Form 8-K

8-K — HYCROFT MINING HOLDING CORP

Accession: 0001493152-26-026891

Filed: 2026-06-02

Period: 2026-06-02

CIK: 0001718405

SIC: 1040 (GOLD & SILVER ORES)

Item: Regulation FD Disclosure

Item: Other Events

Item: Financial Statements and Exhibits

Documents

8-K — form8-k.htm (Primary)

EX-23.1 (ex23-1.htm)

EX-23.2 (ex23-2.htm)

EX-23.3 (ex23-3.htm)

EX-99 — EX-96.1 (ex96-1.htm)

EX-99.1 (ex99-1.htm)

EX-99.2 (ex99-2.htm)

GRAPHIC (ex1_001.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_002.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_003.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_004.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_005.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_006.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_007.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_008.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_009.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_010.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_011.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_012.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_013.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_014.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_015.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_016.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_017.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_018.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_019.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_020.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_021.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_022.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_023.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_024.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_025.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_026.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_027.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_028.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_029.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_030.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_031.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_032.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_033.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_034.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_035.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_036.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_037.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_038.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_039.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_040.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_041.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_042.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_043.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_044.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_045.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_046.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_047.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_048.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_049.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_050.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_051.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_052.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_053.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_057.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_058.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_059.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_060.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_061.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_062.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_063.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_064.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_065.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_066.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_067.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_068.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_069.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_070.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_071.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_072.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_073.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_074.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_075.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_076.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_077.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_078.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_079.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_080.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_081.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_082.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_083.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_084.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_085.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_086.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_087.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_088.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_089.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_090.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_091.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_092.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_093.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_094.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_095.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_096.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_097.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex1_098.jpg)

GRAPHIC (logo_001.jpg)

GRAPHIC (logo_002.jpg)

GRAPHIC (slide_002.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_001.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_008.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_002.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_003.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_004.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_005.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_006.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-1_007.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_001.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_002.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_003.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_004.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_005.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_006.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_007.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_008.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_009.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_010.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_011.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_012.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_013.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_014.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_015.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_016.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_017.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_018.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_019.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_020.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_021.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_022.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_023.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_024.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_025.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_026.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_027.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_028.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_029.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_030.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_031.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_032.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_033.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_034.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_035.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_036.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_037.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_038.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_039.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_040.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_041.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_042.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_043.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_044.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_045.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_046.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_047.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_048.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_049.jpg)

GRAPHIC (ex99-2_050.jpg)

XML — IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT (R1.htm)

8-K

8-K (Primary)

Filename: form8-k.htm · Sequence: 1

false

0001718405

2026-06-02

iso4217:USD

xbrli:shares

iso4217:USD

xbrli:shares

UNITED

STATES

SECURITIES

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,

D.C. 20549

FORM

8-K

CURRENT

REPORT

Pursuant

to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date

of Report (Date of earliest event reported): June 2, 2026

HYCROFT

MINING HOLDING CORPORATION

(Exact

name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

001-38387

82-2657796

(State

or other jurisdiction

incorporation)

(Commission

File

Number)

(IRS

Employer

Identification

No.)

P.O.

Box 3030 Winnemucca, Nevada

89446

(Address

of principal executive offices)

(Zip

Code)

Registrant’s

telephone number, including area code: (775) 304-0260

(Former

name or former address, if changed since last report.)

Check

the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under

any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

☐

Written

communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

☐

Soliciting

material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

☐

Pre-commencement

communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

☐

Pre-commencement

communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Securities

registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title

of each class

Trading

Symbol(s)

Name

of each exchange on which registered

Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share

HYMC

The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Indicate

by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405

of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).

Emerging

growth company ☐

an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying

with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Item

7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.

News Release Announcing S-K 1300 Technical

Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

On June 2, 2026, Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation

(the “Company”) issued a press release announcing the results of the S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment

with Economic Analysis (“TRS”) for the Company’s Hycroft Mine in Nevada. A copy

of the press release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated by reference herein.

Corporate

Presentation

June 2, 2026, the Company furnished its updated corporate presentation to its website at www.hycroftmining.com. A copy of the updated

corporate presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.

accordance with General Instruction B.2 of Form 8-K, the information set forth in (i) this Item 7.01, (ii) the news release and (iii)

the updated corporate presentation is being furnished and shall not be deemed to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and shall not be incorporated by reference into any

registration statement or other document filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be

expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.

Item 8.01 Other Events.

On June 2, 2026, the Company announced that it

had completed the TRS, effective May 14, 2026, which has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of subpart 1300 of Regulation

S-K. The TRS was completed by Ausenco Engineering USA South Inc., Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. and WestLand Engineering &

Environmental Services, Inc., each a “Qualified Person” as such term is defined in subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K. A copy

of the TRS is attached hereto as Exhibit 96.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item

9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d)

Exhibits

Exhibit

Number

Description

23.1

Consent of Ausenco Engineering USA South Inc.

23.2

Consent of Independent Mining Consultants, Inc.

23.3

Consent of WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

96.1

S-K 1300 Technical Report

Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

99.1

Press Release dated June 2, 2026

99.2

Corporate Presentation posted June 2, 2026

104

Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded

within the Inline XBRL document).

SIGNATURES

Pursuant

to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by

the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Date:

June 2, 2026

Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation

By:

/s/

Rebecca A. Jennings

Rebecca

A. Jennings

Senior

Vice President and General Counsel

EX-23.1

Filename: ex23-1.htm · Sequence: 2

Exhibit

23.1

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

595 S. Meyer Ave.

Tucson,

AZ 85701

CONSENT

OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc. (“Ausenco”), in connection with the filing of the Report on Form 8-K of Hycroft Mining Holding

Corporation (the “Form 8-K”), consents to:

●

the

filing of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Technical Report Summary and

Initial Assessment with Economics on the Hycroft Mine, Nevada, United States of America”

(the “TRS”), with an effective date of May 14, 2026, as an exhibit to and referenced

in the Form 8-K;

●

the

incorporation by reference of the TRS in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-264293), Form

S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-257567, 333-279292, 333-290760 and 333-292470) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-249620, 333-265434,

333-292803 and 333-280193) (collectively, the “Registration Statements”);

●

the

use of and references to our name in connection with the Form 8-K, the Registration Statements and the TRS; and

●

the

information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by us, that we supervised

the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by us, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and

the Registration Statements.

Ausenco

is responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to the following Sections of the TRS: 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15,

1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 2.1-2.4.1, 2.5-2.7, 10, 14 – 16, 18.1-18.2.3, 18.2.4-18.2.7,18.2.8.2-18.3.2, 18.3.4, 18.3.5, 19, 22.1, 22.5,

22.7-22.12, 22.13.1.3, 22.13.1.5-22.13.1.7, 22.13.2.2, 22.13.2.4, 22.13.2.5, 23.1, 23.4, 23.6, 24 and 25.

May

28, 2026

/s/

David Thomas

Signature

of Authorized Person for

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

David

Thomas

name of Authorized Person for

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

EX-23.2

Filename: ex23-2.htm · Sequence: 3

Exhibit

23.2

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc.

3560 E. Gas Road

Tucson,

AZ 85714

CONSENT

OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc. (“IMC”) in connection with the filing of the Report on Form 8-K of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation

(the “Form 8-K”) consents to:

●

the

filing of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economics on the

Hycroft Mine, Nevada, United States of America” (the “TRS”), with an effective date of May 14, 2026, as an exhibit

to and referenced in the Form 8-K;

●

the

incorporation by reference of the TRS in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-264293), Form

S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-257567, 333-279292, 333-290760 and 333-292470) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-249620, 333-265434,

333-292803 and 333-280193) (collectively, the “Registration Statements”);

●

the

use of and references to our name in connection with the Form 8-K, the Registration Statements and the TRS; and

●

the

information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by us, that we supervised

the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by us, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and

the Registration Statements.

IMC

is responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to the following Sections of the TRS: 1.9, 1.10, 1.15, 1.18, 2.4.2, 11, 13, 18.2.3,

18.2.8.1, 18.3.1, 18.3.3, 22.6, 22.13.1.4, 22.13.2.3, 23.1, 23.5, and 24.

May

28, 2026

/s/ John M. Marek

Signature

of Authorized Person for

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc.

John

M. Marek

name of Authorized Person for

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc.

EX-23.3

Filename: ex23-3.htm · Sequence: 4

Exhibit 23.3

WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services,

Inc.

1650 Meadow Wood Lane

Reno, NV 89502

CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON

WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services,

Inc. (“WestLand”), in connection with the filing of the Report on Form 8-K of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation (the “Form

8-K”), consents to:

●

the filing of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economics on the Hycroft Mine, Nevada, United States of America” (the “TRS”), with an effective date of May 14, 2026, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form 8-K;

●

the incorporation by reference of the TRS in the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-264293), Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-257567, 333-279292, 333-290760 and 333-292470) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-249620, 333-265434, 333-292803 and 333-280193) (collectively, the “Registration Statements”);

●

the use of and references to our name in connection with the Form 8-K, the Registration Statements and the TRS; and

●

the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the TRS, or portions thereof, that was prepared by us, that we supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by us, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form 8-K and the Registration Statements.

WestLand is responsible for authoring, and this consent

pertains to the following Sections of the TRS: 1.14, 17, 22.1, and 24.

May 28, 2026

/s/

Richard DeLong

Signature

of Authorized Person for

Westland

Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

Richard

DeLong

name of Authorized Person for

Westland

Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

EX-99 — EX-96.1

EX-99

Filename: ex96-1.htm · Sequence: 5

Exhibit 96.1

Hycroft

Mine Project

S-K

1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

Nevada,

USA

Effective

Date: May 14, 2026

Report

Date: May 29, 2026

Prepared

for:

Hycroft

Mining Holding Corporation

Box 3030

Winnemucca,

Nevada, United States, 89446

Prepared

by:

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

595

S Meyer Ave, Tucson, Arizona, United States, 85701

Contributing

Authors:

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

Independent

Mining Consultants Inc.

WestLand

Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

Date

and Signature Page

This technical report summary (“TRS”), entitled “Hycroft

Mine Project, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economics Analysis, Nevada, USA” is current as of May

14, 2026, and has been prepared by:

Consulting

Firm

Responsible

for the following sections

Signature

Date

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

1.1,

1.2, 1.8, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 2.1-2.4.1, 2.5-2.7, 10, 14-16, 18.1-18.2.3, 18.2.4- 18.2.7, 18.2.8.2-18.3.2, 18.3.4,

18.3.5, 19, 22.1, 22.5, 22.7-22.12, 22.13.1.3, 22.13.1.5-22.13.1.7, 22.13.2.2, 22.13.2.4, 22.13.2.5, 23.1, 23.4, 23.6, 24 and 25

“signed”

May

29, 2026

Hycroft

Mining Holding Corporation

1.3-1.7,

1.15,3-9, 12, 20, 22.2-22.4, 22.13.1.1, 22.13.1.2, 22.13.2.1, 23.1-23.3 and 24

“signed”

May

29, 2026

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc.

1.9,

1.10, 1.15, 1.18, 2.4.2, 11, 13, 18.2.3, 18.2.8.1, 18.3.1,

18.3.3,

22.6, 22.13.1.4, 22.13.2.3, 23.1, 23.5 and 24

“signed”

May

29, 2026

WestLand

Engineering &

Environmental

Services, Inc.

1.14,

17, 22.1, and 24

“signed”

May

29, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

of Contents

Executive Summary

1.1

Introduction

1.2

Terms

of Reference

1.3

Mineral

Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, and Agreements

1.4

History

1.5

Geology

and Mineralization

1.6

Exploration

1.7

Sampling

1.8

Metallurgical

Testwork

1.9

Mineral

Resource Estimate

1.10

Mining

Methods

1.11

Processing

and Recovery Methods

1.12

Infrastructure

1.12.4

Tailings

Management Facility

1.12.5

Waste

Rock Storage Facility (WRSF)

1.12.6

Power,

Communications, and Fuel

1.12.7

Water

Supply and Management

1.12.8

Hazard

Considerations

1.13

Market

Studies and Contracts

1.14

Environmental,

Permitting and Social Considerations

1.14.1

Environmental

Considerations

1.14.2

Permitting

Considerations

1.14.3

Social

Considerations

1.14.4

Closure

and Reclamation Considerations

1.15

Capital

and Operating Cost

1.15.1

Capital

Cost Estimate

1.15.2

Operating

Cost Estimate

1.16

Economic

Analysis

1.16.1

Economic

Summary

1.16.2

Sensitivity

Analysis

1.17

Conclusions

1.18

Recommendations

Hycroft Mine Project

Page i

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Introduction

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Terms

of Reference

2.3

Qualified

Persons

2.4

Site

Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection

2.4.1

Site

inspection for Jonathan Cooper

2.4.2

Site

inspection for John Marek

2.5

Effective

Dates

2.6

Information

Sources and References

2.6.1

General

2.6.2

Technical Reports

2.7

Currency,

Units, Abbreviations and Definitions

Property

Description

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Property

and Title in Jurisdiction

3.3

Project

Ownership

3.4

Property

Agreements

3.5

Surface

Rights

3.6

Water

Rights

3.7

Liabilities

and Encumbrances

3.8

Environmental

Considerations

3.9

Safety

Considerations

3.10

Permitting

Considerations

3.10.1

Hycroft

Expansion Permitting and Timelines

3.10.2

Crofoot

Heap Leach Facility Closure

3.11

Social

License Considerations

3.12

Project

Risks and Uncertainties

Accessibility,

Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

4.1

Physiography

4.2

Accessibility

4.3

Climate

4.4

Local

Resources and Infrastructure

4.5

Seismicity

History

5.1

Regional

History

5.2

Property

Exploration History

5.3

Production

Hycroft Mine Project

Page ii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Geological

Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

6.1

Geological

Setting

6.1.1

Regional

Geology

6.1.2

Local

Geology

6.2

Mineralization

and Alteration

6.2.1

Brimstone

6.2.2

Vortex

6.2.3

Bay

6.2.4

Central

6.2.5

Camel

6.3

Deposit

Types

Exploration

7.1

Exploration

7.2

Geological

Mapping

7.3

Geophysics

7.4

Soil

Sampling

7.5

Rock-Chip

Sampling

7.6

Drilling

7.6.1

Introduction

7.6.2

Exploration

Drilling

7.7

Hydrogeology

7.8

Geotechnical

7.9

Exploration

Targets

Sample

Preparation, Analyses, and Security

8.1

Introduction

8.2

Sample

Preparation

8.3

Assay

Methods

8.3.1

Sample

Security

8.4

Sample

Storage

8.5

Analytical

Results

8.6

Comment

Data

Verification

9.1

Verification

Procedure

9.2

Certificate

of Assay Checks

9.3

QA/QC

2005 – 2024

9.3.1

Standards

2005-2013

9.3.2

Blanks

2008 - 2014

Hycroft Mine Project

Page iii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

9.3.3

Check

Assays 2011-2012

9.3.4

Standards

2021 – 2022

9.3.5

Blank

Analysis Results 2021-2022

9.3.6

Duplicate

Assays, 2021-2022

9.3.7

Standards

2023 – 2024

9.3.8

Blanks

2023-2024

9.3.9

Duplicate

Assays 2023-2024

9.3.10

Check

Assays 2023-2024

9.3.11

DDH

vs. RC for Post 2000 Samples

9.3.12

Old

vs. New Drilling

9.3.13

Downhole

Surveys

9.4

Comment

Mineral

Processing and Metallurgical Testing

10.1

Introduction

10.2

Metallurgical

Testwork

10.2.1

Summary

of Metallurgical Testwork Programs

10.2.2

Mineralized

Materials and Sampling

10.2.3

Hycroft

Mineralization Domains

10.3

Legacy

Testwork

10.3.1

Comminution

Tests

10.3.2

Flotation

10.3.3

Direct

Cyanidation

102

10.3.4

Concentrate

Oxidation Tests

102

10.3.5

Solid-Liquid

Separation Tests

109

10.3.6

Deleterious

Elements

109

10.3.7

Metallurgical

Parameters for Process Design Criteria and Financial Analysis

109

Mineral

Resource Estimates

111

11.1

Summary

111

11.2

Model

Location

111

11.3

Database

111

11.4

Basic

Statistics

113

11.5

Geology

113

11.6

Lithology

113

11.7

Alteration

114

11.8

Structure

115

11.9

Domains

117

11.10

Assay

Caps

120

Hycroft Mine Project

Page iv

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.11

Bench

Height Confirmation

121

11.12

Composites

122

11.13

Variography

125

11.14

Block

Grade Estimation

126

11.14.1

Gold

126

11.14.2

Silver

126

11.14.3

Cyanide

Ratio

129

11.14.4

Sulfide

Sulfur

130

11.14.5

Density

132

11.14.6

Stockpile

Grade Estimation

132

11.14.7

Treatment

of 1982 – 1987 Data

133

11.15

Classification

134

11.16

Model

Verification

135

11.16.1

Swath

Plots

137

11.16.2

Smear

Check

141

11.17

Mineral

Resource Estimate

142

Mineral Reserve

149

Mining Methods

149

13.1

Overview

149

13.2

Geotechnical

and Hydrologic Information

153

13.3

Phase

Design

153

13.4

Production

Schedule

157

13.5

Mining

Equipment

171

13.6

Mine

Manpower Requirements

172

Processing

and Recovery Methods

175

14.1

Overview

175

14.2

Process

Flowsheet

176

14.3

Plant

Design

178

14.4

Process

Description

180

14.4.1

Crushing

Area

180

14.4.2

Grinding

Circuit

181

14.4.3

Rougher

Flotation

181

14.4.4

Concentrate

Thickening

182

14.4.5

POX

and Neutralization

182

14.4.6

Gold

and Silver Recovery from Flotation Concentrate

185

14.4.7

CCD

Circuit

185

14.4.8

Merrill-Crowe

Precipitation and Refinery (Existing)

186

Hycroft Mine Project

Page v

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

14.4.9

Cyanide

Destruction

187

14.4.10

Final

Tailings and Reclaim Water Transport

187

14.5

Energy,

Water, and Process Materials Requirements

187

14.5.1

Reagent

Handling and Storage

187

14.5.2

Fresh

Water, Fire Water and Potable Water

189

14.5.3

Process

Water, and Barren Solution

189

14.5.4

Oxygen

Plant

190

14.5.5

Electrical

Power

190

14.5.6

High-Pressure

and Low-Pressure Air

190

Infrastructure

191

15.1

Introduction

191

15.2

Site

Access

192

15.2.1

Offsite

Access and Security

192

15.2.2

Onsite

Access

193

15.2.3

Rail

Spur

193

15.3

New

Infrastructure

195

15.3.1

New

and Existing Facilities Layout

195

15.3.2

Upgrades

to Existing Facilities

203

15.3.3

Accommodation

203

15.4

Stockpiles

204

15.4.1

Mineralized

Stockpiles

204

15.4.2

Growth

Media Stockpile

204

15.4.3

Limestone

Stockpile

204

15.5

Tailings

Management Facilities

204

15.5.1

Facility

Design Basis

205

15.5.2

TMF

Design

208

15.6

Waste

Rock Storage Facility

212

15.7

Power

and Electrical

213

15.8

Communication

215

15.9

Fuel

215

15.10

Water

Supply and Management

215

15.10.1

Fresh

Water, Fire Water and Potable Water

216

15.10.2

Tailings

Water Management

217

15.10.3

WRSF

Water Management

218

15.10.4

Plant

Site Stormwater Runoff and Drainage

219

15.10.5

Site

Water Balance

219

15.10.6

Pit

Dewatering

222

Hycroft Mine Project

Page vi

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.11

Hazard

Considerations

222

15.12

Comments

on Project Infrastructure

222

Market

Studies and Contracts

224

16.1

Market

Studies

224

16.2

Commodity

Price Projections

224

16.3

Contracts

224

Environmental

Studies, Permitting, and Plan, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups

225

17.1

Overview

225

17.2

Environmental

Considerations

225

17.2.1

Baseline

and Supporting Studies

225

17.2.2

Environmental

Monitoring

228

17.2.3

Water

Management

229

17.3

Permitting

Considerations

229

17.3.1

Federal

Permits

230

17.3.2

State

of Nevada Permits

233

17.3.3

Additional

Permits and Authorizations

234

17.4

Social

Considerations

235

17.4.1

National

236

17.5

Closure

and Reclamation Planning

237

17.5.1

Closure

and Reclamation Plans

237

17.5.2

Closure

Cost Estimates

237

17.6

Comments

on Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact

237

Capital

and Operating Costs

238

18.1

Introduction

238

18.2

Capital

Costs

238

18.2.1

Overview

238

18.2.2

Basis

of Estimate

239

18.2.3

Mine

Capital Costs

239

18.2.4

Process

Capital Costs

241

18.2.5

Infrastructure

Capital Costs

242

18.2.6

Indirect

Capital Costs

242

18.2.7

Owner

(Corporate) Capital Costs

243

18.2.8

Sustaining

Capital

243

18.2.9

Contingency

Costs

245

18.2.10

Closure

and Reclamation Planning

245

18.3

Operating

Costs

245

18.3.1

Overview

245

Hycroft Mine Project

Page vii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.3.2

Basis

of Estimate

246

18.3.3

Mine

Operating Costs

247

18.3.4

Process

Operating Costs

248

18.3.5

General

and Administrative Operating Costs

252

Economic Analysis

253

19.1

Overview

253

19.2

Methodologies

Used

254

19.3

Financial

Model Parameters

254

19.3.1

Assumptions

254

19.3.2

Taxes

254

19.3.3

Royalties

255

19.4

Economic

Analysis

255

19.5

Sensitivity

Analysis

260

Adjacent Properties

264

Other

Relevant Data and Information

264

Interpretation

and Conclusions

265

22.1

Introduction

265

22.2

Mineral

Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements

265

22.3

Geology

and Mineralization

265

22.4

Exploration

265

22.5

Metallurgical

Testwork

266

22.6

Mineral

Resource Estimate

266

22.7

Recovery

Plan

267

22.8

Infrastructure

268

22.8.1

Tailings

Management Facility

269

22.9

Markets

and Contracts

269

22.10

Capital

Cost Estimate

269

22.11

Operating

Cost Estimate

269

22.12

Economic

Analysis

270

22.13

Risks

and Opportunities

270

22.13.1

Risks

270

22.13.2

Opportunities

272

Recommendations

273

23.1

Estimated

Program Costs

273

23.2

Exploration

273

23.3

Sample

Preparation, Analysis and Security

274

Hycroft Mine Project

Page viii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

23.4

Metallurgical

Testing

274

23.5

Mineral

Resource Estimate

275

23.6

Infrastructure

275

23.6.1

TMF

275

References

277

Reliance

on Information Provided by the Registrant

281

Appendix A – Patented Claims

282

Appendix

B – Unpatented Claims

283

List

of Tables

Table

1-1:

Hycroft

MRE as of January 21, 2026, US customary Units

Table

1-2:

Hycroft

MRE as of 21 January 2026, Metric Units

Table

1-3:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained Within the MRE at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Table

1-4:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained Within the MRE at 68.57 g/tonne (2 oz/tonne) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

Table

1-5:

Principal

Environmental Permits

Table

1-6:

Other

Notifications or Ministerial Permits

Table

1-7:

Capital

Cost Summary

Table

1-8:

Operating

Cost Summary

Table

1-9:

Economic

Analysis Summary

Table

2-1:

Abbreviations

and Acronyms

Table

2-2:

Units

of Measurement

Table

3-1:

Hycroft

Annual Land Holding Costs

Table

3-2:

Hycroft

Operating Permits

Table

3-3:

Hycroft

Miscellaneous Permits

Table

3-4:

Hycroft

Miscellaneous Permits

Table

3-5:

Right-of-Way

Payment and Renewal Schedule

Table

4-1:

Hycroft

Water Wells and Permitted Yearly Consumption

Table

7-1:

Drilling

from 2023 and 2024 Supporting the Updated MRE

Table

7-2:

Significant

Intercepts (2023)

Table

7-3:

Significant

Intercepts (2024)

Table

9-1:

Nearest

Neighbor Sample Comparison of RC vs Diamond Core Gold and Silver Assays

Table

9-2:

Nearest

Neighbor Sample Comparison of 1982-1987 Gold Assays Versus 2005 – 2024 Gold Assays

Hycroft Mine Project

Page ix

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

10-1:

Metallurgical

Testwork Summary

Table

10-2:

Average

Sulfur Contents of Oxide, Transition and Sulfide Mineralized Materials

Table

10-3:

Summary

of Test Samples

Table

10-4:

Grindability

Test Summary

Table

10-5:

G&T

Composites 1 through 24 Flotation Test Results

Table

10-6:

G&T

Composites M-1 through M-17 Flotation Test Results

Table

10-7:

Flotation

Reagent Schemes Studied

Table

10-8:

Estimated

Metallurgical Recoveries from 2016 Feasibility Study – Gold and Silver

103

Table

10-9:

Hycroft

Alkaline POX Testwork Summary

106

Table

10-10:

Hycroft

Acid POX Testwork Summary

106

Table

10-11:

Summary

Comparison Table – POX 3 to POX-7

108

Table

10-12:

Settling

Test Results

109

Table

10-13:

Deleterious

Element Assay

109

Table

10-14:

Process

Plant Overall Recovery Prediction

109

Table

11-1:

Block

Size and Model Size

110

Table

11-2:

Data

Available for the Assembly of the Resource Model for Au, Ag, AuCn, Sulfide Sulfur

111

Table

11-3:

Assay

Database (No Stockpile Assays, Inside the Model, and No Drilling from 1982 through 1987)

112

Table

11-4:

Population

Domains for Grade Estimation

117

Table

11-5:

High-grade

Silver Vein Domains

118

Table

11-6:

Sulfide

Domains

118

Table

11-7:

Assay

Cap Values

120

Table

11-8:

Sulfide

Cap Values Prior to Compositing

121

Table

11-9:

Basic

Statistics of Composites, In-Situ Rock, Eliminating Years 1982 to 1987

123

Table

11-10:

Basic

Statistics of 25 ft Sulfide Composites by Sulfide Domain

125

Table

11-11:

Grade

Estimation Parameters for Au, Ag

127

Table

11-12:

Estimation

Parameters for Cyanide Ratio, All Three Domains utilized 1/D3

130

Table

11-13:

Sulfide

Sulfur Estimation Parameters, All Three Domains Utilized 1/D3

131

Table

11-14:

Sulfide

Sulfur Default Values if Not Estimated

131

Table

11-15:

Density

Assigned to the Block Model

132

Table

11-16:

Stockpiles

Assigned Grades by Inverse Distance Estimation

133

Table

11-17:

IMC

Smear Check

141

Table

11-18:

Economic

and Technical Parameters for Hycroft MRE

144

Table

11-19:

Hycroft

MRE as of January 21, 2026, US customary Units

145

Table

11-20:

Hycroft

MRE as of 21 January 2026, Metric Units

146

Table

11-21:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

147

Table

11-22:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 3 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

147

Hycroft Mine Project

Page x

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-23:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 4 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

148

Table

11-24:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 68.57 g/ton (2 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

148

Table

11-25:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 102.86 g/ton (3 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

148

Table

11-26:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 137.14 g/t (4 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

148

Table

13-1:

Hycroft

Initial Assessment Mine Production Schedule, Measured and Indicated Mineralization

151

Table

13-2:

Summary

of Lerch-Grossman Computer Pit Generation

154

Table

13-3:

Contained

Tonnage by Internal Cutoff Grade

155

Table

13-4:

Major

Mine Equipment

172

Table

13-5:

Mine

Hourly Personnel

173

Table

13-6:

Mine

Salaried Staff

174

Table

14-1:

Process

Design Criteria

178

Table

14-2:

Major

Process Equipment

179

Table

14-3:

Summary

of Reagent Used in the Process Plant

188

Table

14-4:

Annual

Consumption for Major Reagents

189

Table

15-1:

Existing

Hycroft Buildings

196

Table

15-2:

New

Ancillary Facilities Planned over the LOM

203

Table

15-3:

Proposed

Upgrades for Existing Facilities

203

Table

15-4:

Minimum

Pre-feasibility Seismic Design Criteria for Stability for Very High Dam Classification

206

Table

15-5:

Minimum

Pre-feasibility Hydrologic Design Criteria for Very High Dam Classification

206

Table

15-6:

Selected

Ground Motions and Associated Seismic Coefficients

211

Table

15-7:

Weather

Station Summary

216

Table

15-8:

Summary

of Storm Event with Associated Rainfall Intensity

216

Table

15-9:

Monthly

Maximum Flows Demand

221

Table

17-1:

Current

Major Environmental Permits and Permits Necessary to Operate the Mine

230

Table

17-2:

Ministerial

Permits, Plans and Notifications

234

Table

18-1:

Capital

Cost Summary

238

Table

18-2:

Baseline

Mine Capital Cost (without Accuracy or Contingency adjustment)

240

Table

18-3:

Process

Plant Capital Cost Breakdown

241

Table

18-4:

On-Site

Infrastructure Capital Cost Breakdown

242

Table

18-5:

Off-Site

Infrastructure Capital Cost Breakdown

242

Table

18-6:

Indirect

Capital Cost Breakdown

243

Table

18-7:

Mining

Sustaining Capital Costs

244

Table

18-8:

Operating

Cost Summary

246

Table

18-9:

Mine

Operating Cost per Ton of Total Material Moved, US$/ton (Mine Costs)

248

Table

18-10:

Process

Plant Operating Cost Summary

248

Table

18-11:

Process

Plant Labor Cost Summary

249

Hycroft Mine Project

Page xi

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

18-12:

Reagent

Consumption Summary

250

Table

18-13:

Process

Plant Consumable Consumption Summary

251

Table

19-1:

Economic

Analysis Summary Table

256

Table

19-2:

Life

of Mine Economics

257

Table

19-3:

Pre-Tax

NPV (US$M) and IRR (%) Sensitivity Analysis

260

Table

19-4:

Post-Tax

NPV (US$M) and IRR (%) Sensitivity Analysis

261

Table

22-1:

Hycroft

Mineral Resources as of 21 January 2026, US customary Units

267

Table

22-2:

High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the Mineral Resource at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

267

Table

23-1:

Estimated

Program Costs

273

Table

25-1:

Information

Provided by Hycroft

281

List

of Figures

Figure

1-1:

Post-Tax

Sensitivity Analysis Results

Figure

3-1:

Hycroft

Mine Location Map

Figure

3-2:

Claim

Map

Figure

3-3:

Current

Property and Facilities Layout (2025)

Figure

4-1:

Onsite

Lab, Admin, Maintenance, Truck Shop, and Warehouse

Figure

4-2:

Crusher

and Conveyor Belt Circuit

Figure

4-3:

North

Merrill-Crowe Facility

Figure

4-4:

Stage

1 Heap Leach Pad and Ponds Along Jungo Road

Figure

6-1:

Stratigraphic

Column for Hycroft Deposit Area

Figure

6-2:

Simplified

East–West Cross Section Through the Hycroft Mine – Section 40600 N

Figure

6-3:

Vortex

Alteration Cross-Section – 40600 N

Figure

6-4:

Bay

Geologic Cross-Section at 50300-N

Figure

6-5:

Generalized

Epithermal Diagram

Figure

7-1:

Drill

Collar Location Plan

Figure

9-1:

Results

of Submitted Gold Standards 2005 - 2013

Figure

9-2:

Results

of Submitted Silver Standards 2005-2013

Figure

9-3:

Results

of Blank Submissions

Figure

9-4:

Check

Assay Results, Fire Assay Gold 2011 - 2012

Figure

9-5:

Check

Assay Results, Fire Assay Silver 2011 – 2011

Figure

9-6:

Standards

Results, 2021 – 2022

Figure

9-7:

Blank

Results, 2021 – 2022

Figure

9-8:

Duplicate

Assay Results, 2021 – 2022

Hycroft Mine Project

Page xii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-9:

Gold

Standards 2023 – 2024

Figure

9-10:

Blank

Insertions 2004

Figure

9-11:

Gold

Duplicates, 2023-2024

Figure

9-12:

Silver

Duplicates, 2023-2024

Figure

9-13:

Gold

Check Assays 2023 – 2024

Figure

9-14:

Silver

Check Assays, 2023-2024

Figure

10-1:

Recovery

Vs. Time Plot, G&T Kamloops Tests, M Composites

Figure

10-2:

Gold

Grade Distribution Chart

Figure

10-3:

Silver

Grade Distribution Chart

Figure

10-4:

Total

Sulfur Grade Distribution

Figure

10-5:

Sulfide

Sulfur Grade Distribution

Figure

10-6:

FLS

Variability Flotation Recoveries under Optimal Conditions (137 Test Samples)

100

Figure

10-7:

FLS

Variability Flotation Gold Recoveries Based on Gold Head Grade Groups

101

Figure

10-8:

FLS

Variability Flotation Silver Recoveries Based on Head Grade Groups

101

Figure

10-9:

Oxidation

of Central Flotation Concentrate: Sulfate Spike Test

104

Figure

10-10:

Demonstration

Plant Cyanide Leach Recovery of Au and Ag

104

Figure

11-1:

East–West

Cross-Section 44000-N Looking North, Showing Lithology Types

114

Figure

11-2:

East–West

Cross-Section 44000-N Looking North, Showing Alterations

115

Figure

11-3:

Structure

and Domain Interpretation (Plan View)

116

Figure

11-4:

Structure

and Domain Interpretation with Silver Wireframes (plan view)

119

Figure

11-5:

Bench

Height Analysis

122

Figure

11-6:

Gold

Variograms for Silicic Material Between the Central Fault and East Fault

125

Figure

11-7:

Gold

Variograms for Silicic Material Between the Range Fault and Central Fault

125

Figure

11-8:

E-W

Cross-section at 41000-N, Showing Confidence Codes

135

Figure

11-9:

E-W

Cross-section at 41000-N, Visual Check of Gold Grades in Drillholes and Block Model

136

Figure

11-10:

E-W

Cross-section at 41000-N, Visual Check of Silver Grades in Drillholes and Block Model

137

Figure

11-11:

Swath

Plots for Gold, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Wide Slices

138

Figure

11-12:

Swath

Plots for Silver, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Slices

139

Figure

11-13:

Swath

Plots for Sulfide Sulfur, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Slices

140

Figure

13-1:

Hycroft

Initial Assessment Mine Plan Schedule

150

Figure

13-2:

Summary

of Lerch-Grossman Computer Pit Generation

155

Figure

13-3:

Phase

Schematic and Extraction Sequence

156

Figure

13-4:

Approximate

Recovered Gold by Year

158

Figure

13-5:

Approximate

Recovered Silver by Year

158

Figure

13-6:

Approximate

Recovered Equivalent Gold Ounces by Year Based on $3,100/oz Au and $36/oz Ag

159

Figure

13-7:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – Pre-production

160

Figure

13-8:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 1

161

Figure

13-9:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 2

162

Figure

13-10:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 3

163

Hycroft Mine Project

Page xiii

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-11:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 4

164

Figure

13-12:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 5

165

Figure

13-13:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 10

166

Figure

13-14:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 20

167

Figure

13-15:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 30

168

Figure

13-16:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 40

169

Figure

13-17:

Mine

and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 51

170

Figure

14-1:

Sulfide

Sulfur Process Plant Flowsheet

176

Figure

15-1:

Site

Layout

191

Figure

15-2:

Site

Access and Major Towns Near Hycroft Mine

192

Figure

15-3:

Rail

Spur Design

194

Figure

15-4:

Overall

Site Layout

197

Figure

15-5:

Existing

Crushing Facility and Surrounding Infrastructure

198

Figure

15-6:

The

Proposed Process Plant Generic Site Plan

199

Figure

15-7:

Proposed

Limestone Plant and Rail Spur

200

Figure

15-8:

North

Merrill-Crowe Plant

201

Figure

15-9:

Existing

Mine Ancillary Buildings

202

Figure

15-10:

TMF

Facility Layout

207

Figure

15-11:

TMF

Main Dam Section

208

Figure

15-12:

TMF

North Dam Section

209

Figure

15-13:

TMF

Closure Plan

212

Figure

15-14

Waste

Rock Storage Facilities

213

Figure

15-15:

Proposed

Power Line from Imlay Relay Station (Nevada Historical Marker 49) to Jungo Road (49 Road) - NTS

214

Figure

15-16:

Proposed

Power Line along Jungo Road (Road 49) to Hycroft Mine Site (in total approximately 57 miles) - NTS

215

Figure

15-17:

Hycroft

Water Balance Schematic

220

Figure

15-18:

Total

Fresh Water Demand

221

Figure

19-1:

Project

Post-Tax Unlevered Cashflow

255

Figure

19-2:

Pre-Tax

Sensitivity Analysis Results

262

Figure

19-3:

Post-Tax

Sensitivity Analysis Results

263

Figure

20-1:

Location

of Rosebud Property

264

Hycroft Mine Project

Page xiv

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1 Executive

Summary

1.1 Introduction

This technical report summary (TRS) has been prepared by Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc. (Ausenco), Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC), and WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services,

Inc. (WestLand) for Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation (Hycroft), following the reporting requirements of the United States (US) Securities

and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Modernization of Property Disclosures of Mining Registrants under subpart 1300 and item 601 (96)(B)(iii)

of Regulation S-K for an initial assessment (IA).

This TRS is an initial assessment with an economic analysis (IA-EA)

and, filed on Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR). The IA-EA is based on heap leaching the oxide material, while

sulfide material is milled and processed using the pressure oxidation (POX) process. Transition material will be controlled by Hycroft

grade control and may be processed with the sulfide material or heap leached with the oxide material. This TRS includes drill results

received through March 17, 2025, which formed the basis of the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) model.

The

Hycroft mine (the Mine) is situated on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains on the eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert

approximately 54 miles west of Winnemucca in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada. The Mine property straddles Townships 34, 35, 35½

and 36 north and Ranges 28, 29 and 30 east (MDB&M) with its central coordinates at approximately latitude 40°52’ north

and longitude 118°41’ west.

The

Mine is accessible via Nevada State Route 49 (Jungo Road), an unpaved road maintained by Humboldt County and Pershing County and Hycroft.

The Union Pacific railway, a major east–west railway, runs immediately adjacent to the property.

Hycroft, a past producer, has existing facilities on site including

two administration buildings, a mobile maintenance shop, a light vehicle maintenance shop, a warehouse, multiple leach pads, primary,

secondary and tertiary crushing systems, an assay lab, one Merrill-Crowe process plant, and a refinery.

1.2 Terms

of Reference

The firms and consultants who are providing Qualified Persons (QPs)

responsible for the content of the TRS are, in alphabetical order, Ausenco, Hycroft, IMC and WestLand.

The TRS presents the IA-EA for the mine based on the POX and Heap

Leach processes.

All

units of measurement in the TRS are US customary, unless otherwise stated.

The

monetary units are in US dollars, unless otherwise stated.

Mineral resources are reported in accordance with the US Securities

and Exchange Commission Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 229.1300 – Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining operations (S-K

1300).

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 1

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.3 Mineral

Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, and Agreements

The

Mine property consists of 25 private parcels with patented claims totaling approximately 1,855 acres, along with 3,249 unpatented mining

claims covering approximately 62,298 acres, for a combined total of approximately 64,000 acres. On May 15, 2023, Hycroft expanded its

holdings by acquiring a 50% undivided interest in three additional patented mining claims, adding approximately 61 acres at one location

in Northern Nevada. Some mining claims overlap other Hycroft Mining claims to ensure there are no fractional gaps in mining claim coverage.

These

claims are contiguous or proximate to the original Crofoot and Lewis claims.

Payment of annual claim maintenance and holding fees to the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) and Humboldt and Pershing Counties and payment of annual real property taxes for patented claims in Humboldt

and Pershing Counties are made every third quarter (Q3). Payments are current through the 2025–2026 claim years, with US$724,095

paid for 2025–2026. Payment of annual claim maintenance and holding fees and real property taxes are required to hold the Hycroft

property in good standing. BLM annual maintenance fees for claims are due not later than September 1 of each year. Humboldt and Pershing

County State annual holding fees beginning September 1 of each year are due no later than November 1 of each year. Annual real property

taxes for patented claims in Humboldt and Pershing Counties are due August 31 of the following year.

Hycroft

controls all surface and mineral rights within the Hycroft MRE area. No further land acquisition is required for the operation

of the mine and contemplated processing facilities.

1.4 History

The

Mine location is in the Nevada Sulfur District, where mining for native sulfur began in the late 1800’s. In the early part of the

20th century high-grade Ag was mined as were veins of nearly pure alunite (hydroxylated aluminum potassium sulfate mineral)

in the southern part of the district. From 1941 to 1943, cinnabar (a mercury sulfide mineral) was also mined. Exploration for native

sulfur commenced again in 1966 with the Duval Corporation (Duval) reporting elevated Au and Ag values but finding no significant evidence

of a sulfur deposit at depth (Wallace, 1980).

1977, the Cordex Syndicate mapped and rock-chip sampled the Hycroft property, recognizing the potential for a bulk tonnage, low-grade

precious metal deposit. Homestake then took interest in the property and completed surface sampling and exploration drilling during 1981-1982.

Mining officially began as a small heap leach operation in 1983 at what was then known as the Lewis Mine. In 1985, Vista gained control

of the original Hycroft property. They also acquired the Lewis Mine in early 1987 from F. W. Lewis, Inc., and the Crofoot Mine in April

1988. From 1985 to 1999, they drilled 3,212 exploration holes, totaling 965,552 feet (ft) with the bulk of this drilling

focused on oxide gold mineralization at Central, Bay and Brimstone. Production from the Brimstone pit commenced in 1985 and continued

until December 1998.

From

1983 to 1998, the Mine produced approximately 1.2 million ounces (Moz) of Au and 2.5 Moz of Ag. An additional 58,700 ounce (oz) of Au

was produced from the leaching operations from 1999 through 2004. The remaining leasehold interest in the Lewis property was purchased

by Vista in December 2005. Production followed at the former Crofoot property in the Bay, South Central, Boneyard, Gap, and Historic

Cut-4 pits along the Central Zone. The Mine was placed on a care and maintenance program through 2007. In May 2007, the Nevada-based

holdings of Vista were spun out into Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (Allied Nevada). The Mine was included as part of the transfer of ownership

allowing Allied Nevada to explore, expand, and develop the resources. The Mine was reactivated in September 2007 and achieved planned

ore production by the end of 2009. With the construction of the North leach pad in 2013, the total leach pad space was increased to more

than 20 million square ft (ft2). In 2010, the Mine began an expansion program that included construction of a 21,000 gallon

per minute (gal/min.) Merrill-Crowe processing plant and a three-stage crushing facility as well as solution pumping capacity upgrades.

Active mining was stopped again at the Mine in June 2015 due to low metal prices, but active leaching of previously mined ore continued

through 2018. During this time, Allied Nevada emerged from its financial restructuring to become Hycroft Mining Corporation.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 2

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

late 2018, Hycroft began construction of new leach pads. In April 2019, active mining began with a focus on transition and sulfide minerals

but were set aside for future processing. Active mining ceased in 2021, but gold and silver production continued through 2022.

From

September 2007 through July 2019 metal sales totaled approximately 900,000 oz of Au and 5.0 Moz of Ag. Active mining ceased and production

at the Mine was terminated on November 11, 2021. Annual sales in ounces of Au and Ag produced from the Mine’s heap leach operations

over years 2019 through 2022 total approximately 107,258 ounces of Au and 615,000 ounces of Ag.

1.5 Geology

and Mineralization

The

Hycroft deposit is a low-sulfidation, epithermal, hot springs system that contains gold and silver mineralization. Radiometric

dating indicates that the main phase of gold and silver mineralization was formed four million years ago, when hydrothermal fluids

were fed upward along high angle, normal faults.

Low-grade

gold and silver mineralization were co-deposited with silica and potassium feldspar throughout porous rock types.

subsequent drop in permeability, due to sealing of the system, led to over pressuring and subsequent repeated hydrothermal brecciation.

Additional precious metal mineralization was deposited during this event as breccia zones, veins, and sulfide flooding.

Gold

and silver mineralization was followed by an intense event of high sulfidation acid leaching of the mineralized volcanic rocks coincident

with a regional water table drop. This allowed steam heated sulfur gases to condense into sulfuric acid and leach the upper portion of

the mineralized rocks.

Oxidation

of sulfide mineralization occurs to variable depths over the deposit, depending upon proximity to faults, extent of acid leaching, and

depth to water table. Sulfide content through the deposit is variable from 0% to 20%.

A total of six

major north-northeast trending, west dipping, normal fault zones appear to broadly control the distribution of alteration. From west

to east, these fault zones are referred to as the Range, West Splay, Central, Break, Albert, and East Faults. These major structures

down-drop stratigraphy and affect the distribution of alteration and mineralization.

post-mineral basin bounding fault appears to border the Camel Conglomerate and the adjacent Pleistocene Lahontan Lake sediments in the

Black Rock Desert. Based on geophysics, this structure is approximately one to two miles west of the Mine site. There are several east–west

trending structures that appear to provide post-mineral offset to the deposit. These form a series of horst and grabens within the deposit

footprint.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 3

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.6 Exploration

The

Hycroft property drill history covers the period from 1982 through 2024. Within the block model there are 5,813 drillholes, with

516,901 drill intervals amounting to 2,668,616 ft of drilling.

During 2021 through 2024, Hycroft drilled 260 holes, 105 in 2021,

85 in 2022, 49 in 2023 and 21 in 2024. Most of the 2021 drilling was diamond core that was used for metallurgical testing and assay. The

2022 and 2023 drilling focused on extending mineralization and upgrading areas from inferred to measured and indicated classification.

Since 2024, drilling has focused on high-grade mineralization in Brimstone and Vortex.

1.7 Sampling

Hycroft

provided IMC with the database which contained drilling information from 1982 through 2024. Assay data was received through March 2025.

The

current sample preparation analysis and security follow best practices and are acceptable for application to mineral resource reporting.

The

historic data collection is unknown. Components of the historic data have been found to be reliable. Some components are not reliable

and have been removed or modified prior to incorporation into the MRE.

After the noted adjustments, John Marek, the QP, finds the data applicable

to the determination of the MRE.

1.8 Metallurgical

Testwork

Metallurgical testwork supporting the Hycroft process flowsheet has been conducted by several laboratories, including

G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. (G&T), SGS Mineral Services (SGS), Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen), FLSmidth Minerals Testing &

Research Center (FLSmidth MTRC), and Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA). The process design and metallurgical assumptions used in

this study are primarily based on the most recent testwork completed by FLSmidth - MTRC and Hazen Research, with historical testwork from

the other laboratories reviewed to support the interpretation of metallurgical performance and flowsheet development.

Comminution testwork indicates that Hycroft mineralization is very

high and requires relatively high grinding energy in ball mill grinding.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 4

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

In 2021, Hycroft initiated a new metallurgical variability study

to evaluate mineralized material characteristics within the current mine plan, validate the metallurgical performance across the deposit;

and identify potential variations in processing conditions required to recover gold and silver. The objective of the study was to support

development of a Hycroft process flowsheet, including definition of key process control points in crushing, grinding, capable of consistently

achieving gold and silver recoveries across anticipated metallurgical variability.

Key

outcomes of this study included the development of the flotation process with significantly improved recoveries. The following key process

controls parameters were identified during the flotation process development program:

● Optimal

grind size is a P80 of less than 85 micrometers (µm).

● Flotation

time is 24 minutes.

● Adjusted

pH level is 4.7.

● Flotation

mass pull is 20 to 25% with 22% being the target.

A total of 137 samples were tested under these selected conditions

to achieve higher gold and silver recoveries to flotation concentrate. The results show that gold recovery exhibits a broader distribution,

with values ranging from approximately 72 to 98% and a statistical median near 88%, indicating greater sensitivity across the tested samples.

In contrast, silver recovery is generally higher, with recoveries spanning approximately 76 to 100% and a statistical median exceeding

92%. This is a significant improvement from the gold flotation recovery and silver flotation recovery values reported in a TRS prepared

for Hycroft and filed in 2023 (the 2023 TRS).

2025, Hycroft completed a series of POX tests demonstrating that POX at 225°C with oxygen overpressure, followed by hot cure, lime

boil, and cyanide leaching, is a technically viable and repeatable processing route for the pyrite concentrate. Gold and silver recoveries

of approximately 93% and 86%, respectively, were consistent with past performance. Overall, considering the full flowsheet involving

flotation, POX, and leaching, gold recovery has improved to approximately 83% and silver recovery has improved to approximately 78%.

Overall recovery for both gold and silver are exceeding the values assumed in the 2023 TRS.

Hycroft

existing heap leaching was discontinued in 2022. Heap leach operations are expected to restart once new oxide and transition material

becomes available.

1.9 Mineral

Resource Estimate

The MRE on the Hycroft property is currently envisioned to be mined

by way of a conventional hard rock open pit mine feeding two process facilities:

1. Run-of-mine

(ROM) oxide material will be directed to cyanide heap leaching, producing a

gold and silver doré.

2. Sulfide

material will be directed to a crushing, flotation milling followed by POX of the concentrate

to make a gold and silver doré.

Transitional material will be directed to either (ROM) cyanide heap

leaching or flotation milling followed by POX depending on the sulfide sulfur levels of the individual blocks, total sulfur content, and

gold grade.

The terms of reference for this MRE are mineralization in-place.

The procedures described in the following paragraphs establish that the stated MRE has reasonable prospects for economic extraction of

mineral resources.

Mineral resources were developed using a computer-based block model

for mineralization and pit optimization software to determine mineralization with reasonable prospectus for economic extraction.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 5

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The cutoff grade that is reported for this statement of mineral resources

is based on mining and processing costs estimated by IMC and Ausenco combined with reasonable metal prices. The internal or marginal cutoff

is applied and reported where the benefits of selling the recovered metal will pay for the processing and fixed general and administrative

(G&A) costs. The cutoff is presented in terms of net of refining (NSR).

Metal prices for the MRE were US$3,100/oz Au and US$36.00/oz Ag.

Spot prices for gold and silver in 2025 ranged from US$2,798 to US$4,323/oz Au and US$31.34 to US$71.63/oz Ag. The spot prices for gold

and silver on January 21, 2026, were US$4,726/oz Au and US$93.50/oz Ag. The prices selected for determination of the MRE are 35% below

the spot gold price and 62% below the spot silver price on January 21, 2026.

The risks to the MRE are project costs and project recoveries as

well as metal prices that can have a substantial impact on the mineral resource both positively and negatively. The Hycroft MRE is sensitive

to estimated parameters of operating costs, recoveries, and metal prices. That sensitivity may result in future variation in the mineral

resource as costs and recoveries are refined.

Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

Table

1-1: Hycroft MRE as of January 21, 2026, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade

Net

Refining

Approximate

Cutoff,

AuEq oz/ton

Ktons

Gold

oz/ton

Silver

oz/ton

Sulfide

Sulfur

Contained

Ounces

Gold

x 1000

Silver

x 1000

Heap

Leach Resource

Measured

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

92,994

0.005

0.11

1.83

446

10,322

Indicated

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,374

0.004

0.09

1.54

475

9,492

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

203,368

0.005

0.10

1.67

921

19,814

Inferred

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,018

0.005

0.09

1.41

528

10,122

Flotation

Mill + Concentrate Treatment by Pressure Oxidation and Cyanide Leach

Measured

$16.73

0.007

734,571

0.011

0.43

2.03

8,154

316,600

Indicated

$16.73

0.007

748,876

0.010

0.30

1.84

7,339

226,161

Meas

+ Ind

$16.73

0.007

1,483,447

0.010

0.37

1.93

15,493

542,761

Inferred

$16.73

0.007

459,646

0.010

0.27

1.76

4,505

122,725

Combined

Mineral Resources Leach Plus Mill

Measured

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

827,565

0.010

0.40

2.01

8,600

326,922

Indicated

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

859,250

0.009

0.27

1.80

7,814

235,653

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

1,686,815

0.010

0.33

1.90

16,414

562,575

Inferred

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

569,664

0.009

0.23

1.69

5,033

132,847

Notes:

1. Mineral

resources based on metal prices of $3,100/troy oz Au and $36.00/troy oz Ag.

2. Cutoffs

are Income – Refining Cost = NSR.

3. Gold

Equivalent (AuEq) for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay, or at average

gold leach recovery AuEq = Fire Gold + 0.0035 Total Silver Assay.

4. Gold

Equivalent for Mill + Pressure Oxidation = Fire Gold + 0.0107 x Total Silver Assay.

5. Numbers

may not match exactly due to rounding.

6. Mineral

resources are contained within a computer-generated optimized pit.

7. Total

material in that pit is 5.42 billion tons.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 6

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

8. Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

9. Modifying

factors for mine and process design have not been applied.

10. All

units are US customary. Ktons means 1,000 short tons. Au and Ag grades are in troy

ounces per short ton (oz/ton).

Table

1-2: Hycroft MRE as of 21 January 2026, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade

Net

Refining

Approximate

Cutoff,

AuEq g/tonne

Ktonnes

Gold

Silver

Sulfide Sulfur

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Silver

g/tonne

x 1000

Heap

Leach Resource

Measured

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

84,364

0.164

3.80

1.83

446

10,322

Indicated

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

100,131

0.147

2.95

1.54

475

9,492

Meas

+ Ind

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

184,495

0.155

3.34

1.67

921

19,814

Inferred

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

99,808

0.164

3.15

1.41

528

10,122

Flotation

Mill + Concentrate Treatment by Pressure Oxidation and Cyanide Leach

Measured

$18.44

0.206

666,403

0.380

14.76

2.03

8,154

316,600

Indicated

$18.44

0.206

679,380

0.336

10.34

1.84

7,339

226,161

Meas

+ Ind

$18.44

0.206

1,345,783

0.358

12.53

1.93

15,493

542,761

Inferred

$18.44

0.206

416,991

0.336

9.14

1.76

4,505

122,725

Combined

Mineral Resources, Leach Plus Mill

Measured

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

750,767

0.356

13.53

2.01

8,600

326,922

Indicated

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

779,512

0.311

9.39

1.80

7,814

235,653

Meas

+ Ind

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

1,530,279

0.333

11.42

1.90

16,414

562,575

Inferred

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

516,799

0.303

7.99

1.69

5,033

132,847

Notes:

1. Mineral

resources based on metal prices of $3,100/ oz Au and $36.00/ oz Ag.

2. Cutoffs

are Income – Refining Cost = NSR.

3. Gold

Equivalent for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay.

4. Gold

Equivalent for Mill + Pressure Oxidation = Fire Gold + 0.0107 x Total Silver Assay.

5. Numbers

may not match exactly due to rounding.

6. Mineral

resources are contained within a computer-generated optimized pit.

7. Total

material in that pit is 4.92 billion tonnes.

8. All

units on this table are metric: Ktonnes means 1,000 tonnes. Au and Ag grades are in grams

per tonne (g/tonne).

9. Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

10. Modifying

factors for mine and process design have not been applied.

Contained

within the MRE at Hycroft are a series of high-grade silver veins at Brimstone and zones of higher silver concentrations in Vortex that

are associated with a low angle breccia body. Table 1-3 and Table 1-4 are the tabulation of gold and silver within the domain volumes

that are contained within the MRE at 2 oz/tonne cutoff grade in US customary and 68.57 g/tonne cutoff grade in metric.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 7

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

1-3: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained Within the MRE at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver (oz/ton)

Ktons

Gold

(oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Gold

Contained

oz x 1000

Silver

Contained

oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

2.00

3,195

0.011

8.35

1.33

26,686

Indicated

2.00

330

0.010

3.11

1.87

1,025

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

3,525

0.011

7.86

1.38

27,711

Inferred

2.00

0.008

3.52

1.13

Vortex

Measured

2.00

9,126

0.018

3.81

1.49

160

34,781

Indicated

2.00

7,342

0.014

3.78

1.24

100

27,726

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

16,468

0.016

3.80

1.38

261

62,507

Inferred

2.00

3,644

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,307

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

2.00

12,322

0.016

4.99

1.45

195

61,467

Indicated

2.00

7,671

0.013

3.75

1.26

104

28,750

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

19,993

0.015

4.51

1.38

299

90,218

Inferred

2.00

3,659

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,359

Table

1-4: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained Within the MRE at 68.57

g/tonne (2 oz/tonne) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver (g/tonne)

Ktonnes

Gold

(g/tonne)

Silver

(g/tonne)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Oz x 1000

Silver

Oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

68.57

2,899

0.372

286.35

1.33

26,686

Indicated

68.57

299

0.332

106.62

1.87

1,025

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

3,198

0.368

269.54

1.38

27,711

Inferred

68.57

0.289

120.74

1.13

Vortex

Measured

68.57

8,279

0.603

130.67

1.49

160

34,781

Indicated

68.57

6,660

0.469

129.48

1.24

100

27,726

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

14,940

0.543

130.14

1.38

261

62,507

Inferred

68.57

3,306

0.475

125.20

1.27

13,307

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

68.57

11,178

0.543

171.04

1.45

195

61,467

Indicated

68.57

6,959

0.463

128.49

1.26

104

28,750

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

18,137

0.512

154.71

1.38

299

90,218

Inferred

68.57

3,319

0.474

125.18

1.27

13,359

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 8

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.10 Mining

Methods

Hycroft

is planned as a conventional hard rock open pit operation. IMC developed a mine plan that produces the required process feed and moves

sufficient mine waste to assure continued release of the mineralization. The mine plan is based on measured and indicated mineralization

that was estimated in the mineral resource block model described in Section 11.

Inferred

mineralization was not included within this initial assessment for two reasons: (1) there is sufficient measured and indicated mineralization

to feed the process plant for over 50 years, and (2) to reduce the changes in the mine schedule and potentially minable material as the

project moves toward a pre-feasibility study in the future.

The

mine will feed two processing facilities:

1. A

flotation mill followed by pressure oxidation and leaching of the concentrate.

2. A

ROM heap leach for mineralization that is amenable to direct cyanide leaching.

The

mine production schedule is summarized in Figure 13-1 with tabular detail in Table 13-1.

1.11 Processing

and Recovery Methods

Hycroft

property is currently envisioned to be mined by way of a conventional hard rock open pit mine feeding two process facilities:

1. Oxide

Material – ROM oxide material will be directed to cyanide heap leaching, producing

gold and silver doré.

2. Sulfide

Material – Sulfide material will be directed to a crushing and flotation milling circuit,

followed by pressure oxidation (POX) of the concentrate to produce a gold and silver doré.

Transitional

material will be routed to either ROM cyanide heap leaching or flotation milling followed by POX, depending on the sulfide sulfur levels

of the individual blocks, total sulfide sulfur content, and gold grade. The process route will be determined based on grade control

The

existing Heap Leach facilities (Brimstone Heap Leach Pad and North Heap Leach Pad) will be expanded to accommodate additional capacity.

These facilities have existing collection ponds and pumping systems. The leach solution distribution network will be expanded as required

to support increased throughput.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 9

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

For

sulfide processing, the plant will utilize the existing crushing plant. Consisting of three stages of crushing, reducing the mineralized

material from a nominal top size of approximately 35 inches (“) to about ⅜”. The crushed material is fed to a two-stage

ball milling circuit operating in closed circuit with hydrocyclones, producing a grind suitable for downstream processing. Cyclone overflow

will be directed to rougher flotation for recovery of gold and silver into a flotation concentrate.

Rougher

flotation tailings will be thickened prior to transfer to the final tailings pumping system. The flotation concentrate will be processed

through POX to oxidize sulfide minerals and liberate gold and silver for downstream recovery.

Following

oxidation, the oxidized slurry will undergo counter-current decantation (CCD) washing to recover dissolved metal values and remove acidic

process solutions. The washed solids are then conditioned through lime boil and hot curing prior to cyanide leaching.

The

conditioned solids will be leached in cyanide leach tanks to dissolve gold and silver. Precious metals will be recovered from the leach

solution using the existing Merrill-Crowe zinc precipitation circuit, producing gold-silver doré.

Residual

cyanide in the leach tailings will be destroyed using a sulfur dioxide–oxygen detoxification process, after which the detoxified

tailings will be combined with flotation tailings and pumped to the tailings management facility (TMF) for disposal.

1.12 Infrastructure

The

Hycroft Mine infrastructure scope represents a brownfield development within an established mining complex. The proposed sulfide ore

processing plant will be integrated into existing site infrastructure via tie-ins to current crushing facilities, utilities, and site

services. Most existing access roads, haul roads, and ancillary structures will remain in service or be selectively upgraded.

1.12.1 Site

Access and Haulage

New

road infrastructure includes 0.6 miles of plant access roads, a 5.6-mile TMF access road parallel to the tailings delivery pipeline corridor,

and a 3.4-mile TMF construction haul road connecting the North WRSF to the TMF embankment. All roads are designed as dirt roads with

a maximum 10% grade and 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. A rail spur extension from the adjacent Union Pacific line will receive

reagents, consumables, and fuel, and facilitate export of salable metals. The spur design by Mountain States Contracting Inc. includes

turnouts, derails, signals, ballast, bridges, civil works, and a bottom-dump hopper car loadout facility.

1.12.2 New

Infrastructure

New

process plant facilities will tie into the existing crushing circuit and North Merrill-Crowe facility. New onsite infrastructure includes

utility tie-ins, power distribution upgrades, substations, a process control system and control room, and reagent handling facilities

including an oxygen plant and limestone offloading and slaking system. Six new ancillary facilities are planned over the LOM including

a covered crushed ore stockpile dome (313 ft diameter × 104 ft height), new assay lab, fuel station, technical services building,

maintenance shop, and crusher maintenance building. Ten existing structures will be upgraded, relocated, or repurposed. Workforce accommodation

will be drawn primarily from Winnemucca (~54 miles east), with personnel transported via contracted bus service.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 10

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.12.3 Stockpiles

Coarse

ore stockpile capacity is 56,000 tons live and 175,400 tons total; crushed ore stockpile capacity is 34,000 tons live and 113,000 tons

total, covered by a round dome structure. These stockpiles support crushing circuit availability of 31.3% for primary and 65.1% for combined

secondary and tertiary crushing. Growth medium stripped during TMF construction will be stockpiled for reclamation use. Limestone will

be delivered by rail to a dedicated onsite stockpile.

1.12.4 Tailings

Management Facility

The

TMF uses conventional designs and will be constructed in a total of eight stages and zero discharge of process solutions. The TMF will

fill the broad valley immediately northeast of the mill site and require the main and the north embankments to impound an ultimate tailings

storage capacity of 1.05 billion tons (Btons) at an average settled dry density for the ultimate facility of 92 pounds per cubic ft (pcf).

The main embankment will cross the natural drainage on the west side of the TMF, and the secondary embankment will be constructed along

the northern ridge. The facility will provide continuous containment of process solutions through the installation of a vertical chimney

drain and engineered geomembrane liner systems, extending across the impoundment basin and below a portion of the main embankment and

the upstream slope of the north embankment. The design is capable of storing runoff from the basin and direct precipitation on the facility,

resulting from the 5,000-year, 24-hour storm event during operation and the 10,000-year, 24-hour storm event for post-closure.

1.12.5 Waste

Rock Storage Facility

Two

initial waste rock storage facility (WRSF) locations — west and south of the pit — will merge into a single facility

on the southwest perimeter by Mine Year 10. The dump is designed with an overall slope of 2.7H:1V and inter-bench geometry of 1.5H:1V

slopes with 50 ft high and 60 ft wide benches, constructed over previously disturbed ground. Water management consists of upstream diversion

channels for non-contact water and a seepage collection system for contact water, comprising double-walled HDPE pipes (300 mm main, 100

mm secondary) sized for the 100-year, 24-hour event. Seepage is conveyed to double-lined GCL and HDPE collection ponds for reuse at the

process plant. Surface water diversion channels are sized for the 100-year, 24-hour event with a minimum 2% slope and riprap lining.

Physical stability will be monitored via survey markers, vibrating wire piezometers, hydraulic piezometers, and inclinometers throughout

the LOM. Topsoil and growth media will be harvested from areas adjacent to the WRSF during closure to support reclamation.

1.12.6 Power,

Communications, and Fuel

Two

120 kV powerlines will supply the site via the Nevada Power Imlay Substation. Installed load is 160 MW with an operating load of 124

MW; total load including the oxygen plant is 170 MW, requiring additional transmission capacity. Site communications are currently served

by microwave, fiber optic, and cellular systems and will be upgraded as required during execution. Diesel fuel is priced at $3.76/gallon;

supply contracts are in place on an annual or bi-annual basis. Fuel will be delivered by rail once the spur is operational. The existing

fuel island will be replaced with a high-efficiency system in mine years 3 and 4.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 11

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.12.7 Water

Supply and Management

Hycroft

holds 16 water-right permits sufficient to support all planned facilities and process demands. Plant freshwater demand is estimated at

7,260 gal/min, supplied via four existing wells with four additional production wells to be drilled. Tailings will be transported as

slurry at 48% solids through an HDPE-lined pipeline, distributed via a 36” manifold system. Return water will initially

be managed via the Underdrain Collection Pond, transitioning to barge-mounted pumps in the TMF supernatant pool in later years. GoldSim

Monte Carlo water balance modeling over 250 simulations indicates average make-up water demand starting at 6,500 gal/min in year 1, declining

to 3,200 gal/min by years 14–15. Pit dewatering will be managed by four depressurization wells with groundwater at approximately

700 ft below ground surface (bgs), with water conveyed to the process plant. Plant site stormwater is managed via perimeter ditches and

a 9,850 yd³ HDPE-lined sedimentation pond sized for the 100-year, 24-hour event.

1.12.8 Hazard

Considerations

The

site climate is arid at 7.7 in/a average precipitation with winter temperatures between 20 °F and 40 °F, introducing freeze-thaw

cycling risk in near-surface soils. Seismicity is assessed as low to moderate with no active or capable faults identified. Principal

pit slope stability controls are the argillically altered Camel Conglomerate, Auld Lang Syne Formation siltstones, and the East Fault.

1.13 Market

Studies and Contracts

formal marketing studies have been completed. Gold and silver doré will be sold on the spot market under terms typical of comparable

doré contracts. Both metals are globally liquid commodities supporting reliable price discovery throughout the LOM. The economic

analysis assumes base case prices of US$3,600/oz gold and US$48.00/oz silver, based on long-term consensus forecasts from numerous financial

institutions as of April 2026. No refining, transportation, or hedging contracts are currently in place, though these are considered

readily obtainable. Refining and transportation costs are estimated at US$5.00/oz gold and US$0.50/oz silver based on comparable project

terms.

1.14 Environmental,

Permitting and Social Considerations

1.14.1 Environmental

Considerations

The

Mine has conducted numerous environmental baseline studies as part of their previous permitting efforts and continues to collect certain

environmental baseline data. The Mine area has been surveyed for surface water resources, including Waters of the United States (WOTUS),

biological resources, cultural resources, and groundwater resources. In addition, the Mine has developed a series of environmental management

and monitoring plans which are required to guide the development and operation of the Project to limit environmental impacts. These plans

are developed to address legal requirements and committed Environmental Protection Measures (EPMs) made by the Mine during Project permitting

and recent Plan of Operations amendments.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 12

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.14.2 Permitting

Considerations

The

Mine operates under a series of permits, which are issued by both federal and state regulators. The following table lists the principal

environmental permits necessary to operate the Mine and the applicable issuing agency.

Table

1-5: Principal Environmental Permits

Operating

Permits

Issuing

Agency

Plan

of Operations

BLM

Mercury

Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

Class

I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

Class

II Air Quality Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

Permit

to Operate a Public Water System

NDEP

Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Crofoot Project

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Hycroft Mine

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

Reclamation

Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

Mining

General Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Class

III Landfill Waiver

NDEP

Bureau of Waste Management

Artificial

Pond Permit (Brimstone Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

Artificial

Pond Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

Artificial

Pond Permit (North Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

Septic

Onsite Disposal

NDEP

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Dam

Safety Permits

Division of Water Resources

Hazardous

Materials Storage Permit

State Fire Marshal

Special

Use Permit

Pershing

County

Special

Use Permit

Humboldt

County

Golden

Eagle Take Permit

Fish & Wildlife Service

addition to the principal environmental permits outlined above, the following table lists other notifications or ministerial permits

that may likely be necessary to operate the Project, as well as the applicable agency.

Table

1-6: Other Notifications or Ministerial Permits

Notification/Permit

Agency

Above

Ground Storage Tank Permit

Nevada

Bureau of Corrective Actions

Agreement

for Road Maintenance

Humboldt

and Pershing Counties

Explosives

Permit

Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Explosives

User’s License (User’s Clearance)

Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Fire

and Life Safety

Nevada

State Fire Marshal

Hazardous

Materials Permit

Nevada

State Fire Marshal

Industrial

Artificial Pond Permit

Nevada

Department of Wildlife

Leach

Pad Commencement

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Leach

Pad As-Built Report

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Process

Plant As-Built Report

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Dam

Safety Permit

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

Mine

ID Number

Mine

Safety & Health Administration

Mine

Opening Notification

Nevada

Division of Minerals

Mine

Registry

Nevada

Division of Minerals

Notification

of Commencement of Operations

Mine

Safety & Health Administration

Production/Dewatering

Wells - Proof of Completion

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

Radio

License

Federal

Communications Commission

RCRA

Waste Mgt. ID - Mine

Nevada

Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Well

Drilling Permit (Notice of Intent to Drill)

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

Potable

Water System

Nevada

Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

Septic

System

Nevada

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 13

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.14.3 Social

Considerations

Social

and community impacts are considered and evaluated for the revision to the Plan Application and would be used in the NEPA process. Potentially

affected Native American tribes, tribal organizations, and/or individuals are consulted during the preparation of all plan amendments

to advise on the proposed projects that may affect cultural sites, resources, and traditional activities.

1.14.4 Closure

and Reclamation Considerations

Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure (TPPC) for the Mine is in place and is currently being updated for future submission to the BMRR

with the application to modify the WPCP (NEV0094114). In the TPPC, the proposed TMF closure approach would consist of fluid management

through evaporation, covering the TMF with a geosynthetic cover and growth media, and then revegetation. The design of the process components

is not sufficiently advanced to determine the closure costs. Any residual TMF drainage will be managed with evaporation cells. Surface

management surety bonds currently total US$58.7 million with US$58.3 million securing financial assurance requirements for the Mine and

US$0.4 million securing financial assurance requirements for the water supply well field and exploration within the Project boundary.

Future increases in reclamation bonding will either be through surety bonds supported by restricted cash balances or by letters of credit

issued by banks.

1.15 Capital

and Operating Cost

The

capital cost (CAPEX) and operating cost (OPEX) estimates were developed in Q1 2026 in U.S. dollars (US$). The estimates are based on

budgetary quotations, supplemented with Ausenco’s in-house database, and informed by Ausenco’s experience from similar operations

in North America.

1.15.1

Capital

Cost Estimate

The

capital cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, which aligns with an Association for the

Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The CAPEX estimate includes the following:

● Initial

capital cost to design, construct, and commission the mine, process plants, and supporting

facilities and infrastructure.

● Sustaining

capital to construct and commission equipment replacement and other major capital expenses

expected after commercial production commences.

● Closure

costs associated with reclaimation of the project site after operations have ceased.

The

initial, sustaining, and total costs of the project are summarized by major areas in Table 1-7.

Table

1-7: Capital Cost Summary

WBS

Description

Capital

Cost (US$M)

Sustaining

Cost (US$M)

Total

Cost1 (US$M)

1000

Mining

194

1,171

1,365

2000

Crushing

109

3000

Sulfide

Process

915

776

1,692

4000

Oxide

Process

5000

Waste

Rock Storage & TMF

208

515

723

6000

Onsite

Infrastructure

139

148

7000

Offsite

Infrastructure

366

409

Total

Direct Costs

1,563

2,944

4,507

8000

Indirects

382

409

9000

Provisions

448

136

584

10000

Owner’s

Costs

Total

Capital Cost

2,434

3,107

5,541

Note:

1. Totals

may not match due to rounding

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 14

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.15.2 Operating

Cost Estimate

The

operating cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, which aligns with an Association for

the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The OPEX estimate for the project includes

expenses incurred by the mine, process plant, and administration of the operation (G&A costs). A summary of the mining, processing,

and G&A operational costs by LOM total cost and unit cost (US$/ton) is in Table 1-8.

Table

1-8: Operating Cost Summary

Cost

Area

LOM

Total (US$M)1

US$/ton

milled

of Total

Mining

8,6832

6.91

31.5

Process

18,245

14.52

66.1

G&A

664

0.53

2.4

Total

27,592

21.96

100

Note:

1. Totals

may not match due to rounding

2. Includes

10% contingency

1.16 Economic

Analysis

1.16.1 Economic

Summary

The

results of the economic analysis discussed in this section represent forward-looking information as defined under U.S. securities law.

The results depend on inputs that are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause

actual results to differ materially from those presented here.

Information

that is forward-looking includes:

● mineral

resource estimates

● assumed

commodity prices and exchange rates

● proposed

mine production plan

● projected

mining and process recovery rates

● assumptions

as to mining dilution

● capital

and operating cost estimates and working capital requirements

● assumptions

as to closure costs and closure requirements

● assumptions

as to environmental, permitting and social consideration and risks.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 15

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Additional

risks to the forward-looking information includes:

● changes

to costs of production from what is assumed

● unrecognized

environmental risks

● unanticipated

reclamation expenses

● unexpected

variations in quantity of mineralized material, grade or recovery rates

● geotechnical

or hydrogeological considerations differing from what was assumed

● failure

of mining methods to operate as anticipated

● failure

of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated

● changes

to assumptions as to the availability of electrical power, and the power rates used in the

operating cost estimates and financial analysis

● ability

to maintain the social license to operate

● accidents,

labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry

● changes

to interest rates

● changes

to tax rates and availability of allowances for depreciation and amortization.

The

economic analysis was completed assuming a 5% discount rate. The pre-tax NPV discounted at 5% is US$5,437 million; the IRR is 18.9%,

and payback period is 4.3 years. On a post-tax basis, the NPV discounted at 5% is US$4,344 million, the IRR is 16.9%, and the payback

period is 4.7 years. A summary of project economics is listed in Table 1-9.

Readers

are cautioned that the assessment is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the economic assessment will be realized. However,

it does not include any inferred mineral resources.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 16

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

1-9: Economic Analysis Summary

Unit

Value

General

Inputs

Gold

Price

US$/oz

3,600

Silver

Price

US$/oz

48.00

Discount

Rate

5.0

LOM

Production

Total

Mineralized Material Mined

kst

1,496,134

Total

Waste Mined

kst

2,320,719

Average

Strip Ratio

w:o

1.55

Life

of Mine

years

50.5

Total

Mill Feed Processed

kst

1,046,284

Average

Mill Feed Grade (Au)

oz/st

0.012

Average

Mill Feed Grade (Ag)

oz/st

0.43

Total

Leach Material Processed

kst

210,010

Average

Leach Feed Grade (Au)

oz/st

0.005

Average

Leach Feed Grade (Ag)

oz/st

0.12

Total

Recovered Gold

koz

10,476

Total

Recovered Silver

koz

349,208

Average

Mill Feed Gold Recovery

82.8

Average

Mill Feed Silver Recovery

77.5

Average

Leach Gold Recovery

40.0

Average

Leach Silver Recovery

12.0

Life

of Mine Payable Gold Production

koz

10,424

Life

of Mine Payable Silver Production

koz

347,462

Life

of Mine Payable Gold Equivalent Production

koz

15,057

Refining,

Royalties

Gold

Payable

99.5

Silver

Payable

99.5

NSR

Royalty

NSR

2.14

Refining

Costs - Au

US$/oz

5.00

Refining

Costs - Ag

US$/oz

0.50

LOM

Operating Costs

Mining

Cost

US$/st

mined

2.28

Mining

Cost

US$/st

processed

6.91

Processing

Cost

US$/st

processed

14.52

G&A

Cost

US$/st

processed

0.53

Total

Operating Cost

US$/st

processed

21.96

Cash

Costs1

US$/oz

AuEq

1,924

All-In

Sustaining Cost2

US$/oz

AuEq

2,147

Capital

Costs

Initial

Capital

US$M

2,434

Sustaining

Capital

US$M

3,107

Closure

Costs

US$M

243

Financials

Pre-Tax

NPV (5%)

US$M

5,437

Pre-Tax

IRR

18.9

Pre-Tax

Payback

years

4.3

Post-Tax

NPV (5%)

US$M

4,344

Post-Tax

IRR

16.9

Post-Tax

Payback

years

4.7

Notes:

1. Cash

costs consist of mining costs, processing costs, mine-level G&A and refining charges

and royalties

2. AISC

includes cash costs plus sustaining capital and closure costs

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 17

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.16.2 Sensitivity

Analysis

sensitivity analysis was conducted on the base case NPV and IRR of the project using the following variables: discount rate, head grade,

recovery, total operating cost, initial capital cost, as well as silver and gold prices, which were encompassed in a single variable,

metal price.

shown in Figure 1-1, the sensitivity analysis revealed that the project is most sensitive to changes in metal price, head grade, and

recovery.

Figure

1-1: Post-Tax Sensitivity Analysis Results

Note:

Metal price, head grade, and recovery series overlap on the above figure. Source: Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 18

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

1.17 Conclusions

Hycroft,

in conjunction with IMC, developed the Hycroft deposit block model based on 5,813 drillholes with 516,901 drill intervals amounting to

2,668,616 ft of drilling. The model was assembled by Ryan Rodney, C.P.G. of Hycroft. IMC worked with Hycroft and reviewed the final model.

IMC is the qualified firm for the statement of mineral resources with John Marek, P.E., acting as the Engineer of Record.

metallurgical testwork programs conducted on the Hycroft sulfide deposit consisted of a series of comminution, flotation, concentrate

oxidation, and cyanide leaching tests on mineralized materials, flotation tailings, and oxidized sulfide concentrates.

Comminution

testwork indicates that the Hycroft mineralization exhibits very high rock competency. Flotation testwork, conducted at a grind sizes

of P80 of 85 µm, under acidic conditions (pH of 4.7) using strong non-selective sulfide collectors, demonstrated improved

flotation performance. Flotation residence time was identified as a key parameter, and optimized test conditions targeted a mass pull

of approximately 22% to 25%, resulting in favorable Au and Ag recoveries.

Metallurgical

testwork conducted between 2021 and 2025 indicates that the Hycroft sulfide mineralization can be processed using a flotation and POX

flowsheet. Flotation optimization resulted in improved gold and silver recoveries, and POX test results support the application of POX

followed by hot cure, lime boil, and cyanide leaching for treatment of the pyrite concentrate.

The

MRE statement was developed using a conventional computer-based block model. Each block was evaluated to determine the net return from

the following two processes:

● ROM

cyanide heap leaching and Merrill-Crowe of oxide and some transition materials.

● Milling,

Flotation, POX, Hot Cure, and Lime Boil followed by Cyanide Leach and Merrill-Crowe of sulfide

and some transition materials.

The

Initial Assessment indicates that the selected development has the potential to support economic extraction of the Hycroft mineral resources

based on the study adopted for mining, processing, infrastructure, capital and operating costs, and commodity prices. The economic analysis

demonstrates positive project economics. However, project value remains sensitive to key factors including metal prices, metallurgical

performance, capital cost estimates, and operating assumptions. Additional metallurgical testwork, engineering refinement, and economic

optimization are recommended in the next study phase to reduce uncertainty and improve confidence in project outcomes.

1.18 Recommendations

Recommendations

cover the discipline areas of exploration and resource model refinement, mineral processing and metallurgical testing, and overall project

configuration to support the evaluation at the PFS level. The total recommended budget estimate to complete the programs is $22,050,000.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 19

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

2 Introduction

2.1 Introduction

This

technical report summary (TRS) summarizes the results of an initial assessment with an economic analysis (IA-EA) for the Mine located

in northwestern Nevada. The work has been prepared at the request of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation (Hycroft). The TRS follows the

requirements and outline as described in the. US Securities and Exchange Commission Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 229.1300 –

Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining operations (S-K 1300). This TRS has been completed by Ausenco Engineering South USA (Ausenco),

Hycroft, Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) and WestLand Engineering & Environmental Services (WestLand) (collectively, the

Report Authors).

The

updated statement of mineral resources reflects information developed through 2025.

This

TRS supersedes all previous technical studies, including the TRS filed on EDGAR under Form 8-K on January 21, 2026.

The

MRE is based on information provided by Hycroft which has been checked and validated wherever possible by IMC. The MRE is based on information

provided by Hycroft. IMC, an independent third party with necessary relevant experience, has checked and validated the MRE wherever possible,

and is assuming responsibility for the published MRE.

2.2 Terms

of Reference

Some

sections of this report were published previously as part of a previous technical report summary filed in January 2026 (the 2026 TRS)

and are listed below in Section 2.6.2. The sections of these reports which were utilized have been reviewed by both IMC and Ausenco in

sufficient detail so that the Qualified Persons (QPs) at IMC and Ausenco have assumed responsibility for this work.

Hycroft

staff have provided all requested information and have worked with Ausenco, IMC and Westland Engineering in an open and transparent manner

throughout the Project period.

All

units of measurement in this report are in US customary units and currencies are expressed in United States dollars (symbol: US$

or currency: USD), unless otherwise stated. Precious metal grades are presented in units of troy ounces per short ton (oz/ton). The occasional

use of non-US customary units will be clearly noted and explained in text when they occur. Tons mean short tons of 2,000 lbs,

Ktons means 1,000 short tons.

This

TRS presents the MRE for the Hycroft Mine (the Mine), and an economic analysis based on pressure oxidation (POX) for sulfide material

and Heap Leaching for oxide material. Transitional material may be processed by either process.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 20

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Mineral

resources are reported in accordance with SK-1300.

2.3 Qualified

Persons

Below

is a list of the firms that acted as QPs in the preparation of this TRS:

● Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc. is responsible for sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15,

1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 2.1-2.4.1, 2.5-2.7, 10, 14-16, 18.1-18.2.3, 18.2.4- 18.2.7, 18.2.8.2-18.3.2,

18.3.4, 18.3.5, 19, 22.1, 22.5, 22.7-22.12, 22.13.1.3, 22.13.1.5-22.13.1.7, 22.13.2.2, 22.13.2.4,

22.13.2.5, 23.1, 23.4, 23.6, 24 and 25.

● Hycroft

is responsible for sections 1.3-1.7, 1.15,3-9, 12, 20, 22.2-22.4, 22.13.1.1, 22.13.1.2,

22.13.2.1, 23.1-23.3, and 24.

● Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc. is responsible for sections 1.9, 1.10, 1.15, 1.18, 2.4.2, 11,

13, 18.2.3, 18.2.8.1, 18.3.1, 18.3.3, 22.6, 22.13.1.4, 22.13.2.3, 23.1, 23.5 and 24.

● WestLand

Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc., is responsible for Section 1.14, 17 and 24.

2.4 Site

Visits and Scope of Personal Inspection

2.4.1 Site

inspection for Jonathan Cooper

Ausenco’s

QP, Jonathan Cooper, P.Eng., completed a site visit of the Hycroft property from April 8 to 11, 2024 to inspect the existing infrastructure.

2.4.2 Site

inspection for John Marek

IMC’s

QP, John Marek, P.E., completed a site visit on August 5, 2021, to review the existing core and logs.

2.5 Effective

Dates

The

overall effective date of this report is May 14, 2026.

2.6 Information

Sources and References

2.6.1 General

The

authors sourced information from documents listed in the References section of this report (Section 24).

The

reports and documents listed in Section 2.6.2 and Section 25 of this Report were also used to support preparation of the TRS.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 21

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

2.6.2 Previous

Technical Reports

Hycroft

previously filed the following technical reports:

● Hycroft

Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment, Nevada, USA. Prepared by Ausenco Engineering

South USA Inc for Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation. Effective date: January 21, 2026.

● Initial

Assessment Technical Report Summary; Humboldt and Pershing Counties. Prepared by Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc for Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation. Effective date: March 27,

2023.

● Technical

Report Summary of Initial Assessment on the Hycroft Mine, Nevada, United States of America.

Prepared by Ausenco Engineering USA South Inc for Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation, Effective

date: February 18, 2022.

● Hycroft

Project Technical Report Summary: Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA.

Prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp for Hycroft Mining Corporation. Effective

date: July 31, 2019.

Hycroft

completed the following technical report in accordance Canada’s National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral

Projects and which are available on the SEDAR website (www.SEDARplus.ca)

● Hycroft

Project NI 43-101 Technical Report: Mill Expansion Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada,

USA. Prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. for Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Effective

date: November 03, 2014.

2.7 Currency,

Units, Abbreviations and Definitions

All

units of measurement in this report are US customary, and all currencies are expressed in US dollars (symbol: US$; currency: USD)

unless otherwise stated. Contained gold metal is expressed as troy ounces (oz), where 1 oz = 31.1035 g. All material tons are expressed

as dry tons unless stated otherwise. A list of abbreviations and acronyms is provided in Table 2-1, and units of measurement are listed

in Table 2-2.

Table 2-1: Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation

Description

AAL

American

Assay Laboratories

AAO

atmospheric

alkaline oxidation

AAS

atomic

absorption spectroscopy

AES

atomic

emission spectrometry

Allied

Nevada

Allied

Nevada Gold Corp.

aqua

regia

Silver

ALS

Auld

Lang Syne formation

Gold

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc.

Azimuth

BLM

Bureau

of Land Management

BWi

bond

ball mill work index

CCD

counter-current

decantation

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 22

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Abbreviation

Description

CNI

Call

& Nicholas, Inc.

CWi

bond

crusher work index

DDH

diamond

drill hole

DSHA

deterministic

seismic hazard assessment

Environmental

Assessment

EDGAR

Electronic

Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval

fire

assay

FPCP

Final

Permanent Closure Plan

G&A

general

and administration

HLF

Heap

leach facility

Hycroft

Mining Holding Corporation

initial

assessment

ICP

inductively

coupled plasma

ID2

inverse

distance squared

ID3

inverse

distance cubed

IMC

Independent

Mining Consultants, Inc.

IA-EA

Initial

assessment with economic analysis

induced

polarization

ISO

International

Organization for Standardization

LECO

Laboratory

Equipment Corporation

LOM

life

of mine

LWIR

Longwave

Infrared

LTI

lost

time incident

Engineering and Technology Corp

MRE

mineral

resource estimate

mass

spectrometry

MWWAI

Michael

W. West and Associates Inc.

NDEP

Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection

NDOW

Nevada

Department of Wildlife

NDWR

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

NEPA

National

Environmental Policy Act

nearest

neighbor

NSR

net

smelter return

OES

optical

emission spectrometry

POX

pressure

oxidation

QA/QC

quality

assurance/quality control

qualified

person (as defined in National Instrument 43-101)

reverse

circulation drilling

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 23

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Abbreviation

Description

ROM

run-of-mine

RPEE

reasonable

prospects for economic extraction

RQD

rock

quality designation

standard

deviation

SEC

Securities

and Exchange Commission

SHLF

South

Heap Leach Facility

S-K

1300

Securities and Exchange Commission Ruling S-K Subpart 1300

SRK

Consulting (US) Inc.

sulfide

sulfur

SWIR

Shortwave

Infrared

the

Mine

Hycroft

Mine

TMF

tailings

management facility

TRIFR

Total

Recordable Incident Frequency Rate

TRS

technical

report summary

TSG

Tertiary

Sulfur Group

USGS

United

States Geological Survey

USFWS

Fish and Wildlife Service

Westland

WestLand

Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

WSP

Global Inc.

Table 2-2: Units of Measurement

Unit

Description

µm

micrometer

acre

Asl

above

sea level

Axb

hardness

of ore in term of impact breakage, unitless

billion

Bgs

below

ground surface

Bton

billion

short tons

°C

Celsius

Cfs

cubic

feet per second

day

°F

fahrenheit

feet

ft/a

feet

per year

GWh/a

gigawatt-hours

per year

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 24

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Unit

Description

gram

(unit of weight)

gal

gallon

gal/a

gallons

per year

gal/min

gallons

per minute

g/ton,

gm/ton

grams

per short ton

horsepower

hour

inch

in/a

inches

per year

kilogram

kilometer

Km2

Square

kilometer

kilotonne

(1,000 metric tonnes)

ktons

kilo

short tons

kilovolt

kWh/ton

kilowatt-hours

per ton

pound

million

masl

Meters

above sea level

mile

mi2

square

mile

millimeters

mph

miles

per hour

million

tonnes

Mtons

million

short tons

Mtons/a

million

short tons per year

min.

minute

Moz

million

troy ounces

megawatt

troy

ounce

oz/ton

troy

ounces per short ton

pcf

pounds

per cubic foot

ppm

parts

per million

ppt

parts

per trillion

psig

pressure

per square inch

shifts/a

shifts

per year

metric

tonne (1,000 kg)

t/d

tonnes

per day

ton

short

ton (2,000 pounds)

ton/a

short

tons per year

ton/d

short

tons per day

short

ton

TSS

total

suspended solids

units/a

units

per year

US$,

USD

United

States dollars (symbol; currency)

US$/a

United

States dollars per year

US$/ton

United

States dollars per short ton

wt/wt

weight

percent

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 25

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

3 Property

Description

3.1 Introduction

The

Mine is an existing gold and silver operation located 54 miles west of Winnemucca in Humboldt County and Pershing County, Nevada, as

shown in Figure 3-1. The Site is accessible via Nevada State Route 49 (Jungo Road), an all-weather, unpaved road that is maintained by

Humboldt County and Hycroft. A major east–west railway runs immediately adjacent to the property.

The

Mine property straddles Townships 34, 35, 35½ and 36 north and Ranges 28, 29 and 30 east (MDB&M) with an approximate latitude

40°52’ north and longitude 118°41’ west. The mine is situated on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains on the

eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert.

The

Mine property was consolidated through multiple transactions over several years and is described below. Some unpatented mining claims

overlap other Hycroft patented and unpatented mining claims to ensure there are no fractional claim gaps. Existing facilities on site

include two administration buildings, a mobile maintenance shop, a light vehicle maintenance shop, a warehouse, an assay laboratory,

three heap leach pads – Crofoot, North, and Brimstone, primary, secondary and tertiary crushing systems, two Merrill-Crowe process

plants and a refinery. It is considered that existing components of the mine property would be utilized for future development. The Mine

operates under permit authorization from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Nevada

Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) and County agencies. As of the effective date of this report,

Hycroft has approximately 52 employees.

3.2 Property

and Title in Jurisdiction

The

Mine is owned and managed by Hycroft Resources and Development, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 26

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure 3-1: Hycroft Mine Location Map

Source:

Nevada Bureau of Mines, 2023

3.3 Project

Ownership

The

property containing the Mine property consists of 25 private parcels with patented claims totaling approximately 1,855 acres, along with

3,249 unpatented mining claims covering approximately 62,298 acres, for a combined total of approximately 64,000 acres. Some mining claims

overlap other Hycroft Mining claims to ensure there are no fractional gaps in mining claim coverage.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 27

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

There

are 30 unpatented placer claims, and 3,219 unpatented lode claims are in Humboldt County and Pershing County, Nevada as follows:

● T36N,

R29E, Sections: 28, 32, 33

● T36N,

R30E, Sections: 19, 28-34

● T35

1/2N, R29E, Sections: 25, 26, 35, 36

● T35N,

R29E, Sections: 1-3, 10-15, 21-28, 31-36

● T35N,

R30E, Sections: 2-10, 15-23, 25-36

● T34N,

R28E, Sections: 1, 2, 11, 12, 13

● T34N,

R29E, Sections: 1-28, 33

● T34N,

R30E, Sections: 2-11, 17-20, 29, 30

The

25 private patented claims are located in Humboldt County and Pershing County, Nevada as follows:

● T35N,

R29E, Sections: 24, 25, 35, 36

● T35N,

R30E, Sections: 19, 30, 31

● T34N,

R29E, Sections: 1, 2

The

mining claim package is depicted in Figure 3-2. Individual mining claims for each township range and section are presented in Appendix

A – Patented Claims and Appendix B – Unpatented Claims. The project centroid is defined in the following mine grid coordinates:

51500 N and 20500 E.

This

point is located central to all mine facilities. The project centroid shall be used to reference all other locations within one mile.

Much

of the project area is located on un-surveyed public and private land for which the sections, ranges, and townships listed above have

been interpolated. Patented claims have been surveyed (Wilson, 2008; Prenn, 2006). The following is a list of land acquisitions/transactions

made over the years which constitute the entire Hycroft land claim package and has been assembled through a series of transactions.

The

Crofoot property and approximately 3,500 acres of claims were acquired by Vista in 1985. The Crofoot property, originally held under

lease, is owned by Hycroft. The Crofoot royalty was terminated January 7, 2026. The Lewis property and approximately 8,700 acres of claims

were acquired by Vista in early 1987. In 2006, approximately 13,100 acres of additional claims were staked by Vista. These claims are

contiguous or proximate to the original Crofoot and Lewis claims.

From

2007 through 2015, Hycroft staked additional lode mining claims contiguous to existing Hycroft claims that cover approximately 37,373

acres. Some of these lode claims overlap existing placer claims.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 28

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Payment

of annual claim maintenance and holding fees to the BLM and Humboldt and Pershing Counties and payment of annual real property taxes

for patented claims in Humboldt and Pershing Counties are made every third quarter (Q3). Payments are current through the 2025–2026

claim years, with US$724,095 paid for 2025–2026. Payment of annual claim maintenance and holding fees and real property taxes are

required to continue to hold the Hycroft property in good standing from. BLM annual maintenance fees for claims are due not later than

September 1 of each year. Humboldt and Pershing County State annual holding fees beginning September 1 of each year are due no later

than November 1 of each year. Annual real property taxes for patented claims in Humboldt and Pershing Counties are due August 31 of the

following year.

Hycroft

controls all surface and mineral rights within the Hycroft MRE area. No further land acquisition is required for the operation of the

mine and contemplated processing facilities.

Figure

3-3 shows the property layout including site facilities, mine workings, leach pads and waste dumps.

3.4 Property

Agreements

Table

3-1 shows the royalty amount and other annual land holding costs.

Table

3-1: Hycroft Annual Land Holding Costs

Month

Due

Lessor

Type

Amount

Monthly

Sprott

Royalty1

Net

Smelter Return Royalty

1.5%

NSR

August-October

BLM, Humboldt & Pershing Counties

Claim

Fees

US$724,095

Note:

1. The

Sprott royalty is equal to 1.5% of Net Smelter Returns (NSR) free and clear of withholding

taxes or similar taxes.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 29

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

3-2: Claim Map

Source:

Hycroft, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 30

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

3-3: Current Property and Facilities Layout (2025)

Source:

Hycroft, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 31

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

3.5 Surface

Rights

Hycroft

controls all surface and mineral rights within the Hycroft MRE area. No further land acquisition is required for the operation of the

mine and contemplated processing facilities.

3.6 Water

Rights

Hycroft

controls 16 separate water-right permits administered by the NDWR. These permits are held in ownership either by Hycroft, or by other

private parties and leased to Hycroft. Water resources to support the Mine are controlled under 14 permits in the Black Rock Desert Basin

totaling 20,414.9 acre-ft/a (6.65 billion gal/a). Two of these water permits are outside the Black Rock Desert Hydrographic Basin

and used to support construction maintenance of Jungo Road with Humboldt County.

3.7 Liabilities

and Encumbrances

The

consolidated financial statements of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation set forth its material liabilities as of the date of such financial

statements. The assets of Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, the Company) are subject to encumbrances

and obligations, including encumbrances and obligations under and associated with the Sprott Royalty Agreement dated May 29, 2020, by

and between the Company and Sprott Private Resource Lending II (Co) Inc.

3.8 Environmental

Considerations

Gold

production began on the property in 1983 and continued through 1985 when Standard Slag opened the Lewis Mine. There was a brief gap in

mining until Hycroft acquired the Lewis Mine and the Crofoot claims and recommenced mining in 1988. Mining operations continued until

1998 when mining was placed on standby due to low metal prices. Process operations continued until 2004 when the property was placed

on care and maintenance.

Efforts

began in 2003 to update the Reclamation Plan, associated cost estimate, and related amount of surety bond posted with the BLM. During

the years 2011 and 2012, Hycroft increased collateral account balances to support additional surety bonds for the benefit of the BLM.

These additional surety bonds allowed Hycroft to continue operations at the Mine and to expand exploration activities outside of the

Mine. In 2011, Hycroft received a reimbursement of US$0.5 million related to reclamation costs that had been paid out.

January 2014, the BLM approved an updated reclamation cost estimate allowing for the phased bonding of the expansion activities. The

required bond amount was lowered from US$63 million to US$58.3 million. Hycroft has Surface Management Surety Bonds with insurance companies

that meet the financial requirements of the BLM to comply with the total requirement of US$58.3 million as detailed in the September

2013 reclamation cost estimate that requested the phasing of the mill expansion activities. Additionally, Hycroft has posted a bond with

the BLM in the amount of US$0.6 million for the adjacent water supply well field, well field monitoring and exploration within the project

boundary. Hycroft has US$14.4 million in restricted cash for collateral for these bonds.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 32

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

Hycroft area has been surveyed for surface water resources, including Waters of the United States, biological resources, cultural resources,

and groundwater resources. The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is known to occur adjacent to the Hycroft Project. Hycroft is working

with the BLM and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the management of this species.

3.9 Safety

Considerations

The

operation of the Mine is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under the Federal Mine Safety

and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act). MSHA inspects the Mine on a regular basis and issues various citations and orders when it believes

a violation has occurred under the Mine Act. In years ending 2024 and 2025, after multiple inspections, MSHA has issued no (0) citations

and no (0) “Significant and Substantial” Violations under section 104(a) of the Mine Act. There have been no fines

including citations and orders issued to contractors for the year ending May 1, 2026.

Hycroft

mandated mine safety and health programs include employee and contractor training, risk management, workplace inspection, emergency response,

accident investigation, and program auditing with a goal to have zero workplace injuries and occupational illness. In 2023, Hycroft implemented

multifunctional workplace inspections and monthly employee engagement sessions. As a result, Hycroft has now operated for three consecutive

years at a 0.0 Total Recordable Incident Frequency Rate (TRIFR) and achieved over 1.4 million hours without a Lost Time Incident (LTI).

The Mine’s TRIFR per 200,000 man-hours worked including contractors was 0.0 on May 1, 2026.

3.10 Permitting

Considerations

The

Mine operates under permit authorizations from the BLM, NDEP, NDOW, and NDWR. All operating and environmental permits, approved by the

BLM, NDEP, NDOW and NDWR, are in good standing for mining operations. Table 3-2 summarizes the operating permits while Table 3-3 shows

the miscellaneous permits for the property.

Table

3-2: Hycroft Operating Permits

Operating

Permits

Issuing

Agency

Number

Status

Plan

of Operations

BLM

NVN-064641

Current

Eagle

Take Permit

USFWS

MB90099B-0

Current

Mercury

Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

- BAPC

AP1041-2255

Current

Class

I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

- BAPC

AP1041-2974

Incorporated

into the Class II AQOP

Class

I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

- BAPC

AP1041-3344

Incorporated

into the Class II AQOP

Class

I Air Quality Operating Permit

NDEP

- BAPC

AP1041-2964

Current

Permit

to Operate a Public Water System

NDEP

- BSDW

HU-0864-12NTNC

Current

Class

II Air Quality Permit

NDEP

- BAPC

AP1041-0334.05

Current

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Crofoot Project

NDEP

- BMRR

NEV60013

Current

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Brimstone Project

NDEP

- BMRR

NEV94114

Current

(Application Shield)

Bioremediation

Facility Permit

NDEP

- BMRR

GNV041995-HGP15

Superseded

by Water Pollution Control Permit

Reclamation

Permit

NDEP

- BMRR

134

Renewal

Mining

General Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

NDEP

- BWPC

R300000:

MSW-177

Current

Class

III Landfill Waiver

NDEP

- BSMM

SWW-346

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (Brimstone Process Ponds)

NDOW

HU019

– S503626

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds)

NDOW

HU009

– 39469

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (North Process Ponds)

NDOW

HU022-39468

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (Stage 1 Ponds)

NDOW

HU022-40377

Current

General

Onsite Sewage Disposal System

NDEP

- BWPC

GNEVOSDS09

Current

Dam

Safety Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds)

NDWR

J-273

Current

Dam

Safety Permit (Brimstone Leach Event Pond)

NDWR

J-683

Current

Dam

Safety Permit (North Leach Event Ponds)

NDWR

J-687

Current

Dam

Safety Permit (Stage 1 Event Ponds)

NDWR

Pending

Hazardous

Materials Storage Permit

State Fire Marshal

8250

Current

Special

Use Permit

Pershing

County

SUP

12-04

Current

Special

Use Permit

Humboldt

County

UH-12-04

Current

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 33

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

3-3: Hycroft Miscellaneous Permits

Operating

Permits

Issuing

Agency

Number

Status

Microwave

Repeater; Sec. 29, 30

BLM

NVN46292

Current

ROW

Wells/Pipeline/Power Line; Sec. 3

BLM

NVN46564

Current

ROW

2 Wells/Pipeline/Power Line

BLM

NVN46959

Current

ROW

Road and Waterline (Old Man camp to Lewis)

BLM

NVN39119

Current

ROW

Crofoot pipeline

BLM

NVN44999

Current

ROW

24 kV Aerial Powerline, Lewis/Floka

BLM

NVN54893

Current

Kamma

Peak Station

FCC

WNER344

Current

Sulfur

Mine Station

FCC

WNER345

Current

Winnemucca

Mountain Station

FCC

WNER346

Current

Base

Station and 45 Mobile Units

FCC

WNKK336

Current

Operating

and miscellaneous permits that require annual maintenance fees are shown in Table 3-4. Fixed annual fees are required for storm water

and public drinking water system permits based upon the current Nevada regulatory structure. The other annual fees are based on annual

mining production, quantities and types of chemicals stored on site, existing and permitted surface disturbance, and the level of actual

and permitted air emissions. The variable fees shown are based upon the 2025 operational conditions.

Table

3-4: Hycroft Miscellaneous Permits

Permit

and Fee Description

Annual

Amount (US$)

Air

Quality Operating Permit AP1041-0334.05

Fees

are incorporated into title V permit.

Air

Quality Operating Permit AP1041-2255

$16,958

Air

Quality Operating Permit AP1041-2964

$47,448

Reclamation

Permit

$37,811

Nevada

Radioactive Material License

$2,000

Stormwater

Permit

$1,000

Artificial

Pond Permit

$31,625

Water

Pollution Control Permit NEV94114

$66,000

Water

Pollution Control Permit NEV60013

$60,000

State

Fire Marshal

$210

Public

Drinking Water System

$391

Septic

System Permits

$750

Toxic

Release Inventory Annual Fee

$5,500

Nevada

LP-Gas License

$795

Total

$270,488

Hycroft

currently holds six Right-of-Way (ROW) leases with two exploration notices with the BLM, as described in Table 3-5 along with fees and

renewals.

Table

3-5: Right-of-Way Payment and Renewal Schedule

ROW

Number

Annual

Payment Amount (estimated)

Payment

Date

Expiration

Date

NVN46292

$125

01/01/2025

12/31/2048

NVN46564

$100

01/01/2025

12/31/2046

NVN46959

$610

01/01/2025

Renewal

NVN39119

$427

01/01/2025

Renewal

NVN44999

$279

01/01/2025

Renewal

NVN54893

$200

01/01/2025

Renewal

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 34

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

3.10.1 Hycroft

Expansion Permitting and Timelines

Hycroft

submitted a Plan of Operations for an expansion of its heap leach facilities, open pits and waste rock facilities to the BLM in April

2010. A major modification to the State Water Pollution Control Permit was submitted in 2011 for the process components that included

engineering design reports from Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). The permit modification was issued in August 2012. An amended Plan of

Operations that included a rail spur, open pit expansion and processing complex was submitted to the BLM in August 2012. The BLM determined

that an Environmental Assessment (EA) was required, deemed the Plan of Operations complete, and initiated public scoping in December

2012. In March 2013, NV Energy submitted a ROW application for the power line associated with the Hycroft Mill. The BLM determined that

this action should be analyzed with the Hycroft EA. Approval was received in December 2014. The permits required to construct and operate

the crushing system and to begin mill construction were received in 2012. The air quality permit for operation of a mill was submitted

in December 2012, and issuance was received in late 2013.

The

Plan of Operations for a rail spur, open pit expansion and processing complex, that included a tailings management facility (TMF) and

expanded Heap Leach Facility (HLF), was completed in December 2014, with the BLM issuance of the Record of Decision authorizing the proposed

action received in January 2015. A major modification to the State Water Pollution Control Permit was submitted in 2011 for the process

components that included engineering design reports from Golder. The permit modification was issued in August 2012. All other permits

required for the heap leach expansion have been received.

Plan of Operations for an alternate TMF, mining below the water table and expanded facilities was submitted to the BLM in April 2014.

The BLM determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required. In October 2019, the BLM issued a record of

decision on the SEIS permitting the new TMF location, expanded facilities and deeper pit depths.

December 2010, Hycroft submitted a minor modification to the NDEP which proposed increasing the permitted processing rate from 10 to

12 Mtons/a. This modification was approved in February 2011. In May 2011, Hycroft proposed a major modification to build a new heap leach

pad on the site of the closed Lewis pad and to increase the processing rate to 30 Mtons/a. This modification was approved by the NDEP

in December 2011. In January of 2012, Hycroft submitted another major modification to construct a heap leach facility on the south extent

of the property. The facility was referred to as the South Heap Leach Facility (SHLF). Around the same time, Hycroft submitted a modification

proposing to add both a north and south processing area, increasing the Brimstone and Lewis heap leach pads permitted height to 400 ft,

and increasing the permitted processing rate to 36 Mtons/a of ore. Both modifications were approved by the NDEP in September 2012. Later,

in December 2012, Hycroft submitted a minor modification proposing to add a Merrill-Crowe facility at the North Process Area. NDEP approved

this modification in May 2013. In March of 2013, Hycroft submitted another modification to construct a combined heap leach and tailings

storage facility (TMF), referred to as the South Processing Complex (SPC), in the same location as the previously permitted SHLF. The

SPC uses the new SHLF, constructed in a horseshoe shape, to provide the embankment for the Southwest TMF located in the central portion

of the new SHLF. Also, as part of this modification, Hycroft proposed the construction of a mill and related facilities for processing

high-grade ore at an approximate throughput of 65,000 tons per day (ton/d) during Phase 1 to a final phase capacity of 132,000 ton/d.

Tailings were proposed to be pumped to the TMF at the SPC. These 2013 major modifications were approved by NDEP in August 2017.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 35

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

September 2014, Hycroft submitted a minor modification to expand the Brimstone-North HLF to the southeast by approximately 80 acres including

an additional Event Pond at the existing North Area Merrill-Crowe facility. NDEP approved these minor modifications in March 2015.

April 2019, Hycroft submitted a major modification to construct a new heap leach facility named Hycroft Heap Leach Facility Stage 1 (Stage

1 HLF) north of the North Processing Facility. The Stage 1 HLF will have a storage volume of 29 Mtons and is the first stage of the larger

facility (Hycroft HLF) with a storage capacity of 550 Mtons. The ultimate footprint of the Hycroft HLF will cover approximately 925 acres,

with the Stage 1 footprint covering approximately 390 acres that includes ponds, channels, and roads. Of this area, 234 acres will be

lined with geomembrane along with the HLF pad comprising 204 of these acres. Pregnant solution collected from the pad will be pumped

to the existing North Merrill-Crowe process facility for precious metals recovery. The barren solution from the North Merrill-Crowe facility

will then be returned to the top of each lift and applied over a designated cell area using a drip and sprinkler system. The major modification

was approved by NDEP in July 2020.

Currently,

Hycroft has all permits required to restart the Mine and recently received the Federal Record of Decision for the Phase II Environmental

Impact Statement supporting the life of mine (LOM) pit development.

Received

Record of Decision from BLM for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (10-22-19):

● Current

operating plan is fully permitted

● Existing

operating permits will be amended as new facilities/infrastructure are required

● EIS

allows flexibility:

○ Expanded

pits

○ Construction

of a TMF to the south of the property, if needed

● Phase

1 of the new leach pad is permitted

● Phase

1A of the new leach pad has completed earthwork and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner

installation. A media cover has been added to protect the porous multimedia protective layer.

Collection ponds are in place. Electrical switch gear, instrumentation, and pumps are in

storage and will be added during construction restart. No mineralized ore has been added

to the pad. Phase 1B of the new leach pad and future phases will be planned for construction

from cash flows when needed.

Any

future expansion activities recommended in this TRS will require multiple federal, state and local permits. The USFWS will require modification

to the Golden Eagle Take Permit for the NE TMF and extensions of the South (Vortex) Dump.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 36

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

3.10.2 Crofoot

Heap Leach Facility Closure

2023, NDEP asked Hycroft to update the 2017 Final Permanent Closure Plan (FPPC). Hycroft complied with this request and a new FPPC was

submitted. The updated plan includes schedule of compliance (SOC) items and incorporates current regulations. There are six items in

this plan. SOC Items 1 (Stormwater Controls), 2 (Heap Leach Drain-Down Channel), 3 (Update Monitoring Plan), 4 (Water Quality Evaluation

Report), SOC Item 5 (updating FPCP), and 6 (Investigation of trend for Wells SP-23, SP-24, and SP-25). NDEP has accepted and approved

SOC Items 2 (Heap Leach Drain-Down Channel) and Item 3 (Update Monitoring Plan). The other items are still under review.

Construction

of a drain-down collection system was completed in 2012. In 2024 and 2025, Hycroft completed steps to regrade the pad in preparation

for closure. Hycroft will continue to re-contour the pad, as necessary for surface water management; apply medium, where required; and

reseed the pad to complete the closure process. Hycroft is working in conjunction with NDEP, who will issue the final closure approval

letter once these activities are reviewed and accepted.

3.11 Social

License Considerations

Social

and community impacts have been considered and evaluated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Potentially affected

Native American tribes, tribal organizations, and/or individuals are consulted during the preparation of all plan amendments to advise

on proposed projects that may influence cultural sites, resources, and traditional activities. Potential community impacts on the existing

population and demographics, income, employment, economy, public finance, housing, community facilities, and community services are also

evaluated during NEPA review processes. There are currently no social or community issues that materially impact Hycroft’s ability

to extract mineral resources.

3.12 Project

Risks and Uncertainties

Timely

filings and payments are required to maintain title and rights to claims, water rights and permits. Hycroft maintains processes and controls

to ensure timely filings and payments. Changing regulations or failure to make timely filings and payments are significant risks to maintaining

environmental access or ability to perform the permitted and authorized work on the property.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 37

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

4 Accessibility,

Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

4.1 Physiography

Hycroft

is situated on the eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert and on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains between Winnemucca and Gerlach,

Nevada. The site is characterized by flat, prehistoric lakebed and well-dissected topography with moderately steep slopes. Topographic

relief within the project area is 1,900 feet (ft). The elevation ranges from 4,100 ft above sea level on the western side to 6,000 ft

above sea level on the eastern side. The climate in the mine area is arid. Vegetation consists mostly of sagebrush, rabbit brush, and

surface grass. Scattered pinon and juniper trees occur along slopes in the higher parts of the property.

4.2 Accessibility

Hycroft

and its related facilities are located 54 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada along State Road No. 49 (Jungo Road), a good quality, unpaved

road. Access is also possible from Gerlach via Jungo Road, Imlay or Lovelock by dirt roads intersecting Interstate 80. Winnemucca is

a commercial community on Interstate 80 where most of the Mine’s employees are likely to reside. Winnemucca is 164 miles northeast

of Reno, Nevada. The town is served by a transcontinental railroad and has a small public airport and there are adequate boarding rooms

and dining facilities.

4.3 Climate

The

climate at the Mine is classified as arid, with an average precipitation of 7.7 inches per year (in/a), which occurs during the winter

and spring months. Winds are generally light with occasional dust or sandstorms, particularly in the spring.

Temperatures

are moderate during the summer, ranging from 50 °F at night to above 90 °F, and averaging 85 °F to 95 °F during

the day. Winter temperatures average 20 °F at night and 40 °F during the day. The average range between the highest and lowest

daily temperatures is 30 to 35 °F with strong surface heating during the day and rapid nighttime cooling due to the dry air. Winter

nights can drop well below freezing, but daytime highs are usually above freezing. Winter snowpack is light, and snow does not normally

present logistical problems. Hycroft has not reported experiencing major delays in production due to inclement weather and is accessible

year-round.

4.4 Local

Resources and Infrastructure

Existing

infrastructure at the Mine consists of the following: a truck shop, a maintenance building, a laboratory, ore crushing facilities, an

administration building, and other service-related structures. Power is supplied to the site from nearby power lines that are fed directly

from the main power grid and there is a modern communications system including cellular connections. Potable water is sourced from a

well located approximately one mile south of the Crofoot Heap. A major east–west railway passes adjacent to the Hycroft property.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 38

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

4-1: Onsite Lab, Admin, Maintenance, Truck Shop, and Warehouse

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

4-2: Crusher and Conveyor Belt Circuit

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 39

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

4-3: North Merrill-Crowe Facility

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

4-4: Stage 1 Heap Leach Pad and Ponds Along Jungo Road

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 40

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

Mine is in a well-known mining jurisdiction near several towns including Winnemucca, Gerlach and Lovelock. The Mine’s workforce

primarily lives in Winnemucca (Humboldt County) and Lovelock (Pershing County).

Initial

surveys indicated that the town of Winnemucca has the required infrastructure (short- and long-term rooming and boarding facilities,

dining establishments, shopping, emergency services, schools, etc.) to support the maximum workforce and dependents. The Mine has always

been successful in filling positions with qualified mining personnel from all over the country.

Currently,

the Mine operates three water wells that are located four to five miles west of the mine, and a single potable well. These four production

wells are the main sources of water for the mine site. All water rights are within the Black Rock Desert Hydrographic Basin, a recently

designated basin. Water rights are shown in Table 4-1.

Hycroft

controls sufficient land position and water rights to support its planned facilities and process water demands.

Table

4-1: Hycroft Water Wells and Permitted Yearly Consumption

Application

No.

Permit

Diversion Limit (cfs)

Annual

Appropriation Limit (acre-ft)

Point

of Division

81228

0.4

14.83

T34N

R29E S3

81226

3.2

724.79

T35N

R29E S31

81225

3.2

303.43

T35N

R29E S31

81227

2.0

1,448

T35N

R29E S31

81224

2.0

1,448

T34N

R28E S1

81408

5.4

3,890

T35N

R29E S31

81409

5.4

3,890

T35N

R29E S31

84477

0.3

177.9

T35N

R29E S31

82274

4,096

T35N

R29E S31

82355

3.3

2,050

T35N

R29E S31

82356

5.6

3,415

T34N

R28E S1

Total

40.8

21,457.95

fully developed project will include plans to develop access and haul roads to new processing facilities, a TMF, and additional waste

rock storage dumps. Furthermore, the development of a rail spur is recommended off the existing rail line for the receipt of grinding

media, fuel, reagents, and other supplies.

power study needs to be conducted to upgrade the existing power at the site to support a fully developed processing plant.

4.5 Seismicity

2012, Michael W. West and Associates Inc. (MWWAI) completed a review of the Hycroft deterministic seismic hazard assessment (DSHA). MWWAI

concluded that historical seismicity in the vicinity of the site is low to moderate with no relation to mapped faults. No faults in the

project area are classified as “active/capable” based on an unequivocal association of instrumentally recorded earthquakes

in the last approximately 50 years. MWWAI stated that a comparison of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) national probabilistic

seismic hazard model to deterministic and probabilistic floating earthquake peak ground accelerations (PGAs) show reasonable agreement.

MWWAI recommends the use of the deterministic and probabilistic PGAs presented in the DSHA.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 41

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

5 History

5.1 Regional

History

The

earliest recorded mining in the Sulfur District, where the Mine is located, began in the late 1800s following the discovery of significant

native sulfur deposits (Couch and Carpenter, 1943; Wilden, 1964). Mining of native sulfur was sporadic from 1900 to 1950 with over 181,488

tons of sulfur ore, grading approximately 20-35% sulfur, mined and milled (McLean, 1991).

addition to sulfur, high-grade Ag mineralization, consisting of nearly pure seams of cerargyrite (AgCl), was discovered in 1908 at Camel

Hill (Vandenburg, 1938). Assays up to 3,439 oz/ton Ag and 0.362 oz/ton Au were reported (Jones, 1921). Ag mining ceased in 1912 with

an estimated 165,375 Ag ounces produced. Minor Ag mining also occurred along the East Fault at the Snyder Adit, and Ag samples as high

as 66 oz/ton (Friberg, 1980) and 29 oz/ton (Bates, 2001) were reported.

During

the First World War (1914 to 1918), three 6 to 8 ft wide veins of nearly pure alunite were mined in the southern part of the Sulfur District

(Clark, 1918). In 1931, several hundred tons of alunite were mined as a soil additive (Fulton & Smith, 1932). Vandenburg estimated

that 454 tons of alunite was shipped to the west coast to be used as fertilizer (Vandenburg, 1938). From 1941 to 1943, cinnabar was mined

from small pits in the exposed acid leach zone (Bailey, 1944). Total mercury production during this period is estimated at 1,900 lbs.

(McLean, 1991).

5.2 Property

Exploration History

1966, the Great American Minerals Company began extensive exploration for native sulfur in the regional area of the Mine. Approximately

200 shallow holes were drilled, and numerous trenches were dug (Friberg, 1980). In 1974, Duval drilled 20 holes on the property in search

of a Frasch-type sulfur deposit (Wallace, 1980). Duval found no evidence of a sulfur deposit at depth but did report elevated Au and

Ag values. Duval drilled two core holes (DC-1 and DC-2) and 18 rotary holes (DR-3 through 20) (Ware, 1989).

1977, the Cordex Syndicate mapped and rock-chip sampled the property. They concluded that there was potential for bulk tonnage as a low-grade

precious metal deposit. In 1978, Homestake became interested in the property, recognizing similarities with the McLaughlin hot springs

deposit in California. Homestake completed surface sampling and exploration drilling during 1981-1982, and although successful in defining

an oxide gold/silver mineral deposit, they forfeited the property in 1982.

5.3 Production

Mining

at the Mine began in 1983 with a small heap leach operation known as the Lewis Mine. In 1987, Vista acquired the Lewis Mine and in 1988,

they acquired the Crofoot Mine. The Mine was comprised of various open pits on the property (e.g., the Bay, South Central, Boneyard,

Gap and Historic Cut-4 pits along the Central Zone and Brimstone) and produced approximately 1.2 million ounces (Moz) of Au and 2.5 Moz

of Ag from 1983 to December 1998 when the operations were suspended due to low Au prices at the time (<$300/oz). An additional 58,700

ounces of Au were produced from the leaching and rinsing of the heap leach pads from 1999 through 2004, after the mine had been placed

on a care and maintenance program. The remaining leasehold interest in the Lewis property was purchased by Vista in December 2005, in

consideration of the US$5.1 M payment, resulting in the elimination of the 5% NSR royalty on Au and 7.5% NSR royalty on Ag.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 42

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Further

information on the production history of the Mine comes from Hycroft’s internal documents. Ore from the Lewis Mine was crushed

and stacked on the Lewis leach pads in the north-central part of the Sulfur District. Approximately 259.2 Mtons of ore with a gold grade

averaging 0.014 oz/ton was mined from 1983 to 2019, beginning with ore mined from the Lewis Mine, followed by ore mined from the Bay,

South Central, Boneyard, Gap and Historic Cut-4 pits, and finally the north end of the Brimstone pit, producing over 2.082 Moz of Au.

The

Crofoot leach pad (Pads 1 and 2) were constructed in 1987, and Pad 3 in 1992. Ore was placed on Pad 1 from 1988 to 1997, on Pad 2 from

1989 to 1997, and on Pad 3 from 1993 to 1997. Solutions from these pads were treated in the Crofoot Merrill-Crowe plant located on the

northeast side of Pad 1.

Production

from the Brimstone pit was placed on the Brimstone pad (Pads 4 and 5) as run-of-mine (ROM). Pad 4, constructed just south of the old

Lewis pad, was completed in 1996. Loading of Pads 4 and 5 commenced in October 1996 and July 1997, respectively. A 2,800 gallon per minute

(gal/min) Merrill-Crowe leach solution plant (the Brimstone Plant) was completed and put into operation in February 1997. The plant treated

solutions from Pad 4. Pad 5 solutions were treated in the older Crofoot plant.

May 2007, the Nevada-based holdings of Vista were spun out into Allied Nevada Gold Corp. The Mine was included as part of the transfer

of ownership allowing Allied Nevada to explore, expand, and develop the resources at Hycroft.

September 2007, Allied Nevada’s Board of Directors approved the reactivation of the Mine, and a year later in December 2008, the

Mine had produced its first doré which was shipped to an offsite refinery for final processing, yielding Au and Ag bullion. Allied

Nevada received a construction permit for the Brimstone Refinery in 2008, and construction was completed in June of 2009. By the end

of 2009, the Mine was achieving the forecasted ore production capacity. In 2010, the mine began an expansion program which included the

construction of a 21,000 gal/min Merrill-Crowe processing plant, a three-stage crushing facility and upgrades to their solution pumping

capacity. With the construction of the North leach pad complete in 2013, the total leach pad surface area at the Mine site had increased

to over 20 million ft2 including the Brimstone and Lewis leach pads. Allied Nevada filed for bankruptcy on March 10, 2015,

and active mining ceased in June 2015 due to low metal prices. Leaching of the mined ore continuing through 2018.

October 22, 2015, Allied Nevada emerged from its financial restructuring and changed its name to Hycroft Mining Corporation. On May 29,

2020, Hycroft Mining Corporation completed a business combination with a publicly trade special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). Following

the closing of the transaction, the SPAC changed its name to Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation.

late 2018, Hycroft began construction of Phase 1 of the Jungo Leach Pad to expand process capacity for anticipated heap leach material.

Additionally, Hycroft began preparing the mine for a restart. Active mining began again in April 2019 to November 10, 2021, transition

ore was placed on the existing leach pads. Sulfide materials, when encountered during active mining, were set aside for future processing.

November 2021, Hycroft suspended mining operations to refocus resources on metallurgical test work and exploration. Final construction

of Phase 1 of the Jungo Leach Pad was suspended, and protective media cover material was placed on the multimedia liner. Electrical,

instrumentation, and pumping equipment were placed in covered storage for a future restart.

The

annual sales produced from the Mine’s heap leach operations over years 2019 through 2022 were 107,258 oz Au and 629,904 oz Ag.

There have been no gold or silver commodity sales since 2022.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 43

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

6 Geological

Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

6.1 Geological

Setting

Section

6 has been written and updated by Alex Davidson, Vice-President of Exploration of Hycroft Resources and Development LLC and approved

by IMC (Independent Mining Consultants). IMC is a third-party consulting firm with people who can act as a qualified person for this

section.

The

Hycroft deposit is a low-sulfidation, epithermal, hot springs system that contains Au and Ag mineralization. Radiometric dating of adularia

(potassium feldspar) indicate that the main phase of Au and Ag mineralization formed approximately four million years ago (Ebert, S.W.,

& Rye, R.O. (1997)) when hydrothermal fluids were fed upward along high angle, normal faults. Low-grade Au and Ag mineralization

was co-deposited with silica and potassium feldspar throughout porous rock types.

subsequent drop in permeability, due to sealing of the system, led to over pressuring and subsequent repeated hydrothermal brecciation.

Additional precious metal mineralization was deposited during this event as breccia zones, veins, and sulfide flooding.

and Ag mineralization was followed (0.7 to 4.0 million years ago, (Ebert, S.W., & Rye, R.O. (1997)) by an intense event of high sulfidation

acid leaching of the mineralized volcanic rocks coincident with a regional water table drop. This allowed steam heated sulfur gases to

condense into sulfuric acid and leach the upper portion of the mineralized rocks.

Oxidation

of sulfide mineralization occurs to variable depths over the deposit, depending upon proximity to faults, extent of acid leaching, and

depth to water table. Sulfide content through the deposit is variable from 0 to 20%.

6.1.1 Regional

Geology

The

Mine is located on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains in the Basin and Range physiographic province of northwestern Nevada. The

Kamma Mountains were formed during Miocene to Quaternary Epoch from the uplift of Jurassic basement rock and emplacement of Tertiary

volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The stratigraphy along the western flank of the range is down dropped to the west, along a series of

north to northeast striking normal faults. These faults served as conduits of hydrothermal fluids that deposited the Hycroft mineralization.

6.1.2 Local

Geology

The

Hycroft property consists of Tertiary to recent age, fault-controlled, low-sulfidation Au zones that occur over an area measuring approximately

three miles in a north–south direction by two miles in an east–west direction. The zones are hosted in volcanic rock eruptive

breccias, flows and conglomerates associated with the Tertiary Kamma Volcanics and sand to conglomeratic debris flows associated with

the Tertiary Sulfur Group (TSG).

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 44

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Younger

rocks at the mine are Tertiary conglomerate, siltstone and fanglomerate of the Sulfur Group (locally termed Camel Conglomerate). These

rocks are comprised of sediment eroded from the underlying Kamma Volcanics and Jurassic Auld Lang Syne (ALS) Formation. The Sulfur Group

is divided into three main units: a clast-supported coarse conglomerate, a matrix-supported conglomerate, and an underlying tuffaceous

lake sediment. This unit outcrops throughout the mine site with increasing thickness to the west.

The

older Kamma Group is exposed throughout the Kamma Mountains east of the Central Fault. It underlies the Camel Conglomerate (TCM). The

volcanic package is comprised of siliceous to intermediate tuffs, coarse grained volcanic clastics, fanglomerates, eruption breccias

and massive to flow banded rhyolites.

The

Jurassic ALS Formation underlies the Kamma volcanic package. This formation consists of a thin bedded to laminated siltstone, with calcite

cementing. ALS is exposed approximately three miles east of the deposit and is encountered only at depth in drilling at Hycroft. A generalized

stratigraphic column for the Hycroft deposit area is presented in Figure 6-1. This stratigraphic column illustrates the formations of

volcanic origin that host the deposit with notations for lithologies in each formation. The TCM of the TSG has been broken out as a separate

rock, in addition to those shown in Figure 6-1. The sub-group of the TSG references lakebed sediments that are distinct from the TCM.

Figure

6-1: Stratigraphic Column for Hycroft Deposit Area

Source:

SRK, 2019

Six

major north-northeast trending, west dipping, normal fault zones appear to broadly control the distribution of alteration as shown in

Figure 6-2. From west to east, these fault zones are referred to as the Range, West Splay, Central, Break, Albert, and East Faults. These

major structures down-drop stratigraphy and affect the distribution of alteration and mineralization. A post-mineral basin bounding fault

(not pictured) appears to border TCM and the adjacent Pleistocene Lahontan Lake sediments in the Black Rock Desert. Based on geophysics,

this structure is approximately one to two miles west of the mine site. There are several east–west trending structures that appear

to provide post-mineral offset to the deposit. These form a series of horst and grabens within the deposit footprint.

Figure

6-2 is a mine grid north-looking section through the Mine showing structures and volcanic rock stratigraphy. There are also several other

parallel fault zones that may have a significant impact on the localization of mineralization. The depth of oxide and mixed sulfide/oxide

Au and Ag mineralization vary considerably throughout the area. Alteration at the deposit is dominated by acid leaching, silicification,

argilization, and propylitization.

Figure

6-2: Simplified East–West Cross Section Through the Hycroft Mine – Section 40600 N

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

6.2 Mineralization

and Alteration

The

Hycroft deposit is broken into five major zones based on geology, mineralization, and alteration. These include Brimstone, Vortex, Central,

Bay, and Camel. The boundaries are typically major faults, namely Break, East, and Ramp Faults. Continuity is structurally controlled

and disseminated in each of these areas.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 45

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Detailed

geologic work by previous owners at Hycroft identified several hydrothermal alteration events. However, for resource estimation purposes,

the following four alteration types have been interpreted and assigned to the block model:

● Acid

Leach – Associated with the upper portion of the epithermal vent. Native Sulfur is

common in this area and the original protolith has been obliterated with a white clay alteration.

● Propylitic

– Propylitic altered material is generally found in the volcanic rocks of the Kamma

Mountains. Although it is occasionally interpreted within the mineralized zone of the deposit.

● Argillic

– A pervasive alteration of both TCMs and the Kamma Volcanics clay minerals have replaced

the original potassium feldspars and other minerals.

● Silicic

– Silica flooding is associated with the mineralization processes at Hycroft.

Propylitic

is generally barren or nearly so. It has been lumped with the argillic alteration units for grade estimation and assignment.

Silicic

alteration generally has better grade than the surrounding argillic and is mechanically more robust.

Oxidation

has occurred across the deposit to variable depth depending on the structural preparation and available acidic ground water. The oxidized

material has been the historical ore for heap leaching at Hycroft. This study includes ROM leaching of low-grade mineralization and flotation

of mineralization with sufficient pyrite and other sulfides to generate a gold and silver rich concentrate for further processing.

6.2.1 Brimstone

Brimstone

is approximately ¾ mile wide (E-W) and approximately 1 mile long (N-S) and sits between the East Fault and Albert Fault. The stratigraphy

(depth) at Brimstone includes up to 100 ft of alluvium, underlain by Camel Conglomerate rocks (0 ft to 400 ft), and Kamma volcanic rocks.

ALS has been drilled at depth and is in fault contact (East Fault) as well as unconformably with the overlying Kamma Volcanics. The Brimstone

deposit is hosted primarily by Kamma volcanic rocks in the hanging wall of the East Fault. The volcanic rocks are principally eruption

breccias, tuffs, rhyolites, and volcanic rocks proximal to vents, and overlie deformed and metamorphosed shale, sandstone, and siltstone

of the ALS group.

Brimstone, the East Fault is a north-northeast striking, west dipping, normal fault with repeated episodes of movement, including approximately

150 to 200 ft of alluvial offset. Where exposed in the Brimstone pit, the fault clearly shows steep normal movement, with slickensides

that plunge 80° to 85°. At depth the fault shallows to 45° to 60° and may merge with the Central and Break Faults. The

fault may have originally served as a conduit to hydrothermal fluids.

North

of the Brimstone deposit, the east–west trending Ramp Fault appears to down-drop favorable stratigraphy. Condemnation drilling

of the leach pad to the north has shown only local zones of weak Au and Ag mineralization. To the south, the Brimstone Zone transitions

to the Vortex Zone, with no apparent change in stratigraphy, but changes to alteration zonation.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 46

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Host

rocks were highly altered by at least four phases of alteration. The relatively porous conglomerate and breccias were preferentially

acid leached by late stage steaming hydrothermal acid vapors. Acid leach alteration extends to depths of 700 ft in some areas of the

Brimstone deposit indicating that the water table was present below the base of the acid leached zone. A siliceous layer (basal acid

leach), up to tens of feet thick, occurs at the base of the acid leach material. Underlying the acid leaching is a layer of hydrothermal

clay alteration, followed by silica potassium feldspar alteration. Pervasive silicification, veining and hydrothermal brecciation are

generally found in the rhyolites and breccias.

Zones

of silicification of varying thickness, oriented parallel to the East Fault, are present in the footwall zone. Alteration extends approximately

1,000 ft from the fault into the footwall, with pervasive silicification and quartz veining dominant.

and Ag are spatially associated with fracture and breccia-controlled chalcedony sulfide mineralization. A subsequent acid alteration

event produced the current distribution of oxidized and transition sulfide/oxide ore. The lower acid leach material hosts Au and Ag mineralization,

as does the underlying silicified and veined volcanics.

Drilling

through 2024 has shown that high-grade silver mineralization hosted in quartz/clay veins extends to a depth of over 1,800 ft in the Brimstone

Zone. The high-grade silver veins have little to no association with gold, indicating gold and silver were deposited at different times.

Petrography with support from geochemistry indicates some of the high-grade silver mineralization is potentially related to an intermediate

sulfidation system and proximal to a magmatic fluid source. Mineralization thickness of the high-grade is highly variable but generally

less than 100 ft thick (true width) and the broader overall Brimstone mineralization is 200 to 1,500 ft thick, and both mineralization

styles remain open to the west toward the Break Fault. The main phase of mineralization in the high-grade silver is naumannite and argentotetrahedrite

with inclusions of chalcopyrite, clausthite, and galena.

6.2.2 Vortex

Vortex

area is approximately ¾ mile wide (E-W) and approximately 1 mile long (N-S) and sits east of the Albert Fault. The stratigraphy

(depth) in the Vortex Zone is correlative with those at the Brimstone Zone immediately to the north. Camel Conglomerate is underlain

by tuffs, volcanic clastics, fanglomerates, and rhyolites of the Kamma Volcanics. The ALS is present in the footwall of the East Fault

and appears to be in stratigraphic contact with the Kamma Volcanics.

The

upper elevation at Vortex is hydrothermally clay (kaolinite) altered. Acid leaching is less prominent than in Brimstone and is focused

primarily along the East Fault. Strong silicification has been observed to depths greater than 1,500 ft. At least four hydrothermal mineralizing

events are present, as evidenced by crosscutting vein and breccia relationships. Propylitic and/or clay alteration extends outboard of

the silicification. The alteration within the Brimstone pit is depicted in Figure 6-3.

The

mineralization at Vortex is of both vein and disseminated types, with brecciated and altered rhyolite rocks and volcanic clastics acting

as favorable hosts. In addition to Au mineralization, high-grade Ag has been encountered at Vortex; with values ranging from 10 to 647

oz/ton. The predominant Ag minerals are miargyrite, and selenostephanite with inclusions of argentotetrahedrite, naumannite occurring

both in veins, disseminated and coarse grains along fractures. Petrography and geochemistry support the low-sulfidation epithermal style

of mineralization.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 47

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Oxide

mineralization is present at a depth of approximately 500 ft bgs, with sulfide mineralization extending to 2,500 ft bgs. Mineralization

thickness (true width) is 1,000 to 1,800 ft thick. Banded quartz veins with both high- grade Ag and Au have been noted in core. Drilling

to date indicates that the high-grade zones are both high angle banded quartz veins and a more extensive flat lying, massive quartz zone

containing visible pyrargyrite and miargyrite.

Figure

6-3: Vortex Alteration Cross-Section – 40600 N

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

6.2.3 Bay

Bay

area is approximately ¾ mile wide (E-W) and approximately 1.5 miles long (N-S) and sits north of the Camel Pit. Mineralization

in Bay is hosted by gentle, west dipping Camel Conglomerate. Both clast-supported and matrix-supported conglomerate rocks host mineralization.

The basal rock type is tuffaceous lake sediments, composed of fine-grained clay with minor layers of gravel and conglomerate extending

to a depth greater than 1,100 ft. Mineralization is primarily bedding controlled, with the Range and Central Faults as the main feeders.

The Break Fault may also have zoning controls but is poorly drilled in this zone. Mineralized siliceous hot spring sinters have been

historically mined indicating that this deposit represents the upper-most levels of a hot spring hydrothermal system.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 48

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

predominant alteration type at Bay is silicification. Acid leach alteration in the area is relatively minor and occurs along high angle

structures as seen in Figure 6-4. Clay alteration of the underlying lacustrine sediments is also noted in limited drillholes and is Illite-smectite

dominated. Strong oxidation is present in the upper portion of the silicified zone.

and Ag mineralization is associated with flat lying Camel Conglomerate, above the lacustrine lake sediments. Mineralization thickness

(true width) is 20 to 250 ft thick at Bay and 50 to 300 ft thick at Boneyard. This zone transitions into the upper zone of mineralization

at Central. Bay and Boneyard remain open to the north and east.

Figure

6-4: Bay Geologic Cross-Section at 50300-N

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 49

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

6.2.4 Central

Central

area is approximately ½ mile wide (E-W) and approximately 1 mile long (N-S) and sits between Central Fault and West Splay Fault.

Central geology is similar in nature to that of Bay, with mineralization and alteration fed by high angle faults and fractures, with

dominant lateral fluid flow through the porous conglomerate rocks of the Sulfur Group. Camel Conglomerate units are underlain by lacustrine

sediments. However, the lacustrine units thin dramatically to the south, with less than 50 ft of the material noted south of Historic

Cut-4 Pit.

The

Central fault movement is unknown, but extends at least 2,000 ft, with recent reactivation in the quaternary (50 to 150 ft), as demonstrated

by offset in the alluvium. The Range Fault to the west may provide an additional boundary, although drill data is limited at this time.

Alteration along the Central Zone is consistent with the alteration found at Bay. Acid leach alteration is stronger and more widespread

than at Bay and is extensive in the southern portion of the zone. The acid leaching overlies silicified conglomerate rocks, except along

the immediate trace of the Central Fault where silicification dominates as the alteration type as seen in Figure 6-4. Acid leach material

has mostly been mined through and very little still exists in this area. Oxidation extends downward approximately 400 ft. Underlying

the silicification and acid leaching are illite-smectite clay altered and clay dominant lacustrine sediments. Hot spring sinter deposits

have not been observed.

and Ag mineralization is associated with favorable stratigraphic horizons in the Camel Conglomerate, with an upper and lower zone noted

in drilling, separated by a north–south striking, east dipping clay layer. Mineralization remains open to the west, past the Range

Fault, and at depth (>1,400 ft). Mineralization thickness (true width) in the upper zone is 50 to 300 ft thick, while the lower zone

ranges from 300 to 1,200 ft thick and remains open at depth. The mineralization zone is contiguous to the Vortex and Brimstone Zones

to the east, and the Camel Hill/ Historic Cut-5 Pit zones to the south.

6.2.5 Camel

Camel

area is approximately ¾ mile wide (E-W) and approximately ½ mile long (N-S). Conglomerate is the dominant lithology at

Camel. The conglomerates appear to extend to depth in this zone, with only thin lake sediments drilled to date. The lack of lake sediments

can be attributed to either the Camel Fault or facies changes along a shoreline. The Camel Fault is an east–west trending fault,

with down-drop to the south, which is presently poorly defined by drilling.

Alteration

in the Camel area is predominantly comprised of silicification and clay alteration. Hydrothermal clays, overlying silicified conglomerate

rocks, and basal illite-smectite clay altered rocks are present. Acid leaching in the area is relatively minor, especially with respect

to the intensity and amount in the Central Zone area immediately to the northeast.

Mineralization

in Camel is hosted by conglomerate rocks and occurs as both disseminated Au and Ag associated with pyrite and marcasite, and higher-grade

veins, including Ag bearing pyrargyrite veins. Mineralization thickness (true width) is 200–1,100 ft thick, extends to depths greater

than 1,400 ft, and remains open at depth. Oxidation extends to depths greater than 200 ft and an area of intense oxidized mordenite alteration

is present between the Historic Cut-5 Pit and Camel. Mineralization remains open to the south, west and at depth. Mineralization is also

open to the west of Camel and to the south towards Hades Fault.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 50

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

6.3 Deposit

Types

The

Hycroft deposit is generally an epithermal, low-sulfidation hot springs deposit (Figure 6-5). Au and Ag mineralization are noted as both

disseminated and vein controlled.

Figure

6-5: Generalized Epithermal Diagram

Source:

Buchanan, 1981 and modified by Corbett Greg and Leach, Terry, 1998

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 51

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

7 Exploration

7.1 Exploration

Section

7 has been written and updated by Alex Davidson, Vice President of Exploration of Hycroft and approved by IMC. IMC is a third-party consulting

firm with people who can act as a qualified person for this section. Hycroft has conducted geophysical surveys, soil and rock-chip sampling

programs, field mapping, historical data compilation, and regional reconnaissance at the site. These efforts are designed to improve

the understanding of known mineralization, as well as provide data for further exploration of the greater property position.

7.2 Geological

Mapping

Field

mapping was historically and is currently carried out in all active mine areas. Mapping focuses on structure, bedding, joints, lithology,

and alteration. The near mine data is incorporated into the three-dimensional geology model, while the regional work is focused on defining

exploration targets for future drilling. A regional geology map covering the land position was compiled in 2012. Regional exploration

data from Homestake, LAC Minerals, USX, HRDI, and others has been compiled from both in-house and public data sources. Approximately

250 drillholes, various soil and rock chip locations and results, and various field maps have been identified at present.

7.3 Geophysics

The

land position has been surveyed with both gravity and induced polarity (IP) geophysical techniques by Hycroft. The current ground-based

gravity survey covers approximately 130 square miles, centered on the mine site. Gravity indicates several structural features and density

changes that offer potential exploration targets.

Ground

induced polarization (IP) surveys were run over the mine site and Vortex in 2007 and extended outward in 2011 to cover approximately

24 square miles. The survey results focus on chargeability anomalies, that potentially identify sulfide material (> approximately

1.5%) at depth, and resistivity anomalies, that potentially identify silicification at depth. Results have identified and confirm additional

exploration targets suggested by the other geophysical methods.

additional 56-line kilometers of IP were collected in four phases during the 2023 and 2024 exploration seasons which extended several

of the lines from the previous surveys. The data from the new IP lines were incorporated into Voxel models which included historical

IP data. The results from the survey focused on both chargeability and resistivity anomalies.

2022 a hyperspectral imaging flyover of the Hycroft was conducted by SpecTIR Advanced Hyperspectral Solutions. Both longwave infrared

(LWIR) and shortwave infrared (SWIR) imaging were collected with the intent of helping identify key minerals on the surface to focus

reconnaissance mapping and soils programs. Total flyover grid was 1,200 km2.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 52

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

7.4 Soil

Sampling

soil sampling grid was conducted over the Vortex and Brimstone areas historically (1,797 samples) and was extended approximately 5,200

ft north and 29,600 ft south of the mine in 2011–2012 (1,834 samples). The soil sampling program was conducted primarily along

the East Fault exposure, which is a primary ore-controlling feature at Vortex and Brimstone. Results, using Au, Ag, arsenic, and antimony,

indicate potential exploration targets to the south of the Vortex area. At present this work has identified several target areas. Au

values range from 0 to 0.027 oz/ton, while Ag values range from 0 to 3.7 oz/ton. Soil samples are taken on an evenly spaced grid (approximate

100-meter grid spacing), and screened for coarse material and wind-blown material, resulting in a fraction between 2 mm and 180 µm

being prepped for analysis. These samples are considered representative of local soil geochemistry and are used to guide the regional

exploration effort.

7.5 Rock-Chip

Sampling

Rock-chip

sampling has been conducted both historically in the active mine area, and on a regional basis (2007–present). A database of 2,416

samples has been compiled, covering the greater land position. Using Au, Ag, arsenic, and other elements, exploration targets have been

developed both north and south of the current mine. Rock-chip samples have been taken on most outcrops, with a focus on alteration and

potential mineralization. These samples are used as a guide to exploration and are point samples only.

additional 206 rock-chip samples were collected in the 2023 and 2024 exploration season within the mine area and immediately east of

the mine area. The gold values include 22 samples greater than 0.03 oz/ton Au, and two samples greater than 0.23 oz/ton Au. These samples

were collected in mineralized structures in the Bay Pit highwall. Silver values include 16 samples greater than 0.58 oz/ton Ag and two

samples greater than 5.9 oz/ton Ag (maximum 15.2 oz/ton Ag). These samples were collected in mineralized structures in the Brimstone

pit highwall and were not collected on a grid.

7.6 Drilling

7.6.1 Introduction

The

Hycroft drill history covers the period from 1982 through 2024 and includes 6,024 holes, representing 2,814,546 ft of drilling. Some

of those holes are water wells or are outside the resource model area and were not applied to MRE. The drillhole collar locations are

shown in Figure 7-1. At this time, there are 5,813 drillholes in the resource model area of which 188 have been drilled to define stockpiles

or the Crofoot leach pad. Section 11 provides a more detailed breakdown of the amount of drilling and assaying used in the mineral resource

modeling.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 53

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

7.6.2 Exploration

Drilling

Exploration

drilling was started in 1974 by Duval Corporation, which was evaluating the property for a Frasch-type sulfur deposit and the copper

potential. Although native sulfur appeared to be limited to the acid leach zone, Au and Ag mineralization was discovered at depth, with

the deepest hole completed to 2,000 ft. Duval concluded that the property did not have large scale sulfur potential. Twenty drillholes

(9,726 ft) were completed on the project. Hycroft does not have access to the Duval Corporation drilling data and therefore is not a

part of the Hycroft database.

Homestake

(1982), using their McLaughlin deposit as a model, completed 96 RC drillholes totaling 16,537 ft, primarily in the Bay and Boneyard areas.

Shallow oxide Au mineralization was discovered, but Homestake declined the opportunity. Crofoot and American Slag then proceeded to acquire

the property rights and initiated small-scale oxide heap leach mining at Central and Bay in 1983. Homestake also completed 8 core holes

during this timeframe, but collar location data has not been located.

Hycroft

gained control of the district in 1985 and drilled 3,212 exploration holes, totaling 965,552 ft, between 1985 and 1999. The bulk of this

drilling was shallow and focused on oxide Au mineralization at Central, Bay and Brimstone.

2005, Canyon Resources completed 33 drillholes totaling 13,275 ft of RC drilling. These were completed primarily in the Brimstone pit

area.

Hycroft

commenced systematic exploration and resource development drilling starting in 2006. Drilling was focused on oxide resource delineation,

sulfide resource definition, sulfide exploration, condemnation drilling for facilities, Ag data and both geotechnical and metallurgical

core samples. Between late-2006 and August 31, 2016, Hycroft completed 1,970 exploration holes, totaling approximately 1.45 million ft.

combination of rotary, RC and core drilling techniques has been utilized to verify the nature and extent of mineralization. Most samples

have been collected using RC drilling methods on 5 ft sample intervals. RC drilling utilizes 4.5- to 5.5” tooling.

Deeper drilling is conducted with diamond drilling, using PQ, HQ and NQ tooling. This practice continued through 2013. Since 2013, an

RC drilling program was completed in 2014, and a metallurgical core program with six drillholes was completed in 2017. Various protocols

applied to drilling by Hycroft are consistent with industry standards and the resulting data is of good quality for use in the Hycroft

model. Shallow drillholes to sample heap material were completed with sonic coring. The 2018 sonic drilling program was limited to 56

vertical holes in sulfide stockpiles and did not include in-situ alluvium or bedrock material. While these were not used for interpolation

of in-situ rock, they were applied to estimate grades in fill material.

During

2021 through 2024, Hycroft drilled 260 holes, 105 in 2021, 85 in 2022, 49 in 2023 and 21 in 2024. Most of the 2021 drilling was diamond

core that was used for metallurgical testing and assay. The 2022 and 2023 drilling focused on extending mineralization and upgrading

areas from inferred to measured and indicated classification. The 2024 drilling focused on high-grade mineralization in Brimstone and

Vortex.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 54

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

7-1: Drill Collar Location Plan

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 55

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

7-1: Drilling from 2023 and 2024 Supporting the Updated MRE

Hole

Northing

Easting

Elevation

(masl)

Hole

length (ft)

Inclination

(deg)

Azimuth

(deg)

H23C-5767

23022.532

39788.972

5050.094

1000

-57.98

243

H23C-5768

23097.466

39986.601

5048.798

1020

-57.98

243

H23C-5769

19563.12

40199.23

4458.06

1750

-57.98

243

H23C-5770

19024.77

40418.99

4239.71

1887

-57.98

243

H23C-5776

18426.95

40800.25

4361.54

1629.5

-57.98

243

H23C-5778

25545.11

36956.82

5616.41

1000

-57.98

243

H23C-5780

25984.36

36976.45

5575.68

605

-57.98

243

H23C-5781

25980.93

36976.25

5575.86

753

-57.98

243

H23R-5747

22189.79

39295.821

5001.41

1300

-70

H23R-5748

17122

38400.01

4606.39

1300

-70

H23R-5749

17178.57

38589.8

4598.47

1300

-70

H23R-5750

17078.89

38776.26

4598.543

1400

-70

H23R-5751

17039.71

38669.56

4599.205

1760

-70

H23R-5752

17039.97

38669.7

4599.259

1400

-70

H23R-5753

22119.91

42749.64

4479.94

1200

-70

H23R-5754

21510.24

41418.17

4501.49

1250

-70

H23R-5755

16516.25

37642.36

4406.38

800

-70

H23R-5756

16369.51

38282.53

4302.76

1100

-70

H23R-5757

16902.9

38592.574

4597.643

1200

-70

H23R-5758

16916.07

38779.44

4599.196

1400

-70

H23R-5759

17064.069

38765.321

4599.206

1300

-70

H23R-5760

22545.27

42526.38

4617.74

1500

-70

H23R-5761

22540.37

42621.83

4619.23

1500

-70

H23R-5762

16878.68

40805.17

4439.201

1510

-70

H23R-5763

17117.9

40800.38

4448.28

1700

-70

H23R-5764

17366.39

40800.14

4433.93

1720

-70

H23R-5765

21362.57

41350.61

4508.29

1250

-70

H23R-5766

21642.38

40908.35

4653.27

1500

-70

H23R-5771

22375.51

42362.41

4619.92

1210.4

-70

H23R-5773

22579.05

44400.47

4834.02

1380

-70

H23R-5774

22577.06

44400.39

4834.09

1500

-70

H23R-5784

16389.27

37693.98

4375.49

950

-70

H23R-5785

16130.29

37479.09

4343.28

750

-70

H23R-5786

16212.63

37860.99

4357.13

800

-70

H23C-5787

25261.92

36571.14

5560.73

800

-57.98

243

H23C-5777

26047.99

37510.26

5710.02

659

-57.98

243

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 56

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hole

Northing

Easting

Elevation

(masl)

Hole

length (ft)

Inclination

(deg)

Azimuth

(deg)

H23C-5779

25048.82

36226.86

5511.94

610

-57.98

243

H23C-5790

22137.378

42732.949

4481.43

1222

-57.98

243

H23C-5794

26978.764

38048.934

5725.895

1625.5

-70

H23C-5795

22368.307

42211.245

4615.752

1205

-70

H23R-5775

22107.49

41546.68

4597.67

1378

-70

H23R-5782

22417.57

41989.33

4611.14

1200

-70

H23R-5792

19737.808

47981.098

4592.636

450

-70

H23C-5788

22124

42755

4480

785

-57.98

243

H23C-5789

21501.12

41405.63

4501.13

1260

-57.98

243

H23C-5796

14219.804

30051.704

5258.447

564

-70

H23C-5797

14216.243

30054.634

5258.395

421

-70

H23C-5791

19202.43

50349.998

4466.932

556

-62.53

91.39

H23C-5798

21842.82

42721.378

4480.006

1306

-70

H24D-6000

18456.79

41109.25

4358.82

1288.1

-51.55

139.51

H24D-6001

20279.43

40613.29

4845.23

1897

-81.79

225.4

H24D-6002

19532.83

39871.49

4497.08

1936.6

-72.19

28.04

H24D-6003

21617.07

42344.04

4522.26

1603

-57.96

74.93

H24D-6004

21632.9

42668.16

4480.78

1491

-53.29

85.89

H24D-6005

20430.43

39723.11

4874.35

1978

-80.04

37.12

H24D-6007

18467.86

39384.38

4603.13

1764.3

-65.42

19.17

H24D-6009

21596.98

42343.93

4522.13

1439

-60.25

96.83

H24D-6010

22075.19

42771.26

4480.41

1270

-58.27

121.77

H24D-6008

21414.42

42576.31

4525.28

1589.3

-65.42

19.17

H24D-6011

22083.7

42463.77

4520

1128.9

-58.27

118.96

H24D-6012

21577.37

42129.56

4563.03

1480

-77.5

16.35

H24E-6013

19581.635

52769.501

4459.163

662

-49.93

81.98

H24E-6014

19438.89

51895.48

4426.114

600

-49.93

81.98

H24E-6015

23464.19

39901.24

5307.52

785

-49.93

81.98

H24D-6006

18702.71

40106.39

4419.27

1319.8

-80.04

37.12

H24D-6016

18394.08

39005.45

4671.78

2107

-63.53

20.92

H24D-6017

22075.42

42769.46

4479

1235.4

-63.53

20.92

H24D-6018

22084.57

42462.56

4520.41

1186

-63.53

20.92

H24D-6019

21733.69

42244

4521.2

1701

-63.53

20.92

H24D-6020

21876.02

42083.76

4559.42

1254.7

-49.93

81.98

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 57

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

7.6.2.1 Drilling

Methods

Drilling

at Hycroft has been a mix of diamond core holes, reverse circulation (RC), and sonic drilling. A total of 6,024 drill holes representing

2,814,546 ft of drilling has been performed throughout the history of the project. A total of 35,647 down-hole surveys exist in the database.

7.6.2.2 Logging

Procedures

Core

is loaded into cardboard boxes in approximately ten-foot intervals and are transported to the core processing facility. Geology data

is logged directly into acQuire by the staff geologists where they log formation, lithology, structure, vein, mineralization, and alteration,

and geotechnical data. RC chips are collected from the RC rejects and the rig and stored in chip trays for logging by similar methods

as applied to core.

7.6.2.3 Recovery

The

average sample recovery within the ore at Hycroft is 82% and the average sample recovery within the waste is 75%.

7.6.2.4 Sample

Length/True Thickness

Sample

length is generally 5 ft intervals sampled down the drill hole but broken in smaller intervals based on local geologic variation. The

true thickness of mineralization is several feet to more than, 2,000 ft.

7.7 Hydrogeology

extensive program of hydrologic data collection was implemented by SRK Consulting (US) Inc. (SRK) for a previous owner of the property.

That work is summarized in a report titled “Summary of Field Investigations and Conceptual Hydrogeology – Hycroft Mine Expansion

Project, Nevada”, August 2013. SRK collected data from 43 drill holes including monitor wells, piezometers, slug tests, packer

tests, long-term pumping tests, and ground water level monitoring. Eighty-one ground water samples were collected and analyzed over a

period of a year and a quarter. The SRK work was utilized during the preliminary geotechnical analysis of the Hycroft pit slopes.

IMC

holds the opinion that hydrologic data collection and analysis are appropriate to determine mineral resources and an initial assessment

with an economic analysis.

7.8 Geotechnical

Call

& Nicholas, Inc. (CNI) has completed geotechnical data collection and analysis. CNI has prepared two reports titled: “Hycroft

Geotechnical Slope Stability Study,” February 2022, and “2023 Camel Pit Geotechnical Logging and Laboratory Testing Report,”

October 2023. Geotechnical laboratory testing was completed by CNI during 2010, 2011, 2021, and 2023.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 58

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Two

geotechnical holes were drilled in 2022 using diamond core methods (H22D-5726 and H22D-5729). These holes were sampled and logged for

rock quality designation (RQD) and other geotechnical parameters by CNI engineers on site at Hycroft. Hole H22D-5729 was also televiewer

logged.

CNI

has provided slope angle recommendations that have been utilized to establish the MRE presented in this document.

IMC

holds the opinion that geotechnical work is appropriate for development of mineral resources and initial assessment with economic analysis.

Additional work will be required as the project progresses, and more detail is required.

7.9 Exploration

Targets

mid-2022 Hycroft restarted exploration drilling with the primary goal of converting waste material and inferred resources into measured

and indicated resources. The drilling was dominantly RC, and RC with core tails occurring on the deeper (<1,800 ft) holes (See Table

7-2). In the second half of 2023 the program was re-aligned due to the recognition of significant silver grades both within subvertical

thin veining in Brimstone and within a low angle breccia body at Vortex. Subsequently, the drilling method was switched to core to better

understand and define structural complexities at Brimstone and Vortex.

The

drilling in Brimstone indicates the zone of veining is related to a structural dilation zone between East Fault related structures. The

geometry of the high-grade Brimstone deposit has not been fully defined and remains open at depth and along strike.

The

drilling in Vortex along with additional mapping east on the trend of the Vortex mineralization, indicates the Vortex deposit is related

to a pre-mineral detachment fault.

Exploration

targets were also identified outside the resource area to the east (Manganese and Wildrose) and south (Oscar), with work on these areas

including detailed field mapping, soil and rock-chip geochemistry, IP geophysics, and core drilling. Additional exploration work was

completed at Bay to start defining vein geometry extending below the current resource. These targets are still conceptual and may require

significant work before a resource can be determined. Hycroft will continue to develop these high value targets in future exploration

programs. The exploration program continued through 2024 with one core drill program completing 21 holes totaling approximately 30,000

ft, which was exclusively focused on high-grade silver zones within Brimstone and Vortex.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 59

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

7-2: Significant Intercepts (2023)

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H23R-5748

Camel

105.16

134.11

28.96

0.41

8.82

204.22

251.46

47.24

0.53

5.71

Including

205.74

219.46

13.72

0.61

10.84

H23R-5749

Camel

195.07

240.79

45.72

0.53

4.86

Including

204.22

222.50

18.29

0.64

3.75

288.04

304.80

16.76

0.39

5.39

368.81

377.95

9.14

0.39

3.42

H23R-5750

Camel

156.97

184.40

27.43

0.45

4.08

210.31

245.36

35.05

0.50

4.18

278.89

297.18

18.29

0.33

3.59

377.95

387.10

9.14

0.44

4.17

H23R-5751

Camel

112.78

211.84

99.06

0.46

6.88

Including

192.02

204.22

12.19

0.63

13.91

393.19

429.77

36.58

0.41

3.24

H23R-5752

Camel

152.40

219.46

67.06

0.41

4.91

333.76

371.86

38.10

0.37

29.32

Including

338.33

345.95

7.62

0.33

85.36

H23R-5757

Camel

45.72

111.25

65.53

0.51

10.38

Including

45.72

56.39

10.67

0.50

36.37

126.49

259.08

132.59

0.54

1.37

Including

138.68

184.40

45.72

0.69

8.78

350.52

365.76

15.24

0.47

7.67

H23R-5758

Camel

129.54

234.70

105.16

0.44

4.97

298.70

329.18

30.48

0.41

2.31

H23R-5759

Camel

27.43

231.65

204.22

0.53

20.70

Including

27.43

68.58

41.15

0.49

75.81

Including

80.77

128.02

47.24

0.78

8.19

281.94

359.66

77.72

0.35

3.48

H23R-5784

Camel

105.16

158.50

53.34

0.47

11.86

237.74

289.56

51.82

0.42

12.26

H23R-5786

Camel

60.96

135.64

74.68

0.36

41.20

Including

60.96

86.87

25.91

0.29

106.01

173.74

225.55

51.82

0.43

44.99

Including

173.74

181.36

7.62

0.49

266.72

H23R-5756

Camel

12.19

68.58

56.39

0.40

4.58

141.73

204.22

62.48

0.36

4.76

224.03

240.79

16.76

0.43

2.31

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 60

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H23R-5785

Camel

164.59

213.36

48.77

0.50

43.60

Including

172.21

184.40

12.19

0.59

161.16

H23R-5762

Camel

4.57

13.72

9.14

0.41

6.42

48.77

455.68

406.91

0.39

4.90

Including

137.16

202.69

65.53

0.59

6.14

H23R-5763

Camel

190.50

236.22

45.72

0.51

5.36

254.51

445.01

190.50

0.42

4.99

Including

367.28

445.01

77.72

0.53

3.76

H23R-5764

Camel

275.84

300.23

24.38

0.57

4.32

396.24

519.68

123.44

0.47

7.00

H23C-5769

Vortex

357.62

417.15

59.53

0.36

75.91

Including

399.32

417.15

17.83

0.55

211.89

H23C-5770

Vortex

0.00

29.57

0.45

7.42

224.27

328.00

103.72

0.37

6.62

347.38

398.07

50.69

0.50

139.87

Including

350.58

368.72

18.14

0.31

288.82

Including

387.16

398.07

10.91

1.29

138.48

H23R-5773

Brimstone

88.39

141.73

53.34

0.24

24.41

Including

121.92

134.11

12.19

0.32

56.84

310.90

342.90

32.00

0.51

4.87

359.66

411.48

51.82

0.38

3.98

H23R-5774

Brimstone

108.20

111.25

3.05

0.36

57.00

129.54

132.59

3.05

0.59

30.85

275.84

278.89

3.05

0.69

34.45

315.47

326.14

10.67

0.44

26.83

393.19

396.24

3.05

0.54

5.00

H23C-5768

Brimstone

61.87

67.97

6.10

0.39

210.50

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 61

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

7-3: Significant Intercepts (2024)

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H24D-6000

Vortex

71.7

102.3

30.5

0.64

13.80

272.0

318.8

46.8

0.69

18.12

H24D-6001

Vortex

189.3

224.6

35.3

0.66

6.32

Including

220.0

223.5

3.5

1.07

16.76

383.2

507.5

124.4

0.95

102.59

Including

385.4

388.2

2.8

7.38

40.85

Including

385.4

386.3

0.9

19.65

80.60

Including

410.7

424.8

14.2

2.13

77.34

Including

449.4

488.0

38.6

0.71

134.25

Including

451.7

452.0

0.3

0.03

4,170.00

Including

458.5

462.1

3.6

2.99

40.94

Including

470.2

478.9

8.7

0.32

207.33

498.2

507.0

8.9

0.31

475.56

Including

498.2

498.8

0.7

0.42

1,700.00

Including

504.6

506.0

1.4

0.34

1,538.78

H24D-6002

Vortex

357.3

458.2

100.9

0.38

100.65

Including

357.3

359.3

2.1

2.86

4.53

428.4

448.8

20.4

0.83

357.01

Including

428.4

429.4

1.0

1.38

300.12

Including

435.9

439.5

3.6

0.66

397.04

Including

440.4

445.0

4.6

1.59

1,066.47

Including

441.9

442.4

0.5

5.90

3,310.00

452.2

454.2

2.0

0.32

225.49

H24D-6005

Vortex

111.2

119.1

8.0

0.79

176.54

207.4

234.5

27.1

0.40

6.33

254.4

476.9

222.4

0.45

32.38

Including

385.2

395.2

10.0

0.34

328.25

Including

385.2

386.9

1.7

0.94

1,155.27

Including

408.2

419.0

10.8

0.24

107.02

537.1

556.1

19.0

0.37

142.14

Including

537.4

537.6

0.3

0.06

6,260.00

H24D-6006

Vortex

20.9

25.6

4.7

2.81

56.97

19.6

31.3

11.7

1.38

31.50

74.5

96.1

21.6

1.11

10.99

Including

74.5

79.2

4.8

0.91

8.60

Including

82.2

86.1

3.9

0.56

6.19

279.7

280.1

0.4

0.15

581.00

346.2

400.9

54.7

0.68

12.86

Including

351.8

355.1

3.3

2.19

9.29

Including

365.0

367.4

2.5

4.23

16.71

Including

373.3

375.3

2.0

1.05

16.13

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 62

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H24D-6007

Vortex

46.1

93.6

47.4

0.35

22.51

Including

47.7

50.2

2.6

0.12

307.40

Including

64.0

64.6

0.5

3.10

54.40

113.4

125.0

11.6

0.98

16.56

371.3

399.5

28.2

0.44

11.98

468.4

537.8

69.4

0.57

108.38

Including

468.4

474.7

6.4

0.63

213.71

Including

497.1

537.8

40.7

0.73

144.25

Including

497.1

500.9

3.8

0.23

193.57

Including

512.4

514.9

2.5

0.72

645.25

Including

513.2

513.7

0.5

1.19

1,430.00

Including

536.3

537.8

1.5

4.78

960.00

H24D-6016

Vortex

405.4

456.3

50.9

0.42

19.38

472.3

518.0

45.7

0.49

15.57

535.3

557.2

21.9

0.40

53.80

H24D-6003

Brimstone

0.0

23.8

0.29

10.80

42.4

47.8

5.5

0.20

119.54

250.7

278.3

27.6

0.38

4.13

351.4

440.0

88.5

0.23

34.70

Including

386.7

386.8

0.2

0.12

1,835.00

Including

397.7

397.9

0.2

0.62

8,410.00

Including

418.8

421.1

2.3

0.08

130.87

H24D-6004

Brimstone

0.0

18.6

0.63

24.59

341.4

361.6

20.2

0.34

5.48

413.8

442.1

28.3

0.31

14.19

Including

429.3

441.4

12.0

0.52

11.73

H24D-6008

Brimstone

458.6

474.0

15.4

0.45

12.81

Including

464.5

467.9

3.5

0.82

20.54

Including

470.2

474.0

3.8

0.46

19.83

H24D-6009

Brimstone

0.0

16.2

0.38

54.89

Including

4.8

6.4

1.5

1.05

353.24

333.2

358.7

25.5

0.35

5.46

417.9

423.5

5.6

0.10

150.80

Including

417.9

421.1

3.3

0.10

199.20

Also

Including

420.3

420.6

0.2

0.10

652.00

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 63

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H24D-6010

Brimstone

328.4

346.6

18.2

0.35

1,987.35

Including

331.0

332.8

1.8

0.11

2,612.33

Including

333.4

335.8

2.5

0.33

4,683.70

Also

Including

333.4

333.7

0.3

0.41

20,280.00

Including

340.2

342.7

2.5

0.50

5,513.43

Also

Including

340.2

341.1

0.9

0.72

10,289.00

Also

Including

341.1

341.4

0.3

0.64

15,211.00

H24D-6011

Brimstone

109.3

119.0

9.8

0.81

8.14

168.2

174.7

6.4

0.56

29.76

246.3

260.2

13.9

0.31

311.41

Including

249.9

252.8

2.9

0.27

1,211.32

273.2

326.5

53.3

0.26

218.92

Including

289.0

314.4

25.3

0.28

401.50

Also

Including

298.5

300.7

2.3

0.29

2,210.81

Also

Including

306.5

311.4

4.9

0.33

610.65

H24D-6012

Brimstone

37.3

37.8

0.4

0.49

4,540.00

65.8

66.8

0.9

0.52

4,040.00

284.0

325.2

41.2

0.39

7.28

Including

297.4

307.5

10.1

0.84

4.67

354.6

405.4

50.7

0.28

101.82

Including

354.6

357.7

3.1

0.58

36.37

Including

366.3

372.6

6.2

0.23

282.25

Also

Including

370.1

370.8

0.7

0.12

1,185.00

Including

385.0

386.6

1.6

0.09

1,156.86

Including

400.8

405.4

4.6

0.12

202.67

419.1

421.5

2.4

0.24

103.52

Including

420.7

421.5

0.8

0.13

176.30

H24D-6017

Brimstone

312.6

332.5

20.0

0.45

70.02

Including

314.7

321.6

6.9

0.14

151.39

H24D-6018

Brimstone

306.6

327.9

21.2

0.38

2359.68

Including

317.4

324.7

7.3

0.59

6,278.23

Also

Including

317.4

317.6

0.2

1.62

80,017.00

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 64

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hole

Area

From

(m)

Interval

(m)

Grade

(g/t)

H24D-6019

Brimstone

148.0

155.0

6.9

0.98

9.76

379.1

392.4

13.3

0.16

314.05

Including

379.1

385.1

6.0

0.15

591.73

H24D-6020

Brimstone

262.8

274.7

11.9

0.34

25.86

320.4

349.2

28.8

0.32

320.7

Including

328.7

332.0

3.3

0.36

775.1

Including

335.6

341.3

5.7

0.48

642.40

Including

343.6

346.2

2.6

0.24

465.16

H24E-6013

Bay

0.0

55.5

0.45

3.00

Including

13.6

15.0

1.4

3.84

40.00

H24E-6014

Bay

9.0

14.7

5.7

2.68

4.10

Including

12.5

14.7

2.2

4.91

4.74

H24E-6015

Manganese

33.6

41.2

7.6

0.81

293.51

Including

33.6

37.9

4.3

1.18

454.21

55.4

55.9

0.6

7.91

117.00

115.5

125.8

10.3

0.61

86.08

Including

117.1

123.6

6.5

0.72

131.15

168.0

173.9

5.9

0.46

6.03

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 65

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

8 Sample

Preparation, Analyses, and Security

8.1 Introduction

This

section describes the sample collection, preparation, analysis, and security that has been used by Hycroft or their predecessors. Drilling

and sampling at the Mine have been ongoing from 1982 through 2024. Hycroft provided IMC with the database which contained assay information

for drilling from 1982 through 2024. IMC is the qualified organization for the section.

Most

of the current staff at Hycroft have been at site for less than five years. As a result, much of the information that is reported here

regarding historical sample preparation, analysis, and security was previously reported in the 2023 TRS.

Discussion

of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) regarding the database is presented in Section 9.

8.2 Sample

Preparation

The

sample preparation procedures prior to 1999 were not documented. Starting in 2005, preparation procedures were well documented with standard

methods. The comparison of the pre-2005 data with post-2005 drilling will be presented in Section 9 to provide some confidence in the

application of some of the pre-2005 data.

Post-2005

sample collection consisted of both diamond core and RC drilling. Core samples are currently split at the mine site, tagged, and the

split core is sent to commercial laboratories for further preparation. RC samples are currently collected at the rig with a rotary splitter.

Bags of RC cutting splits are tagged and sent to commercial laboratories for further preparation and assaying.

Once

at the commercial labs, the samples are crushed to 10 mesh and a 0.55-lb (0.25 kg) split is taken and pulverized to 85% passing 200 mesh

prior to assay analysis.

8.3 Assay

Methods

Prior

to 1992, most samples were sent to Barringer Laboratories, Inc., in Golden, Colorado. Fire assays (FA) were routinely performed on cyanide

soluble assays for selected intervals.

From

1992 to 1999, samples were processed at the Hycroft laboratory at the mine site.

The

Hycroft laboratory assays consisted of Au FA followed by cyanide soluble Au and cyanide soluble Ag on all intervals. The Mine cyanide

soluble assay methods are reported to have been non-standard and were developed to provide a prediction of recoverable Au and Ag from

heap leaching.

There

are no samples in the database from 2000 through 2004. Starting in 2005, all samples were sent out to commercial labs for analysis that

are independent of Hycroft. During 2012, there were 10 drillholes that were an exception to this rule and were assayed by the Hycroft

lab. Those holes have reportedly been compared with assays from commercial labs and are still maintained in the database.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 66

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

external labs that have been used by Hycroft prior to 2021 are all in the Reno/Sparks, Nevada area and are listed below with their accreditations:

● ALS

Minerals

ISO9001:2000 and ISO17025

● American

Assay Laboratories

ISO/IEC17025, PTP-MAL Canada

● Inspectorate

ISO9001:2008

● McClelland

ISO/IEC17025

During

2021 and 2022, Hycroft utilized the following laboratories in the Reno/Sparks area:

● Bureau

Veritas Mineral Laboratories USA

ISO-9001 ISO-14001 ISO-45001 OHSAS-18001

● Paragon

Geochemical

ISO/IEC 17025:2017

During

2023, Hycroft utilized the following laboratories in the Reno/Sparks area:

●

Paragon Geochemical

ISO/IEC 17025:2017

●

ALS Minerals

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ISO 9001:2015

During

2024, Hycroft utilized the following laboratories in the Reno/Sparks area:

●

ALS Minerals

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ISO 9001:2015

●

American Assay Laboratories

ISO/IEC 17025:2017

All

intervals were assayed using conventional FA with Atomic Absorption (AA) or gravimetric finish for Au. Fire silver assays were not regularly

completed by previous project operators. After 2013, aqua regia (AR) digestion was used for total silver assays and replaced the previous

gravimetric treatment of silver. The lower detection limit on the AR method was the reason for the change.

The

FA method for gold with an AA finish was the primary assay method at all the labs. Cyanide soluble methods were alternatively hot or

cold depending on the lab.

noted previously, cyanide silver was much more consistently assayed than fire silver. Starting in 2014, total silver was consistently

assayed along with fire gold.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 67

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Cyanide

soluble assays for gold and silver were highly prevalent in the pre-2000 drilling. As drilling began to target the deeper sulfide mineralization

after 2005, the cyanide soluble assays were selectively run on the upper, oxidized portion of the deposit and not applied to the deeper

sulfide mineralization.

During

2007 and 2008, Hycroft also applied the 35-element inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis to 90% of the assay intervals. That data

results in 53,624 sample intervals that can be used to track trace elements.

During

2011, 127 drillholes were selected for ICP and Laboratory Equipment Corporation (LECO) analysis at American Assay. These holes were generally

500 x 200-foot centers across the estimated sulfide pit target at the time. Most were assayed on 25-foot intervals from top to bottom

for total sulfur, sulfide sulfur and carbon. During 2014, additional sample intervals were selected from the 2012 to 2014 drilling for

LECO and ICP.

During

2022, analysis for LECO was conducted on site by Hycroft on some drillholes.

During

2023, some drillholes were selected for ICP (4-acid digestion) and LECO analysis at ALS Minerals. ICP was analyzed on a sample-by-sample

basis while LECO was analyzed on 25-foot composites. Some drillholes were analyzed for LECO on site by Hycroft.

During

2024, all drillholes were sent out for ICP (4-acid digestion) and LECO analysis at ALS Minerals. In addition, a portion of the 2022 and

2023 drillholes were also sent out for ICP and LECO analysis to ALS. ICP was analyzed on a sample-by-sample basis while LECO was analyzed

on 25-foot composites.

The

sulfide sulfur results from this work have been used to assign sulfide sulfur values to the block model for process metallurgical input.

It should be noted that the sulfide sulfur procedures also report elemental sulfur along with the sulfide component.

Assay

submittals have included blanks and standards since 2007. Check assays and duplicate assays were submitted in 2012 and 2014. The results

of the analysis of those samples will be reported in Section 9.

Assay

procedures requested of ALS laboratories Reno and ALS Laboratories in Vancouver include:

● ALS

Au-AA23 testing:

◌ FA

gold with an atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish

◌ FA

Fusion with AAS finish for Au

◌ 30

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.005/10

g/t lower/upper limit

◌ >10

g/t over limit testing by gravimetric by Au-GRA21

◌ ALS

Au-AA13 testing: cyanide leach capacity

◌ Cyanide

leach; AAS finish for Au

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 68

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

◌ 30

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.03/50

g/t lower/upper limit

◌ ALS

ME-ICP41 testing

◌ AR

digestion with an atomic emission spectrometry (AES) or AAS

◌ AR

digestion with AES or AAS finish

◌ 0.5

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.2/100

g/t lower/upper limit.

● 100

g/t over limit testing by AR digestion and AES or AAS finish by Ag-OG46

● 1,500

g/t over limit gravimetric testing by Ag-GRA21

● 10,000

g/t overlimit gravimetric testing by Ag-CON01

● ALS

Ag-AA13 testing: cyanide leach capacity:

◌ Cyanide

leach with AAS finish

◌ 30

g nominal sample weight 0.03/350 g/t lower/upper limit

◌ ALS

ME-MS61m testing: multi-element trace elements:

◌ Four

acid digestion with ICP atomic emission mass spectrometry (MS)

◌ 0.75

g nominal sample weight

◌ 49-element

suite with automatic ore-grade testing on over-limits

◌ Over-limits

were set-up specific to each element

◌ ALS

S-GRA06a testing: sulfur speciation for autoclave blending:

◌ Total

sulfur by LECO furnace analysis

◌ HCI

(15%) leach of sulfates with LECO furnace analysis for sulfide sulfur (SS). Sulfide values

are reported as calculated values

◌ 1

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.01/50%

lower/upper limit by weight

◌ Assay

procedures requested of American Assay Laboratories (AAL) Reno:

◌ AAL

IO-FAAu30 testing: fire assay (FA) with an optical emission spectrometry (OES) finish:

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 69

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

◌ FA

with an OES finish for Au

◌ 30

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.003/10

g/t lower/upper limit

◌ >10

g/t over limit gravimetric testing by G-FA Au

◌ AAL

IO-2AAg testing: AR with an optical emission spectrometry (OES) finish:

◌ AR

digestion with an OES finish

◌ 30

g nominal sample weight

◌ 0.3/100

g/t lower/upper limit

◌ >100

g/t over limit AR digestion testing by IO-2AOR-AG1000

◌ >1,000

g/t over limit gravimetric testing by G-FAAg

8.3.1 Sample

Security

Samples

were delivered to the analytical laboratories in numbered bags along with transmittal sheets that list the sample numbers, the total

sample count, and codes for sample type (RC or Core). The lab confirmed the receipt of shipment against the transmittal sheets to account

for all samples issued.

is reported that no officers, directors, or associates of Hycroft or their predecessors were operationally involved in the sample collection,

preparation, or assay transmittal.

Sample

security relies on the samples being in custody of Hycroft personnel or stored in a secure area prior to shipment to ALS. Chain-of-custody

procedures consist of unique and independent sample numbers used for each sample with dispatch-submittal sheets and database entries

used to track the progress of samples and to ensure that all samples are received by the laboratory.

Unique

and independent sample numbers and sample tags are used in all cases. Sample Dispatch and Submittal sheets are used to check and track

samples through the system. Sample information is entered into the computer database to track the samples and record results.

8.4 Sample

Storage

Split

core and chip trays are stored on site in an enclosed warehouse, Conex containers, or wrapped outside, located near the core shed. Generally,

since 2021, the remaining half of split core is retained. However, core from 2021 was mostly consumed for metallurgical purposes, and

core prior to 2021 no longer exists.

Sample

rejections are retained but stored outside where they degrade after three to four years.

All

core boxes, chip trays, and pulps are coded to facilitate easy retrieval when required.

8.5 Analytical

Results

Following

analysis, results are posted to a digital laboratory database for which Hycroft has secure permission privileges. Managers download data

where the sample results are cross-referenced to sample numbers. Each drillhole carries a unique self-identifying sample number, simplifying

cross-referencing. The completed digital file for each drillhole is emailed to Hycroft by the lab, and a follow-up, hard copy certificate

is mailed to Company offices.

Data

is checked by geologists visually and loaded into the secure acQuire database. The acQuire database is further checked using electronic

methods and then calculated into ounce per ton values and loaded to the modeling database for display and further visual QA/QC checking.

Database

security and integrity are accomplished by restricting access and user level permissions that are set by the Database Administrator.

Once data entry and validation are completed for a drill hole, access is locked. There are procedures for version control on any updates

that may happen over time, so that the database will retain all original information and prioritize use of any updates.

8.6 QP

Comment

The

sample preparation, analysis and security practices are typical for the US mining industry and are acceptable for application to mineral

resource determination.

The

QP considers that current sampling, sample preparation, analytical methods and security are acceptable, are in line with industry-standard

practices, and are adequate for mineral resource estimation.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 70

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

9 Data

Verification

9.1 Verification

Procedure

This

section will address the QA/QC and data verification procedures that were used to confirm that the Hycroft database was acceptable for

estimation of mineral resources. Multiple tasks have been completed to verify the data since the completion of previous TRS’s in

Feb 2022 and Feb 2023.

The

data verification steps were as follows:

1. Detailed

comparison of certificates of assay versus the assay database which resulted in substantial

update and correction to the database.

2. Analysis

of the QA/QC data used by Hycroft and previous owners from 2005 to 2024. This work was done

in three stages representing different time periods.

3. Analysis

of diamond drilling hole (DDH) versus RC Drilling with the 2005-2024 drilling to confirm

that the two methods can be comingled and utilized for the estimation of mineral resources.

4. Comparison

of pre-2005 drilling versus 2005-2024 drilling to verify the application of the older data.

The pre-2005 data has no QA/QC information that can be used to verify its reliability.

The

IMC approach to data verification was to establish the reliability of the post-2005 drilling based on the available QA/QC data and the

comparison between DDH and RC. Once the 2005-2024 data was established as reliable, it was used to check the historic pre-2000 drilling

by a nearest neighbor sample comparison.

9.2 Certificate

of Assay Checks

The

team at the Mine site completed an extensive check and verification of the data base with interval-by-interval checks against the available

certificates of assay. After completion of that work, IMC completed a spot check of 95 of the drill hole certificates of assay to confirm

the edits and corrections completed by Hycroft.

9.3 QA/QC

2005 – 2024

The

2005 to 2024 drilling data had the following QA/QC information collected:

● Standards

● Blanks

● Duplicate

Assays

● Check

Assays from 2011 through 2013 and again in 2024.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 71

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

That

information will be analyzed in three parts to understand the relative reliability of the post-2005 drilling: (1) the data collected

from 2005 to 2014, (2) the data collected from 2021 through 2022, and finally (3) the 2023 to 2024 data.

9.3.1 Standards

2005-2013

Blind

standards are inserted into the assay sample submissions for analysis at the assay lab. The lab obviously knows the sample is a standard,

but they do not know which standard.

The

early standards database provided to IMC did not include dates of insertion. It is presumed that the insertion of standards started in

2005 with the modern drilling program. However, the earliest example of standard acquisition that IMC could find was mid-2007. There

are indications of sample insertion though the 2013-time frame.

most exploration environments, standards results are reviewed as they arrive from the lab to confirm that the measured result is within

the error tolerance reported for the standard. IMC takes a different approach and compares the accepted value of the standard against

the multiple assays of the standard on an XY plot to identify any potential bias in the assay process.

Figure

9-1 illustrates the results of the standards submissions for gold for 2005-2013.

The

comparison of the accepted value of the standard and the tested standards results does not indicate consistent bias. The points that

are scattered off-line reflect swapped samples meaning that the wrong standard was recorded or submitted to the lab compared to the tabular

results. There are 22 apparent sample swaps out of 7,154 tested standards or about 0.3% of the original samples.

Figure

9-2 summarizes the results of the total silver standards submissions. There is substantially more variation in the silver standards results

as one would expect in this grade range. In addition, most of the original assays are gravimetric finish which have a detection limit

of 5 ppm or 0.15 oz/ton. There are only five standards below 0.15 oz/ton out of 6,498 Ag standards analyzed. With some standards values

as low as 0.20 oz/ton it would not be out of line to see an indication of subtle bias if the lowest value that can be reported is 0.15

oz/ton.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 72

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-1: Results of Submitted Gold Standards 2005 - 2013

Source:

IMC, 2021

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 73

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-2: Results of Submitted Silver Standards 2005-2013

Source:

IMC, 2021

9.3.2 Blanks

2008 - 2014

Blank

samples are inserted periodically to confirm that metal is not carried over from one sample to the subsequent sample in the sample stream.

Figure 9-3 summarizes the results of the blank submissions for gold from 2008 to 2014. The figure indicates that most samples reported

back as trace or small values.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 74

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

However

occasional samples have been reported near or above heap leach feed grade. Of the 2,260 standards in Figure 9-3, 5.9% reported higher

than 0.005 oz/ton and 5.6% reported higher than 0.010 oz/ton. Although these represent small percentages, there is room for improvement.

One

expects that some of the samples were not blanks but were mistakenly inserted standards. The statistical average above 0.005 oz/ton is

about 0.019 oz/ton, which is quite close to the standard value of the Cove 2 standard.

Figure

9-3: Results of Blank Submissions

Source:

IMC, 2021

9.3.3 Check

Assays 2011-2012

Assay

pulps were submitted to a second lab as check assays during 2011–2012. The primary lab was ALS, and the check lab was AAL. The

results are summarized in Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5 as XY plots.

The

variability in the results is more than one would expect from pulp submissions, but there does not appear to be an observable bias in

the laboratory comparisons. The line on the graphs illustrates a 1:1 relationship as a comparison.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 75

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-4: Check Assay Results, Fire Assay Gold 2011 - 2012

Source:

IMC, 2021

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 76

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-5: Check Assay Results, Fire Assay Silver 2011 – 2011

Source:

IMC, 2021

9.3.4 Standards

2021 – 2022

All

recent drilling completed by Hycroft utilizes standards, blanks, and duplicate assays for QA/QC confirmation of the database. Hycroft

analyzes the data as it is received to confirm that the results are within appropriate acceptance ranges.

Diamond

drilling was the primary method used during 2021, and RC drilling was the primary method during 2022. An analysis of RC to DDH during

2021 and 2022 indicates that both can be used for mineral resource estimation. In addition, two assay laboratories were used in 2021

and 2022. Bureau Veritas, Mineral Laboratories, USA (Sparks, Nevada) and Paragon Geochemical Laboratories, (Sparks, Nevada) were both

used to assay Hycroft samples during this period.

Paragon

and Bureau Veritas’ results have been analyzed separately and both provide similar results. The figures presented for the 2021

through 2022 QA/QC show both laboratories combined as a summary of the overall results. Most of the silver QA/QC was applied to cyanide

silver assays. Since those are not used in this estimate, the gold QA/QC information is shown.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 77

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

standards that do not check well amount to about 2.4% of the submitted standards. Those out-of-range results tend to line up with other

standards or blank values. This implies swaps in standards submissions or in data recording rather than outright errors in the assay.

Figure

9-6 illustrates the standards results for the 495 submitted gold standards during 2021 and 2022.

Figure

9-6: Standards Results, 2021 – 2022

Source:

IMC, 2023

9.3.5 Blank

Analysis Results 2021-2022

Blanks

are inserted and analyzed to confirm that there is no sample-to-sample contamination. Figure 9-7 illustrates the results of blank submissions

during 2021 – 2022. The results indicate only one value reported with a potentially economic gold grade out of 495 blank submissions.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 78

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-7: Blank Results, 2021 – 2022

Source:

IMC, 2022

9.3.6 Duplicate

Assays, 2021-2022

Duplicate

pulps were assayed to confirm the repeatability of results from the assay lab. During 2021-2022, 314 duplicates were re-assayed. Figure

9-8 summarizes the results of the duplicate checks. There are two results that are higher than expected. Those reflect an error rate

of about 0.64%.

Figure

9-8: Duplicate Assay Results, 2021 – 2022

Source:

IMC, 2023

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 79

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

9.3.7 Standards

2023 – 2024

During

2023 and 2024, 70 drill holes were completed. Of that total, 44 were diamond drilling, the rest were RC drilling. The next few sections

address the QA/QC completed by Hycroft during the period of 2023 through 2024.

During

this period, 1,501 gold standards were inserted out of 18,893 gold assays, amounting to almost 8% of the assay count. However, only 36

silver standards were inserted during this period and all of those were during 2024. The explanation is that silver standards were inserted

if there was observable high-grade silver mineralization. This procedure is inappropriate and should be corrected going forward so that

the silver standards insertion rate is 5% of the total assay number.

The

average grade of all silver assays during 2024 was 1.46 oz/ton. In the future, as silver values and volumes increase at Hycroft, silver

bearing material will receive the same QA/QC diligence as gold.

Figure

9-9 illustrates the comparison of assayed gold values versus the standard value inserted into the assay stream.

Figure

9-9: Gold Standards 2023 – 2024

Source:

IMC, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 80

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

results of this overview are consistent with previous work where the incorrect standard was inserted, or the wrong standard was recorded.

The number of these occurrences is extremely small, and the gold standard results are acceptable for 2023-2024.

The

36 silver standards did not illustrate any bias, but the graph is not shown due to the insignificant number of silver standards.

9.3.8 Blanks

2023-2024

Figure

9-10 summarizes the results of 1,013 blank insertions during 2023 and 2024 (6%). The results are positive with only one value at 0.045

g/t.

Figure

9-10: Blank Insertions 2004

Source:

IMC, 2025

9.3.9 Duplicate

Assays 2023-2024

Three

different types of duplicates samples were applied in 2023. The naming convention and the source of the duplicates is summarized below:

● FDUP:

Field duplicate, these were ¼ core for DDH holes and a second split from the rotary

splitter for RC samples. IMC check procedure is to combine field duplicates with the core

and RC field duplicates.

● PDUP:

Pulp duplicate, a second aliquot from the pulp is inserted into the sample stream to check

the repeatability of the assay process.

● CDUP:

Coarse duplicate, a second split from the coarse rejects is taken during the sample preparation

process. The coarse duplicate is meant to check on the repeatability of the pulp preparation

and assaying combined.

The

above duplicates were assayed for both gold and silver and compared to the original values of gold and silver to confirm the overall

process repeatability (precision). The results of all three duplicate types for both gold and silver produced similar statistical mean

and standard deviation results for all tests. All tests comfortably passed the Student’s T test illustrating that they represent

the same population with a high degree of confidence.

Figure

9-11 and Figure 9-12 illustrate the results for the gold and silver duplicate checks during 2023-2024 respectively.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 81

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-11: Gold Duplicates, 2023-2024

Source:

IMC, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 82

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-12: Silver Duplicates, 2023-2024

Source:

IMC, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 83

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

9.3.10 Check

Assays 2023-2024

During

2023 – 2024, 668 sample pulps were sent to an outside laboratory for independent checks on the primary assay lab. The primary lab

changed from Paragon to ALS Chemex between 2023 and 2024. However, the check assays were all completed at AAL. The check assay rate is

about 3.5% out of the total number of over 18,800 assays during 2023 through 2024.

Basic

statistical analysis of the original versus check assays indicate that the check data report the same population as the primary lab with

better than 95% confidence. Figure 9-13 and Figure 9-14 illustrate X-Y plots of the original assays versus check assays for 2023-2024.

Figure

9-13: Gold Check Assays 2023 – 2024

Source:

IMC, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 84

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

9-14: Silver Check Assays, 2023-2024

Source:

IMC, 2025

9.3.11 DDH

vs. RC for Post 2000 Samples

The

drillhole database at Hycroft is predominately based on RC drilling with some DDH. Prior to 2000, the database does not provide a record

regarding the type of drilling applied, although it was reported to be largely RC.

Since

2000, the database records whether the drilling was RC, DDH, or sonic. All the DDH drilling was completed after 2006. The sonic drilling

was applied in stockpiles which are a minor component of the MRE.

The

RC data was compared to DDH drilling using the nearest neighbor method that was described in the previous sub-section. Table 9-1 summarizes

the results of that comparison.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 85

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

9-1: Nearest Neighbor Sample Comparison of RC vs Diamond Core Gold and Silver Assays

Maximum

Separation Distance (ft)

Number

of Sample Pairs

Mean

(oz/ton)

DDH

Mean

(oz/ton)

Ratio

of the Means

T-Statistic1

Gold

1114

0.006

0.005

0.903

0.976

3207

0.006

0.965

0.681

Silver

1042

0.197

0.281

1.428

0.971

3005

0.296

0.224

0.757

1.512

Note:

1. T-Statistics

is the Smith-Satterthwaite T for large populations

The

results indicate that the RC and DDH drilling information provide similar results for the post-2006 drilling and that they can be combined

for estimation of mineral resources.

9.3.12 Old

vs. New Drilling

Early

technical reports regarding Hycroft mineral resources had reported that all gold assays prior to 2000 were factored upward. Those in

acid leach alteration were factored upward by 1.32 and all others upward by 1.19 (Hycroft Project Mill Expansion Feasibility Study Technical

Report, October 31, 2016, and Technical Report, Allied Nevada Gold Corp, Hycroft Mine, October 2011).

Detailed

checks on the certificates of assay indicate that the gold assay information used by Hycroft and provided to IMC for use in this MRE

has not been factored in any way and the database matches the original certificate of assay.

comparison of pre-2000 drilling and gold assay results versus the 2005-2024 gold assay results indicates that the old data averages higher

grade than the new data when compared on a nearest neighbor basis. To identify the source of this bias, the pre-2000 data was analyzed

on a year-by-year basis against the 2005-2024 drilling assay data. The 2005-2024 data set has been illustrated to be reliable based on

the QA/QC analysis reported on previous pages and on the DDH-RC comparisons reported in the previous sub-section.

nearest neighbor analysis was completed comparing 1999 drilling versus 2005-2024. That was followed by analysis of 1998 versus 2006-2024.

This process was completed annually for all years prior to 2000. The results for years 1988 through 1999 were stable and compare acceptably

with the 2005-2024 data. However, once 1987 and earlier years were compared against the 2005-2024 data, an obvious high bias was identified

in the 1982 to 1987 data.

summarize the results, the 1982-1987 data is compared to the 2005-2024 data on a nearest sample basis. These results were completed for

sample distances as close as 5 ft for assay data.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 86

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

9-2: Nearest Neighbor Sample Comparison of 1982-1987 Gold Assays Versus 2005 – 2024 Gold Assays

Maximum

Separation Distance (ft)

Number

of Sample

Pairs

1982-1987

Mean

(oz/ton)

2006-2024

Mean

(oz/ton)

Ratio

of the Means

T-Statistic1

164

0.020

0.012

1.67

3.98

300

0.025

0.017

1.47

4.24

803

0.020

0.011

1.82

8.41

1,635

0.018

0.010

1.80

10.43

2,746

0.017

0.010

1.70

12.47

Note:

1. T-Statistics

is the Smith-Satterthwaite T for large populations

The

above data excludes the stockpile drilling and includes all hard rock data that is located within the block model area.

The

results of Table 9-2 indicate that the 1982-1987 gold assays are between 1.47 and 1.80 times higher than the 2005-2024 gold assays. The

T-Statistic reported on the right side of the table is comfortably above the value of 2.0 for the sample separation distances. If the

T-Statistic is greater than 2.0 one should reject that the two data sets are similar.

The

above analysis indicates that the 1982-1987 data is biased high and unreliable relative to the more modern 2005-2024 drilling and assaying.

The 1982-1987 drilling is reported to be RC drilling completed by an early predecessor of the current Hycroft management. Hycroft and

IMC have not found any record regarding the RC sampling methods that were applied during that time that would shed light on the cause

or source of this bias.

Half

of the 1982 to 1987 database has been mined out. Discussion with retired Hycroft staff has indicated that production reconciliation was

difficult during that period. However, the 1982-1987 data set does indicate the presence of mineralization. To capture that mineralization

in the potential resource, IMC and Hycroft have completed the following steps:

1. The

1982-1987 gold data (composites) were multiplied by 0.56 to remove the observed high bias.

There are no fire silver assays recorded during that period.

2. Block

gold grades were estimated without the 1982-1987 data and were frozen so that they could

not be changed.

3. Block

grade estimation for gold was repeated including the bias corrected 1982-1987 data.

4. If

a block received a gold grade in this process that was not previously assigned, it was added

to the model and coded as “Inferred” class mineralization.

5. The

resource floating cone was regenerated with the additional 1982-1987 inferred resource blocks.

summary, a bias corrected version of the 1982-1987 data was incorporated so that any component of the resource based on that data is

coded as “Inferred.”

9.3.13 Downhole

Surveys

The

Mine operates on a local mine survey grid that is rotated 15.85 degrees from the Nevada state plane coordinate system. Down-hole survey

data from the drill rigs reports directly in true north coordinates, requiring all holes to be rotated into the Hycroft grid.

Hycroft

personnel have spent substantial amount of time checking the downhole survey bearings against the original downhole survey logs. The

data is stored in both state planes, and the Hycroft grid in the Hycroft system. Hycroft and IMC have confirmed that the down-hole surveys

used for the MRE are in the mine grid, consistent with the resource model and historic and potentially future mine planning.

9.4 QP

Comment

The

work outlined in this section is a summary of over a year’s worth of data verification and checking by Hycroft and IMC personnel.

As a result, the Hycroft and IMC teams have gained significant confidence in this data set. IMC holds the opinion that the database as

utilized in this statement of mineral resources inclusive of the edits and corrections outlined is appropriate for the estimation of

mineral resources. The 1982-1987 data set has been incorporated so that it only contributes to inferred category mineral resource after

correction for the high bias of that data.

the future, IMC recommends that complete QA/QC procedures be applied to silver and sulfide sulfur assaying and sampling. Regular sampling

for QA/QC should be applied to those values in the same way as they have been recently applied to gold.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 87

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10 Mineral

Processing and Metallurgical Testing

10.1 Introduction

Hycroft

has been operating the Mine as an open pit mine with a ROM heap leach facility (HLF) treating oxide ores to produce gold and silver since

2008. Prior to that, Vista Gold operated the Mine in a similar manner. As a result, the cumulative performance statistics and metallurgical

test data gathered for the direct cyanidation of high-grade ROM oxide ore via heap leach are extensive and are not the focus of this

report.

metallurgical testwork has been completed on transition material for heap leach processing. As a result, heap leach recovery, leach kinetics,

reagent consumption, and permeability characteristics remain uncertain. To reduce this technical uncertainty and improve confidence in

the process design and economic evaluation, a dedicated transition material heap leach metallurgical testwork program is recommended

during the next study phase.

The

following subsections focus on metallurgical testwork conducted by Hycroft on extraction of Au and Ag from refractory sulfide mineralization.

The

metallurgical test programs conducted on the Hycroft sulfide mineral deposits over the years have consisted of comminution, flotation,

concentrate oxidation, and cyanide leaching tests on mineralized materials, flotation tailings, and oxidized sulfide concentrate samples.

The samples were mostly derived from drill cores. Most of the flotation testwork were conducted at G&T Metallurgical Services (G&T)

and SGS Canada Mineral Lakefield (SGS), both located in Canada, as well as by Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen) in Colorado. Oxidation

testing was primarily conducted by Hazen, SGS and Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA). G&T (ISO – 9001:2008) and SGS (ISO

– 17025:2017) both have ISO accreditation. All laboratories are independent of Hycroft.

general, core samples for metallurgical testing were selected to be representative of the mineralized materials, drawing from five mineralization

domains, as they were classified at the time. The primary sources included the Brimstone and Vortex domains.

The

metallurgical testwork programs were carried out by independent, third-party, ISO accredited laboratories using established and widely

accepted industry standard analytical and metallurgical procedures. These include conventional methods for comminution, flotation, oxidation,

and cyanide leaching applicable to the mineralization types under evaluation.

the opinion of the Qualified Person, the analytical procedures and resulting data are appropriate for the level of study and are sufficient

to support the conclusions and technical disclosures presented in this report. No non-conventional or experimental procedures requiring

additional justification have been identified.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 88

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.2 Metallurgical

Testwork

10.2.1 Summary

of Metallurgical Testwork Programs

Table

10-1 summarizes the metallurgical testwork programs completed to date for the Hycroft sulfide mineralization, including the testing laboratory/location

and the primary testwork performed. These third party, industry recognized laboratories are independent of Hycroft. All data and information

have been generated in accordance with their respective quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) policies and procedures and were

reviewed and approved by qualified laboratory personnel prior to being used in this Technical Report.

Table

10-1: Metallurgical Testwork Summary

Year

Laboratory/Location

Testwork

performed

2009-2014

SGS

Minerals Services (Lakefield, Canada)

Flotation

testwork

2011

Kappes,

Cassiday & Associates (Reno, USA)

Flotation,

batch and locked-cycle testing

2011

G&T

Metallurgical Services Ltd. (Kamloops, Canada)

Flotation

testing

2011-2016

Hazen

Research, Inc. (USA)

Flotation

variability testing; concentrate oxidation tests

2013

SGS

Minerals Services (Lakefield Canada and South Africa)

BIOX

testing

2014

Hazen

Research, Inc (USA)

Pilot

plant flotation testing

2021-2025

FLSmidth

Minerals Testing (Salt Lake City, USA)

Flotation

variability testing

2024-2025

Hazen

Research, Inc (USA)

Concentrate

oxidation testing

10.2.2 Mineralized

Materials and Sampling

Hycroft

mineralized materials are classified as oxide, transition, or sulfide based on the cyanide solubility of its gold, which is used as an

indicator of refractoriness. Materials with cyanide soluble gold of 70% or greater are classified as oxide, while material with cyanide

soluble gold of less than 30% is classified as sulfide. Material with a cyanide soluble ratio between 30% and 70% is classified as transition.

The classification has been shown to have no strong correlation with sulfide sulfur content.

10.2.3 Hycroft

Mineralization Domains

The

Hycroft mineral deposit consists of five process domains, namely Bay, Boneyard, Brimstone, Central, and Vortex.

Table

10-2 is a summary of the data for average total sulfur, sulfide sulfur, and the ratio of sulfide sulfur to total sulfur from 95 oxide,

158 transition, and 417 sulfide samples collected from the Brimstone, Central, and Vortex domains. It shows that the classification of

mineralized material as oxide, transition, or sulfide is essentially a measure of refractoriness and shows little correlation with sulfide-sulfur

content of the minerals. The sulfide-sulfur to total sulfur ratio averages slightly over 80% across the entire dataset, indicating that

degree of sulfur oxidation is similar among oxide, transition, and sulfide classifications.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 89

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

10-2: Average Sulfur Contents of Oxide, Transition and Sulfide Mineralized Materials

Total

S (ST), %

Oxide

(%)

Transition

(%)

Sulfide

(%)

Brimstone

2.55

2.41

2.25

Central

2.94

2.82

2.48

Vortex

2.47

2.66

2.33

Unclassified

4.28

2.92

2.61

All

3.00

2.74

2.43

Sulfide

S (S=), %

Oxide

(%)

Transition

(%)

Sulfide

(%)

Brimstone

2.19

2.06

1.87

Central

2.36

2.26

1.80

Vortex

2.09

2.23

1.91

Unclassified

3.29

2.23

2.09

All

2.45

2.23

1.93

S=:ST

Ratio

Oxide

(%)

Transition

(%)

Sulfide

(%)

Brimstone

0.839

0.820

Central

0.810

0.806

0.797

Vortex

0.880

0.827

0.833

Unclassified

0.840

0.823

0.843

All

0.849

0.819

0.824

10.3 Legacy

Testwork

Table

10-3 below lists the number of samples selected

to span three historically defined main domains and their distribution within the Hycroft mineral deposit.

Information

on the individual core samples selected for testing can be found in the metallurgical test reports referenced in this study.

Table

10- 3: Summary of Test Samples

Tests

Number

of Samples per Domain

Central

Brimstone

Vortex

Composite

Crushing

(CWi)

Axb

(Drop Wt & SMC)

Bond

BWi

Bond

RWi

Bond

Abrasion

Flotation

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 90

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.1 Comminution

Tests

The

Hycroft mineralized material has been extensively characterized for its comminution properties in previous studies. Comminution tests

were conducted at the laboratories of SGS, G&T, Hazen, and Phillips, and included crushing and grinding work indices, JKSimMet parameters,

and abrasion indices.

summary of the 80th-percentile comminution test results is presented in Table 10-4 below. For the Axb parameter, material

competence increases as Axb decreases, therefore, the 80th-percentile in material competence corresponds to the 20th-percentile

of Axb value. The results indicate that the Hycroft mineralized material is very competent.

Table

10-4: Grindability Test Summary

Parameter

Unit

Value

CWi

kWh/ton

18.6

RWi

kWh/ton

21.2

BWi

kWh/ton

20.1

Axb

Unitless

34.2

SPI

min

102.4

0.623

10.3.2 Flotation

Refractory

gold in Hycroft’s sulfide mineralized materials is believed to be associated with iron sulfides, primarily pyrite and marcasite.

The objectives of the flotation testwork were to evaluate the floatability of the sulfide minerals and the recovery of gold and silver

into a sulfide concentrate. Recovering gold and silver into a sulfide concentrate reduces the volume of material requiring downstream

processing.

Initial

flotation testwork was performed by SGS in March 2009 and continued at several laboratories through April 2014. Over this period, the

testing program progressed from bench-scale flotation tests to pilot plant flotation testing conducted at G&T and Hazen.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 91

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.2.1 SGS

Minerals Services (Lakefield) – March 2009

Six

drums containing samples representative of the Hycroft Project were shipped to SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) on September 5, 2008.

The

initial flotation test development program consisted of three bench-scale rougher kinetics tests to evaluate the effect of primary grind

size on flotation response. A standard bulk sulfide collectors suite, comprising potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) and dithiophosphate (Cytec

AF 208), was used in conjunction with Dowfroth 250 as the frother. An additional five bench-scale tests were conducted to investigate

alternative reagent schemes and grind sizes.

Flotation

testwork was conducted on the Master Composite sample. The flotation investigation consisted of the following:

● Two-stage

cleaner flotation applying the flowsheet developed during phase 1 testing (program 12012-001).

● Cyanide

leaching of the second cleaner flotation concentrate.

● Cyanide

leaching of the recombined rougher and first cleaner scavenger tailings.

SGS

stated “In terms of sulfide flotation, it appears that beyond about 10% mass pull, recoveries were on the same grade vs. recovery

curve regardless of grind fineness.”

10.3.2.2 SGS

Minerals Services (Lakefield) – Nov 2010

Batch

tests were completed on 33 sulfide zone composites representing the Vortex (18), Cut 5 (four), Bay Area (10), and Bone Yard (one) deposits

of the Mine sulfide resource. Multiple rock types were represented in the composites. The testwork evaluated metallurgical variability

in response to the flotation (and cyanidation) flowsheet previously developed for the Master Composite under program 12012-001.

Metallurgical

variability testing consisted of rougher flotation followed by concentrate regrinding and two-stage cleaning. In the initial set of tests,

the second cleaner concentrate was cyanide leached. Based on review of those results, cyanide leaching was subsequently refocused on

the combined rougher and first cleaner scavenger tailings.

From

these tests, gold recovery in rougher flotation ranged from ~62% at a mass pull of ~15% (Test F-2, P80 of ~103 μm) to ~69% at a mass

pull of ~17% (Test F-1, P80 of ~128 μm). At comparable mass pulls, silver recovery ranged from 74% (Test F-2) to 85% (Test F-1). The

addition of a dithiophosphate collector (Cytec A208) in Test F-5 further improved Au recoveries to 80.1% at a mass pull of 14.6%.

10.3.2.3 KCA

Batch Tests – Jan 2011

December 2010, KCA received material from the Hycroft project at its laboratory facility in Reno, Nevada. Portions of the received material

were composited, as directed, to generate six composite samples for metallurgical testing. Initial testwork was conducted by KCA and

reported in the study titled “PAX, pH, and Grind Flotation Kinetics Study” (January 2011). Additional flotation testing was

subsequently completed, including cyanide leach testing of flotation products.

10.3.2.4 KCA

Locked-Cycle Tests – May 2011

Portions

of the six composites were combined to generate two master composites, a Sulfide Master Composite and a Mixed Master Composite. Additional

flotation testing was conducted using material from these composites, including cyanide leach testing of the flotation tailings.

10.3.2.5 G&T

Metallurgical Services Ltd. – Feb 2011

Five

separate shipments of samples were received at G&T between August 31 and December 3, 2010. The samples consisted of half HQ drill

core, with a total estimated mass of approximately 2.9 tons. These samples were used to construct 39 composite samples for flotation

and cyanidation testing.

For

the first set of 24 composites, a single stage batch cleaner flotation test was performed. For the second set of samples (M1 to M17),

a simplified flotation flowsheet was applied, using a reduced reagent scheme consisting of PAX and MIBC only. Under this simplified flowsheet,

the flotation froth was more stable and more representative of a typical sulfide flotation froth compared to the original flowsheet.

Overall, the samples responded well to flotation. Across all 39 composite samples, average flotation recoveries to the rougher concentrate

were about 78% for Au and 67% for Ag.

Using

this revised flowsheet applied to samples M1 to M17, average rougher recoveries were 78% for Au and 83% for Ag. These recoveries generally

correlated with sulfide sulfur recovery to the rougher concentrate. Table 10-5 and Table 10-6 show the results of this testwork.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 92

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

10-5: G&T Composites 1 through 24 Flotation Test Results

Sample

(%)

(oz/ton)

Rougher

Conc

Mass Pull, (%)

Recovery

to conc, (%)

Recovery

to conc, (%)

Type

G&T

Composite 1

0.70

0.62

0.009

3.968

13.3

80.1

77.3

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 2

2.48

2.49

0.145

11.136

13.2

79.6

63.2

Transition

G&T

Composite 3

2.29

2.28

0.076

11.872

12.2

82.7

61.9

Transition

G&T

Composite 4

1.25

1.22

0.008

18.016

9.1

60.4

27.7

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 5

1.50

1.40

0.045

0.496

12.9

83.1

83.6

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 6

1.64

1.51

0.027

23.136

15.0

88.3

72.6

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 7

1.36

1.29

0.010

9.504

15.7

94.5

37.8

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 8

1.33

1.26

0.027

4.000

13.1

89.4

50.5

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 9

4.30

3.81

0.021

0.602

16.5

86.5

88.5

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 10

2.23

2.04

0.014

1.946

11.6

80.5

60.1

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 11

2.80

2.72

0.027

8.064

17.8

88.1

53.9

Transition

G&T

Composite 12

1.57

1.25

0.113

1.680

8.3

73.6

44.8

Oxide

G&T

Composite 13

2.32

2.02

0.065

1.472

11.6

56.1

68.2

Transition

G&T

Composite 14

2.08

1.34

0.004

1.818

7.8

89.5

30.2

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 15

1.78

1.71

0.043

5.376

10.8

94.0

63.2

Transition

G&T

Composite 16

2.64

2.27

0.022

0.627

14.9

77.2

76.9

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 17

0.45

0.34

0.093

0.198

5.2

28.1

27.5

Oxide

G&T

Composite 18

1.33

1.08

0.014

0.074

11.8

58.7

61.2

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 19

2.00

1.76

0.012

0.266

15.7

69.9

50.3

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 20

13.70

11.80

0.045

0.992

31.2

93.7

87.1

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 21

2.06

1.97

0.019

0.598

13.1

85.6

74.9

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 22

1.73

1.70

0.025

0.464

13.1

61.2

60.7

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 23

1.72

1.31

0.016

2.099

11.1

87.5

53.7

Sulfide

G&T

Composite 24

2.00

1.92

0.024

3.584

15.5

85.4

38.9

Sulfide

Average

Sulfides

2.56

2.25

0.020

4.246

14.2

80.7

60.7

Average

All

2.39

2.13

0.037

4.666

13.4

78.1

58.9

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 93

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

10-6: G&T Composites M-1 through M-17 Flotation Test Results

Sample

(%)

(oz/ton)

Rougher

Conc

Mass Pull, (%)

Recovery

to conc, (%)

Recovery

to conc, (%)

Type

G&T

Composite M-1

1.98

1.81

0.038

0.378

13.4

86.4

82.4

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-2

2.62

1.75

0.013

1.082

14.2

82.1

85.9

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-3

1.20

1.12

0.014

0.272

12.7

73.6

83.2

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-4

1.62

1.55

0.020

0.150

18.1

79.7

76.8

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-5

1.81

1.70

0.013

0.128

18.8

76.9

72.7

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-6

1.92

1.79

0.016

0.253

20.8

79.1

76.4

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-7

Data

G&T

Composite M-8

Data

G&T

Composite M-9

2.25

2.06

0.011

0.586

10.9

89.7

92.7

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-10

2.50

2.00

0.012

2.454

11.6

76.7

96.0

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-11

1.55

1.49

0.016

1.475

8.3

80.4

96.4

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-12

1.86

1.30

0.016

3.840

10.4

80.4

97.3

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-13

6.34

2.99

0.046

1.043

13.0

85.7

86.8

Sulfide

G&T

Composite M-14

5.53

2.32

0.020

0.288

16.0

88.2

84.1

Transition

G&T

Composite M-15

2.32

1.15

0.024

1.584

7.0

44.9

61.3

Oxide

G&T

Composite M-16

2.51

2.43

0.017

0.486

14.3

74.6

87.8

Transition

G&T

Composite M-17

1.52

1.39

0.017

0.259

16.1

65.1

62.8

Sulfide

Average

Sulfides

2.26

1.75

0.019

0.993

14.0

79.7

84.1

Average

All

2.50

1.79

0.020

0.943

13.7

77.6

82.8

10.3.2.6 Hazen

Research, Inc. – August 2011

For

this investigation, 38 drillhole composite samples representing five mineralized material types were evaluated. Initial flotation testing

was conducted using sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) and copper sulfate (CuSO4). In subsequent tests, the NaHS and CuSO4

were eliminated, and lead nitrate (Pb(NO3)2) was introduced as a modifying agent. Following the addition of modifying

agents, flotation pH ranged from neutral to 10.5, and redox potential was monitored throughout the testing program.

series of 91 small-scale flotation tests were performed on 4.4-lbs splits from the 38 composite samples. The objective of this testwork

was to evaluate variability in flotation response among the composite samples.

additional 41 small-scale flotation tests were subsequently performed on Composites 1 through 38, excluding Composites 6, 8, 9, and 10,

using rougher flotations conditions based on G&T Metallurgical conditions and conditions recommended by Hazen. Rougher concentrate

mass pulls ranged from 4.9% to 30.7%, with corresponding Au recoveries ranging from 26.9% to 97.6% and Ag recoveries ranging from 17.1%

to 98.7%.

The

rougher concentrate assays ranged from 0.032 oz/ton Au (Test 3346-82) to 1.536 oz/ton Au (Test 3346-40), and from 0.224 oz/ton Ag (Test

3346-82) to 73.601 oz/ton Ag (Test 3346-68). The recoveries of Au and Ag to the rougher concentrates ranged from 27% (Test 3346-52) to

91% (Test 3346-68) and from 17% (Test 3346-52) to 99% (Test 3346-68), respectively.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 94

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.2.7 Effect

of Grind Size on Flotation Performance

Most

flotation tests on Hycroft samples were performed on materials ground to 80% passing 100 µm. Additional tests were conducted at

both finer and coarser grind sizes. Overall, the results indicate that flotation achieves favorable recoveries at grinds ranging from

100 to 150 µm. Gold and silver recoveries generally decreased with grind sizes finer than 100 µm or coarser than 150 µm.

10.3.2.8 Reagent

Suite

Both

G&T and Hazen concluded that flotation tests using NaHS as a sulfurizing agent, as well as tests conducted at alkaline pH, generally

resulted in poor flotation performance.

The

exploratory and variability flotation test results discussed above demonstrate that sulfide mineralized materials can be floated to recover

gold and silver. The reagents schemes employed relied on strong, non-selective sulfide collectors, with frothing achieved using methyl

isobutyl carbinol (MIBC), Dowfroth 250 (DF250), or a combination of both. Table 10-7 summarizes the reagent schemes applied by G&T,

SGS, and Hazen. In all laboratory test programs, the reagent dosages were relatively high.

Table

10-7: Flotation Reagent Schemes Studied

Reagent

(lb/ton)

G&T

Laboratory

Hazen

SGS

NaHS

2.56

2.1

PAX

0.552

0.546,

0.416

0.21

3418A

0.064 - 0.124

0.055

MIBC

0.05

- 0.128, 0.192

0.02

- 0.064

DF250

0.02

- 0.064

0.095

Based

on the test results from the three laboratories, particularly G&T, the simplified reagent scheme can be further developed. Several

tests indicate that Cytec’s AEROPHINE® 3418A Promoter (sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate) may improve Au and Ag recoveries.

10.3.2.9 Flotation

Time

Flotation

kinetics were not systematically evaluated during the flotation test programs. However, flotation data generated from the G&T testwork

on the M Composites included recoveries from froth collected at 4, 8, 12, and 16 minutes. A total of 15 rougher flotation tests were

performed. Kinetics plots for Au and Ag derived from this work are shown in Figure 10-1. To avoid visual clutter, only selected data

points are shown, along with asymptotic recovery curves fitted to the data.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 95

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

For

each of the 15 datasets, the maximum recovery, Rmax and the kinetics constant, K were derived from the fitted asymptotic curves.

The

results indicate that the average laboratory flotation time required to achieve 95% of the maximum recovery is 19 minutes for gold and

17 minutes for silver.

Figure

10-1: Recovery Vs. Time Plot, G&T Kamloops Tests, M Composites

Source:

M3, 2016

10.3.2.10 FLSmidth

2021

2021, Hycroft initiated a new metallurgical variability study to evaluate mineralized material characteristics within the current mine

plan validate the metallurgical behavior of material across the mine site; and identify potential variations in processing conditions

required to recover gold and silver. The objective of the study was to support development of a robust Hycroft process flowsheet, including

definition of key process control points in crushing, grinding, capable of consistently achieving gold and silver recovery across anticipated

metallurgical variability. Hycroft selected 243 Samples from 65 different drill holes, all within the current resource, representing

the three primary metallurgical domains – Brimstone, Vortex, and Camel. The drill holes encompassed material ranging from near

surface elevations to approximately 1,235 ft below current elevations (3,040 ft above mean sea level). Two primary lithologies were represented,

corresponding to material located east and west of the Central Fault. The sample suite covered a broad range of alteration and mineralization

characteristics, including four silicification intensities - Strong quartz-K-feldspar, strong quartz, moderate, and weak; two alunite

styles based on vein width and frequency (used to estimate volume percent and validated by sulfide sulfur content; and gold grades ranging

from slightly below the cutoff grade of 0.2 g/t to values exceeding above 2.0 g/t. oxide and transition ore types were not included in

this study; it is envisioned that in the future, these materials will be processed in the heap leach pads.

Figure

10-2 to Figure 10-5 present the head grade distribution plots for gold, silver, total sulfur, and sulfide sulfur, based on the full set

of 243 variability study samples.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 96

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

10-2: Gold Grade Distribution Chart

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

10-3: Silver Grade Distribution Chart

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 97

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

10-4: Total Sulfur Grade Distribution

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

10-5: Sulfide Sulfur Grade Distribution

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 98

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

head grade distributions for gold, silver, total sulfur, and sulfide sulfur across the 243 variability study samples indicate a broad

but well-represented range of metallurgical conditions within the current resource. Gold head grades exhibit a right-skewed distribution

with an average of approximately 0.56 g/t and a standard deviation of 0.64 g/t, reflecting the inclusion of material spanning from near

cutoff grades to higher-grade mineralization. Silver grades show a wider distribution, with an average of approximately 12.4 g/t and

a higher standard deviation (14.3 g/t), indicating greater variability in silver tenor relative to gold.

Total

sulfur and sulfide sulfur distributions demonstrate moderate variability, with average grades of approximately 2.60% total sulfur and

2.17% sulfide sulfur, and standard deviations of 2.00% and 1.64%, respectively. The close correspondence between total sulfur and sulfide

sulfur indicates that sulfur is predominantly present as sulfide minerals, consistent with the refractory nature of the ore. Collectively,

these distributions confirm that the variability study sample set adequately captures the range of grade and mineralogical conditions

expected within the mine plan, providing a sound basis for evaluating metallurgical response and defining robust process design criteria.

Important

results of this study included the development of the flotation process with significantly improved recoveries. There were four key process

controls parameters identified during the flotation process development program.

1. Optimal

grind size is a P80 of less than 85 µm.

2. Flotation

time is 24 minutes.

3. Adjusted

pH level is 4.7.

4. Mass

Pull is 20 to 25% with 22% being the target.

total of 137 samples were tested under these selected conditions to achieve higher gold and silver recoveries. Figure 10-6 summarizes

the distribution of gold and silver flotation recoveries achieved under the selected key process control conditions, based on 137 variability

test samples. The results show that gold recovery exhibits a broader distribution, with values ranging from approximately 72% to 98%

and a statistical median near 88%, indicating greater sensitivity to operating conditions. In contrast, silver recovery is generally

higher and more consistent, with recoveries spanning approximately 76 to 100% and a statistical median exceeding 92%. Overall, the figures

highlight the comparatively more robust flotation response of silver relative to gold under the selected operating conditions.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 99

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

10- 6: FLS Variability Flotation Recoveries under Optimal Conditions (137 Test Samples)

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

10-7 and Figure 10-8 show that flotation recovery is only weakly correlated with head grade for both metals. Gold recoveries display

greater variability within grade groups, particularly at lower head grades, indicating sensitivity to mineralogical and metallurgical

factors beyond grade alone. In contrast, silver recoveries are consistently higher and more uniform across head grade groups, demonstrating

a more robust and less grade-dependent flotation response.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 100

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

10- 7: FLS Variability Flotation Gold Recoveries Based on Gold Head Grade Groups

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Figure

10- 8: FLS Variability Flotation Silver Recoveries Based on Head Grade Groups

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 101

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.3 Direct

Cyanidation

Direct

cyanidation testwork on bulk concentrate samples (P80 = 325 mesh, or 44 µm) collected from all zones of the deposit was conducted

in early 2010. The results indicated generally poor metallurgical performance. Gold recoveries for the Brimstone and Vortex samples were

in the mid-20% range, with silver recoveries of approximately 80%. The remaining samples yielded gold recoveries ranging from 45% to

50% and silver recoveries ranging from 55% to 83%.

useful indicator of direct cyanidation amenability is the ratio of cyanide soluble metal to total metal assay, expressed as AuCN/AuFA

for gold and AgCN/AgFA for silver. These ratios have been determined for many exploration samples and have been included in the resource

database. The cyanide soluble gold ratio has been applied during resource estimation to assist in mineral classification and routing,

with mineralized domains exhibiting higher cyanide soluble gold preferentially directed to heap leach processing.

10.3.4 Concentrate

Oxidation Tests

Oxidation

testwork on Hycroft flotation concentrates evaluated POX, roasting, atmospheric oxidation, and other oxidation methods, all of which

demonstrated technical viability with varying recoveries. The results of these tests are summarized below.

Beginning

in 2007, Hycroft investigated milling and flotation of refractory sulfide mineralized material followed by oxide treatment, focusing

primarily on POX, and roasting technologies commonly applied in the gold industry.

2012, additional testwork assessed alternative, low capital oxidation methods, including chlorination, atmospheric alkaline oxidation,

and fine grinding with intensive cyanidation. These tests showed that the Hycroft rougher concentrates were amenable to oxidation under

atmospheric conditions, leading to pilot scale testing on three main metallurgical domains at Hazen.

2016, Hycroft developed an oxidation demonstration plant at the mine site to process flotation concentrates and produce doré

onsite. Based on historical and current oxide heap leach performance, combined with oxide heap leach metallurgical testwork and

bench-, pilot-, and demonstration-scale metallurgical test results, individual gold and silver recoveries for each processing stream

were calculated and are presented in Table 10-8. This recovery assumption formed the basis of the 2016 NI 43-101 Feasibility Study

Technical Report published in 2016 (Ibrado, A. et al, 2016).

Table

10- 8: Estimated Metallurgical Recoveries from 2016 Feasibility Study – Gold and Silver

Gold

Silver

Contained

(koz)

Recovered

(koz)

Recovery

(%)

Contained

(koz)

Recovered

(koz)

Recovery

(%)

Heap

Leach

3,875

1,933

49.9

21,242

15.5

Mill-AAO

Sulfide

7,797

5,696

73.0

287,693

81.6

Total

11,672

7,629

65.4

489,447

308,935

63.1

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 102

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.4.1 Atmospheric

Oxidation – Batch Tests

From

2013 through 2016, metallurgical testing focused on developing a process to oxidize sulfide flotation concentrates under atmospheric

conditions. The process concept involved oxidation in an agitated slurry at elevated temperatures, using oxygen as the oxidant. Batch

oxidation tests were conducted at Hazen under various conditions on concentrates derived from Central, Brimstone, and Vortex composites.

The

results demonstrated that complete oxidation is not required to achieve high precious metal recoveries during subsequent cyanide leaching,

consistent with earlier oxidation studies. Cyanidation recoveries of approximately 85% for gold and 92% for silver were achieved when

about 60% of the sulfide-sulfur content in the concentrate was oxidized.

Oxidation

reaction kinetics improved with increasing temperatures up to 75 °C. Tests conducted at higher temperatures (around 90 °C) resulted

in slower oxidation rates, due to reduced oxygen solubility under bench-scale laboratory conditions.

10.3.4.2 Pilot

Plant Oxidation Tests

Continuous

pilot testing was conducted at Hazen using 10-liter reactors on concentrates from three metallurgical domains. The pilot results confirmed

the batch test findings. Testing was performed at 75°C a grind size of 25 µm, 20% solids, and a total residence time of 48

hours. Oxidation rates varied by material type, with Vortex oxidizing most rapidly, followed by Central and then Brimstone. The Master

Composite exhibited oxidation behavior comparable to Brimstone.

Key

outcomes from the pilot testing include:

● gold

recovery versus sulfide oxidation was higher than indicated by bench-scale testing

● approximately

80% gold recovery was achieved at 50% sulfide oxidation for all material types

● approximately

87% gold recovery was achieved at 60% sulfide oxidation for all material types.

10.3.4.3 Hycroft

Mill Demonstration Plant

Hycroft

Mining constructed and operated a demonstration plant with a nominal capacity of 10 tons/d at the Mine site. The integrated flowsheet

comprised of a ball mill, rougher flotation bank, concentrate and tailings thickeners, a regrind mill, oxidation and neutralization tanks,

an oxidized concentrate thickener, cyanide leach tanks, CCD thickeners, and a Merrill-Crowe precipitation circuit. The plant was operated

continuously, with concentrate surge capacity upstream of oxidation and pregnant solution storage upstream of Merrill-Crowe.

The

demonstration plant processed Central and Brimstone materials mined from exposed mineralization at the surface of the current open pit.

Key

demonstration plant results for Central material are presented in Figure 10-9. For clarity, only data from Tank 1 (TK1) and Tank 5 (TK5)

are shown. Sulfide oxidation levels of 60% or greater were consistently achieved when steady-state operating conditions were maintained.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 103

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure 10-9: Oxidation of Central Flotation Concentrate: Sulfate Spike Test

Source:

M3, 2019

Oxidation

of the flotation concentrates resulted in a significant improvement in gold and silver recoveries compared to direct cyanidation. Cyanide

leach recoveries of oxidized concentrates during demonstration plant operation are presented in Figure 10-10. The graph initially reflected

Central concentrate processing and transition to Brimstone concentrates on June 11, 2016. Gold and silver recoveries for Central concentrate

peaked at approximately 85%. For Brimstone concentrate, gold recovery reached approximately 80%, while silver recovery peaked at 90%.

Overall recovery trends closely tracked the degree of concentrate oxidation.

Figure

10-10: Demonstration Plant Cyanide Leach Recovery of Au and Ag

Source:

M3, 2019

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 104

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

10.3.4.4 Pressure

Oxidation

POX testwork was conducted primarily by Hazen and SGS on various flotation concentrates derived from Hycroft sulfide mineralized material,

including individual samples, composites samples, and two transition material samples. POX testwork was performed under both alkaline

and acidic conditions.

The

following is a list of all POX testwork reports provided to Ausenco:

● Hazen

Project 11232 Report and Appendices A-F, POX-CIL Evaluation of Hycroft Flotation Concentrates.

● Hazen

Project 11243-01 Report and Appendix, Evaluation of Hycroft Blend Flotation Concentrate.

● Hazen

Project 11307 Report and Appendix, Evaluation of Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Flotation

Concentrate.

● SGS

Project 13224-001/003 Final Report, An Investigation into Oxidative Pre-treatment of Hycroft

Flotation Concentrates.

● SGS

Hycroft Project – 12012-001 Report 3, The Recovery of Au and Ag from Hycroft Project

Sulfide Samples, Allied Nevada Gold Corporation.

● Kappes,

Cassidy & Associates Project No. 189 C, Hycroft Pressure Oxidation and Leach Testwork.

acid POX testwork was conducted on flotation concentrates to establish suitable operating criteria. Table 10-9 summarizes the alkaline

POX testwork result, indicating that longer AC retention times still resulted in lower gold recovery, suggesting limited benefit from

extended durations.

Table

10-10 summarizes the acid POX test results completed by Hazen, SGS and KCA.

The

results indicate that the highest gold and silver cyanide amenability was achieved under conditions of an operating temperature between

374 °F to 437 °F, an oxygen overpressure of approximately 100 psi, and a residence time of 60 minutes. The POX test results also

suggest that the concentrates may be prone to jarosites formation, which can inhibit silver recovery. Evidence for potential jarosite

formation includes:

● the

acidic autoclave discharge pulp exhibited a yellow coloration, transitioning to reddish brown

following lime boil conditioning

● silver

recovery was higher when the pulp was subjected to a lime boil, which exposed the hot pulp

to alkaline conditions for several hours.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 105

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

10-9: Hycroft Alkaline POX Testwork Summary

Flotation

Concentrates Samples

Sulfide

(Stotal) (wt%)

Gold

(ppm)

Silver

(ppm)

Temp

(°F)

Solids

(wt%)

Retention Time

(min)

Oxygen

Over-pressure

(Psig)

Caustic

Consumption

(lbs/ton)

Cyanide

Conc. (wt%)

Gold

recovery

(%)

Silver

recovery

(%)

Brimstone

40.1

11.6

418

437

256

5.41

98.5

72.9

40.1

11.6

418

212

360

6.05

54.3

71.2

Hycroft

Blend Float Concentrate

38.5

18.1

2,103

437

240

0.15

64.3

35.8

38.5

18.1

2,103

437

240

1.45

63.8

52.0

38.5

18.1

2,103

4,37

240

2.95

63.8

82.1

The

gold and silver recoveries from rougher flotation concentrate subjected to acid POX, followed by lime boil conditioning and cyanide leaching

were in the mid-90% range for gold and approximately the mid-80% range for silver (Table 10-10).

Acid

POX followed by lime boil was evaluated during development of the MRE primarily due to its ability to consistently achieve high sulfide

oxidation. Sulfide oxidation exceeding 95% is expected with POX, whereas AAO did not consistently achieve the target of 60%. As a result,

gold and silver recoveries from POX residue are expected to be higher and more stable than those achieved using AAO. Additional factors

for supporting the evaluation of POX included the following:

● Limestone

is a more cost-effective reagent for acid neutralization.

● Cyanide

consumption following pressure oxidation is lower than for AAO.

Soda

ash was considered as an alternative to trona but was found to be less cost effective than limestone.

Table

10-10: Hycroft Acid POX Testwork Summary

Sulfide

Concentrate

Samples Tested

Sulfide

(S=)

(wt%)

(ppm)

Ag1

(ppm)

Temp

(°F)

Cyan.

Conc.6

(ppt)

Sulfide

Oxidation (%)

recovery (%)

Test

Lab

Brimstone

40.1

11.60

418

374

97.5

89.0

Hazen

Cut

36.9

11.40

168

374

94.0

94.1

Hazen

Camel

37.7

9.33

152

374

97.7

89.9

Hazen

Bay

22.1

6.03

52.3

374

97.5

75.3

Hazen

Bone

Yard

31.9

5.97

95.3

374

96.0

86.0

Hazen

Hycroft

Blend

38.5

18.10

2103

401

100.0

77.1

Hazen

Sulfide

Master Ro

18.9

4.90

432

401

87.0

65.8

Hazen

Mixed

Master Ro

9.3

8.50

193

401

82.8

86.4

Hazen

Central

Blk Sul Ro

8.4

2.47

374

98.8

93.6

90.5

SGS

Central

Blk Sul Cl

35.6

10.10

131

374

99.8

94.0

94.2

SGS

Vortex

Blk Sul Ro

9.1

2.93

276

374

98.6

97.7

73.5

SGS

Vortex

Blk Sul Cl

32.3

10.80

976

374

99.8

96.0

72.2

SGS

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 106

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Sulfide

Concentrate

Samples Tested

Sulfide

(S=)

(wt%)

(ppm)

Ag1

(ppm)

Temp

(°F)

Cyan.

Conc.6

(ppt)

Sulfide

Oxidation (%)

recovery (%)

Test

Lab

Central

Sul Cl

30.7

10.30

750

374

98.1

93.5

81.9

SGS

Brimstone

Sul Cl

34.7

7.93

392

374

83.6

53.6

49.5

SGS

Vortex

Sul Cl

35.4

8.03

350

374

94.2

94.5

89.2

SGS

POX

1 Cl con F-162

31.1

5.93

158

437

98.8

71.8

5.5

SGS

POX

2 Cl con F-253

33.9

9.38

155

437

98.6

64.3

19.1

SGS

POX

3 Cl con F-264

24.2

4.95

165

435

97.6

72.7

SGS

Brimstone

Sul Cl5

33.9

7.13

383

428

99.9

94.0

97.0

KCA

Note:

1. Fire

Assay

2. No

lime boil, no NaCl

3. No

lime boil, 1.34 oz/g NaCl

4. No

lime boil, 2.67 oz/g NaCl

5. H2SO4

added to autoclave feed

6. ppt

= parts per trillion

10.3.4.5 Concentrate

Oxidation Tests – Hazen 2025

During

2022 to 2025, Hycroft repeated flotation testing in preparation of concentrate for the POX Process Development program and achieved higher

recovery rates with tighter controls on particle size, pH adjustment to 4.7, 24-minute flotation time and 20% to 25% Mass Pull with a

target of 22%.

series of POX tests (POX-3 through POX-7) were conducted at Hazen Research, Inc. on pyrite flotation concentrate to evaluate oxidation

performance and downstream precious metal recovery following hot cure, lime boil, and cyanide leaching. The objective of this test program

was to establish repeatability, assess sensitivity to operating conditions, and confirm the effectiveness of the integrated POX–hot

cure–lime boil–cyanidation flowsheet.

All

POX tests were conducted in a 2-L titanium autoclave at a nominal temperature of 225 °C, with oxygen overpressure of approximately

100 psig, and a total residence time of 90 minutes. The starting solution contained approximately 10 g/L H₂SO₄. Agitation

speeds ranged from 1,000 to 1,020 rpm, and off-gas bleed rates were maintained at approximately 100 cm³/min.

Across

POX-3 through POX-7, oxidation conditions were consistent and reproducible. No evidence of excessive passivation or runaway reactions

was observed. The POX discharge slurries were subsequently subjected to hot cure to decompose basic iron sulfate phases prior to lime

boiling and cyanide leaching.

10.3.4.6 Hot

Cure – Hazen 2025

Hot

cure tests were conducted on pressure-oxidized slurry at 90 to 95 °C for 12 hours with agitation. The purpose of this step was to

decompose basic iron sulfate species formed during pressure oxidation and to condition the solids for effective jarosite breakdown during

lime boiling.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 107

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Across

POX-3 to POX-7, hot cure performance was stable, with temperature control maintained within ±1 °C of target. Filtration following

hot cure produced well-behaved filter cakes suitable for downstream processing. No washing was conducted after hot cure, consistent with

the intended flowsheet configuration.

10.3.4.7 Lime

Boil – Hazen 2025

Lime

boil tests were performed on hot-cured residues at 90 to 95 °C under alkaline conditions (target pH approximately 11 to 11.5) to

promote decomposition of jarosite and related basic iron sulfate phases. Residence times ranged from four hours to overnight, depending

on the specific test objective.

Calcium

hydroxide consumption varied across tests, reflecting differences in sulfate loading and the extent of iron sulfate formation during

POX. Later tests (POX-6 and POX-7) incorporated extended lime boil durations and tighter pH control to ensure complete jarosite decomposition

prior to cyanidation.

10.3.4.8 Cyanide

Leaching – Hazen 2025

Cyanide

bottle roll leach tests were conducted on lime-boiled residues at ambient temperature using sodium cyanide concentrations ranging from

2.5 to 5.0 g/L, with activated carbon addition where indicated. Leach durations were typically 48 hours.

several cases, a second lime boil and/or second cyanide leach was performed where the initial cyanidation indicated incomplete precious

metal extraction, particularly for silver. This staged approach demonstrated that additional gold and silver recovery could be achieved

when jarosite decomposition was completed prior to cyanidation.

Overall,

the combined results confirm that the integrated POX–hot cure–lime boil–cyanidation flowsheet is effective for

achieving high gold and silver recoveries from the pyrite concentrate. Table 10-11 summarizes the POX 3 through POX 7 test

results.

Table

10-11: Summary Comparison Table – POX 3 to POX-7

Test

POX

Temp

(°C)

O₂

Overpressure (psig)

Hot

Cure

(°C/h)

Lime

Boil

(°C/h)

NaCN

(g/L)

Extraction (%)

POX-3

225

100

90–93

/ 12

90–95

/ 4

5.0

~91

~95

POX-4

225

100

90–95

/ 12

90–95

/ overnight

5.0

>92

~95

POX-5

225

100

90–95

/ 12

90–95

/ overnight

5.0

~92

~93

POX-6

225

100

90–93

/ 12

90–95

/ 4

5.0

~93

~88–90

POX-7

225

100

/ 12

/ 24+

2.5–5.0

~93

~92

Note:

Gold and silver extractions shown are combined values based on feed and final residues. Minor balance deviations are attributed to analytical

uncertainty and low residual grades

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 108

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

POX-3 through POX-7 test series demonstrates that pressure oxidation at 225 °C with oxygen overpressure, followed by hot cure, lime

boil, and cyanide leaching, is a robust and repeatable processing route for the pyrite concentrate. Variability in silver recovery was

primarily associated with the completeness of jarosite decomposition, which was successfully addressed through extended lime boiling

and staged cyanidation.

These

results provide a defensible metallurgical basis for flowsheet development and recovery assumptions.

10.3.5 Solid-Liquid

Separation Tests

Several

thickeners are included in the Hycroft flowsheet. Updated settling tests for these thickeners were conducted by Pocock Industrial, Inc.

using samples generated during hydrometallurgical process development studies performed by Hazen Research, Inc.

Tested

sample streams included:

● rougher

flotation concentrate

● neutralized

AAO circuit product (pre-leach)

● cyanide-leached

slurry (CCD feed)

● rougher

flotation tailings.

summary of the settling test results is presented in Table 10-12

below.

Table

10-12: Settling Test Results

Sample

Tested

Feed Solids

(%)

Design

Basis Net Feed Loading (ft2/gal/min.)

Flocculant

Dosage (lb/ton)

Predicted

U’flow Density

solids)

Overflow

Clarity, (ppm) TSS

Rougher

Concentrate

7.47

– 14.79

0.87

– 1.37

0.12

– 0.13

40.6

– 49.1

150

– 318

Pre-Leach

Oxidized Concentrate

7.52

– 7.75

0.68

– 0.92

0.11

– 0.17

35.0

– 41.0

150

– 329

CCD

Feed

7.41

– 8.00

0.92

– 1.11

0.15

– 0.17

33.0

– 37.0

150

– 349

Rough

Tailings

14.10

– 15.80

0.84

– 0.88

0.07

– 0.13

59.5

– 65.0

150

– 250

10.3.6 Deleterious

Elements

The

deleterious element assay results for five bulk samples analyzed by Hazen are presented in Table 10-13 below.

Table

10-13: Deleterious Element Assay

Sample

(ppm)

Cut

4 Bin-03, -08, and -18

4.19

Brimstone

Bin-14 and -20

2.68

Camel

Conglomerate Bin -26, -27, and -28

2.35

Boneyard

Bin-9, -16, and -23

15.70

Bay

Bulk Bin-7, -11, and -24

9.96

Mercury

is present in the mineralized material at moderate to high levels and is a deleterious element that can negatively impact gold recovery.

Mercury is managed through zinc precipitation, followed by retorting to capture and remove the mercury.

10.3.7 Metallurgical

Parameters for Process Design Criteria and Financial Analysis

Overall

plant recovery is calculated by multiplying the flotation recoveries by the recoveries achieved in POX, cyanide leaching, and counter

current decantation (CCD), by the refining recovery in Merrill-Crowe precipitation. The proposed process plant overall recoveries are

presented in Table10-14.

For

oxide and transition materials processed by heap leaching, the estimated gold and silver recoveries are 40% and 12%, respectively.

Table

10-14: Process Plant Overall Recovery Prediction

Element

Flotation

Recovery

(%)

Cyanide

Extraction

(%)

Refining

Recovery

(%)

Overall

Recovery

(%)

2023

Tech Report Overall Recovery (%)

89.5

93.5

99.0

82.8

76.0

92.9

86.0

97.0

77.5

76.0

Note:

Overall Recovery = (Flotation Recovery) x (POX and Cyanide Leach Recovery) x (Refining Recovery)

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 109

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11 Mineral

Resource Estimates

11.1 Summary

Mineral

resources for the Hycroft deposit were developed using conventional block modeling methods and open pit optimization software to estimate

the component of mineralization that has reasonable prospects for economic extraction (RPEE) for the mineral resource. The mineral resource

estimation (MRE) was developed in accordance with the US Securities and Exchange Commission Rule SK-1300 for Mineral Projects. The estimate

of the MRE reflects in-place mineralization as the point of reference. The effective date of the MRE is January 1, 2026. The MRE presented

here supersedes any previously stated mineral resources for the Hycroft property.

The

model was assembled by Ryan Rodney, C.P.G. of Hycroft. IMC worked with Hycroft and reviewed the final model. IMC is an independent third

party with people who meet the definition of a QP under S-K 1300, and who have checked and validated the mineral resource wherever

possible, and are assuming responsibility for the published MRE, with John Marek, P.E., acting as the QP.

11.2 Model

Location

The

block model is assembled in the existing local mine grid. That grid is rotated 15.85 degrees (left rotation looking down) compared to

true north. Table 11-1 summarizes the block size and block limits.

Table

11-1: Block Size and Model Size

Model

Location

From

Coordinates

Number

of Blocks

Easting

Limit

13000

26000

325

Northing

Limit

35440

54800

484

Elevation

Limits

2200

6600

110

Block

Size Parent, subblock

x 40 x 40 ft

The

drillhole database and the block model are all in the mine grid. To the user, there does not appear to be a rotation because the mine

grid is treated as if there were no rotation. The block size selection will be discussed in a later sub-section.

11.3 Database

The

drillhole database has been assembled over many years by multiple companies using at least four different drill methods. That history

and the verification of the historical information have been discussed in previous sections. Additional drilling has been completed since

the MRE published March 2023, with additional checking and corrections completed on the historic database. The cutoff date for the drilling

database is March 17, 2025, which represents the last data received from the 2024 drilling campaign.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 110

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

There

are stockpiles and historical leach pads at the Mine that are within the block model area. Many of those have been drilled after the

original excavation by sonic or rotary methods. The stockpile holes have been used to estimate the stockpile and leach pad areas, only;

they have not been used to estimate in-situ rock. In total, the Hycroft database contains 6,023 drillholes with 534,881 sample intervals

amounting to 2,814,546 ft of drilling. Within the area of the block model, there are 5,813 drillholes with 516,901 drill intervals amounting

to 2,668,616 ft of drilling. There has been 87,383 ft of drilling in 70 drill holes that have been added due to drilling or database

correction since the previous MRE in March 2023. Table 11-2 summarizes the amount of drilling and assay information that was used to

assemble the block model.

Table

11-2: Data Available for the Assembly of the Resource Model for Au, Ag, AuCn, Sulfide Sulfur

Number

Total

in Model

Stockpile

Drilling

Assays

for Estimation After Removal of 1982-1987 Drilling

Holes

5,813

188

4,221

Assay

Intervals

516,901

3,268

460,131

Fire Assays

488,222

2,354

433,422

Cn Assays

380,400

1,952

325,962

Fire Assays

330,110

2,336

327,774

Cn Assays

327,125

1,972

309,137

Sulfide

Assays

39,058

2,450

39,058

The

“Assays for Estimation After Removal of 1982-1987 Drilling” column indicates how much of the information was used to estimate

measured and indicated class mineralization.

Sulfide

sulfur levels have been estimated from a combination of three data sources. A set of sample composites were established by weighing pulp

material from the drillholes to represent 25 ft composites from selected holes during 2011 and 2014. Specific holes were selected to

provide coverage over the zone of the deposit being considered for flotation mill treatment. Those 25 ft samples were analyzed by LECO

methods to determine sulfide sulfur percent by weight. In addition, all recent drilling in 2021 through mid-way through 2023 were assayed

for sulfide sulfur using the LECO method on each 5 ft interval. Starting in the 2023 drilling campaign, LECO analyses were reverted to

the 25 ft samples created from pulp samples. The three data sets were combined and then numerically distributed to 25 ft down-hole intervals.

The combined sulfide sulfur LECO database inside the model contains 13,523 composites that are 25 ft long, averaging 1.66% sulfide sulfur.

There

is additional multi-element ICP data available that was not used in the development of this resource model.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 111

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.4 Basic

Statistics

The

assay values of economic interest are gold, silver, and sulfide sulfur. This PFS is based on sulfide material being processed as a flotation

concentrate and then utilizing pressure oxidation (POX) to generate a cyanide leachable slurry. The POX process is planned for flotation

concentrate treatment. Sulfide sulfur content is a key measurable indicator in the POX process with potential operating cost impacts.

There is a direct correlation of sulfide sulfur content to lime and limestone consumption during the Hot Cure and Lime Boil steps after

POX and prior to cyanide leaching.

addition, the cyanide soluble assays of gold are of interest because they provide a basis to establish the best metallurgical process

based on the ability of the gold to dissolve into cyanide solution.

Table

11-3 presents the basic statistics of the assay database used to assemble the model. The stockpile assays are not included in the table

and the assay data from 1982 through 1987 have been removed. The entire database listed in Table 11-3 was used for block grade estimation

even though some of the assay values are located above current post mining topography. Drilling data from 1982 through 1987 was bias

corrected and used to contribute to inferred class mineralization only. The cyanide data is represented as the ratio of cyanide gold

divided by fire gold where the cyanide gold value exists and when fire gold is greater than or equal to 0.001 oz/ton.

Table

11-3: Assay Database (No Stockpile Assays, Inside the Model, and No Drilling from 1982 through 1987)

Commodity

Number

of Assays

Mean

Grade

Standard

Deviation

Minimum

Value

Maximum

Value

Fire

433,422

0.0063

oz/t

0.0145

oz/t

3.15

oz/t

CnAu/FaAu

(ratio)

251,475

0.3431

ratio

0.3156

ratio

1.00

ratio

327,774

0.25

oz/t

5.20

oz/t

2,334

oz/t

Sulfide

Sulfur in %, 25 ft Composites

13,486

1.65%

1.39%

42.86%

Table

11-3 also illustrates that Au cyanide soluble ratio (CnAu/FaAu) data exists on 58% of the database. Total silver assays exist on 76%

of the database. During later historic leach operations, cyanide Ag assays were generally completed; however, fire Ag assays were not

common. Estimation of total or fire Ag will consequently be limited by the smaller number of available assays. Cyanide Ag assays were

not used for block grade estimation due to uncertainty in that data identified during checks of the certificates of assay.

Cyanide

soluble gold assays were completed on approximately 75% of the intervals where there are gold fire assays. The ratio of cyanide soluble

Au to fire assay Au (CnAu/FaAu) ratio has been used to estimate the intensity of oxidation within the deposit. Although not statistically

optimum, the process is necessary and common in the industry. The ratio of cyanide soluble Au to fire assay Au is used in mine planning

to allocate material to the proper treatment process. When the CnAu/FaAu is calculated, values over 1.0 are set back to 1.0. The basic

statistics of CnAu/FaAu are also summarized on Table 11-3. In simple terms, the cyanide to fire ratio reflects the degree of oxidation

in the rock mass.

The

apparent loss of cyanide ratio data (75% assay to 58% ratio) is because a gold fire value of 0.001 oz/ton or greater was required to

calculate a meaningful ratio. In many cases, cyanide and/or fire assays are reported as trace values. In those cases, the resulting cyanide

ratio was either 0.0, 0.5, or 1.0. Those values are meaningless when determining the level of oxidation and the relative cyanide amenability

of the fire gold assay and were removed from the estimation process.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 112

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.5 Geology

The

geology of the Hycroft deposit has been presented in previous report sections. The primary occurrences which have control on the grade

distribution at Hycroft are Lithology, Alteration, and Structure. Each has an impact on mineralization.

11.6 Lithology

The

following are the main lithology or rock types in the Hycroft deposit:

● Alluvium

● Tuffaceous

Lake Bed Sediment, part of the TSG

● Camel

Conglomerate, part of the TSG, and eroded from the Kamma Volcanics

● Kamma

Volcanics, Tertiary, but older than the sulfur group conglomerates and sediments

● Auld

Lang Syne (ALS), Jurassic laminated siltstone, the basement of the deposit.

The

lithology interpretation was updated by Hycroft since the 2023 TRS. The primary change was a reduction in size of the TSG unit due to

detailed review of the original geologic logging by Hycroft geologists. New wire frame solids were developed and used to code the model

blocks to the nearest whole block. The main mineral hosts are the Camel and Kamma units; however, mineralization is found in all the

lithologic units.

Interpreted

solids representing the above rock types were provided by Hycroft and checked against logging by IMC. IMC found them appropriate for

use in the development of the resource model. Figure 11-1 is an east–west cross-section illustrating the major rock types looking

north.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 113

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-1: East–West Cross-Section 44000-N Looking North, Showing Lithology Types

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

11.7 Alteration

Alteration

consists of:

● acid

leach

● argillic

● silicic

● propylitic

● unaltered.

Hycroft

provided alteration solids to IMC that have not been updated since the 2023 TRS. IMC checked those solids against the logged database

and found them to be acceptable for use in development of the resource model. In summary, when propylitic alteration was encountered,

boundary analysis and basic statistics indicated that it was statistically similar to the argillic altered material, and it was combined

with argillic during block grade estimation.

Silicic

alteration is common and tends to be deeper and generally more prevalent in the eastern portion of the deposit. Boundary and statistical

analysis indicate that the silicic altered material is generally higher grade than the argillic-propylitic altered rock. Figure 11-2

is an east–west cross-section through the interpreted alterations, looking north.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 114

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-2: East–West Cross-Section 44000-N Looking North, Showing Alterations

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

11.8 Structure

Several

north–south striking basin and range faults cut through the Hycroft deposit. In addition to those faults, the deposit is cut by

the Ramp Fault and the west dipping East Fault. The East Fault is interpreted to be a thick shear zone and appears to be the orientation

and probably the conduit of mineralization in the eastern portion of the deposit. The footwall of the East Fault has minor low-grade

mineralization in the Kamma formation.

Figure

11-3 is a map view of the faults and the numbering system assigned to the fault blocks between the faults. The fault block numbers will

be used to define the domains and search parameters for block grade estimation.

There

are additional interpreted faults through the deposit, but after review by the Hycroft geology and modeling team, the faults and fault

blocks on Figure 11-3 were selected as those that had impact or control on the mineralization.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 115

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-3: Structure and Domain Interpretation (Plan View)

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 116

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.9 Domains

Domains

for grade estimation are a combination of structure, alteration, and lithology. The domain boundaries were developed by studying the

basic statistics by Hycroft and by boundary analysis completed by IMC to confirm the domain interpretation.

Boundary

analysis selects the assay (or composite) information from both sides of the boundary being tested at several different separation distances.

IMC then completes a series of statistical hypothesis tests to confirm if the data on either side of the boundary could have come from

the same or different statistical populations.

a result of the work described above, the selected 22 domains are summarized on Table 11-4. In addition to the domains created from boundary

analysis, Hycroft identified and created 16 additional discrete domains to represent high-grade (greater than or equal to 4 oz/ton) silver

veins. The silver domains create additional boundaries which isolate the higher-grade veins from the lower grade disseminated silver

to prevent too much smearing during estimation. The domains are identified in Table 11-5, where 6,000 series represent the Vortex area,

and 7,000 series represent the Brimstone area. Figure 11-4 shows the location of the high-grade silver domains. These domains are treated

as hard boundaries where composites outside the boundary do not influence the inside, and the composites inside do not influence outside

the boundary.

Sulfide

sulfur utilized a different set of domains based on similar analysis as applied to gold and silver. There are three domains for sulfide

sulfur illustrated on Table 11-6.

Table

11-4: Population Domains for Grade Estimation

Domain

Name

Structure

Block

Lithology

Alteration

Description

Alluvium

All

Alluvium

All

Alluvium

TSG_seds

All

TSG

All

Tertiary

Lake Bed Sediments (TSG)

auld

lang syne

All

ALS

All

ALS

formation

acid

leach

All

Acid

Leach

Acid

Leach Alteration

domain_1_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

West

of the Range Fault, North of the Camel Fault

domain_1_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

West

of the Range Fault, North of the Camel Fault

domain_1_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

West

of the Range Fault, North of the Camel Fault

Domain_2_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

Between

Range and Central Faults, North of the Camel Fault

domain_2_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

Between

Range and Central Faults, North of the Camel Fault

domain_2_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

Between

Range and Central Faults, North of the Camel Fault

domain_3_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

Between

Central and East, Albert Fault, North of the Camel Fault

domain_3_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

Between

Central and East, Albert Fault, North of the Camel Fault

domain_3_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

Between

Central and East, Albert Fault, North of the Camel Fault

domain_4_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

East

of East Fault, South of the Ramp Fault

domain_4_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

East

of East Fault, South of the Ramp fault

domain_4_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

East

of East Fault, South of the Ramp fault

domain_5_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

South

of the Camel Fault, West of the East Fault

domain_5_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

South

of the Camel Fault, West of the East Fault

domain_5_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

South

of the Camel Fault, West of the East Fault

domain_6_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

East

of Albert Fault, North of Ramp fault

domain_6_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

East

of Albert Fault, North of Ramp fault

domain_6_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

East

of Albert Fault, North of Ramp fault

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 117

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-5: High-grade Silver Vein Domains

Domain

Name

Structure

Block

Lithology

Alteration

Description

ag_6001

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6002

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6003

3,4

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6004

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6005

3,4

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6006

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6007

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6008

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6009

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6010

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6011

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_6012

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Vortex

High-grade silver vein

ag_7001

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Brimstone

High-grade silver vein

ag_7002

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Brimstone

High-grade silver vein

ag_7004

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Brimstone

High-grade silver vein

ag_7005

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

Brimstone

High-grade silver vein

Table

11-6: Sulfide Domains

Sulfide

Domain Number

Structure

Block

Lithology

Alteration

Description

All

Acid

Leach

Alluvium

3,4,6

All

East

of the Central fault

1,2,5

All

West

of the Central fault flat dipping

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 118

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-4: Structure and Domain Interpretation with Silver Wireframes (plan view)

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 119

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.10 Assay

Caps

Prior

to grade estimation, high-grade outliers were capped to limit undue impact on block grade estimation. Histograms were studied by Hycroft

within each of the domains to set cap values. IMC spot checked the cap values using cumulative frequency plots. In all cases, only a

small percentage of high valued samples were capped, generally less than 0.5% of the database. Table 11-7 summarizes the cap values that

were applied to assays prior to calculating composites.

Table

11-7: Assay Cap Values

Domain

Gold

Cap Value (oz/ton)

Silver

Cap Value (oz/ton)

Alluvium

0.10

TSG_Seds

0.06

Auld

Lang Syne

0.07

Acid

Leach

0.25

domain_1_arg_prop

0.07

domain_1_silicic

0.09

domain_1_unaltered

0.06

Domain_2_arg_prop

0.36

domain_2_silicic

0.55

domain_2_unaltered

0.04

2.5

domain_3_arg_prop

0.35

domain_3_silicic

0.65

domain_3_unaltered

0.05

domain_4_arg_prop

0.07

domain_4_silicic

0.15

domain_4_unaltered

0.07

domain_5_arg_prop

0.03

0.5

domain_5_silicic

0.04

3.5

domain_5_unaltered

0.03

domain_6_arg_prop

0.06

1.5

domain_6_silicic

0.12

domain_6_unaltered

0.07

ag_6001

n/a

ag_6002

n/a

ag_6003

n/a

ag_6004

n/a

ag_6005

n/a

ag_6006

n/a

ag_6007

n/a

ag_6008

n/a

ag_6009

n/a

ag_6010

n/a

ag_6011

n/a

ag_6012

n/a

ag_7001

n/a

300

ag_7002

n/a

ag_7004

n/a

ag_7005

n/a

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 120

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

gold cyanide to fire assay ratio was capped at 1.0 to assure that there were no values with cyanide assay greater than fire assay when

estimating the model.

all cases above, the stockpile drilling and the drilling in the Crofoot leach pad were excluded from the analysis as they do not represent

in-situ mineralization.

Sulfide

cap values were applied to the original sulfide data prior to compositing. The cap levels by sulfide domain are summarized on Table 11-8.

Table

11-8: Sulfide Cap Values Prior to Compositing

Alteration

Structure

Blocks

Lithology

Sulfide

Cap Level % Sulfide

Acid

Leach

All

12.00%

Argilic

All

17.00%

Propylitic

All

n/a

Silicic

All

28.00%

Unaltered

All

12.00%

11.11 Bench

Height Confirmation

test was completed to confirm the selection of bench height for the model. The assay database was composited into alternative bench height

intervals of 20 to 50 ft in 5-ft intervals. For each set of composites, the number of composites above cutoff and the average grade of

those composites above cutoff were calculated. The number of composites multiplied by the average grade is used as an approximation of

contained metal above cutoff. Multiple cutoffs of 0.001 through 0.007 oz/ton Au were tested at each of the bench heights. The stockpile

and leach pad drilling were not included in the analysis.

Figure

11-5 indicates that the gold grade is not particularly sensitive to bench height and the selected bench height of 40 ft is a reasonable

value considering the relatively high ore production rate being considered at Hycroft (nearly 60,000 t/d).

Future

work could consider increasing the bench height to 50 ft, but 50 ft is only about a 1.2% improvement over the contained metal at 40 ft.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 121

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-5: Bench Height Analysis

Source:

IMC, 2025

11.12 Composites

Downhole

(length) composites were created from the capped, raw assay values for input to block grade estimation. Composite lengths of 40 ft were

used for gold and silver estimation outside of the silver veins. Within the silver veins, the composite length was set to 10 ft due to

the narrow width of the interpreted veins.

The

capped assays were composited at 40 ft down-hole intervals, respecting the alteration and mineral domain boundaries described above.

A minimum of 20 ft was required for a composite and anything less than 20 ft was applied to the previous interval. Table 11-9 summarizes

the basic statistics of the composited assay data.

Table

11-10 summarizes the basic statistics of the composited sulfide-sulfur data as 25 ft composites.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 122

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-9: Basic Statistics of Composites, In-Situ Rock, Eliminating Years 1982 to 1987

Domain

Number

Structure

Block Code

Lithology

Alteration

Statistics

Summary for Composites

Statistic

oz/ton

CnAu/

AuFa Ratio

alluvium

All

Alluvium

All

2,644

1,849

1,058

Mean

0.0028

0.0873

0.5370

Max

0.0508

1.6595

Std

0.0039

0.1134

0.26

TSG_seds

All

TSG

All

1,465

1,254

363

Mean

0.0025

0.0882

0.2380

Max

0.0336

4.2323

Std

0.0042

0.1814

0.214

auld

lang syne

All

ALS

All

Mean

0.0014

0.0410

0.2700

Max

0.0105

0.2061

0.45

Std

0.0019

0.0428

0.132

acid

leach

All

Acid

Leach

5,401

1,621

3,486

Mean

0.0048

0.0888

0.6070

Max

0.1245

1.9186

Std

0.0076

0.1645

0.252

domain_1_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

373

352

Mean

0.0020

0.0745

0.1950

Max

0.0198

1.0011

0.688

Std

0.0032

0.0858

0.17

domain_1_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

824

795

513

Mean

0.0071

0.1983

0.1210

Max

0.0476

6.4177

Std

0.0065

0.4468

0.167

domain_1_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

305

306

Mean

0.0017

0.0918

0.4180

Max

0.0205

1.1522

0.863

Std

0.003

0.1271

0.258

Domain_2_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

4,461

3,169

1,941

Mean

0.0040

0.0932

0.4100

Max

0.1091

4.8678

Std

0.0066

0.2059

0.287

domain_2_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

10,458

7,120

8,503

Mean

0.0100

0.1895

0.3220

Max

0.3368

11.5751

Std

0.0101

0.4312

0.27

domain_2_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

151

128

Mean

0.0030

0.0800

0.3330

Max

0.0328

0.8482

Std

0.0046

0.132

0.274

domain_3_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

7,101

5,944

2,386

Mean

0.0033

0.1091

0.3090

Max

0.1395

5.9384

Std

0.0062

0.2488

0.253

domain_3_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

16,860

13,688

12,995

Mean

0.0085

0.3065

0.2780

Max

0.251

36.5706

Std

0.0094

0.6761

0.247

domain_3_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

723

384

363

Mean

0.0023

0.1048

0.5680

Max

0.0349

3.5645

Std

0.0034

0.2502

0.294

domain_4_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

1,203

1,146

224

Mean

0.0017

0.0738

0.3990

Max

0.0338

1.932

Std

0.0028

0.1335

0.275

domain_4_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

1,232

995

563

Mean

0.0040

0.1787

0.3980

Max

0.0604

3.9584

Std

0.0051

0.3188

0.29

domain_4_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

283

259

Mean

0.0012

0.0290

0.3850

Max

0.0323

0.6248

0.935

Std

0.003

0.0558

0.186

domain_5_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

107

100

Mean

0.0008

0.0830

0.3170

Max

0.0193

0.2503

0.7

Std

0.0025

0.0349

0.25

domain_5_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

207

198

Mean

0.0021

0.0914

0.1760

Max

0.0214

0.7186

0.863

Std

0.0039

0.0958

0.203

domain_5_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

Mean

0.0004

0.0797

Max

0.003

0.2559

Std

0.0005

0.0381

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 123

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Domain

Number

Structure

Block Code

Lithology

Alteration

Statistics

Summary for Composites

Statistic

oz/ton

CnAu/

AuFa Ratio

domain_6_arg_prop

Kamma+Camel

Argillic+Propylitic

896

774

Mean

0.0009

0.0696

0.4590

Max

0.0298

0.3795

Std

0.0018

0.0529

0.311

domain_6_silicic

Kamma+Camel

Silicic

583

496

225

Mean

0.0041

0.1869

0.2690

Max

0.0382

10.7052

Std

0.0051

0.5849

0.241

domain_6_unaltered

Kamma+Camel

Unaltered

161

136

Mean

0.0037

0.1936

0.5050

Max

0.0199

1.175

0.906

Std

0.0039

0.2161

0.177

ag_6001

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.2624

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

3.4599

n/a

ag_6002

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

5.3505

n/a

Max

n/a

11.8884

n/a

Std

n/a

2.9268

n/a

ag_6003

3,4

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

8.8920

n/a

Max

n/a

26.8903

n/a

Std

n/a

9.1648

n/a

ag_6004

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

6.6931

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

4.9057

n/a

ag_6005

3,4

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.2462

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

2.4865

n/a

ag_6006

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

7.7032

n/a

Max

n/a

18.3126

n/a

Std

n/a

5.1522

n/a

ag_6007

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

5.3803

n/a

Max

n/a

11.1771

n/a

Std

n/a

3.2084

n/a

ag_6008

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.5142

n/a

Max

n/a

13.0085

n/a

Std

n/a

3.5674

n/a

ag_6009

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

8.9273

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

6.6283

n/a

ag_6010

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

6.0614

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

5.3179

n/a

ag_6011

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.3523

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

1.656

n/a

ag_6012

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

5.9920

n/a

Max

n/a

18.645

n/a

Std

n/a

5.5774

n/a

ag_7001

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

25.4563

n/a

Max

n/a

157.5105

n/a

Std

n/a

36.8384

n/a

ag_7002

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.8935

n/a

Max

n/a

Std

n/a

4.3965

n/a

ag_7004

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

11.0018

n/a

Max

n/a

52.5782

n/a

Std

n/a

18.7548

n/a

ag_7005

Kamma

Argillic+Propylitic+Silicic

n/a

Mean

n/a

4.5161

n/a

Max

n/a

6.2646

n/a

Std

n/a

1.4602

n/a

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 124

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-10: Basic Statistics of 25 ft Sulfide Composites by Sulfide Domain

Sulfide

Domain Number

Structure

Blocks

Lithology

Alteration

Basic

Statistics of 25ft Composites

All

Acid

Leach

319

Mean

1.94

Max

12.00

Std

2.36

3,4,5,6

All

8,544

Mean

1.54

Max

28.00

Std

1.45

1,2,5

All

4,623

Mean

1.82

Max

26.20

Std

1.14

11.13 Variography

Variograms

were prepared and analyzed by mineralized domain during earlier work on the MRE. The guidance for search orientation and distance that

was developed from that work has been applied to the grade assignment techniques applied to this model. A few illustrative variograms

have been prepared using the database and domain boundaries applied to this model to provide support to the selected search parameters.

Figure

11-6: Gold Variograms for Silicic Material Between the Central Fault and East Fault

Down

Dip to West

North-South

Source:

IMC, 2023

Figure

11-7: Gold Variograms for Silicic Material Between the Range Fault and Central Fault

East-West

North

Source:

IMC, 2023

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 125

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.14 Block

Grade Estimation

Block

grade estimation was broken into four groups of estimates: gold, silver, gold cyanide ratio (cnratau), sulfide-sulfur. The boundaries

and controls on each of the four were different as might be expected with the differences in geologic occurrence in each case.

11.14.1 Gold

Gold

estimations utilized the 22 domains defined previously. Those domain boundaries were treated as “hard” boundaries during

estimation. The estimation used the 40 ft composites noted earlier and inverse distance cubed (1/d3) as the estimation method.

Search parameters are provided on Table 11-11.

The

grade estimation used a maximum of ten composites with a maximum of three composites from one hole. A single composite could be used

to assign a block grade, but that grade would be considered as inferred category (Class is discussed later in this section).

Test

runs of ordinary kriging have been applied in previous models. The intent of selecting the inverse distance method was to develop a better

planning model with less smoothing during block estimation and to provide an estimate of block values that would be predictive of actual

mine head grades once appropriate mining cutoffs were applied.

Block

gold grade estimation was done in two estimation passes:

1. Block

grades were estimated without the 1982 to 1987 drilling, applying the methods described here

in text.

2. The

mineral resource classes of measured, indicated, and inferred were established without the

use of the 1982-1987 data.

second pass of gold block grade estimation was made incorporating the 1982 to 1987 data after the bias correction of 0.56 was applied.

Any blocks that were added in addition to those in Step 1 above were coded as Inferred.

11.14.2 Silver

Silver

utilized the 38 domains defined previously. Those domain boundaries were treated as “hard” boundaries during estimation.

As discussed earlier, silver composites were broken by domain boundaries where high-grade silver mineralization occurs, the composites

are set to 10 ft length inside the high-grade domains and 40 ft outside of the high-grade domain. Silver was estimated using 1/d3

methodology.

The

estimation strategy within the high-grade domains used a three-pass approach incorporating a small ellipse in the first pass and a larger

ellipse in the subsequent passes. Outside of the high-grade domains, the estimation used a one pass approach. Search parameters are provided

on Table 11-11.

Two

domains that are not inside the high-grade structures, incorporated a high-grade search limit where composites above a certain grade

were capped again beyond a specified search distance. This process includes the high-grade values but limits their extent to minimize

high-grade smearing over neighboring low-grade values.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 126

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-11: Grade Estimation Parameters for Au, Ag

Domain

Variable

Ellipsoid

Ranges

(ft)

Ellipsoid

Directions

(°)

Composite

Counts

Drill

Hole Limit

Restrictions

Max

Interm

Min

Dip

Azimuth

Pitch

Min

Max

per

oz/ton

Limit (ft)

Alluvium

150

270

n/a

150

270

n/a

TSG_seds

270

n/a

270

n/a

auld

lang syne

150

285

n/a

150

285

n/a

acid

leach

270

n/a

270

n/a

domain_1_arg_prop

150

270

n/a

150

270

n/a

domain_1_silicic

300

270

n/a

300

270

n/a

domain_1_unaltered

150

270

n/a

150

270

n/a

Domain_2_arg_prop

250

270

n/a

250

270

n/a

domain_2_silicic

300

270

n/a

300

270

n/a

domain_2_unaltered

150

270

n/a

150

270

n/a

domain_3_arg_prop

300

285

n/a

300

285

domain_3_silicic

300

285

n/a

300

285

domain_3_unaltered

150

285

n/a

150

285

n/a

domain_4_arg_prop

250

285

n/a

250

285

n/a

domain_4_silicic

300

285

n/a

300

285

n/a

domain_4_unaltered

150

285

n/a

150

285

n/a

domain_5_arg_prop

250

270

n/a

250

270

n/a

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 127

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Domain

Variable

Ellipsoid

Ranges

(ft)

Ellipsoid

Directions

(°)

Composite

Counts

Drill

Hole Limit

Restrictions

Max

Interm

Min

Dip

Azimuth

Pitch

Min

Max

per

oz/ton

Limit (ft)

domain_5_silicic

300

270

n/a

300

270

n/a

domain_5_unaltered

150

270

n/a

150

270

n/a

domain_6_arg_prop

250

285

n/a

250

285

n/a

domain_6_silicic

300

285

n/a

300

285

n/a

domain_6_unaltered

150

285

n/a

150

285

n/a

ag_6001

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6002

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6003

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6004

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6005

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6006

pass

120

300

n/a

pass

180

300

n/a

pass

240

120

300

n/a

ag_6007

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6008

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6009

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 128

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Domain

Variable

Ellipsoid

Ranges

(ft)

Ellipsoid

Directions

(°)

Composite

Counts

Drill

Hole Limit

Restrictions

Max

Interm

Min

Dip

Azimuth

Pitch

Min

Max

per

oz/ton

Limit (ft)

ag_6010

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6011

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_6012

pass

120

270

n/a

pass

180

270

n/a

pass

240

120

270

n/a

ag_7001

pass

120

300

n/a

pass

180

300

n/a

pass

240

120

300

n/a

ag_7002

pass

120

300

n/a

pass

180

300

n/a

pass

240

120

300

n/a

ag_7004

pass

120

300

n/a

pass

180

300

n/a

pass

240

120

300

n/a

ag_7005

pass

120

300

n/a

pass

180

300

n/a

pass

240

120

300

n/a

11.14.3 Cyanide

Ratio

About

75% of the assay database for fire gold was also assayed for cyanide soluble gold. The cyanide soluble assay is a direct indication of

the cyanide amenability of the mineralized material to gold and silver recovery by cyanidation. Much of the upper portion of the deposit

received cyanide soluble assays for gold and silver.

CnAu/FaAu

was used to indicate cyanide amenability. The ratio, where it is available, can be interpreted as an indication of oxidation that has

occurred in the rock mass.

The

domains selected for gold and silver mineralization (previously shown in Table 11-4) reflect the original hydrothermal mineralization.

The cyanide ratio however reflects the oxidation process as a secondary impact.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 129

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

review of cross-sections of the cyanide ratio data indicated two populations of cnratau:

1. A

generally horizontal band near topography reflecting surface water and oxidation that looks

like a conventional oxidation blanket.

2. Isolated

values at depth that likely reflect oxidation downward along structure with limited later

extent.

estimate cnratau, a boundary was developed between the upper oxide blanket and the lower structural controlled oxidation. This was completed

by visual analysis of cnratau cross-sections.

The

boundary surface was defined as a horizontal plane on the 4,000 ft. elevation from the eastern edge of the model to the 19,000 East line.

From there the surface trends upward to the 4,400 ft. elevation at the 21,000 East line. From 21,000 east to the east edge of the model,

the 4,400 ft. elevation is applied. Blocks above the surface were coded with a value of 1 in a variable called “Contrat”.

Blocks below the surface were coded with a Contrat value of 2.

Table

11-12 summarizes the parameters used to estimate the cnratau within each block. Once the ratio was assigned, block values of cyanide

soluble Au could be calculated where required. Composite requirements: max =10, min =1, max per hole =3.

Table

11-12: Estimation Parameters for Cyanide Ratio, All Three Domains utilized 1/D3

Ratio Domain “Contrat”

Structure

Block Code

Description

Parameters

Applied to 40 ft Composites

Variable

Orientation,

Degrees

Radii, (ft)

Maximum

Composites per Drillhole

Dip

Dir

Plunge

Rotation

Prim

Second

Perpend

All

Near

Surface Oxidation

cnratau

700

3,4,6

Structural

Oxidation, East of Central Fault

cnratau

285

-40

150

1,2,3,5

Structural

Oxidation, West of Central Fault

cnratau

270

-90

150

11.14.4 Sulfide

Sulfur

Sulfide

sulfur was estimated to provide an improved localized cost for concentrate processing. The cost of concentrate processing is dependent

on the amount of sulfide sulfur in the mill feed. The current POX process has been adjusted to match the full range of sulfide sulfur

found in the flotation concentrate. Most of the sulfide sulfur is in the form of pyrite. Pyrite exists everywhere throughout the deposit,

including in the oxidized portion. In particular, the acid leach alteration type contains native sulfur which also reports to the LECO

assay method for sulfide sulfur.

The

presence of sulfide sulfur is not impacted by the oxidation state or rock type. Population tests indicate that the only independent population

is the acid leach alteration. The dip orientation for the estimation parameters was, however, adjusted based on structure.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 130

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

sulfide sulfur LECO data was performed on selected drillholes. The sulfide sulfur block grades were estimated from the 25 ft composite

LECO data as described in previous sections. Composite counts were a maximum of 10, minimum of one with a maximum of three composites

per drill hole.

Table

11-13 summarizes the estimation parameters used to assign sulfide sulfur to the model blocks.

Table

11-13: Sulfide Sulfur Estimation Parameters, All Three Domains Utilized 1/D3

Structure

Block Code

Description

Variable

Orientation,

Degrees

Radii, (ft)

Dip

Dir

Plunge

Rotation

Prim

Second

Perpend

All

Acid

Leach Alteration

Sulfd

650

200

3,4,6

East

of Central Fault

Sulfd

285

-40

650

200

1,2,3,5

West

of Central Fault

Sulfd

650

200

Due

to the low number of sulfide sulfur composites, default values were assigned based on alteration type to those blocks without estimated

sulfide sulfur. Sulfide sulfur can be an input to project cost so leaving blocks un-estimated would underestimate project costs.

The

default values were assigned as follows in Table 11-14. Default values were assigned to blocks that did not receive a sulfide sulfur

value from the estimation process.

the development of the POX process, reagent consumption and power costs were consistent across the range of sulfide sulfur levels identified.

Therefore, a fixed value could be applied to the operating costs.

Table

11-14: Sulfide Sulfur Default Values if Not Estimated

Description

Default

Sulfide Sulfur %

Acid

Leach

1.7167

Argillic

1.5226

Silicic

1.8335

Propylitic

1.1057

Unaltered

0.782

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 131

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.14.5 Density

Bulk

density was assigned to in-situ rock based on density data collected by Hycroft and their predecessors. Average density values were set

based on alteration type within the hard or in-situ units. The exception was the ALS rock type which was assigned a single value not

impacted by alteration.

Alluvium,

back fill, and stockpiles were guided by the few test values available but were generally based on the density values assigned to an

earlier block model completed in 2019. Table 11-15 summarizes the densities assigned to the model.

Table

11-15: Density Assigned to the Block Model

Description

Specific

Gravity

lbs/ft

Ktons

per Model Block

Acid

Leach

2.2654

141.424

4.5256

Argillic

2.2094

137.928

4.4137

Silicic

2.5055

156.413

5.0052

Propylitic

2.3193

144.789

4.6333

Alluvium

1.7808

111.172

3.5575

Auld

Lang Syne

2.652

165.559

5.2979

Unassigned

Blocks

2.3193

144.789

4.6333

Stockpile

Specific

Gravity

lbs/ft

Ktons

per Block

100

1.6026

100.047

3.2015

101,

102, 103, 104, 105, 106

1.7049

106.433

3.4059

120

(Crofoot Leach Pad)

2.0000

124.856

3.9954

11.14.6 Stockpile

Grade Estimation

The

Hycroft pits have incurred both backfilling and in-pit stockpiling. Potential sulfide mill feed that has been incurred during the mining

of oxide heap leach ores have been stockpiled. That material is a potential future mill feed to a sulfide processing facility.

Hycroft

developed interpreted solids based on survey data of the stockpiles.

Some

of the stockpiles at Hycroft have been drilled by Sonic drilling and RC sampling methods. The grade of those stockpiles that contained

stockpile drilling were assigned with the assays from those holes. Stockpiles that were estimated all used a search of 600 x 600 x 200

ft and 1/D1 methods to estimate Au, Ag, Sulfide Sulfur and cnratau. Densities were assigned as summarized in the previous sub-section.

Where there were no stockpile drilling assays, average tonnage and grade of each stockpile based on the blast hole grade control information

was used.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 132

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Blocks

were assigned stockpile codes as summarized in Table 11-16.

Table

11-16: Stockpiles Assigned Grades by Inverse Distance Estimation

Stockpile

Codes

Location

Variables

Estimated by 1/D1

Au,

Ag, Sulfide Sulfur, CnAu/FaAu Ratio

Dip

Dir

Plunge

Rotation

Prim (ft)

Second (ft)

Perpend (ft)

101

Brimstone Stockpile 1

600

200

102

Brimstone Stockpile 2

600

200

104

Central Stockpile 1

600

200

120

Crofoot Leach Pad

600

200

Stockpile

Grades Assigned by Hycroft Production History

Stockpile

Codes

Location

oz/ton

Sulfide

Sulfur %

CnAu/FaAu

Ratio

100

General Fill

103

Brimstone Stockpile 3

0.0148

0.6514

2.51

0.2

105

Central Stockpile 2

0.0131

0.2308

1.89

0.25

106

Gyro Stockpile

0.019

0.848

2.97

0.18

120

Crofoot Leach Pad

1.74

Note:

No sulfide sulfur data exists for the Crofoot Leach Pad (120) so a default value was assigned for processing costs

The

Crofoot leach pad (code 120) was assigned an inferred confidence classification. All other graded stockpiles were assigned an Indicated

confidence classification.

11.14.7 Treatment

of 1982 – 1987 Data

The

observed high bias with the 1982 – 1987 data was discussed and illustrated in Section 9. Half of the 1982-1987 data have been historically

mined out. The 1982-1987 drill data was included using the following steps:

1. The

procedures described in the previous sub-sections and in Section 11.15 regarding classification

were first completed using the drill hole composites that had excluded the 1982 to 1987 drill

data.

2. Once

completed, the block gold grades and the block class codes were stored in separate variables.

3. The

1982-1987 composite data was corrected for potential high bias by multiplying each composite

by a factor of 0.56, based on the nearest neighbor comparison to post 2005 data described

in Section 9.

4. The

gold estimation procedure was repeated using the identical parameters as described in the

previous sub-sections and in item 1 above.

5. Any

additional blocks that were estimated in pass 2 were added to the gold grade and coded as

“Inferred.”

The

procedure outlined above did not change the gold block grade of the blocks estimated in pass 1 without the 1982-1987 data. It was not

necessary to update the silver because there were no silver assays within the 1982-1987 data.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 133

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.15 Classification

Individual

blocks in the model were assigned classification codes as defined within S-K 1300. As noted earlier, the stockpiles were assigned classification

codes of 2 for Indicated class and the Crofoot leach pad was assigned a code of 3 for inferred.

The

in-situ rock values were assigned classification codes based on the inverse distance estimation of Au. During that estimation process,

the number of composites that were used to estimate the block was stored along with the distance between the block and the closest composite.

Those two parameters were used to assign classification code in the following manner to blocks estimated without the 1982-1987 data.

closest distance <= 125 ft and number of composites = 10, Class = 1 Measured

Else

closest distance <=225 ft and number of composites >=4, Class = 2 Indicated

Otherwise

Remaining

Estimated Blocks Class = 3 Inferred

After

the above coding was complete, the additional blocks that resulted from inclusion of the bias corrected 1982-1987 data were coded as

inferred.

noted in Section 11.14.4, sulfide sulfur information is limited in number compared to gold and silver assays. The confidence procedures

that are described in the previous paragraph are to be applied to metallurgical processes that utilize sulfide sulfur to estimated process

cost such as POX. Default assignments of sulfide sulfur to blocks with estimated gold and silver are appropriate for cost estimation.

The

previous paragraphs discuss several items of uncertainty in the database that have caused components of the mineralization to be classified

as inferred. There is indication that those inferred components are mineralized, but the uncertainty in the data or lack of data contributes

to an inferred level of grade estimation.

Measured

mineralization has a sound level of reliability due to the close spacing (125 ft) and large number of samples contributing to the grade

estimates. Indicated level is slightly more uncertain than measured due to the wider spacing of the data and fewer number of samples

used for estimation. The definitions of measured, indicated, and inferred are consistent with the definitions within SK-1300.

Figure

11-8 is a cross-section showing the classification for Hycroft resources.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 134

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-8: E-W Cross-section at 41000-N, Showing Confidence Codes

Note:

Red (1) = Measured, Green (2) = Indicated, Blue (3) = Inferred. Source: Hycroft, 2025

11.16 Model

Verification

The

block model was verified by several methods before being used to determine mineral resources:

● Detailed

Visual Checks of Drilling versus Block Estimates.

● A

Bias Check for Each Domain.

● Swath

Plots.

● IMC

Smear Check.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 135

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

visual check of the block model is one of the most useful and informative processes that was used to confirm the practicality of the

block model. IMC completed visual checks on plan and sections for all the estimated variables in the model. In addition to IMC visual

checks, the Hycroft engineering and geology team on site have also reviewed the model.

Figure

11-9 and Figure 11-10 are cross sections through the block model with drilling as visual checks.

Figure

11-9: E-W Cross-section at 41000-N, Visual Check of Gold Grades in Drillholes and Block Model

Note:

Warmer Colors are Higher Grade. Source: Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 136

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-10: E-W Cross-section at 41000-N, Visual Check of Silver Grades in Drillholes and Block Model

Note:

Warmer Colors are Higher Grade. Source: Hycroft, 2025

11.16.1 Swath

Plots

Hycroft

produced comparative statistics, including inverse distance cubed (ID3), nearest neighbor (NN) and inverse distance squared

(ID2) estimations, and swath plots for all deposits. Swath plots provide a visual indication if the block model follows

the grade trends indicated by the supporting data and if there is any observable local bias in the block grade estimation. The

swath plots produced generally demonstrated good correlation, with block grades being somewhat smoothed relative to composite grades,

as expected.

Figure

11-11 is an example for the swath plots in the X and Y (model east and north) directions across the deposit for the gold estimation.

Figure 11-12 and Figure 11-13 illustrate the same swath plots for silver and sulfide sulfur respectively.

The

green histogram represents the volume of estimated blocks within the resource pit for each 160 ft slice of the model.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 137

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-11: Swath Plots for Gold, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Wide Slices

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 138

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-12: Swath Plots for Silver, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Slices

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 139

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

11-13: Swath Plots for Sulfide Sulfur, X = East and Y = North Slices, 160 ft Slices

Source:

Hycroft, 2025

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 140

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

11.16.2 Smear

Check

IMC

used a simple test to understand the amount of grade smoothing within the block model and to confirm that the model grades are not high

biased. The test is referred to internally as the “smear check.”

The

procedure is as follows:

● A

range of cutoff grades are selected for the check process. Typically, they bracket the potential

planning cutoff grades.

● For

each cutoff grade being tested, the blocks above cutoff are identified.

● All

composites contained within those blocks are identified.

● Average

grade of the composites and blocks are tabulated.

● Percentage

of the contained composites less than cutoff are calculated.

Table

11-17 summarizes the results for both Au and Ag in-situ rock. Stockpiles and stockpile drillholes have been removed from this analysis.

In all cases, the model mean grade is less than or equal to the mean grade of the contained composites. This is because the block estimate

also draws from composites that are outside of the test shape.

Less

than cutoff, is indicative of the amount of averaging or “smearing” of grade that has occurred in the estimation process.

Ideally this value should be less than about 10 to 15% in the range of cutoff grades. The gold and sulfide sulfur responses meet these

criteria over a range of the deposit grades.

Table

11-17: IMC Smear Check

Cutoff

Grade

Comps Less than Cutoff

Number

of Comps in Shape

Composite

Grade (oz/ton)

Number

of Blocks in Shape

Model

Grade

(oz/ton)

Composites vs Model Au

0.002

6.24

24,464

0.009

673,328

0.008

0.003

7.31

22,073

0.010

585,073

0.009

0.004

9.10

20,000

0.010

511,894

0.009

0.005

11.54

17,758

0.011

445,637

0.010

0.006

13.39

15,577

0.012

380,290

0.011

0.007

15.08

13,349

0.013

318,446

0.012

0.008

15.84

11,331

0.014

262,200

0.013

0.009

18.36

9,446

0.015

213,726

0.014

0.010

20.04

7,830

0.016

171,559

0.015

Composites vs Model Ag

0.100

15.52

16,074

0.353

500,629

0.302

0.200

21.81

8,259

0.531

221,681

0.505

0.300

25.83

4,916

0.729

122,015

0.720

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 141

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Cutoff

Grade

Comps Less than Cutoff

Number

of Comps in Shape

Composite

Grade (oz/ton)

Number

of Blocks in Shape

Model

Grade

(oz/ton)

0.400

27.16

3,328

0.934

80,459

0.914

0.500

28.17

2,446

1.076

57,512

1.100

0.600

29.70

1,943

1.217

43,761

1.274

Sulfide

Sulfur Composites vs Model, Default Values Removed from Analysis

0.25

4.73

11,813

1.86

792,323

1.78

0.50

3.28

10,887

1.98

758,989

1.85

1.00

4.99

9,547

2.15

670,013

1.99

1.50

8.07

7,773

2.34

532,655

2.18

2.00

13.61

4,181

2.87

272,917

2.56

Note:

Below End 2021 Topography, Without stockpile blocks or drilling, and without data from 1982 through 1987 Drilling. The silver check does

not include the vein domains

Silver

grade responses at 0.20 oz/ton and above indicate a modeled mineralized zone will have 22 to 29% of the composite values inside the modeled

shape that are less than the cutoff shape. Although not ideal, the result for silver is acceptable.

an additional test on silver, the blocks within the MRE pit with positive economic value were averaged to determine their average silver

grade. The average of all composites was identified within the same envelope. The statistical mean of the resource containing silver

composites is 0.55 oz/ton after capping. The average silver grade of the resource blocks is 0.32 oz/ton. The result indicates that the

observed grade smearing in silver is not overestimating the contained silver in the MRE.

11.17 Mineral

Resource Estimate

The

MRE at the Hycroft property is currently envisioned to be produced from a conventional hard rock open pit mine feeding two process facilities:

1. Oxide

material will be routed to ROM cyanide heap leach, producing gold and silver doré.

2. Sulfide

material will be allocated to a Flotation milling process followed by POX of the concentrate

to make a gold and silver doré.

The

terms of reference for this MRE are mineralization in-place. The procedures described in the following paragraphs establish that the

stated mineral resources have RPEE.

Mineral

resources were developed using the block model and pit optimization software to determine mineralization with reasonable prospects for

economic extraction of the mineral resource as defined by S-K 1300. The optimization software compares the cost of production versus

the benefit of metal sales to develop an estimated open pit geometry. The pit walls of the resulting pit are at breakeven economics where

costs equal benefits.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 142

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

cutoff grade that is reported for this statement of mineral resources is based on the estimated costs and metal prices on Table 11-18.

The internal or marginal cutoff is applied and reported where the benefits of selling the recovered metal will pay for the processing

and fixed general and administrative (G&A) costs.

Table

11-18 summarizes the economic and recovery parameters that were used to define the pit that established the MRE. The process costs were

developed by Ausenco and Hycroft based on recent cost estimation. Mine operating cost estimates were developed by IMC by scaling from

preliminary mine planning and cost estimation completed during early 2022.

The

cutoff grade is presented as an NSR. A marginal or internal cutoff grade is consequently $0.01/ton. An estimate of the Net of Process

value is also provided in terms of Equivalent Gold Grade. Metal prices for the MRE were $3,100 /oz Au, and $36.00/oz Ag. Spot prices

for Au and Ag in 2025 ranged from US$2,798 to US$4,323/ oz Au and US$31.34 to US$71.63/ oz Ag respectively. The prices selected for determination

of mineral resources are conservative relative to current metal prices and do not include extensive price extrapolation.

The

MRE is presented on Table 11-19 using US customary units and on Table 11-20 in metric units. Mineral resources are not mineral

reserves, and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The

risks to the Hycroft MRE are future changes in project costs and project recoveries as well as metal prices that can have a substantial

impact on the MRE. Process recoveries in the grade ranges near the cutoff grades may be less than the recoveries presented on Table 11-18.

Additional process testing could result in modifications to the recovery and process costs that could result in reductions in the mineral

resource.

The

categories of measured, indicated, and inferred reflect different drill densities as noted in Section 11.15. Uncertainties in the drill

database have been minimized by the following two treatment components of the database:

1. The

1982 through 1987 drilling and assay data, which appears to be biased, has been corrected

for bias and incorporated only in the estimation of inferred mineral resources.

2. The

cyanide soluble silver assays which measure the cyanide amenable silver content have not

been used in the MRE.

The

slope angles input for the pit optimization software was based on work completed by Call & Nicholas Inc, (CNI) completed in February

of 2022 with additional documentation in October of 2023. IMC has reviewed these documents and has accepted the slope angle recommendations

for use in the development of the MRE.

IMC

is a third-party consulting firm with people who can act as a qualified person for the MRE. IMC holds the opinion that all relevant technical

and economic factors likely to influence the project or economic extraction could be resolved with further work and that this statement

of mineral resources meets the requirements to show RPEE.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 143

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-18: Economic and Technical Parameters for Hycroft MRE

Cost

Assumptions

Mining

Cost, Base

$1.65/ton

material moved

Bench Incremental Cost Below 4660

$0.018/ton

per bench of depth

Categorization

of Oxidation Type based on the AuCn/AuFA Ratio = cnratau

Oxide

>=0.7

Transition

between 0.3 and 0.7

Sulfide

<=0.3

Process

Cost for Flotation and POX

Total

Mill Cost for Sulfide and Transition

$16.73/ton

of feed to float plant

ROM

Leach for Oxide,

$1.88/ton

of feed to ROM Leach

ROM

Leach for Transition Sulfide

$3.63/ton

of feed to ROM Leach

Mill

Process Recoveries

Mill

Recoveries

Flotation

POX

Extraction

Total

Gold

89.5%

93.5%

99.0%

82.8%

(AuFA)

Silver

92.9%

86.0%

97.0%

77.5%

(Total Silver Assay)

ROM

Heap Leach Recoveries

ROM

Leach Recovery

Oxide

Transition

Gold

75.0%

(AuCn)

Silver

12.2%

(Total Silver Assay)

Refining

Recoveries

Mill

+ POX Payable

99.5%

Leach

Process Payable

99.5%

Doré

Transport and Refining Cost

Gold

$5.00/oz

Silver

$0.50/oz

Metal

Price Assumptions

Heap

Leach AuCN Cutoffs

Mill-POX

Au Equiv

Gold

Silver

Internal

Cutoff

Internal

Cutoff

$3,100/oz

$36.00/oz

Oxide

0.0008

oz/ton

0.0066

oz/t AuEquiv

Transition

0.0016

oz/ton

Gold

Equivalent for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay

at average gold leach recovery AuEq = Fire Gold + 0.0035 Total Silver Assay

Gold

Equivalent for Flotation + Concentration = Fire Assay Gold + Total Silver Assay x 0.0107

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 144

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-19: Hycroft MRE as of January 21, 2026, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade

Net

Refining

Approximate

Cutoff,

AuEq (oz/ton)

Ktons

Gold

oz/ton

Silver

oz/ton

Sulfide

Sulfur%

Contained

Ounces

Gold

x 1000

Silver

x 1000

Heap

Leach Resource

Measured

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

92,994

0.005

0.11

1.83

446

10,322

Indicated

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,374

0.004

0.09

1.54

475

9,492

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

203,368

0.005

0.10

1.67

921

19,814

Inferred

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,018

0.005

0.09

1.41

528

10,122

Flotation

Mill + Concentrate Treatment by Pressure Oxidation and Cyanide Leach

Measured

$16.73

0.007

734,571

0.011

0.43

2.03

8,154

316,600

Indicated

$16.73

0.007

748,876

0.010

0.30

1.84

7,339

226,161

Meas

+ Ind

$16.73

0.007

1,483,447

0.010

0.37

1.93

15,493

542,761

Inferred

$16.73

0.007

459,646

0.010

0.27

1.76

4,505

122,725

Combined

Mineral Resources Leach Plus Mill

Measured

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

827,565

0.010

0.40

2.01

8,600

326,922

Indicated

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

859,250

0.009

0.27

1.80

7,814

235,653

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

1,686,815

0.010

0.33

1.90

16,414

562,575

Inferred

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

569,664

0.009

0.23

1.69

5,033

132,847

Notes:

1. Mineral

resources based on metal prices of $3,100/troy oz Au and $36.00/troy oz Ag.

2. Cutoffs

are Income – Refining Cost = NSR.

3. Gold

Equivalent (AuEq) for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay, or at average

gold leach recovery AuEq = Fire Gold + 0.0035 Total Silver Assay.

4. Gold

Equivalent for Mill + Pressure Oxidation = Fire Gold + 0.0107 x Total Silver Assay.

5. Numbers

may not match exactly due to rounding.

6. Mineral

resources are contained within a computer-generated optimized pit.

7. Total

material in that pit is 5.42 billion tons.

8. Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

9. Modifying

factors for mine and process design have not been applied.

10. All

units are US customary. Ktons means 1,000 short tons of 2,000 lbs Au and Ag grades

are in troy ounces per short ton (oz/ton).

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 145

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-20: Hycroft MRE as of 21 January 2026, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade

Net

Refining

Approximate

Cutoff,

AuEq (g/tonne)

Ktonnes

Gold

(g/tonne)

Silver

(g/tonne)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Silver

x 1000

Heap

Leach Resource

Measured

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

84,364

0.164

3.80

1.83

446

10,322

Indicated

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

100,131

0.147

2.95

1.54

475

9,492

Meas

+ Ind

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

184,495

0.155

3.34

1.67

921

19,814

Inferred

$2.07

- $4.00

0.027

- 0.055

99,808

0.164

3.15

1.41

528

10,122

Flotation

Mill + Concentrate Treatment by Pressure Oxidation and Cyanide Leach

Measured

$18.44

0.206

666,403

0.380

14.76

2.03

8,154

316,600

Indicated

$18.44

0.206

679,380

0.336

10.34

1.84

7,339

226,161

Meas

+ Ind

$18.44

0.206

1,345,783

0.358

12.53

1.93

15,493

542,761

Inferred

$18.44

0.206

416,991

0.336

9.14

1.76

4,505

122,725

Combined

Mineral Resources, Leach Plus Mill

Measured

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

750,767

0.356

13.53

2.01

8,600

326,922

Indicated

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

779,512

0.311

9.39

1.80

7,814

235,653

Meas

+ Ind

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

1,530,279

0.333

11.42

1.90

16,414

562,575

Inferred

$2.07

- $18.44

0.027

- 0.206

516,799

0.303

7.99

1.69

5,033

132,847

Notes:

1. Mineral

resources based on metal prices of $3,100/ oz Au and $36.00/ oz Ag.

2. Cutoffs

are Income – Refining Cost = NSR.

3. Gold

Equivalent for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay.

4. Gold

Equivalent for Mill + Pressure Oxidation = Fire Gold + 0.0107 x Total Silver Assay.

5. Numbers

may not match exactly due to rounding.

6. Mineral

resources are contained within a computer-generated optimized pit.

7. Total

material in that pit is 4.92 billion tonnes.

8. All

units on this table are metric: Ktonnes means 1,000 tonnes. Au and Ag grades are in grams

per tonne (g/tonne).

9. Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

10. Modifying

factors for mine and process design have not been applied.

Contained

within the MRE at Hycroft are a series of high-grade silver veins at Brimstone and zones of higher silver concentrations in Vortex that

are associated with a low angle breccia body. The modeling process of these high-grade silver domains was described earlier in this section.

Those domains are contained within the MRE on Table 11-19 and Table 11-20. Table 11-21 to Table 11-23 are the tabulation of the gold

and silver within the domain volumes that are contained within the MRE in Table 11-19 and Table 11-20.

The

domains are in two areas of the deposit referred to as Brimstone and Vortex. The contained metal is illustrated at three different silver

cutoff grades. Specific mine plans have not been completed but it is envisioned that these domains could be either mined in an open pit

methodology and high-grade material could be comingled with lower-grade material from that specific pit. Or as an alternative, this material

could be potentially targeted for an underground mine methodology. Additional metallurgical process development may be required to validate

gold and silver recovery values in these specific areas.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 146

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-21: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff Grade

Silver

(oz/ton)

Ktons

Gold

(oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Gold

Contained

oz x 1000

Silver

Contained

oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

2.00

3,195

0.011

8.35

1.33

26,686

Indicated

2.00

330

0.010

3.11

1.87

1,025

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

3,525

0.011

7.86

1.38

27,711

Inferred

2.00

0.008

3.52

1.13

Vortex

Measured

2.00

9,126

0.018

3.81

1.49

160

34,781

Indicated

2.00

7,342

0.014

3.78

1.24

100

27,726

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

16,468

0.016

3.80

1.38

261

62,507

Inferred

2.00

3,644

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,307

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

2.00

12,322

0.016

4.99

1.45

195

61,467

Indicated

2.00

7,671

0.013

3.75

1.26

104

28,750

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

19,993

0.015

4.51

1.38

299

90,218

Inferred

2.00

3,659

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,359

Table

11-22: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 3 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver

(oz/ton)

Ktons

Gold

(oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Gold

Contained

oz x 1000

Silver

Contained

oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

3.00

1,841

0.010

12.75

1.25

23,476

Indicated

3.00

109

0.008

4.55

2.14

494

Meas

+ Ind

3.00

1,949

0.010

12.30

1.30

23,970

Inferred

3.00

0.009

4.13

1.23

Vortex

Measured

3.00

4,494

0.017

5.24

1.39

23,568

Indicated

3.00

3,899

0.014

4.98

1.16

19,416

Meas

+ Ind

3.00

8,393

0.015

5.12

1.28

128

42,984

Inferred

3.00

2,023

0.010

4.63

1.30

9,374

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

3.00

6,335

0.015

7.43

1.35

47,045

Indicated

3.00

4,007

0.014

4.97

1.19

19,909

Meas

+ Ind

3.00

10,342

0.014

6.47

1.29

148

66,954

Inferred

3.00

2,032

0.010

4.63

1.30

9,414

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 147

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

11-23: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 4 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver

(oz/ton)

Ktons

Gold

(oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Gold

Contained

oz x 1000

Silver

Contained

oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

4.00

1,386

0.011

15.81

1.23

21,912

Indicated

4.00

0.007

5.39

2.10

331

Meas

+ Ind

4.00

1,447

0.010

15.37

1.27

22,243

Inferred

4.00

0.009

4.13

1.23

Vortex

Measured

4.00

2,679

0.017

6.48

1.37

17,350

Indicated

4.00

2,452

0.015

5.88

1.13

14,426

Meas

+ Ind

4.00

5,131

0.016

6.19

1.26

31,776

Inferred

4.00

1,326

0.010

5.26

1.26

6,969

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

4.00

4,065

0.015

9.66

1.33

39,262

Indicated

4.00

2,513

0.015

5.87

1.15

14,757

Meas

+ Ind

4.00

6,578

0.015

8.21

1.26

54,019

Inferred

4.00

1,335

0.010

5.25

1.26

7,009

Table

11-24: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 68.57 g/ton (2 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver (g/tonne)

Ktonnes

Gold

(g/tonne)

Silver

(g/tonne)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Oz x 1000

Silver

Oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

68.57

2,899

0.372

286.35

1.33

26,686

Indicated

68.57

299

0.332

106.62

1.87

1,025

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

3,198

0.368

269.54

1.38

27,711

Inferred

68.57

0.289

120.74

1.13

Vortex

Measured

68.57

8,279

0.603

130.67

1.49

160

34,781

Indicated

68.57

6,660

0.469

129.48

1.24

100

27,726

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

14,940

0.543

130.14

1.38

261

62,507

Inferred

68.57

3,306

0.475

125.20

1.27

13,307

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

68.57

11,178

0.543

171.04

1.45

195

61,467

Indicated

68.57

6,959

0.463

128.49

1.26

104

28,750

Meas

+ Ind

68.57

18,137

0.512

154.71

1.38

299

90,218

Inferred

68.57

3,319

0.474

125.18

1.27

13,359

Table

11-25: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 102.86 g/ton (3 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver

(g/tonne)

Ktonnes

Gold

(g/tonne)

Silver

(g/tonne)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Oz x 1000

Silver

Oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

102.86

1,670

0.353

437.24

1.25

23,476

Indicated

102.86

0.281

155.98

2.14

494

Meas

+ Ind

102.86

1,768

0.349

421.58

1.30

23,970

Inferred

102.86

0.297

141.73

1.23

Vortex

Measured

102.86

4,077

0.566

179.80

1.39

23,568

Indicated

102.86

3,537

0.477

170.74

1.16

19,416

Meas

+ Ind

102.86

7,614

0.525

175.59

1.28

128

42,984

Inferred

102.86

1,835

0.349

158.91

1.30

9,374

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

102.86

5,747

0.504

254.61

1.35

47,045

Indicated

102.86

3,635

0.472

170.34

1.19

19,909

Meas

+ Ind

102.86

9,382

0.492

221.96

1.29

148

66,954

Inferred

102.86

1,844

0.348

158.82

1.30

9,414

Table

11-26: High-grade Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the MRE at 137.14 g/t (4 oz/ton) Cutoff Grade, Metric Units

Classification

Cutoff Grade Silver

(g/tonne)

Ktonnes

Gold

(g/tonne)

Silver

(g/tonne)

Sulfide

Sulfur

(%)

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Oz x 1000

Silver

Oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

137.14

1,257

0.361

542.02

1.23

21,912

Indicated

137.14

0.244

184.93

2.10

331

Meas

+ Ind

137.14

1,313

0.357

526.88

1.27

22,243

Inferred

137.14

0.297

141.73

1.23

Vortex

Measured

137.14

2,430

0.587

222.07

1.37

17,350

Indicated

137.14

2,225

0.504

201.70

1.13

14,426

Meas

+ Ind

137.14

4,655

0.548

212.34

1.26

31,776

Inferred

137.14

1,203

0.338

180.23

1.26

6,969

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

137.14

3,687

0.510

331.17

1.33

39,262

Indicated

137.14

2,280

0.498

201.29

1.15

14,757

Meas

+ Ind

137.14

5,968

0.505

281.55

1.26

54,019

Inferred

137.14

1,211

0.338

179.95

1.26

7,009

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 148

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

12 Mineral

Reserve

This

section is not relevant to the technical report summary.

13 Mining

Methods

13.1 Overview

Hycroft

is planned as a conventional hard rock open pit operation. IMC developed a mine plan that produces the required process feed and moves

sufficient mine waste to assure continued release of the mineralization. The mine plan is based on measured and indicated mineralization

that was estimated in the mineral resource block model described in Section 11.

Inferred

mineralization was not included within this initial assessment for two reasons: (1) there is sufficient measured and indicated mineralization

to feed the process plant for over 50 years, and (2) to reduce the changes in the mine schedule and potentially minable material as the

project moves toward a pre-feasibility study in the future.

The

mine will feed two processing facilities:

1. A

flotation mill followed by pressure oxidation and leaching of the concentrate, and

2. A

ROM heap leach for mineralization that is amenable to direct cyanide leaching.

The

mine production schedule is summarized on Figure 13-1 with tabular detail on Table 13-1.

The

cutoff grade for the schedule is based on income net of process:

● Income

net of process = Net Return after Refining – Process Costs

Calculation

of the cutoff using net of process allows for the use of a single parameter for cutoff grade across both process facilities. Details

of the development of the mine plan and schedule are reported later in this section.

Figure

13-1 illustrates the planned mine material movement by year for this initial assessment. Mill process, heap leach, and stockpiled mill

process material are shown along with the required waste movement. Total material per year starts with 11.3 Mtons/a in preproduction

and increases to 71.2 Mtons/a for years 1 through 3. Additional equipment is acquired later so that total material movement is increased

to 81.5 to 82.0 Mtons/a from year 5 to year 27. From year 28 until the end of the mine life, the total material movement reduces to around

70 Mtons/a (See Table 13-1).

The

material planned for milling and leaching on the production schedule is potentially minable material. They do not constitute mineral

reserves at this time.

Approximately

240 M tons of low-grade Mill Feed material is stockpiled throughout the mine life. This material is not fed to the mill and is not part

of the economic analysis in this report. Further trade-off studies will analyze the opportunity to feed this additional material through

the process plant to benefit from the additional revenue.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 149

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13- 1: Hycroft Initial Assessment Mine Plan Schedule

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 150

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

13-1: Hycroft Initial Assessment Mine Production Schedule, Measured and Indicated Mineralization

Year

Mill

Cutoff

Mill

Oxide

Leach, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Transition

Leach, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Low

Grd Mill Stkp, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Waste

Total

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/t)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Cyanide

Ratio CnAu/FaAu

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Cyanide

Ratio CnAu/FaAu

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Preprod

861

3.55

0.003

0.11

0.78

2.47

1,601

6.66

0.007

0.14

0.58

3.43

8,871

11,333

13.00

14,068

29.53

0.016

0.21

2.11

1,916

5.11

0.004

0.11

0.78

1.82

8,908

4.16

0.007

0.14

0.47

2.26

1,005

6.34

0.008

0.15

2.69

45,302

71,200

13.50

20,841

26.01

0.013

0.35

2.45

2,426

1.65

0.002

0.06

0.79

1.48

3,314

3.89

0.007

0.11

0.46

2.11

2,301

9.80

0.009

0.18

2.84

42,318

71,200

15.00

20,841

38.31

0.016

0.52

2.31

1,077

6.99

0.005

0.08

0.78

1.88

16,151

3.79

0.007

0.09

0.45

1.65

15,846

6.82

0.008

0.13

2.08

17,285

71,200

15.00

20,841

34.59

0.015

0.53

2.32

3,610

5.14

0.004

0.10

0.77

2.16

11,013

3.66

0.006

0.18

0.51

2.41

10,547

7.07

0.007

0.21

2.33

28,335

74,347

15.00

20,841

29.24

0.014

0.43

2.87

6,940

6.72

0.005

0.06

0.79

1.65

9,673

4.76

0.006

0.09

0.57

1.85

12,656

8.09

0.007

0.24

2.42

31,389

81,500

16.00

20,841

29.73

0.014

0.43

2.22

1,638

7.02

0.005

0.14

0.74

1.20

13,175

4.55

0.006

0.18

0.51

1.43

12,134

9.80

0.009

0.16

2.70

33,712

81,500

14.00

20,841

29.74

0.013

0.52

2.03

1,414

5.32

0.004

0.18

0.78

1.25

4,936

2.76

0.005

0.19

0.48

1.51

13,682

7.18

0.007

0.19

2.16

40,627

81,500

14.00

20,841

26.17

0.014

0.25

2.06

325

5.33

0.003

0.17

0.86

0.71

3,051

3.07

0.007

0.14

0.41

1.82

14,148

6.76

0.008

0.14

2.14

43,135

81,500

7.00

20,841

20.74

0.012

0.23

1.95

0.23

0.001

0.05

0.73

0.44

1.41

0.004

0.06

0.48

0.67

2,904

3.66

0.007

0.14

2.13

58,149

82,000

4.00

20,841

21.08

0.011

0.34

2.00

1,506

2.45

0.002

0.08

0.79

0.96

1,335

1.79

0.004

0.09

0.54

1.38

2,365

2.23

0.006

0.12

1.93

55,954

82,000

4.50

20,841

16.39

0.009

0.37

1.97

1,202

4.48

0.003

0.10

0.80

1.74

7,452

1.61

0.004

0.13

0.48

1.77

6,453

2.15

0.006

0.18

1.92

46,052

82,000

7.00

20,841

19.93

0.010

0.37

2.04

2,531

2.89

0.003

0.08

0.77

1.02

3,522

2.00

0.005

0.12

0.50

1.64

9,288

3.61

0.006

0.19

2.02

45,818

82,000

7.00

20,841

26.32

0.011

0.52

2.16

1,021

5.38

0.004

0.07

0.79

1.29

7,280

2.19

0.005

0.12

0.50

1.52

7,915

3.42

0.006

0.18

2.06

44,943

82,000

6.00

20,841

21.20

0.011

0.35

2.26

7.34

0.004

0.27

0.98

0.53

419

1.57

0.005

0.16

0.39

1.83

8,696

3.39

0.006

0.18

1.95

51,952

82,000

2.00

20,841

19.87

0.011

0.31

1.87

2,772

4.97

0.004

0.05

0.80

1.62

8,284

3.19

0.005

0.09

0.52

1.73

501

1.03

0.006

0.13

2.03

49,602

82,000

3.00

20,841

18.83

0.010

0.36

2.07

2,012

2.27

0.002

0.07

0.77

1.24

3,105

2.04

0.005

0.14

0.48

2.67

2,591

1.82

0.005

0.19

2.18

53,451

82,000

2.00

20,841

14.36

0.009

0.31

2.43

815

7.24

0.005

0.12

0.76

1.70

4,002

3.13

0.005

0.15

0.53

2.59

1,578

0.98

0.005

0.16

2.23

54,763

82,000

8.00

20,841

17.68

0.010

0.32

2.61

1,937

7.10

0.005

0.17

0.76

1.32

2,970

3.57

0.006

0.13

0.51

2.27

13,730

4.37

0.006

0.17

2.41

42,521

82,000

4.00

20,841

16.64

0.010

0.26

2.21

718

0.95

0.001

0.09

0.81

1.80

1,483

2.53

0.006

0.12

0.46

2.35

14,391

5.15

0.007

0.18

2.37

44,568

82,000

7.00

20,841

14.87

0.010

0.25

1.71

3.55

0.003

0.09

0.75

2.00

116

0.99

0.005

0.13

0.38

1.88

11,377

3.76

0.006

0.17

1.94

49,656

82,000

7.00

20,841

22.62

0.012

0.34

1.57

0.80

0.001

0.02

0.78

1.47

358

0.97

0.005

0.12

0.38

1.64

11,773

3.49

0.006

0.15

1.74

48,997

82,000

10.00

20,841

42.57

0.018

0.51

1.45

1,950

5.26

0.004

0.14

0.79

1.09

950

2.57

0.005

0.17

0.51

1.83

9,772

4.62

0.007

0.15

1.77

48,487

82,000

8.00

20,841

40.67

0.015

0.72

1.18

3,134

4.07

0.003

0.10

0.77

1.35

1,570

2.20

0.004

0.09

0.59

1.53

3,584

4.03

0.006

0.16

1.79

52,872

82,000

6.00

20,841

45.65

0.014

1.04

1.13

5,516

4.92

0.003

0.12

0.79

1.63

3,935

1.88

0.004

0.11

0.57

1.60

1,296

3.19

0.006

0.18

1.57

50,411

82,000

9.00

20,841

37.35

0.012

0.83

1.61

4,365

7.79

0.005

0.16

0.78

1.56

7,971

3.21

0.005

0.15

0.55

1.61

2,388

4.98

0.006

0.23

1.68

46,435

82,000

9.00

20,841

35.59

0.014

0.58

1.82

1,238

8.04

0.005

0.17

0.83

1.50

3,137

2.89

0.005

0.16

0.49

1.64

2,289

4.85

0.007

0.15

1.77

54,496

82,000

8.00

20,841

33.84

0.010

0.90

1.65

1,413

4.51

0.003

0.17

0.80

1.69

2,502

2.50

0.005

0.15

0.53

2.15

7,190

3.96

0.007

0.14

1.55

50,053

82,000

4.00

20,841

36.85

0.009

1.13

1.74

581

8.49

0.005

0.13

0.81

1.28

445

1.31

0.005

0.13

0.40

1.91

3,838

2.03

0.006

0.16

1.54

48,295

74,000

4.00

20,841

17.78

0.010

0.32

2.02

9.49

0.006

0.10

0.78

3.07

1,229

3.02

0.005

0.10

0.56

1.95

3,722

1.96

0.006

0.16

1.93

48,134

74,000

2.50

20,841

15.38

0.010

0.20

1.90

15.73

0.010

0.26

0.74

1.83

204

1.37

0.004

0.09

0.47

2.51

2,223

1.29

0.006

0.12

1.96

50,727

74,000

2.50

20,841

17.31

0.011

0.18

1.92

1,121

6.15

0.004

0.06

0.84

2.01

489

3.73

0.005

0.05

0.59

2.04

1,491

1.28

0.006

0.14

2.09

50,059

74,000

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 151

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Year

Mill

Cutoff

Mill

Oxide

Leach, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Transition

Leach, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Low

Grd Mill Stkp, $0.01 Net of Process Cutoff

Waste

Total

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/t)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Cyanide

Ratio CnAu/FaAu

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Cyanide

Ratio CnAu/FaAu

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Silver

(oz/ton)

Sulfide

Sulfur (%)

Ktons

2.50

20,841

15.24

0.011

0.16

1.89

727

2.96

0.002

0.11

0.88

1.15

149

1.23

0.004

0.14

0.54

0.56

1,061

1.40

0.006

0.12

2.01

53,222

76,000

2.50

20,841

14.60

0.011

0.16

1.85

460

1.63

0.002

0.13

0.78

0.39

274

0.83

0.003

0.20

0.55

0.49

801

1.35

0.006

0.11

1.81

53,624

76,000

2.50

20,841

16.42

0.011

0.19

1.84

5.21

0.004

0.20

0.74

1.09

978

1.25

0.004

0.17

0.48

0.76

677

1.42

0.006

0.11

2.24

53,495

76,000

2.50

20,841

16.78

0.011

0.19

1.98

7.42

0.005

0.13

0.74

1.80

574

1.52

0.004

0.16

0.47

1.14

593

1.48

0.006

0.14

2.33

53,944

76,000

2.50

20,841

15.29

0.009

0.30

1.74

1,228

6.86

0.005

0.06

0.78

1.32

6,408

2.58

0.005

0.13

0.52

1.47

747

1.38

0.006

0.15

1.73

46,775

76,000

2.50

20,841

26.91

0.012

0.47

2.36

168

6.08

0.004

0.14

0.91

1.07

238

1.49

0.005

0.13

0.43

1.40

1,560

1.35

0.005

0.17

1.98

51,192

74,000

2.50

20,841

24.95

0.011

0.53

2.34

229

12.00

0.007

0.13

0.76

1.20

1,354

3.55

0.006

0.11

0.49

1.62

1,510

1.31

0.005

0.17

1.82

46,566

70,500

2.50

20,841

25.43

0.012

0.47

1.82

531

4.33

0.003

0.13

0.74

2.06

454

2.03

0.004

0.15

0.57

1.73

1,503

1.26

0.005

0.16

1.67

47,171

70,500

2.50

20,841

26.65

0.010

0.69

1.47

998

4.54

0.003

0.16

0.74

1.70

942

3.56

0.006

0.11

0.53

1.90

2,003

1.24

0.006

0.14

1.71

45,715

70,500

2.50

20,841

34.50

0.011

0.85

1.54

675

2.46

0.002

0.14

0.74

1.89

937

2.43

0.004

0.13

0.57

1.81

1,486

1.23

0.005

0.16

1.50

46,561

70,500

2.50

20,841

17.02

0.010

0.28

1.78

687

0.65

0.001

0.14

0.95

2.20

862

2.57

0.005

0.12

0.46

2.26

1,643

1.24

0.005

0.17

1.85

46,467

70,500

2.50

20,841

15.02

0.011

0.16

1.84

4.22

0.003

0.08

0.94

2.40

2.63

0.005

0.08

0.51

2.36

1,751

1.35

0.006

0.09

2.05

47,842

70,500

2.50

20,841

14.66

0.011

0.16

1.92

192

0.41

0.001

0.06

0.99

2.21

2.02

0.005

0.13

0.41

2.00

1,402

1.39

0.006

0.12

1.90

48,006

70,500

2.50

20,841

13.15

0.010

0.14

2.21

368

0.52

0.001

0.06

0.99

1.67

211

2.26

0.006

0.05

0.42

2.28

2,141

1.34

0.006

0.09

2.00

47,038

70,600

2.50

20,841

12.76

0.010

0.14

1.91

3.72

0.002

0.06

0.96

1.79

317

1.89

0.005

0.11

0.50

1.96

1,910

1.34

0.006

0.11

1.84

47,498

70,600

2.50

20,841

19.28

0.011

0.29

1.83

117

0.91

0.001

0.08

0.98

1.32

153

2.36

0.005

0.12

0.54

2.00

1,893

1.21

0.006

0.13

1.84

49,370

72,374

2.50

20,841

24.54

0.012

0.41

1.78

43.38

0.019

0.19

1.00

2.24

309

2.24

0.005

0.10

0.45

2.20

1,030

1.32

0.006

0.13

1.96

33,556

55,750

2.50

20,841

23.81

0.011

0.42

1.65

114

1.13

0.005

0.15

0.36

2.34

749

1.30

0.006

0.14

1.76

33,706

55,409

2.50

20,841

35.11

0.011

0.89

1.33

102

1.81

0.005

0.17

0.40

1.06

737

1.45

0.005

0.18

1.38

19,302

40,982

2.50

11,008

42.99

0.011

1.16

1.13

0.55

0.004

0.22

0.33

1.20

964

1.15

0.005

0.22

1.15

12,300

24,358

Total

1,046,284

24.34

0.012

0.43

1.93

60,768

5.11

0.004

0.12

1.55

149,242

3.25

0.006

0.14

1.83

239,839

4.76

0.007

0.16

2.08

2,320,719

3,816,853

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 152

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

13.2 Geotechnical

and Hydrologic Information

Slope

angles for the mine plan were recommended by Call & Nicholas, Inc. (CNI) during February of 2022 with additional documentation in

October of 2023. Inter-ramp slope angles range from 25 to 45 degrees depending on the rock type, alteration, and pit geometry. IMC has

reviewed this work and has accepted the slope angle recommendations for use in the development of this mine plan.

13.3 Phase

Design

The

final pit and phase designs were based on computer generated Lerch-Grossman (LG) pits that were generated at a range of metal prices.

The input parameters for the LG pits were summarized on Table 11-18. There was one modification to the MRE pit parameters on Table 11-18

when applied to the mine plan. The mine plan LG pits targeted measured and indicated class mineralization only. Inferred was treated

as waste in the mine planning process.

Multiple

nested LG pits were generated to assist in establishing the final pit and the best overall extraction sequence. The metal prices for

design were $$3,100/oz gold and $36.00/oz silver. Those prices were reduced in increments by the price ratios shown in Table 13-2. Table

13-2 and Figure 13-2 summarize the results of the nested LG runs in both tabular and graphic form. All cones on the table were tabulated

at the design metal prices of $3,100/oz Au, and $36/oz Ag.

Table

13-2 and Figure 13-2 indicate that the financial benefit of increasing the pit size beyond the 85% price ratio was marginal. As a result,

the 85% pit was used as the target for final pit design. The 85% pit is highlighted on the table and illustrated on the graph. Additional

check pits were developed with bench discounting applied. The impact of the bench discounting was minor.

Based

on the pit geometries of the nested LG pits, a series of 19 phase designs were generated for input into the mine plan. Those phase designs

followed the extraction sequence suggested by the LG pit runs. Phase designs utilized the inter-ramp slope designs on combined with the

following design parameters:

●

Road Width

125 ft

●

Maximum

Road Gradient

10%

●

Minimum

Mining Width

300

Table

13-3 summarizes the contained tonnage in each phase at the internal cutoff grade.

Figure

13-3 illustrates the extraction sequence of the phases.

The

phases were ranked economically based on the profit per ton ore and the cost per equivalent ounce gold to set the phase extraction sequence.

That ranking was adjusted as required to accommodate the practical extraction sequence.

any point in time, the Mine will be a combination of three to four phase designs operating simultaneously.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 153

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

13-2: Summary of Lerch-Grossman Computer Pit Generation

Price

($)

Price

Ratio

Mill

Process

Leach

Process

Waste

(Ktons)

Total

(Ktons)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Total

Silver (oz/ton)

Ktons

Net

of Process ($/ton)

Fire

Gold (oz/ton)

Total

Silver (oz/ton)

310

10%

1,097

151.36

0.029

3.50

206

8.14

0.008

0.08

334

1,637

465

15%

1,748

126.65

0.025

2.97

434

13.51

0.010

0.08

553

2,735

620

20%

2,573

106.48

0.025

2.20

562

13.34

0.010

0.08

742

3,877

775

25%

4,938

76.85

0.021

1.49

1,298

10.59

0.008

0.08

1,713

7,949

930

30%

8,372

62.48

0.019

1.11

2,027

10.04

0.008

0.10

3,171

13,570

1,085

35%

13,659

52.02

0.018

0.85

4,024

7.59

0.007

0.10

5,490

23,173

1,240

40%

27,258

43.00

0.016

0.67

7,829

6.00

0.006

0.10

13,563

48,650

1,395

45%

85,969

34.89

0.014

0.59

28,356

4.66

0.005

0.11

75,539

189,864

1,550

50%

144,389

30.29

0.013

0.51

38,746

4.39

0.005

0.11

108,094

291,228

1,581

51%

169,775

29.58

0.013

0.50

52,508

4.23

0.005

0.11

140,786

363,070

1,612

52%

175,867

29.33

0.013

0.50

53,945

4.23

0.005

0.11

146,644

376,455

1,643

53%

186,969

28.78

0.013

0.48

55,680

4.22

0.005

0.11

153,832

396,480

1,674

54%

588,778

23.31

0.011

0.43

84,161

3.72

0.004

0.11

673,438

1,346,377

1,705

55%

598,930

23.30

0.011

0.43

85,077

3.72

0.004

0.11

687,143

1,371,150

1,860

60%

776,490

23.03

0.011

0.44

114,870

3.73

0.004

0.11

1,001,378

1,892,739

2,015

65%

906,288

22.30

0.011

0.41

124,912

3.75

0.004

0.11

1,182,421

2,213,621

2,170

70%

1,059,314

21.51

0.011

0.39

141,087

3.93

0.005

0.11

1,446,359

2,646,760

2,325

75%

1,155,463

21.19

0.011

0.39

154,053

3.89

0.005

0.10

1,668,707

2,978,222

2,480

80%

1,252,532

20.91

0.011

0.38

164,321

3.84

0.005

0.10

1,976,220

3,393,073

2,635

85%

1,305,935

20.75

0.011

0.38

170,142

3.81

0.005

0.10

2,180,037

3,656,113

2,790

90%

1,343,023

20.63

0.011

0.38

175,053

3.79

0.005

0.10

2,333,196

3,851,272

2,945

95%

1,368,413

20.47

0.011

0.38

177,864

3.77

0.005

0.10

2,411,860

3,958,138

3,100

100%

1,388,947

20.35

0.011

0.37

180,494

3.75

0.005

0.10

2,492,069

4,061,510

Note:

1. All

Cutoff grades on this table are Internal Cutoff, Net of Process >= $0.01/ton

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 154

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-2: Summary of Lerch-Grossman Computer Pit Generation

Source:

IMC, 2026

Table

13-3 : Contained Tonnage by Internal Cutoff Grade

Extraction

Sequence

Area

Mill

Process Material

Heap

Leach Process Material

Waste

Total

Ktons

NPR

$/ton

oz/ton

Ktons

NPR

$/ton

oz/ton

Ktons

Central

60,039

$22.39

0.012

0.30

4,079

$3.22

0.004

0.09

28,382

92,500

Brimstone

42,823

$24.93

0.012

0.43

5,414

$3.36

0.004

0.12

13,300

61,537

Bay

18,696

$24.06

0.015

0.13

2,891

$4.51

0.006

0.06

28,538

50,124

Brimstone

82,264

$17.71

0.010

0.34

14,222

$2.84

0.004

0.10

83,534

180,019

Bay

20,041

$16.31

0.012

0.09

6,700

$3.71

0.006

0.05

10,958

37,700

Bay

20,865

$18.98

0.012

0.07

18,176

$5.42

0.005

0.06

44,313

83,354

Camel

20,685

$25.19

0.010

0.60

5,956

$3.13

0.004

0.12

28,896

55,537

Camel

61,954

$18.62

0.011

0.24

3,445

$3.20

0.004

0.15

48,563

113,962

Brimstone/Vortex

75,566

$13.91

0.009

0.32

11,122

$2.15

0.004

0.11

189,237

275,925

Brimstone

68,101

$15.53

0.009

0.32

12,788

$2.45

0.004

0.09

118,884

199,773

Vortex

226,663

$21.96

0.011

0.43

12,684

$3.23

0.004

0.12

260,253

499,600

Central

26,092

$21.62

0.012

0.32

11,040

$3.69

0.005

0.08

82,325

119,457

Brimstone

73,941

$32.58

0.011

0.78

27,927

$4.18

0.004

0.12

192,274

294,142

Camel

124,473

$15.09

0.011

0.16

7,928

$5.03

0.005

0.12

192,700

325,101

Vortex

107,980

$27.15

0.011

0.60

3,594

$1.66

0.003

0.14

297,178

408,753

Brimstone

59,873

$15.69

0.009

0.32

5,066

$3.23

0.004

0.14

153,301

218,239

Central

14,018

$11.57

0.007

0.36

9,674

$3.76

0.005

0.12

24,596

48,288

Camel

118,762

$13.56

0.010

0.17

1,025

$1.31

0.003

0.06

216,108

335,895

Vortex

103,387

$25.44

0.011

0.55

5,919

$2.79

0.004

0.12

307,381

416,686

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 155

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-3: Phase Schematic and Extraction Sequence

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 156

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

13.4 Production

Schedule

The

Mine production schedule was developed after completing a number of iterations. The goals of the production schedule were as follows:

1. Assure

practical and operational mine geometries.

2. Select

a total material rate that assured ore release and provided for efficient use of mine capital

equipment.

3. Maximize

the project net present value (NPV) by adjusting mine cutoff grades and total material movement.

Table

13-1 presents the mine production schedule for the LOM plan. The cutoff grade to the mill process was adjusted annually to maximize the

NPV of the mine production schedule by producing higher grade and consequently more metal in the early years of the mine life. The elevated

mill feed cutoff resulted in low grade potential sulfide feed being sent to a low-grade mill stockpile.

Each

block in the model was evaluated for its net benefit by both heap leach and mill processing. Mill cutoff grades were applied to the mill

net of process only. During each year, blocks that were not routed to the mill were evaluated to see if they had sufficient heap leach

benefit to provide positive economic benefit on the heap leach pad. Those blocks were re-routed to the heap leach pad. Low grade sulfide

mill feed material was stockpiled for eventual re-mining to the mill after the pit was exhausted. Re-mining and processing of the stockpile

should consider the potential for loss of process recovery due to exposure to weathering for an extended period of time. Re-mining and

processing of the stockpile is not part of the economic model in this study.

Figure

13-4 and Figure 13-5 illustrate the approximate recovered metal produced over the life of the open pit. The benefit of the elevated cutoff

grades in the initial years can be observed with the higher level of gold production in the early years of the mine life. The relative

metal contribution of the heap leach compared to the mill is also evident in the graphs. Figure 13-6 illustrates the approximate recovered

equivalent gold based on metal prices of $3,100 oz Au, and $36/oz Ag.

Figure

13-7 through Figure 13-17 illustrate the mine and waste storage plan. At any point in time, three to four phases are active to release

the process feed, to sustain a consistent total material movement.

Waste

is delivered to the large storage facility located west and south of the mine. Once areas of the mine are complete, in-pit backfill is

utilized for waste storage. The heap leach process material is planned to be delivered to the Brimstone or Jungo heap leach pads located

north of the mine. Low grade sulfide stockpile material is hauled to an area west of the Brimstone and Jungo heap leach pads. Mill process

material is hauled to the primary crusher located just west of the Brimstone heap leach facility.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 157

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-4: Approximate Recovered Gold by Year

Source:

IMC, 2026

Figure

13-5: Approximate Recovered Silver by Year

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 158

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-6: Approximate Recovered Equivalent Gold Ounces by Year Based on $3,100/oz Au and $36/oz Ag

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 159

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-7: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – Pre-production

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 160

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-8: Mine and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 1

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 161

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-9: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 2

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 162

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-10: Mine and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 3

Source :

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 163

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-11: Mine and Waste Storage Plan - End of Year 4

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 164

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-12: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 5

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 165

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-13: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 10

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 166

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-14: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 20

Source:

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 167

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-15: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 30

Source

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 168

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-16: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 40

Source

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 169

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

13-17: Mine and Waste Storage Plan – End of Year 51

Source

IMC, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 170

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

13.5 Mining

Equipment

Mine

equipment was selected for the project under the assumption that Hycroft would own the equipment and operate the mine. Contract mining

has not been considered for this initial assessment. Table 13-4 summarizes the major mine equipment list.

Mine

equipment for this study has been assumed to be diesel powered, negating the requirement for a pit electrical power distribution system.

Mechanical availability has been assumed to be 85% with 95% use of that availability. The mine is assumed to operate year-round on a

two-shift-per-day, 12-hour shift schedule requiring a four-crew rotation system. IMC has assumed that 10 shifts per year will be lost

due to weather or other delays, so that there are 720 planned operating shifts per year. Standard inefficiencies are incorporated into

each shift, such that equipment cycles operate for 550 minutes per shift (11 hours at 50 minutes per hour).

Mine

equipment requirements for drilling and loading equipment were estimated based on typical production rates and Hycroft average

material densities. The rock and alternation types at Hycroft cover a broad range of mechanical properties from relatively soft to

competent. IMC selected rotary blast hole drills with 70,000 LBF pull down and 10 ⅝ inches (”) bits. Four drills

of that type will be required, which matches the typical number of operating pushbacks.

Two

types of loading equipment have been selected: (1) 44.5 yd3 hydraulic front shovels, and (2) 30 yd3 front end loaders.

Two shovels and two loaders are required. The four loading units match the typical number of operating pushbacks, and the front-end loaders

provide the flexibility to adjust production rates between pushbacks as required.

Haul

trucks were sized at 250-ton units to provide a good match to the loading units. Haul profiles were measured for each material type to

each destination annually for each of the first 10 years of the mine plan. After year 10, five-year increments were used for haul profile

measurements. Truck haul time was calculated over each profile using haul time simulation. Fixed times were added for loading under the

shovel or loader and for maneuvering and dumping at the crusher, stockpile, leach pad, or waste storage.

addition to the above units, a substantial fleet of auxiliary equipment is provided to maintain the mine in good working order.

● A

total of five track dozers of the D9 class are provided to complete pioneering, position

material on the dumps, leach pads, and stockpiles, and assist with in-pit drop cuts.

● A

total of four-wheel dozers of the Cat 834 class are provided to help maintain the roads and

support the loading equipment. One wheel dozer is matched to each set of drills and loading

units.

● A

total of three graders with 16 ft moldboards is provided for haul road maintenance.

● A

total of three water trucks on 100-ton truck frames is provided to maintain air quality with

dust control.

● A

15 yd front loader and three 100-ton trucks are provided as auxiliary support units.

They will assist with pioneering, road construction, and other minor material movement tasks

around the mine.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 171

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

support drill is provided for secondary and special blasting, and a backhoe is provided for trenching, drainage, and utility line movement

in the mine area.

addition, a significant fleet of minor equipment is provided including blast hole stemmers, flatbed trucks, Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil

Mix (ANFO) slurry trucks, lube and fuel trucks, crane trucks, tire handler, mechanics trucks, welders trucks, forklifts, man vans, pickup

trucks, light plants, and a tractor and lowboy to assist with drill moves. A mine dispatch system is included as are a prill silo and

powder magazine.

Table

13-4: Major Mine Equipment

Mine

Major Equipment Fleet on Hand

Equipment

Type

-1

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-51

70,000

Pull Dn Drill, 10 ⅝”

Hydralic

Shovel, 44.5 yd3

yd3 Loader (Cat 994)

250

Ton Haul Truck

Track

Dozer, D9 Class

Wheel

Dozer, Cat 834 Class

Grader

16 ft Moldboard

100

Ton Water Truck (Cat777 Frame)

Cat

992 Wheel Loader

100

Ton Aux Truck

Support

Rock Drill

Cat

330 Excavator

Total

13.6

Mine Manpower Requirements

Mine

hourly manpower was estimated to operate and maintain the mine equipment listed in the previous sub-section. The four-crew rotation was

incorporated when calculating manpower requirements.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 172

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

13-5 summarizes the mine hourly personnel required to operate and maintain the mine.

Table

13-5: Mine Hourly Personnel

Job

Title

Annual

Cost

Years

Prep

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-51

Mine

Operations

Drill

Operator

127,738

Shovel

Operator

136,628

Loader

Operator

136,628

Haul

Truck Driver

118,638

104

Track

Dozer Operator

118,638

Tire

Dozer Operator

118,638

Grader

Operator

118,638

Service

Crew

118,638

Blasting

Crew

124,705

Dispatch

Operator

124,705

Laborer

98,418

Operations

Total

163

172

165

178

190

186

184

191

196

183

197

199

215

196

180

185

189

Mine

Maintenance

Mechanic

136,837

Mechanic's

Helper

127,772

Welder

127,772

Electrician

127,772

Fuel

and Lube Maintenance

118,638

Tire

Maintenance

118,638

Laborer

98,418

Maintenance

Total

VS&A

at 10%

Total

Labor Requirement

105

261

275

263

284

303

296

293

304

312

293

314

318

342

312

289

297

304

Maintenance/Operations

Ratio

0.38

0.45

0.46

Note:

1. Service Crew operates Rock Drill, Excavators, Water Truck, etc.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 173

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

13-6 summaries the mine salaried staff to provide engineering, supervision, and geology functions. The list includes those salaried personnel

directly related to the Mine and does not include overall site wide supervision, processing, or logistics support.

Table

13-6: Mine Salaried Staff

Job

Title

Annual

Cost (US$)

Number

Mine

Operations

Mine

Superintendent

227,241

General

Foreman

200,447

Mine

Shift Supervisor

150,766

Drill

and Blast Supervisor

150,766

Mine

Clerk

89,944

Mine

Trainer

144,712

Mine

Operations Total

Mine

Maintenance

Maint.

Superintendent

255,942

Maint.

General Foreman

189,455

Maint.

Shift Supervisor

150,766

Maintenance

Planner

160,353

Maintenance

Trainer

144,712

Maintenance

Clerk

89,944

Mine

Maintenance Total

Mine

Engineering

Supervising

Mine Engineer

231,620

Senior

Mining Engineer

178,689

Mine

Engineer

149,969

Sr.

Surveyor

154,358

Surveyor

Helper

109,795

Clerk

89,944

Mine

Engineering Total

Mine

Geology

Senior

Mine Geologist

202,449

Mine

Geologist

166,246

Geotechnical Engineer

166,246

Geotechnical

Engineer

101,096

Sampler

109,795

Mine

Geology Total

Total

Personnel

Note:

Annual Cost includes Fringe Benefits

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 174

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Processing and Recovery Methods

14.1 Overview

Hycroft

has an established operating history utilizing heap leach processing and has previously produced gold and silver through heap leach operation.

The proposed processing strategy continues to build upon this demonstrated operating approach and existing site infrastructure to support

project development. Oxide material and transition material will continue to be processed using heap leach and will be stacked on engineering

heap leach pads and irrigated with cyanide solution to recover gold and silver. Pregnant leach solution generated from the heap leach

operation will be collected and processed through the existing Merrill-Crowe recovery circuit and associated process facilities. Transition

material is included in the heap leach processing strategy where supported by the current assumption adopted for the economic assessment.

However, uncertainty remains regarding transition material heap leach performance due to limited dedicated metallurgical testwork. Additional

transition material heap leach testing is recommended during the next study phase to improve confidence in recovery assumptions, leach

kinetics, reagent consumption, and permeability characteristics.

discussed in Section 10, a significant portion of the gold in the Hycroft mineralized material is refractory due to its association with

pyrite, marcasite, and other sulfide minerals. A process flowsheet was developed to treat sulfide mineralized material. These materials

are ground and floated to produce a concentrate. The concentrate is then oxidized in the POX plant and subsequently cyanide leached to

extract gold and silver.

The

key Project plant design criteria are as follows:

● Major

equipment is designed for a nominal throughput of 57,100 ton/d.

● The

existing crushing circuit consists of primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing, supported

by a coarse ore stockpile and a crushed ore stockpile with dedicated feeders to provide continuous

feed to the downstream process plant.

● Process

flowsheets include three stages of crushing followed by two stages of ball milling, flotation,

POX, a cyanide leaching circuit for oxidized flotation concentrate, Merrill-Crowe circuit,

and tailings handling facilities, with an overall availability of 92%, given:

○ design

head grades of 0.015 oz/ton Au, 0.41 oz/ton Ag, and 2.41% sulfide sulfur, and

○ overall

process recovery of 82.8% gold and 77.5% silver, given the LOM average grades.

Pregnant

solution from the cyanide leach circuit will be processed in the existing Merrill-Crowe zinc cementation facilities.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 175

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

recovery rates used in the process plant design and financial model are based on the testwork results provided in Section 10. These results

may be updated as further work is done as the project advances.

14.2

Process Flowsheet

Figure

14-1 presents an overall process flow diagram depicting the proposed major unit operations for the refractory mineralized materials.

Figure

14-1: Sulfide Sulfur Process Plant Flowsheet

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 176

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

existing crushing plant will process the ROM material using three stages of crushing to reduce the feed from a nominal top size of 35”

to a product size with a P80 of 0.6”. The grinding circuit will consist of a two-stage ball milling configuration.

Each stage of ball mills will operate in closed circuits with hydrocyclones. The cyclone overflow from second stage will be directed

to a rougher flotation circuit to recover the gold and silver in a flotation concentrate.

Rougher

flotation tailings will be thickened in a tailings thickener prior to transfer to the final tailings pump box.

The

flotation concentrate will be oxidized in autoclaves at a temperature of 428 °F and a pressure of 454 psi, with a residence time

of 60 minutes. The discharge from each autoclave will pass through two flash vessels, where heat will be released, cooling the slurry

to approximately 220 °F. The slurry will then be pumped to the hot cure circuit, where the slurry temperature will be maintained

between 195 °F and 220 °F for 10 hours to dissolve basic ferric sulfate (BFS) formed during the pressure oxidation process.

Following

hot curing, the process will separate the base metal rich acidic liquors from the oxidized solids. This separation will be achieved using

a three-stage CCD wash thickener circuit, removing more than 98% of the sulfuric acid and the dissolved metal sulfates. The washed, thickened

slurry will then be contacted with steam from the autoclave flash vessels to heat the slurry to approximately 203 °F ahead of a four-stage

lime boil circuit. The addition of milk of lime will raise the slurry pH to 10.5, decomposing silver jarosites and enabling silver recovery

in the downstream leach circuit. Following the lime boil circuit, the slurry will be cooled to approximately 108 °F in cooling towers

and pumped to the leach circuit.

The

lime addition in the lime boil circuit will provide sufficient protective alkalinity for the leach circuit, and no further lime addition

will be required during leaching.

The

acidic overflow from CCD thickener No. 1 will be pumped to the autoclave plant to quench flash steam. The quench vessel underflow will

be treated with limestone slurry in the solution neutralization circuit to remove ferric iron. Neutralization will be carried out in

six mechanically agitated neutralization tanks operating in series, with limestone slurry added to the first four neutralization tanks

and milk of lime added to the final two neutralization tanks precipitating remaining metal sulfates. The neutralized slurry will be dewatered

in a high-rate neutralization thickener. Thickener underflow (sludge) will be pumped to the final tailings pump box and deposited in

the TMF, while thickener overflow will be cooled to approximately 108°F in cooling towers and pumped to POX wash and cooling

water tank and process water tank.

The

oxidized flotation concentrate will be leached in stirred tanks using a cyanide solution to dissolve gold and silver. Discharge slurry

from the leach circuit will be washed in a four-stage CCD circuit. The overflow from the CCD thickener No. 1 will constitute pregnant

solution, which will be deaerated and treated in the existing Merrill- Crowe zinc cementation circuit to precipitate gold and silver.

The resulting precious metals precipitate will be filtered and then smelted on site to produce gold–silver doré bars.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 177

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Underflow

slurry from the fourth wash thickener will be treated with sulfur dioxide (added as sodium metabisulphite) and oxygen in a series of

agitated tanks to detoxify residual cyanide in the leach residue. Following cyanide destruction, the detoxified tailings will be combined

with rougher flotation tailings and pumped to the TMF for impoundment.

14.3

Plant Design

The

key process design criteria listed in Table 14-1 form the basis of the process flowsheet design and selection of mechanical

equipment. The major process equipment is presented in Table 14-2.

Table

14-1: Process Design Criteria

Parameter

Unit

Value

Plant

Throughput

ton/day

57,100

Head

Grade–design

oz/ton

0.015

oz/ton

0.410

Sulfide

sulfur, %

2.41

Overall

Recovery (From mineralized material to doré)–Au

82.8

Overall

Recovery (From mineralized material to doré)–Ag

77.5

Plant

Availability

Bond

Crusher Work Index–design (75th percentile)

kWh/ton

17.9

Bond

Ball Mill Work Index–design (75th percentile)

kWh/ton

19.0

Abrasion

Index (average)

0.430

Flotation

Concentrate Mass Pull – design

Rougher

Flotation Residence Time

Min

POX

Sulfide Oxidation

Autoclave

Residence Time

Min

Autoclave

Operating Temperature

°F

428

Autoclave

Operating Pressure

Psi

454

Hot

Cure Temperature

°F

220

Hot

Cure Residence Time

Lime

Boil Temperature

°F

206

Lime

Boil Residence Time

Number

of POX CCD Wash Stages

POX

CCD Wash Efficiency

POX

CCD Overflow Neutralization Residence Time

Flotation

Concentrate Leach Residence Time

Concentrate

Leach Slurry Density

solids (wt/wt)

Number

of CCD Wash Stages

CCD

Wash Efficiency

Metal

Recovery Method

Merrill-Crowe

Cyanide

Destruction Method

SO2

/ Air

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 178

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

14-2: Major Process Equipment

Equipment

Type

Quantity/Size

Crushing

Primary

crusher (Existing)

Gyratory

crusher (62 × 113 in)

× 1,000 HP

Secondary

crusher (Existing)

Cone

crusher (Raptor XL1300)

x 1,300 HP (2 operating)

Tertiary

crusher (Existing)

Cone

crusher (Raptor XL1300)

x 1,300 HP (2 operating)

Grinding

Primary

grinding ball mill

Ball

mill

ft dia. x 39.5 ft EGL; 2 x 21,500 HP (2 operating)

Secondary

grinding ball mill

Ball

mill

ft dia. x 39.5 ft EGL, 2 x 21,500 HP (2 operating)

Flotation

Rougher

flotation cell

Forced-air

tank cells

x 17,660 ft3 (2 banks)

Concentrate

Thickening

Concentrate

thickener

High-rate

thickener

x 157 ft dia.

Pressure

Oxidation (POX)

Autoclave

Pressure

oxidation autoclave

16.2

ft ID x 142.8 ft length

trains)

Flash

tanks

Pressure

flash vessels

22.9

ft ID x 40.6 ft length

tanks per stage, 1 stage per train)

High

pressure cyclonic separator

Cyclonic

separator

per train

Pressure

scrubber

Venturi

scrubber

per train

Low

pressure cyclonic separator

Cyclonic

separator

per train

Oxidized

slurry seal leg tank

Seal

leg tank

8,000

gal, 1 per train

Lime

boil preheater

Slurry

heat exchanger

60,000

gal, 2 units

Autoclave

steam quench vessel

Quench

vessel

42,000

gal, 1 per train

Hot

cure tank

Agitated

tanks

x 751,000 gal

Lime

boil tank

Agitated

tanks

x 1,145,000 gal

Slurry

Neutralization

Slurry

washing by CCDs

High-rate

thickener

x 197 ft dia

CCD

overflow neutralization

Neutralization

tanks

x 736,000 gal

Neutralization

thickener

High-rate

thickener

x 115 ft dia

Cooling

towers

Cooling

towers

units (3 slurry cooling, 4 solution cooling)

Leaching

Leach

tanks

Agitated

leach tanks

x 1.1 million gal

Leach

CCD and Cyanide Destruction

CCD

thickener

High-rate

thickener

x 200 ft dia

Cyanide

destruction

Agitated

tanks

x 332,000 gal

Rougher

Tailings Thickening

Tailing

thickener

High

rate

223

ft dia

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 179

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

14.4

Process Description

14.4.1

Crushing Area

The

mill was designed to operate at a nominal capacity of 57,100 ton/day (at 75th percentile mineralized material hardness).

The

existing crushing plant includes one primary crusher (60” x 113”), two secondary crushers (XL1300 Standard), and two tertiary

crushers (XL1300 Short Head).

14.4.1.1

Primary Crushing and Coarse Ore Stockpile

ROM

mineralized material will be transported by haul trucks from the mine to the existing primary crusher and dumped into a dump pocket.

The primary crusher is a 60” x 113” gyratory crusher with an open side setting of 178 mm (7”) and a feed opening

of 1,524 mm (60”). The crusher is powered by a 1000-hp motor.

The

crushed material will be discharged via a surge bin to an apron feeder. The mineralized material will then be transferred by a stacker

conveyor and discharged to a coarse ore stockpile. A belt scale will be installed on the stacker conveyor to measure the quantity of

crushed mineralized material delivered, and a self-cleaning magnet will be installed upstream of the stockpile to remove any tramp steel.

The

coarse material stockpile has a live capacity of 75,000 tons and a total capacity of 300,000 tons.

The

crushed mineralized materials will be reclaimed via two reclaim tunnels located beneath the stockpile. Each reclaim line consists of

three reclaim feeders (two operating and one standby) and a reclaim transfer conveyor.

Dust

suppression systems and baghouses are installed to control dust generated by haul trucks, crushers, and other material handling equipment.

14.4.1.2 Secondary

and Tertiary Crushing

Hycroft

has installed four FLS Raptor XL1300 cone crushers – two with standard cavities and two with short head cavities, serving secondary

and tertiary crushing duties, respectively. Each crusher is driven by a 1,300-hp motor and is fed from a bin through a feeder and vibrating

screen.

Coarse

mineralized material will be conveyed to the secondary crusher feed bin and distributed to the secondary screens. Oversize from the secondary

screens will report to the secondary crushers, while screen undersize will be discharged to screen undersize conveyor. The secondary

crusher will operate at a closed side setting (CSS) of 1.2”, producing material with a P80 of 1.3”.

Secondary

crusher product will be conveyed to the tertiary crusher feed bin and distributed to the tertiary screens, Oversize from the tertiary

screens will report to the tertiary crushers, while tertiary screen undersize will be discharged to screen undersize conveyor and transferred

to the crushed product conveyor. The tertiary crushers will operate at a CSS of 0.9”, producing material with a P80

of ⅜”.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 180

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Overall,

the crushing plant product will have a P80 of ⅜”.

14.4.1.3

Crushed Ore Stockpile

The

crushed product stockpile has a live capacity of 31,000 tons and a total capacity of 124,000 tons.

The

crushed product will be reclaimed via two reclaim tunnels located beneath the crushed product stockpile. Each reclaim line consists of

two reclaim feeders (one operating and one standby) and a primary ball mill feed conveyor.

14.4.2

Grinding Circuit

The

grinding circuit consists of two parallel primary ball mills followed by two parallel secondary ball mills, arranged in a two-stage ball

milling configuration. Each primary ball mill operates in closed circuit with a cluster of hydrocyclones.

Crushed

mineralized material will be delivered by two primary ball mill feed conveyors to the two primary ball mills (26 ft diameter ×

39.5 ft effective grinding length). Each primary ball mill is powered by a 21,500 hp drive. Primary ball mill discharge will report to

a primary cyclone feed pump box, where dilution water will be added to control pulp density. The slurry will then be pumped to a cluster

of 30” hydrocyclones. Primary cyclone underflow will return to the primary ball mills, while primary cyclone overflow will

report to the secondary cyclone feed pump box, where it will combine with secondary ball mill discharge and dilution water.

The

combined slurry will be pumped into a secondary hydrocyclone cluster (30” cyclones). Secondary cyclone underflow will

report to the secondary ball mills (26 ft diameter × 39.5 ft EGL), each powered by a 21,500 hp drive. Secondary cyclone overflow

will constitute the final grinding product and will be directed to the flotation circuit after passing through trash screens. The target

grind size is a P80 of 85 µm.

14.4.3 Rougher

Flotation

The

rougher flotation circuit will be designed to produce a concentrate at 22% mass pull, containing a significant portion of the gold and

silver from the sulfide mineralized material. The flotation concentrate will be oxidized in a POX circuit prior to feeding in a concentrate

leach circuit to dissolve gold and silver from the flotation concentrate. The resulting pregnant solution will be further processed in

a Merrill-Crowe circuit.

Cyclone

overflow will gravitate over the vibrating trash screens to remove foreign material prior to flotation. Screen oversize will report to

a trash bunker for periodic removal, while trash screen undersize will be pumped to two rougher flotation conditioning tanks.

Bench-scale

flotation testing determined an average laboratory flotation time of 19 minutes. Applying a 2.5 scale-up factor, the required plant residence

time is approximately 47.5 minutes.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 181

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Flotation

concentrates will be pumped to a concentrate thickener. Rougher flotation tailings will be pumped to a rougher tailings thickener (223

ft diameter) and thickened to 60% solids prior to pumping to the tailing storage facility.

Flotation

reagents will include PAX as collector and MIBC or equivalent as frother. Flotation will be conducted at the pH of 4.7 and will therefore

require sulfuric acid (H2SO4) for pH control in the flotation conditioning tanks. Blowers will supply air to the

flotation cells.

Average

recoveries to the flotation concentrate of 89.5% gold and 92.9% silver were estimated based on laboratory test results.

14.4.4

Concentrate Thickening

Flotation

concentrate will be thickened in a high-rate thickener to produce a slurry of sufficient density for feed to the POX plant. Concentrate

from the rougher flotation circuit will be dewatered in a 157 ft diameter concentrate thickener to a slurry density of 49% solids. The

thickener underflow will be pumped to the pressure oxidation plant, while thickener overflow will be recycled to the thickener feed for

dilution and directed to the process water tank.

14.4.5

POX and Neutralization

14.4.5.1

POX Feed System

The

flotation concentrate will be transferred via a screen covered POX feed tank to four POX feed storage tanks, which will provide 12 hours

of buffering capacity between the Concentrator and POX sections. The POX feed tank will be equipped with a vibrating screen to reject

any +10-mesh deleterious material and protect the autoclave feed pumps. Screen oversize will be collected and periodically analyzed to

determine the appropriate disposal location. The four POX feed storage tanks will operate in parallel and will be capable of feeding

either autoclave train.

14.4.5.2

Pressure Oxidation

The

POX facility will comprise two autoclave circuits. Each circuit will include a high-pressure slurry feed system, slurry preheater, an

autoclave vessel with agitators, flash vessels, and a gas handling system. Autoclave operation will be supported by agitator seal systems,

a steam boiler for start-up, and a high-pressure cooling water system for autoclave temperature control.

Slurry

will be pumped into the first compartment of each autoclave using positive displacement pumps. The autoclaves will be mechanically agitated

horizontal pressure vessels with approximate internal dimensions of 16.2 ft inside diameter and an overall length of 142.8 ft. Each autoclave

will operate at 428 °F and 454 psi, and will consist of five compartments equipped with eight agitators, providing a nominal retention

time of 60 minutes. The agitators in the first autoclave compartment will be driven by variable speed drives to optimize oxygen mass

transfer. The first compartment is larger than the downstream compartments and contains four agitators to ensure that the introduction

of cold slurry does not adversely affect the front-end reactor temperature or reduce the initial oxidation reaction rate.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 182

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Oxidation

of sulfides is an exothermic reaction, and to prevent overheating of the autoclaves, significant quantities of cooling water will be

added to each compartment.

Steam

will be required to heat the autoclaves during cold start-up conditions. Steam will be injected into the vapor space of the autoclaves

with the agitators operating, and the autoclave will be preheated at a controlled, predetermined rate.

14.4.5.3

Flash System and Gas Cleaning

Due

to the high autoclave discharge volume, each autoclave train will include two parallel single stage flash tanks, followed by two parallel

high pressure cyclonic separators. The flash tanks will be equipped with level control valves and blast tubes to reduce pressure to near

atmospheric conditions, generating large quantities of flash steam. The majority of slurry particles entrained in the steam will be removed

in the cyclonic separators operating in parallel. Slurry discharged from the flash tanks and cyclonic separators will report to a closed

seal leg tank, from which pumps will transfer the slurry to the subsequent process step.

The

relatively cleaned flash steam from the two cyclonic separators will then combine into a single direct contact “splash” heater,

which will be used to heat CCD underflow ahead of the lime boil circuit. Each autoclave train will be equipped with a splash heater,

resulting in excess heating capacity. The heaters will be designed to operate without slurry, if required, and to pass the full stream

load directly to the steam condensation and cleaning system.

Residual

steam from the heaters will be partially condensed in a quench vessel, after which inert gases will be cleaned using a venturi scrubber

to remove acidic droplets and solid particles. Vent streams from the autoclaves and the seal leg tank vents will be routed to the same

venturi scrubber, which will condense most of the remaining steam when the heat exchangers and quench vessels are in operation. The scrubber

system will also be capable of operating in a steam cleaning only mode when the heat exchangers and quench vessels are not in service.

All

vent streams will be combined in a common blast spool prior to entering the venturi scrubber. Cold raw water will be continuously added

to the clean (cold) side of the scrubber tank to maintain the minimum operating level. Underflow from the scrubber and quench tanks will

be directed to the dirty (hot) side of the scrubber tank. Pumps will transfer the hot, dirty, and slightly acidic spent scrubber water

to the solution neutralization circuit.

14.4.5.4

Oxygen Plant

The

oxygen plant will supply gaseous oxygen to support the pressure oxidation process. Oxygen will be produced on site using cryogenic air

separation units and injected directly into the autoclaves through spargers located beneath each agitator to promote sulfide oxidation.

Approximately 70% of the total oxygen demand will be injected into the first compartment, distributed evenly among the four spargers/agitators.

About 20% of the oxygen demand will be split between compartment 2 and 3, with the remaining oxygen injected into the final two compartments.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 183

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

14.4.5.5

Hot Curing

The

oxidized slurry will be processed through five cascading tanks operating in series, providing a total residence time of 10 hours to ensure

dissolution of ferric sulfate. Slurry entering the hot cure circuit will be at approximately 221 °F and will exit at approximately

212 °F. Following curing, the slurry will flow by gravity to the first POX CCD thickener.

14.4.5.6

POX CCD Washing

three-stage POX CCD circuit will be used to wash slurry from the hot cure circuit and remove acid and dissolved metal salts from the

pressure oxidation residue. Each thickener will be 197 ft in diameter.

Slurry

will advance through the POX CCD thickeners in series, while wash solution flows in the opposite (countercurrent) direction, with fresh

washing water added to the final stage. Overflow solution from the first POX CCD thickener will be routed to the autoclave flash steam

quench and solution neutralization circuit. Washed slurry from the final POX CCD thickener will be heated and forwarded to the lime boil

circuit.

The

POX CCD circuit will be designed to achieve a wash efficiency of approximately 98%.

14.4.5.7

Neutralization Circuit

Neutralization

of acidity and precipitation of metals and sulfate from the POX CCD overflow solution and the quench and scrubbing solutions will be

carried out in the neutralization circuit. The neutralization circuit will comprise four stages of limestone addition followed by two

stages of milk of lime treatment.

The

limestone and lime reactor tanks will be arranged in a staggered, cascading configuration, allowing slurry to flow by gravity from one

stage to the next. Limestone slurry will be metered into a limestone sludge mix tank, where it will be blended with recycled neutralization

thickener underflow to condition the recycled solids and promote precipitation seeding. Overflow from the mix tank will feed to the first

neutralization tank. Neutralized slurry will flow by gravity from the final lime neutralization tank to the neutralization thickener.

Neutralization thickener underflow will be pumped to the tailings storage facility (TMF) via the final tailings pump box, where neutralization

thickener overflow will be directed to the neutralization thickener overflow tank and pumped to the solution cooling towers.

14.4.5.8

Solution Cooling

Neutralization

thickener overflow solution will be pumped to a bank of four cooling towers to reduce temperature. The cooled solution will then be pumped

to the POX water tank and process water tank.

14.4.5.9

Lime Boil Process

Underflow

from the POX CCD circuit thickener will be pumped to the lime boil heat exchangers, where the slurry will be reheated to a temperature

of 206 °F using steam from the autoclave flash system. The reheated slurry will be treated with lime to effectively decompose silver

jarosites formed during the POX and hot cure stages, thereby enabling improved silver extraction in the downstream leach circuit.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 184

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

lime boil circuit will consist of four agitated tanks. Lime boil discharge slurry will be cooled to approximately 108 °F in

three slurry cooling towers and then pumped to the cyanide leach circuit for gold and silver extraction.

14.4.5.10

Limestone Plant

Ground

limestone and lime will be required for neutralization of acidic liquors and pH control in the leach circuit. The limestone plant will

include crushing and grinding facilities, producing limestone ground to a product size with a P80 of 53 µm.

14.4.6

Gold and Silver Recovery from Flotation Concentrate

The

oxidized flotation concentrate (approximately 35% wt/wt solids) will be leached in the concentrate leaching circuit, which will consist

of six mechanically agitated leach tanks operating in series.

Sodium

cyanide (NaCN) will be added to the leach circuit to dissolve gold and silver. The primary cyanide addition point will be the leach feed

distribution box, with additional dosing points located at leach tank No.3 and No.5. Lime addition in the upstream lime boil circuit

will provide sufficient protective alkalinity for the leach circuit and no additional lime addition will be required during leaching.

Estimated extraction in the concentrate leach circuit is 93.5% for gold and 86.0% for silver.

Air

will be introduced into the leach circuit through the leach tank agitator shafts to maintain an air to leach rate of approximately 7.75

Nm3 oxygen per ton of solids in the circuit. The concentrate leach circuit will be designed for a total retention time of

24 hours, evenly distributed across the six leach tanks. Slurry exiting the leach circuit will flow by gravity to the CCD circuit for

recovery of pregnant solution from the leached slurry.

facilitate maintenance of individual leach tanks, the circuit will include provisions to bypass any single leach tank, allowing slurry

to report directly to the downstream leach tank. This configuration will allow one tank to be taken out of service without requiring

a shutdown of the entire circuit.

The

leach circuit will be serviced by a vertical cantilevered centrifugal sump pump, which will return collected spillage to a nearby leach

tank.

14.4.7

CCD Circuit

four-stage CCD washing circuit will be used to recover pregnant solution from the cyanide-leached slurry.

Leached

slurry will flow by gravity through a four-stage CCD circuit, with solids advancing sequentially to the final thickener (CCD No. 4).

Washed tailings from CCD No. 4 underflow will be pumped to the cyanide destruction circuit. Barren solution from the Merrill-Crowe circuit

will be added to CCD No. 4 as wash water, while overflow solution will advance counter currently through the CCD stages. Overflow from

the first CCD thickener will be collected in a CCD overflow tank and fed to the Merrill-Crowe circuit.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 185

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

washing ratio, defined as the flow rate of washing barren solution from the Merrill-Crowe plant to the solids flow rate in the CCD circuit

feed, will be 4.5:1, providing an overall CCD washing efficiency of greater than 98%.

Solids

settling will be enhanced by the addition of diluted flocculant at each CCD stage. Antiscalant can be added to the pregnant solution

tank, as required, to inhibit scale formation in the Merrill-Crowe circuit.

vertically cantilevered centrifugal sump pump will be provided in the CCD area to return spillage to the circuit.

14.4.8

Merrill-Crowe Precipitation and Refinery (Existing)

Due

to the high silver content in the pregnant leach solution (PLS), gold and silver will be recovered using zinc cementation. Hycroft currently

has two Merrill-Crowe plants. The Brimstone plant has a capacity of 5,000 gal/min, while the North plant is considerably larger, with

a capacity of 21,000 gal/min. The combined capacity of the two Merrill-Crowe facilities is approximately 26,000 gal/min.

Upon

mill start up, the Merrill-Crowe plants will process pregnant solutions from both the mill and the heap leach operations.

14.4.8.1

Merrill-Crowe

PLS

from the CCD circuit will be pumped to the PLS tank at the Merrill-Crowe facilities, where it will be combined with solution from the

heap leach operation. The combined solution will then be pumped to clarifying filters to remove suspended solids. Filtered PLS will flow

through a deaeration column, where dissolved oxygen will be removed. Zinc will then be added to the filtered, deaerated solution, which

will be pumped to precipitate filters. The resulting precipitate, containing gold and silver, will be recovered in the filter. Barren

solution will flow to a storage tank for reuse in the mill or heap leach.

Precious

metal recovery from solution to zinc precipitate is expected to be approximately 99.5%.

14.4.8.2

Gold and Silver Refinery

Wet

filter cake from the Merrill-Crowe circuit will be transferred to retort pans and proceeded in a retort furnace to remove moisture and

mercury. Water and mercury will be sequentially volatilized from the precipitate by heating under partial vacuum. Exhaust gases will

pass through multiple stages of condensers, where mercury and water will be collected and drained into a collection vessel. Residual

mercury in the retort off-gas will be removed using a sulfur-impregnated carbon packed bed prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Retorts

will be operated in batch mode, with an approximate cycle time of 18 hours.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 186

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

dried filter cake will then be mixed with flux and transferred to an electric arc furnace, where it will be smelted to produce gold-silver

doré.

14.4.9

Cyanide Destruction

Washed

leach residue slurry from the CCD circuit will be treated using a sulfur dioxide (SO2)-oxygen (O2) process to reduce

the CNWAD cyanide concentration to less than 5 mg/L.

Thickened,

washed tailings slurry from the final CCD thickener, at a solids concentration of approximately 35%, will be pumped to the cyanide destruction

tanks. In the SO2-O2 process, sodium metabisulphite (SMBS), oxygen, copper sulfate (as catalyst), and milk of lime

will be added to oxidize residual free cyanide and CNWAD species to cyanate, thereby reducing CNWAD concentrations

to the target level prior to final tailings disposal. The cyanide destruction circuit will consist of two mechanically agitated tanks,

providing a total residence time of two hours.

Oxygen

will be supplied from the oxygen plant as required and introduced into the tanks via the agitator shafts. CNWAD concentration

in the cyanide destruction discharge will be monitored through regular sampling and analysis.

The

cyanide destruction circuit will be serviced by a dedicated sump pump, with any spillage in the area returned to the cyanide destruction

feed box

14.4.10

Final Tailings and Reclaim Water Transport

Combined

thickened tailings generated from the flotation process, POX neutralization, and cyanide destruction circuits will be conveyed from the

tailings thickener to the TMF, following completion of TMF construction. A return water pipeline will convey reclaim water from the TMF

seepage ponds back to the process plant along the same corridor.

14.5

Energy, Water, and Process Materials Requirements

14.5.1

Reagent Handling and Storage

The

mixing and storage area for each reagent will be located proximate to their respective addition points throughout the plant. Reagents

delivered in bulk bags will be transferred from storage to the mixing areas by forklift. Electric hoists serving the reagent areas will

lift the bulk bags to the respective reagent bag brakers, which will be located above the reagent mixing tanks.

The

reagent handling system will include unloading and storage facilities, mixing tanks, stock tanks, transfer pumps, and feeding equipment.

Quick

lime will be delivered to the plant in regular bulk shipments and received in three 400 t storage silos, which at design operating rates

will provide approximately three days of storage capacity. Lime will be slaked in a package slaking system. The resulting milk of lime

slurry, at approximately 16% CaO solids %w/v, will be stored in an agitated tank and distributed to the various addition points via a

ring-main system.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 187

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Sodium

cyanide will be supplied in liquid form by using DOT-412 tankers, each carrying approximately 6,400 gal of 30% cyanide solution, and

will be received in a 25,000-gal storage tank. Diluted cyanide solution at approximately 23% cyanide will be stored in an agitated day

tank, providing approximately four hours of cyanide supply at nominal production rates. From the day tank, sodium cyanide solution will

be distributed to the leach circuits and Merrill-Crowe circuit as required. The cyanide storage and day tank will be fully contained

in a bunded area and physically separated from the main plant site.

Limestone

will be delivered to the site by rail and offloaded to a stockpile. A front-end loader will transfer limestone to a hopper feeding the

limestone crushing and grinding circuits. Ground limestone slurry, at 38% solids, will be stored in a limestone slurry tank providing

12 hours of retention time.

Table

14-3 summarizes the reagents proposed for the process plant.

Table

14-3: Summary of Reagent Used in the Process Plant

Reagent

Preparation

Method

Use

Lime

Received

as quicklime from 20 t pneumatic tanker trucks and transferred to silos; slaked and mixed to 16% strength; pumped to a storage tank

and distributed to lime boil, POX neutralization, and cyanide destruction circuits as required

control added as required

Sodium

Cyanide

Received

as 30% cyanide solution in 6,400 gal of DOT 412 tanker trucks and transferred to a 25,000-gal storage tank; diluted to 23% NaCN in

a day tank; dosed via metering pumps to the concentrate cyanide leaching circuit and Merrill-Crowe circuit as required.

Gold

and silver leaching agent

Flocculant

Received

as powder in 1,000 kg bags; mixed to 0.25% storing strength; transferred to a storage tank. Dosed directly to concentrate thickener,

POX CCD washing thickeners, neutralization thickener, CCD washing thickeners, and tailings thickener with dilution as required

Flocculation

in thickeners

Oxygen

Produced

on site by the oxygen plant, gasified, and distributed to POX and cyanide destruction circuits

Oxidation

reagent, cyanide destruction reagent

PAX

Received

as pellets in 1,000 kg super sacks; mixed to 15% solution strength and transferred to a storage tank; dosed via multiple metering

pumps to the required locations within the grinding and flotation circuit

Flotation

collector

Frother

Delivered

in liquid form by tanker truck and transferred to a 25,000-gal storage tank; dosed via multiple metering pumps to the required locations

within the flotation circuit

Flotation

frother

Diatomaceous

Earth

Received

as powder in 25 kg bags; mixed to about 5% solution strength; dosed to the clarifier and precipitate filters in Merrill-Crowe circuit

Precoat

and body feed in Merrill-Crowe circuit

Zinc

Powder

Received

as powder in 50 lb bags; dosed via feeder to Zn mixing cone through at controlled rate in Merrill-Crowe circuit

Precipitation

regent in Merrill Crowe circuit

Copper

Sulfate

Received

as powder in 500 kg bags; mixed to 10% solution strength and transferred to a storage tank; dosed to the cyanide destruction circuit

Catalyst

for cyanide destruction process

Sodium

Metabisulfite

Received

as powder in 1,250 kg super sacks; mixed to 15% solution strength and transferred to a storage tank; dosed to the cyanide destruction

circuit.

Reactant

for cyanide destruction process

Antiscalant

Delivered

in liquid form in IBC totes; dosed neat (undiluted) to barren solution and process water tanks

Scale

inhibition

Flux

Received

as bulk powder; blended with calcined charges prior to smelting

Smelting

flux

Limestone

Delivered

to the site by rail and offloaded to a stockpile

Neutralization

reagent for acid generated in POX circuit

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 188

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

estimated annual consumption based on nominal usage for major plant reagents is summarized in Table 14-4.

Table

14-4: Annual Consumption for Major Reagents

Reagent

Annual

Consumption (ton/a)

Quicklime

102,943

Sodium

cyanide

9,567

Flocculant

2,757

Collector

(PAX)

8,508

Frother

(MIBC)

756

Sulfuric

acid

Limestone

813,085

Copper

Sulfate

304

Sodium

Metabisulphite (SMBS)

3,452

Antiscalant

321

Diatomaceous

Earth

1,267

Zinc

dust

574

14.5.2

Fresh Water, Fire Water and Potable Water

Provisions

will be made for fresh water supply from the water wells with fresh water transferred to a fresh/fire water storage tank.

Fresh

water will be used for reagent mixing and preparation, general process uses in the crushing area, and gland water.

Wherever

practicable, process water or barren solution will be used throughout the plant to minimize freshwater consumption. The total freshwater

requirement for the plant is estimated at approximately 6,680 gal/min.

Hycroft

plans to install a larger onsite potable water system sized to meet the requirements of the POX option, for the current IA-EA study,

a potable water treatment system is not required.

14.5.3

Process Water, and Barren Solution

Process

water will consist of reclaimed water from the concentrate thickener overflow, rougher tailings thickener overflow, TMF return water,

and excess process water from the solution cooling towers. Process water will be used in the grinding and flotation circuits and in the

limestone slurry preparation circuit.

POX

Process water will consist of a solution from the solution cooling towers with freshwater make-up as required. POX process water will

be used for POX flash vessel cooling and POX CCD washing.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 189

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Barren

solution from the Merrill-Crowe circuit will be stored in the existing barren solution tank and recycled to the CCD washing circuit as

wash water. Barren solution will also be used as gland seal water for CCD thickener underflow pumps to minimize freshwater consumption.

Excess barren solution will be routed to the heap leach operation.

14.5.4

Oxygen Plant

The

oxygen plant will consist of an air separation unit (ASU) supplying gaseous oxygen and trickle liquid oxygen to support the pressure

oxidation process. The ASU design is based on equipment and processes that are widely used in the cryogenic gas industry, employing a

conventional air separation process. Oxygen production will be achieved through the cryogenic distillation of air.

The

oxygen plant will have a nominal oxygen production capacity of approximately 2,204 ton/d, with an installed power requirement of approximately

32 MW. Oxygen will be produced at a purity of 99.5% and delivered at a pressure of approximately 116 psig (8 bar).

Oxygen

will be used for POX circuit and cyanide destruction circuit.

14.5.5

Electrical Power

The

total peak operating load for the project is estimated to be 124.3 MW.

14.5.6

High-Pressure and Low-Pressure Air

14.5.6.1

High Pressure Air

High-pressure

air at 110 psi(g) will be supplied by high-pressure air compressors operating in a lead-lag configuration to serve the neutralization

tanks and leach tanks. All high-pressure air produced will be dried and filtered and will be used to meet both plant air and instrument

air requirements. Dried air will be distributed via the process plant air receiver.

14.5.6.2

Low Pressure Air for Flotation Circuit

Low

pressure air for the flotation cells will be supplied by four dedicated blowers.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 190

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Infrastructure

15.1

Introduction

This

section discusses existing and proposed infrastructure for the Hycroft PEA. The proposed facilities include the Northeast TMF,

the Waste Rock Storage Facility (WRSF), the Process Plant Site and associated infrastructure, the Limestone Plant, and new rail spur.

This section also details the proposed ancillary facilities planned over the LOM, and the proposed upgrades of existing facilities. An

overview of existing site infrastructure, site access, accommodations, and utilities is provided in this section. The layout of proposed

and existing infrastructure is shown below in Figure 15-1.

Figure

15-1: Site Layout

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 191

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.2

Site Access

15.2.1

Offsite Access and Security

Jungo

Road (Nevada State Route 49) which connects the town of Winnemucca to Gerlach, is the main offsite access road to Hycroft Mine. This

roadway is an all-weather dirt/gravel surfaced road that is well maintained by Humboldt County, Pershing County, and Hycroft. Jungo Road

runs parallel to the site at the north and west extents and is accessible off the I-80E. The main gate to the Site is located within

a few hundred feet from the Jungo Roadway. Figure 15-2, below, detail major nearby towns and Jungo Road in relation to the Hycroft Mine

Site.

Figure

15-2: Site Access and Major Towns Near Hycroft Mine

Source:

Google Earth, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 192

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

major east-west bound railway runs adjacent to the mine site. Imports and exports via this railway shall be facilitated by the proposed

rail spur discussed in Section 15.2.3 Rail Spur.

The

main access guard house will be relocated as part of the layout improvement of the ancillary facilities. Primary access to the site will

be regulated by swipe cards. The guard house will continue to house the security personnel offices, safety training rooms and medical

facilities.

15.2.2

Onsite Access

Most

of the existing onsite access and haul roads will remain. The project considers the development of plant access roads, a TMF access road,

and a TMF construction haul road. The geometric design of the roads considers factors such as traffic, topography, and speed to provide

a safe design that is cost effective compatible with project commitments.

Road

drainage has been designed to eliminate or minimize road wear, road damage, downstream flooding, and erosion. Roads will be graded to

convey stormwater away from the roads and plant facilities. Road drainage structures include parallel ditches and culverts for crossings.

15.2.2.1

Plant Access Roads

Approximately

0.6 miles of new plant access roads will be built branching out of existing roads and connecting different areas of the plant. Plant

access roads are designed to be dirt roads with a maximum grade of 10% and a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). Road will

have a minimum of two 12-foot lanes and allow delivery access.

15.2.2.2

TMF Access Road

new access road approximately 5.6 miles long will connect the process plant with the TMF running parallel to the tailings delivery and

reclaim water pipeline corridor. This dirt road runs through one section of mountainous terrain and will have a maximum grade of 10%

and a speed limit of 25 mph. The access road will have two 12-foot lanes.

15.2.2.3

TMF Construction Haul Road

new TMF construction haul road approximately 3.4 miles long will connect the WRSF with the TMF. This road will allow haulage of

waste rock for the TMF embankment construction. This haul road will cross the TMF access road instead of running parallel to it. The

road runs through one section of mountainous terrain. This dirt haul road will have a maximum grade of 10% and a speed limit of 25 mph.

The haul road will have two 60-foot lanes.

15.2.3

Rail Spur

The

Hycroft Project will require a rail spur to extend access of the Union Pacific rail line located northwest of the plant to the Project

site. The additional rail siding is designed to receive reagents and consumables such as limestone, grinding media, fuel and other supplies

required by the proposed process plant. The rail siding is vital for the export of salable precious metals.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 193

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Hycroft

hired Mountain States Contracting Inc. to provide the design and cost estimate for this rail spur. Included in the design and cost estimate

is the rail siding, required turnouts, derails, signals, tracks, ballast, bridges, and civil work to install and operate a rail loadout

facility. The facility will have tracks to store rail cars as well as a loadout out port for rail hopper cars. The rail spur design layout

proposed by Mountain States Contracting Inc is shown below in Figure 15-3.

Figure

15-3: Rail Spur Design

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 194

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.3

New Infrastructure

This

section details all required on, and off-site support infrastructure required for the operation of the sulfide ore processing plant.

New onsite infrastructure includes new process plant facilities and its supporting tie-ins for its inclusion to the existing crushing

facility, heap leach, and North Merrill-Crowe facility; most of the existing onsite access and haul roads will remain. Hycroft has identified

the following offsite infrastructure for inclusion in this study: a main transmission line feeding the site and substation, mine power

distribution, the rail spur for deliveries and shipping and the development of a freshwater production well field.

Onsite

infrastructure to support the proposed process plant includes:

● tie-ins

to existing site utilities

○ water

○ compressed

air

○ sewer

and potable water

● new

power distribution lines and grids, substations and electrical rooms

● new

process control system and control room

● new

reagent buildings including an oxygen plant and limestone offloading, storage and slaking

facilities

● expanding,

repurposing or modifying existing offices, maintenance areas, laboratories, and ancillary

facilities throughout the mine.

15.3.1

New and Existing Facilities Layout

Ausenco

designed the processing plant facility to tie into the existing crushing facility, which includes the primary crusher, secondary crushers

and tertiary crushers. The overall site layout is shown in Figure 15-4. Figure 15-5 illustrates the existing crushing facility and ancillary

buildings at the mine site while Figure 15-6 shows the proposed process plant layout developed for this Project. The proposed limestone

offloading and rail spur planned for the Project is shown in Figure 15-7. Figure 15-8 shows the North Merrill-Crowe Facility and associated

ponds. The TMF is detailed in Figure 15.10 and the WRSF locations are depicted in Figure 15-14.

Existing

facilities on site consist of two administration buildings, a mobile maintenance shop, a light vehicle maintenance shop, a warehouse,

an assay laboratory, three heap leach pads (Crofoot, North, Brimstone), primary, secondary, and tertiary crushers, two Merrill-Crowe

Process Plants, a refinery, and other service-related structures. Table 15-1, below, details the existing Hycroft buildings based on

owner-provided information. Many of the existing ancillary buildings are shown in Figure 15-5 through Figure 15-9.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 195

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

15-1: Existing Hycroft Buildings

Hycroft Equipment

Reference

Ausenco

WSP Area

Description

BG 001

7000

Jungo

Road

BG 900

6600

Administration

Building

BG 902

6600

Old

Core Building

BG 903

6700

Light

Vehicle Fuel Island

BG 904

6600

Laboratory

Building

BG 905

4100

Lime

Silo

BG 906

6600

Safety

Building

BG 907

4100

Mill

Building

BG 908

6600

Welding

Shop

BG 910

6600

Shifter

Building

BG 911

4100

Operations Lineout Building

BG 912

6600

Warehouse

Building

BG 913

6600

Wash

Pad

BG 914

6600

New

Maintenance Shop

BG 915

7200

Fire

Water Pump House #1 – Old Shop

BG 916

7200

Fire

Water Pump House #2 – New Shop

BG 917

6600

Light

Vehicle / Tire Shop

BG 919

6500

Flocka

Communications Building

BG 920

6500

Pump

Room Communications Building

BG 921

6600

Direct

Charge Building

BG 922

6700

Upper

Fuel Island

BG 923

6600

Fabrication

Shop

BG 924

6600

Process

Maintenance Trailer

BG 926

6600

Human

Resource Building

BG 928

6600

Technical

Services Building

BG 929

6600

Geology

Trailer

BG 930

6600

Front

Gate Guard Shack

BG 932

4400

North

Merrill-Crowe Building / Rest Rooms

BG 933

6500

Lower

Server Room

BG 934

4400

Press

Room North Merrill-Crowe

BG 935

6400

Electrical

Dry Storage

BG 936

6600

Mechanical

Dry Storage

BG 937

6700

Lower

Fuel Island

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 196

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-4: Overall Site Layout

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 197

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

five boxes shown in Figure 15-4 are expanded in the figures below.

Figure

15-5: Existing Crushing Facility and Surrounding Infrastructure

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 198

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-6: The Proposed Process Plant Generic Site Plan

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 199

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-7: Proposed Limestone Plant and Rail Spur

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 200

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-8: North Merrill-Crowe Plant

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 201

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-9: Existing Mine Ancillary Buildings

Source:

Ausenco, 2022

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 202

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Newly

proposed ancillary facilities that have been designed and budgeted to support the Project are shown below in Table 15-2.

Table

15-2: New Ancillary Facilities Planned over the LOM

Facility

Name

Purpose

Crushed

Ore Stockpile Cover

Round

dome to 313 ft Diameter X 104 ft Height

Laboratory

New

Assay Lab

Haul

Truck Fuel Station

New

Fuel Station to service the mine equipment

Technical

Services Building

additional building to support the new process plant

Maintenance

Shop

New

maintenance shop for capital and consumable spare parts

Crusher

Maintenance Building

New

crusher maintenance building in mine Year 5.

15.3.2

Upgrades

to Existing Facilities

Table

15-3 list the proposed upgrades to the existing facilities at the mine required to support the Project.

Table

15-3: Proposed Upgrades for Existing Facilities

Existing

Building Name

Proposed

Upgrades

Lime

Silo

The

existing lime silo will be relocated closer to primary crusher

Warehouse

The

existing warehouse will be expanded and will include a larger storage yard in mine Year 3

Gate

And Security Building

The

existing front gate/guard shack will be relocated to improve traffic flow

Truck

Shop

Add

an additional wash bay to the existing Truck Shop

Primary

Crusher Building

Upgrade

the existing primary crusher building

Crusher

Control Room

Upgrade

the existing crusher control room

Mine

Operation Building

Repurpose

the existing Mine Ops building to meet mine staffing needs and space.

Operation

Lineout Building

The

existing Operation Lineout building will be converted to a 4-plex in mine Year 5

Process

Maintenance

Expand

existing process maintenance for new equipment assembly in mine Year 1

North

Merrill-Crowe

Expand

North Merrill-Crowe building for increased process operations and administration by mine Year 2

Technical

Services Building

Rehabilitate

the existing technical services building

15.3.3

Accommodation

Hycroft

Mine is located within a well-known mining jurisdiction near three communities: Winnemucca (Humboldt Country), Lovelock (Pershing County),

and Gerlach (Washoe County). The majority of the mine’s employees reside in Winnemucca and Lovelock, with a small number from Gerlach.

These towns are shown above in map-form in Figure 15-2.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 203

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Most

of Hycroft’s site employees are likely to reside in the town of Winnemucca (Humboldt Country), located 54 miles east of the mine.

This town is accessible via a transcontinental railroad and a small public airport. A high clearance truck or SUV is recommended for

the 90-minute commute from Winnemucca to site.

Winnemucca

has the required infrastructure (short- and long-term rooming and boarding facilities, dining establishments, shopping, emergency services,

schools, etc.) to support the maximum workforce and dependents required for the Project. As such, the construction labor force will be

housed in Winnemucca and transported 54 miles via a contracted bus service to the job site.

15.4

Stockpiles

15.4.1

Mineralized

Stockpiles

The

mine plan and processing schedule includes long term stockpiling of mineralized material. These stockpiles consist of the coarse ore

stockpile and the crushed ore stockpile based at the proposed process plant. The coarse ore stockpile has a live capacity of 56,000 tons

and a total capacity of 175,400 tons while the crushed ore stockpile has a live capacity of 34,000 tons and a total capacity of 113,000

tons, with a round dome cover for the elements.

These

stockpiles will support the existing crushing circuit availability of 31.3% for primary crushing and 65.1% combined for secondary and

tertiary crushing. These stockpiles will allow buffer material flow between the crushers and mill.

15.4.2

Growth

Media Stockpile

During

construction of the TMF, growth medium will be stripped and stockpiled for future placement on the TMF surface and exposed embankment

surfaces during reclamation.

15.4.3

Limestone

Stockpile

Limestone

will be delivered to the site by rail and offloaded to a stockpile.

15.5

Tailings

Management Facilities

The

primary design objectives of the Hycroft Northeast TMF are the secure containment of tailings and the protection of regional groundwater

and surface water during mine operations and post-closure. The design of the TMF and accompanying water management facilities has considered

the following:

●

Staged

development of the facility over the LOM.

●

Impoundment

geomembrane liner and overliner collection system to minimize potential seepage into the subgrade and groundwater

●

Control,

collection, and removal of water from the facility for reuse as process water to the maximum extent practical.

●

Closure

that takes into account long-term geochemical and physical stability to protect the environment and waterways using best available

technology based on the physical and geochemical characteristics of the tailings

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 204

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

TMF has been designed to accommodate over 1.05 Btons of tailings produced over the LOM. The combined tailings embankment and impoundment

occupy an ultimate footprint of approximately 4,915 acres. WSP has provided civil, geotechnical, and mechanical engineering services

for the Hycroft mine since 2010. The 2026 PEA TMF design and drawings utilizing information from previous TMF studies completed for the

Hycroft Mine.

The

Northeast TMF PEA design incorporates data from several previous technical studies to meet the industry standards for design of TMF in

accordance with GISTM 2020 Standards. The TMF embankment will be expanded during operations using centerline method of construction for

the main embankment and downstream construction for the north embankment. The design criteria for the tailings facility are based on

the information available during the development of the previous studies and this PEA along with applicable design standards.

15.5.1

Facility

Design Basis

The

TMF design basis was developed considering the mine Schedule, processing technology, and most importantly designing a safety and stable

TMF that protect the environment. Below is the design basis utilized in the development of the TMF.

The

general operational TMF parameters are:

●

average

production rate of 57,000 tpd

●

LOM

of 51 years

●

required

storage capacity of 1.05 Btons

●

tailings

discharge percent solids content of 48%

●

subaerial

deposition

●

average

tailings in-situ dry density ranging from 74 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (starter facility) to 92 pcf (ultimate facility).

The

design of the Hycroft Northeast TMF was developed based on the following major guidelines, regulations, client and site requirements,

and industry best practices.

●

Nevada

Administrative Code (NAC) Division 445A – Water Controls

●

NAC

525 – Dam Safety

●

Mining

Association of Canada (MAC), A Guide to the Management of Tailings Facilities (MAC 2019)

●

International

Council of Metals and Mining (ICMM), Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM 2020)

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 205

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

facility design drawings meet the following objectives:

●

Solution

containment compatible with “zero-discharge” design concepts using a geomembrane liner, and meeting or exceeding Nevada

Administrative Code (NAC) regulations.

●

Safe,

statically and seismically stable, and operationally feasible facilities.

●

Containment

using waste rock material as a embankment fill.

●

“Design

for Closure” philosophy to manage closure considerations during the construction and operation of the facilities.

Based

on a conceptual qualitative dam breach analysis, the Northeast TMF is considered a Very High consequence dam. Based on this

classification, design criteria for geotechnical stability and for minimum return periods for design earthquake and flood events are

presented in Table 15-4 and Table 15-5. A figure of the ultimate TMF facility relative to the Hycroft Site is shown Figure

15-10.

Table

15-4: Minimum Pre-feasibility Seismic Design Criteria for Stability for Very High Dam Classification

Lifecycle

Condition

Minimum

Factor of Safety

Design

Event

Operation/Long

Term

Static

1.5

Steady

state seepage, normal reservoir level

Seismic

loading (pseudo-static)

1.1

in 5,000–year, normal reservoir level

Closure

– Passive Care

Static

1.5

Steady

state seepage, normal reservoir level

Long-term

Post Closure Static

1.5

Steady

state seepage, normal reservoir level

Seismic

loading (pseudo-static)

1.1

in 10,000-year, lowered reservoir level

Table

15-5: Minimum Pre-feasibility Hydrologic Design Criteria for Very High Dam Classification

Lifecycle

Flood

Event

Operation/Long

Term

in 5,000-year contained within TMF

Closure

– Passive Care

in 10,000-year conveyed by closure down chute

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 206

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-10: TMF Facility Layout

Source:

WSP, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 207

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.5.2

TMF

Design

15.5.2.1

Embankment

Construction

The

Northeast TMF will be constructed using ROM waste rock generated from open pit mining operations. waste rock will be transported

by mine haul trucks to a designated staging area northwest of the main embankment. During construction, waste rock will be transported

by the contractor from the staging area to the embankment location(s) and placed as engineered fill in thin controlled and compacted

lifts. The ultimate embankment will have a maximum height of 335 ft from crest to downstream toe and a crest width of 75 ft. Downstream

slope angles for all stages of construction will be a minimum of 2.5H:1V. Two general types of embankment construction methods will be

utilized including:

●

Main

Embankment Dam: Centerline Raise Construction

●

North

Embankment Dams: Downstream Raise Construction.

The

initial starter embankment constructed for Stage 1 will have a maximum height of 92 ft from crest to the downstream toe. Based on the

milling schedule presented in Table 13-1, Stage 1 is designed to store approximately 15.25 Mt over an eight-month period at a tailings

production rate of 57,000 tons per day and a dry density of 74 pcf. After completion of the starter embankment, the embankment crest

will be raised in stages utilizing a combination of downstream and centerline construction methods as presented on Figure 15-11 and Figure

15-12.

Figure

15-11: TMF Main Dam Section

Source:

WSP, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 208

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15- 12: TMF North Dam Section

Source:

WSP, 2026

Centerline

Raise Construction method will be used for subsequent raises of the main embankment. The second stage of development will store three

years of tailings, while subsequent stages will each accommodate between five and eight years of additional tailings storage.

chimney drain will be installed along the dam centerline to control seepage through the dam and maintain a drained downstream zone for

stability. Geomembrane liner will be installed in the impoundment and along the dam foundation beneath the embankment terminating at

the containment berm downstream of the chimney drain.

Downstream

Raise Construction method will be used for the ridge and saddle dams of the north embankment. downstream construction and will be accomplished

by extending a new embankment against the existing downstream slope of the previous stage and then raising the embankment to the new

crest elevation for each stage. The upstream face of the North Embankment will be lined with geomembrane for all raises of the embankment.

A chimney drain will not be installed, since the upstream face of the embankment is lined with geomembrane.

15.5.2.2

Containment

and Underdrain System

general, the TMF impoundment area is gently sloping to the northwest and well-suited for a geomembrane liner system. Basin grading will

consist of clearing and grubbing native vegetation, removing and stockpiling growth medium material for use during reclamation, and smoothing

surface irregularities to promote gravity drainage to the reclaim pond.

80-mil HDPE geomembrane liner will be installed to cover the entire basin on top of a prepared bedding layer and will extend beneath

the main embankment to the containment berm below the chimney drain.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 209

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

underdrain piping system will be placed above the basin geomembrane liner and will collect tailings seepage within the basin and convey

the tailings water by gravity through the embankment to the Underdrain Collection Pond located at the downstream toe of the main embankment.

The underdrain system will consist of a network of regularly spaced perforated dual-wall pipes bedded in drainage gravel. Below the containment

berm the underdrain pipe will transition into a solid wall non-perforated pipe to Underdrain Collection Pond. Alluvial material will

then be placed to cover the liner and underdrain system prior to tailings deposition to act as a filter to prevent migration of tailings

into the drainage gravel.

15.5.2.3

Foundation

Settlement

The

embankments that form the TMF will be constructed primarily on dense to very dense alluvium overlying weathered bedrock which is expected

to be relatively incompressible. The alluvium that blankets the TMF site extends to a depth of up to 43 ft bgs. Based on these foundation

materials, settlements from the ultimate dam configuration are not expected to pose a risk to the TMF embankment’s structural integrity.

Piping systems can readily be updated during future design stages to accommodate any anticipated differential settlements.

15.5.2.4

Geotechnical

Stability

comply with GISTM (2020) and NAC (2014) standards, the PEA design of TMF shown in Figure 15-10 meets or exceeds the following minimum

design requirements:

●

Minimum

design static (steady-state seepage) factor of safety (FOS) of 1.50.

●

Minimum

design pseudo-static factor of safety of 1.10

●

Seismic

design criteria based on the GISTM 2020 failure consequence classification of Very High are:

○

the

design earthquake during operations is the 1 in 5,000-year return event. The peak ground acceleration for this event is estimated

to be 0.273 g.

○

the

design earthquake post closure is the 1 in 10,000-year return event. The PGA for this event is estimated to be 0.398 g.

two-dimensional (2-D) limit-equilibrium (LEM) stability modeling was used to evaluate the stability of the dam in operational and closure

conditions under both static and earthquake loads. While liquefaction potential of the tailings and foundation materials is a possibility,

the post-earth earthquake liquefied condition was not evaluated for PEA design. Effects of liquefaction on TMF performance and stability

are credible risks and must be addressed in future phases of design.

pseudo-static analysis is a type of LEM analysis was used as a screening tool to assess the stability of a slope under loading from the

design earthquake. In this analysis, stability models were used to determine the Factor of Safety (FOS) of the slope when subjected to

seismic loading from the design earthquake event. To comply with GISTM (2020) for a Very High consequence classification dam, the seismic

design events were selected according to Table 15-6.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 210

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

15- 6: Selected Ground Motions and Associated Seismic Coefficients

Pseudo-static

Model

Probabilistic

SHA Results

Probability

of Exceedance

(Return

period)

Mean

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), g

Seismic

Coefficient, k (G)

Operations

(Active Care)

in 50 years (4,975 year)

0.273

0.182

Closure

(Passive Care)

0.5%

in 50 years (9,975 year)

0.398

0.265

All

the calculated FOS were found to be above the minimum criterion which the prefeasibility dam, as designed, is deemed to be stable with

respect to geotechnical, geometric, and seismic loading conditions evaluated. These analyses are preliminary, and the level of both field

and laboratory geotechnical characterization used to support these analyses were completed at a prefeasibility level.

15.5.2.5

TMF

Surface Water Management

TMF

Surface Water management is addressed in Section 15.10.2.2.

15.5.2.6

Monitoring

support construction-level design and permitting, a detailed geotechnical monitoring plan will be prepared that defines the roles and

responsibilities of key stakeholders (Owner, operator, engineer) for safe and stable TMF construction and operation. Monitoring will

be accomplished through both measurements of monitoring points (e.g., survey monuments, piezometers readings), and visual observations

of surface conditions.

15.5.2.7

Closure

The

TMF conceptual closure and reclamation plan is shown on Figure 15-13. The general closure design strategy includes construction of a

durable cover system that can generally remain in passive care for the main cover system with active care required for maintenance of

surface water channels and as needed for monitoring. Growth medium stripped during TMF construction should be stockpiled for future placement

on the TMF surface and exposed embankment surfaces during reclamation.

The

downstream embankments that form the TMF have been designed with 2.5H to 1V downstream slopes that are sufficiently flat for effective

revegetation. The tailings surface will be covered with a layer of rockfill overlain by stockpiled growth medium and revegetated. Capping

of the tailings will start at the end of deposition of Stage 8 on areas where the tailings have reached final elevation. Capping material

is expected to be sourced from onsite locations. Cover infiltration modeling has not been performed for this PEA to support estimation

of closure cover thickness required on the tailings surface. For this Prefeasibility Study, Golder selected a three-foot-thick composite

soil cover system above the final tailings surface (2 ft of waste rock and one foot of growth medium) and a one-foot-thick growth

medium layer above the downstream embankment slopes. The closure cover will be graded with drainage swales to convey surface runoff to

the closure spillway to the south of the main embankment. Surface water will be conveyed and discharged into the natural drainage north

of the Underdrain and Event Ponds.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 211

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

closure systems will be designed to have the same characteristics as the pre-development natural drainage systems. The closure spillway

will be designed to convey the inflow resulting from the 10,000-year, 24-hour storm, assuming the permanent diversion channel overtops

onto the TMF closure surface. Maintenance may be required to provide repair for any damage created by larger or more intense storms.

Figure

15-13: TMF Closure Plan

Source:

WSP, 2026

15.6

Waste

Rock Storage Facility

The

Hycroft project will feature a WRSF, to store all non-mineralized materials from the pits. Initially, there will be two facilities,

one to the west and one to the south. By the end of Mine Year 10, the two facilities will begin to merge into one single facility that

is on the southwest perimeter of the developing pit.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 212

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-14 Waste Rock Storage Facilities

Source:

IMC, 2026

Slope

stability analyses, material properties, and stacking geometry were the basis for foundation and dump formation design conditions. The

dump will generally have inter-bench slope angle of 1.5H:1V with 50 ft high and 60 ft wide benches with some localized exceptions. The

configuration of each bench has been developed assuming that the waste rock will be stacked with an overall slope of 3H: 1V. The dump

will be built over a previously disturbed area.

Water

management for the WRSF consists of two systems: upstream diversion channels for non-contact water (water flow from natural slopes) and

a seepage collection system within the stockpile for contact water. These systems are further described in Section 15.10.3.

The

physical stability of the WRSF will be monitored using geotechnical instrumentation installed in the facilities. The proposed instrumentation

includes survey markers, vibrating wire piezometers, hydraulic piezometers and inclinometers.

Once

areas of the mine are complete, in-pit backfill may also be utilized for waste storage, if required. During closure, areas close to the

Waste Rock facility will be selected for harvesting topsoil and growth media suitable for vegetative growth.

15.7

Power

and Electrical

Power

is currently supplied to the site via nearby power lines fed directly from the main power grid, using the grid-side substation. It is

assumed that 2 x 120 kV powerlines will be required. The estimated installed load for plant is 160 MW and estimated operating load is

124 MW. Power will have to supply the site via the Nevada Power Imlay Substation and across the existing power line corridor up to Jungo

Road and then west along Jungo Road to Site. The proposed power supply configurations can be seen below in Figure 15-15 and Figure 15-16.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 213

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-15: Proposed Power Line from Imlay Relay Station (Nevada Historical Marker 49) to Jungo Road (49 Road) - NTS

Source:

Google Maps, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 214

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-16: Proposed Power Line along Jungo Road (Road 49) to Hycroft Mine Site (in total approximately 57 miles) - NTS

Source:

Google Maps, 2026

15.8

Communication

The

site currently operates with data and telephone communications provided by microwave facilities serviced from two different locations,

alongside a 140-foot tower near the administration building, providing cellular communications throughout the site. Voice and data are

already distributed throughout the mine via fiber optic cable, and cellular communication is available throughout the Mine site. If necessary,

upgrades will be provided based on assessment by the current service provider during the execution phase of the project.

15.9

Fuel

Diesel

fuel prices were provided by Hycroft at $3.76/gal for use in the economic assessment. Contracts for the purchase and delivery of the

major consumables, including fuel, are in place and are renewed on an annual or bi-annual basis. Once complete, fuel will be delivered

to site via the proposed rail spur, set to extend the existing Union Pacific rail line located north of the plant.

Fuel

on site is stored within a fuel island. Hycroft plans to replace the existing fuel island with a high efficiency fuel island in Mine

Years 3 and 4.

15.10

Water

Supply and Management

The

climate data utilized in this study were sourced from Rye Patch Dam climate station (ID 2670192-1) located approximately 32 miles southeast

of the mine site. (Golder, 2022). Monthly precipitation and pan evaporation data were obtained from this weather station. Table 15-7

provides a summary of the average monthly climate data.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 215

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

15-7: Weather Station Summary

Parameter

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average

Annual

Max

Average Temperature (°F)

42.8

49.7

57.5

65.6

84.2

94.2

92.3

83.3

70.6

54.3

44.5

67.8

Min

Average Temperature (°F)

17.7

22.5

26.2

31.2

39.2

46.2

52.3

49.4

41.5

31.8

23.8

18.3

33.3

Mean

Precipitation (in)

0.78

0.68

0.72

0.85

0.99

0.75

0.28

0.29

0.38

0.64

0.69

0.72

7.77

Mean

Pan Evaporation (in)

3.71

5.83

7.38

9.23

11.15

10.06

6.95

4.3

0.77

59.38

Table

15-8 presents the precipitation data for 24-hour storm events used in design process. Rainfall depths corresponding to a 100-year frequency

were used in the design of both the channels and ponds.

Table

15-8: Summary of Storm Event with Associated Rainfall Intensity

Return

Period

24-hour

(inches)

10-Year

1.31

100-Year

2.03

500-Year

2.58

1,000-Year

2.93

5,000-Year

3.27

10,000-Year

3.48

Existing

water management controls will remain in place for the proposed project. Additional water controls for proposed structures and the overall

site water balance are described in the following sections.

15.10.1

Fresh

Water, Fire Water and Potable Water

Hycroft

controls 16 distinct water-right permits granted from the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) in the form of either direct ownership

or through leases from other private parties. Water rights on site are controlled by 14 permits in or around the Black Rock Desert Basin.

These permits can be referenced in Table 4-1, Section 4. Hycroft currently owns a land position and water rights sufficient to support

all planned facilities and process water demands. Freshwater at site is supplied via four water wells; one of which supplies potable

water to site.

Fresh

water is needed on site for reagent mixing and preparation, processing in the crushing area, and as gland water. These water consumption

needs will be minimized where possible via the use of process water or barren solution in lieu of fresh water. An estimated 7,260 gal/min

is required for the plant.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 216

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

potable water well is located one mile south of the Crofoot Heap. Once taken from these wells, fresh water is to be transferred

to a fresh/fire water storage tank. Provisions will be made for the fresh water to be supplied from the water wells. Fresh water will

be transferred to a fresh/fire water storage tank.

addition to the existing active and inactive freshwater production wells located at the well field southwest of the mine, an additional

four wells shall be installed to deliver freshwater to site. A budget has been included to upgrade the existing freshwater pumps and

include off-plot piping for a freshwater pipeline to a new freshwater tank at the process plant. The power supply to the new production

wells is planned for the existing power line servicing the existing well field assuming it is sufficient.

15.10.2

Tailings

Water Management

15.10.2.1

Tailing

Deposition Management and Return Water

Slurry

pumps at the tailings thickener will send concentrated tailings to the TMF through a tailings transport (delivery) pipeline at a solids

concentration of 48% wt/wt. The tailings transport pipeline will consist of a pipe laid in an HDPE-lined containment channel. A tailings

distribution system placed around the perimeter of each stage of TMF expansion will allow deposition in the basin using thin-layer subaerial

deposition methods.

The

distribution system has been designed by Ausenco and will include a 36” diameter distribution manifold and distribution

branch pipelines, and valves and spigots. Tailings will be spigoted from the south, west, and east sides of the TMF to create a supernatant

pool to the south near the Main Embankment. Focused spigoting from the Main Embankment will control the pool away from the embankment.

The

return water pipeline from the TMF to the plant has been designed by Ausenco and will consist of a carrier pipeline within an HDPE-lined

containment channel. In the first stage(s) of operation, underflow and decant water from the TMF will drain to the Underdrain Collection

Pond, where all of the return water will then be pumped to the plant for reuse. In later years, barge mounted pumps will be installed

in the TMF and a majority of the return water would be pumped directly to the plant from the supernatant pool. The Underdrain Collection

Pond pumps would thereafter be used only for underflow water draining from the underdrain pipe system and embankment chimney drain.

15.10.2.2

TMF

Surface Water Management

During

operation, temporary storm water diversion channels will be constructed around the TMF impoundment to convey runoff around the proposed

TMF ultimate footprint. Temporary stormwater diversion channels will be constructed at 0.5% grade for each stage of TMF construction.

Temporary channels are sized to convey peak flows from the 25-yr, 24-hour storm, while maintaining 6” of freeboard,

and convey flows from the 100-year, 24-hour storm with no freeboard. Any precipitation that runs off downslope of the temporary stormwater

diversion channels will report to the impoundment area and will subsequently flow into the Underdrain Pond or Event Pond. During closure,

all temporary diversion channels will be reclaimed and water will be managed by channels on the surface of the TMF.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 217

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

permanent diversion system will be constructed during Stage 1 and will remain in place during the life of the TMF and into long-term

closure. The permanent diversion channel is sized to convey peak flows from the 100-yr, 24-hour storm, while maintaining 6”

of freeboard. The permanent diversion channel was design to handle flows from up to the 500-year, 24-hour storm, with no freeboard,

to prevent surface runoff from contacting the TMF.

The

TMF supernatant pool and dam crest were designed to consider 2ft of freeboard above the tailings surface during each stage in

operations. However, the main embankment crest elevations consider inflow from storm events assuming the permanent diversion channel

fails during extreme storms. During normal operation, the TMF is designed to contain all process fluids, annual precipitation, and storm

flows resulting from the 1 in 100-year, 24-hour storm event falling on the impoundment catchment area below the temporary stormwater

diversion channels.

During

operation, the TMF is design to contain runoff from the 5,000-year, 24-hour storm event. During closure, the conceptual reclamation plan

consists of a cover system that includes channels on the closed tailings cover surface to manage runoff to the TMF surface and a spillway

that will convey runoff from the 10,000-year, 24-hour storm event. During long-term closure, the closure diversion channels will route

storm water over the closed TMF tailings surface to the historic supernatant pool location at the southern edge of the impoundment. A

closure spillway will be constructed through native ground to discharge surface water to the natural drainage north of the Underdrain

and Event Ponds.

15.10.3

WRSF

Water Management

15.10.3.1

WRSF

Seepage

The

proposed seepage collection system for the five dumps is made up of corrugated and perforated double-walled HDPE pipes with a diameter

of 300 mm for the main pipes, and 100 mm for the secondary pipes. The seepage collection system was sized for the 100-year, 24-hour duration

flood event. The installation of the seepage collection system will be executed during subgrade preparation and before placement of waste

rock. The seepage collection system will discharge impacted water to the downstream collection ponds.

Collection

ponds have storage depths of 15 ft and rectangular polygonal base, with 2H: 1V side slopes, based on stability analysis. These ponds

have a freeboard of 5 ft above the maximum storage level, in addition to a 1.60 ft high berm around the upper perimeter. The ponds will

be double lined with geosynthetic clay (GCL) and smooth 1.5 mm HDPE geomembrane. Water collected in seepage collected ponds will be trucked

back to the process plant for reuse.

15.10.3.2

WRSF

Surface Water Management

Diversion

channels have been designed to capture, divert, and minimize the surface runoff infiltration through the base of the waste rock dumps.

Diversion channels will discharge into natural drainage points or existing/projected structures. The dimensioning of the hydraulic structures

has been carried out based on the maximum flow values estimated for the project’s 100-year, 24-hour flood event. Diversion channels

will have a minimum slope of 2% in addition to riprap lining for erosion control. Only the Vortex, West, and Bay dumps will require the

construction of diversion channels.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 218

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.10.4

Plant

Site Stormwater Runoff and Drainage

The

proposed plant site is divided into sub-catchments. Runoff from the sub-catchments will be conveyed away from the work area with perimeter

drainage ditches and culverts. Slopes between pads of the process plant will be erosion protected with hydromulch. Ditches and culverts

will convey stormwater to a sedimentation pond located to the south of the process plant adjacent to the oxygen plant. Mine affected

runoff within the project area will be captured and recycled for us as process water.

Plant

site ditches, culverts and the stormwater pond were sized based for one in 100-year, 24-hour duration flood event. The pond will have

a storage capacity of 9,850 yd3 with 1 vertical to 2.5 horizontal internal side slopes and will be lined with HDPE liner and

will serve the secondary purpose of emergency containment for spills from the process plant tanks. The design of the pond includes a

spillway for excess stormwater to be released to the environment in the southwest direction away from the plant after sedimentation of

particles.

15.10.5

Site

Water Balance

LOM water balance model was developed using GoldSim© software and considers the full life cycle of the Project. Key mine facilities

and water management processes are represented in the model, in addition to modeling surface water runoff. The key objectives of the

site water balance were to estimate water effluents of mine facilities and estimate make-up water requirements considering contact water

reuse.

The

site wide water balance schematic is shown in Figure 15-17.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 219

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

15-17: Hycroft Water Balance Schematic

Source:

Ausenco, 2022

The

water balance model was developed using GoldSim© software. For stochastic analyses, GoldSim© uses the Monte Carlo method to

generate monthly precipitation and evaporation time series, which are used as input climatic variable for the water balance model. A

stochastics simulation was developed using different possible precipitation sequences that may contain groups of consecutive dry or wet

years. For this purpose, synthetic series of monthly rainfall and evaporation of 15 years length were created.

The

modeling process run over 250 simulations to obtain acceptable probabilistic estimates of the effluent flows for mean percentile 1%

(dry years), and percentile 99% (wet years). Results of the water balance model in GoldSim are expressed in mean values, and those

corresponding to situations of extreme abundance and scarcity denoted by percentiles of 100 years of return period

(percentile of non-exceedance of 1% and 99% or risk of exceedance of 99% and 1%, respectively).

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 220

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

probabilistic terms used in the description of the results include:

●

Monthly

average: The average monthly flow of all the simulation was estimated.

●

Maximum

monthly with 1% of risk (p99%): Considering all the simulations, the 99% percentile of non-exceedance or 1% of monthly risk was estimated.

This means that there is a 1% probability that the reported value will be exceeded due to excess rainfall in one month of the period

of simulation.

●

Minimum

monthly with 1% of risk (p1%): Considering all the simulations, the 99% percentile of exceedance or 1% of monthly risk was estimated.

This means that there is a 1% probability that the reported value will be succeeded due to lack of rainfall in one month of the period

of simulation.

Table

15-9 shows the LOM monthly average, the maximum (p99% or wet conditions), the minimum (p1% or dry conditions) make-up water demand. Figure

15-18 shows the make-up water demand variation through the operation stage. On average, make-up water requirements start at approximately

6,500 gal/min on the first year of operations. This requirement decreases to approximately 5,000 gal/min for Years 2 through 9. Average

make-up water requirements further decrease to 4,400 gal/min for Years 10 through 13. Lastly, Years 14 and 15 have an average make-up

water demand of 3,200 gal/min.

Table

15-9: Monthly Maximum Flows Demand

Facility

Operation

Stage (gal/min)

Monthly

average

Wet

Conditions (p99%)

Dry

Conditions (p1%)

Well

System

4,694

6,967

1,861

Note:

99% percentile of non-exceedance.

Figure

15-18: Total Fresh Water Demand

Source:

Ausenco, 2022

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 221

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

15.10.6

Pit

Dewatering

SRK

Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK), working with Hycroft prepared a Technical Memorandum that describes the hydrogeologic conditions, preliminary

dewatering estimates, and associated costs for POX PFS Project. The hydrogeology of the mine and surroundings is complex. It includes

a fault associated fluid barriers/conduits, high temperature groundwater, and the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

gas. SRK conducted a three-year hydrogeologic data collection program incorporated pumping and monitoring wells, vibrating wire piezometers

(VWP’s), core hole hydraulic testing, and short and long-term aquifer testing to characterize the local and regional (to the extent

possible) groundwater system. The depth to groundwater is 700 ft below ground surface (bgs). Four depressurization wells are planned

for dewatering the pit. SRK supplied a preliminary design for the location of the dewatering pumps, and pipeline required to convey water

to the process plant from the pit. Power to these pumps will tie off existing powerlines in the area or the pumps maybe diesel-fueled

if circumstances warrant.

15.11

Hazard

Considerations

The

climate at the Hycroft Site is arid with an average precipitation of 7.7 in/a falling mostly in the spring and winter months. Winds tend

to be light in this area; however, occasional sandstorms or dust storms have been observed in spring months.

Temperatures

in winter range from an average of 20 °F at night to 40 °F during the day. Fluctuations between freezing and non-freezing temperatures

is sufficient to induce freeze–thaw cycling in near-surface soils, particularly in fine-grained or moisture-bearing materials.

Winter snowpack is light, and snow does not normally present logistical problems.

Slope

stability on site is governed by prevailing geotechnical conditions. According to the January 2012 Call & Nicholas, Inc. summary

report of the 2011 reserve pit slope stability assessment, the principal factors governing slope stability are (1) the argillically altered

Camel Conglomerate (Tc) and associated lakebed sediments (Tsg), (2) the thinly bedded siltstones of the Auld Lang Syne Formation, which

are interpreted to dip toward the pit along the east walls of the Vortex and Brimstone pits, and (3) the East Fault.

Michael

W. West and Associates Inc. (MWWAI) concluded after conducting a review of the Hycroft deterministic seismic hazard assessment in 2012,

that seismicity in the area was low to moderate with no relation to mapped faults. Additionally, he noted that no faults in the area

were classified as “active” or “capable”. According to MWWAI, these findings are consistent with the United States

Geological Survey National Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model.

15.12

Comments

on Project Infrastructure

The

Project is located within the established Hycroft Mine site and represents a brownfield development. A new sulfide ore processing plant

is proposed. This plant will be integrated into the existing mining complex via tie-ins to current crushing infrastructure, utilities,

and site services. Existing access roads across the site, in addition to many existing structures and facilities will remain in service.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 222

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

Hycroft site currently includes primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing facilities, heap leach pads, the Merrill-Crowe processing plant

complex, a refinery, administration buildings, maintenance shops, warehouse and laboratory facilities, fuel storage, and various ancillary

service structures. Communications infrastructure is in place across the site and includes microwave-serviced data and telephone systems,

fiber optic distribution, and site-wide cellular coverage.

The

mine and its staffing requirements are supported by the nearby town of Winnemucca approximately 54 miles from site. Additional workforce

may be drawn from the other nearby towns of Lovelock and Gerlach. Surveys indicate that the town of Winnemucca is large enough to provide

adequate housing, personal services, and transportation infrastructure to support both operational and construction workforce requirements.

A contracted bus service will provide transportation from Winnemucca to site.

Existing

community infrastructure is considered sufficient to support both current and future staffing levels, with construction personnel transported

to site via contracted bus services.

The

proposed processing facility is designed to connect to the existing crushing circuit and North Merrill-Crowe facility. The proposed scope

of work includes electrical distribution upgrades, new substations, process control systems, reagent handling facilities (including oxygen

and limestone systems), and selective expansion or repurposing of existing maintenance and administrative buildings.

The

site currently has access to grid power. Additional transmission capacity is required to support the new plant. The total estimated load

factoring for load growth, including power for the oxygen plant, is 170 MW. Tie-ins to existing utilities shall include water, compressed

air, and potable and sewer systems. The development of a freshwater production well field is also planned to support freshwater needs

throughout the LOM.

rail spur extension from the Union Pacific line is planned to support delivery of reagents, consumables, and fuel, and to facilitate

shipment of salable metals. Additionally, the existing fuel island is to be replaced with a higher-efficiency system during the LOM.

Ancillary

structures including a covered crushed ore stockpile, new laboratory and maintenance facilities, fuel station upgrades, and technical

services expansion are proposed to support operations over the LOM. In addition to this, select existing buildings will be relocated,

expanded, rehabilitated, or repurposed.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 223

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Market

Studies and Contracts

16.1

Market

Studies

Hycroft

Mining has not completed any formal marketing studies with regards to gold production that will result from the mining and processing

of ore from the Project into gold and silver doré bars. Gold and silver production is expected to be sold on the spot market,

with the terms and conditions of sales contracts expected to be typical of similar contracts for the sale of doré throughout the

world. Gold and silver are principal precious metals traded at spot prices for immediate delivery. The market for gold and silver is

very liquid with many buyers and sellers - trading typically spans 24 hours/day across multiple locations around the world, making

it straightforward to obtain a reliable market price at any time. The depth and stability of these markets support the expectation that

gold and silver doré produced from the Project can be sold throughout the LOM.

16.2

Commodity

Price Projections

The

economic analysis for the Project was performed assuming a base case gold and silver price of US$3,600/oz and US$48.00/oz respectively.

These prices are based on the average of long-term consensus price forecasts from numerous financial institutions as of April 2026.

16.3

Contracts

Hycroft

has not at this stage entered into agreements related to refining Hycroft products, transporting products to market or smelting facilities,

or insuring doré and/or concentrate products. As of this time, Hycroft does not have open hedging contracts or forwards agreements

for their products. Marketing of doré is expected to be arranged through contractual relationships with major refineries for secure

transportation of metal and refining. The cost of transporting and refining doré included in the economic analysis are US$5.00/oz

for gold and US$0.50/oz for silver, based on terms recently published for comparable projects. Transportation and treatment contracts

are not currently in place, though easily obtainable.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 224

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Environmental

Studies, Permitting, and Plan, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups

17.1

Overview

This

section provides an environmental overview of the Project. It outlines existing biological and physical baseline conditions, proposed

new baseline studies to support future permitting, existing permits, and permitting requirements to support the proposed revisions to

the Project. This section also discusses socio-economic baseline conditions, community engagement, and conceptual mine closure and reclamation

planning for the Project.

The

Mine is located on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private land controlled by Hycroft Resources and

Development, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hycroft Mining Holding Company. The Mine lies within the Sulfur Mining District, approximately

54 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. Access to the site is via Jungo Road (a Humboldt County maintained road).

Hycroft

is authorized for ore extraction and processing, water management, engineering, environmental studies, and exploration. Existing facilities

on site include two administration buildings, a laboratory, a mobile maintenance shop, a light vehicle maintenance shop, a warehouse,

leach pads, primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing systems, two Merrill-Crowe process plants, and a refinery. The Mine is permitted

for both heap leach and milling operations.

Hycroft

is proposing the development of new infrastructure to support the requirements of the modified Project. Updates include construction

of the North TMF, Waste Rock Storage Facilities (WRSF), rail spurs, and a new process plant area.

17.2

Environmental

Considerations

17.2.1

Baseline

and Supporting Studies

The

Mine has conducted numerous environmental baseline studies as part of their previous permitting efforts and continues to collect certain

environmental baseline data. The Mine area has been surveyed for surface water resources, including Waters of the United States (WOTUS),

biological resources, cultural resources, and groundwater resources. These studies include:

●

Summary

of Field Investigations and Conceptual Hydrogeology Report (2013)

●

Hydrogeologic

Characterization Report (2014)

●

Baseline

Spring Inventory and Surface Water Monitoring, Hycroft Mine (2014)

●

Rock

and Water Baseline Characterization for the Phase II Expansion Project – Hycroft Mine (2014)

●

Air

Quality Impact Analysis (2017).

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 225

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

17.2.1.1

Hydrology

and Climate

The

Mine lies on the eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert, and there are no streams, rivers, or lakes in the immediate vicinity of the Project.

Spring baseline surveys have been conducted biannually since 2011 within a 10-mile radius around the Mine. A total of 31 sites were identified

in the baseline study. These included natural springs, man-made springs, and seasonal wetted areas. Nine of the sites were identified

for monitoring to evaluate surface water resources near the Mine. Additionally, JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. conducted spring

surveys in 2012 and 2013 encompassing 560 square miles west of the Mine to assess whether groundwater pumping at the mine would impact

other springs in the Black Rock Desert. Survey data and groundwater modeling predictions did not indicate drawdown would extend near

any of the inventoried springs.

The

Mine is in a semi-arid high desert environment, and climate is controlled primarily by the Sierra Nevada Range with minimal rainfall.

Climate data including precipitation, temperature, and pan evaporation have been obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center’s

database for the National Weather Service Cooperative Station at the Rye Patch Dam. The station is located approximately 32 miles from

the Mine at a similar elevation and provides data from 1935-2012. The recorded precipitation at the Rye Patch Dam weather station averaged

8.93” annually. Additional precipitation data were collected at the Mine weather station from 2010-2012 and from

the Rye Patch Dam weather station. Annual pan evaporation at the Rye Patch Dam is 59.38 in/a and the recorded average temperature is

51 °F.

17.2.1.2

Hydrogeology

total of 16 wells and 23 piezometers are installed to evaluate the hydrogeologic baseline conditions at the Mine, with the majority of

data being collected between 2010 and 2013. Instrumentation is located throughout the Mine site and completed in a variety of geologic

formations representing the site. Static groundwater varies from 20 to 800 ft bgs and varies from 150 to 800 ft bgs directly beneath

the mining operations. Groundwater generally flows southeast to northwest from recharge in the volcanic highlands to discharge in the

alluvial basin beneath the Black Rock Desert. Results are summarized in detail in the Hydrogeologic Characterization Report and the Summary

of Field Investigations and Conceptual Hydrogeology Report which were both developed in 2013 in support of the Phase II Expansion Project.

17.2.1.3

Soils,

Vegetation and Wildlife Monitoring

The

Mine released a Biological Baseline Report in 2019 that incorporated the results of 2014, 2015, and 2016 surveys conducted since the

original release of the report in 2012. The report also included clarifications, edits, and missing information requested by BLM, as

well as revised information based on updated Project details. The report focuses on soil, vegetation, and wildlife surveys and provides

background consultation with regulatory agencies, as well as field methodologies and survey results. The combined surveys areas make

up the “Biological Survey Area,” which encompasses the proposed area of disturbance of the Project. BLM has stated that any

new areas that would be disturbed would require baseline surveys.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 226

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Eight

soil units have been mapped by Natural Resources Conservation Service within the 2012-2014 Biological Survey Area. The soil units are

described both in the Soil Survey of Humboldt County, Nevada, West Part (NRCS, 2003) and Soil Survey of Pershing Country, Nevada, West

Part (NRCS, 1998). There are no serious limitations related to soil quality that would limit the proposed development or future reclamation

efforts.

Stantec

completed vegetation surveys of the Biological Survey Area in 2012 and 2014, which included vegetation community mapping, floristic inventory,

and noxious, invasive, and non-native species surveys. Twenty-eight vegetation communities were mapped, with the dominant communities

being Desert Scrub-Wyoming Sagebrush (28%), Shadscale-Annual Grassland (23%), and Desert Scrub (10%). One noxious weed species, the five-stamen

tamarisk, was identified during the surveys.

Eleven

occurrences of one BLM sensitive plant species, sand cholla, were noted within the Biological Survey Area. As with all cacti in Nevada,

the sand cholla is a protected cactus species, which requires a permit prior to commercial harvest. Botanists also identified 700 buckwheat

occurrences, which is a known host plant to insects on the BLM Winnemucca District’s special status species list.

Overall,

there is no presence of BLM sensitive plant species present on or near the Project which would present limitations to the proposed Project

updates.

Stantec

completed wildlife surveys of the Biological Survey Area from 2012-2016. Surveys ranged from General Wildlife surveys to more targeted

surveys studying migratory birds, bats, western burrowing owls, greater sage-grouse, and various butterfly species.

BLM

sensitive species identified during the surveys were:

●

Brewer’s

sparrow

●

Sage

thrasher

●

Loggerhead

shrikes

●

Western

burrowing owl.

Baseline

surveys also identified the BLM sensitive species golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in and around the Project site. The Biological Baseline

Report details the results of golden eagle nest surveys conducted from 2012-2016, including information on nest condition, nest status,

and the number of young. Eagles observed to be off the nest were checked for any evidence of nesting behavior, such as mated pairs, territorial

defense, carrying nest material, or transporting food. Annual raptor and golden eagle surveys are completed annually, and results are

submitted to the BLM as stand-alone reports.

The

proposed modifications to the recovery process will not impact on the footprint of planned disturbance for the Project, and therefore

additional wildlife baseline studies may not be required to support the Plan of Operations amendment.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 227

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

17.2.1.4

Geochemistry

The

Mine has a waste rock characterization program which is performed in phases related to approved or proposed mining areas. Most recently,

Phase 4 of the program was completed to collect additional data for the Phase II Expansion Project to ensure it is spatially representative

of the material proposed to be mined as part of the Project. Static testing was completed to address total acid generating or neutralizing

potential of the samples and concentration of constituents in leachates derived from the material. Kinetic testing for this Project is

the standard humidity cell test (HCT) procedure.

The

Phase 3 and 4 programs also included analysis of ore grade material, with 56 samples being collected and analyzed. From ABA testing,

all but one ore grade sample showed uncertain potential for acid generation or potential for acid generation. ABA and NAG for ore grade

samples fall within the same range as waste rock samples.

Pit

wall and floor samples have been collected to evaluate geochemical interactions between groundwater, pit walls, and the water quality

of the pit lake over time. The pit wall and floor sample are composed of the same material identified and characterized during the Phase

1-4 waste rock programs. Kinetic testing has shown that the submerged pit walls in a post mining environment have the potential to generate

acid and leach metals into the anticipated lake.

Three

types of tailings materials were analyzed as part of the Rail Spur Project EA: 26 variability composites, 6 master domain composites,

and 8 bulk samples representing tailings. The samples underwent whole rock analysis, ABA, NAG testing, meteoric water mobility procedure

testing, and mineralogy testing, and were deemed to be representative of site materials.

17.2.1.5

Air

Quality

The

Mine is located within the Humboldt and Pershing Counties, which lies within Air Quality Hydrographic Basin 28, which is unclassified

for PM10, CO, SO2, and NOx. In 2017, Stantec completed an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for the Phase II Expansion Project,

which was later updated in 2018. The study includes near-field dispersion modeling to determine impacts of the Phase II Expansion Project

against the Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The study included ancillary sources

of emissions such as lime silos, storage tanks, and lighting plants, as well as fugitive, process, and traffic emissions. Monitoring

data from the Lehman Caves in Great Basin National Park was utilized to simulate background concentrations of pollutants of concern in

the Mine area. Modeling suggests that emissions from the approved Project will fall well below the lowest applicable air quality standards

for all constituents.

17.2.2

Environmental

Monitoring

The

Mine has developed a series of environmental management and monitoring plans which are required to guide the development and operation

of the Project to limit environmental impacts. These plans are developed to address legal requirements and committed Environmental Protection

Measures (EPMs) made by the Mine during Project permitting and recent Plan of Operations amendments.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 228

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

following is a list of Hycroft Environmental Management and Monitoring Plans:

●

Waste

Rock Management Plan

●

Quality

Assurance Plan

●

Eagle

Conservation Plan

●

Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan

●

Solid

and Hazardous Waste Management Plan

●

Noxious

Weed Monitoring and Control Plan

●

Interim

Closure Plan

●

Monitoring

Plan

●

Surface

Area Disturbance Dust Control Plan

●

Lighting

Management Plan

●

Historic

Properties Treatment Plan.

17.2.3

Water

Management

Details

of the water management protocols have been included in each of the permits. These include, but not limited to, specific designated measuring

and monitoring locations, sample schedules, sample sizes, testing parameters, reporting protocols, internal and third-party reviews and

summaries, and notification protocols for any non-conformances or irregularities. Specifically, water management requirements are outlined

in the Plan of Operation Permit, Permit to Operate a Public Water System, Water Pollution Control Permits, and each of the Pond Permits.

17.3

Permitting

Considerations

The

Mine operates under a series of permits which are issued by both federal and state regulators. Table 17-1 highlights the permits necessary

to operate the Mine. The permits listed in bold are likely to require updates based on the proposed revisions to the Project.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 229

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

17-1: Current Major Environmental Permits and Permits Necessary to Operate the Mine

Operating

Permits

Issuing

Agency

Number

Status

Plan

of Operations

BLM

N64641

Current

Mercury

Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

AP1041-2255

Current

Class

I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

AP1041-2964

Current

Class

II Air Quality Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Air Pollution Control

AP1041-0334.05

Current

Permit

to Operate a Public Water System

NDEP

Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

HU-0864-12NTNC

Current

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Crofoot Project

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

NEV60013

Current

Water

Pollution Control Permit-Hycroft Mine

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

NEV94114

Current

(Application Shield)

Reclamation

Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Mining Regulation & Reclamation

134

Current

Mining

General Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

NDEP

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

NVR

300000

Current

Class

III Landfill Waiver

NDEP

Bureau of Waste Management

F-346

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (Brimstone Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

S34481

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

S36665

Current

Artificial

Pond Permit (North Process Ponds)

Department of Wildlife

S36661

Current

Septic

Onsite Disposal

NDEP

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

GNEVOSD09L-0048

Current

Dam

Safety Permits

Division of Water Resources

J-273

Current

Hazardous

Materials Storage Permit

State Fire Marshal

8250

Current

Special

Use Permit

Pershing

County

SUP

12-04

Current

Special

Use Permit

Humboldt

County

UH-12-04

Current

Golden

Eagle Take Permit

Fish & Wildlife Service

MB90099B-0

Current

17.3.1

Federal

Permits

17.3.1.1

Bureau

of Land Management Plan of Operations

The

Mine is currently authorized to operate under a Plan of Operations (Plan) (NVN-064641) under 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3809

which has gone through several amendments. In 2012, the BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for an EIS conducted for the Mine to expand

their heap leach operations, open pits, and waste rock facilities. In 2014, the BLM issued a Decision Record with an EA authorizing Hycroft’s

Plan of Operations for construction and operations of a rail spur, open pit expansion, and construction of a processing complex, including

the TMF located northeast of the mine.

The

Mine is preparing materials for a modification to the Plan of Operations to propose the following updates to the Project.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 230

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

New

process plant that will be separate from the existing crushing facility and North Merril Crowe facility. The process plant will feature:

●

modifications

to existing crush circuit conveyor layout with additional feeders and a new rock breaker

●

new

process plant, including:

○

new

grinding circuit with four ball mills

○

new

multistage flotation circuit

○

new

POX circuit including lime boil tanks

○

new

leach circuit.

●

new

process control room, power distribution lines, grids, substations, and electrical rooms to support the processing plant

●

new

TMF located northeast of the Mine

●

new

access roads to the process plant and TMF, as well as a TMF construction haul road

●

additional rail siding of the existing Union Pacific rail line located in the NW location of the plant

●

WRSF

features additional waste rock dumps

The

review and approval process for the revisions to the Plan Application by the BLM constitutes a federal action under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM regulations. Thus, for the BLM to process the Plan Application, they are required to comply with NEPA and prepare

either an EA, or an EIS.

17.3.1.2

Bureau

of Land Management Pre-Application Planning

part of the pre-plan application planning process with the BLM, an initial meeting is scheduled between the proponent and the BLM to

discuss the anticipated scope of the amended mining operation and to review the likely environmental resource baseline data needed for

the processing of the Plan Amendment by the BLM. This initial meeting generally occurs prior to the submittal of the Plan Application,

depending on the anticipated complexity of the mining operations and baseline data needs, which varies for each Project.

The

process for collecting baseline data generally includes the development of baseline data collection work plans, which are submitted to

the BLM for review and approval prior to initiating the baseline data collection. Following approval, field surveys are conducted to

collect relevant baseline data. Depending on the environmental resources to be evaluated, desktop studies may be utilized in lieu of

field surveys. Findings of the field surveys are then summarized in a report that documents the data collected. These technical reports

are then submitted to the BLM for review and approval. In some cases, the baseline data collection process will also involve the State

of Nevada, depending on the resource being assessed, particularly for geochemical and hydrological surveys.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 231

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

most recent baseline data for the Project was collected as part of the 2019 EIS process. Additions to baseline data, and additional studies

may be required as part of the proposed revisions to the Project.

17.3.1.3

Plan

of Operations Processing

The

Plan Application is submitted to the BLM and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Bureau of Mining Regulation &

Reclamation (BMRR) for any surface disturbance in excess of five acres. The Plan Application describes the operational procedures for

the construction, operation, and closure of the Project. As required by the BLM and BMRR, the Plan Application includes a waste rock

management plan, quality assurance plan, a stormwater plan, a spill prevention plan, a reclamation plan, a monitoring plan, and an interim

management plan. In addition, a reclamation report with a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) for the closure of the Project is required.

The content of the Plan Application is based on the Mine plan design and the data gathered as part of the environmental baseline studies.

The Plan Application includes all mine and processing design information and mining methods. The BLM determines the completeness of the

Plan Application and, when the completeness letter is submitted to the proponent, the NEPA process begins. The RCE is reviewed by both

agencies, and the bond is determined prior to the BLM issuing a decision record on the Plan Application and BMRR issuing the Nevada Reclamation

Permit (NRP).

The

Plan Application will be submitted for the Project when operational and baseline surveys are complete, and operations and designs for

the Project are at a level where a Plan Application can be developed to the necessary level of detail. Key baseline reports for the Project

will be included in the Plan Application submittal to the BLM and BMRR.

The

BLM will need to complete their administrative review of the Plan Application and issue a determination prior to moving on to the NEPA

process.

17.3.1.4

Golden

Eagle Take Permit

Golden

eagles were observed in and around the Project site during environmental baseline studies. The Mine is working directly with the BLM

and the USFWS on the management of this species and submits annual survey reports to the BLM. As part of the permitting process, the

Mine will submit a golden eagle take permit application to USFWS requesting authorization to remove inactive golden eagle nests and incidental

take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).

17.3.1.5

National

Environmental Policy Act

The

NEPA process is triggered by the issuance of a Completeness letter for the Plan Application. The NEPA review process is completed with

either an EA or an EIS.

The

EA process is conducted in accordance with NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 et. seq.), BLM, as lead federal agency, guidelines for implementing

the NEPA in BLM Handbook H-1790-1 (updated January 2008), and BLM Washington Office Bulletin 94-310. The intent of the EA or the EIS

is to assess the direct, indirect, residual, and cumulative effects of the Project and to determine the significance of those effects.

Scoping is conducted by the BLM and includes a determination of the environmental resources to be analyzed in the EA or the EIS, as well

as a degree of analysis for each environmental resource. The scope of the cumulative analysis is also addressed during the scoping process.

Following scoping and baseline information review, the EA or the EIS is prepared. When the BLM determines the EA or the EIS is complete,

it will be submitted to the public for review. Comments received from the public would be incorporated into either a revised EA or the

decision record, and for the EIS either a final EIS or a Record of Decision. Under an EA, there can be no significant impact. The preparation

of an EIS is a lengthier and more expensive process than an EA. The Project proponent pays the third-party contractor to prepare the

EIS and pays recovery costs to the BLM for any work on the Project by BLM specialists.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 232

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

17.3.2 State

of Nevada Permits

There

are several environmental permits issued by the NDEP. NDEP will issue permits that address water and air pollution, as well as land reclamation.

The Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) issues water rights for the use and management of water.

17.3.2.1 Nevada

Reclamation Permit

Hycroft

currently operates under a NRP under the Nevada Administrative Code [NAC] 519A) (Plan Application) issued by the NDEP. Hycroft will need

to modify the NRP from the BMRR to include construction, operation, and reclamation details as applicable to the modified Project design.

The contents of the modification are prescribed in the NAC Section 519A.140. Based on the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM

and NDEP, a joint application is submitted to the BLM and BMRR that addresses the requirements of the modified Plan and NRP.

17.3.2.2 Water

Pollution Control Permit

The

water pollution control permits (WPCPs) from the BMRR will be revised to include the updated designs to construct, operate, and close

a mining facility in the State of Nevada. The contents of the application are prescribed in the NAC Section 445A.394 through 445A.399.

The revised WPCP applications for the Project will be updated based on the following:

● Open

pit mining, with an anticipated post-mining pit lake formation.

● Storage

of non-acid and acid generating waste rock.

● Exploration.

● Dewatering

and water management.

● Mill,

NTF, and process plant management.

● Ancillary

facilities that include stormwater diversions, and sediment control basin.

WPCP

applications include an engineering design for waste rock storage areas and mill/tailings facilities, waste rock characterization reports,

hydrogeological summary reports, engineering design for process components including methods for the control of stormwater runoff, and

containment reports detailing specifications for containment of process fluids. Applications will also contain the appropriate WPCP plans,

including a process fluid management plan, a monitoring plan, an emergency response plan, a temporary closure plan, and a tentative plan

for permanent closure of the Mine.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 233

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

17.3.2.3 Air

Quality Operating Permits

The

Mine currently operates under a Class II Air Quality Operating Permit, a Mercury Operating Permit, and a Class I Operating Permit to

Construct which include the Gyro Crushing Circuit, lime silos, and the Mill Project. A new Operating Permit to Construct could be required

by the NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC) for a roasting plant, and the existing permits may need to be revised to reflect the

proposed changes to the Project. The permit modification applications would include specifics on each process component that could emit

air pollutants and a detailed emissions inventory, as well as air quality modeling. The application preparation and processing time frame

ranges from three to nine months, depending on the type of permit.

17.3.2.4 Water

Rights

The

Mine currently holds 16 separate water rights permits administered by the NDWR. These rights are leased to Hycroft. The water resources

to support the Mine are held under 14 of the water rights permits in the Black Rock Desert Basin and a total of 21,457.95 acre-ft/a

(6.99 billion gal of water per year). The remaining two water rights permits are held outside of the Black Rock Desert Hydrographic Basin

and are used to support maintenance of Jungo Road.

The

proposed changes to the Project are not expected to materially change the water requirements of the operation, and thus the existing

water rights permits will provide sufficient water to support those changes.

17.3.3 Additional

Permits and Authorizations

addition to the principal environmental permits outlined above, Table 17-2 lists other notifications or ministerial permits that may

likely be necessary to operate the Project.

Table

17-2: Ministerial Permits, Plans and Notifications

Notification/Permit

Agency

Timeframes

Above

Ground Storage Tank Permit

Nevada

Bureau of Corrective Actions

to six months to register. Cost is $100/tank per year and a requirement to perform monthly visual inspections.

Agreement

for Road Maintenance

Humboldt

and Pershing Counties

to six months to negotiate the agreement with the county roads department and the county commission.

Explosives

Permit

Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

n/a

Explosives

User’s License (User’s Clearance)

Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

n/a

Fire

and Life Safety

Nevada

State Fire Marshal

Approximately

one month for review and approval. Applicant to submit a notification letter prior to construction and operation.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 234

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Notification/Permit

Agency

Timeframes

Hazardous

Materials Permit

Nevada

State Fire Marshal

Approximately

two months for review and approval. Applicant must submit a notification letter 30 days prior to the start of operations and then

annually by March 1st of each year.

Industrial

Artificial Pond Permit

Nevada

Department of Wildlife

Four

weeks

Leach

Pad Commencement

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

One

week

Leach

Pad As-Built Report

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Four

weeks

Process

Plant As-Built Report

Nevada

Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Four

weeks

Dam

Safety Permit

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

Two

months

Mine

ID Number

Mine

Safety & Health Administration

One

week

Mine

Opening Notification

Nevada

Division of Minerals

One

week

Mine

Registry

Nevada

Division of Minerals

One

week

Notification

of Commencement of Operations

Mine

Safety & Health Administration

One

week

Production/Dewatering

Wells - Proof of Completion

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

One

week

Radio

License

Federal

Communications Commission

One

week

RCRA

Waste Mgt. ID - Mine

Nevada

Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Two

weeks

Well

Drilling Permit (Notice of Intent to Drill)

Nevada

Division of Water Resources

One

week

Potable

Water System

Nevada

Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

Eight

months

Septic

System

Nevada

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Six

months to prepare application (including the mercury control system) and process to obtain the permit.

17.4 Social

Considerations

Social

and community impacts are considered and evaluated for the revision to the Plan Application and would be used in the NEPA process. Potentially

affected Native American tribes, tribal organizations, and/or individuals are consulted during the preparation of all plan amendments

to advise on the proposed projects that may affect cultural sites, resources, and traditional activities. During the most recent permitting

for the Phase II Expansion Project in 2019, the BLM engaged:

● Fort

McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe

● Fallon

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe

● Battle

Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone

● Lovelock

Paiute Tribe

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 235

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

● Pyramid

Lake Paiute Tribe

● Summit

Lake Paiute Tribe

● Winnemucca

Indian Colony.

Common

concerns raised by the tribes during consultation meetings and site visits included:

● environmental

concerns with quarries

● management

of archaeological finds, and disturbance of cultural resources such as rock stacks

● eagle

nest removal

● wildlife

issues around the North TMF.

Potential

community impacts to existing population and demographics, income, employment, economy, public finance, housing, community facilities,

and community services are evaluated for potential impacts as part of the NEPA process. There are no known social or community issues

that would have a material impact on the Project’s ability to extract mineral resources. Identified socioeconomic issues (employment,

payroll, services and supply purchases, and state and local tax payments) are anticipated to be positive.

Should

the proposed changes to the Project initiate an EIS, there would be a public scoping process involving public open house meetings. Members

of the public are free to attend the sessions in person or provide questions in writing. In the past, public concerns have included,

but not limited to:

● air

quality impacts and emissions from the Mine

● impacts

on cultural resources

● mitigation

measures to reduce environmental impacts

● impacts

on golden eagle nests and breeding territory

● site

reclamation.

Future

Project updates will require continued engagement with Native American tribes and the public to understand concerns and identify key

mitigations to environmental and social impacts. Engagement will be carried out by the proponent as well as regulators such as BLM and

USFWS.

17.4.1 National

The

preservation of historic places and culturally significant resources is considered when a Project is being permitted. Updates to the

Project may require additional assessment to determine whether any NRHP-eligible sites and culturally sensitive resources, such as rock

stacks, would be affected by the new Project layout. There is a risk of community concerns if the new NTF will impact culturally sensitive

areas or culturally sensitive species such as eagles.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 236

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

17.5 Closure

and Reclamation Planning

17.5.1 Closure

and Reclamation Plans

Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure (TPPC) for the Mine is in place and is currently being updated for future submission to the BMRR

with the application to modify the WPCP (NEV0094114). In the TPPC, the proposed NTF closure approach would consist of fluid management

through evaporation, covering the NTF with a geosynthetic cover and growth media, and then revegetation. The design of the process components

is not sufficiently advanced to determine the closure costs. Any residual NTF drainage will be managed with evaporation cells. Surface

management surety bonds currently total US$58.7 million with $58.3 million securing financial assurance requirements for the mine and

$0.4 million securing financial assurance requirements for the water supply well field and exploration within the Project boundary. Future

increases in reclamation bonding will either be through surety bonds supported by restricted cash balances or by letters of credit issued

by banks.

Mine

closure and reclamation will be performed in accordance with BLM and State of Nevada regulations and guidelines. Mining activities that

occur near a National Conservation Area and associated pioneer trails will require careful planning and design, and particular attention

will be paid to leaving a post-mining land configuration that minimizes visual impact. Facility expansions will continue to be designed

and constructed to meet or exceed state and federal design criteria. The WRSFs will continue to be evaluated for their potential to release

pollutants and monitored routinely in accordance with an approved waste rock management plan. After operations cease, effluent from the

heap leach facilities will be allowed to drain until the rate of flow can be passively managed through evaporation or a combination of

evaporation and infiltration. Current studies are gathering additional hydrology and geochemistry data for use in the development of

final closure plans that meet the regulatory standards. All buildings and facilities not identified for a post-mining use will be razed

during the salvage and site demolition phase.

17.5.2 Closure

Cost Estimates

Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure (TPPC) for the Mine is in place and is currently being updated for future submission to the BMRR

with the application to modify the WPCP (NEV0094114). In the TPPC, the proposed TMF closure approach would consist of fluid management

through evaporation, covering the TMF with a geosynthetic cover and growth media, and then revegetation. The design of the process components

is not sufficiently advanced to determine the closure costs. Any residual TMF drainage will be managed with evaporation cells. Surface

management surety bonds currently total US$58.7 million with $58.3 million securing financial assurance requirements for the mine and

$0.4 million securing financial assurance requirements for the water supply well field and exploration within the Project boundary. Future

increases in reclamation bonding will either be through surety bonds supported by restricted cash balances or by letters of credit issued

by banks.

17.6 Comments

on Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact

The

scope of environmental studies undertaken by Hycroft are sufficient to address all permitting and environmental review requirements.

The Mine currently holds all the necessary permits to operate. However, modifications to a number of those permits are necessary to construct

and operate and complete the updates to the project as outlined in this document.

Hycroft

has engaged in communications with all identified tribes that have expressed interest in the Project. There are no residences or towns

in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The nearest community is Winnemucca, Nevada, approximately 60 miles northeast of the Project.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 237

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18 Capital

and Operating Costs

18.1 Introduction

The

capital and operating costs described in this technical report are based on open-pit mining operations for the Hycroft project. The process

plant is designed to treat 57,100 st/d of mineralized material over a mine life of 51 years.

18.2 Capital

Costs

18.2.1 Overview

The

capital cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, which aligns with an Association for the

Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The estimate includes mining, processing,

on-site infrastructure, off-site infrastructure, project indirects, project delivery, owners’ costs, and provisions. The total

initial capital costs for the Project are estimated at US$2,434 million, including capitalized operating costs, and contingency. The

LOM sustaining costs are estimated at US$3,107 million, while the closure costs are estimated at US$243 million. The capital cost summary

is presented in Table 18-1.

Table

18-1: Capital Cost Summary

WBS

Description

Capital

Cost (US$M)

Sustaining

Cost (US$M)

Total

Cost1 (US$M)

1000

Mining

194

1,171

1,365

2000

Crushing

109

3000

Sulfide

Process

915

776

1,692

4000

Oxide

Process

5000

Waste

Rock Storage & TMF

208

515

723

6000

Onsite

Infrastructure

139

148

7000

Offsite

Infrastructure

366

409

Total

Direct Costs

1,563

2,944

4,507

8000

Indirects

382

409

9000

Provisions

448

136

584

10000

Owner’s

Costs

Total

Capital Cost

2,434

3,107

5,541

Note:

1. Totals

may not match due to rounding

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 238

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.2.2 Basis

of Estimate

The

capital cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 in U.S. dollars (US$). The estimate is based on budgetary quotations for equipment from

recent advanced studies, supplemented with Ausenco’s in-house database, and informed by Ausenco’s experience from similar

operations in North America.

The

following data were used as the basis of estimate:

● Mining

schedules.

● PEA-level

engineering design by Ausenco, including but not limited to design criteria, equipment lists,

and material take-offs (MTOs).

● Budgetary

equipment quotes from similar recently completed advanced studies.

● Additional

data such as lang factors and indirect costs from similar recently completed studies and

projects.

The

estimate also adhered to the following parameters:

● No

allowance was made for exchange rate fluctuations.

● No

escalation was added to the final estimate.

18.2.3 Mine

Capital Costs

Table

18-2 summarizes the annual mine capital costs for both initial and sustaining capital cost.

Preproduction

mine development (preproduction stripping) is shown as a separate line item at nearly US$37.4 million. All other capital is for mine

mobile equipment.

Sustaining

capital includes both equipment replacements and fleet size increases for haul trucks.

Mine

capital costs include:

● all

mine mobile equipment that are required to operate and maintain the mine

● mine

maintenance equipment, and shop tools

● an

allowance is included for the initial spare parts inventory

● mine

engineering equipment: computers, survey equipment, etc.

● a

dispatch system

● a

mine radio system.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 239

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

mine capital costs do not include:

● mine

office buildings or shop buildings

● mobile

equipment that is not required by the mine

● infrastructure

or process plant related costs

● equipment

salvage credit

● contingency.

Table

18-2: Baseline Mine Capital Cost (without Accuracy or Contingency adjustment)

Year

Mine

Equipment

Mine

Preproduction

Development

(US$M)

Total

Mine

Capital

(US$M)

Initial

Capital

Cost

(US$M)

Sustaining

Capital

(US$M)

Preproduction

111.5

–

37.4

148.9

–

123.3

–

123.3

–

19.0

–

19.0

–

1.5

–

1.5

–

25.6

–

25.6

–

20.2

–

20.2

–

11.9

–

11.9

–

1.5

–

1.5

–

20.0

–

20.0

–

42.7

–

42.7

11-15

–

50.0

–

50.0

16-20

–

44.5

–

44.5

21-25

–

214.6

–

214.6

26-30

–

32.4

–

32.4

31-35

–

74.2

–

74.2

36-40

–

26.7

–

26.7

41-45

–

162.2

–

162.2

46-51

–

30.4

–

30.4

Total

111.5

900.7

37.4

1,049.6

Accuracy2

and Contingency3

27.5

270.3

17.6

315.4

Total

139

1,171

1,365

Note:

1. Totals may not match due to rounding; 2. 10% Accuracy adjustment applied to large fleet items; 3 Includes

25% Contingency

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 240

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.2.4 Process

Capital Costs

The

selection and sizing of process equipment requirements was based on process flowsheets and process design criteria as defined in Section

14. All major equipment was sized based on the process’ mass balance, as dictated by the process design criteria, to develop a

mechanical equipment list (MEL). The MEL was then developed through recent budgetary quotations. The remaining value of the equipment

list was developed through benchmarking against recent execution projects and advanced studies. Refurbishment costs for the existing

equipment at primary crushing, heap leach, Merrill Crowe and refinery were included as part of initial capital cost.

The

process plant and infrastructure engineering design was completed to an IA-EA study level of definition, allowing for the bulk material

quantities (steel, concrete, piping, cables, instruments, etc.) to be derived for the major commodities using lang factors. Plant earthworks

costs were derived from MTOs.

The

total capital costs for the process plant are US$1,188 million. The capital cost breakdown for the process plant is summarized in Table

18-3.

Table

18-3: Process Plant Capital Cost Breakdown

WBS

Description

Initial

Costs (US$M)

2100

Primary

Crushing

10.6

2200

Coarse

Ore Storage and Reclaim

8.4

2400

Crushed

Ore Stockpile

29.3

3100

Process

Plant Building

11.7

3200

Grinding

and Screening

200.8

3300

Flotation

36.6

3400

Concentrate

Thickening & Tailing Handling

12.1

3500

Pressure

Oxidation

383.6

3600

CCD

& Cyanide Destruction

22.4

3700

Reagents

53.3

3800

Process

Services

194.1

3900

Tailings

and Reclaim

0.7

4100

Heap

Leach

2.7

4200

Brimstone

Merrill-Crowe

0.4

4400

North

Merrill-Crowe

9.2

4500

North

Refinery

3.8

Total

979.7

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 241

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.2.5 Infrastructure

Capital Costs

18.2.5.1 On-site

infrastructure

The

on-site infrastructure costs consist of bulk earthworks, power switchyard and distribution, fuel storage, sewage, potable water, plant

and infrastructure buildings, tailings facility and pipelines, temporary construction camp, and site services and mobile equipment. The

total on-site infrastructure costs are estimated at US$139 million and are illustrated in Table 18-4.

Table

18-4: On-Site Infrastructure Capital Cost Breakdown

WBS

Description

Initial

Costs (US$M)

5200

Tailing

management Facility

207.8

6100

Site

Civil Infrastructure

53.7

6200

Water

Systems

6.1

6300

Sewage,

Waste and Water Systems

0.3

6400

Electrical

Services

78.2

6800

Plant

Mobile Equipment

0.9

Total

347.0

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

18.2.5.2 Off-Site

infrastructure

The

off-site infrastructure costs consist of water supply and power supply. The cost for the HV substation, step down substation and transmission

lines are included as a lease back agreement. 10% downpayment is included as part of the initial capital. The remaining is included as

lease payment as described in Section 18.2.8.3.

The

total off-site infrastructure costs are estimated at US$43 million and are illustrated in Table 18-5.

Table

18-5: Off-Site Infrastructure Capital Cost Breakdown

WBS

Description

Initial

Costs (US$M)

7300

Rail

Spur

22.6

7400

Offsite

Power Line

20.3

Total

42.8

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

18.2.6 Indirect

Capital Costs

Indirect

costs include project preliminaries, field indirects (temporary construction facilities, camp, and associated services), commissioning

and operational readiness, vendor representative support, spares, first fills, and project delivery (engineering services and construction

management). Total indirect costs are estimated at US$382 million and are illustrated in Table 18-6.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 242

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

18-6: Indirect Capital Cost Breakdown

WBS

Description

Initial

Costs (US$M)

8100

Project

Preliminaries

34.2

8200

Temporary

Facilities

20.5

8300

Temporary

Services

82.2

8500

Cranage

1.6

8600

EPCM

Costs

205.5

8700

Commissioning

Support

3.6

8800

First

Fills/Spares

27.0

8900

Vendor

support

7.2

Total

Indirect Costs

381.8

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

18.2.7 Owner

(Corporate) Capital Costs

Owner

costs for pre-production have been estimated by factors. The estimated cost of US$41 million includes:

● owner’s

project team and expenses

● administration,

finance, insurance and legal fees

○ including

pre-production general and administrative costs

● environmental

consultation and management

● human

resources, recruiting, and training

● permitting

and regulatory compliance activities

● stakeholder

relations

● site

security.

18.2.8 Sustaining

Capital

18.2.8.1 Mining

Sustaining Costs

Down

payments, lease payments, and purchases for the mine equipment fleet scheduled throughout the LOM are capitalized through the sustaining

periods of the project.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 243

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

18-7 summarizes the mining sustaining cost estimates for the Project.

Table

18-7: Mining Sustaining Capital Costs

Year

Sustaining

Capital Cost (US$M)

123.3

–

1.5

25.6

20.2

11.9

1.5

42.7

15-Nov

16-20

44.5

21-25

214.6

26-30

32.4

31-35

74.2

36-40

26.7

41-45

162.2

46-51

30.4

Total

900.7

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

18.2.8.2 Process

Sustaining Costs

The

sustaining costs for the process plant are associated with the refurbishment and maintenance required for the process plant equipment

incurred every five years from Year 20 to Year 45. The total sustaining capital cost is estimated at US$892 million.

18.2.8.3 Infrastructure

Sustaining Costs

The

sustaining capital costs for the on-site infrastructure are associated with the staged expansion of the TMF in Years 3, 8, 13, 22, 31,

and 43. These costs also include EPCM and contingency costs associated with the construction of the TMF. The total sustaining capital

cost is estimated at US$678 million.

The

sustaining capital costs for the off-site infrastructure are associated with the lease payments for the HV substation, step down substation

and transmission lines. Total lease payments of US$18.3 million/year at 8% interest rate are included for 20 years as sustaining costs.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 244

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.2.9 Contingency

Costs

Contingency

costs account for the difference in costs between the estimated and actual cost of materials and equipment. The contingency is developed

based upon the level of study and considers the level of project definition, the source or methodology of the estimates, and the expected

accuracy range. It allows the capital estimate to include a provision to cover the risk from uncertainties that may arise in between

the time the capital cost was developed compared to the actual costs during construction and pre-production.

The

contingency for the Project has been built up by considering each individual WBS area. The contingency included in the initial capital

costs is estimated at US$448 million for the process plant and supporting infrastructure and US$45 million for mining. The total contingency

for the initial capital costs for the project is estimated at US$493 million or 25.6% of total direct and indirect costs. The contingency

of 25.6% reflects the current level of engineering definition and remaining uncertainty associated with process development, infrastructure

assumptions, and estimate maturity at the Initial Assessment stage. No adjustment was made solely to meeting a reporting threshold.

18.2.10 Closure

and Reclamation Planning

Closure

and reclamation costs for the Project include allocations for:

● process

plant and on-site infrastructure

● TMF,

WRSF and Water Management

● mining

and haul roads

● long-term

environmental monitoring.

The

total closure and reclamation costs are estimated at US$243 million.

18.3 Operating

Costs

18.3.1 Overview

The

operating cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, which aligns with an Association for

the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The total operating costs for the Project

are estimated at US$21.96/ton processed (milled and heap leached) or US$27,592 million over the 51-year mine life. These operating costs

do not include pre-production operating costs. A summary of operating costs is presented in Table 18-8.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 245

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

18-8: Operating Cost Summary

Cost

Area

LOM

Total (US$M)1

US$/ton

processed

of Total

Mining

8,6832

6.91

31.5

Process

18,245

14.52

66.1

G&A

664

0.53

2.4

Total

27,592

21.96

100

Note:

1. Totals

may not match due to rounding

2. Includes

10% contingency

18.3.2 Basis

of Estimate

The

following was used to determine the project’s LOM process operating costs in agreement with the cost definition and estimate methodologies

outlined below. This basis considers the development of a process plant designed to treat 57,100 t/d of mineralized material. Process

unit operations were benchmarked against similar or comparable processing plants to ensure accuracy of cost estimates.

Assumptions

made in developing the process operating cost estimate are listed below:

● Mill

production is designed to treat 57,100 t/d of mineralized material.

● Process

plant operating costs are calculated based on labor, power consumption, reagents, consumables,

and process plant maintenance.

● Off-site

gold refining, insurance, and transportation costs are excluded, as they are included elsewhere

in the financial model.

● Labor

rates were sourced from recent execution projects in the region.

Workforce

will be comprised of local and regional workers.

Management

and administrative staff will be on a 5/2 rotation (5 days in, 2 days out), whereas process plant labor was estimated based on continuous

operation using a four-crew rotation.

● G&A

costs were baselined against previous project experience.

● Grinding

media consumption rates have been estimated based on the mill feed characteristics.

● Reagent

consumption rates have been estimated based on the metallurgical testwork results.

○ Reagents

and consumable prices were obtained via email quotes from local vendors.

● The

unit rate power cost of US$0.075/kWh was adopted based on the NV Energy GS-3 tariff.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 246

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

● The

unit rate fuel cost for gasoline is US$4.28/gal based on the regional monthly three-year

trailing average for Nevada.

The

Basis of Estimate Costs for mining are described in section 18.3.3.

18.3.3 Mine

Operating Costs

Table

18-9 illustrates the mine operating costs on an annual basis for the first 10 years of the mine life. After Year 10, the costs have been

calculated over five-year periods. Operating costs were developed using a cost of diesel fuel of US$3.76/gal. Consumables for lubricants,

spare parts, and wear items have all been incorporated into the estimated operating costs. Labor costs were illustrated in the manpower

tables in Section 13.

Mine

operating costs include:

● drilling,

blasting, loading, hauling, and support equipment costs for the mine operation

● delivery

of material to the crusher, waste storage, or leach pad and placement of that material on

the dump, stockpile, or leach pad

● construction

and maintenance of all mine roads where mine haul trucks operate

● mine

supervision, engineering, and geology personnel

● operating

labor and maintenance labor including burden

● maintenance

of all mine equipment

● an

allowance is included to cover pit dewatering, software licenses, and assaying

● blasting

costs are based on owner loading of blast holes and blasting.

Mine

operating costs do not include:

● crushing,

conveying, processing, recontouring, or reclamation costs

● remining

of the low-grade stockpile after mine closure in Year 51

● closure

or reclamation costs.

Remining

of the low-grade stockpile and haulage to the crusher after completion of the mine life would cost $1.04/ton of stockpile moved.

Table

18-9 provides more detail regarding the breakdown of mine operating costs on a cost per ton of material moved basis for the individual

unit operations excluding contingency.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 247

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

18-9: Mine Operating Cost per Ton of Total Material Moved, US$/ton (Mine Costs)

Mining

Year

Total

Material

(Mtons)

Drilling

(US$/ton)

Blasting

(US$/ton)

Hauling

(US$/ton)

Auxiliary

(US$/ton)

General

Mine

(US$/ton)

General

Maint.

(US$/ton)

G&A

(US$/ton)

TOTAL

(US$/ton)

Total

Cost

(US$M)

Preproduction

11.3

0.152

0.251

0.264

0.742

1.000

0.187

0.126

0.577

3.300

37.4

71.2

0.148

0.177

0.257

0.684

0.332

0.051

0.061

0.117

1.826

130.0

71.2

0.148

0.177

0.257

0.802

0.332

0.051

0.062

0.119

1.947

138.6

71.2

0.147

0.177

0.252

0.711

0.331

0.051

0.061

0.117

1.846

131.4

74.3

0.149

0.176

0.257

0.803

0.318

0.050

0.061

0.111

1.924

143.0

81.5

0.148

0.175

0.255

0.848

0.290

0.047

0.058

0.104

1.925

156.9

81.5

0.148

0.175

0.255

0.806

0.289

0.047

0.058

0.103

1.882

153.4

81.5

0.149

0.175

0.257

0.783

0.289

0.047

0.058

0.103

1.861

151.6

81.5

0.149

0.175

0.257

0.856

0.289

0.047

0.058

0.104

1.936

157.8

82.0

0.149

0.175

0.260

0.907

0.288

0.047

0.059

0.105

1.990

163.1

82.0

0.149

0.175

0.259

0.772

0.288

0.047

0.058

0.102

1.851

151.7

11-15

410.0

0.149

0.175

0.258

0.915

0.282

0.047

0.059

0.105

1.990

815.8

16-20

410.0

0.149

0.175

0.258

0.944

0.283

0.047

0.060

0.106

2.020

828.3

21-25

410.0

0.149

0.175

0.258

1.108

0.282

0.047

0.061

0.109

2.188

897.2

26-30

386.0

0.149

0.175

0.260

0.974

0.300

0.048

0.061

0.111

2.079

802.5

31-35

378.0

0.150

0.176

0.262

0.815

0.308

0.049

0.061

0.110

1.929

729.2

36-40

361.0

0.149

0.176

0.260

0.939

0.321

0.050

0.063

0.116

2.074

749.8

41-45

352.0

0.149

0.177

0.259

1.015

0.329

0.050

0.065

0.120

2.165

763.4

46-51

319.5

0.149

0.180

0.260

1.379

0.353

0.056

0.075

0.146

2.597

8298

Total

or Avg

3,816.9

0.149

0.176

0.259

0.961

0.307

0.049

0.062

0.115

2.078

7,931.1

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

18.3.4 Process

Operating Costs

The

LOM average process operating cost was estimated at US$16.65/ton for process plant and US$2.49/ton for heap leach operation (oxide

and transition material). Table 18-10 summarizes the LOM operating costs expected for the process area.

Table

18-10: Process Plant Operating Cost Summary

Cost

Center

US$/a

US$/ton

(LOM Average)

Reagents

177

8.61

Consumables

2.47

Plant

Maintenance

1.03

Mobile

Equipment

0.09

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 248

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Cost

Center

US$/a

US$/ton

(LOM Average)

Power

3.66

Labor

0.80

Total

(LOM) - Plant Feed

342

16.65

Reagents

and Consumables

2.05

Mobile

Equipment

0.26

Labor

0.19

Total

(LOM) - Heap Leach Feed

2.49

Total

(LOM) – Combined Processed

362

14.52

18.3.4.1 Labor

Process

labor costs were derived from a staffing plan and applying prevailing hourly or annual labor rates in the area. The burden rates of 40%

are included for salaried personnel and hourly personnel.

The

staffing plan summary and labor costs are shown in Table 18-11 below.

Table

18-11: Process Plant Labor Cost Summary

Staff

Number

of personnel

Annual

Labor Cost (US$M/a)

Labor

Cost (US$/ton)

Process

Plant Administration

0.7

0.03

Process

Plant Operation

7.8

0.37

Process

Plant Maintenance

5.3

0.26

Technical

Services

2.7

0.13

Process

Plant Sub-Total

155

16.4

0.80

Heap

Leach Operation

1.5

0.19

Heap

Leach Sub-Total

1.5

0.19

Total

(Process Plant + Heap Leach)

171

17.5

0.56

Note:

Totals may not match due to rounding

The

estimated labor costs are US$0.80/ton for process plant and US$0.17/ton for heap leach operation. A total of 171 persons are required

for the process plant, process maintenance shop, and heap leach operation.

18.3.4.2 Electrical

Power

The

LOM average of electrical energy consumption in the process area is estimated to be 1,008 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/a) or approximately

34.4 kilowatt-hours per ton (kWh/ton) of milled and heap leach material.

Electricity

will be provided to site at a unit cost of US$0.075/kWh based on the recent operation (2021 to 2023).

The

unit power cost is estimated at US$3.66/ton processed.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 249

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

18.3.4.3 Plant

Maintenance

allowance was made to cover the cost of maintenance of all items not specifically identified and the cost of maintenance of the facilities.

The allowance was calculated for each project area as a percentage of the tangible equipment cost. The cost for maintenance supplies

was estimated at US$1.03/ton processed.

18.3.4.4 Reagents

Individual

reagent consumption rates were estimated based on metallurgical testwork results and benchmarking against similar project operations.

Budgetary quotations for reagents were obtained from local suppliers where available, with an allowance for freight to site.

summary of process reagent consumption and costs are included in Table 18-12.

Table

18-12: Reagent Consumption Summary

Item

Unit

Consumption

Rate (t/Mton plant feed)

Unit

Cost

(US$)

Cost

(US$/ton) LOM Average

Flotation

Collector

(PAX)

0.43

3,310

1.49

Frother

(MIBC)

0.04

3,310

0.14

Sulfuric

acid (H2SO4)

0.00

150

0.00

Concentrate

Thickening

Flocculant

0.01

3,780

0.05

POX,

Neutralization, Concentrate Leach

Quick

lime

5.44

280

1.58

Flocculant

0.03

3,780

0.10

Limestone

43.01

3.66

Flocculant

0.00

3,780

0.01

Sodium

cyanide

0.51

2,644

1.39

CCD

& Cyanide Destruction

Flocculant

0.06

3,780

0.22

Sodium

Metabisulphite (SMBS)

0.18

1,124

0.21

Copper

Sulfate (CuSO4)

0.02

4,100

0.07

Process

Services (incl. Oxygen Plant)

Antiscalant

0.022

6,243

0.11

Tailings

and Reclaim

Flocculant

0.05

3,780

0.18

Merrill

Crowe

Zinc

dust

0.03

7,500

0.24

Diatomaceous

earth

0.07

650

0.05

Refinery

Borax

0.603

2,373

0.00

Silica

0.303

1,909

0.00

Sodium

Nitrate

0.0503

1,920

0.00

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 250

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Item

Unit

Consumption

Rate (t/Mton plant feed)

Unit

Cost

(US$)

Cost

(US$/ton) LOM Average

Sodium

Carbonate

0.0503

683

0.00

Process

Plant Sub-Total

8.61

Heap

Leach

Quick

lime

4.50

280

1.40

Cyanide

0.25

2,644

0.73

Zinc

dust

0.01

7,500

0.04

Diatomaceous

earth

0.05

650

0.03

Heap

Leach Sub-Total

2.05

Total

(Process Plant + Heap Leach)

6.02

Note:

1. Totals

may not match due to rounding

2. The

unit consumption rate is expressed as L/ton of plant feed.

3. The

unit consumption rate is expressed as lb/lb precipitate.

The

cost of reagents was estimated at US$8.61/ton for process plant and US$2.05/ton for heap leach operation.

18.3.4.5 Consumables

Wear

material (crusher and grinding mill liners and screen panels) and grinding media were based on industry practice for the crusher and

grinding operations. A summary of process consumable consumption and costs are included in Table 18-13.

Table

18-13: Process Plant Consumable Consumption Summary

Item

Consumption

Rate

Units

Unit

Cost

(US$’000)

Cost

(US$’000/a)

Cost

(US$/ton) LOM Average

Crushing

Primary

gyratory crusher liners

units/a

527

1,580

0.08

Secondary

crusher liners

units/a

253

1,515

0.08

Tertiary

crusher liners

units/a

253

1,515

0.08

Secondary

screen deck panels

units/a

917

0.05

Tertiary

screen deck panels

units/a

321

0.02

Grinding

and Screening

Ball

mill media

28,469

ton/a

1.4

39,914

2.11

Ball

mill liners

4.0

units/a

913

3,653

0.19

Trash

screen deck panels

4.0

units/a

131

0.01

Limestone

Preparation

Limestone

cone crusher liner

units/a

0.00

Limestone

ball mill media

570

ton/a

1.4

800

0.04

Limestone

ball mill liner

1.0

units/a

105

0.01

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 251

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Item

Consumption

Rate

Units

Unit

Cost

(US$’000)

Cost

(US$’000/a)

Cost

(US$/ton) LOM Average

Trash

screen deck panels

units/a

7.2

0.00

Refinery

Crucibles

units/a

1.9

0.00

Miscellaneous

consumables (filter cloths, bullion boxes, seals, labels) - allowance

0.00

Refinery

Miscellaneous

consumables (filter cloths, bullion boxes, seals, labels) - allowance

1,000

0.05

Total

2.47

The

cost of consumables was estimated at US$2.47/ton for process plant.

18.3.5 General

and Administrative Operating Costs

The

annual general and administrative costs to support the mining operations of US$13 million were developed on a unit cost and quantity

basis and utilized data from similar project operating records.

G&A

costs include expenses associated with site management, administrative support, and general site services required to sustain plant operations

but not directly related to mineral processing activities. These costs cover site maintenance (e.g., road maintenance materials), human

resources functions such as recruiting and training, health and safety programs, environmental monitoring and compliance, information

technology and communications services, and general mobile support equipment. Additional G&A components include contracted services,

insurance, permitting and licensing fees, sanitation and waste management, snow removal, accommodation and travel costs, and general

office administration such as utilities, office supplies, postage, and audit services. These expenditures represent the overhead required

to maintain safe, compliant, and efficient site operations.

These

costs include G&A labor, such as site management, administrative staff, human resources personnel, health and safety staff, environmental

personnel, and other support functions.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 252

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

19 Economic

Analysis

19.1 Overview

The

results of the economic analysis discussed in this section represent forward-looking information as defined under U.S. securities law.

The results depend on inputs that are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause

actual results to differ materially from those presented here.

Information

that is forward-looking include:

● Mineral

Resource Estimate

● assumed

commodity prices and exchange rates

● the

proposed mine production plan

● projected

mining and process recovery rates

● assumptions

as to mining dilution

● capital

and operating cost estimates and working capital requirements

● assumptions

as to closure costs and closure requirements

● assumptions

as to environmental, permitting and social consideration and risks.

Additional

risks to the forward-looking information include:

● changes

to costs of production from what is assumed

● unrecognized

environmental risks

● unanticipated

reclamation expenses

● unexpected

variations in quantity of mineralized material, grade or recovery rates

● geotechnical

or hydrogeological considerations differing from what was assumed

● failure

of mining methods to operate as anticipated

● failure

of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated

● changes

to assumptions as to the availability of electrical power, and the power rates used in the

operating cost estimates and financial analysis

● ability

to maintain the social license to operate

● accidents,

labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry

● changes

to interest rates

● changes

to tax rates and availability of allowances for depreciation and amortization.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 253

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

This

economic assessment is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the economic assessment will be realized. However, the economic

assessment does not include any inferred mineral resources.

19.2 Methodologies

Used

The

project has been evaluated using a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis based on a 5% discount rate. Cash inflows consist of annual revenue

projections. Cash outflows consist of capital expenditures, including pre-production costs, operating costs, taxes, and royalties. These

are subtracted from the inflows to arrive at the annual cash flow projections. Cash flows are taken to occur at the midpoint of each

period.

must be noted that tax calculations involve complex variables that can only be accurately determined during operations, and as such,

the actual post-tax results may differ from those estimated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of variations

in metals price, discount rate, head grade, recovery, total operating costs, and initial capital costs. The capital and operating cost

estimates developed specifically for this project are presented in Section 18 of this report in Q1 2026 US dollars. The economic analysis

has been run on a constant dollar basis with no inflation.

19.3 Financial

Model Parameters

19.3.1 Assumptions

The

economic analysis was performed assuming the base case silver price of US$48.00/oz and gold price of US$3,600/oz. The forecasts used

are meant to reflect the average metals price expectation over the life of the project. No price inflation or escalation factors were

considered. Commodity prices can be volatile, and there is the potential for deviation from the forecast.

The

economic analysis also used the following assumptions:

● The

construction period will be 24 months.

● The

production life is 51 years, with the last year being a partial year.

● Cost

estimates are in constant Q1 2026 US dollars for capital and operating costs, with no inflation

or escalation factors considered.

● Results

are based on 100% ownership with a 2.14% private royalty applying to NSR.

● Capital

costs are funded with 100% equity (no financing assumed).

● All

cash flows are discounted to the start of the construction period using a mid-period discounting

convention.

● All

metal products will be sold in the same year they are produced.

● Project

revenue will be derived from the sale of gold-silver doré bars.

● No

contractual arrangement for refining currently exists.

19.3.2 Taxes

Mining

Tax Plan LLC has prepared the U.S federal and state income tax computation based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and

the regulations thereunder including Nevada Revised Statutes as in effect as of May 1, 2026. Any subsequent changes or modifications

to U.S. federal or state tax statutes, regulations or to the judicial and administrative interpretations thereof may impact the federal

and state income tax computations. We have not audited or verified any of the economic or operating assumptions of the Preliminary Economic

Assessment but have made inquiries to properly classified revenue, expenses and capital expenditures consistent with federal and state

income tax statutes, regulations and case law.

The

following is a summary of tax elections incorporated into this tax computation:

● The

overall effective federal and state income tax rate for Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation

is 21% for federal tax purposes. Nevada does not impose income tax.

● All

tax elections have been made in order to maximize the net present value of the mine on an

annual basis to the extent allowed.

● The

Hycroft mine will be treated as a single mineral property under Section 614.

● Hycroft

will elect to deduct exploration costs under Section 168(a) and deduct mine development under

Section 616(a) subject to the corporate preference adjustment under Section 291(b)(2) to

the extent incurred.

● Hycroft

will not elect out of federal Section 168(k) bonus depreciation except for tax year 2028.

● Hycroft

will elect Section 468 to deduct reclamation over the life of the mine.

● Hycroft

will sell its production outside of the U.S. and is therefore eligible for Section 250 FDII

deduction available on exported goods.

● Hycroft’s

net operating losses and other tax attributes as of December 31, 2025 of Hycroft utilized

in this model are subject to prior Section 382 limitations.

● No

Section 382 ownership changes are expected to occur after December 31, 2025 which could limit

the availability of tax attributes during the construction and/or during the subsequent operation

of the mine.

● The

Nevada gold and silver excise tax liability has been computed in accordance with the Nevada

Revised Statue 363D and the administrative code thereunder. The tax applies on gross revenue

in excess of $20,000,000 but not more than $150,000,000, at a rate of 0.75% with an annual

exemption on the first $20 million in sales and thereafter sales are tax at a rate of 1.10%.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 254

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

The

Nevada Net Proceeds of Mines tax liability has been computed in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statue 362 and the administrative

code thereunder. The tax rate applied is 5.0% based on the annual profitability of the Mine.

the assumed metal prices, total payments are estimated to be US$3,618 million over the LOM.

19.3.3 Royalties

Royalties

payable for the Hycroft Project include a 2.14% private NSR royalty (1.5% NSR grossed up 30% for withholding taxes). Total royalty payments

are US$1,155 million over the life of the mine and are part of the project economics.

19.4 Economic

Analysis

The

economic analysis was performed assuming a 5% discount rate. The pre-tax NPV discounted at 5% is US$5,437 million; the IRR is 18.9%,

and payback period is 4.3 years. On a post-tax basis, the NPV discounted at 5% is US$4,344 million, the IRR is 16.9%, and the payback

period is 4.7 years. A summary of project economics is shown graphically in Figure 19-1 and listed in Table 19-1. The analysis was done

on an annual cashflow basis; the cashflow output is shown Table 19-2.

Readers

are cautioned that the assessment is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the economic assessment will be realized However,

it does not include any inferred mineral resources.

Figure

19-1 : Project Post-Tax Unlevered Cashflow

Source:

Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 255

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

19-1: Economic Analysis Summary Table

Unit

Value

General

Inputs

Gold

Price

USD$/oz

3,600

Silver

Price

USD$/oz

48.00

Discount

Rate

5.0

LOM

Production

Total

Mineralized Material Mined

kst

1,496,134

Total

Waste Mined

kst

2,320,719

Average

Strip Ratio

w:o

1.55

Life

of Mine

years

50.5

Total

Mill Feed Processed

kst

1,046,284

Average

Mill Feed Grade (Au)

oz/st

0.012

Average

Mill Feed Grade (Ag)

oz/st

0.43

Total

Leach Material Processed

kst

210,010

Average

Leach Feed Grade (Au)

oz/st

0.005

Average

Leach Feed Grade (Ag)

oz/st

0.12

Total

Recovered Gold

koz

10,476

Total

Recovered Silver

koz

349,208

Average

Mill Feed Gold Recovery

82.8

Average

Mill Feed Silver Recovery

77.5

Average

Leach Gold Recovery

40.0

Average

Leach Silver Recovery

12.0

Life

of Mine Payable Gold Production

koz

10,424

Life

of Mine Payable Silver Production

koz

347,462

Life

of Mine Payable Gold Equivalent Production

koz

15,057

Refining,

Royalties

Gold

Payable

99.5

Silver

Payable

99.5

NSR

Royalty

NSR

2.14

Refining

Costs – Au

US$/oz

5.00

Refining

Costs – Ag

US$/oz

0.50

LOM

Operating Costs

Mining

Cost

US$/st

mined

2.28

Mining

Cost

US$/st

processed

6.91

Processing

Cost

US$/st

processed

14.52

G&A

Cost

US$/st

processed

0.53

Total

Operating Cost

US$/st

processed

21.96

Cash

Costs1

US$/oz

AuEq

1,924

All-In

Sustaining Cost2

US$/oz

AuEq

2,147

Capital

Costs

Initial

Capital

US$M

2,434

Sustaining

Capital

US$M

3,107

Closure

Costs

US$M

243

Financials

Pre-Tax

NPV (5%)

US$M

5,437

Pre-Tax

IRR

18.9

Pre-Tax

Payback

years

4.3

Post-Tax

NPV (5%)

US$M

4,344

Post-Tax

IRR

16.9

Post-Tax

Payback

years

4.7

Notes:

1. Cash

costs consist of mining costs, processing costs, mine-level G&A and refining charges

and royalties.

2. AISC

includes cash costs plus sustaining capital and closure costs.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 256

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

19-2 : Life of Mine Economics

Units

Total/Avg

-2

-1

Free

Cash Flow

Revenue

US$M

54,205

—

878

1,119

1,573

1,431

1,303

1,325

1,240

1,102

937

971

906

969

1,165

965

1,008

935

830

914

855

796

998

1,517

1,503

1,692

1,509

1,374

Operating

Cost

US$M

(27,592)

—

(18)

(444)

(563)

(592)

(591)

(639)

(601)

(556)

(555)

(543)

(541)

(574)

(566)

(584)

(562)

(575)

(568)

(590)

(598)

(567)

(533)

(541)

(540)

(530)

(541)

(580)

(547)

Refining

Charges

US$M

(226)

—

(0)

(2)

(4)

(6)

(5)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(7)

(10)

(8)

(6)

Royalties

US$M

(1,155)

—

(0)

(19)

(24)

(34)

(30)

(28)

(26)

(24)

(20)

(21)

(19)

(21)

(25)

(21)

(20)

(18)

(19)

(18)

(17)

(21)

(32)

(36)

(32)

(29)

EBITDA

US$M

25,232

—

413

528

942

803

631

691

652

520

370

405

309

378

551

378

408

343

219

292

266

243

431

939

934

1,106

889

791

Initial

Capex

US$M

(2,434)

(672)

(1,762)

—

Sustaining

Capex

US$M

(3,107)

—

(179)

(180)

(18)

(20)

(52)

(45)

(131)

(20)

(44)

(74)

(31)

(140)

(31)

(30)

(179)

(155)

(56)

(204)

(8)

Closure

Capex

US$M

(243)

—

Changes

in Working Capital

US$M

—

(1)

(35)

(10)

(19)

(1)

(3)

(8)

(2)

(3)

(8)

(21)

(8)

Pre-Tax

Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

19,447

(672)

(1,760)

199

338

905

788

585

646

525

506

333

330

280

236

512

355

375

316

194

259

238

268

862

879

1,043

692

788

Pre-Tax

Cumulative Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

19,447

(672)

(2,432)

(2,233)

(1,895)

(989)

(201)

384

1,030

1,554

2,060

2,393

2,723

3,003

3,239

3,751

4,107

4,481

4,798

4,991

5,250

5,489

5,556

5,824

6,686

7,564

8,607

9,299

10,087

Tax

Payable

US$M

(3,618)

—

(0)

(9)

(27)

(38)

(69)

(67)

(70)

(78)

(76)

(81)

(53)

(54)

(45)

(48)

(85)

(57)

(61)

(49)

(31)

(41)

(36)

(25)

(64)

(156)

(157)

(184)

(124)

Post-Tax

Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

15,829

(672)

(1,760)

190

311

867

719

518

576

447

430

252

277

226

191

464

270

318

256

144

228

198

243

798

723

885

508

664

Post-Tax

Cumulative Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

15,829

(672)

(2,432)

(2,242)

(1,931)

(1,063)

(344)

174

750

1,197

1,627

1,878

2,156

2,382

2,573

3,037

3,307

3,625

3,880

4,025

4,253

4,451

4,482

4,725

5,523

6,245

7,131

7,639

8,302

Production

Total

Resource Mined

kton

1,496,134

—

2,462

25,898

28,882

53,915

46,012

50,111

47,788

40,873

38,365

23,852

26,046

35,948

36,182

37,057

30,048

32,398

28,549

27,237

39,479

37,432

32,344

33,003

33,513

29,128

31,589

35,565

27,504

Total

Waste Mined

kton

2,320,719

—

8,871

45,302

42,318

17,285

28,335

31,389

33,712

40,627

43,135

58,149

55,954

46,052

45,818

44,943

51,952

49,602

53,451

54,763

42,521

44,568

49,656

48,997

48,487

52,872

50,411

46,435

54,496

Strip

Ratio

w:o

1.55

—

3.60

1.75

1.47

0.32

0.62

0.63

0.71

0.99

1.12

2.44

2.15

1.28

1.27

1.21

1.73

1.53

1.87

2.01

1.08

1.19

1.54

1.48

1.45

1.82

1.60

1.31

1.98

Mill

Feed

kton

1,046,284

—

14,068

20,841

Mill

Head Grade (Au)

oz/ton

0.012

—

0.016

0.013

0.016

0.015

0.014

0.013

0.014

0.012

0.011

0.009

0.010

0.011

0.010

0.009

0.010

0.012

0.018

0.015

0.014

0.012

0.014

Mill

Head Grade (Ag)

oz/ton

0.43

—

0.21

0.35

0.52

0.53

0.43

0.52

0.25

0.23

0.34

0.37

0.52

0.35

0.31

0.36

0.31

0.32

0.26

0.25

0.34

0.51

0.72

1.04

0.83

0.58

Mill

Recovery (Au)

82.8

—

82.8

Mill

Recovery (Ag)

77.5

—

77.5

Heap

Leach Feed

kton

210,010

—

2,462

10,825

5,740

17,228

14,623

16,614

14,813

6,350

3,376

107

2,840

8,654

6,052

8,301

511

11,056

5,116

4,817

4,907

2,201

126

388

2,900

4,704

9,451

12,335

4,375

Heap

Leach Head Grade (Au)

oz/ton

0.005

—

0.006

0.005

0.007

0.005

0.006

0.005

0.006

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.005

Heap

Leach Head Grade (Ag)

oz/ton

0.12

—

0.13

0.09

0.16

0.08

0.17

0.18

0.14

0.06

0.08

0.13

0.10

0.11

0.18

0.08

0.11

0.14

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.15

0.10

0.12

0.15

0.16

Heap

Leach Recovery (Au)

40.0

—

40.0

Heap

Leach Recovery (Ag)

12.0

—

12.0

Payable

Gold

koz

10,424

—

211

236

324

280

268

272

230

252

211

197

170

188

211

193

212

182

162

184

181

169

204

312

264

246

238

256

Payable

Silver

koz

347,462

—

2,455

5,639

8,474

8,801

7,041

7,209

8,556

4,040

3,725

5,450

6,154

6,071

8,425

5,601

5,092

5,843

5,129

5,209

4,221

3,947

5,503

8,235

11,546

16,806

13,600

9,426

Payable

Gold Equivalent

koz

15,057

—

244

311

437

397

362

368

345

306

260

270

252

269

324

268

280

260

231

254

237

221

277

422

417

470

419

382

Revenue

US$M

54,205

—

878

1,119

1,573

1,431

1,303

1,325

1,240

1,102

937

971

906

969

1,165

965

1,008

935

830

914

855

796

998

1,517

1,503

1,692

1,509

1,374

Operating

Costs

Total

Operating Costs

US$M

27,592

—

444

563

592

591

639

601

556

555

543

541

574

566

584

562

575

568

590

598

567

533

541

540

530

541

580

547

Mine

Operating Costs

US$M

8,683

—

143

152

145

157

173

169

167

174

179

167

179

182

197

177

Processing

Costs

US$M

18,245

—

288

397

434

421

453

418

376

369

351

361

382

374

391

370

382

373

394

403

372

338

331

330

320

330

370

358

G&A

Costs

US$M

664

—

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 257

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Units

Total/Avg

-2

-1

Refining

Costs & Royalties

Refining

Charge

US$M

226

—

Total

Revenue

US$M

54,205

—

878

1,119

1,573

1,431

1,303

1,325

1,240

1,102

937

971

906

969

1,165

965

1,008

935

830

914

855

796

998

1,517

1,503

1,692

1,509

1,374

Less:

Refining Costs

US$M

(226)

—

(0)

(2)

(4)

(6)

(5)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(7)

(10)

(8)

(6)

Total

Net Revenue

US$M

53,979

—

876

1,115

1,567

1,425

1,298

1,320

1,235

1,099

934

967

902

965

1,160

961

1,004

931

826

910

852

793

994

1,512

1,496

1,683

1,501

1,368

NSR

Royalty

2.14

—

2.14

Royalties

US$M

1,155

—

Cash

Costs

Cash

Cost1

US$/oz

AuEq

1,924

—

3,066

1,907

1,901

1,444

1,580

1,855

1,722

1,706

1,901

2,176

2,097

2,373

2,195

1,897

2,188

2,144

2,279

2,649

2,448

2,480

2,499

2,043

1,372

1,363

1,247

1,480

1,527

All-in

Sustaining Cost (AISC 2)

US$/oz

AuEq

2,147

—

3,066

2,639

2,480

1,486

1,631

1,998

1,843

2,088

1,967

2,346

2,371

2,497

2,714

1,993

2,305

2,255

2,394

2,779

2,566

2,606

3,307

2,603

1,505

1,497

1,366

1,968

1,549

Capital

Expenditures

Initial

Capital

US$M

2,434

672

1,762

—

Total

Sustaining Capital

US$M

3,107

—

179

180

131

140

179

155

204

Closure

Cost

US$M

243

—

Total

Capital Expenditures

US$M

5,785

672

1,762

179

180

131

140

179

155

204

Units

Free

Cash Flow

Revenue

US$M

1,361

1,443

885

804

858

797

781

832

839

868

1,117

1,088

1,085

1,148

1,353

860

790

781

744

734

909

1,052

1,034

1,365

839

—

Operating

Cost

US$M

(535)

(531)

(549)

(539)

(527)

(524)

(521)

(522)

(528)

(543)

(554)

(557)

(524)

(508)

(514)

(527)

(526)

(531)

(549)

(516)

(511)

(508)

(500)

(482)

(323)

—

Refining

Charges

US$M

(8)

(10)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(8)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(8)

(5)

—

Royalties

US$M

(29)

(31)

(19)

(17)

(18)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(24)

(23)

(24)

(29)

(18)

(17)

(16)

(19)

(22)

(29)

(18)

—

EBITDA

US$M

788

871

313

245

310

255

241

290

303

535

503

532

610

803

312

244

231

177

200

376

517

508

846

493

—

Initial

Capex

US$M

—

Sustaining

Capex

US$M

(8)

(257)

(19)

(168)

(7)

(156)

(42)

(178)

(42)

(191)

(7)

—

Closure

Capex

US$M

—

(243)

Changes

in Working Capital

US$M

(3)

(2)

(0)

(1)

(10)

(3)

(8)

(7)

(6)

(14)

—

Pre-Tax

Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

780

859

327

(8)

288

238

222

268

122

295

518

498

526

452

752

154

205

189

(12)

194

362

505

502

825

542

—

(243)

Pre-Tax

Cumulative Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

10,867

11,727

12,054

12,046

12,334

12,572

12,794

13,063

13,185

13,480

13,998

14,495

15,021

15,472

16,225

16,378

16,583

16,772

16,760

16,954

17,316

17,821

18,323

19,148

19,691

19,447

Tax

Payable

US$M

(136)

(137)

(145)

(50)

(20)

(42)

(40)

(39)

(46)

(30)

(53)

(91)

(86)

(92)

(86)

(129)

(37)

(34)

(16)

(28)

(64)

(88)

(90)

(142)

(76)

—

Post-Tax

Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

644

723

183

(58)

268

195

182

230

265

465

406

439

360

666

168

152

(46)

179

333

441

414

736

401

(76)

(243)

Post-Tax

Cumulative Unlevered Free Cash Flow

US$M

8,947

9,669

9,852

9,794

10,062

10,258

10,440

10,670

10,746

11,010

11,475

11,882

12,321

12,681

13,347

13,371

13,539

13,691

13,645

13,824

14,157

14,598

15,012

15,747

16,148

16,072

15,829

Production

Total

Resource Mined

kton

31,947

25,705

25,866

23,273

23,941

22,778

22,376

22,505

22,056

29,225

22,808

23,934

23,329

24,785

23,939

24,033

22,658

22,494

23,562

23,102

23,004

22,195

21,703

21,680

12,058

—

Total

Waste Mined

kton

50,053

48,295

48,134

50,727

50,059

53,222

53,624

53,495

53,944

46,775

51,192

46,566

47,171

45,715

46,561

46,467

47,842

48,006

47,038

47,498

49,370

33,556

33,706

19,302

12,300

—

Strip

Ratio

w:o

1.57

1.88

1.86

2.18

2.09

2.34

2.40

2.38

2.45

1.60

2.24

1.95

2.02

1.84

1.95

1.93

2.11

2.13

2.00

2.06

2.15

1.51

1.55

0.89

1.02

—

Mill

Feed

kton

20,841

11,008

—

Mill

Head Grade (Au)

oz/ton

0.010

0.009

0.010

0.011

0.009

0.012

0.011

0.012

0.010

0.011

0.010

0.011

0.010

0.011

0.012

0.011

—

Mill

Head Grade (Ag)

oz/ton

0.90

1.13

0.32

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.19

0.30

0.47

0.53

0.47

0.69

0.85

0.28

0.16

0.14

0.29

0.41

0.42

0.89

1.16

—

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 258

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Units

Mill

Recovery (Au)

82.8

—

Mill

Recovery (Ag)

77.5

—

Heap

Leach Feed

kton

3,916

1,026

1,303

209

1,610

877

734

987

622

7,636

406

1,583

985

1,940

1,612

1,548

251

580

351

270

324

114

102

—

Heap

Leach Head Grade (Au)

oz/ton

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.002

0.004

0.005

0.004

0.006

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.006

0.005

0.004

—

Heap

Leach Head Grade (Ag)

oz/ton

0.16

0.13

0.10

0.09

0.06

0.11

0.16

0.17

0.16

0.12

0.14

0.12

0.14

0.13

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.11

0.10

0.15

0.17

0.22

—

Heap

Leach Recovery (Au)

40.0

—

Heap

Leach Recovery (Ag)

12.0

—

Payable

Gold

koz

184

159

177

180

199

187

183

191

193

176

209

189

199

171

193

179

184

182

176

174

190

204

197

188

102

—

Payable

Silver

koz

14,557

18,152

5,132

3,251

2,974

2,576

2,508

3,042

3,015

4,861

7,568

8,511

7,636

11,133

13,706

4,522

2,646

2,617

2,327

2,242

4,711

6,600

6,790

14,329

9,819

—

Payable

Gold Equivalent

koz

378

401

246

223

238

222

217

231

233

241

310

302

301

319

376

239

219

217

207

204

253

292

287

379

233

—

Revenue

US$M

1,361

1,443

885

804

858

797

781

832

839

868

1,117

1,088

1,085

1,148

1,353

860

790

781

744

734

909

1,052

1,034

1,365

839

—

Operating

Costs

Total

Operating Costs

US$M

535

531

549

539

527

524

521

522

528

543

554

557

524

508

514

527

526

531

549

516

511

508

500

482

323

—

Mine

Operating Costs

US$M

177

160

165

168

152

—

Processing

Costs

US$M

346

342

360

349

354

350

347

349

355

366

376

379

346

330

333

346

350

368

351

346

343

335

317

164

—

G&A

Costs

US$M

—

Refining

Costs & Royalties

Refining

Charge

US$M

—

Total

Revenue

US$M

1,361

1,443

885

804

858

797

781

832

839

868

1,117

1,088

1,085

1,148

1,353

860

790

781

744

734

909

1,052

1,034

1,365

839

—

Less:

Refining Costs

US$M

(8)

(10)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(6)

(8)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(8)

(5)

—

Total

Net Revenue

US$M

1,352

1,433

881

801

855

795

778

830

837

865

1,112

1,083

1,080

1,142

1,346

857

787

779

742

732

906

1,048

1,030

1,357

834

—

NSR

Royalty

2.14

—

Royalties

US$M

—

Cash

Costs

Cash

Cost1

US$/oz

AuEq

1,515

1,427

2,327

2,501

2,300

2,450

2,489

2,346

2,355

2,343

1,876

1,935

1,833

1,688

1,465

2,296

2,487

2,536

2,742

2,616

2,113

1,830

1,833

1,370

1,485

—

All-in

Sustaining Cost (AISC 2)

US$/oz

AuEq

1,537

1,448

2,361

3,651

2,381

2,537

2,578

2,430

3,075

2,372

1,898

1,958

1,856

2,176

1,577

3,042

2,679

2,730

3,666

2,649

2,139

1,853

1,856

1,387

1,513

—

Capital

Expenditures

Initial

Capital

US$M

—

Total

Sustaining Capital

US$M

257

168

156

178

191

—

Closure

Cost

US$M

—

243

Total

Capital Expenditures

US$M

257

168

156

178

191

—

243

Notes:

1. Cash

costs consist of mining costs, processing costs, mine-level G&A and refining charges

and royalties.

2. AISC

includes cash costs plus sustaining capital and closure costs.

3. Dollar

figures in Real 2026 US$M unless otherwise noted.

4. Total/Avg

Column is for the entire LOM, Year -2 to Year 53.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 259

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

19.5 Sensitivity

Analysis

sensitivity analysis was conducted on the base case NPV and IRR of the project using the following variables: discount rate, head grade,

recovery, total operating cost, initial capital cost, as well as silver and gold prices, which were encompassed in a single variable,

metal price. Table 19-3 and Table 19-4 summarize the pre-tax and post-tax sensitivities of the project.

Table

19-3: Pre-Tax NPV (US$M) and IRR (%) Sensitivity Analysis

Pre-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Discount Rate

Pre-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Discount Rate

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Discount

Rate

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Discount

Rate

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

1.0%

6,399

10,514

14,629

18,744

22,859

1.0%

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

3.0%

3,391

6,041

8,690

11,340

13,989

3.0%

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

5.0%

1,746

3,591

5,437

7,282

9,127

5.0%

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

8.0%

449

1,650

2,852

4,054

5,256

8.0%

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

10.0%

(36)

919

1,874

2,829

3,784

10.0%

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

Pre-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Operating Costs

Pre-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Operating Costs

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Operating

Costs

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Operating

Costs

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

3,639

5,484

7,329

9,175

11,020

(20.0%)

14.5

18.9

23.1

27.2

31.1

(10.0%)

2,693

4,538

6,383

8,228

10,073

(10.0%)

12.2

16.7

21.0

25.2

29.2

—

1,746

3,591

5,437

7,282

9,127

—

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

10.0%

800

2,645

4,490

6,336

8,181

10.0%

7.3

12.2

16.7

21.1

25.3

20.0%

(146)

1,699

3,544

5,389

7,234

20.0%

4.5

9.8

14.5

19.0

23.3

Pre-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Initial Capital

Pre-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Initial Capital

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Initial

Capital

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Initial

Capital

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

2,208

4,054

5,899

7,744

9,589

(20.0%)

12.5

18.1

23.5

28.6

33.4

(10.0%)

1,977

3,822

5,668

7,513

9,358

(10.0%)

11.0

16.1

21.0

25.6

30.1

—

1,746

3,591

5,437

7,282

9,127

—

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

10.0%

1,515

3,360

5,206

7,051

8,896

10.0%

8.8

13.1

17.2

21.2

25.0

20.0%

1,284

3,129

4,975

6,820

8,665

20.0%

8.0

12.0

15.8

19.5

23.0

Pre-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Head Grade

Pre-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Head Grade

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Head

Grade

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Head

Grade

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

(1,191)

285

1,761

3,237

4,713

(20.0%)

0.7

5.8

9.9

13.6

17.2

(10.0%)

277

1,938

3,599

5,259

6,920

(10.0%)

5.8

10.3

14.5

18.5

22.4

—

1,746

3,591

5,437

7,282

9,127

—

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

10.0%

3,215

5,245

7,275

9,304

11,334

10.0%

13.5

18.5

23.2

27.7

32.0

20.0%

4,684

6,898

9,112

11,327

13,541

20.0%

17.1

22.3

27.3

32.0

36.5

Pre-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Recovery

Pre-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Recovery

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Recovery

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Recovery

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

(1,191)

285

1,761

3,237

4,713

(20.0%)

0.7

5.8

9.9

13.6

17.2

(10.0%)

277

1,938

3,599

5,259

6,920

(10.0%)

5.8

10.3

14.5

18.5

22.4

—

1,746

3,591

5,437

7,282

9,127

—

9.8

14.5

18.9

23.2

27.3

10.0%

3,215

5,245

7,275

9,304

11,334

10.0%

13.5

18.5

23.2

27.7

32.0

20.0%

4,684

6,898

9,112

11,327

13,541

20.0%

17.1

22.3

27.3

32.0

36.5

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 260

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

19-4: Post-Tax NPV (US$M) and IRR (%) Sensitivity Analysis

Post-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Discount Rate

Post-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Discount Rate

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Discount

Rate

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Discount

Rate

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

1.0%

5,042

8,472

11,896

15,306

18,708

1.0%

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

3.0%

2,584

4,809

7,027

9,233

11,433

3.0%

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

5.0%

1,226

2,790

4,344

5,887

7,426

5.0%

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

8.0%

144

1,176

2,197

3,209

4,217

8.0%

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

10.0%

(264)

563

1,379

2,187

2,991

10.0%

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

Post-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Operating Costs

Post-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Operating Costs

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Operating

Costs

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Operating

Costs

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

2,850

4,399

5,941

7,477

9,009

(20.0%)

12.9

17.0

20.8

24.5

28.2

(10.0%)

2,042

3,598

5,143

6,684

8,219

(10.0%)

10.8

15.0

18.9

22.7

26.4

—

1,226

2,790

4,344

5,887

7,426

—

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

10.0%

394

1,978

3,537

5,088

6,630

10.0%

6.2

10.7

14.9

18.9

22.7

20.0%

(456)

1,160

2,725

4,283

5,831

20.0%

3.5

8.5

12.8

16.9

20.9

Post-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Initial Capital

Post-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Initial Capital

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Initial

Capital

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Initial

Capital

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

1,644

3,204

4,754

6,294

7,830

(20.0%)

10.9

16.1

21.0

25.7

30.1

(10.0%)

1,436

2,997

4,549

6,091

7,628

(10.0%)

9.7

14.3

18.8

23.0

27.1

—

1,226

2,790

4,344

5,887

7,426

—

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

10.0%

1,015

2,582

4,137

5,682

7,223

10.0%

7.7

11.7

15.4

19.0

22.5

20.0%

802

2,375

3,929

5,477

7,019

20.0%

7.0

10.7

14.1

17.5

20.7

Post-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Head Grade

Post-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Head Grade

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Head

Grade

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Head

Grade

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

(1,405)

(43)

1,239

2,490

3,736

(20.0%)

0.0

4.9

8.7

12.1

15.4

(10.0%)

(50)

1,390

2,796

4,195

5,585

(10.0%)

4.8

9.1

12.9

16.6

20.1

—

1,226

2,790

4,344

5,887

7,426

—

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

10.0%

2,472

4,183

5,881

7,573

9,260

10.0%

12.0

16.5

20.8

24.9

28.9

20.0%

3,711

5,567

7,414

9,254

11,087

20.0%

15.3

20.0

24.6

28.9

33.1

Post-Tax

NPV5% Sensitivity to Recovery

Post-Tax

IRR Sensitivity to Recovery

Metal

Price

Metal

Price

Recovery

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

Recovery

(20%)

(10%)

10%

20%

(20.0%)

(1,405)

(43)

1,239

2,490

3,736

(20.0%)

0.0

4.9

8.7

12.1

15.4

(10.0%)

(50)

1,390

2,796

4,195

5,585

(10.0%)

4.8

9.1

12.9

16.6

20.1

—

1,226

2,790

4,344

5,887

7,426

—

8.6

12.9

16.9

20.8

24.6

10.0%

2,472

4,183

5,881

7,573

9,260

10.0%

12.0

16.5

20.8

24.9

28.9

20.0%

3,711

5,567

7,414

9,254

11,087

20.0%

15.3

20.0

24.6

28.9

33.1

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 261

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

shown in Figure 19-2 and Figure 19-3, the sensitivity analysis revealed that the project is most sensitive to changes in metal price,

head grade, and recovery.

Figure

19-2: Pre-Tax Sensitivity Analysis Results

Note:

Metal price, head grade, and recovery series overlap on the above figures

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 262

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Figure

19-3: Post-Tax Sensitivity Analysis Results

Note:

Metal price, head grade, and recovery series overlap on the above figures. Source: Ausenco, 2026

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 263

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

20 Adjacent

Properties

The

Rosebud mine is located about 4.7 miles south-east of the Mine (Figure 20-1). Rosebud was operated as an underground stope mine between

1997 and 2000 by a joint venture between Hecla and Newmont. Additional details are available online at mindat.org. Information disclosed

at this site has not been verified by a Qualified Person and may not necessarily indicative of the mineralization at Hycroft, which is

the subject of this Technical Report.

Figure

20-1 : Location of Rosebud Property

Source:

Hycroft, 2023

The

deposit is part of a large, low-sulfidation hydrothermal system extending throughout most of the Kamma Mountains. Specifically, the deposit

is a low-temperature epithermal, quartz-sericite, gold and silver deposit within Miocene andesitic and rhyolitic volcanics and volcaniclastics.

The volcanics unconformably overlie a Jurassic/Triassic metasediment basement, which also hosts precious metal mineralization.

Main

structural elements include the east-west trending South Ridge Fault and the northeast trending Rosebud Shear, which displays up to 2,000

ft of left-lateral displacement and about 400 ft of normal displacement. The South Ridge Fault is a mineralized listric normal fault

which acted as a conduit for mineralizing fluids.

The

mining method was overhand cut and fill with access via a decline. Equipment was rubber-tired, including drill jumbos, rock bolters,

3.5-yard loaders, and 20-ton haul trucks. Typical ore panels were 14 ft high, 18 ft wide and about 80 ft long. These were backfilled

with cemented materials batched at the surface and hauled underground.

Ore

was direct shipped to the Carlin district for processing.

The

QP has been unable to verify the information in this section, and the information is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization

on the property that is the subject of the technical report summary.

21 Other

Relevant Data and Information

There

is no information in this section of the TRS.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 264

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

22 Interpretation

and Conclusions

22.1 Introduction

The

QPs note the following interpretations and conclusions in their respective areas of expertise, based on the review of data available

for this Report.

22.2 Mineral

Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements

Hycroft

controls all surface and mineral rights within the Hycroft MRE area. No further land acquisition is required for the operation of the

mine and contemplated processing facilities.

22.3 Geology

and Mineralization

The

Hycroft deposit is a low-sulfidation, epithermal, hot springs system that contains gold and silver mineralization. Radiometric dating

of adularia (potassium feldspar) indicates that the main phase of gold and silver mineralization formed approximately four million years

ago (Ebert and Rye, 1997) when hydrothermal fluids were fed upward along high angle, normal faults. Low-grade gold and silver mineralization

were co-deposited with silica and potassium feldspar throughout porous rock types.

22.4 Exploration

The

exploration drilling, sample preparation, analysis and security are typical for the US mining industry and is acceptable for application

to mineral resource determination.

Within

the block model, there are 5,813 drillholes with 516,901 drill intervals amounting to 2,668,616 ft of drilling. The work outlined is

a summary of over a year’s worth of data verification and checking by Hycroft and IMC personnel. As a result, the Hycroft and IMC

teams have gained significant confidence in this data set. IMC holds the opinion that the database as utilized in this statement of mineral

resources inclusive the edits and corrections outlined is appropriate for the estimation of mineral resources.

The

QP considers that exploration drilling, sampling, sample preparation, analytical methods and security are acceptable, are in line with

industry-standard practices, and are adequate for mineral resource determination.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 265

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

22.5 Metallurgical

Testwork

Metallurgical

testwork has been conducted at multiple accredited laboratories with the following results:

● The

mineralized material at Hycroft is considered very abrasive.

● The

mineralized material at Hycroft is considered hard with respect to grinding.

● Silver

recovery decreases at low pH ranges (<5.0) during oxidation, indicating the need for a

lime boil step following POX.

● Oxygen

consumption in POX circuit is primarily a function of the sulfide sulfur content of the concentrate.

To achieve approximately 95% sulfide oxidation, about 0.19 ton of oxygen per ton of concentrate

is required.

● Metallurgical

testwork completed between 2021 and 2025 confirms that Hycroft sulfide mineralization is

amenable to a flotation and POX processing route. Optimized flotation conditions significantly

improved gold recoveries, and subsequent POX testing demonstrated that POX followed by hot

cure, lime boil, and cyanide leaching is a technically viable and repeatable flowsheet for

treating pyrite concentrate.

22.6 Mineral

Resource Estimate

Mineral

resources were developed based on a conventional computer-based block model of the deposit and the application of open pit optimization

software to determine the mineralization with reasonable expectation of economic extraction.

Each

block was evaluated to determine which process provides the best net return after operating cost. The following two processes were identified:

● ROM

cyanide heap leaching of oxide and some transition materials.

● Milling,

Flotation, POX, Hot Cure, and Lime Boil followed by Cyanide Leach and Merrill-Crowe of sulfide

and some transition materials.

The

MRE is based on metal prices of $3,100/oz Au and $36.00/oz Ag. Mineral resources were contained within a computer-generated pit.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 266

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Table

22-1: Hycroft Mineral Resources as of 21 January 2026, US customary Units

Classification

Net of

Process/ton

Approximate

Cutoff, AuEq oz/ton

Ktons

Gold

oz/ton

Silver

oz/ton

Sulfide

Contained

Ounces

Gold

Oz x 1000

Silver

Oz x 1000

Heap

Leach Resource

Measured

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

92,994

0.005

0.11

1.83

446

10,322

Indicated

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,374

0.004

0.09

1.54

475

9,492

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

203,368

0.005

0.10

1.67

921

19,814

Inferred

$1.88

- $3.63

0.001

- 0.002

110,018

0.005

0.09

1.41

528

10,122

Flotation

Mill + Concentrate Treatment by Pressure Oxidation and Cyanide Leach

Measured

$16.73

0.007

734,571

0.011

0.43

2.03

8,154

316,600

Indicated

$16.73

0.007

748,876

0.010

0.30

1.84

7,339

226,161

Meas

+ Ind

$16.73

0.007

1,483,447

0.010

0.37

1.93

15,493

542,761

Inferred

$16.73

0.007

459,646

0.010

0.27

1.76

4,505

122,725

Combined

Mineral Resources Leach Plus Mill

Measured

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

827,565

0.010

0.40

2.01

8,600

326,922

Indicated

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

859,250

0.009

0.27

1.80

7,814

235,653

Meas

+ Ind

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

1,686,815

0.010

0.33

1.90

16,414

562,575

Inferred

$1.88

- $16.73

0.001

- 0.007

569,664

0.009

0.23

1.69

5,033

132,847

Notes:

1. Mineral

resources based on metal prices of $3,100/oz Au and $36.00/oz Ag.

2. Cutoffs

are income – process cost = NPR = NSR – Process + G&A Opex.

3. Gold

Equivalent (AuEq) for Heap Leach = Cyanide Gold + 0.0019 x Total Silver Assay, or at average

gold leach recovery AuEq = Fire Gold + 0.0035 Total Silver Assay.

4. Gold

Equivalent for Mill + Pressure Oxidation = Fire Gold + 0.0107 x Total Silver Assay.

5. Numbers

may not match exactly due to rounding.

6. Mineral

resources are contained within a computer-generated optimized pit.

7. Total

material in the pit is 5.42 billion tons.

8. Mineral

resources are not mineral reserves, and detailed economic considerations have not been applied.

9. Modifying

factors for mine and process design have not been applied.

10. All

units are US customary. Ktons means 1,000 short tons of 2,000 lbs. Au and Ag grades

are in troy ounces per short ton (oz/ton).

Contained

within the MRE at Hycroft are a series of high-grade silver veins at Brimstone and zones of higher silver concentrations in Vortex that

are associated with a low angle breccia body. Table 22-2 is the tabulation of gold and silver within the domain volumes that are contained

within the MRE at 2 oz/ton cutoff grade in US customary units.

Table

22-2: High-grade

Silver Bearing Domains, Contained within the Mineral Resource at 2 oz/ton Cutoff Grade, US customary Units

Classification

Cutoff

Grade Silver oz/ton

Ktons

Gold

oz/ton

Silver

oz/ton

Sulfide

Sulfur%

Gold

Contained

oz x 1000

Silver

Contained

oz x 1000

Brimstone

Measured

2.00

3,195

0.011

8.35

1.33

26,686

Indicated

2.00

330

0.010

3.11

1.87

1,025

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

3,525

0.011

7.86

1.38

27,711

Inferred

2.00

0.008

3.52

1.13

Vortex

Measured

2.00

9,126

0.018

3.81

1.49

160

34,781

Indicated

2.00

7,342

0.014

3.78

1.24

100

27,726

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

16,468

0.016

3.80

1.38

261

62,507

Inferred

2.00

3,644

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,307

Brimstone

+ Vortex

Measured

2.00

12,322

0.016

4.99

1.45

195

61,467

Indicated

2.00

7,671

0.013

3.75

1.26

104

28,750

Meas

+ Ind

2.00

19,993

0.015

4.51

1.38

299

90,218

Inferred

2.00

3,659

0.014

3.65

1.27

13,359

22.7 Recovery

Plan

The

proposed recovery methods for the Project are conventional and appropriate for the mineralization types identified at Hycroft. The process

design incorporates two established treatment pathways: (i) cyanide heap leaching of ROM oxide and select transition materials, and (ii)

milling, flotation, and POX of sulfide and higher-sulfur transition materials, followed by cyanide leaching and Merrill-Crowe recovery.

The

sulfide processing flowsheet, comprising three-stage crushing, grinding, flotation concentration, concentrate thickening, POX, neutralization,

CCD washing, cyanide leaching, and zinc precipitation, is based on well-established industry practices for treatment of refractory gold-silver

mineralized material. The selected POX conditions, downstream neutralization and conditioning steps (including hot curing and lime boil),

and subsequent cyanide leaching are consistent with standard approaches for oxidation of sulfide concentrates and recovery of precious

metals.

The

use of Merrill-Crowe zinc precipitation for gold and silver recovery is appropriate given the anticipated solution chemistry and elevated

silver content. Integration of heap leach and milling/POX circuits, including handling of combined pregnant solutions and shared recovery

infrastructure, is considered practical and consistent with current operations at the site.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 267

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Testwork

results support the application of the selected flowsheet, including flotation performance and POX oxidation behavior, although further

metallurgical testwork is recommended at the PFS level to confirm design criteria, optimize operating parameters, and reduce technical

uncertainty. Key areas for further work include flotation optimization, POX operating conditions, reagent consumptions, and solid-liquid

separation performance.

the opinion of the Qualified Person, the proposed recovery methods are suitable for the current level of study and provide a reasonable

basis for the process design and economic evaluation presented in this report. The recovery methods are considered to be consistent with

industry standards and applicable to the mineralization types identified, subject to the recommended further testwork and design refinement.

22.8 Infrastructure

The

Hycroft Site is accessible via Jungo Road (Nevada State Route 49), an all-weather gravel roadway connecting the mine to the town of Winnemucca

and Interstate 80. Most current and future Hycroft employees reside in Winnemucca; transportation to site will be provided as required.

A Union Pacific rail line runs adjacent to the mine, and a proposed rail spur and siding will allow for the delivery of bulk consumables

including limestone, grinding media, and fuels. Rail infrastructure will also facilitate the shipment of finished products. New access

roads shall be constructed to provide access to the new process plant and other proposed infrastructure. The new roads will complement

the existing site haul roads which are to remain largely in use.

The

proposed process plant will tie into the existing crushing circuit and portions of the current processing infrastructure. Upgrades to

existing infrastructure are also planned to support the expanded operation. These upgrades include the relocation of existing site assets,

expanding storage capacity, or expanding the operational or control of select facilities. Existing administrative and operational facilities

will be repurposed where possible, while new ancillary facilities such as a laboratory, fueling station, maintenance shop, or other supporting

infrastructure will be constructed to support Hycroft operations.

The

site currently has power from the grid. Upgrades to site power distribution systems are proposed to support the increased power demand

of the new process facility.

Existing

telecommunication infrastructure currently supports data connectivity throughout the site.

Consumables

including fuels and reagents are to be supplied to site via the proposed rail spur connecting the site to the nearby Union Pacific line.

This transport system will also support the movement of Hycroft products off-site.

Water

will be captured and stored from groundwater wells within the Black Rock Desert Basin. Drainage infrastructure on site will capture runoff

water and recycle it to reduce freshwater demand at the process plant. A life-of-mine water balance model was developed to evaluate operational

water requirements and variability under different climatic conditions.

The

infrastructure design approach adopted prioritizes integrating new facilities within the network of existing facilities and upgrading

existing facilities such that they may continue to support the project. Regional transportation and power networks will continue to serve

the Hycroft Site.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 268

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

22.8.1

Tailings

Management Facility

The

TMF uses conventional designs and assumes construction in a total of eight stages and zero discharge of process solutions. The TMF will

fill the broad valley immediately northeast of the mill site and requires the main and north embankments to impound the tailings. The

main embankment will cross the natural drainage on the west side of the TMF, and the north embankment will be constructed along the northern

ridge. The facility will provide continuous containment of process solutions through the installation of a vertical chimney drain and

engineered lining systems, extending across the impoundment basin and below a portion of the main embankment and along the upstream side

of the north the embankment. The design can store runoff from the basin and direct precipitation on the facility resulting from the 5,000-year,

24-hour storm event during operation and the 10,000-year, 24-hour storm event post-closure.

● The

relevant results and interpretations related to the TMF design are based on the data and

other information summarized in this Report.

● Section

23 describes the recommended work and site investigations to be completed for detailed design

and permitting of the TMF.

22.9 Markets

and Contracts

Gold

and silver doré will be sold on the spot market under terms typical of comparable doré sales contracts. No refining, transportation,

or hedging contracts are currently in place, though these are considered readily obtainable. Doré refining and marketing will

occur through agreements with established refineries with terms aligning with industry standards.

22.10 Capital

Cost Estimate

The

capital cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, and contingency is less than 25% which

aligns with an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The estimate

includes mining, processing, on-site infrastructure, off-site infrastructure, project indirects, project delivery, owners’ costs,

and provisions. The total initial capital costs for the Project are estimated at US$2,434 million, including capitalized operating costs,

and contingency. The LOM sustaining costs are estimated at US$3,107 million, while the closure costs are estimated at US$243 million.

22.11 Operating

Cost Estimate

The

operating cost estimate was developed in Q1 2026 to target a level of accuracy of -30% to +50%, and contingency is less than 25% which

aligns with an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) Class 5 level estimate. The total

operating costs for the Project are estimated at US$21.96/t processed or US$27,592 million over the 51-year mine life. These operating

costs do not include pre-production operating costs.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 269

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

22.12 Economic

Analysis

The

economic analysis was performed assuming a 5% discount rate. The pre-tax NPV discounted at 5% is US$5,437 million; the IRR is 18.9%,

and payback period is 4.3 years. On a post-tax basis, the NPV discounted at 5% is US$4,344 million, the IRR is 16.9%, and the payback

period is 4.7 years.

sensitivity analysis was conducted on the base case NPV and IRR of the project using the following variables: discount rate, head grade,

recovery, total operating cost, initial capital cost, as well as silver and gold prices, which were encompassed in a single variable,

metal price. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the project is most sensitive to changes in metal price, head grade, and recovery.

22.13 Risks

and Opportunities

22.13.1 Risks

22.13.1.1 Exploration

There

are structural complexities with yet underdetermined kinematics controlling the high-grade silver veins requiring additional drilling

for further definition.

22.13.1.2 Sample

Preparation, Analysis and Security

the future, IMC recommends that complete QA/QC procedures be applied to silver and sulfide sulfur assaying and sampling. Regular sampling

for QA/QC should be applied to those values in the same way as they have been recently applied to gold.

22.13.1.3 Metallurgical

Testing

While

the available metallurgical testwork supports the proposed flotation followed by POX flowsheet, several risks remain at the current level

of study. Previous test programs did not fully evaluate mercury deportment during POX, and additional work is required to confirm mercury

behavior in autoclave off-gas and determine whether mercury capture systems will be required to meet environmental compliance requirements.

The potential need for such systems may result in additional capital and operating costs.

Uncertainty

also remains with respect to POX performance, including oxidation efficiency, reagent consumption, and downstream process behavior, as

well as variability in metallurgical response across different ore types. The assumed gold and silver recoveries are based on available

testwork and are subject to refinement as additional data become available. In addition, operating cost estimates are sensitive to reagent

consumption and market-driven pricing, including energy and consumables, which may fluctuate over time and impact overall project economics.

metallurgical testwork has been completed on transition material for heap leach processing. Heap leach recovery, leach kinetics, reagent

consumption, and permeability characteristics therefore remain uncertain, and the current assumptions may not fully represent actual

operating performance. Additional transition material heap leach testwork is recommended in future study phases to reduce technical uncertainty.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 270

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

22.13.1.4 Mineral

Resource Estimate

The

risks to the MRE are project costs and project recoveries as well as metal prices that can have a substantial impact both positive and

negative.

Cutoff

grades for both heap leach and concentrator processing are low due to the current high level of metal prices.

Any

reduction of process recovery near the heap leach or concentrator cutoff grades could result in a loss of mineral resource.

22.13.1.5 Processing

and Recovery Methods

The

proposed recovery methods, consisting of flotation followed by POX and cyanide leaching, are supported by available metallurgical testwork;

however, uncertainties remain at the current level of study. Key risks include incomplete definition of POX performance and downstream

process behavior, and potential impacts from mercury deportment and reagent consumption. These factors may affect gold and silver recoveries

and increase operating costs, and recovery assumptions remain subject to refinement as additional testwork is completed. The brownfield

nature of some of the process plant introduces risk for cost and reliability.

22.13.1.6 Infrastructure

The

crushing facility, process plant, and associated office have a proposed location within 500 m of the pit blasting zone. This introduces

the risk of blast-induced vibration, flyrock, or dust impacting facilities or personnel. The long mine life for plant and infrastructure,

as well as the connection to grid which is critical to get the project into operation.

22.13.1.7 TMF

● The

TMF has been sized to provide containment and storage of up to 1.05 Btons of tailings at

an overall settled dry density of 92 pcf. Throughout operation of the TMF, testing in-situ

tailings for density and strength properties may indicate a lower density is achieved due

to various factors including increased water for slurry distribution. This would result in

an additional stage beyond Stage 8 presented in this Report. In this event, local, State,

and Federal permitting may be required and an increase construction sustaining capital and

operating costs would be required for the additional stage.

● At

this stage of the Project, there is reasonable certainty that the location and design of

the TMF as presented for this PEA study will be used as planned. No significant design changes

are likely to be required provided that no material changes in location, geotechnical parameters,

or design are needed as a result of the ongoing and future local, State, and Federal permitting

process and future investigations and studies.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 271

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

● If

actual activities related to the construction, management, operation, and closure of the

TMF do differ materially from the results summarized in this Report, then the reasonably

foreseeable impacts of these risks and uncertainties are most likely to be project delays

and additional costs. However, any such delays or additional costs may reasonably be expected

to be managed in the ordinary course and should not impact overall project viability.

● Construction

work in Nevada is seasonal. Poor weather during the construction season may result in delays

to the Project schedule.

● If

additional, or alternative, borrow areas are required for construction and/or reclamation

of the TMF that are more distant than contemplated in this prefeasibility study, then construction

and/or reclamation construction costs of the TMF will increase as compared to the costs estimated

in this Report.

22.13.2 Opportunities

22.13.2.1 Exploration

Hycroft

holds a large land package with good growth potential.

Multiple

episodes of mineralization within a well-developed structural framework may result in discovery of additional mineral trends that are

open along strike and at depth.

Expanding

the use of IP geophysics in the mineralization zone may identify multiple untested targets in the existing data set. This emerging technology

has a proven record of success in similar applications.

22.13.2.2 Metallurgical

Testing

Additional

metallurgical testwork provides opportunities to further optimize the POX circuit design and potentially reduce capital and operating

costs. Key testwork opportunities include evaluating POX kinetics to confirm minimum autoclave retention time, assessing the impact of

flotation grind size and mass pull on concentrate quality and POX performance, and optimizing oxygen partial pressure and utilization.

Additional work is also recommended to confirm autothermal operation, characterize solids–liquid separation performance for flotation

concentrate and POX discharge, and better define POX discharge chemistry to optimize neutralization and downstream processing. Targeted

off-gas and condensate characterization may also be required to support environmental compliance requirements.

Alternatives

for processing flotation concentrates are under process development, including but not limited to, roasting and sulfide sulfur recovery

for sulfuric acid production. This has the potential to reduce operating costs, raise gold and silver recoveries and create an additional

revenue stream.

22.13.2.3 Mineral

Resource Estimate

Alternatives

are under evaluation for treatment of flotation concentrates. Improvements and confirmation of those alternatives could provide significant

financial benefit and increase the volume and value of the MRE.

Minimal

geotechnical information has been gathered resulting in very conservative slope parameters applied. Adding geotechnical data from the

drilling and logging program may improve the alteration model which could lead to more beneficial slope parameters, thus reducing stripping

ratios.

22.13.2.4 Processing

and Recovery Methods

The

metallurgical testwork completed to date indicates that the proposed recovery methods are technically viable and provide opportunities

for further optimization. Additional metallurgical testing and process refinement are expected to improve recovery performance, optimize

operating conditions, and enhance overall process efficiency. Continued advancement of the flowsheet is anticipated to reduce technical

uncertainty and support increased confidence in recovery assumptions as the Project progresses to a PFS study.

22.13.2.5 Infrastructure

22.13.2.5.1 TMF

There

may be an opportunity to reduce capital construction costs for the TMF by using the mine haulage fleet for embankment and compact embankment

fill, rather than a contractor. Additional cost savings may be achieved by increasing or decreasing intermediate TMF staged embankment

construction to align with mine planning opportunities for more or less suitable waste materials.

The

TMF has been sized to provide containment and storage of up to 1.05 Btons of tailings at an overall settled dry density of 92 pcf. Throughout

the operation of the TMF, in-situ testing of tailings for density and strength properties may indicate that a higher density is achieved.

This would result in either additional storage capacity beyond the Stage 8 design volume, or the ability to reduce the final Stage 8

dam crest elevation to match the in-situ tailings density.

Additional

closer to the pit areas or pit backfill opportunities should be explored in the next phase of the project. Changing the location of the

WRSF can have an impact on overall waste rock haulage costs.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 272

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

23 Recommendations

23.1 Estimated

Program Costs

Table

23-1 provides estimated program costs.

Table

23-1: Estimated Program Costs

Program

Cost

Estimated

Cost (US$)

Updated

Technical Report with Economics

200,000

Exploration

Drilling East and South

1,600,000

Exploration

Drilling Deep in Brimstone/Vortex

14,500,000

Regional

Exploration Targets

500,000

Exploration

for Leachable Opportunities (Bay and Camel)

1,800,000

Exploration

- Leach Pads and Stockpiles

800,000

Sample

Preparation - Procedural Upgrade

50,000

Metallurgical

and Process Testwork Programs

1,500,000

Mineral

Resource - Alternative Processing Method Development

800,000

Mineral

Resource and Mine Planning – Additional Geotechnical Testing

300,000

Total:

22,050,000

Note:

1. All

costs are subject to change based on project results

23.2 Exploration

● Increase

the drill hole density in the Bay area.

● Continue

to develop drill plans in the exploration target areas to the east (Manganese and Wildrose)

and south (Oscar), to further expand the resource.

● Continue

deep exploration on Brimstone and Vortex high-grade mineralization.

● Drill

the Bay and Camel targets to fully define leachable opportunities.

● Continue

developing regional exploration targets.

● Continue

exploring the total land package that Hycroft holds, including more geological mapping, soil

and chip samples, geophysical information and drilling.

● Drill

out the current leach pads and stockpiles to better define potential economic benefit to

future processing activities.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 273

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

23.3 Sample

Preparation, Analysis and Security

Always

complete QA/QC analysis on all potentially economic minerals including gold, silver, and sulfide sulfur. Avoid selective application

of quality controls during the drilling, sampling, and assay process.

23.4 Metallurgical

Testing

is recommended that Hycroft continue to evaluate known oxide/transition zones for further heap leach feed material. Also, Hycroft should

investigate the potential to re-leach material from historic heap leach pads for an additional revenue source.

● Undertake

additional metallurgical testwork specifically on transition material to validate recovery

assumptions, and operating parameters, as transition material performance to the heap has

been identified as a project risk.

is also recommended that Hycroft undertake additional metallurgical testwork covering flotation, POX, leaching, solids–liquid separation,

cyanide destruction, and Merrill-Crowe processes. The results of this testwork should allow Hycroft to:

● optimize

the flotation reagent suite to reduce operating costs

● optimize

the autoclave retention time required for variations in flotation concentrate product size

● evaluate

the potential to reduce autoclave oxygen partial pressure to the range of 15–30 psi

● generate

additional recovery data as a function of retention time and extent of sulfide oxidation

● investigate

each of the POX, Hot Cure, and Lime Boil stages in sufficient detail to reduce capital costs

by reducing lime and limestone consumption, eliminating unnecessary process steps or shortening

retention times, thereby reducing equipment sizing and cost

● investigate

POX discharge solution chemistry and limestone/lime consumptions to reduce operating costs

● determine

whether flotation mass pull can be reduced. The sulfide grade of the concentrate may be marginal

with respect to providing sufficient exothermic energy to sustain autoclave reactions. This

information is required to determine whether preheating is necessary ahead of POX

● obtain

solids–liquid separation performance data and flocculant requirements for all thickeners,

including tailings, concentrate, POX CCDs, and leach residue CCDs. Higher underflow density

from the concentrate thickener would be beneficial to the autoclave heat balance

● optimize

cyanide addition and quantify cyanide consumption in the leach circuit, including levels

of free and WAD cyanide post-leach

● optimize

reagent consumption in the cyanide destruction circuit by developing an accurate and reliable

SO₂/CN ratio

● determine

whether post-leach solution chemistry impacts Merrill-Crowe recovery efficiency.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 274

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

23.5 Mineral

Resource Estimate

Continue

evaluation and testing of alternative processing methods of flotation concentrates.

Always

complete QA/QC analysis on all potentially economic minerals including gold, silver, and sulfide sulfur.

Gather

more geotechnical information from previous core samples and with the addition of new geotechnical core holes to improve slope stability

parameters.

23.6 Infrastructure

power study is currently underway to determine the power line voltage and the number of powerlines required to feed the process plant.

Currently, power is supplied to the site via nearby power lines which are energized via the main power grid. This technical report assumes

that 2 x 120 kV powerlines will be required. Considering load growth and demand from the oxygen plant, the total estimated operating

load is 160 MW (including the existing crushing plant and North Merrill-Crowe loads which are to be transferred to the new power distribution

system once operational). The power will be delivered through one 120 kV overhead power line stretching 52 miles onto the site.

23.6.1 TMF

advance the TMF design beyond this PEA study level, WSP recommends the following evaluations, studies, and documents to support future

feasibility-level and detailed design suitable for permitting:

● Dam

breach analysis and inundation mapping to assess downstream impacts and validate the Dam

consequence classification of “Very High”.

● Completion

of a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) workshop for selection and/or or confirmation

of the GISTM 2020 Failure Consequence Classification of Very High.

● Supplemental

geotechnical evaluations based on revised TMF geometry to include, but not limited to:

○ optimization

of TMF layout taking advantage of topography

○ geotechnical

investigation and laboratory program, that may include geotechnical boreholes, test pits,

geophysics, instrumentation installation, and laboratory program to determine physical and

mechanical properties of foundation soils and bedrock, construction materials, and tailings

○ characterization

of geologic and foundations conditions, embankment construction materials, drainage and geomembrane

bedding materials

○ update

the site-specific seismic and geologic hazard assessment

○ update

stability and deformation analyses

○ perform

tailings, embankment materials, and foundation liquefaction assessment

○ perform

foundation and embankment settlement analyses

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 275

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

○ completion

of a hydrogeologic evaluation within the TMF area for groundwater and artesian springs

○ update

TMF design based on mine schedule, process technology, geotechnical, hydrogeology, hydrology,

and engineering analyses

○ update

surface water management design based on updated TMF layout

○ development

of a monthly time-step water balance that include extreme wet and dry annual climate conditions

with consideration for climate change

○ completion

of a seepage and consolidation model for the long-term closure condition of the tailings

○ preparation

of a preliminary TMF closure plan, including design of closure cover channels and closure

spillway and outlet structure

○ update

capital, sustaining capital, and operating costs based on future investigations and design

of the TMF.

additional information is obtained, assumptions made in this study can be verified or updated to advance the project to the next level

of design. The cost of implementing the above recommendations is estimated at US$1,360,000.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 276

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

24 References

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc. (2023). Initial Assessment Technical Report Summary; Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada Prepared by Ausenco

for Hycroft Mining Holding Corp. Effective Date: March 27, 2023.

Ausenco

Engineering USA South Inc, (2022). Technical Report Summary of Initial Assessment on the Hycroft Mine, Nevada, United States of America.

Prepared by Ausenco for Hycroft Mining Holding Corp. Effective Date: February 18, 2022.

Bailey,

E.H, & Phoenix, D.A. (1944). Quicksilver deposits in Nevada (University of Nevada Bulletin, Vol.38, No.5; Geology and Mining

Series No 41). Nevada State Bureau of Mines.

Bates,

W.R. (2001). A proposed exploration program for the hycroft mine. Unpublished Vista Gold report.

Bureau

of Land Management (BLM). (2019). Hycroft mine phase II expansion project draft environmental impact statement (DOI-BLM-NV-W030-2015-007).

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Winnemucca District Office, Black Rock Field Office, in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Southwest Region Division of Migratory Bird Management. May 2019.

California’s

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), OSHPD Seismic design maps website for Hycroft Mine, Reference: ASCE

7-16, Site Class: D, Risk Category. Visited 20 Aug 2021. I Available at: https://seismicmaps.org/.

Clark,

I.C. (1918). recently recognized alunite deposits at sulphur, Humboldt County, Nevada. Engineering and Mining Journal, 106(4), 159-162..

Couch,

B.F. & Carpenter, J. A. (1943). Nevada’s metal and mineral production (1859-1940 inclusive). (University of Nevada

Bulletin, Vol. 37, No.4; Geology and Mining Series No. 38). Nevada State Bureau of Mines.

Ebert,

S.W., & Rye, R.O. (1997). Secondary precious metal enrichment by steam-heated fluids in the Crofoot-Lewis hot spring gold -silver

deposit. Economic Geology, v.92(5), 578-600. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.92.5.578

Friberg,

R.S. (1980). Detailed evaluation report of the sulphur Au Ag prospect, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada. Unpublished Homestake

Mining Company Report, 32 p.

Fulton,

J.A., & Smith, A.M. (1932). Sulphur mining district file manuscript: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Mining District Files

(includes alunite production notes from 1931). Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 277

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Golder.

(2011a). Pre-feasibility design report. Prepared by Golder Associates Inc for Allied Nevada Gold Corporation,, revised September

2011.

Golder.

(2011b). Earthquake Ground Motions for the North and South Heap Leach Facilities Seismic Analyses and Design, Hycroft Mine, Nevada.

Technical Memorandum prepared by Alan Hull and Eric Cannon of Golder Associates Inc. for Chris MacMahon of Golder Associates Inc. October

26, 2011.

Golder.

(2014a). Feasibility design report, Tailings Management Facility, Hycroft Mine, Nevada. Report prepared by Golder Associates Inc.

for Allied Nevada Gold Corporation. November 20, 2014.

Golder.

(2014b). Geotechnical Characterization of Pilot Plant Mill Tailings. Report prepared by Golder Associates Inc. for Allied Nevada

Gold Corporation. 2014.

Golder.

(2014c). Hycroft Tailings – Consolidation Modelling. Report prepared by Golder Associates Inc. for Allied Nevada Gold Corporation.

2014.

Golder.

(2014d). Tailings Stage-Density Relationship for Feasibility Design. Report prepared by Golder Associates Inc. for Allied Nevada

Gold Corporation. 2014.

Golder.

(2014e). Geotechnical Characterization of Pilot Plant Mill Tailings, Rev. 1. Report prepared by Golder Associates Inc. for Allied

Nevada Gold Corporation. September 8, 2014.

Golder.,

(2016). Feasibility Design Report, Tailings Management Facility (TMF). Report prepared for Hycroft Mining Corporation by Golder

Associates. November 3, 2016.

Golder.

(2022). Hycroft Tailings Management Facility – Prefeasibility Design Report. for Hycroft Mining Corporation as of January

28, 2022.

Hazen

Research Inc. (2011). POX-CIL Evaluation of Hycroft Flotation Concentrates, Hazen Project 11232 Report and Appendices A-F.

Hazen

Research Inc. (2011). Evaluation of Hycroft Blend Flotation Concentrate, Hazen Project 11243-01 Report and Appendix.

Hazen

Research Inc. (2011). Evaluation of Kappes, Cassiday & Associates Flotation Concentrate, Hazen Project 11307 Report and Appendix.

Hazen

Research Inc. (2014). Atmospheric Alkaline Oxidation Pre-treatment Pilot Plant of Hycroft Flotation Concentrates, Hazen Project 11859.

Hazen

Research Inc. (2014). Phase 2 Atmospheric Alkaline Oxidation of Hycroft Flotation Concentrate, Hazen Project 11821.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 278

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Humboldt

County Building Department. (2018). 2018 code amendments. Retrieved August 20, 2021. Available at: https://www.humboldtcountynv.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3415/2018-Code-Admendments-Approved.

Hycroft

Mining Holding Corporation. (2021). Hycroft building a world-class operation. [PowerPoint presentation]; April 20, 2021. http://www.hycroftmining.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-Presentation-4-19-21.pdf.

Hycroft

Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI). (2017). Fact Sheet Pursuant to Hycroft Mine Project, Permit Number: NEV0094114. Renewal 2017,

Fact Sheet Revision 01. https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/documents/NEV0094114dfsFY20.pdf.

Hycroft

Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI). (2018). Hycroft Mine amendment to plan of operations (NVN-064641) Phase II Expansion Project.

Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Black Rock Field Office, Winnemucca, Nevada. April

2014. Revised June 2014, Revised January 2017, Revised March 2017, and Revised June 2018.

Hynes-Griffin,

M.E., & Franklin, A. G. (1984). Rationalizing the seismic coefficient method. Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, Geotechnical Laboratory,

U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Ibrado,

A.S., Roth, D.K., Snider, J.W., Brown, R.A., Harris, D.A., Pennstrom, W.J., Peterson, A.T. (2014). NI 43-101 Technical Report Mill

Expansion Feasibility Study Technical Report, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA. Prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp for Allied

Nevada Gold Corp., Effective date: November 03, 2014.

ICMM,

UNEP, & PRI (2020). Global Industry Standards on Tailings Management (GISTM).

Jones,

J.C. (1921). Report on the Property of the Ag Camel Mining and Development Company, Sulphur, Nevada. Unpublished Ag Camel Mining and

Development Company Report, 6p.

J.P.

Morgan Private Bank. (n.d). Is It a Golden Era for Gold? https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/nam/en/insights/markets-and-investing/is-it-a-golden-era-for-gold

Kappes,

Cassidy & Associates. (2013). Hycroft Pressure Oxidation and Leach Test Work (Project No. 189 C/Report I.D. KCA0120225_HY18_02

/ Mainfile No. 7665). Internal report prepared for Hycroft.

London

Bullion Market Association (LBMA), 2025, Month Unknown. LBMA Annual Precious Metals Forecast Survey 2025 – Winners Announced. https://www.lbma.org.uk/articles/lbma-annual-precious-metals-forecast-survey-2025-winners-announced

McLean,

D.A. (1991). Geology of the Crofoot Mine. unpublished Report prepared for Hycroft Resources and Development Inc. 11p.

Michael

W. West & Associates, Inc. (MMW). (2012). Review of Seismogenic Potential of the Kamma (East) Fault and Design Ground Motions,

Proposed Heap Leach Facilities, Hycroft Mine, Humboldt County, Nevada. Report prepared by MMW for Knight Piésold & Company.

December 18, 2012.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 279

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Newman,

S., DeLong, R.F., Clarkson, B. M., Carew, T., Hartmann, M. (2019). Hycroft Project Technical Report Summary: Heap Leaching Feasibility

Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA. Prepared by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp for Hycroft, Effective date: July 31, 2019.

Pershing

County Building Department. (n.d.). Commercial Guidelines: Minimum Standards for Building Plans (new commercial project permit application

checklist for commercial structures, such as Groups: A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R, and S occupancies). Retrieved August 16, 2021. Available

at: https://www.pershingcountynv.gov /document_center /Department/Building%20Department/CommercialGuidelines-002.pdf.

Prenn,

N. (2006). Technical Report – Vista Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, NI 43-101 Technical Report. Prepared

by Mine Development Associates (MDA) for Vista Gold Corp. 142 pages.

SGS

Minerals Services. (2009). The Recovery of Au and Ag from Hycroft Project Sulphide Samples, Allied Nevada Gold Corporation –

Hycroft Project – 12012-001 (Report 3).

SGS

Minerals Services. (2013). An Investigation into Oxidative Pretreatment of Hycroft Flotation Concentrates,SGS Project 13224-001/003

– Final Report.

Shawn

Gooch, P.E., (2020). Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HDRI) Hycroft Mine Project NEV0094114 (Renewal 2017, Fact Sheet Revision

01).

SRK

Consulting Inc (SRK). (2022). Preliminary Estimate of Dewatering Requirements to Support 2021 Pre-Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum.

Precious

Metals Insights. (2025). Price Sensitivity of Above-ground Silver Stocks. The Silver Institute. https://silverinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02Final_Price_Sensitivity_of_Above-Ground-Silver-Stocks.pdf

Metals

Focus. (2025). World Silver Survey 2025. The Silver Institute. https://silverinstitute.org

The

Silver Institute, (2026). Global Silver Investment to Remain Strong in 2026 Against the Backdrop of a Sixth Consecutive Annual

Market Deficit.

https://silverinstitute.org/global-silver-investment-to-remain-strong-in-2026-against-the-backdrop-of-a-sixth-consecutive-annual-market-deficit/

United

States Geologic Survey, USGS. (2014). Unified Hazard Tool. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php.

Vandenburg,

W.O. (1938). Reconnaissance of Mining Districts in Humboldt County, Nevada; U.S. Bureau of Mines Circular 6995, 47p.

Wallace,

A.B. (1980). Geology of the Sulphur District, Southwestern Humboldt County, Nevada. Unpublished report for the Society of Economic

Geologists Field Trip Guidebook.

Hycroft Mine Project

Page 280

S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary and Initial Assessment with Economic Analysis

May 14, 2026

Ware,

G.H. (1989). Surface Mapping, Sampling and Selected Cross-Sections. Unpublished report for Hycroft Resources & Development.

Wilden

R. (1964). Geology of Mineral Deposits of Humboldt County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 59, 154p.

Wilson,

S. E. (2008). Technical Report - Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA. NI 43-101 Technical Report (Effective

Date: January 16, 2008). Prepared for Allied Nevada Gold Corp.

World

Gold Council. (2026). Gold Demand Trends: Q4 and Full Year 2025. https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends

World

Gold Council, (n.d.). “Gold: The Most Effective Commodity Investment – Why it is Under-Represented in Commodity Indices

and the Potential Impact on Your Portfolio.

https://www.gold.org/goldhub/gold-focus/2019/09/gold-most-effective-commodity-investment

WSP

(2024). Hycroft Mine Tailings Management Facility Preliminary Design. Hycroft Mine. Winnemucca, Nevada, USA.

WSP

(2026). Hycroft Mine Tailings Management Facility Conceptual Design Update to Store 1.05B Tons Preliminary Economic Assessment Design

Level. Hycroft Mine. Winnemucca, Nervada, USA.

25 Reliance

on Information Provided by the Registrant

Table

25-1 provides a detailed list of information provided by Hycroft (Registrant) for matters discussed in this Technical Report Summary.

Table

25-1: Information Provided by Hycroft