit for its proper use. Electricity is supplied by Eolica el Retiro, Energia Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. and the CFE.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nThe pre-mineral rock types found at Santa Barbara consist of a thick calcareous shale formation and andesite flows. The post-mineral rock types consist of dikes and sills of rhyolite and diabase, a thin conglomerate formation, basalt flows, and unconsolidated stream sediments. Pre-mineral faulting took place in two stages, forming four fault systems. All faults within each system have similar strike and dip. Movement along these faults, vertical in the first-stage faults and horizontal in the second-stage faults, formed openings and breccia zones.\n\n​\n\nHydrothermal solutions, emanating from depth, were introduced into the faults. The walls and breccia fragments within the faults were silicified, and the high-temperature silicates, garnet, pyroxene, and epidote were formed. Accompanying and following the formation of the silicates, the sulfides, such as sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, pyrite, and arsenopyrite, with associated gold and a silver mineral, were introduced with quartz, calcite, and fluorite. Most of these minerals replaced the silicates and altered shale. The parts of the faults where wide pre-mineral openings were located filled with quartz and a higher ratio of sulfides than in the narrow portions of the faults. Quartz, calcite, fluorite, and barite were among the last minerals deposited.\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of mineral resources for Santa Barbara as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term metal price assumptions:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Silver**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n94\n\n​\n\n53,767\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n98\n\n​\n\n62,335\n\n​\n\n(13.7)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n94\n\n​\n\n53,767\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n98\n\n​\n\n62,335\n\n​\n\n(13.7)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n45,920\n\n​\n\n81\n\n​\n\n119,680\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n47,333\n\n​\n\n82\n\n​\n\n124,081\n\n​\n\n(3.5)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Zinc**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n3.29\n\n%\n\n586.0\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n3.36\n\n%\n\n668.3\n\n​\n\n(12.3)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n3.29\n\n%\n\n586.0\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n3.36\n\n%\n\n668.3\n\n​\n\n(12.3)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n45,920\n\n​\n\n3.32\n\n%\n\n1,524.8\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n47,333\n\n​\n\n3.34\n\n%\n\n1,578.7\n\n​\n\n(3.4)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n87\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n**Lead**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n1.66\n\n%\n\n294.9\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n1.71\n\n%\n\n340.7\n\n​\n\n(13.4)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n1.66\n\n%\n\n294.9\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n1.71\n\n%\n\n340.7\n\n​\n\n(13.4)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n45,920\n\n​\n\n1.86\n\n%\n\n853.9\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n47,333\n\n​\n\n1.87\n\n%\n\n884.6\n\n​\n\n(3.5)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Copper**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n81.0\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n0.47\n\n%\n\n93.1\n\n​\n\n(12.9)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n81.0\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n0.47\n\n%\n\n93.1\n\n​\n\n(12.9)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n45,920\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n205.3\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n47,333\n\n​\n\n0.45\n\n%\n\n211.1\n\n​\n\n(2.7)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Gold**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n \n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n​\n\n89\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n​\n\n100\n\n​\n\n(11.1)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n17,804\n\n​\n\n0.15\n\n​\n\n89\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n19,883\n\n​\n\n0.16\n\n​\n\n100\n\n​\n\n(11.1)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n45,920\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n176\n\n​\n\n1,725\n\n​\n\n47,333\n\n​\n\n0.12\n\n​\n\n186\n\n​\n\n(5.4)%\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Metallurgical recovery assumptions (in payable concentrates) are: 33% for Gold, 81% for silver, 79% for lead, 40% for copper and 80% for zinc.\n\n(4)Mineral resources are reported at metal-equivalent Cut-Off Grades (COG) based on metal price assumptions, variable metallurgical recovery assumptions, mining costs, processing costs, G&A costs, and variable Net Smelter Recovery (NSR) factors. Mining, processing, and G&A costs total $82.98/t. with metal prices of $1,725/tr oz for Au, $23/tr oz for Ag, $1.09/lb for Pb, $1.32 /lb for Zn and $3.80/lb for Cu.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the Santa Barbara operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.11 to the 2024 Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2025.\n\n(6)Variations in mineral resources in 2025 were attributable to production depletion and updated depletion and sterilization around historical mined areas.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n88\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSan Martin\n\n​\n\nThe San Martin mining complex is located in the municipality of Sombrerete in the northwestern part of the state of Zacatecas, Mexico. It is located approximately 185 kilometers from the city of Zacatecas. The elevation of the San Martin mining complex is approximately 2,600 meters (m) with geographic coordinates of 629,000 E and 2,614,000 N (WGS84, UTM Zona 13). The nearest major town is the municipality of Sombrerete (17 km away) in the Sierra Madre Occidental geographic province. It was discovered in 1555 and mining operations in the 20th century began in 1949. The complex includes an underground mine and a flotation plant. The ore body contains lead, copper and zinc concentrates, with significant amounts of silver. The state of Zacatecas has an extensive infrastructure of roads and highways that connect the San Martín to the rest of the country. The San Martin mining unit has a paved road to Highway 45, which leads to the town of Sombrerete, 17 kilometers away. Highway 45 then connects Sombrerete to Fresnillo, Zacatecas and Durango at distances of 110,171 and 125 kilometers, respectively.\n\n​\n\nThe San Martin property consists of 73 mining concessions with a total surface of 10,360.95 hectares, with the titles held by IMMSA. Water is currently extracted via three deep wells in the Proaño area, storing it in a pool adjacent to the wells. Electric power is provided by the national grid via a 45 kilometer extension. The unit receives a power supply of 115 KV, the main substation has a capacity of 24 MWA.\n\n​\n\nAfter eleven years of an illegal stoppage, we resumed control of the San Martin mine in August 2018. The San Martin facilities deteriorated during this period and we undertook a major renovation to restart operations in the second quarter of 2019, with a total expense of approximately $90.5 million. Production at this mine was restored to full capacity at the end of the third quarter of 2019.\n\n​\n\n*Geology*\n\n​\n\nSan Martín mine is located in the Central Mesa of Mexico, between Sierra Madre Occidental and Sierra Madre Oriental. The Cuesta del Cura (Upper Cretaceous) limestone is the main sedimentary formation in the district. This is a sequence of shallow marine limestone and black chert which is overlain by Indura Formation that consists of alternating shales and fine-grained clayey limestones.\n\n​\n\nThe mineral deposits in this district are associated with replacement veins and bodies formed in the skarn in close proximity to the Cerro de la Gloria granodiorite intrusion. The main mineralized veins are San Marcial, Ibarra and Gallo-Gallina which are oriented parallel to the intrusive contact and have thicknesses varying from 0.4 m to 4 m and horizontal extents of up to 1,000 m to the east/northeast from the granodiorite contact. The mineralization is associated with massive and disseminated sulfides occurring in replacement ore bodies between the main veins and in the skarn and include chalcopyrite (CuFeS), sphalerite (ZnS), galena (PbS), bornite (CuFeS), tetrahedrite (CuFe Sb S), native Silver (Ag), Pyrite (FeS), arsenopyrite (FeAsS) and stibnite (SbS).\n\n​\n\n*Mineral resources*\n\n​\n\nThe following table contains the summary of mineral resources for San Martin as of December 31, 2025, based on long-term metal price assumptions:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025**\n\n​\n\n**2024**\n\n**Silver**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per ounce)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades (grams per tonne)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand ounces)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n76\n\n​\n\n32,735\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n76\n\n​\n\n33,793\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n76\n\n​\n\n32,735\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n76\n\n​\n\n33,793\n\n​\n\n(3.1)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n55,461\n\n​\n\n71\n\n​\n\n126,835\n\n​\n\n23.00\n\n​\n\n55,744\n\n​\n\n71\n\n​\n\n127,473\n\n​\n\n(0.5)%\n\n89\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Zinc**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n1.88\n\n%\n\n251.1\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n1.89\n\n%\n\n260.8\n\n​\n\n(3.7)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n1.88\n\n%\n\n251.1\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n1.89\n\n%\n\n260.8\n\n​\n\n(3.7)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n55,461\n\n​\n\n2.55\n\n%\n\n1,415.6\n\n​\n\n1.32\n\n​\n\n55,744\n\n​\n\n2.55\n\n%\n\n1,422.6\n\n​\n\n(0.5)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Lead**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n45.3\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n46.5\n\n​\n\n(2.4)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n45.3\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n0.34\n\n%\n\n46.5\n\n​\n\n(2.4)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n55,461\n\n​\n\n0.31\n\n%\n\n173.1\n\n​\n\n1.09\n\n​\n\n55,744\n\n​\n\n0.31\n\n%\n\n174.3\n\n​\n\n(0.7)%\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Copper**\n\n** **\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Metal price (per pound)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Amount (thousand tonnes)**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Grades**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Metal content (thousand tonnes)**\n\n​\n\n**Variation**\n\nMeasured mineral resources\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\n​\n\n—\n\nIndicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n82.7\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n86.3\n\n​\n\n(4.1)%\n\nMeasured + Indicated mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n13,350\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n82.7\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n13,812\n\n​\n\n0.62\n\n%\n\n86.3\n\n​\n\n(4.1)%\n\nInferred mineral resources\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n55,461\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n257.3\n\n​\n\n3.80\n\n​\n\n55,744\n\n​\n\n0.46\n\n%\n\n258.9\n\n​\n\n(0.6)%\n\n​\n\n(1)Mineral resources are reported in situ and are current as of December 31, 2025.\n\n(2)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves.\n\n(3)Metallurgical recovery assumptions (in payable concentrates) are 83% for silver, 40% for lead, 71% for copper and 76% for zinc.\n\n(4)Mineral resources are reported at metal-equivalent Cut-Off Grades (COG) based on metal price assumptions, variable metallurgical recovery assumptions, mining costs, processing costs, G&A costs, and variable Net Smelter Recovery (NSR) factors. Mining, processing, and G&A costs total $61.16/t. with metal prices of $1,725/tr oz for Au, $23/tr oz for Ag, $1.09/lb for Pb, $1.32 /lb for Zn and $3.80/lb for Cu.\n\n(5)For further information on assumptions used in preparing the estimates, including a detailed description of the cut-off determination, please refer to Chapter 11 of the San Martin operations technical report summary prepared by qualified persons, under Exhibit 96.13 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed on February 29, 2024.\n\n(6)Variations in mineral resources in 2025 were attributable to production depletion and updated depletion and sterilization around historical mined areas.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n90\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSanta Eulalia\n\n​\n\nThe mining district of Santa Eulalia is located in the central part of the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, approximately 26 kilometers east of the city of Chihuahua, and is connected to the city of Chihuahua by a paved road (highway no. 45). It was discovered in 1590 but exploitation began in 1870. The main mines in Santa Eulalia are The Buena Tierra mine and the San Antonio mine.\n\n​\n\nRegarding its geology, the majority of mineralization corresponds to ore skarns: silicoaluminates of calcium, iron and manganese with variable quantities of lead, zinc, copper and iron sulfides. Economic ore include sphalerite (ZnS), galena (PbS) and small quantities of pyrargyrite (Ag3SbS3).\n\n​\n\nIn the first quarter of 2020, the Santa Eulalia mine suspended its operations due to flooding. We are currently evaluating different options to determine the future of this business unit.\n\n​\n\nTaxco\n\n​\n\nThe Taxco mining complex has been on strike since July 2007. It is located on the outskirts of the city of Taxco in the northern part of the state of Guerrero, Mexico. It was discovered in 1519 and mining activities in the 20th century began in 1918. The complex includes several underground mines (San Antonio, Guerrero and Remedios) and a flotation plant. The ore contains lead and zinc concentrates, with some amounts of gold and silver.\n\n​\n\nThere was no mine exploration drilling at Taxco during the three-year period ended December 31, 2025 due to the strikes. Please see Note 13 “Commitments and Contingencies—Labor matters” to the consolidated financial statements.\n\n​\n\nProcessing Facilities—San Luis Potosi\n\n​\n\nOur San Luis Potosi electrolytic zinc refinery is located in the city of San Luis Potosi, in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The city of San Luis Potosi is connected to our refinery by a major highway.\n\n​\n\n*Zinc Refinery*\n\n​\n\nThe San Luis Potosi electrolytic zinc refinery was built in 1982 and was designed to produce 105,000 tonnes of refined zinc per year by treating up to 200,000 tonnes of zinc concentrate from our own mines, principally Charcas, which is located 113 kilometers from the refinery. The refinery produces special high-grade zinc (99.995%), high-grade zinc (over 99.9%) and zinc-based alloys with aluminum, lead, copper or magnesium in varying quantities and sizes depending on market demand. Refined silver and gold production is obtained from tolling services provided by a third party mining company.\n\n​\n\nThe electrolytic zinc refinery has an acid plant, a steam recovery boiler and a roaster. There is also a calcine processing area with five leaching stages: neutral, hot acid, intermediate acid, acid, purified fourth and jarosite, as well as two stages for solution purifying.\n\n​\n\nThe table below contains production information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 for our San Luis Potosi zinc refinery:\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**Variance**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n​\n\n**2025 - 2024**\n\n** **\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n​\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2025**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2024**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**2023**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**Volume**\n\n**  ​ ​ ​**\n\n**%**\n\n** **\n\nTotal zinc concentrate treated\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n195.9\n\n \n\n214.1\n\n \n\n215.2\n\n \n\n(18.2)\n\n \n\n(8.5)\n\n%\n\nRefined zinc produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n87.0\n\n \n\n98.8\n\n \n\n101.0\n\n \n\n(11.8)\n\n \n\n(11.9)\n\n%\n\nSulfuric acid produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n168.6\n\n \n\n187.7\n\n \n\n179.9\n\n \n\n(19.1)\n\n \n\n(10.2)\n\n%\n\nRefined silver produced\n\n \n\n((000) kilos)\n\n \n\n18.9\n\n \n\n16.8\n\n \n\n13.9\n\n \n\n2.1\n\n \n\n12.5\n\n%\n\nRefined gold produced\n\n \n\n(kilos)\n\n \n\n25.3\n\n \n\n22.2\n\n \n\n21.7\n\n \n\n3.1\n\n \n\n14.0\n\n%\n\nRefined cadmium produced\n\n \n\n(kt)\n\n \n\n0.6\n\n \n\n0.6\n\n \n\n0.5\n\n \n\n(0.0)\n\n \n\n(8.3)\n\n%\n\nAverage refinery recovery\n\n \n\n(%)\n\n \n\n88.5\n\n \n\n92.2\n\n \n\n92.2\n\n \n\n(3.7)\n\n \n\n(4.0)\n\n%\n\nkt = thousand tonnes\n\n91\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nMINERAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES\n\n​\n\nMineral resources are concentrations or occurrences 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. Such a deposit cannot qualify as recoverable proven and probable mineral reserves until engineering, legal and economic feasibility are confirmed based upon a comprehensive evaluation of development and operating costs, grades, recoveries and other material factors. Mineral resources include measured, indicated and inferred mineral classifications.\n\n​\n\nMeasured 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 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.\n\n​\n\nIndicated 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.\n\n​\n\nInferred 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, may not be converted to a mineral reserve and no assurance can be given that the estimated mineral resources not included in mineral reserves will become proven and probable mineral reserves.\n\n​\n\nMineral reserves are estimates 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. Mineral reserves, as used in the mineral reserve data presented in this report, means the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted. Proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource. Probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.\n\n​\n\nOur estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources have been prepared in accordance with the disclosure requirements of S-K 1300. Pursuant to SEC guidance, qualified persons used forecast metal prices for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation and the economic analysis. These projected prices were derived from forecasts from several analysts and banks. The commodity price forecast covered the period 2021–2025 and provided a long-term forecast for 2026 onward. As of December 31, 2025, we considered $3.30 per pound of copper and $10.00 per pound of molybdenum.\n\n​\n\n92\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nOur engineering department reviews reserve computations in detail on an annual basis. In addition, our engineering department reviews the computation when changes in assumptions occur. Changes can occur for price or cost assumptions, results in field drilling or new geotechnical parameters. We also engage third party consultants to review mine planning procedures.\n\n​\n\nWe periodically reevaluate estimates of our mineral reserves, which represent our estimate as to the amount of unmined copper remaining in our existing mine locations that can be produced and sold at a profit. These estimates are based on engineering evaluations derived from samples of drill holes and other openings, combined with assumptions about copper market prices and production costs at each of our mines. See Risk Factors in Item 1A for a discussion of risks associated with our estimates of mineral reserves and resources.\n\n​\n\nThe qualified persons responsible for mineral reserve and resource estimates are as follows:\n\n​\n\nPeruvian open-pit:\n\n​\n\nCuajone mine – Wood Group USA Inc.\n\nToquepala mine - Wood Group USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nTia Maria project:\n\n​\n\nWood Group USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nChancas project:\n\n​\n\nWood Group USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nMichiquillay project:\n\n​\n\nWood Group USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nMexican open-pit:\n\n​\n\nLa Caridad - WSP USA Inc.\n\nPilares - WSP USA Inc.\n\nBuenavista del Cobre - WSP USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nIMMSA unit:\n\n​\n\nSanta Barbara - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.\n\nCharcas - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.\n\nSan Martin – SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.\n\n​\n\nEl Arco project:\n\n​\n\nWood Group USA Inc.\n\n​\n\nEl Pilar project:\n\n​\n\nM3 Engineering & Technology Corp., Ingenieria Geomex, S.A. de C.V., and WSP USA Inc.\n\n​\n\n​\n\n93\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nMINERAL RESERVES AND MINERAL RESOURCES INTERNAL CONTROLS DISCLOSURE\n\n​\n\nIn 2021, we adopted the new requirements of S-K 1300. As part of this process, we developed an implementation plan with a high-level cross functional team, which performed a completeness assessment over the Technical Report Summaries for each material property prepared by a third-party Qualified Person. Additionally, we established new policies, procedures and internal controls related to the new regulation. The review includes, among others, an analysis of the reasonableness of technical information, a thorough review of the mineral resources and reserves estimates, and the economic analysis which supports these estimates.\n\n​\n\nIn addition, as part of the adoption of the requirements of S-K 1300, a significant component of our internal controls and quality assurance procedures on the information from material properties was performed by qualified persons responsible for mineral reserve and resource estimates. These include an intensive review of our procedures, as well as database verification, validation of mineral resource and reserve estimates, and the elaboration of technical report summaries. These controls and methods help to validate the reasonableness of the estimates. The effectiveness of the controls are reviewed periodically to address changes in conditions and the degree of compliance with policies and procedures.\n\n​\n\nEXPLORATION ACTIVITIES\n\n​\n\nWe are engaged in ongoing extensive exploration to locate additional ore bodies in Peru, Mexico, Argentina and Chile. We also conduct exploration in the areas of our current mining operations. We invested $52.8 million in exploration programs in 2025, $60.9 million in 2024 and $55.0 million in 2023 and we expect to spend approximately $65.1 million on exploration programs in 2026.\n\n​\n\nCurrently, we directly control 69,659 hectares and 139,545 hectares of exploration concessions in Peru and Mexico, respectively. We also currently hold 98,634 hectares and 28,453 hectares of exploration concessions in Argentina and Chile, respectively.\n\n​\n\nPeru\n\n​\n\nIn 2025, we drilled 1,198 meters in the Atico project, located in the Arequipa region. In 2026, we plan to conclude the scheduled diamond drilling program of 5,000 meters to explore targets with geophysical anomalies and understand the potential of this project; the objective is to locate copper mineralization.\n\n​\n\nIn 2026, we also plan to conduct a diamond drilling program of 5,000 meters to explore the San Juan-Chaparra project and understand its potential. Previously, we drilled 4,500 meters at the adjacent area known as Chaparra, which allowed us to define the occurrence of a porphyry copper system. Additionally, we will carry out prospecting work in metallogenic zones on the southern coast of Peru, which are associated with copper-molybdenum porphyry systems.\n\n​\n\nMexico\n\n​\n\nIn addition to exploration and drilling programs at existing mines, we are currently conducting exploration to locate mineral deposits at various other sites in Mexico. The following are some of the more significant exploration projects:\n\n​\n\n*The Chalchihuites.*This is a skarn type deposit located in the state of Zacatecas, close to the San Martin mining unit. Drilling programs conducted between 1980 and 2014 identified 12.6 million tonnes of mineralized material with an average silver content of 110 grams per ton, 2.66% of zinc, 0.37% of lead and 0.67% of copper. Current results indicate that mineralization consists of a complex mixture of oxides and sulfides of silver, lead and zinc that requires additional metallurgical research. In 2017, we started a new drilling program of 21,000 meters to continue metallurgical research and testing. In 2018, this exploration program, which included 48 drill holes was completed. This program has been carried out in compliance with QA/QC protocol, which includes testing the specific density of different rocks and mineralized types and geochemistry sampling. In addition, 5,000 meters of core sample from the drilling program were analyzed with a hyperspectral scanner, and a study of 498 kilometers of hyperspectral imaging was conducted to recognize the geology of the entire Chalchihuites mineral district.\n\n94\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\n​\n\nIn 2019, with the complete data from the diamond drilling program, we made a geological model of the Cronos deposit using Leapfrog software. In 2020, the sample design for a metallurgical test was completed and three metallurgical samples were delivered to an external consultant. Metallurgical tests for silver recovery will continue with semi-sulfide and oxide ores. In 2022 and 2023, we drilled a total 5,000 meters and included 16 drill holes in the area known as Virgen Morena. Metallurgical tests were concluded and confirmed that recoveries in sulphide flotation are good for Zn, Cu, Pb and Ag; however it was not possible to separate lead from the copper concentrate. Dynamic acid leaching tests were performed for oxides and mixed oxides. The results were positive. \n\n​\n\nIn 2025, we completed surface exploration work which consisted of geological mapping and geochemical sampling. Additionally, we are evaluating three design alternatives to build an access ramp to obtain ore and process it in a pilot plant. Negotiations to purchase additional land are also ongoing. In 2026, we expect to complete a time-domain/ transient electromagnetic and gravimetric geophysical surveys to identify new drill targets. After the reinterpretation of new results from mapping, geochemistry and geophysics, a 17,000-meter drilling campaign proposal will be submitted. The objective is to increase mineral resources; obtain samples for metallurgical testing in the Cronos-Guantes area; and explore new ore bodies at depth in Virgen Morena area.\n\n​\n\n*San Antonio Sur (Santa Eulalia).* It is located in the San Antonio mine, eastern field zone in Santa Eulalia. There is evidence of mineralization at Level 8 inside the mine. The drilling program is in place to verify the continuity of mineralization. The mine is currently flooded. In December 2023, the gauging stage with the new pumping system began. In 2024, the groundwater level was reduced 25 meters. In 2025, water flow was measured to confirm the capacity of the pumping system; a technical economic study is ongoing. It is currently not clear if the mine can be dewatered.\n\n​\n\n*Malpica Project.*This project is located in the municipality of Concordia, 30 km east-southeast of the city of Mazatlán, in the state of Sinaloa. It comprises 13 mining concessions, covering a total area of 2,662 hectares. The Malpica project hosts a breccia pipes ore deposit that contains copper-gold-molybdenum sulfides. In 2022, a preliminary assessment study was conducted, estimating mineral resources of 42 million tonnes, with a grade of 0.47% copper and 0.20 grams of gold per tonne. In 2025, we reevaluated the project’s technical and financial factors to ensure safety, compliance and proper resource optimization. In 2026, we expect to rehabilitate roads, construct drill pads, and submit a proposal for an 8,440-meter diamond drilling program. We also plan to implement quality control protocols in geochemical assays to validate the historical database to bolster geological reliability.\n\n​\n\n*San Diego Project.*This project is located in the municipality of Madero, 48 km south of the city of Morelia, in the state of Michoacán. In 2018, a diamond drilling campaign of 4,290 meters was completed, and results indicated the possible presence of a copper, molybdenum and gold porphyry deposit. In 2025, we signed a contract for 5,000-meter drilling campaign; processed access permits for exploration and began rehabilitating roads for drill pads. Additionally, geological mapping and field sampling are being carried out. In 2026, we expect to conduct further drilling, chemical analysis of drill core samples, and data interpretation.\n\n​\n\nChile\n\n​\n\n*El Salado (Montonero).*A copper-gold prospect located in the Atacama region, northern Chile has been under exploration since 2014. In 2016 and 2017, we conducted a diamond drilling program of 22,108 meters and finished the conceptual study. In 2023 and 2024, we concluded the pre-feasibility study of the project. In 2025, a comprehensive review of information on existing mineral resources was completed, and a 9,500-meter drilling program was planned to obtain the information necessary for geoscience studies. Geometallurgical drilling was completed, and 23% and 62% progress was reached in geotechnical and hydrogeological studies, respectively. In 2026, we plan to continue with 3,912 meters of drilling work to complete the information required for geotechnical and hydrogeological studies; this information will be subsequently used to develop the feasibility study.\n\n​\n\nArgentina\n\n​\n\nIn 2011, we started exploration activities in Argentina in the Neuquen province. In 2015, we performed geological exploration in the Salta, Rio Negro and Neuquen provinces where we expected to locate copper porphyry with precious metals epithermal systems. Starting 2017, we performed prospection and geological evaluation work in the provinces of\n\n95\n\n[Table of Contents](#TOC)\n\nSan Juan and Rio Negro with the exploration of silver-gold epithermal systems through geological mapping and surface sampling. In 2021, superficial geological and geochemical work was concluded at the Cerro La Mina and Tanque Negro prospects, which conform the Caldera project. In 2023, we developed surface geochemical and geological studies at the province of Catamarca. With the results of these studies, we are evaluating different areas.\n\n​\n\n*Cañadon del Moro.*This is**a silver and gold low sulfidation epithermal deposit with high longitude seams located in the Rio Negro province. In 2023 and 2024, we conducted a conceptual study with information from the 14,900-meter diamond drilling program and estimated indicated and inferred resources of 6.2 million tonnes with a grade of 6.0 ounces of silver per tonne and prospective resources of 15.0 million tonnes. During 2025, we carried out an additional 2,000-meter diamond drilling program aimed at validating the continuity of the mineralized structures and the previously estimated resources. As a result of this campaign, intercepts with grades of 47 oz/Ag and 6.40 g/t Au, as well as 26 oz/Ag and 3.3 g/t Au, were obtained. Estimated resources were updated to 7.7 million tonnes, with an average grade of 6.18 oz/t silver equivalent. Prospective resource potential of approximately 15.5 million tonnes remains. In 2026, we plan to carry out an assessment of the geological potential of adjacent areas and extensions of the mineralized system to gain a better understanding of the geological model and evaluate the project’s total potential.\n\n​\n\n*Esperanza Project.*Geological exploration work has been carried out using geophysical, geochemical methods and satellite images. A system of gold-bearing veins of economically prospective interest was determined, and with an initial drilling campaign of 2,000 meters, three areas of interest associated with the main structure were identified. In 2025, surface sampling of the structure's outcrops continued, defining the presence of gold and silver values ranging from 0.08 to 11.39 g/tn Au and from 1 to >200 g/tn Ag. A diamond drilling campaign of approximately 4,000 meters is being completed to intercept the continuity of the mineralized structure; laboratory results are pending. In 2026, we plan to conduct a drilling campaign of 4,000 meters to estimate existing resources and evaluate both the economic potential of mineralized structures and verify their structural continuity.\n\n​\n\n*Caldera Project.*This is located in the Rio Negro province, and includes the Cerro La Mina, Tanque Negro, Cerro Abanico and Cristal prospects. Between 2021 and 2022, low-sulfidation epithermal systems were identified after conducting 5,815 meters of diamond drilling. In 2025, studies aimed to assess the potential of each prospect. In 2026, we expect to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the Caldera Project to define its prospective potential.\n\n​"}