Silverco Announces Updated MRE For Cusi: 41 Moz Ageq M&I And 32 Moz Ageq Inferred
| Resource Class | Mass | Average Grade | Material Content | ||||||||
| Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | ||
| Mt | g/t | g/t | % | % | g/t | koz | koz | Mlb | Mlb | koz | |
| Measured | 0.69 | 277 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 305 | 6,114 | 1.8 | 5.6 | 6.3 | 6,725 |
| Indicated | 4.21 | 195 | 0.16 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 255 | 26,330 | 22.2 | 72.7 | 86.5 | 34,433 |
| M + I | 4.89 | 206 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.86 | 262 | 32,443 | 24.0 | 78.3 | 92.8 | 41,157 |
| Inferred | 4.07 | 172 | 0.17 | 0.89 | 1.20 | 243 | 22,479 | 22.2 | 79.5 | 107.5 | 31,753 |
Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Notes:
(1) The mineral resource was estimated by Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Eggers conducted a site visit to the Cusi Property on September 22-23, 2025. The mineral resource was peer reviewed by Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.
(2) The classification of the Mineral Resource Estimate into Indicated and Inferred mineral resources is consistent with current 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. The effective date of the Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) is October 20, 2025. This is the close out date for the final mineral resource drilling database.
(3) All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.
(4) All mineral resources are presented undiluted and in situ, constrained by continuous 3D wireframe models (considered mineable shapes), and are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The mineral resource is exclusive of mined out material.
(5) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
(6) The Cusi Project MRE is based on a validated database which includes data from 2,052 surface and underground drillholes totalling 360,237 m completed between 2006 and October 2025 and 21,522 channels totalling 48,786 m completed between 2013 and 2023. The resource database totals 105,585 assay intervals representing 119,756 m of drillhole data and 71,605 assay intervals representing 48,783 m of channel data.
(7) The mineral resource estimate is based on 63 three-dimensional ("3D") resource models representing epithermal veins which comprise the Cusi vein systems. 3D models of mined out areas were used to exclude mined out material from the current MRE.
(8) Grades for Ag, Au, Pb, and Zn are estimated for each mineralization domain using 1.5 m capped composites assigned to that domain. To generate grade within the blocks, the inverse distance squared (ID2) interpolation method was used for all domains.
(9) An average density value of 2.75 g/cm3 was assigned to all domains based on a database of 244 samples.
(10) It is envisioned that the Cusi Project deposits may be mined using underground mining methods. Mineral resources are reported at a base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq. The mineral resource grade blocks were quantified above the base case cut-off grade, below surface, within the constraining mineralized wireframes, and exclusive of mined out material.
(11) The underground base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq considers metal prices of US$30/oz Ag, US$2400/oz Au, US$1.00/lb Pb, and US$1.35/lb Zn and metal recoveries of 90% for Ag, 50% for Au, 90% for Pb, and 60% for Zn.
(12) The underground base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq considers a mining cost of US$60.00/t rock and a processing, treatment and refining, transportation and G&A cost of US$35.00/t mineralized material.
(13) The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.
Table 2: Cusi Project Underground Mineral Resource Estimate by Area, October 20, 2025
| Area | Resource Class | Mass | Average Grade | Material Content | ||||||||
| Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | |||
| Mt | g/t | g/t | % | % | g/t | koz | koz | Mlb | Mlb | koz | ||
| San Juan | Indicated | 0.16 | 232 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 259 | 1,199 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1,338 |
| Inferred | 0.12 | 295 | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.51 | 324 | 1,156 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1,267 | |
| Promontorio West | Indicated | 1.03 | 208 | 0.10 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 244 | 6,893 | 3.4 | 9.8 | 13.1 | 8,078 |
| Inferred | 0.41 | 199 | 0.19 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 257 | 2,592 | 2.5 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 3,342 | |
| Promontorio East | Measured | 0.53 | 285 | 0.08 | 0.3 | 0.36 | 309 | 4,824 | 1.3 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 5,229 |
| Indicated | 0.24 | 211 | 0.19 | 0.81 | 0.60 | 264 | 1,609 | 1.5 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 2,006 | |
| M + I | 0.76 | 262 | 0.11 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 295 | 6,432 | 2.8 | 7.7 | 7.2 | 7,235 | |
| Inferred | 0.21 | 231 | 0.32 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 301 | 1,520 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 1,987 | |
| Eduwiges | Indicated | 0.53 | 159 | 0.25 | 1.93 | 2.06 | 287 | 2,694 | 4.2 | 22.3 | 23.9 | 4,853 |
| Inferred | 0.24 | 92 | 0.18 | 1.94 | 2.39 | 224 | 694 | 1.4 | 10.0 | 12.4 | 1,697 | |
| San Miguel | Indicated | 1.30 | 193 | 0.15 | 0.83 | 1.11 | 258 | 8,065 | 6.2 | 23.9 | 31.7 | 10,786 |
| Inferred | 2.03 | 170 | 0.14 | 1.02 | 1.42 | 249 | 11,117 | 9.3 | 45.5 | 63.5 | 16,237 | |
| San Nicolas | Indicated | 0.76 | 196 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 233 | 4,798 | 4.2 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 5,684 |
| Inferred | 0.62 | 175 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 207 | 3,472 | 2.9 | 3.8 | 6.2 | 4,105 | |
| Santa Rosa de Lima | Measured | 0.16 | 251 | 0.09 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 291 | 1,290 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 1,496 |
| Indicated | 0.19 | 176 | 0.29 | 1.20 | 1.63 | 276 | 1,072 | 1.8 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 1,688 | |
| M + I | 0.35 | 210 | 0.20 | 0.93 | 1.17 | 283 | 2,362 | 2.2 | 7.2 | 9.0 | 3,183 | |
| Inferred | 0.45 | 133 | 0.27 | 0.86 | 1.34 | 216 | 1,928 | 3.8 | 8.5 | 13.3 | 3,118 | |
| Total | Measured | 0.69 | 277 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 305 | 6,114 | 1.8 | 5.6 | 6.3 | 6,725 |
| Indicated | 4.21 | 195 | 0.16 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 255 | 26,330 | 22.2 | 72.7 | 86.5 | 34,433 | |
| M + I | 4.89 | 206 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.86 | 262 | 32,443 | 24.0 | 78.3 | 92.8 | 41,157 | |
| Inferred | 4.07 | 172 | 0.17 | 0.89 | 1.20 | 243 | 22,479 | 22.2 | 79.5 | 107.5 | 31,753 |
(1) The underground base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq considers metal prices of US$30/oz Ag, US$2400/oz Au, US$1.00/lb Pb, and US$1.35/lb Zn, metal recoveries of 90% for Ag, 50% for Au, 90% for Pb, and 60% for Zn, a mining cost of US$60.00/t rock, and a processing, treatment and refining, transportation and G&A cost of US$35.00/t mineralized material.
Table 3: Cusi Project Mineral Resource Estimate Sensitivity Table, October 20, 2025
| Resource Class | Cut-off Grade (AgEq g/t) | Mass | Average Grade | Material Content | ||||||||
| Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | Ag | Au | Pb | Zn | AgEq | |||
| Mt | g/t | g/t | % | % | g/t | koz | koz | Mlb | Mlb | koz | ||
| Measured | 80 g/t | 0.90 | 232 | 0.07 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 257 | 6,668 | 2.0 | 6.7 | 7.5 | 7,388 |
| 90 g/t | 0.83 | 244 | 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 269 | 6,531 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 7.2 | 7,222 | |
| 100 g/t | 0.78 | 254 | 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 281 | 6,397 | 1.9 | 6.1 | 6.9 | 7,064 | |
| 120 g/t | 0.69 | 277 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 305 | 6,114 | 1.8 | 5.6 | 6.3 | 6,725 | |
| 150 g/t | 0.56 | 312 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 342 | 5,643 | 1.6 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 6,188 | |
| 200 g/t | 0.40 | 375 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 409 | 4,860 | 1.4 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 5,299 | |
| 250 g/t | 0.29 | 445 | 0.13 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 483 | 4,132 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 4,484 | |
| 300 g/t | 0.22 | 512 | 0.14 | 0.53 | 0.57 | 553 | 3,571 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3,858 | |
| Indicated | 80 g/t | 5.90 | 161 | 0.13 | 0.63 | 0.76 | 210 | 30,612 | 25.2 | 81.9 | 99.1 | 39,827 |
| 90 g/t | 5.42 | 170 | 0.14 | 0.67 | 0.81 | 221 | 29,566 | 24.3 | 79.6 | 96.2 | 38,506 | |
| 100 g/t | 4.99 | 178 | 0.15 | 0.70 | 0.85 | 232 | 28,512 | 23.6 | 77.3 | 93.0 | 37,175 | |
| 120 g/t | 4.21 | 195 | 0.16 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 255 | 26,330 | 22.2 | 72.7 | 86.5 | 34,433 | |
| 150 g/t | 3.33 | 218 | 0.18 | 0.90 | 1.06 | 286 | 23,388 | 19.7 | 66.1 | 77.6 | 30,664 | |
| 200 g/t | 2.30 | 257 | 0.21 | 1.08 | 1.25 | 337 | 18,988 | 15.6 | 54.8 | 63.2 | 24,913 | |
| 250 g/t | 1.61 | 296 | 0.24 | 1.22 | 1.39 | 386 | 15,290 | 12.3 | 43.4 | 49.3 | 19,938 | |
| 300 g/t | 1.09 | 338 | 0.26 | 1.38 | 1.54 | 439 | 11,876 | 9.3 | 33.1 | 37.0 | 15,396 | |
| Inferred | 80 g/t | 5.73 | 143 | 0.14 | 0.72 | 1.00 | 201 | 26,266 | 26.0 | 90.9 | 126.1 | 37,065 |
| 90 g/t | 5.27 | 150 | 0.15 | 0.76 | 1.04 | 211 | 25,377 | 25.1 | 88.0 | 121.2 | 35,787 | |
| 100 g/t | 4.83 | 157 | 0.16 | 0.80 | 1.10 | 222 | 24,424 | 24.2 | 85.4 | 116.8 | 34,469 | |
| 120 g/t | 4.07 | 172 | 0.17 | 0.89 | 1.20 | 243 | 22,479 | 22.2 | 79.5 | 107.5 | 31,753 | |
| 150 g/t | 3.00 | 199 | 0.20 | 1.05 | 1.38 | 282 | 19,192 | 18.9 | 69.7 | 91.1 | 27,135 | |
| 200 g/t | 1.87 | 246 | 0.24 | 1.36 | 1.67 | 347 | 14,786 | 14.4 | 56.2 | 69.1 | 20,924 | |
| 250 g/t | 1.37 | 277 | 0.27 | 1.57 | 1.87 | 393 | 12,252 | 12.0 | 47.6 | 56.8 | 17,358 | |
| 300 g/t | 1.00 | 310 | 0.31 | 1.76 | 2.03 | 437 | 9,965 | 9.8 | 38.8 | 44.8 | 14,061 |
(1) Underground mineral resources are reported at a base case cut-off grade of 120 g/t AgEq (highlighted). Values in this table reported above and below the base case cut-off grades should not be misconstrued with a Mineral Resource statement. The values are only presented to show the sensitivity of the block model estimate to the base case cut-off grade.
(2) All values are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and numbers may not add due to rounding.
Qualified Persons
The mineral resource was estimated by Ben Eggers, MAIG, P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. Eggers conducted a site visit to the Cusi Property on September 22-23, 2025. The mineral resource was peer reviewed by Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geo. of SGS Geological Services, an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101.
Technical Disclosure
The scientific and technical information contained in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Nico Harvey, P.Eng., Vice President Project Development of Silverco, a Qualified Person as defined in National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Harvey is not independent of the Company. Mr. Harvey has reviewed the sampling, analytical and QA/QC data underlying the technical information disclosed herein.
No production decision has been made at Cusi. Any decision to restart operations will follow completion of the requisite technical, financial and permitting milestones.
About Silverco Mining Ltd.
The Company owns a 100% interest in the 11,665-hectare Cusi Project located in Chihuahua State, Mexico (the "Cusi Property"). It lies within the prolific Sierra Madre Occidental gold-silver belt. There is an existing 1,200 ton per day mill with tailings capacity at the Cusi Property.
The Cusi Property is a past-producing underground silver-lead-zinc-gold project approximately 135 kilometres west of Chihuahua City. The Cusi Property boasts excellent infrastructure, including paved highway access and connection to the national power grid.
The Cusi Property hosts multiple historical Ag-Au-Pb-Zn producing mines each developed along multiple vein structures. The Cusi Property hosts several significant exploration targets, including the extension of a newly identified downthrown mineralized geological block and additional potential through claim consolidation.
On Behalf of the Board of Directors,
"Mark Ayranto"
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.

Comments
No comment